The Forge Archives

Archive => RPG Theory => Topic started by: Ace on September 19, 2002, 02:39:16 AM

Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Ace on September 19, 2002, 02:39:16 AM
On the whole  I agree with Rons thesis that system does matter,  but I think there is an overlooked point there when it comes to those who disagree.

Ceratinly System drives mechanical play experience.  "Handling time" if you will

It also drives the players expectations to a lesser extent.

Part of the "feel" of a system like say Rolemaster is the expectation that you will have "kewl crits" without that, the system and the experience just isn't the same

OTOH Roleplaying experiences aren't affected as much by the rules.

I have had great RPG moments in AD&D 2e, GURPS,  Rolemaster, Call Of Cuthulu, Buffy and a host of other games.  And AFAIK know this experience is pretty common among long time gamers.

System was trancended <EDIT> Or at least the limits were

Thats why a lot of folks say system doesn't matter, you can have great "Moments of Roleplaying" in any game no matter where it falls in the GNS loop.

My speculation is  that great moments are rare enough that it becomes difficult to tie them to a style of game, instead they become a rather abstract quality of "great RP moments"

Those factors, scarcity and illusionary systemlessness  give folks the somewhat false notion that 'For RPing system is irrelevant'

My personal take?

better <Edit> Certain <edit> systems mean more opportunitys for great moments

If you cut out rules that don't contribute to what you are trying to achieve than you can increase the likelyhood of getting what you really want.

Games are of course a chaotic endeavour so you can't be sure you will get a "click' but at least you will have a better shot at one.

<EDIT>
I added a few word to the post and cleaned it up a notch for clarity.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 19, 2002, 09:40:32 AM
I think the whole SDM thing can be summed up by saying "if the system you're playing isn't working for you--you might get a better experience with another one."

When it gets twisted into someone saying "You're playing the wrong system" (a recent RPG.net thread where someone told a poster more or less 'your use of AD&D is contirbuting to your bad gaming experience') it's outside anything that Ron said (and IMO pretentious and contrary to massive anicdotal evidence).

To put it another way: the theory that you might have a better experience with another system is valid--but there's no way for anyone but you to make that determination.

If you don't want system in your roleplaying, then use a system that doesn't have interaction mechanics.  Some people feel that the experience is enhanced with interaction mechanics so they'll go to a system that has them. Neither is even marginally objectively better.

Also: I don't think that a great RP moment in AD&D means system was "transcended." I think great RP moments are as likely in AD&D as anywhere else and that the system promotes "great RP moments" as much as anything else.  That is to say that "great RP moments" describes absolutely nothing when used in a context outside of yourself.

-Marco
[Btw: if it sounds like I disagreed with you--it's only with some specific terminology and what a percieved as a few generalizations which, I feel were only just that :) ]
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Mike Holmes on September 19, 2002, 10:28:36 AM
I disagree. If "great role-playing moments" means what I think it means, moments where players are heavily into well delivered first-person dialog, and description of actions, then I say that System Matters very much. OTOH, Marco's right, I might be projecting my own idea of what makes for "great role-plaiying moments"; that's a very subjective statement. You and I might both simply be displaying our biases.

But, assuming that we agree on what constitutes such a moment, what if a particular system requires the GM to step in to force a roll in the middle at some point. In a distracting way? What if it didn't allow for such play at all?

The point is that, yes, one can "transcend" the system. Ron points that out in the essay. That's what we call drift. Ignoring the rules or wahtever to create play not engendered by them. That's always been an assumption of System Matters that people can and will do this. You seem to assume that the only way to have such moments is to "transcend" the system. That no system can support such moments.

But such systems do exist. Or if one that does exaclty what you want does not, perhaps it can be invented. As Marco points out, if it's system that's the problem, then go freeform. Why not play with a system that actually does engender the sort of play that you are looking for? Some systems do not get in the way (or get in the way less) of the type of play that you are talking about. So if that's what you want, then play a game that does that.

I'm just repeating the essay, as you haven't said one thing that invalidates it in any way.

Mike
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 19, 2002, 11:33:26 AM
Quote from: Mike Holmes
The point is that, yes, one can "transcend" the system. Ron points that out in the essay. That's what we call drift. Ignoring the rules or wahtever to create play not engendered by them.

Mike

Drift is defined (by Ron who created it) as:
"the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play"
so if I start playing AD&D in some fashion and keep doing it that way, it's not drift, yes? IMO that isn't all that meaningful--but if you're going to invoke the term, so be it. Explain how it applies here.

In practice drift often gets used (fuzzily) to define playing a game "in the way it wasn't meant to be played" (or something like that). I find that prescriptive and in some cases presumptious (how does the speaker know how a game was 'meant' to be played?)

Now, you say:
Quote
I disagree. If "great role-playing moments" means what I think it means, moments where players are heavily into well delivered first-person dialog, and description of actions, then I say that System Matters very much.

Exactly--if you don't like how a system handles something then, by definition it doesn't work for you. That isn't, however, much of a revelation.

If you think you have a better system, fine--but when the SDM idea is invoked to tell someone they're playing the wrong game, that's untennable. Role-Playing is a complex experience. Great Roleplaying is no more meaningful a term in this context than story-oriented (I think both those terms are meaningful and indeed useful--but because of the tight definitions at work I don't think either can be employed).

Your example boils down to "I don't like a mechanic that distracts me from something I like." That's a personal statement--it says nothing objective about how the rule will apply to other people's enjoyment or indeed even their preception of it's invocation (the pendragon thread hit on this).

When someone says words to the effect of AD&D is the wrong game for great role-playing (or something like "wrong tool for the job") I suggest that the issue lies in the perception of what the game is especially in its relation to the speaker rather than any objective reality of the game.

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Mike Holmes on September 19, 2002, 12:30:44 PM
Quote from: MarcoDrift is defined (by Ron who created it) as:
"the movement from one GNS focus to another during the course of play"
so if I start playing AD&D in some fashion and keep doing it that way, it's not drift, yes? IMO that isn't all that meaningful--but if you're going to invoke the term, so be it. Explain how it applies here.
No that's shifting. Drift, as I believe Ron agrees, is playing a system in a manner different from the way that the system is designed in order to get a different GNS support from it. The poster spoke of "transcending" the rules. That sounds like drift to me. We don't have to presume, we can take his word for it.

My objection is with the posters notion that system is only important in terms of "mechanics' and not for something he calls "great roleplaying moments". I agree with you that he should define what he means specifically. But I also go out on a limb and state that, whatever it is, consideration of system can have an impact on it. I can't see how system would not affect any aspect of play. Even if only minorly.

Quote
Exactly--if you don't like how a system handles something then, by definition it doesn't work for you. That isn't, however, much of a revelation.
Ah, but it is. That's all that System Matters is saying. There are some who say that a system that doesn't handle things that you like doesn't matter, that only the GM and players matter. The essay merely refutes that.

QuoteIf you think you have a better system, fine--but when the SDM idea is invoked to tell someone they're playing the wrong game, that's untennable. Role-Playing is a complex experience. Great Roleplaying is no more meaningful a term in this context than story-oriented (I think both those terms are meaningful and indeed useful--but because of the tight definitions at work I don't think either can be employed).
You sound somehow threatened. Has someone used System Matters like this to you? If so they are misreading it, or, as you say being presumptious. This says nothing about the essay, but a poor interperetation of it. Should we stop telling truth because some will misuse it?

QuoteYour example boils down to "I don't like a mechanic that distracts me from something I like." That's a personal statement--it says nothing objective about how the rule will apply to other people's enjoyment or indeed even their preception of it's invocation (the pendragon thread hit on this).
As I admitted, it was probably our own biases showing. How did I not say this?

QuoteWhen someone says words to the effect of AD&D is the wrong game for great role-playing (or something like "wrong tool for the job") I suggest that the issue lies in the perception of what the game is especially in its relation to the speaker rather than any objective reality of the game.
How are we disagreeing here? I totally agree. Again, how does the System Matters essay support the idea that particular games are wrong as in your example above? It merely says that if you find it the wrong tool for you that youshould use another.

Yes, this seems obvious, yet the essay is in rebuttal to a huge sentiment that used to be around that "system doesn't matter". The name of the essay is designed around that phrase precisely because people said it so often. I think to the extent that this seems odd today this is because the movement that was behind the essay has convinced people that, in fact "System Matters".

Mike
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 12:49:08 PM
I'm not really sure I'm following what you're saying Marco...but if I am, than I have to say, I couldn't disagree with you more.

RPG mechanics are a tool.   Like any tool there are things that a particular example will do well and things that a particular example will do poorly.  What you seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that its impossible to evaluate a set of RPG mechanics as to what tasks they perform well and what tasks they perform poorly.  If that is indeed what you are saying, than not only do I disagree with it, but I can't even imagine how you could think it.

Could I chop down a sapling with the claw end of a hammer...sure, I've done it.  But I would have been much better served by a saw or a hatchet.

The same is true of RPG mechanics.  CAN you do X in game Y? Absolutely.  With a good GM you can do anything.  But mere fact that it CAN be done is not the same thing as saying that the game was designed to support it.  Anecdotal evidence of "I played AD&D and we told great stories" in no way suggests that AD&D is an ideal system for story telling.

There are tons of examples of great stories that have been told in AD&D, and every one of them was told IN SPITE of the system, not BECAUSE of it.  In this ACE is 100% right on.  These games definitely transcended their rules.  The GM and players took the tool they were presented and went where ever they needed to with it.  But just as my ability to fell a tree with a hammer doesn't make a hammer the best choice for felling trees, nor do such experiences with AD&D make AD&D the best choice for telling a story.

You seem to be unwilling to seperate the game as a set of printed rules in a book, from the game as played by players around the table.  Good players around a table can compensate for all kinds of definciencies in a bad game.  So much so that the players themselves may never even have an inkling that the game is bad...because their experience with it was not.  That doesn't change the fact that the game rules were bad.  They may have transcended the rules.  But with a better rules set to work with they may have gone even farther...or gone just as far with less effort.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: C. Edwards on September 19, 2002, 01:35:58 PM
QuoteCould I chop down a sapling with the claw end of a hammer...sure, I've done it. But I would have been much better served by a saw or a hatchet.

A person that really enjoyes the particular experience that chopping down a tree with a claw hammer creates, and who wasn't judging the experience based on the parameters of speed of completion and physical effort employed, would most certainly not be better served by using a saw or a hatchet.

Seperating the rules in the book from those same rules being viewed, or used, by a human being is nearly impossible.  While I may not be one of them, there are many, many people who think that AD&D suits all their role-playing needs.  Week after week they play the game and enjoy themselves.  You, me, anybody could give them twelve good reasons why AD&D doesn't maximize their potential for a particular form of play but we would all just be blowing smoke out of our arses.  Does system matter? Damn right it does, but only on an individual basis.

Where the real trouble starts is when the guy chopping down the tree with a hammer has another guy back at camp waiting for firewood that presumed his buddy would be using an axe.  But that's a whole other thread.

-Chris
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 01:56:34 PM
Quote from: C. Edwards
QuoteCould I chop down a sapling with the claw end of a hammer...sure, I've done it. But I would have been much better served by a saw or a hatchet.

A person that really enjoyes the particular experience that chopping down a tree with a claw hammer creates, and who wasn't judging the experience based on the parameters of speed of completion and physical effort employed, would most certainly not be better served by using a saw or a hatchet.

heh, heh.  Point taken.

But I caution against assumeing that all standards of quality can only be effectively measured on an individual subjective basis.  That line of reasoning makes it impossible to have discourse on any subject that is not based on math.

In point of fact, there can be (and are) standards for quality in a wide range of things that could be described as equally subjective experiences.  It is not required (nor possible) for a standard to encompass every concievable permutation of individual preference.  The fact that it does not do so (can not do so) does not invalidate it as a standard.  Even in statistical analysis it is SOP to disregard outliers when performing regressions to find "best fit".   The fact that the derived formula cannot mathematically explain every single result in no way invalidates the formula as being useful (assuming a properly designed regression).

Now this is straying significantly from the topic at hand, but my point is that one can not use "in my opinion", or "my preferences", or other such personal anecdotal experience as an arguement...precisely because those things could ALWAYS be used as an arguement for ANY discussion.  The net result of such use would be to conclude that there are no standards at all and that all things produced are of equal quality.

Since we know that all things produced are NOT of equal quality, if we are to uncover ways of evaluating quality we must therefor find measures that don't rely on such arguements.

All of which is a long winded way for me to express "hogwash" to the idea that all discussions of the "right tool for the job" are pointless because it all comes down to subjective perception anyway.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 19, 2002, 01:57:07 PM
Mike,

I quoted Drift directly from the big GNS essay. In a forum that uses a lot of specific terminology I would expect that to be the definition.

In terms of it being used "on me:" It isn't. The "practical application of the philosophy" that as Val says that all the great stories told in AD&D were done IN SPITE of the system is being done right now on RPG.net and it's presumptious.

All the great stories told in AD&D were done with the AD&D system. Saying anything else is prescrpitive and ... in a bad way. I'm not addressing what a game does well or badly in specific--I'm addressing how well a game tells a "great story."

And because the conventional wisdom (which I belive you share) here is that "story" either means something really, really specific or is meaningless--and the terms "great RP experience" or "great story" are either very specifically defined (which they aren't) or are meaningless then what you're really saying is:

"For me AD&D doesn't help *me* tell what *I* consider to be great stories."

How you can define what a great RP experience or a great story or an enabling factor in doing so is for someone else boggles me.

You tell me you used AD&D to do a "court intrigue adventure" and it really worked, I won't say "hey man, that's the wrong tool you need to play a game that focuses on that." I wouldn't presume to tell them the session would be better if they used another system--that's for them to determine on the basis of a lot of things (maybe in all those printed pages of game there's some things they *really* like that appeal to their sliver of gamist nature ... or maybe they love the richness of AD&D's monsters despite the fact that the current game centers on palace intrigue).

You tell me you used AD&D to do a court intrigue adventure and the nobody had a good time because the players don't like intrigue ... I won't go and blame the game system.

And that's exactly the way the argument gets used (the speaker says that AD&D doesn't promote "that kind" of play--as though a different game would change what the players enjoy doing).  

I'll say it again: using SDM for anything that deals with story or role-playing is either purely personal or quite presumptious (or you can really tightly define "story" or "roleplaying" and then build a statement from there--which is fine but very limited in relevance).

-Marco
[Note: I do think it applies to mechanical resolution--i.e. I want a game with deadly bullets--then sure, the analysis is good. But that does NOT relate to story or role-playing experience save as deadly bullets do--and even that gets murky if you ask "are deadly bullets better or worse for a great RP experience or a good story"]
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Ron Edwards on September 19, 2002, 01:58:09 PM
Hi there,

What a lot of people may be missing in this thread is that when people "use a system" and then claim that it works for their purposes, they are actually not using that system at all - they've invented and are using another one entirely.

One example of this - which I think describes the original post's situation - is to put "the book" aside and shift to a Drama-heavy system. They think they're "going system-less," but that's because their concept of "system" is too limited. Such play definitely employs a system of who gets to say what when, of who gets to go when relative to everyone else, and whether a stated action succeeds. It's a Drama system.

Most so-called "system-less" play is very formalized indeed in terms of organizing the Dramatic assertions.

Another example, a very different one and which has arisen in this thread as well, concerns the house-rules effect. As I've described in the past, I used to ask people about their AD&D games, back in the day. "It can cover anything!" they say. "No need for other games!" (insert GURPS, D20, whatever, if you want)

I'd ask them questions: Do you use racial level-limits? Why, no. Do you use the fire-and-forget magic? Um, no (insert elaborate discussion of mana or other magical homebrew). Do you start at first level? No, no, never. Do you ... and so on. What emerged again and again was that all these groups were not playing AD&D by a long shot. They were building new games without realizing it.

In conclusion, the term "system" in my big essay encompasses a much wider range (and more-inclusive level) of things than it usually refers to in casual RPG-discussions.

Best,
Ron
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 02:16:40 PM
Marco, I think the key word in all of your posts is "presumptuous".  Perhaps it is presumptuous (by very definition) for a person to "presume" that they can help a given group have a better Role-playing experience by showing them how a different system would have worked better.  But it is equally presumptuous for the given group to presume that it wouldn't.

Point being:  "How presumptuous of you to think that you can improve our game experience"  is identical in terms of level of presumption to "How presumptuous of you to think your game experience couldn't be improved"

In other words, whether or not a topic of discussion is "presumptuous" is hardly a valid standard of evaluation.  Further it assumes that "presumption" is a perjorative thing.   Not being presumptuous can be equally bad...in the sense of "man, if only I'd known.  Why didn't you tell me this was out there"..."Well I didn't want to be presumptuous"

So perhaps your issue with the idea of "System Does Matter" is not really one of taking issue with the concept.  But rather one of feeling uncomfortable about bringing the subject up, thinking that it means having to tell other people that they're doing something wrong.

Sure there are people that will use it that way.  Those people will delight in telling you you're wrong in any number of ways for any number of reasons.  A missapplied model just gives them a convenient tool to use while they're doing it.  But without such a model, they'd be doing it anyway...just with less jargon.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 19, 2002, 03:30:49 PM
Valimir,

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't evangalize games you like (to a degree, of course). If someone comes asking for a different game I'd be happy to make suggestions. If someone complains about a *system* problem making suggestions is fine. If I see someone having fun and go "it could be better if you do it this way" I'm a late-80's White-Wolf I-game-better-than-you weenie.

Telling someone that he's using the wrong tool for the job when it comes to constructing a "great story" is presumptious ... arrogant ... and purely matter of personal taste (if you don't think so then why is the ability of a system to tell a "great story" is quantifiable and "story-oriented"  gaming a worthless term?)

As for people "not playing AD&D" (or whatever). I didn't play with the armor-class mods for different armor types. I don't know why ... I mean, we just never cared to. You can make the point that I wasn't playing AD&D but it's a meaningless one (it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck ... I'd call it a duck). While I acknowledge the (interesting) assessment that these people all play AD&D differently, the common sense evaluation is that they're all playing a similar enough game to be called AD&D.

Like analyzing page count for combat system, it's an *interesting* analysis but let's not confuse it with a primary tool for evaluation (observe a session of AD&D with no combat and very few rules and you won't be *able* to tell if they're playing AD&D or not ... or a group could play strictly for years and then ignore a rule and you've declared the whole game to not be AD&D?)

Also: The term quality was invoked--I find this interesting. In computer science quality is defined as how closely the finished product meets the requirements. This is counter intuitive to many people: "A cement life preserver is high-quality if that's what the design called for!?"  The reason its done that way is that everyone thinks they know what "right" is (just as one might think that it's clear that great stories in AD&D succeed in spite of system) but when you get a group of people together somehow they all disagree.

Quality outside of the computer science definition is subjective (ask 20 people for a book that's a "great read").  So ... what are we to do? Use sales ("Hackmaster is flying off the shelf!?") Use number of players or satisfied customers? (WotC is still champion). What can we do in pursuit of a standard of quality?

In literature quality is determined by critics and cannon. Critics are the respected voices in the field. Cannon is a body of work determined to be of quality to which other texts can relate.

So if I pick Jorad as a critic and Sorceror as part of cannon then someone can compare the design goals of D&D3e to those of Sorceror using Jorad's opinion of each and determine which is of higher quality.

It works for Academia. If that's what you're calling for, let's be clear. And be clear that it's subjective to the group's evaluation of critics and choice of cannon.

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Matt Wilson on September 19, 2002, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: Valamir
But I caution against assumeing that all standards of quality can only be effectively measured on an individual subjective basis.  That line of reasoning makes it impossible to have discourse on any subject that is not based on math.

Why is that? I would disagree. In fact... I will disagree.

You can't have the same kind of discourse that you would have about math, but you can certainly discuss it.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: contracycle on September 19, 2002, 04:16:55 PM
Quote from: MarcoValimir,
Like analyzing page count for combat system, it's an *interesting* analysis but let's not confuse it with a primary tool for evaluation (observe a session of AD&D with no combat and very few rules and you won't be *able* to tell if they're playing AD&D or not ... or a group could play strictly for years and then ignore a rule and you've declared the whole game to not be AD&D?)

What is the purpose of evaluation if you do not form an opinion?  What is the purpose of an opinion if you do not make decisions on its basis?  And how would we learn from each other if we did not report our opinions and evaluations?

Furthermore: If we could observe a group of players with AD&D manuals in front of them, but as you describe them with so few rules that "you won't be *able* to tell if they're playing AD&D or not", then in what sense could they be said to be actually playing AD&D?  Presumably they would not need these books to be open much.

If a group played strictly, and then ignored a rule, they would presumably have had much greater use for the actual text of the game.  They could surely be said to have played THAT game, while a group who barely needed anything beyond character definition might not.  The group playing with few rules might be better served by a set of rules which address what they actually do... which not entirely coincidentally is where a lot of narrativist designs go.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Mike Holmes on September 19, 2002, 04:30:10 PM
Can we agree that patronizing a person and analyzing a system are two different things? I mean you don't have any problem with people having an opinion of how a game plays from analyzing the system, do you? For their own use? What you seem to be against is rudeness. Which I think we can all agree on.

But if someone asked me what I thought of two different games, you wouldn't have any problem if I gave them advice based on an analysis of the systems of the two games. Would you?

Again, it seems to me that you have a problem with a particular application of the theory as a tool in a campaign to domineer over other players. But I'm not seeing that as intrinsic to the theory. Once can believe it, and still be civil, polite, and respectful of people when discussing it. As can anyone with any theory.

So, do you have some other objection to the theory, or is it just when it's used in a rude fashion?

Mike
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 05:00:22 PM
Quote from: MarcoIf I see someone having fun and go "it could be better if you do it this way" I'm a late-80's White-Wolf I-game-better-than-you weenie.

Right...which is the whole point about people misapplying tools above.  We can't be responsible for what certain individuals might or might not do with ideas they understand only at a flawed level.

Quote
As for people "not playing AD&D" (or whatever). I didn't play with the armor-class mods for different armor types. I don't know why ... I mean, we just never cared to. You can make the point that I wasn't playing AD&D but it's a meaningless one (it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck ... I'd call it a duck). While I acknowledge the (interesting) assessment that these people all play AD&D differently, the common sense evaluation is that they're all playing a similar enough game to be called AD&D.

This is just semantics.  We all know that "you're not playing AD&D" is not meant to mean "you're not playing a game similiar enough to be called AD&D".  Of course, you're still playing a game similiar enough to be recognizeable as AD&D.  But you chose to make changes to it.  Why...because something in the system didn't work for you.  If system didn't matter you should be able to play the rules exactly as written and get the exact same level of enjoyment from them.   That you didn't, that you felt the need to alter certain rules, is precisely what "System does matter" means.

QuoteLike analyzing page count for combat system, it's an *interesting* analysis but let's not confuse it with a primary tool for evaluation (observe a session of AD&D with no combat and very few rules and you won't be *able* to tell if they're playing AD&D or not ... or a group could play strictly for years and then ignore a rule and you've declared the whole game to not be AD&D?)

Observation of actual play is only useful if you're armed with a model to relate your observations too.  Raw observations without any theoretical backing is the definition of anecdotal evidence.  What GNS and the related theories are (and they are still something of a work in progress) is an attempt to provide that theoretical background so that reported observations can be related in a meaningful way.  

QuoteAlso: The term quality was invoked--I find this interesting. In computer science quality is defined as how closely the finished product meets the requirements.

This is the very definition I've used in all of the discussion threads we've had.  Its the reason why games like V:tM are often held up as an example of a poor design...because, despite its popularity, the finished product does not meet the requirements.  

QuoteJust as one might think that it's clear that great stories in AD&D succeed in spite of system.
The best you could say about AD&D ability to promote a good story is that the majority of rules in the game address combat.  If you're outside of combat there is little structure to AD&D rules (especially once you throw out the rules that most groups throw out).  Therefor your ability to tell a story is limited only by your group's ability to free form one.  This is NOT a system that supports story.  This is story succeeding in spite of the system.

As an experiment we could locate groups that tell wonderful stories with AD&D.  We could then poll those groups as to what rules they ignore.  There ARE, in fact, rules in AD&D for social interaction.  Rules such as NPC Reaction Rolls complete with modifiers for Charisma.  Rules that mechanically dictate whether the person you just met will give their life to help you or spit on your grave when you die.  How many groups who tell wonderful stories with AD&D do you think actually use the NPC Reaction Roll rules as written?  I hypothesis: few to none.  Why?  Because system does matter and that system is not consistant with the needs of telling a good story.

Contrary to your comments above, what mechanics you choose to use and what mechanics you choose to throw out speak VOLUMES about whether or not the system was meeting your needs.  


Quote
So if I pick Jorad as a critic and Sorceror as part of cannon
I hope Sorcerer's not part of cannon...I don't want to be arrested for possession of an illegal fire arm ;-).  Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

But I don't know that what we're attempting to move towards is such a system of critics and canon.  What is being developed here is a way of looking at game play that seeks to identify the types of decisions players actually make during play, and seeks to identify system based mechanisms (that go well beyond what type of die to roll) which help support and even encourage those types of decisions.

Caution:  long treatise about to begin.

I do believe that it is possible to objectively evaluate a mechanic's ability to promote a certain type of decision.  It is possible for it to do so to a greater or lesser degree.  Somewhere here theres a thread where I developed a taxonomy for the degree to which a mechanic does this...from "absolutely requires" a certain type of decision to "absolutely impedes" a certain type of decision.

This I think can be logically deduced and tested through play.  What kind of decision does mechanic "X" encourage players to make? is a valid inquiry.  An hypothesis can be formed, experimentation (actual play) can be carried out, and conclusions reached as to effectiveness.

Many Forge designed games are perfect test engines for this sort of thing because many have a very specific hypothesis and a very singular mechanic.  Sort of a controled environment of sorts.  Check out games like Cigarette Girls or the forthcoming My Life With Master for examples of specific mechanics designed to encourage specific types of decisions.  Through playing these games one can determine if the mechanics are indeed promoting the sort of player decision that they are meant to promote.  In the case of these game the mechanics are meant to promote Narrativist decisions, but the same analysis can be done with mechanics meant to promot a Gamist decision or a Simulationist decision as well.  

This gets more complex with games that have broader mechanics because you have several systems at work, often times at odds with each other.  But I do believe that it is possible even then to evaluate successfully what kind of decisions a specific mechanic promotes.

If we then compare this evaluation with the kind of decisions we can observe players making in actual play, we can can determine if the mechanics are promoting, hindering, or just getting out of the way of those decisions.  We then have a much more objective tool than simple subjective perception for evaluating quality.  

We can look at what sort of decisions the mechanics "rules as written" promote and compare that to the type of decisions actually being made in play.  A higher correlation reflects a better design...by the definition of quality above.  We can look at the changes made to the game by play groups (house rules added, rules ignored, etc.) and identify drift by observing players changing the game to use mechanics that support the decisions they prefer making.  I'd hypothesize at this point that house rules would be found to be used by groups to move from a state of lower decision correlation to one of higher decision correlation.

Further Ace's concept of Transcending could be seen as groups managing to enjoy low correlation play despite the low correlation due to the talents of the players overcoming the short comings of the game.

Now...no...we are not at the point where we can begin to make such detailed analysis.  Our understanding is yet incomplete.  Further, the tools of hard science are always difficult to implement in practice when dealing with soft science.  But this is the direction that I believe we are aspiring too (at least in sensibilities even if its not a truly achievable goal) which I find vastly different from a critic and canon model.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 19, 2002, 05:43:49 PM
Contra,

I've got nothing against analysis and forming opinions. What I'm saying is that if your primary tool for looking at a game system is concluding that the page count for a given rule is directly porportional to its appearance in the game (look at Psionics in AD&D ... or all the rules for building castles and hiring henchmen in the DMG ... which I never saw used) then you run a serious risk of missing the forest for the trees.

Also: if you deem a group that deviates in any way from the printed rules to "not be playing that game" then you'll find, amazingly, that very few people do play a large complex game like AD&D--if you attach great importance to that then you'll often have some silly conclusions or pointless questions (Marco didn't use AC modifiers for weapons--did that mean he wanted all armor to be more equal?)

Essentially if you're going to analyze and draw conclusions, try to measure something measurable (and the amount of enjoyment of from a game or a rule's contribution to "story-oriented" gaming or a "great RP experience" isn't measurable outside of individual tastes IMO).

Mike,

I don't find this "There are tons of examples of great stories that have been told in AD&D, and every one of them was told IN SPITE of the system, not BECAUSE of it." to be analysis.

If I asked your opinion of Hero and Deadlands and you said "Hero is cold and dry because it only uses d6's and Deadlands uses poker chips and cards man, how much more flavorful can you get!?" while it might be interesting to hear, it wouldn't tell me all that much--and it isn't really analyzing anything.

I know that I've used lots of the stuff in AD&D (back when I played it) to construct interesting tales we all greatly enjoyed. I used the weird, quirky monsters to great effect ... even the bizzare combat system and savingthrow stuff was all useful to me.  The treasure list was the sole basis for a great many really good stories (wrap a game around a deck of many things with a Tarot deck as a prop--pure AD&D goofyness and a good story right out of the DMG).

For these games I didn't feel like the system got in my way at all. If someone says that's because I didn't use the AC modifiers for weapons ... that'd be absurd--but that's the level of analysis I feel this is.

If Valimir had said "Every great story I ever told in AD&D was told IN SPITE of the system, not because of it," I'd have no problem with it. Telling me that every great story I ever told in AD&D would have been better with some other system is ... presumptive.

If Valimir said "AD&D is horrible for telling some types of stories--like those that revolve around realistic combats," I'd agree--and if someone disagreed then we'd get into how the game models combat, what realism means in this context and such--and eventually, with terms defined there'd be some conclusion I think most people would agree on given the terms and conditions.

I see no such luck with "great stories" or "great RP experinece."

I'd say that 95% of the time the story-issue problems in groups come from the players and the GM--not the system.

Caveat: The exception to this is rules-lawyer problems. In that case it is the system--but not the system as it relates to story--the system as it relates to whatever the rules-lawyer is trying to push through. I do think you can analyze game rules by what they claim to do vs. what they do--but that only tangentially relates to "great stories."

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 19, 2002, 06:02:52 PM
Val,

Long post--too long for now but a few things:

1. What does my lack of playing with AC mods tell you? What conclusion can you draw from it?

1a. Doesn't the caveat that allows you to throw out rules you don't like speak to a modular design philosophy that is part of how Ron defines Rules Heavy games? Is that an objective failing? [Note: I do agree that the Charisma rules are bad for a whole lot of story telling. But if someone does like them can you prove they're wrong?]

2. Do you know design requirements for Vampire. Best evidence is that they wanted a traditional game that could be played in a variety of modes with an emphasis on interaction over combat. There's nothing in the game that prevents you from playing that way (see next item).

3. Your use of the words "in spite of" to mean "unrelated to" (the story took place without relation to the rules) seems interestingly pointed.  

Interaction doesn't *require* rules (just like combat doesn't--see Theatrix). Sometimes no rule is the best way to conduct the resolution--that isn't a weakness, simply a preference.

4. I agree with your thesis: a rule can promote a given GNS decision. however, how does that apply to a "great roleplaying experience" or a "great story."

GNS specifically avoids getting involved there--and that's EXACTLY what I'm arguing against: using the SDM argument to apply to vague things like "great story" and "great RP experience."

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 06:26:35 PM
Quote from: MarcoContra,

I've got nothing against analysis and forming opinions. What I'm saying is that if your primary tool for looking at a game system is concluding that the page count for a given rule is directly porportional to its appearance in the game (look at Psionics in AD&D ... or all the rules for building castles and hiring henchmen in the DMG ... which I never saw used) then you run a serious risk of missing the forest for the trees.

Who's ever said this?  Really Marco you are taking completely legitimate points that people have made and reworked them into a something ludicrous, and then you're pointing out how ludicrous it is.

What I, and many others have said is this:  There is a positive correlation between the emphasis placed on certain aspects of the rules in the book and the emphasis placed on on those aspects in actual play.

To twist this into counting pages and thereby determining a specifics group play by proportion of page ratio is completely unwarranted.  NO ONE has made any such claim.


QuoteAlso: if you deem a group that deviates in any way from the printed rules to "not be playing that game" then you'll find, amazingly, that very few people do play a large complex game like AD&D--if you attach great importance to that then you'll often have some silly conclusions or pointless questions (Marco didn't use AC modifiers for weapons--did that mean he wanted all armor to be more equal?)

An unfair characterization.  First, as I mentioned before, no evaluatory tool can account for all outliers.  A mathematical formula designed to relate variables of a complex system together is measured by a standard of "best fit", not "perfect fit".  No Marco.  I can't come up with a theory that can account for every eccentric quirk you and you gaming group have.  Nor is it necessary for me to do so for the theory to be sound.  But as a rule applied across many gamers and many gaming groups...yes...there will be a high correlation between the choices made regarding what rules to use and what rules to change or add; and the types of decisions the gamers / gaming group prefer to make.  

But once again positive correlation...even strong positive correlation does not mean 1:1 determination.  So pointing out individual anecdotal incidences where the rule doesn't apply is meaningless.  No model in any field of study works with 100% 1:1 determination.  "Perfect Correlation" as its called exists only in academic theory.  I won't be held to a standard that it completely impossible to achieve and completely unecessary to achieve.

Quote
Essentially if you're going to analyze and draw conclusions, try to measure something measurable (and the amount of enjoyment of from a game or a rule's contribution to "story-oriented" gaming or a "great RP experience" isn't measurable outside of individual tastes IMO).

Whose measureing enjoyment?  What is being measured are decisions.  Very simply put:  what type of decisions are you as a gamer making, and how do  they correlate with the type of decisions enables by the game you are playing, and how do they correlate with the type of decisions being made by the other players.

The working hypothesis is that there is a inverse correlation between dysfunctional play and the correlation between players.  i.e. the less correlation among decision types between the players, the greater the likelyhood of dysfunction.  Again correlation does not equal 1:1 determination.

As a significant element in the play experience, correlation with the system is equally important in this regard.  Does having a low correlation mean you will hate the game or have a bad experience playing it.  No.  No one said it did.  Is there a greater tendency for that to happen.  Of course.  



Quote
I know that I've used lots of the stuff in AD&D (back when I played it) to construct interesting tales we all greatly enjoyed. I used the weird, quirky monsters to great effect ... even the bizzare combat system and savingthrow stuff was all useful to me.  The treasure list was the sole basis for a great many really good stories (wrap a game around a deck of many things with a Tarot deck as a prop--pure AD&D goofyness and a good story right out of the DMG).

For these games I didn't feel like the system got in my way at all. If someone says that's because I didn't use the AC modifiers for weapons ... that'd be absurd--but that's the level of analysis I feel this is.

How does picking a magic item off of a list have anything to do with playing with the system.  The concept of a Deck of Many things can and has been ported to numerous systems.  The system comes in when you roll 3 times on Treasure Table N because the monster manual told you to, and the resulting percentiles declared that a Deck of Many Things was among the monsters horde.  Of course, I'm betting that you chose not to use that part of the system when you selected the Deck of Many Things.  Once again, the choice of what to include and what to throw out IS in fact very telling.  What are the odds that your interesting story about the Deck would have come about if you'd relied on the random treasure tables to populate your treasure...slim I'd guess.

Quote
If Valimir had said "Every great story I ever told in AD&D was told IN SPITE of the system, not because of it," I'd have no problem with it. Telling me that every great story I ever told in AD&D would have been better with some other system is ... presumptive.

I never said your stories would have been better in some other system.  I suspect that you made enough changes to AD&D as written that you were effectively playing some other system anyway.  

Isn't it equally presumptive of you to declare that you've actually told great stories to begin with?  See what a useless word that is?

I've no doubt that you told great stories and will continue to tell great stories.  I've equally no doubt that there is nothing in AD&D that helped you tell them.  There is no feature of AD&D that enabled you to tell that story that you couldn't have told equally well in some other game.  Further I have no doubt that there are MANY features of AD&D that actively impeded your ability to tell your great stories, and like any good player you threw those things out and ignored them.  Hense you told the story in SPITE of the system.  

Quote
I see no such luck with "great stories"

First of all, you need to define what a "great story" is.  Mike pointed this out early on above and I've been using that definition as the working definition.

If instead of that definition you mean something else...where theres a disconnect.

For instance I would certainly say that AD&D is chock full of great gaming moments.  Like the time my both my 14th Level Palidan who'd I'd been playing for years and the dragon he was fighting were both down to exactly 3 hit points, and my fate rested on winning the next initiative roll.  Or the time when my one friend's super dextrous elf thief failed 3 times in a row to spot secret doors, and each time the door was spotted by my other friends dumb-as-a-brick half orc.

Sure AD&D is chock full of great gaming moments like that.  And the mechanics of AD&D are WELL suited to producing those.  But for telling great stories...no...you'll get no help from AD&D there.  Whatever great stories you've told with AD&D you've told on your own, and could have told them just as well in any other system.  In that regard...you transcended.


Edited to eliminate parts that came out sounding much more antagonistic than I intended.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: deadpanbob on September 19, 2002, 06:55:16 PM
Quote from: Valamir
This is the very definition I've used in all of the discussion threads we've had.  Its the reason why games like V:tM are often held up as an example of a poor design...because, despite its popularity, the finished product does not meet the requirements.  


Valamir,

I agree with most everything you say, and I'm not exactly a WW fanboy, but I'm unfamiliar with V:tM's design goals.  Are these goals as inferred from the text of the game, or did I miss something during the days when I had a portion of my paycheck automatically deposited into WW's coffers?

I'm truly curious, because I think that any given system might have met its design goals, even if every person who plays it thinks "it isn't any good".

Cheers,

Jason
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 07:47:10 PM
Good question Jason.

I can't speak to more recent incarnations of V:tM, as I have only the first edition.  But the first edition goes to great lengths to talk about how vampires are caught between two natures...their lost humanity and the struggle with the beast within.  It goes to great lengths to talk about the differing approaches to this...accepting that you're a superior species and thus entitled to treat the humans like cattle, or trying to regain your lost humanity and seeking redemption through Golconda, or giving in completely to the beast...etc.

There's as much, or more, about internal struggles in the flavor text as there is about the politics and factions that Vampire is famous for.  In fact, the flavor text is far more explicit about this sort of struggle than even Sorcerer which is also about these sorts of issues.

Now I can't get inside the head of Rein dot Hagan and say with certainty exactly what his design intent was.  But it seems clear to me from the descriptive text in the game (text that should indicate what the author was envisioning as being central to the game) that the game was NOT intended to be primarily about pointy tooth superheroes.  

In the course of "making the game accessible to a broader interest of gamers" as some would call it, this intent got buried under piles of mechanics whose only purpose was to define precisely how much of a bad ass combat god you are thanks to your undead powers.  

Is it possible to play Vampire in the deep soul searching, humanity twisting way that the flavor text leads me to believe its supposed to be played...yes.  But the rules as written focus the game much more on being a bad ass killing machine.

Werewolf is even more this way.  All of the Mother Earth Enviromental stuff is just fluff.  The game was really about turning into a monster and ripping shit apart.   I've heard they've even cut most of that from later editions (again I have only the first), and if so it may actually make the game a more honest design than the bait and switch of first edition.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on September 19, 2002, 07:54:02 PM
hmm, I'm not sure how to approach this subject - obviously, it's kinda easy to rub each other the wrong way in exploring these issues.  So let me drill down to one comment that seems just a bit off to me, and see what I can build from there.
Quote from: ValamirBut for telling great stories...no...you'll get no help from AD&D there.  Whatever great stories you've told with AD&D you've told on your own, and could have told them just as well in any other system.  In that regard...you transcended....congratulations.
No help from AD&D?  Sure it helped - by (e.g.) providing a Deck of Many Things, with consequences for draws stated in terms of game mechanics.  Is that enough, in and of itself, to produce a great (by, I'll claim,  ANYONE's standards) story?  No.  COULD you have told that story in another system?  Sure, if they (or you) provided info on the consequences of Deck of Many Things draws.

So - Ralph, if your claim is *really* that AD&D gives NO help, I just don't see it, and can understand why Marco would be bothered by that claim.
 
But your analysis about how AD&D can produce great moments leads, I think, to another way of understanding this - great story is built upon great moments.  I'll grant that nothing (or very, very little) in the AD&D system gives the kind of consistency, organization and underlying meaning (Premise) to a "set of moments" that is needed for a great story.  In fact, I've seen and heard of the Deck of Many Things "moment" ruining a good number of campaigns in my time.

Jeez, is there a point there other than "I think Ralph is wrong to say AD&D doesn't and can't help story?"  I"m not sure, so I guess I'll let it stand at that.  Not as much building as I thought.  Sorry.

Gordon
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 08:41:25 PM
Quote from: MarcoVal,

Long post--too long for now but a few things:

I hate to reply, yet again, when you obviously haven't had time to absorb all of the posts yet, but I'll try to address your specific questions and then let you catch up when you're able.

Quote
1. What does my lack of playing with AC mods tell you? What conclusion can you draw from it?

Don't know.  Out of context like that, I couldn't even begin to speculate.

It may tell me nothing.  When you run a linear regression you'll often have extreme outlying results far off of the line.  The only thing these results tell you is that such results are possible.  Your AC mod may simply be an outlyer.

Or given the full context of the situation, it might actually say something powerful about what your were and weren't interested in prioritizing in the game.  Its possible (shear speculation) that you recognized that AD&D was a lousy simulation of combat and that the weapon vs AC rules were a weak attempt at adding a simulative factor to combat.  You may then have decided that with those rules the game was still going to be a lousy simulation of combat, so why waste the time making it marginally less lousy (argueably no less lousy because those modifiers were pretty poorly thought out anyway).  

From that I might derive an overall decision by your group to not be overly concerned with how "unrealistic" AD&D is because you aren't playing it for the realism anyway.  You have other priorities.

Thats all just speculation, which I included only to show what a line of thought on such a matter might look like.  But it would take a lot more context (such as comparison of other rules you threw out and which rules you kept, as well as a few examples of "instances of play") before one could begin to make an informed estimation.

Quote
1a. Doesn't the caveat that allows you to throw out rules you don't like speak to a modular design philosophy that is part of how Ron defines Rules Heavy games? Is that an objective failing?

Well, I guess that depends.  Is that rule actually an integrated and important part of the game concept?  Or is an after thought that the designer threw in immunize himself against complaints about "bad" rules.

In Universalis, the Rules Gimmick is a very developedl and intentionally planned way of thowing out rules you don't like (and adding those you do).  It is one of the central features to the game.

In the hypothetical game of your question is this caveat similiarly (though not likely as extensively) thought out.  Or is it just a throw away line cribbed from the "Golden Rule" included in "every" book?

I've seen games that are designed fairly modular with components that can actually be lifted whole cloth out and a replacement inserted.  I believe GURPS has a few systems like this.  That's great.  A codified way of inserted canonical "house" rules (where the house is the designers house).  I can't think of a better testiment to a designer acknowledging that "system does matter".

Quote[Note: I do agree that the Charisma rules are bad for a whole lot of story telling. But if someone does like them can you prove they're wrong?]

Well we could have a long and probably profoundly interesting, but vastly off topic, discussion about "like" is an impossible standard to measure and how it is in fact possible for opinions to be wrong.  But this is hardly the forum for such philosophical meanderings.

What I will say here is that the key to this question (and indeed much of this discussion) is, as I pointed out above, your definition of "story telling".

The reason "story" et.al. is considered to be a meaningless term is simply because it means so many different meanings to so many different people.  However, Mike included early on a fair definition of story that I'd been going on.  Similiarly we could talk about rules that promote Babigoyinsha play if I defined what that meant sufficiently.

So I suppose it would entirely depend on your definition of story telling as to whether this would be or wouldn't be.  This is why there is so much arguement over the word.  In my primer on GNS one of the first things I did was define what was meant by "story" in the narrative sense to avoid this problem.

Quote
2. Do you know design requirements for Vampire. Best evidence is that they wanted a traditional game that could be played in a variety of modes with an emphasis on interaction over combat. There's nothing in the game that prevents you from playing that way (see next item).

My response to Jason addresses most of this.  Here I'll just add that "being able to" is not the same as "being supported by".  The mere absense of preventative mechanics is the bare minimum required to be an adequate playable system.  It is not sufficient to be a good system (in most cases).

The idea that the best thing a system can do is just get out of the way, is a mistaken one.  And one I believe is primarily held by people who've never experienced (or never allowed themselves to experience) what a well designed system can do.  They've seen how badly designed structure can hinder and so make the illogical leap that all designed structure hinders.  

Quote
3. Your use of the words "in spite of" to mean "unrelated to" (the story took place without relation to the rules) seems interestingly pointed.  

Interaction doesn't *require* rules (just like combat doesn't--see Theatrix). Sometimes no rule is the best way to conduct the resolution--that isn't a weakness, simply a preference.

There no such thing as no rule.  You have never and can never play out a resolution with no rules.  Ron touched upon this above in his free form comments.  Even if the rule is as simple as "you declare what you want to do, and I'll decide what happens"...its still a rule.  Whether its a good one or not really depends on your opinion of how good a gamemaster I am.  I can think of several people who, as GMs, I'd rather have the dice decide what happens than rely on their judgement.  I can think of several games that were designed with just those sorts of GM's in mind.

Further, rules are not limited to traditional mechanics like die rolling.  There are other ways of promoting system besides Fortune.  Merely having a list of personality traits on the character sheet is a form of system.  At its most simple the list might serve as nothing more than guidelines the player (or GM in the case of NPCs) should consider when playing that character.  Other games might add more mechanical elements on top of that.  In Riddle of Steel, not only do you know that your character is "Driven to become Lord of Fafgry Manor", but you can also get bonus dice in related situations because of it.  Hero Wars lets you become empowered by your relationships and so the mechanics encourage players to think about relationships in a context very fitting to the attitudes of the setting.  Other games might proscribe penalties, other games (like Pendragon) take primarily an evaluatory approach.  Other games will go a completely different route.  

Point being there is never a situation where "no rule" is even possible, let alone the best way.  And there is a big difference between a rule that promotes and one that permits.

Quote
4. I agree with your thesis: a rule can promote a given GNS decision. however, how does that apply to a "great roleplaying experience" or a "great story."

Again.  You first have to define what you mean by that.  And then you can evaluate how it does or doesn't apply.  

Quote
GNS specifically avoids getting involved there--and that's EXACTLY what I'm arguing against: using the SDM argument to apply to vague things like "great story" and "great RP experience."

Then I'm not sure WHO your argueing against.  I don't know that System Does Matter has ever been used in such a vague way by people who understand what it means.  I'm sure various comments have been made in the process of hashing out a discussion that could be interpreted that way, but I can't think of any time a conclusion has been reached at the end of such a discussion that would indicate that was the intention of SDM.

I haven't read the RPG.net thread that got you riled up.  But I don't know that you can hold SDM responsible for how someone else misapplies it.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 19, 2002, 08:45:40 PM
QuoteNo help from AD&D? Sure it helped - by (e.g.) providing a Deck of Many Things, with consequences for draws stated in terms of game mechanics. Is that enough, in and of itself, to produce a great (by, I'll claim, ANYONE's standards) story? No. COULD you have told that story in another system? Sure, if they (or you) provided info on the consequences of Deck of Many Things draws.

That would make an interesting thread in and of itself.  Does a "mere" plot hook...even one given in terms of game mechanic results, constitute part of the "System" as "System" was intended in the SDM essay?

My first inclination is to say no...which is why I conclude that the deck does not offer "help" in the sense of System.  It offers help in the sense of being a interesting prop to use.  I'm thinking that a definition of System that included every interesting plot device would be too broad to be useful.

But an interesting topic for further discussion...in another thread perhaps.
Title: The Real Quant Jock Chimes In...
Post by: deadpanbob on September 19, 2002, 09:19:57 PM
check this (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=33528#33528) out - its off the topic of this thread, but some of you might find it interesting and/or challenging enough to flame me...

[Edited this post to move it to a more appropriate forum, and thus not detract from the conversation going on here]

Cheers,

Jason
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Andrew Martin on September 20, 2002, 01:07:56 AM
Quote from: Ron EdwardsMost so-called "system-less" play is very formalized indeed in terms of organizing the Dramatic assertions.

Some even go to the extent of excluding some play styles and their players. For example, many GMs forbid munchkins, rules-lawyers and so on, even though the game system they're nominally playing helped create these behaviours and the players who exhibit these behaviours!
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: C. Edwards on September 20, 2002, 01:55:06 AM
First let me just say that here have been some very excellent points made in this (heated) discussion.  

I still fail to see how the element of human interaction can be removed when making assumptions about a game system.  I definitely think that system matters, but it only matters during a moment of actual play based on a particular individual's experience.  While I do believe that you can examine a game on paper and make a reasonable determination of what kind of play the game supports, what an actual play experience might be like, and the level of coherency inherent in the system, I think that the actual play experience for each individual overshadows any of those determinations.

Before I continue I want to state that I am a Game Whore.  I will play any game and chances are that I will enjoy myself.  This is because I play a game, any game, expecting to have a play experience unique to that game.  The system becomes much less important because whether I'm playing Go Fish, Talislanta, or Kill Dr. Lucky I enjoy the game for what it is.  I don't despair over what I might wish a game to be.  The only thing that can spoil my play experience are the other people I'm playing the game with.  Therefore, who I play with becomes key. I'm promoting PMM (not to be confused w/PMS), People Matter More.  Have I always been this way?  No, definitely not, but that kind of brings me to my next points.

It seems to be generally accepted that if people tinker with the rules of a game that they aren't happy with that game or the aspect that is being changed.  I've found that to not be the case quite often.  Generally, people tweaking the rules have been playing a game for some time.  Newcomers to a game are usually happy to pluck along with whatever is provided for them in the existing rules.  The thing is, many of these folks playing with rule variations aren't unhappy with the rules.  They are either curious about how a certain change will affect play, they are bored and just want to change things up, they just like to mix and match their toys, or a combination of the three. They are no more unhappy with that game then any of us when we decide to try out a new game.

It's often said that people who make changes to a game system might be better served by trying a different game.  Isn't that what they're doing?  Perhaps the changes they've made are just right for them and a whole new game isn't necessary.  Or there could be resource issues involved, like the time involved to reach a certain level of competency with a new game system.  Just altering what you're familiar with in small increments is certainly an easier transition than learning a completely new game.  Call it fine tuning instead of spinning the dial and looking for another game.

System does matter, but one man's trash is another man's treasure.  I've got a lot more to say but I've noticed that this post is getting unwieldy.

Please feel free to call bullshit on anything I've said, I may not agree but that is the only way we learn and grow.

 -Chris
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 20, 2002, 08:09:28 AM
A quick thought before I run off to work--

I believe the heart of this disagreement lies here:
Quote
The idea that the best thing a system can do is just
get out of the way, is a mistaken one. And one I
believe is primarily held by people who've never
experienced (or never allowed themselves to
experience) what a well designed system can do.

The idea that a system can enhance an experience or detract from one is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that what you think makes a system great for a given experience and what I think is great are (it seems) likely to be two very, very different things.

The system that you design with all the "angst enhancing" flavor-adding rp-experience generating stuff that VtM was "lacking" could leave me entirely cold. Worse, if the system is highly focused around your goal it could well make it *unplayable* for me.

So while you can say "specific systems can enhance an experience for me" and I'm fine with that, saying "a given system will appeal to everyone" just isn't true.  Look at the Deadlands/Hero point I made--a lot of people really feel that way about hero (only d6's!? I'll never play it!) and I feel the opposite about Deadlands (poker chips and cards? Why would I want that?).

You can't tell someone they're wrong for saying "if you can't appeal to me--and you really don't know how to--get your rules out of the way and let me do for myself ... "

That's one of the philosophies behind the toolbox theory of RPG design and a massive strength of them.

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: contracycle on September 20, 2002, 09:26:13 AM
Quote from: MarcoContra,
I've got nothing against analysis and forming opinions. What I'm saying is that if your primary tool for looking at a game system is concluding that the page count for a given rule is directly porportional to its appearance in the game (look at Psionics in AD&D ... or all the rules for building castles and hiring henchmen in the DMG ... which I never saw used) then you run a serious risk of missing the forest for the trees.

But this is not the position anyone is advancing - it is a charicature of the position.  The page count is not important in a systematic way - it is merely one of the many properties of a game which can be concretely analysed.  And furthermore, page count says nothing about what ACTUALLY happens in a game, it can only be used as evidence of the authors INTENT for what should happen.  It therefore seems reasonable to me to think that the weapon-AC modifiers were INTENDED to be used.  The fact that they are so frequently NOT used (I have never once seen them used) sends up a big red flag that there is mismatch between the intent and the practice.  As a second and distinct issue, if a game - like D&D - has a lot of combat rules, one can be fairly confident that the author feels there is a need for this much detail in this topic; that they expect a lot of play to occur in that domain.

We are talking about physical products.  Books.  And in evakuating the value OF THE BOOK at achiveing its own stated goals, we can ONLY look at the content of the book.  That is all the material evidence we have to go on.  As has been said repeatedly, actual play for some games actually resembles what was described in the book very little.  so it seems entirely plausioble to me to claim that in such a scenario, the physical product has failed in its goals.  It may still be used by the ultimate purchaser to do something fun or useful; but it seems to me, if this is not what the book itslef described than the two are largely unrelated.

Quote
Also: if you deem a group that deviates in any way from the printed rules to "not be playing that game" then you'll find, amazingly, that very few people do play a large complex game like AD&D--

Which was exactly the original contention.  Almost nobody actually plays AD&D as writ; almost everybody was obliged to modify it to get the kind of game they wanted to play.  I could tell you my own vector of deviation, the house mods I introduced and rules I ignored.  But why on earth does anyone want to write a game that is not going to be actually played as written?  What good was it?  At best it was just a springboard.

Quote
if you attach great importance to that then you'll often have some silly conclusions or pointless questions (Marco didn't use AC modifiers for weapons--did that mean he wanted all armor to be more equal?)

Not at all - you are reading far to much into it.  Piece of advice: speculation on another persons mental process and motivations are almost always fruitless.  That MIGHT be one conclusion I could draw from the ignoring of AC mods - but in my own case, it was simply that I couldn;t bear to look at another chart and drag the already excruciatingly long combat system out any further.  What I can do with confidence, however, is point out that for whatever internal reason, that data was of no use to you; after all you found no use for it.

Quote
Essentially if you're going to analyze and draw conclusions, try to measure something measurable (and the amount of enjoyment of from a game or a rule's contribution to "story-oriented" gaming or a "great RP experience" isn't measurable outside of individual tastes IMO).

Exactly what I have just been addressing.  The only materially concrete conclusion we can take away is that you did not use the rules as writ.  Coincidentally, not a lot of other people use them as writ either.  It seems self evident to tme that, if there gaming style is not in fact suited to the style advocated by written AD&D, then such players may well benefit from or enjoy more a game which IS written to their style, and which they do not feel obliged to abandon.  Nobody has suggested that they can;t be having fun, quite the opposite - but why pay for a product you are not in fact using?  Is it really so arrogant to venture that a different product might suit your needs better?

If someone came into a hardware store and asked for a tool for cutting down trees, selling them the aformentioned claw hammer would be pretty mean.  And if you saw someone struggling to cut down a tree with a claw hammer, it would also be pretty mean to watch impassivley and not say "hey - how about using this saw".  Sure, there might be nutters out there who "want the experience"... I just can't imagine very many people "wanting the experience of playing a game self-derived from AD&D" - wtf was the point of buying it then?
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: contracycle on September 20, 2002, 09:36:03 AM
Quote
No help from AD&D?  Sure it helped - by (e.g.) providing a Deck of Many Things, with consequences for draws stated in terms of game mechanics.  

Exactly the same could have been extracted form a book, or a movie, or a comic.  As a game, D&D did little.  In which case, would you then say that the novel or movie was a game?  Would you buy it as a game, or reccomend to others that it be bought as a game?  No.  In this regard, all D&D did was provide a (more or less random) set of toys as "inspiration".

As Valamir quite correctly points out, I doubt Decks are in fact found randomly or that a game survoves their finding for very long.  I certainly avoided the bastard things like the plague, becuase I found the institutionalised rewards/consequences of the deck totally innapropriate and against the mood I was trying to produce.  The single element of the deck which can be actually considered to have game properties I avoided.
I overuled tha game as writ in order tp produce the game I wanted.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: contracycle on September 20, 2002, 09:49:08 AM
Quote from: Marco
So while you can say "specific systems can enhance an experience for me" and I'm fine with that, saying "a given system will appeal to everyone" just isn't true.  

Marco, Valamir is making EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE CLAIM.

Quote
You can't tell someone they're wrong for saying "if you can't appeal to me--and you really don't know how to--get your rules out of the way and let me do for myself ... "

No, but we can say:
1) maybe you should play something else which suits what you actually want to do better
2) if they do it for themselves, then regardless of whatever paid-for products they used as inspiration, those products were used only as inspiration.  They are not in fact being used in play.

While a given group may even feel, or think, that they are playing "our version of AD&D", what they are in fact doing is playing a game of their own devising which was inspired by AD&D.

Quote
That's one of the philosophies behind the toolbox theory of RPG design and a massive strength of them.

I think a much better one, espouse somewhere on the forge IIRC, is "If you do not expect that a rule will be adhered to, remove it".
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: wyrdlyng on September 20, 2002, 10:33:00 AM
Quote from: contracycle
QuoteNo help from AD&D?  Sure it helped - by (e.g.) providing a Deck of Many Things, with consequences for draws stated in terms of game mechanics.

In this regard, all D&D did was provide a (more or less random) set of toys as "inspiration".

I have to agree with Contra on his point. The Deck served the role of Inspiration but there is nothing explicitly written in D&D on crafting and running stories. There are sections on crafting and running adventures but adventures and stories are two different beasts.

Going with the definition derived from the content (the sections of D&D's DMG) an adventure is a series of challenges and obstacles for the PCs to overcome. There could be a story attached to it or there might not be (which is along the lines of their site-based adventures aka Dungeon Crawls).

Using their definition, Diablo (the computer game) is a good adventure (there are many obstacles and challenges) but it is not a good story (go into dungeon and kill demon).

The point is that if you are running one system which emphasizes X and you want to do Y instead then the system you are running is not explicitly assisting you in doing Y.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 20, 2002, 11:43:44 AM
Hi all,

Here's what I percieve Val to be saying (and then what I'm saying) to be clear:

Val:
1. "All the great stories told in AD&D were told in spite of the system."

Which I take to mean one of 2 things (both have been discussed):
1. Playing AD&D without character interaction rules isn't AD&D so playing it without those is telling the story in spite of the system.

To which I say: It's still AD&D by way of toolbox design. It passes all possible common-sense tests for being AD&D and the idea that it isn't AD&D I find to be an academic argument. (This is where you get that I'm setting up straw man attacks on that form of analysis. I'm fine with it--so long as it's understood the analysis is academic--that is to say, somewhat divorced from the mainstream way of looking at something). So it isn't in spite of the system.

Note: if a game designer knows that a rule will please some people immensely and turn off others, what're they to do? Perhaps someone will say: put it in if you (the designer) like it. I say: make it optional or just let the group decide (preferably with some designer notes--but hey, life is short). Is one of us objectively right?

OR
2. If you play with no interaction rules then it's still "in spite of" the system (which I read as "working against" the system) because a good set of social interaction rules is better than no rules.

To which I say:
That's fine either as a hypothetical statement ("there could be a game that's better somewhere out there or some day") or as a personal preference ("I like the Pendragon rules.") But to tell someone else they'll like a specific rule is clearly untenable (which is what I see being done in the quote--Val feels that it's provable fact that all great stories told in AD&D were done in spite of the system).

So: from a game design standpoint a designer risks alienating people with every rule put into a game--a great deal of gaming goes down without social interaction rules (we can debate what a rule is--and if we include the null set then fine, no rule is a rule--I mean no "your character is a knight--you can't mouth off to the King" type rules) so I find it dubious to include them if an objective is broad (I want lots of types of characters and interactions).

And: Telling someone that playing AD&D with no social interaction rules is somehow mis-using or transcending AD&D because it could (should?) include social interaction rules is presumptive that they'd agree that any existant rule-set would work better for them. It assumes that the speaker knows better what the person would enjoy.

2. There's a lot of GNS stuff floating around (A game design can reinforce a given type of decision).

This is all moot to me (sure it can--I agree) but then it goes further (which is where I'm disagreeing). The idea that "great stories" or "great RP experiences" somehow relate to a specific type of GNS decision is wrong. Narrativism doesn't produce "great stories" any more than anything else--that's Ron's whole point of taking "story oriented" out.

Quote
In any case, it is undeniably possible to more objectively measure the G/N/S theory, and whether or not system "x" helps or hinders the telling of a good story.

About the only thing which can be said is a game rule can reinforce a specific GNS choice and if you want more of that specific choice, use that rule. Again, without the "great story" assumption.

3. Was the Deck of Many Things help from the System?
Contra and Val say no. Edwards said yes.  I say:

I found it in the rule book. I understand that what people are saying is "it's not part of the resolution system for anything." And I can see the point of that.

I'd think, though, that if we're doing a page-count analysis and most of the book is in-game objects then the page-counters would conclude that whatever the mechanics said, the game was supposed to BE about all that cool stuff--and the cool stuff worked pretty well in the mechanics framework.

Also: I didn't roll for the deck--but I did roll for monster treasure (in fact having players roll for treasure after a kill is great fun--kinda like gambling--and yes, I know that's a house rule). You don't have to invoke a rule to include a specific magic item in a game.

4. The quality issue
Val asks if we can judge quality. He wants an objective measure: how well a game supports a specific GNS decision. When you divorce "telling great stories" from the GNS model and (as Ron does) disavow Suspension of Disbelief, then how is that definition of quality useful to me--especially if I like games that at different levels of abstraction support different GNS decisions?

If the assumption is made that a more focused coherent game will give me a better RP experience of some sort, I'd want to see that proven rather than assumed.

5. "maybe you should play something else which suits what you actually want to do better."

On a game design board this is playing to the crowd, no? To the average gamer it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I like all the AD&D spells and items. I like the monsters. I like the classes. I don't like the Charisma rules--damn better get net-searching and find a game that has all that stuff but leaves out the Charisma rules?

I mean, if someone's changed every rule in the manuals, okay, suggest another game. I'm there. If someone's chaning rules to cause a systemic effect (increasing weapons damage across the board)--okay, make a suggestion--but don't assume that they'll like, say, Warhammer as much as Dragon Lance just because they increased lethality.

6. People Matter More
I agree with this. Maybe everyone here agrees with it--but I doubt it. Valimir has said that a game with a big combat system will have more combat (i.e. shape the people playing it). I don't agree. I assume that people are pretty good at getting what they want.

Maybe if VtM didn't have a vampires-are-kick-ass killing machnes combat system it wouldn't have sold as well.

I don't think SDM is incompatible with PMM--not at all. But if we realize that SDM isn't System Matters Most then why don't we see "Well, AD&D's system doesn't reinforce Narrativist decisons which I find best for story-experience" Instead of "All good stories are at odds with AD&D"?

-Marco
(have a lota work to do--might not be back for a bit)

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 20, 2002, 11:48:13 AM
Quote from: MarcoThe idea that a system can enhance an experience or detract from one is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that what you think makes a system great for a given experience and what I think is great are (it seems) likely to be two very, very different things.

The system that you design with all the "angst enhancing" flavor-adding rp-experience generating stuff that VtM was "lacking" could leave me entirely cold. Worse, if the system is highly focused around your goal it could well make it *unplayable* for me.

Marco, purge yourself of the idea that I'm trying to tell you that I know the one true way you should be playing.  I'm not, I never have been, no one who uses the tools of GNS et.al. properly ever has been.  Once again, I cannot be held responsible for the behavior of others who are trying to tell you that your way sucks and their way is better.

Also a well designed system can be adding mechanics as you suggest, or it can involve using different mechanics, or it can involve removing mechanics that detract.  Speculating what you "might" feel about mechanics I "might" design is pointless.   It's also not a level debating field so I shant even attempt to go there.  


Quote
You can't tell someone they're wrong for saying "if you can't appeal to me--and you really don't know how to--get your rules out of the way and let me do for myself ... "

You seem obsessed with the idea that these tools are designed to tell people their wrong.  They aren't, and you really need to overcome that misconception if we're to be able to have continueing discussions on the matter.  

People who say that aren't wrong.  They are the living breathing example of exactly what SMD is all about.
Title: Thoughts of an OAD&D DM...
Post by: M. J. Young on September 20, 2002, 08:08:22 PM
...who finds this entire thread a confused morass of miscommunication. I doubt I can do much to sort it out, but let me make a few stabs at it.

There seems to be a major confusion between "great role playing experience" and "creation of a good story/adventure/plot" or whatever you want to call it. I've had many great role playing experiences which were actually terrible stories. I remember crossing a chasm over a lake of magma in a way that was exhausting to me as a player for the tension levels it created, but which would in a story have been boring and unbelievable. We probably rolled the dice well over a hundred times in the process, but every roll had our lives in the balance and we would not have surrendered one of them.

There is also a confusion between the totality of a game and the distinction between system and setting. A Deck of Many Things is certainly part of OAD&D (and yes, I have more than once had one enter my game strictly based on a random roll, and it did not destroy the adventures but in fact enhanced them, as I was able to roll with the outcomes). But it is part of the setting--as all of the items are. In the sense that OAD&D is about exploring a particular narrowly-defined fantasy setting, it is part of the game. It is not at all part of the system; it in fact has its own completely independent system which was created strictly to run it, and which can be easily ported to any other game with very few modifications (and these only to the outcomes of specific cards).

Did I use all the rules when running OAD&D? I will confess that I never used the armor class adjustments by weapon types, at first because I couldn't make sense of them and later because they were too much work. I did use the castle building rules, and reaction rolls when the scenario did not dictate the reaction, and most of those mentioned in this thread. I didn't do anything that I recall with aerial or underwater combat, because my adventures never went there; there are probably other rules that I never used because they never came up (I actually forgot the existence of the poison section at one time, and someone had to call it to my attention). But I've run thousands of hours of OAD&D very close to the book, and had scores of gamers demanding my time to run it. Apparently it can create great role playing experiences when run by the book, even if it doesn't create the kinds of stories you find in Sorcerer or push for the sort of character development usually found in Multiverser.

But I have to agree that system matters. OAD&D is very good for creating very specific sorts of adventure game play, something not far from the popular CRPG stories but with greater flexibility. If you don't want that, it's going to require a lot of work to make it do something else, and it would be easier and probably more effective to find a game that does what you do want.

I've got to go.

--M. J. Young
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: C. Edwards on September 20, 2002, 08:34:35 PM
1) You like your job.  It fits your lifestyle and your goals very well and you enjoy the tasks involved in doing your job.  One problem though, the people you work with are right miserable bastards.  You can barely stand to be around them.  Your job requires that you be around them.
 
1a)  Job is great, people are great.

2) You dislike your job.  It doesn't particularly suit your lifestyle or your goals and you often find common tasks tedious.  One good thing though, the people you work with totally rock.  You love to be around them.  Fortunately your job requires that you be around them.

2a)  Job sucks, people suck.

This analogy is basically how I view the topic of SDM and "Great RP Moments".  Note that while the content of a "Great RP Moment" varies between individuals there seems to be a consensus in this debate that these moments, to be considered valid for this discussion, must involve interaction with the game system (as presented by the designers) and the other participants.  Now for the breakdown.

1) This person doesn't often experience their equivalent of "Great RP Moments".  As it is, they are probably very few and far between and mostly instigated by the system enforcing a certain dynamic into the social aspect of the game.  Remedy?  Find another group playing the same game.  If you enjoy their gaming company than you're gold.

1a) Let the "Great RP Moments" roll.  Rock on, all good here.

2)This situation isn't so bad.  Even with a system that falls short of expectations "Great RP Moments" can be had quite frequently because the people jive with each other and are on the same page.  Remedy?  Experiment with new games for a break while still using the incumbent game system.  Maybe a game will be found that makes the "Great RP Moments" that much better.  Jive is now a technical term.

2a) This is the tough one.  The human dynamic interferes with "Great RP Moments" and so does the system.  This is a veritable wasteland almost totally devoid of those special moments.  Remedy?  Referencing #1 we can see that finding a compatible system will increase the propensity for "Great RP Moments", not significantly but it's better than nothing.  If we reference #2 we can see that finding another group, regardless of the game being played, can offer a significant increase in "Great RP Moments".

As you can see, the human factor seems to trump the system factor when it comes to "Great RP Moments".  Why is this?  If we break it down in Game Theory terms it would be due to the dynamics of non-zero sum interactions.  These interactions, which result in win-win or lose-lose situations, are based on trust between individuals.  The better that people get along, the more they trust each other, the more reciprocal altruism that takes place.  Healthy relationships are based on give and take.  This requires some small sacrifice on every member of a role-playing group to ensure that everybody has fun and that those "Great RP Moments" can be experienced.  Every member of an RPG group is involved in a gaming relationship with the other members.

Does the system matter? Of course it does.  It just doesn't carry the same weight as the people factor when it comes to enjoyment of oneself during a gaming session, or any other activity.  People matter more.

-Chris
Title: The Springboard Matters Too
Post by: Christoffer Lernö on September 21, 2002, 02:20:54 AM
I'd like to bring up a point here

Quote from: contracycleWhich was exactly the original contention.  Almost nobody actually plays AD&D as writ; almost everybody was obliged to modify it to get the kind of game they wanted to play.  I could tell you my own vector of deviation, the house mods I introduced and rules I ignored.  But why on earth does anyone want to write a game that is not going to be actually played as written?  What good was it?  At best it was just a springboard.

But a springboard is also useful. For example, if I start with AD&D or Palladium fantasy and then run those two "inspite of their systems" they are going to be two different experiences. Even if I put in houserules to make the actual play mechanics come out identical, they are still distinct from each other.

What I mean is that AD&D as an entity creates a certain range of play and setting. Palladium Fantasy makes another, an that is despite them being similar in many aspects.

There are preconditions in AD&D and in Palladium which differs and that reflects in many ways and creates a distinct flavour. As you deviate from the rules, this flavour changes, but it is still a derivative of the original flavour.

I think this is why people will stick to a flawed system. Why AD&D "can" be responsible for good rpg moment. Because the flavour of AD&D is actually providing them with part of the set-up. Notice that noone does vanilla flavour AD&D, what I mean is that the house rule AD&D's will still be a variant of the original and not a wholly different taste.

Of course, if you want what flavour you're drifting towards in your group, you could build a game which supports that flavour from the start.

But notice that flavour isn't just mechanics and play. If our AD&D drifts towards Narrativist play, I won't get the right feeling just by doing narrativist mechanics, but I also have to make sure the system emulates the feeling and the quirks of AD&D or there is simply another game.

Maybe the appropriate word here would be context. As long as we play within an AD&D context we can change every bloody rule and still feel we're playing AD&D. However, remove the context and keep the (non-contextual) rules and it's not.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Gordon C. Landis on September 21, 2002, 04:03:21 AM
I'm with M.J.  I can't for the life of me figure out a way to focus the stuff in this thread sufficiently to get to a useful conclusion.

But since I stepped up to defend "the Deck" as a story-tool, I'll add this thought - folks may just disagree about where the line for "credit" of an effect should be drawn.  Some AD&D game is/becomes a really cool Nar-oriented story about the effects of power/disempowerment gained/inflicted by random chance as a result of the Deck.  Clearly, a LOT was added by the group to make that happen.  But is it EVERYTHING, or even everything significant?  Doesn't "the game" get some credit for providing an opening that could be explored in this way?

I'd say yes.  Now, in the case of AD&D, it also gets major demerits for how other aspects will shut down that opening at every opportunity.  If someone wants to say that "outweighs" the positive effect of the opening so that we shouldn't credit the system/game with any part of the Nar story creation . . . I guess they can.  Doesn't look/feel that way to me, but probably not the key point of this discussion anyway.

Sorry, that's all I can think to say right now.

Gordon
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 21, 2002, 08:39:14 AM
Hey MJ,

Of course system matters: system can effect flavor ... it can effect feel. It can effect the outcome of a given event. But all of those are *subjective.* What I don't like about the VtM combat system others do. An objective standard of quality has yet to be shown to me beyond adherence to requirements (and Age of Heroes is the only game I've seen with sufficient design requirements to make an evaluation of). When you get into story territory you're in the literary field (and belive me--if there was an objective standard for story-quality of literature academia would be all over it). That's critics and cannon.

To boil it down the SDM thing (for me--but feel free to address my point by point above):

Someone says: "I play AD&D and want to run a game with court intrigue. No matter what I do, my players just find ways to kill things in creative ways."

You (for purposes of this example) feel the overpowering urge to give them advice and you have two choices (the obvious answer is "I don't have enough information to say anything"). You must pick the one you think is *most* likely--because for this example they'll take your advice and make an adjustment. Do you tell them:

"Wrong game for that scenario."
[that's what you get with AD&D]

or

"Wrong players for that scenario."
[They sound like a bunch of guys who really enjoy interesting combats and they'll probably want to stick to that]

-Marco [Wrong players]
[Aside: if you assume that changing the game would change the way they play and keep the same level of enjoyment then how does system matter? If the conflict is with the content of the session and not the mechanical presentation why think a different engine will make the content more appealing? ]
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 21, 2002, 09:06:08 AM
From greyorm's thread in actual play:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3544

Quote
I didn't story-arc it, I didn't even dream of it...and unlike my old games, it isn't work, it isn't frustration. I don't have to try, I can finally just GM and enjoy myself.

But this is where the secret lies, folks.
It isn't "story someday" it's "story NOW."

Give your players protagonism.
"Silly gamism?" Hell, no.

More than that, we're using the system as it was meant to be used...the characters are powering up, gaining treasure and experience, planning out their future progression and knowing as players that it eventually boils down to bigger fights against tougher opponents...that those gamist choices actually end up mattering in the resolution of these conflicts. And that's a blast, too. I've never enjoyed a game on so many levels.

He's playing D&D3e--with leveling, with feats, with all that stuff. He's playing it in a player protagonism giving the characters choices that matter and letting them "create" in the context of the game he's running.

In other words, he's using the tool. Using it well, and using it in a way that's at odds with someone else's use of the same tool. Sounds like he's having a great time.

Is he succeeding "in spite" of the system? He even mentions how much of a pleasure it is to use the system and how well it flows for him as the GM. Doesn't sound like shifty or drify working-against-the-system (this was my experience with AD&D as well). His post doesn't read like someone trying to cut down a tree with the claw end of the hammer. It reads like someone who has a tool box that contains a chainsaw.

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: contracycle on September 21, 2002, 06:02:27 PM
Quote from: MarcoHey MJ,
Of course system matters: system can effect flavor ... it can effect feel. It can effect the outcome of a given event. But all of those are *subjective.*

Right.  In which case, different groups of people will probably find the best match for their preferences in a wide variety of actual systems.  As you say, it can affect colour: magic is very different in Ars Magica to that in AD&D, and this affects the content of play.  Hence, its the very number of people who do use AD&D that suggests that for many of them, a different sysem may well suite them better.  It isn't impossible to play AD&D as writ, and have a good game; for some people it will be the right system.  But when those people are using "so few rules" that the fact they are playing AD&D is not apparent, then they're very good candidates for a group that might be better off using something else; something else whose rules they do not need to ignore to get what they want out of the play experience.  Probably someone whose ONLY modification to the as-writ rules is to ignore something like the weapon-AC mods is not such a good candidate.  Just off the top of my head, I'd think that if you needed to alter more than 10% of the rules, I'd think you should be scouting for an alternative.  From my perspective, as someone with aspirations toward design, I would find it unsatisfying to write a set of rules and then find they were ignored in play.  I might as well have just written a setting sourcebook.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 21, 2002, 06:14:47 PM
I agree with everything you just said (maybe not the 10% number--I'd place it at "whatever percentage makes it unclear as to what the original system was--from a mechanical perspecitive).

I'd also point out that even if I modified/dropped 10% of the AD&D rules ... let's see ... bards, psionics, AC weapon mods ... Unearthed Arcana--the whole damn thing ... am I up to 10% yet? Instantly deadly poison (using a Dragon article modification), level draining Undead (same thing: using an alterna-rule) ... Hmm ... Charisma ... I think that's up there percentage wise ... there might be some things I really dug about the system that would make me not a good candidate to switch (tight niche protection, the spell list, the whole Illusionist class, etc.)

So while dropping rules is a good way to check and see if someone is ready to switch, also look for strong positives that might not exist anywhere else (I can buy porting the Deck of Many Things to another system--I can't see porting the entire AD&D spell list).

Finally: what about optional rules? Would you ever consider adding them to your design? (I'm not going to turn around and say "well then what if they were *all* optional--it's a legitimate question about designing to the purity of your vision vs. welcoming more players).

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: contracycle on September 21, 2002, 06:48:16 PM
Quote from: Marcothere might be some things I really dug about the system that would make me not a good candidate to switch (tight niche protection, the spell list, the whole Illusionist class, etc.)

If it were the actual specifics I really liked and couldn't bear to be without, what I'd be inclined do is photocopy a subset of the rules and use those as my rules.

OTOH, I think it would be worth investigating what other games are out there which might provide the things you like more elegantly, delivberately rather than inadvertantly.  In this regard, I think that GNS and other taxonomies provide analytical tools for identifying what it is we liked and the opportunity to discuss with others which systems suit those goals.

The point at which I stopped modifying AD&D and decided to start from scratch came about when I had essentially two rule sets; AD&D tp provide the systematic numbers for level and saves and spells and so on, and a homebrew resolution system built to interface with those values and reinterpret them as a result quality based mechanic outputting to specific hit locations.  I even had a full page chart for converting D&D spell damage numbers into the homebrew systems terms (magic missile became instantly unbalanced and arguably the most powerful spell in the game).

Quote(I can buy porting the Deck of Many Things to another system--I can't see porting the entire AD&D spell list).

Having more or less done it, the main problem is the erratic power levels in spells.  However, given the level system all you need is a mechanicstic way for interpreting which level is available or castable when; so it would be simple enough to translate into say L5R - difficulty is spell level *5.  In BRP, *10.  It would take a bit more fiddling, but it wouldn't be that hard IMO.

Quote
Finally: what about optional rules? Would you ever consider adding them to your design?

Hmm, possibly but that would strike me as "inelegant".  What I prefer is when a single consistent mechanic can be "warped" under special circumstances.  One of my favourites is the psychic card system in Con-X; the normal level range is 1-5, so they set you up with a prop, those cards whose name I forget, with 1-5 opportunities (draws) to guess the right card.  If at least one of your guesses, is right, your get a success exactly as if you had used the regular mechanic.  In this case, there is also a way to do this through the normal mechanic, so there is actually an optional rule - but optional in the sense that you use one or the other.  Another example is Ron's Sorcerer, in which the expansions carry out some extensions of the basic mechanic and add contexts and consequences to those extensions, thus "deepening" it.  You can also switch, essentially, between Fortune and Karma resolution in specific contexts to provide alternatives to doing the same old thing.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: C. Edwards on September 21, 2002, 06:51:50 PM
I think this whole argument about specific rules is failing to see the forest for the trees.

I still contend that most instances where the play experience is found to be lacking have little to nothing to do with the system.  Sure, you have a great deal of people that are unhappy with their play experience changing the rules to the system they are playing.  This is because they are under the assumption that changing the rules, or even trying another game all together, will have some substantial change on the play priorities and behavior of their group.

I find this similar to blaming high crime rights during the hotter months on ice cream consumption because ice cream sales spikes coincide with the crime rate spike.  Well, lets try some other delectable confection instead and send that crime rate right down.  Or maybe we should study every blade of grass on the lawn to come to a conclusion on whether the inhabitants of the house are happy.

In a situation where the play experience just doesn't measure up more difficulties can be connected to the people involved than to the system.  People just don't want to deal directly with the real issue though, for a multitude of reasons.  I think that Jack Spencer's threads, "Going to try anyway" in the Adept Press forum and "When the GM says better watch out" in the Actual Play forum, or fine examples of this.

I think that dealing with system issues gives you much less return on your investment than dealing with people issues.

-Chris
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Andrew Martin on September 21, 2002, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: MarcoSomeone says: "I play AD&D and want to run a game with court intrigue. No matter what I do, my players just find ways to kill things in creative ways."

You (for purposes of this example) feel the overpowering urge to give them advice and you have two choices (the obvious answer is "I don't have enough information to say anything"). You must pick the one you think is *most* likely--because for this example they'll take your advice and make an adjustment. Do you tell them:

"Wrong game for that scenario."
[that's what you get with AD&D]

or

"Wrong players for that scenario."
[They sound like a bunch of guys who really enjoy interesting combats and they'll probably want to stick to that]

-Marco [Wrong players]
[Aside: if you assume that changing the game would change the way they play and keep the same level of enjoyment then how does system matter? If the conflict is with the content of the session and not the mechanical presentation why think a different engine will make the content more appealing? ]

The rules of the game create behaviour in the players. The way to succeed in D&D, according to the rules, is to kill things. Your "wrong players" are playing right by the rules of D&D. With a better system that encourages desirable behaviour, then this no longer becomes a problem (once the players have overcome the change in rules and the social pressures of the GM).

I've tried out this tactic with my fellow players who are munchkins, ruleslawyers and roll-players, and it works every time, and I'm a poor GM! With bad systems like AD&D and RoleMaster, their usual behaviour comes out (because that's what those systems encourage). With the better systems I've designed, those disfunctional behaviours evaporate away, leaving role-playing behind, because that's what my game systems encourage. I don't have to discard "bad" players; I just change the rules the groups operate by and then I get the desirable behaviour automatically. It's so easy and effortless on my part.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: greyorm on September 21, 2002, 07:39:51 PM
Heya Marco,

Popping in here to see what all the brujaha is about...mostly, I'm confused by the back-and-forth, but I'm not interested enough in spending the time sorting through this rather lengthy thread trying to figure out what's being discussed or debated, instead I'm going to reply to something more specific in regards to what I said and your perception of it.

Quote from: MarcoIs he succeeding "in spite" of the system? He even mentions how much of a pleasure it is to use the system and how well it flows for him as the GM. Doesn't sound like shifty or drify working-against-the-system (this was my experience with AD&D as well). His post doesn't read like someone trying to cut down a tree with the claw end of the hammer. It reads like someone who has a tool box that contains a chainsaw.

I believe you may be reading some of your own arguments from this thread into what I said in my post.  My post is mostly about protaganism and play-attitude, not GNS style or rulesets, though it certainly ties into that issue.  If I were to respond to your statement above, I would have to say that I actually am succeeding "in spite" of the system.

But there's a further qualifier here: For years, I was attempting to cut down a tree with the claw-end of a hammer instead of wisely using a chainsaw. I did this because D&D doesn't support the type of play I'm talking about.  --> However, it doesn't discourage it or make it more difficult, either...it just doesn't support it, if you see what I mean. <--

Further, it was bad habit on my part.  I wasn't in the right mindset to head where I was looking to go, and also because I didn't know where it was I was actually trying to get.

I imagine a system that allowed for protagonism- and conflict-creation directly in the mechanics would do a much better job at bringing this out more quickly, it would acknowledge/highlight the style and behavior better than the D&D ruleset does.

Now, I do agree with other points, we are playing pure D&D 3E, the only thing that has really changed in the last few months are:
 1) our unspoken social contract
 2) my method of GMing

So there isn't any Drift or Shift (or whatever...not up on the latest terminology, sorry, folks) in the rules themselves, or in their application, though how we're looking at those rules has changed, in a manner of speaking.

A typical D&D player could join our group and know immediately what was going on and how things worked, because it isn't different at all from anything in the D&D handbook (minus ONE house rule about Death, Dying and HPs).  The gamist elements contribute to the protaganism and player-driven conflict issues only because the context they exist in is known.

Ultimately, the rules support gamist play...we're using that to our advantage instead of trying to fight against it.  It's still gamist play: the players still worry about doing all the things that rack up XP, they still juggle numbers to get the best results, they still lust after cool-powerz and magical trinkets.

My point was simply that all this wasn't empty acquisition, because we decided to make the acquisition meaningful to the here-and-now.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Walt Freitag on September 21, 2002, 07:55:45 PM
I've been wondering why this thread, on a seemingly vitally important topic, has been putting me to sleep. Thanks to Marco's example from greyorm's thread, I think I've figured it out.

Neither "side" of this question are wrong, but there's an issue of relevance.

Of course people matter more. People always matter more, in any form of social endeavor.

But so what? I could just as easily point out that if a meteor lands on your gaming table while you're playing, the experience is going to suck, no matter who you're playing with or what system it is. And if the Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol shows up and gives you ten million dollars during your game, it's going to be a great moment. This proves, of course, that Meteors Matter More and Publisher's Clearing House Matters More. Which, in fact, they really do. But they're completely outside the purview of any of our theories or practices.

I don't disagree with the People Matter More theory. But I also don't see it as an operational theory that, so far, points to any particular approaches, practices, or remedies for improving anyone's play or anyone's game design. What should players and game designers using The Forge as a resource do differently than they're doing now, if they wish to take People Matter More into account? I can strive to design better systems. I can't do much about designing better people.

In other words... should car designers stop worrying about suspension design because evidence shows that some skillful drivers can perform avoidance maneuvers in top-heavy vehicles with poor suspensions without tipping over?

The quoted post by greyorm is very revealing. Marco holds it up as evidence that People Matter More because greyorm is successfully running excellent play using the straight AD&D 3e system with few modifications or omissions. But in that same post, greyorm also reported:

QuoteI've been playing D&D for a long time, now, and 3E since it came out. Until this year, my games were horrid, messy, frustrating affairs that left me drained and upset afterwards.

If people (Rev. Grey, in this case) matter so much more than system (D&D, in this case) that system is a relatively minor concern, then why didn't greyorm achieve excellent play the first time he played D&D? Why the years of frustration?

Would those years of frustration have happened if he'd been playing Sorcerer or Hero Wars? (I doubt it.)

And what was it that enabled him, after all those years of frustration, to finally achieve satisfying play? Was it going back and realizing he hadn't been applying the rules correctly? Did a closer reading of the system reveal the improved technique implied within? Did he find a how-to essay in the Dungeon Master's Guide that he'd overlooked before? Was his achievement aided or facilitated in any way by the system? No, no, no, and no. By his account, the insight came from reading and applying theories of Narrativism derived from discussions of other systems here at The Forge.

So which does this example more clearly show... that people matter more, or that a system can stand between people and their potential for years?

- Walt

[edit: This post was cross-posted with Rev. Grey's immediately above. Fortunately, we seem to be roughly in agreement in interpreting his experience. Could have been rather embarrassing for me if that wasn't the case!]
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: C. Edwards on September 21, 2002, 08:54:55 PM
QuoteSo which does this example more clearly show... that people matter more, or that a system can stand between people and their potential for years?

I suppose this is just an issue of different perspectives.

What I see is an individual who wasn't experiencing fullfilling game play, then:

QuoteNow, I do agree with other points, we are playing pure D&D 3E, the only thing that has really changed in the last few months are:
1) our unspoken social contract
2) my method of GMing

The game rules weren't twisted, the approach to how the game is played changed.  That means the people playing made some inherent change.

I'm not saying that changing systems might not have led to a quicker remedy to unhappy play.  But there is a good chance that it would not have if the same changes weren't made on the people side.

As you say Walt, better systems can be designed but you have little control over the people playing them.  Thats, basically, all I was pointing at.  No matter how well designed a system is for any mode of play the people playing might not be enjoying themselves, even if the game suits their system needs.  And if the people are enjoying themselves then the particular system they use becomes a non-issue.  

The problem as I saw it was that game systems, and the specifics of game systems, were being touted as a blanket remedy and excuse for lack of the legendery "Great RP Moment".  System and it's relevence to the "Great RP Moment" were the topic of the original post and I didn't feel that the issue could be addressed by looking purely at system because I don't think system is responsible for most instances of the "Great RP Moment".  I also think that how well or badly a system is designed is a non-issue for experiencing those moments.

I apologize if my posts confused the issue.

-Chris
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Valamir on September 21, 2002, 09:03:35 PM
This thread has seemed to go around in circles a bit.  But perhaps we can summarize some common ground that would serve as a foundation for more focused future threads.

1) System Does Matter.  I think everyone involved in this thread has agreed on that.  The only difference seems to be one of degree.

But is it really one of degree or one of miscommunication.  I think perhaps somewhere along the line "System Does Matter", got conflated with "System is the only thing that matters", or "System Trumps all" or something like that.  At least this seems to me to be the point Marco is argueing against most strenuously.  An arguement that I would agree with, because I certainly would never claim either of those two things.

In fact, when I refer to something succeeding "in spite of the system", that's really nothing more than People Matter Too, in action.  In fact, which trumps which has got to depend entirely on the people and the system in question, how "in the zone" the people are...whether Mars is in the house of Aquarius and other such intangibles.

2) Definitions are important.  I think this thread demonstrates once again how very much like a dog chasing its tail a discussion can become if we aren't clear up front what exactly the topic is.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Andrew Martin on September 21, 2002, 11:06:37 PM
This discussion reminds me of the discussion I and others had had about "Transparent Game Systems". And then eventually concluding that "Transparent" was just another word for "Coherent", but at 90 degrees.
Transparent. Coherent.
Window. Laser.
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: M. J. Young on September 22, 2002, 01:47:05 AM
This was addressed to me, so I suppose I should answer it.

Quote from: MarcoHey MJ,

...Someone says: "I play AD&D and want to run a game with court intrigue. No matter what I do, my players just find ways to kill things in creative ways."

You (for purposes of this example) feel the overpowering urge to give them advice and you have two choices (the obvious answer is "I don't have enough information to say anything"). You must pick the one you think is *most* likely--because for this example they'll take your advice and make an adjustment. Do you tell them:

"Wrong game for that scenario."
[that's what you get with AD&D]

or

"Wrong players for that scenario."
[They sound like a bunch of guys who really enjoy interesting combats and they'll probably want to stick to that]

I actually think it's the wrong game; but that has a lot to do with my experience.

I remember being at Apartment!Con running Multiverser all day. While I was doing that, Fred Wolke (I hope I've got the name right; I make mistakes on names quite a bit) was running an Amber variant using cards for powers which I found absolutely riveting. I wished I could join the game. But my observation is that the game involved a very different kind of focus. That's fine with me. I play all kinds of games, and the way I play them is very much about the kind of focus the game requires. Pinochle and miniature golf and Malarky are all very different kinds of games, but I thoroughly enjoy each, and as I play them I adjust to the demands of the game.

The gamers with whom I have played have also done this, although we've had some duds from time to time.

Certainly I agree that if you've got a bad batch of players, it's hard to do this. But lets change your scenario a bit.

Someone says: "I play AD&D and want to run a game of financial domination. No matter what I do, my players just find ways to kill things in creative ways."

Now, in this case, is it more likely that the problem is the system or the players? Obviously it's the system. He should be running Monopoly or something. AD&D just doesn't have the rules set to support and encourage this sort of play. You can argue that the players should be able to adapt to it. I remember being in a D&D game in which my character was using his adventuring career to build up a substantial portfolio (for example, when he had to go on an adventure into uncharted territory to visit a foreign kingdom, he made arrangements with a trading company to represent them in trade negotiations along the way and get an ongoing percentage of future profits). But it's just ridiculous to expect players to fall into this as the way to play this game, because it's not built for it. (Note that I was the only player making such arrangements; the others were there to kill monsters and get treasure, I suspect.)

But your experience in gaming is probably different. The question that hasn't been answered may be right here: have you already enjoyed playing a variety of different games with these same people, in which they were able to find the fun in different kinds of goals and means, or is it that this is the only thing they ever do for fun so trying to change them to another system is a waste of effort anyway? If you're playing with people who like to play a lot of different games, they are going to adapt their play to the system, for better or worse. If you're playing with people who only want to do one thing, they're going to do that no matter what game you try to give them.

So my answer is Wrong Game.

--M. J. Young
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: Marco on September 22, 2002, 08:54:24 PM
I'm pretty resolved on this. To sum up:

1. Whether or not I read stuff into Greyorm's post, he feels that he's running a protagonized game using D&D rules and found that doing it that way "... it isn't work, it isn't frustration ... " That satisfies the wrong-tool for the job argument for me.

2. Greyorm, Val, et. al. state that another system might get him that protagonization more easily (I'm paraphrasing as I read it). No argument. Some other system might well be better for what he's doing *for him* than D&D3e (but if Hero Wars or Sorceror is it, why isn't he playing that instead?)

3. System Does Matter. I agree. For any given group one can postulate a hypothetical rules-set that would serve them better (at least for a given instance or goal of gaming). In that sense Valimir and Greyorm (and others) are right: a system that "isn't helping with something" isn't the perfect system (i.e. it's always better when the system aligns with what you're trying to do).

In practice, I belive that for many groups the "perfect" game doesn't necessairly exist so they might as well take what's closest and modifiy it as they like (the whole "I like the AD&D world but not the Charisma rules). I think that systems that allow for that have a strength in that (personal opinion--we can debate that).

I also conclude from this discussion that "no specific rule" (no-rule) for a situation is better than a rule that alienates you, so outside of hypothetical rule-sets, making any system-suggestion on the basis of SDM to another person can only be done as a personal opinon (I suspect that I wasn't seeing this obvious element in people's post. Mea culpa).

4. The whole Great Story thing came from another post and an extrapolation of the "Great RolePlaying Moments"--I was trying to point out that those are not, in this context, meaningful. As far as I know, I always used "great story" in quotes--meaning to point out that no rule-set could address "great or good stories" since that's meaningless outside of a very specific context. I see I wasn't clear on that.

5. Valimir talked about a standard of quality. I think that's very interesting. I'm not sure that's resolved--how does one measure quality of an RPG in an non-subjective manner? Another thread?

6. Rule Systems can support specific GNS decisions--I see no real argument there. They can't force it (Sorceror can, I've read, be played Simulationist--and it's probably more fun for some people that way) but they can reinforce one.

7. I still hold that background is part of "System." If we want to say Resolution-Methods Do Matter, fine--a refinement of the statement. But until then, I think that Rust Monsters, Decks of Many Things, the Demogorgon, and the Maze spell are all integral parts of the AD&D system.

8. Playing the Game as Writ: I think it's clear that the game you start with provides a lot of the flavor. I think it's clear that there are major degrees of "shift" or "drift" or whatever from the almost meaningless to the profound. I think that any "you're not playing game X" argument needs to start by addressing degree and significance of rule modifications.

9. Wrong People or Wrong Game--I guess everyone comes down differently on that issue. I'm thinking of Jesse's Sorceror game at the convention (one of the most focused systems I'm aware of) where the kids played it more or less as AD&D--so be careful of assuming that everyone does what the system suggests they do. Of course MJ found that switching system changed his players so I need to keep in mind that some people *are* heavily influenced by the system in use.

All in all, good thread.

-Marco
Title: A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments
Post by: greyorm on September 23, 2002, 06:11:38 AM
Quote from: MarcoSome other system might well be better for what he's doing *for him* than D&D3e (but if Hero Wars or Sorceror is it, why isn't he playing that instead?)
Since this is directed towards me, I'll answer: People factor.  Plain and simple: my group wants to play D&D.
I've pitched other games at times, but we've all agreed to stick to 3E as our group focus.

Would other games work better to achieve what I've been going for? I'm certain of it. I've been playtesting enough Indie games lately that I can really feel the difference that system makes in one's mindset and style of play, even though I haven't been actively looking for such a difference.

Quote from: wfreitagSo which does this example more clearly show... that people matter more, or that a system can stand between people and their potential for years?
[edit: This post was cross-posted with Rev. Grey's immediately above. Fortunately, we seem to be roughly in agreement in interpreting his experience. Could have been rather embarrassing for me if that wasn't the case!]
lol!

Well, I'm glad I made sense. I was worried about the coherency of my reply to Marco, given that I wasn't really certain I knew where this whole thread was coming from. Then again, I knew where I was coming from, so perhaps that was enough.

But for the record, yes, you nailed my own sentiments pretty much head-on. A system can cripple the potential for the sorts of play one desires, by simply not supporting that style explicitly.

Had I never found "Sorcerer" all those years ago, and thus later been exposed to the Forge and its ideas (and the "Sorcerer" forum on the Gaming Outpost before that), I have serious doubts I would have ever reached this point, and I'd be doing a lot less gaming these days (that's the road I was headed down at the time).

As well, Chris makes a good note about the social issues involved as well, which I don't wish to marginalize. Keep in mind I played old-style, old-school AD&D for years, so I had a lot of ingrained bad gaming habits. When I managed to get past those, the social contract changed, the methodology, not the rules themselves...just habit.

Interestingly, this means that while the important factor here was not the rules, at the same time that is in part where the problem began and maintained itself, by means of omission.