A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments

[Valamir]

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.

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.

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.

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?)

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.  

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 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.  

Just 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.  

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.

[Marco]

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

[Marco]

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

[Valamir]

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

[deadpanbob]

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

[Valamir]

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.

[Gordon C. Landis]

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.

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....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

[Valamir]

Val,

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.

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.

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".

[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.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

[Valamir]

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.

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.

[deadpanbob]

check this 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

[Andrew Martin]

Most 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!

[C. Edwards]

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

[Marco]

A quick thought before I run off to work--

I believe the heart of this disagreement lies here:

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

[contracycle]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[contracycle]

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.