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.

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 :) ]

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

Mike Holmes wrote:
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

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.

Marco wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

C. Edwards wrote:

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.

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.

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"]

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

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.

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

Valamir wrote:
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.

Marco wrote: Valimir,
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?)

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

Marco wrote: 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.

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.

Just as one might think that it's clear that great stories in AD&D succeed in spite of system.

So if I pick Jorad as a critic and Sorceror as part of cannon

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

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

Marco wrote: 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).

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.

I see no such luck with "great stories"

Valamir wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Marco wrote: 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."

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.

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

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

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

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.

Marco wrote: 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).

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.

Marco wrote:
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.

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.

contracycle wrote:

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.

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

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.

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.

Marco wrote: 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.

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 ... "

...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

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

I'd like to bring up a point here

contracycle wrote: 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.

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

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? ]

From greyorm's thread in actual play:

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

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.

Marco wrote: 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.*

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

Marco wrote: 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.)

(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 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

Marco wrote: 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? ]

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.

Marco wrote: 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'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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

Marco wrote: 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'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

Marco wrote: 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?)

wfreitag wrote: 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!]