It's the system, stupid

[Matt Snyder]

I've had several polite, shall we say, disagreements with my fellow players about whether system does indeed matter. Their positions are all over the "spectrum" from matters to doesn'tmatter.

Obviously, I believe that it does matter, and I'm trying to better understand one viewpoint that it does no matter. The familiar argument goes something like: "A group can have fun with any game system, so it's obvious that the game system is irrelevant. You just have your fun with whatever you're playing." Heck, I used to say much the same myself.

Now, I have all kinds of good, solid reasons why I don't agree with this, and we've discussed it before to little effect. Curiously, I strongly believe (after much playing experience) the person who frquently espouses the viewpiont most desires Narrativist gaming, but has never experienced a Narrativist game. Rather, the games have drifted heavily from many Simulationist games -- and players. Part of me wonders whether this isn't the source of the argument.

Drifting Driftwood

In fact, I believe it is the source. I think the argument is that persons way of saying -- in Forge terms -- "You can drift anything, so system doesn't matter." That's effectively what's being said.

Case in point -- we're currently playing an ongoing Riddle of Steel campaign, which is going wonderfully. In talking about our upcoming session (Tonight! Rock!), the "drifter" and I discussed how much we like the campaign. This person has vocally expressed strong disinterest in "combat," though I've learned that's about as useful a term as "story" because this person uses that term pretty broadly, including describing an entire session that involved sneaking into dockside warehouse and eventually ambushing goons inside as a "combat session." Actual game time devoted to combat in that session amounted to about 15 minutes total (in three or four quick fights), over the course of three to four hours.

But, this person has a professed love for her new player character, and the campaign in general. She's not a raving fantasy fan like so many others in the group.

She points to these facts as evidence for why system doesn't matter. She's enjoying a combat-heavy AND fantasy game in Riddle of Steel despite distaste or disinterest in both factors, and says that's proof that system is irrelevant, that only the "campaign" or "story"  matters.

So, my question for discussion is twofold.

1) If system matters, why is this agenda barely noticeable outside the Forge -- at least in obvious ways -- I'm not saying nobody "gets it."

2) Is enough being done to fight the good fight and show people that system matters?

That is, if we at the Forge really and truly believe that System Does Matter, shouldn't that be a fight worth taking to the masses. I think it does matter

I use the term "fight" somewhat humorously -- history has shown us how ineffective confrontation between the Forge and "others" can be.

I offer these further observations as explanation on why I'm posing these questions:

System feels right. Yeah, so?

Many folks do think system matters, but that what they mean is genre emulation. People insist, and rightly so, that system should match the game (or other various statements). I agree. Look at Dust Devils -- it reeks of rawhide and whiskey, you know? And the system IS western -- Poker and all. This is deliberate.

But that's not what System Does Matter means. The system matters because it does what it's supposed to do, not because it echoes the genre well. Clinging to that as a reason that system should matters is missing the bigger picture.

Dust Devils isn't a good design because it has poker mechanics and neat graphic design. It matters because the rules enforce the premise well (I hope!). They could just have easily been dice mechanics and a word file. The game's system would still have enforced the crux of the game: Shoot or give up the gun, metaphorically speaking (and literally too!).

These two things should be happening, but I can easily see where a game emulates well, but plays badly (Deadlands? I dunno, easy for me to snipe at other Western games, I guess.).

I.N.S.C.S -- It's Not the Setting Chapter, Stupid

People are obsessed with setting and color to the point that system may not matter, I argue. This "revelation" was the single biggest "Aha!" moment I had after coming to the Forge. Finally learning what Color meant, and how it applied to gaming and design was a big deal for me.

More on this: I love, love, love Fading Suns. Great setting. The rules make me retch. I can't stand 'em.

I own almost every book.

I have never played Fading Suns.

I don't think these two facts are unrelated. There are other factors, sure, and obviously there are folks happily playing Fadings Suns for years. But the fact is, System Does Matter for me in this case.

Stil more on this one: RPG.net's latest unscientific poll was this:

When evaluating a roleplaying game, what do you place the most importance on? What does a game need to have before you'll even consider looking at the game's other sections?

The results where HUGELY in favor of: "Rich Game World/Setting". That category (out of 10 categories) garnered 67% of votes as of Tuesday morning.

That doesn't surprise me, really. But what does surprise me is that "Outstanding rules" or "Coherent, solid rules" or anythign similar was not even one of the choices. They did offer "Quick conflict resolution/combat" and "Realistic conflict resolution/combat", but I think these totally miss the mark.

In other words, System Does Matter was on the radar screen of neither the poll's creators nor the minds of those who took the poll. Some gamers, apparently, aren't even questioning or analyzing their games. That's ok, I guess. They're having fun, right?

But system doesmatter, right? So why the heck aren't folks in general questioning this for themselves? If this is one of the key understandings here at the Forge, what more, if anything, should we be doing about it?

Are we doing enough? Are we fighting the good fight? Do we need to be?

[Le Joueur]

I love, love, love Fading Suns. Great setting. The rules make me retch. I can't stand 'em.

If the idea that a 'bad system' can keep you from playing or enjoying the play of a game isn't enough reason to say that "System Matters," I don't know if any other argument will.

Does 'Car Matter?'  I get from place A to place B; 'Car Doesn't Matter.'  Until it's broken.  Then upkeep finally becomes an issue, upkeep leads to scheduled maintenance, scheduled maintenance leads to resale value (or estimated 'actual value'), resale value leads to realizing 'Car Matters' (just not the same way that 'Sportscar Matters').  Many people don't think beyond the moment they're in (getting from A to B), it's just a learning process to see 'the big picture.'  Don't expect to convince anyone, but know that they'll figure it out eventually.

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

Hey Matt, I hear you man. I travel around to different book-stores in my giuse as a musician. It's discouraging to see shelves and shelves of d20 and WW products when you know that there's objectively better material out there.

But, I think we are fighting the "fight" as you call it. Doesn't the mere existence of the Forge show that? There's an indie-booth at a major Con now. Ron got the Diana Jones award, for crying out loud. People are starting to recognize that people who pay attention to theory turn out good games.

Maybe there are lots of people who will never get it. Lizard told me once that he thought Sorcerer was a good game "once you got past the first 5 pages of pretentious drivel." He totally didn't clue in that the first five pages are responsible for Sorcerer being a good game.

But gamers (ones with internet access anyway) know about the Forge. They know what we're here for, and they know they're free to come check it all out if they want to.

And, in a way, your friend is right. System *doesn't* matter, since any game can be drifted. Just remember Ron's response to this. "OK, fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. I'm suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't waste Herbie's time."

[Matt Snyder]

But, I think we are fighting the "fight" as you call it. Doesn't the mere existence of the Forge show that? There's an indie-booth at a major Con now. Ron got the Diana Jones award, for crying out loud. People are starting to recognize that people who pay attention to theory turn out good games.

It does, it does show it, man. I was there for both the booth and the award. It mattered.  I'm not doubting this fact (though I wonder how much it mattered to Joe Gamer? "Who's Diana Jones, anyway?").

I think I just had a multitude of experiences and observations, many I haven't even touched on, that lead to this post. My point is to get people thinking and talking about it ... again. I'm not posing anything terribly controversial, nor do I really expect anyone to say I'm "wrong." It's activism -- keeping it on the lips of the Forge, and therefore -- eventually -- out in the wide world.

But gamers (ones with internet access anyway) know about the Forge. They know what we're here for, and they know they're free to come check it all out if they want to.

But do they? Yes, they do -- Forge membership keeps growing. Do they do it enough? I dunno.

For example, I live in Des Moines, Iowa. There's a reasonably healthy gaming community out here, somewhere. I have sold 1 copy (out of six) copies of Dust Devils (more accurately, one of the six copies I sold to two linked stores is off the shelf. The rest remain). I am aware of no one in the area who participates on the Forge (or RPG.net for that matter, which I guess destroys my point, besides my group. And even they don't really participate much.

I'm saying we need to keep it up, because we're FAR, FAR away from any kind of noticable critical mass. Even with 1000+ users, the Forge is still on the fringes. But its influence is growing.

And, in a way, your friend is right. System *doesn't* matter, since any game can be drifted. Just remember Ron's response to this. "OK, fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. I'm suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't waste Herbie's time."

Yeah, but drift is dysfunctional, right? I think they moment you concede that it "doesnt" matter, even to show Ron's point, you lose the person. They hear what they wanna hear, and go no further. Doesn't matter. Case closed. This phenomenon matters, I'd say. I've had precisely the conversation you pose, and the results I share. The response, mostly, is shrugging.

So, it's an uphill struggle -- the good fight, for the hobby. I'm simply trying not-so-cleverly to "market" the idea to Forgers (again), and the great beyond. Keeping it fresh, you might say.

[ThreeGee]

Hey Matt,

One answer to your question is simple: to the players, system does not matter. All they do is roll dice at the appropriate times and make decisions for their characters based on what the character would do, what works in the real world, etc.

I have seen it a million times. I know people who cannot remember what to roll in d20, even. The more arcane the system, the better it is to just do whatever you want and roll dice when the gamemaster tells you to. That's how I play DC Heroes. I even own a copy, but it sits on the shelf collecting dust because I am simply not bored enough to memorize that darned chart.

Conversely, to the gamemaster, system is everything. When the players have no idea how anything works, the gamemaster needs to be able to quickly and easily recall the rules and explain their implimentation to a disinterested audience.

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Matt, I'm thinking that the "fight" is the issue, not the arguments involved. I've never worried about how fast or how far the concept of System Does Matter is disseminated.

To take it to the specific level, who cares whether this player and you agree about the System principle? It strikes me that system features of The Riddle of Steel are appealing to her, but that she sees "system" by definition as what gets in the way, so if it doesn't get in the way (and especially if it helps), it's not "system." That's logically fallacious, but again, who cares? Y'all are having fun, so what's the argument even being conducted for in the first place?

More generally, it is possible that public response to my System Does Matter essay four years ago on the Gaming Outpost could have been a big ... thunk noise. It's also possible that maybe the ten or twelve people who got really jazzed about it might have been the only people who ever did. My behavior then would have been the same as it is now - post what I think, discuss it, support the points and refute false claims, and alter points when others' arguments are sound.

Any positive response beyond (a) nothing and (b) a few weirdos is, in my book, a fantastic thing. Based on my expectations and viewpoints from four years ago, I would never have anticipated Sorcerer, Adept Press, or the Forge existing in their current forms.

So I guess I see no need for evangelism except for whatever I feel like saying in a given publication, or demonstrating via the design of the game in question. A lot of people seem to be interested in what we're saying. I don't see much need to "change" anyone who isn't.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

I love, love, love Fading Suns. Great setting. The rules make me retch. I can't stand 'em.

If the idea that a 'bad system' can keep you from playing or enjoying the play of a game isn't enough reason to say that "System Matters," I don't know if any other argument will.

Right, and on that we'd agree. But how does this relate to the questions I posed? It wasn't about systems this person isn't playing, it's about this person actually playing "any" system (in actuality games like: Werewolf, Earthdawn, Shadowrun, and lately Riddle of Steel and Avatar-13).

Interesting point, Fang: this person loathes D&D. Much of the group has played lots and lots of D&D, but she hates, hates, hates the game. This basically is because it's only a "combat" game. I've had little success in pointing out that saying a group can play "anything" is contradictory to not playing D&D because of its concept and rules. The counter-argument, I think, is that "campaign" or "story" matters, and one cannot achive that with D&D. Therefore, the "any game works" argument stands.

Many people don't think beyond the moment they're in (getting from A to B), it's just a learning process to see 'the big picture.'  Don't expect to convince anyone, but know that they'll figure it out eventually.

Fang Langford

I don't agree, here, Fang. I think saying we can't "convince" anyone is false. Yes, they have to have that moment of realization themselves, but the Forge has done a lot actively to get people there. The entire point of my question in my first post was to say "Why aren't we doing something about this?" In fact, we are, but I just wanted to call attention to it again to re-focus efforts in that regard. Letting the "figure it out" seems to me to ignore the premise of the Forge. So, that leads to -- should we be so "evagelical"? I'm saying yes. I sure as hell don't know how to go about it very well, but I think we've seen much that works.

[Matt Snyder]

Hey Matt,

One answer to your question is simple: to the players, system does not matter. All they do is roll dice at the appropriate times and make decisions for their characters based on what the character would do, what works in the real world, etc.

I have seen it a million times. I know people who cannot remember what to roll in d20, even. The more arcane the system, the better it is to just do whatever you want and roll dice when the gamemaster tells you to. That's how I play DC Heroes. I even own a copy, but it sits on the shelf collecting dust because I am simply not bored enough to memorize that darned chart.

Conversely, to the gamemaster, system is everything. When the players have no idea how anything works, the gamemaster needs to be able to quickly and easily recall the rules and explain their implimentation to a disinterested audience.

Later,
Grant

Grant, with respect, I completely disagree, and I think my reason is that assumes players will take a subservient creative role to that of the game master. It also ignores the power of stances. Players CAN (and SHOULD) contribute far, far more than they have in most games to date. Many games here on the Forge (and, yes, elsewhere too, even a long time ago -- the exceptions, not the norms) see that this is done.  Meanwhile, most traditional games assume from the start that GM is in charge of rules and creation, and players just "do stuff" in reaction. This assumption is exactly one of the things I'm trying to destroy when creating my games.

[Mike Holmes]

What Nathan said.

One of two things is true of your friend, Matt. Either she's just drifting to a preferred rules-lite way of playing, or it turns out that combat with the right rules is actually turnng out to be enjoyable. In the latter case she's proving that System Matters and that Jake's rules are, for her, superior. In the former case, she's just indicating a preference, and might be better off playing in a freeform game.

But going freeform is just another choice regarding system. In this case, for her, the lightest system would be the most appropriate.

My favorite analogy is the tool one. Sure you can bang a nail in with a screwdriver. But why not use a hammer if it's available? I think that to believe that system does not matter one has to believe that all RPGs are screwdrivers. That they're all just as ineffective as each other. But I'm also sure that's because they're trying to drive in nails with every system. That is, no system has ever supported the sort of play they want, so they assume that all must require tinkering to work right. And if that's so, then it doesn't matter which they use.

The way to change such a person's mind is to get them to play a game better suited to their needs (put the hammer into their hands). As soon as that happens, suddenly they realize that one system can be better for a particular player than another. What may be your problem, Matt, is that she might prefer freeform as a system. In which case all the systems you've been presenting her are screwdrivers because what she really wants is freedom from rules. In this case her "System Doesn't Matter" means "all system beyond simple social contract simply interferes with play".

Have you tried freeform with her? At the very least she may figure out what parts of systems she does like, and you can play to that.

Mike

[Matt Wilson]

Does 'Car Matter?'  I get from place A to place B; 'Car Doesn't Matter.'  Until it's broken.  Then upkeep finally becomes an issue, upkeep leads to scheduled maintenance, scheduled maintenance leads to resale value (or estimated 'actual value'), resale value leads to realizing 'Car Matters' (just not the same way that 'Sportscar Matters').  Many people don't think beyond the moment they're in (getting from A to B), it's just a learning process to see 'the big picture.'  Don't expect to convince anyone, but know that they'll figure it out eventually.

Interesting thought. "System" doesn't matter, but "bad system" does. So players with this outlook are happy with a system that quietly does the job. I would, I suppose, put myself in that camp to some degree. I've always drifted S games to more of a N/S place. Such a system might not assist in driving N play, but it doesn't impede it, so I'm content.

[Matt Snyder]

To take it to the specific level, who cares whether this player and you agree about the System principle? It strikes me that system features of The Riddle of Steel are appealing to her, but that she sees "system" by definition as what gets in the way, so if it doesn't get in the way (and especially if it helps), it's not "system." That's logically fallacious, but again, who cares? Y'all are having fun, so what's the argument even being conducted for in the first place?

Right, right, Ron, agreed. We ARE having fun, and I'm not trying to get on the Forge's therapy couch (NOT a comment directed at you, just a bit of humor about the Forge in general helping people in dysfunctional gaming situations, which I appreciate).

Rather, I offered this experience as one part of two points regarding System Does Matter. In sum, those are:

1) That people say system doesn't matter because "any group" can play "any game". Hence, my actual play example.

2) That people cannot overlook their interest in color and games-as-novels to see whether the game is actually worth a damn. Hence my RPG.net poll example, et al.

These two points are what I am getting at and holding up for Forgers to say, "Yeah, we need to keep our noses to the grindstone to diminish those two things we disagree with."

So I guess I see no need for evangelism except for whatever I feel like saying in a given publication, or demonstrating via the design of the game in question. A lot of people seem to be interested in what we're saying. I don't see much need to "change" anyone who isn't.

See, you go and post "no evangelism" right as I say "yes evengelism" to Fang. But let's clarify. I'm not saying I'm going to stand at the WotC booth at GenCon like a street preacher with your essays in hand. Hell no, not least of all because you know that ain't my style.

Instead, I'm saying we need to keep doing what we're doing, and crank it up to 11. I'm not calling for something different. I'm 1) reminding folks this is important and 2) saying we need to keep up the good work.

How will I "evangelize"? (which I now loathe as a term!) By continuing to make great games. That's it. Now, my personal intent of late is to make games that "traditional" gamers will take notice of, then realize the system challenges their assumptions about how RPGs work. This is opposed to, say, creating a game the non-gamers will pick up at the coffee house (or whatever). That last bit is ironical because Dust Devils is often held up as the game to get non-gamers interested. Why am _I_ not interested in that? Because I don't have the resources, and even if I did I've no idea how to do it.

Ron, I suspect you'll continue to "evangelize" by also creating great games and doing your extremely thoughful analysis of games and game theory. We'll be doing it differently, but I think our hope and good fortune is that someone will listen. More someones is better.

[ThreeGee]

Hey Matt,

With respect, you are shooting the messenger. You asked why some people think system does not matter and I told you why some people think that. You are not obliged to agree with their position, but you are obliged to repect the position with regard to your initial question.

How do you feel that ignoring a (in my experience, prevelant) portion of the gaming population will enable you to design a more player-empowering game? Would it not be more productive to understand their viewpoint in order to gently convince them of the superiority of your own position?

Later,
Grant

[Matt Snyder]

What Nathan said.

One of two things is true of your friend, Matt. Either she's just drifting to a preferred rules-lite way of playing, or it turns out that combat with the right rules is actually turnng out to be enjoyable. In the latter case she's proving that System Matters and that Jake's rules are, for her, superior. In the former case, she's just indicating a preference, and might be better off playing in a freeform game.

You're preaching to the choir, Mike. See my reply to Ron.

FYI, it's the "former" -- I really believe she just wants freeform gaming, but is "stuck" with a bunch of traditional, guy players who want anything but. I have not really tried some looser game w/ her as yet. I have shown her and the group Sorcerer, but it was met with very little interest indeed. I'll likely strike up that band another day.

In the end, I'm not worried. We get along pretty well, and are having a blast. Avatar-13 has been especially fun for me, thus far. Thanks for your help there!!!

[Matt Snyder]

Hey Matt,

With respect, you are shooting the messenger. You asked why some people think system does not matter and I told you why some people think that. You are not obliged to agree with their position, but you are obliged to repect the position with regard to your initial question.

How do you feel that ignoring a (in my experience, prevelant) portion of the gaming population will enable you to design a more player-empowering game? Would it not be more productive to understand their viewpoint in order to gently convince them of the superiority of your own position?

Later,
Grant

Grant, first off, sorry to have blamed the messenger! Chalk it up to posting about 4-5 replies in a short amount of time. Should have read more carefully that you were "explaining" the position.

But, I understand the position pretty well. Hell, I used to "be that guy." I'm not at all clear on how my post indicated I would ignore that position. I said nothing of the kind. I acknowledge it fully, which leads precisely to my (small) attempts to tear down those assumed foundations of gaming. I'm not ignoring their position, I'm attacking their assumptions, subltly and gently perhaps, via good game design (I hope!).

[Mike Holmes]

I really believe she just wants freeform gaming, but is "stuck" with a bunch of traditional, guy players who want anything but. I have not really tried some looser game w/ her as yet.

Like I said, you've been giving her screwdrivers. And your surprised that she thinks all games are screwdrivers.

Try a PBeM just between the two of you mailing back and forth. No rules except to respect each other's narration. You and she will understand each other better before even the next game session rolls along.

Give her the hammer, damnit!

Mike