Here are my thoughts as I break down the major bullet points.

-I disagree with the premise that rules are the game world physics. Credit to him for leaving open the door that there may be reasons people will disagree with his conclusion other than simply lack of experience playing other RPGs, but at the same time it seems odd to me that he isn't aware rules as physics is a contested premise.
-I agree that different art can evoke a different feel.
-As far as the influence the rules have on the feel, I think this is something more nuanced than, yes they do or no they don't. I think rules can come off and sterile, unengaging, and generic if they don't try to capture something like a "spirit" of the game. But on the other hand, I don't think rules should be dictating a feel either. There are definitely RPGs out there that are too generic, and rules out there that are too heavy handed. And I think both are bad. But I think most RPGs actually fit into this nuanced territory.
-I'm not sure if he's trying to make an argument by analogy or if he is conflating "rules" with "rule books" in emphasizing the impact the art work has on the feel of the game, but I feel he is making my (dissenting) case for me. That it's not rules per se that influence the feel of the game world. It's not hard to imagine keeping the same rules, even the same text, but presenting the manual with different art work. And that could produce a very different feel with the same rules.
-I mostly agree with what he has to say about rules knowledge. It's not just about keeping things running smoothly. Knowing how to appropriately stat new material not covered by the rules also comes with rules knowledge. Although I do not consider it a sin to look up a rule during the game. Obviously you don't want the entire time of the session researching rules. But once or twice is fine. And I don't even think it's even a small detriment to the overall game. It can even add to the drama of the experience. I'd liken it to allowances to review a replay of a play in some sports.
-Regarding consistency in rulings, I do feel there is a distinction to be made between ruling and house rule. A ruling is very situation specific. There are always going to be some variables that differ from two similar situations, and insofar as a ruling is accounting for those variables which will never be identical, there's nothing that's inherently inconsistent about ruling according to your gut or to your wisdom. It doesn't have to be a rule that can be articulated. And so as a GM makes rulings, there's no implication that we're accumulating new rules.

This is such a blazingly obvious truth to me that I'm astonished anyone would think to disagree. Of course the rules matter. If you say rules don't matter, you've probably never heard of Paranoia and the Six Pack rule, which is an amazing example of reinforcing a worldbuilding tone and a game feel with rules.

But then I have to remind myself that whether or not system matters depends a whole lot on the designer's skill and investment in a game project.

By and large, mechanics like D20 and Percentile exist because they are easy to design, run, and develop for. This has an unfortunate effect; most of the developers making these games get lazy and these games come out blander than unsalted oyster crackers. Bland is good if you're aiming to be generic, and most people have only ever experienced a bland generic system in the form of D&D, so naturally they would think that system doesn't matter.

I think the market is well past being able to support games which are bland for the sake of being easy to work with. D&D exists as an exception because WotC spends incredible amounts of money to dominate the digital marketing space, but by and large, bland and generic systems die. Consider one of my favorite game recommendations; Savage Worlds. Savage worlds is NOT a generic system, even if PEG bills it as such. It's a pureblood action-adventure game. This works really well in Savage Worlds' favor because 95% of groups 95% of the time want to play action-adventure. But I've tried to play SW for horror and...it did not work well. OK, I should rephrase that; it did fine mechanically, but I never once felt I was playing a horror game. I was playing an action-adventure game with some Guts checks added like a dollar store Trick or Treat costume.

I can only describe my own work when it comes to producing "horror feel" mechanically. Selection: Roleplay Evolved has a core mechanic which gives you almost unprescedented freedom in how you approach actions. There are about 5-15 different ways you can assemble a pool for a task as simple as cooking an egg, depending on the house-rules the GM is using, what rounds in favor of the character the most, and how the player wants to describe their action. Hardboiling an egg or frying it over-easy can be represented with different pools, and this creates a sense of analysis paralysis. Meanwhile the initiative system works by allowing anyone to use any action at any time. This makes combat chaotic and somewhat unpredictable, and pushes the player into satisficing, or taking the first option which comes to mind and rolling with it. You don't necessarily have time to fine-tune your decisions because at any time someone could interrupt you with an action and the tactical situation changes.

Combining analysis paralysis and satisficing combine is about like taking an upper and a downer medication at the same time; it produces anxiety.

So, yes; the rules you use can absolutely influence your perception of the game and the game world. It just isn't the easiest thing to pull off.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 07, 2023, 09:43:08 AM
Well, the "System Matters" claim has a misleading label, because it's not "The game system you pick" matters, but rather that the "System" is what you run at the table.  That is, "System" is game system + house rules + rulings + unwritten rules of the group + yada, yada, yada.  Which is undeniably true, because it's a tautology. 

I would call the claim misleading because of the word "matters." It's such a low bar to clear, and it's vague. And it always turns out what's being talked about is more than simply just mattering.

Also, I would absolutely have to push back on "system" being defined in such a way that includes "+rulings." Rulings are inherently a-systematic. There would be no need for rulings if they could be systematically produced. And it's not for the sake of arguing over definitions. It's more about, does the statement "System Matters" become substantially less true if you drop "+rulings" from the definition? The need to include it is itself telling.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 26, 2023, 10:02:01 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 07, 2023, 09:43:08 AM
Well, the "System Matters" claim has a misleading label, because it's not "The game system you pick" matters, but rather that the "System" is what you run at the table.  That is, "System" is game system + house rules + rulings + unwritten rules of the group + yada, yada, yada.  Which is undeniably true, because it's a tautology. 

I would call the claim misleading because of the word "matters." It's such a low bar to clear, and it's vague. And it always turns out what's being talked about is more than simply just mattering.

Also, I would absolutely have to push back on "system" being defined in such a way that includes "+rulings." Rulings are inherently a-systematic. There would be no need for rulings if they could be systematically produced. And it's not for the sake of arguing over definitions. It's more about, does the statement "System Matters" become substantially less true if you drop "+rulings" from the definition? The need to include it is itself telling.

Well, it's not my definition.  I'm just reporting what people who use it typically mean.  Since I think it's a tautology, you can make of that what you will.

As for the rules/ruling thing, I have a lot of sympathy for what you said in the previous post about gut/wisdom and unarticulated rules.  However, I would suggest that not all "rulings" are created equal.

Some are rulings, and that's all they ever are.  The situation doesn't come up again, or when it does, it's got so many variables, that the ruling never becomes anything else. I think that fits your argument.

On the other hand, if you find yourself making the same rulings over and over again, then that is excellent fodder for the development of house rules.  Some of those house rules, if they stick around long enough and work well enough, may even become rules.  You gut/wisdom tells you "this is the way it ought to be in the moment". If you keep having that reaction to a particular thing, you may spend some time outside the game to analyze what your gut is telling you.  If you are good and restrained about it, you may be able to house rule it--or more likely, some piece of it.  That doesn't, ideally, remove the need for every ruling on the subject.  Rather, it carves off some piece of the ruling and establishes it on a more permanent footing. 

In fact, I think beyond the basic system structure, math, design parameters, etc. that are bare bones for a game system, most good rules evolved out of such rulings, carefully considered.  That we have a lot of bad rules that also evolved out of bad rulings and good rulings that should have stayed rulings, doesn't change the calculus.  It's just a warning that you can't just slap "house rule" on a ruling and call it a day.   

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 26, 2023, 11:15:28 AM
As for the rules/ruling thing, I have a lot of sympathy for what you said in the previous post about gut/wisdom and unarticulated rules.  However, I would suggest that not all "rulings" are created equal.

I agree with this completely.

I often point out that most of what's in the 1E DMG are actually rulings, not rules. That's why they're so oddly specific. I generally find them to be really good rulings, and so I use them. But I never feel like I have to use them. In fact, the way I explain 1E initiative is very simply, each side rolls d6, highest goes first, common sense exceptions apply. That is the actual rule. Everything else is rulings, and those rulings are an attempt at codifying some "common sense exceptions." Once again, I find those rulings quiet excellent, and so I use them consistently. But it's important to keep in mind, they were crafted as common sense exceptions. If a situation arises where one of these rulings makes no sense at all, it should not be used.

Perhaps a bit ironic, we have some here saying the reason people don't think system matters is because they don't play enough different systems. I would turn that around. People who believe system so obviously matters perhaps have not played one RPG exclusively enough. Imagine if every movie you see that you think would make a good basis for an RPG campaign or adventure, movies of various styles and genres, if all you knew was AD&D and thought in terms of statting those up in AD&D. I think that would give a good understanding and appreciation for how little the rules matter relative to creative content you feed the system.

Although one thing I've found really instructive is, I do a lot of converting of content between systems. And I'm a super stickler for getting the conversions as accurate as possible, in part I think because I have the math skill set to do it and I want to give that skill set a work out. So from my perspective, it's never a question of if rule set A can produce feel B, it's only ever a question of how. You can pretty much do anything with any RPG. It's just a matter of how easy different rule sets make different things. And I don't think there is ever a rule set that is going to be the easiest and every single point for the feel of the game you want to run. There's never going to be a single game that's optimized for a specific feel, no matter how the designers try.