A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments

[greyorm]

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.

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.

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.

[Walt Freitag]

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:

I'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!]

[C. Edwards]

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?

I suppose this is just an issue of different perspectives.

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

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

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

[Valamir]

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.

[Andrew Martin]

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.

[M. J. Young]

This was addressed to me, so I suppose I should answer it.

Hey 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

[Marco]

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

[greyorm]

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?)

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.

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?
[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.