I was watching this video the other day, and it seems like a pretty interesting topic to discuss.
It seems to me that some games have game mechanics that are better adapted to the setting and style of play that the author is trying to achieve.
Duration: 11min
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that I generally use bespoke systems for games I run (existing; ex. WEG Star Wars; or orginal; my Ruins & Realms system for fantasy).
So, yes, choice of system is important. I'd never use something like D&D as the foundation of an outer space mecha campaign... it just doesn't have the right foundation or building blocks.
I WOULD use Mekton or Jovian Chronicles for that setting though because there were purpose built for mecha-based campaigns (and JC for an outer space based one specifically).
Quote from: Cathal on April 06, 2023, 03:13:48 PM
I was watching this video the other day, and it seems like a pretty interesting topic to discuss.
It seems to me that some games have game mechanics that are better adapted to the setting and style of play that the author is trying to achieve.
What is your opinion?
I have always said that. Sure, you can use the D20 setting for a setting, or Savage Worlds for a setting, but if it is not created specifically to work with the setting, you are not getting the best result.
*Edit* Video was way too long winded and he repeated himself but I agree.
The purpose of a generic system is so that you do the flavor how ever you want, and then you don't need to learn a new system. The purpose of a specific system is that the flavor is embedded into the game to some degree, so that people pick it up almost by osmosis. Naturally, it helps to have some specifics even in a generic system and some generic even in a specific system. I don't want to be so constrained by a system that I can't also do some of the things "near it" that you would expect to do, but I also don't want the equivalent of the frequent board game problem where it's merely color and theme tacked onto a system that has no real relation to the thing supposedly modeled in the game. Does playing Star Wars Monopoly really invoke either? Not to me.
I find it considerably easier to get to a good game in actual play when the system and the setting reinforce each other, even if that means that we have the cost of learning a new system up front. Also, that cost is a little misleading, because when you use the same generic system repeatedly for different settings, it can sometimes be difficult to get the players to unlearn ideas from the previous game.
All of the above ignores that some people are apparently running mostly on tropes and themes all the time. I can see how for such a group that a generic system is excellent for their purposes. It gets out of the way, and they'd plow over any particular mechanics that got into the way of their goal anyway. For me, that's too much like Star Wars Monopoly.
My first thought watching the video is I hope to one day be touched liked that Mork Borg book. My second thought was, what is he using all of those sharpies for, especially the magnum?
And then my next thought was I disagree. I think your world and setting determines which and how often you interact with rules.
Over too many years to mention, I have largely ignored boat/water mechanics. And most of you have too. Until you decide to play in a partial or full nautical setting.
Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2023, 08:40:56 AM
My first thought watching the video is I hope to one day be touched liked that Mork Borg book. My second thought was, what is he using all of those sharpies for, especially the magnum?
And then my next thought was I disagree. I think your world and setting determines which and how often you interact with rules.
Over too many years to mention, I have largely ignored boat/water mechanics. And most of you have too. Until you decide to play in a partial or full nautical setting.
I have done settings with a generic system (Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and I have played games where the system was tailor made for the game. The tailor made system always seemed to work better for me than the generic system although generic systems do work.
To Each his own.
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 08:47:39 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2023, 08:40:56 AM
My first thought watching the video is I hope to one day be touched liked that Mork Borg book. My second thought was, what is he using all of those sharpies for, especially the magnum?
And then my next thought was I disagree. I think your world and setting determines which and how often you interact with rules.
Over too many years to mention, I have largely ignored boat/water mechanics. And most of you have too. Until you decide to play in a partial or full nautical setting.
I have done settings with a generic system (Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and I have played games where the system was tailor made for the game. The tailor made system always seemed to work better for me than the generic system although generic systems do work.
To Each his own.
Can you provide an example of a game where the system was not tailor made for the game? Seems to me all games have systems made for those games.
What I am saying is that regardless of system selected, the setting determines how and when you interact with rules. Just because there are aerial combat rules in the RC does not mean I will run a cities in the clouds campaign.
So yes, rules (or the lack of) matter but only because of my setting/game world. It is a nuance.
Quote from: FingerRod on April 07, 2023, 08:59:32 AM
Can you provide an example of a game where the system was not tailor made for the game? Seems to me all games have systems made for those games.
What I am saying is that regardless of system selected, the setting determines how and when you interact with rules. Just because there are aerial combat rules in the RC does not mean I will run a cities in the clouds campaign.
So yes, rules (or the lack of) matter but only because of my setting/game world. It is a nuance.
It matters more in some things than others. Say I have a particular setting in mind. It has a modest but notable piece of nautical combat expected. I also have particular ideas about how magic will work, its scope, its cost, etc. Whether I run the game in some D&D variant, Runequest variant, or GURPS 3E or 4E will have an effect on the nautical combat, but unless I have something distinct in mind in that area, I can probably work with any of them. It's highly unlikely that all of those system are about the same net effect on magic, even if we assume that I'll need to tweak the magic a bit no matter which one I pick. Also likely that if those tweaks go very far, I'd be better off expanding my list of systems to consider.
Other considerations are related to complexity (outside of any desire to simply play a more or less complex system for its own sake). If you want a ton of customization options with mechanical meaning and a tightly knit party that is self-sufficient in a relatively small number of characters, you need some complexity in character creation, and a certain strain of it for that matter. (Overly detailed could take you right out of the "self-sufficient" thing.) OTOH, if you want to have players managing a lot of retainers and even sometimes allies, that puts a ceiling on your complexity.
But more than that, I think with a good setting/system match, the sum is greater than its parts. Every decision you make about the setting doesn't send you barrelling towards one system or another, but every decision does close off some avenues indirectly. If you only care about a few things in the setting that way, then you still have a lot of options open for system. If you have a lot of things in mind for the setting, their interactions are likely to narrow the good system options pretty darn quick.
The only system I have ever played that was "tailor made" for a specific setting that I thought was truly great was the old WED Star Wars d6, and that's because the system itself was a solid system that could be adapted for anything else (and it was). But I have never felt that a system needed to be tailor made for a setting to truly handle that style of play or that it being tailor made gave me a leg up for playing it or whatever. And I have never come out of playing a setting-specific system thinking "Holy shit, this game just saved me a ton of time tailor making all this stuff for a specific setting, rather than just using a solid generic engine as its base!"
The only thing that a system needs to play a setting is specific rules to handle stuff that happens in that setting, which can almost always be done with a generic system. A skill roll is a skill roll. Task resolution exists in every game, and most of what's involved in a RPG system is covered by task resolution. You don't need a tailor made system for that--maybe a tailor made skill list, but a skill list is not a system, just extra stuff you add on top of it. And setting-specific, fiddly stuff, like a "Corruption/Sanity" system for magic use and things of that nature can be added modularly to any existing system, even if the original engine lacks them, which is how you end up with the OSR and the d20 boom of games that came before it.
I have often heard the claim that "System Matters", but I have never seen specific examples of it mattering. And I do think that it "matters", just in the complete opposite way that people mean when they make that claim. I think that "System Matters" in the sense that you need a solid game engine that covers the stuff you need to handle during play, which can be done by any generic system, or adapted if it doesn't do it already (like the OSR and other d20 games do). But in the sense that "system has to be setting-specific", my take is that "System DOES'T Matter". Only rules that emulate stuff do. And rules that emulate stuff can be found or adapted to any universal system. That is the only way I think "System (truly) Matters".
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. :D
Leaving that, and getting back to rules mattering, an example that should be easy is the feel of how characters die. Now, some, maybe many, people don't care about it. Dead is dead, whether your D&D character lost his 5 hit points to an orc axe or your Hero System character made a bad decision about not dodging or whatever. And feel is partially a setting concern, but not exclusively so. The easiest way to see this is to run a D&D module with a generic system. They'll be some overlap of feel, because not only is the setting the same, it is even the same adventure. The players may make similar decisions, and those decisions may play out much the same way. It will still feel different in some ways.
That old crack about, "You can use Hero System for any game, as long as you don't mind it playing like Hero" is true. It's also true of GURPS. I bet its true of Savage Worlds. What people miss in that observation is that this isn't necessarily a plus or minus. If you like that feel enough, it's a huge plus!
Others have a different take. I have had players, I kid you not, tell me explicitly that they like AC in D&D-like games and don't like it in other games. Not some random observation or vague supposition, but after having played several systems, and realized this about themselves. All things being equal, they would rather have armor as damage reduction, with parrying or dodging or whatever built into a skill/combat system. Yet, if you play a D&D module with all that, it doesn't feel like D&D anymore, which they also enjoy.
What I've found off-putting about a lot of recent games (like L5R 5e and both editions of TOR) is how they create detailed systems to enforce a very particular play style favored by the designer, with the end result being that it's much board gamey than actual roleplaying. Rather ironic how many of these story games create proprietary dice then create tons of mechanics to justify their inclusion so much that rather than roleplay scenarios, you just make a bunch of dice rolls and adjust your actions to those predetermined outcomes. This kind of stuff has just solidified my position as a grognard and driven me further back into rules-light retroclones where there's far more freedom built into the game.
Quote from: Persimmon on April 07, 2023, 10:22:25 AM
What I've found off-putting about a lot of recent games (like L5R 5e and both editions of TOR) is how they create detailed systems to enforce a very particular play style favored by the designer, with the end result being that it's much board gamey than actual roleplaying. Rather ironic how many of these story games create proprietary dice then create tons of mechanics to justify their inclusion so much that rather than roleplay scenarios, you just make a bunch of dice rolls and adjust your actions to those predetermined outcomes. This kind of stuff has just solidified my position as a grognard and driven me further back into rules-light retroclones where there's far more freedom built into the game.
"System Matters" as an excuse to use a gimmick is certainly a thing. I would argue that the travel system in TOR (and as ported to the D&D 5E version) isn't only a gimmick, but it is a very poorly designed system, trying to use abstraction to handle what the GM ought to do with adventure/setting details. It's like putting training wheels on a motor cycle. They work for young child on a small bicycle, so why not put them on something an adult will drive fast on the interstate?
Of course, that's another example of why the rules matter, only in the negative sense. When the training wheels fly off at the bend, the GM is not going to be prepared for that ditch coming up. :D
The prime example I have for "system matters" is every accursed attempt to make the d20 system work with the mecha (and particularly the "real robot" variety) genre.
I'm not talking "uses a d20 to resolve checks" part, I mean the full level-based, six stats, hit points (without hit locations), combat based on a grid of 5' squares, full attacks take your move action, scaling base attack bonus, static defense score, etc.
And every last effort I ever saw kept trying to torture that into covering mecha genre conventions and it doesn't work because most kept trying to use the d20 conventions like "Speed 600' (30 squares)" (but can only move 5' if it does more than one attack in six seconds) or "AC 27 (+0 dex, +21 natural, -4 size), 400 hp" and similar where they expect multiple 40' tall robots that run 60mph while gunning down another mook mecha the same size every second to be using the same human-average scores and scaling as D&D.
Even Palladium, as awful as it's mechanics can be, handles mecha combat better than the d20 system.
Then you look at purpose-built systems like Mekton or Jovian Chronicles/Heavy Gear or Mechwarrior Destiny (a reskin of FASA's Legionnaire RPG) and the difference is night and day. I like Mekton's detail for more "super robot" style recreations (or settings where the PC's mecha are notably better than their opponents), while I find JC/HG's mechanics better for the fast skirmish style combat where the pilot is the real edge using mass produced mecha that you see in Macross or the more realistic Gundam series. MWD does a pretty good job at emulating the experience of the protagonists in the many Battletech novels much better than the wargame rules do (or any of the previous MW rpgs that used the wargame rules to resolve Mech combat for that matter).
And that's the key for me... the setting assumptions just within the real robots category of the "mecha genre" are different enough that trying to squeeze them into a single system is probably suboptimal, let alone trying to use a system tortured out of a human-scaled fantasy ttrpg whose third edition was itself tortured out of a medieval-themed wargame.
Sure, you can use D&D 3.5e to run a mecha-based campaign, but it's going to feel like D&D Buffalo Billing a mecha skin... which is fine if you like D&D, but leaves me wondering why you aren't just playing D&D instead of pretending its a mecha game where the GM is saying "it puts the myomer in the basket or it gets the inferno rounds again."
One odd thing about D&D, particularly 3e, is that the system has a bunch of built-in assumptions that are not genre emulation or attempting to simulate reality, but rather just it's own internal game conceits.
AC is one of them. HP = 1HD+CON Modifier per level is another. Both of these are just game abstractions that are mostly there to facilitate a particular style of play and character progression, rather than the way damage works in reality or any genre. AC is just a way to handle armor protection without having to subtract damage from every successful hit. And HD+CON Mod provides a consistent HP increase that's easy to recall as you go up in level, but ends up escalating pretty quick to numbers way beyond the population average as characters advance to higher levels.
I suspect it's because of this that attempting to emulate Mechs using 3e falls apart. Mechs aren't ment to exist in a world where characters rack up HP/Vitality to obscene amounts or armor is heavily abstracted. But you could probably still use a lot of the rest of 3e's mechanics, like action resolution or some type of level progression if you swapped out AC for damage reduction and HP = 1HD+CON Mod for higher starting HP and minimal HP per level. Which probably why Palladium handles them better.
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 08:47:39 AM
I have done settings with a generic system (Savage Worlds Adventure Edition) and I have played games where the system was tailor made for the game. The tailor made system always seemed to work better for me than the generic system although generic systems do work.
To Each his own.
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)
Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 07, 2023, 03:35:10 PM
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.
But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feel like it runs better.
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 07, 2023, 03:35:10 PM
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.
But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.
I agree. Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO. I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect. When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment. Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right. We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.
Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 07, 2023, 03:35:10 PM
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.
But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.
I agree. Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO. I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect. When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment. Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right. We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.
I agree with this example 100%.
Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM
I agree. Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO. I plyed the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect. When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment. Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right. We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.
You are right. It just feels different playing a game with a system the was made for it.
Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.
But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.
I agree. Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO. I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect. When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment. Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right. We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.
I'd agree for some games - but it depends on execution. During the 1980s, a bunch of offshoots of the Champions system were tried before unifying them as the HERO System, and I thought the universal system worked better.
And there are a lot of setting-specific games where the system just never worked all that well. For example, I loved the setting for Blue Planet, but the system was lousy.
Quote from: jhkim on April 09, 2023, 03:04:05 AM
Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.
But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.
I agree. Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO. I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect. When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment. Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right. We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.
I'd agree for some games - but it depends on execution. During the 1980s, a bunch of offshoots of the Champions system were tried before unifying them as the HERO System, and I thought the universal system worked better.
And there are a lot of setting-specific games where the system just never worked all that well. For example, I loved the setting for Blue Planet, but the system was lousy.
Greetings!
I remember BLUE PLANET! I recall at the time thinking it seemed like a pretty cool book, lots of creativity and awesome ideas--but looking at the actual system, it seemed like a mess, so I passed on buying it. I probably spent three hours sitting in my game store, paging through the Blue Planet book. I remember it was huge, too, and had some pretty cool artwork and visual stuff.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on April 09, 2023, 03:04:05 AM
I'd agree for some games - but it depends on execution. During the 1980s, a bunch of offshoots of the Champions system were tried before unifying them as the HERO System, and I thought the universal system worked better.
And there are a lot of setting-specific games where the system just never worked all that well. For example, I loved the setting for Blue Planet, but the system was lousy.
Very much so, though I'd say that some of the generic versions of the specific Hero System games lost flavor in the translation. Though you could get it back if you knew about it, and carefully pruned the generic system back to fit. Which is of course one of the issues with a generic system. They aren't really game systems. They are game tool kits for making a system. You could argue that almost any game system is really that to some degree, and I don't know that I'd disagree. But it is a degree.
When you get on the broken side of the fence, generic nearly always wins. It is roughly: Good specific > Good generic > Bad generic > Bad specific. Whether a mediocre game is better off in the specific or generic category is going to depend a lot on where it is good or bad and just how bad it is. A salvageable specific game with notable flaws is often better once its been salvaged.
I think sometimes that what makes a generic system more appealing is that simply it has had a wider range of testing.
Really good discussion (and thanks Steven for the reply).
The idea of a minimum level of crunch and typical campaign sustainability is also interesting. Over the years I have asked for anecdotes of long campaign play for some of the popular true rules-lite games. Into the Odd, Maze Rats, RISUS, Lasers and Feelings, etc. are examples. I almost always get crickets.
Not as much today, but a couple years ago you'd see these recommended on Reddit and other forums, yet reports of sustained play are almost nonexistent. I remember one person reporting a RISUS campaign that had lasted over a year, using just the core/companion rules. No campaign report unfortunately. But I can't say I've seen one for any rules-lite game.
Quote from: SHARK on April 09, 2023, 04:34:41 AM
Greetings!
I remember BLUE PLANET! I recall at the time thinking it seemed like a pretty cool book, lots of creativity and awesome ideas--but looking at the actual system, it seemed like a mess, so I passed on buying it. I probably spent three hours sitting in my game store, paging through the Blue Planet book. I remember it was huge, too, and had some pretty cool artwork and visual stuff.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hi Shark,
Have to say, if the system sucks from the beginning then that excludes it it from what I was saying. Sometimes settings are great and the system sucks.
Then, a generic system would be the way to go.
your rules are made to reflect your world and your world is made to reflect your rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=581&v=HMatdeHMYC4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=581&v=HMatdeHMYC4)
Quote from: Cathal on April 11, 2023, 12:42:54 PM
your rules are made to reflect your world and your world is made to reflect your rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=581&v=HMatdeHMYC4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=581&v=HMatdeHMYC4)
Watching this video. Interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.
I've always felt TSR should have had a Campaign rules update for each setting to ensure the game worlds felt different (which classes are allowed, which beasts are allowed, and how magic might be different in that world). Dark Sun sort of did this and only Dark Sun seems to have left any meaningful impression because the differences were so pronounced.
Then WotC went generic Forgotten Realms, bleck.
Yes? This should be obvious fact. Ludonarrative harmony and ludonarrative dissonance apply to all games with narratives on top of their gameplay.
I've have seen way too many games with profound ludonarrative dissonance that fans just brush aside criticism of because they're indoctrinated to pretend it isn't a problem or don't even play with the actual rules and just fiat everything. I absolutely hate that. If you're going to spend your precious time writing all these rules, then they should actually be important. If you're just going to fiat everything, why are you buying these books rather than going to an RP chat? Actually, are you even buying the books or just reading fluff snippets on a wiki somewhere?
I've become extremely disillusioned with a number of tabletop communities due to this. I find myself increasingly preferring video games, despite their inherent limitations, because it seems more players and devs care about the problems of ludonarrative dissonance in that sphere.
Quote from: Ruprecht on April 23, 2023, 08:12:52 PM
I've always felt TSR should have had a Campaign rules update for each setting to ensure the game worlds felt different (which classes are allowed, which beasts are allowed, and how magic might be different in that world). Dark Sun sort of did this and only Dark Sun seems to have left any meaningful impression because the differences were so pronounced.
Oh yeah!
I remember that sometimes 3pp campaign settings would include lists of fluff bits where they explained the fluff and role of core classes and manual monsters in the setting. I don't think that happens anymore, does it?
Quote from: Ruprecht on April 23, 2023, 08:12:52 PM
I've always felt TSR should have had a Campaign rules update for each setting to ensure the game worlds felt different (which classes are allowed, which beasts are allowed, and how magic might be different in that world). Dark Sun sort of did this and only Dark Sun seems to have left any meaningful impression because the differences were so pronounced.
Then WotC went generic Forgotten Realms, bleck.
z
Yeah, it's really a pity that they abandoned the idea of different campaign settings having their own rules. I know Dark Sun did it, and I believe a few other 2nd edition-era settings did as well. From what I've heard, it's the opposite now, where WOTC mandates that all D&D settings have to not only have to have the same rules, but have to include all of the published races and classes in their lore as well. It just leads to every setting being the same. That's something Pathfinder could have brought back to differentiate themselves, but they chose not to.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 07, 2023, 09:43:08 AMThat old crack about, "You can use Hero System for any game, as long as you don't mind it playing like Hero" is true. It's also true of GURPS. I bet its true of Savage Worlds. What people miss in that observation is that this isn't necessarily a plus or minus. If you like that feel enough, it's a huge plus!
As a person who loves generic systems I can say this is 100% correct. While generic systems might be designed to cover different genres of games they still have an underlying approach they apply to all those genres. I played GURPS for over 30 years and it aims for verisimilitude, which is great unless you want 'larger than life' on a regular basis. Savage Worlds is now my system-of-choice since it aims for 'pulp action' as its default and pretty much all the games I want to run or play have a pulp sensibility at their core.
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. :D
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. :D
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.