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?

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

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."

Paganini wrote: 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.

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."

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

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

Le Joueur wrote:

Matt Snyder wrote: 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.

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

ThreeGee wrote: 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

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

Le Joueur wrote:

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.

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?

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.

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

ThreeGee wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

Hi Matt,

I think we agree on the tactics: design good, focused games, and play them with enthusiasm as well as understanding some of the assumptions people bring to them. Plus talkin' on the Forge and walkin' the walk at conventions, and owning our own stuff so we can promote it without it getting diluted. All tweaked to individual combinations and tastes, of course.

The tactic I don't take, as a general thing, is to get involved in one-on-one debates. If a person gets the idea that I'm out to convince them of something, then they'll dig in their heels and we get nowhere.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Matt,
The tactic I don't take, as a general thing, is to get involved in one-on-one debates. If a person gets the idea that I'm out to convince them of something, then they'll dig in their heels and we get nowhere.

Hey Matt,
I agree and disagree with you but in an odd way. For me system does matter but it doesn't. Personally when looking for a game to play I first look at the setting/flavor/style, whatever you choose to call it, then I look at the system as to whether it is easy to learn and facilitates the game well overall. If the system does all the things it is supposed to do then it DOESN'T matter as it no longer pose's me any problems and I can easily move on to playing a fun game.

Now should the system NOT do what it is supposed to do then it very much DOES matter as I now either have to find fixes for it's problem (hence unfortunate drift) or have to find a system to replace it entirely. Which can be very troublesome, tiring, and make me wish I'd never tried playing the game, wich is most likely I think your friends problem with D&D.

I think perheps your angst, especially in seeing walls of D20 materials at the stores, comes not solely from system Matters/Doesn't Matter but the shelf dominance of, in apparently yours and at least mine, of for the most part inferior games. It may helpful to take this into consideration that perhaps it isn't solely about system but also the dominance of highly backed publishing machines that can force themselves on the masses while Indies are forced to work and build their reputaions more slowly.

Sylus

Hi Sylus,

Interesting that you equate "matters" with "causes me problems."

I agree with you about the shelf-space issue, big-time.

Best,
Ron

Sylus, you're on the right track here, but let's be clear. I do not equate D20 with this problem per se. I have in my bag currently a copy of Mutants & Masterminds my friend got me for my b-day. It's amazing what they did to the game in this book, and I applaud not only the presentation and content (design -- wow, the design -- characters, etc.) but also the implementaion/interpretation (as I understand it thus far) of the D20 rules within.

That said, I agree with you pretty much. That my "angst" -- let's call it concern -- is the RESULT of such market forces. But I don't care about the market, really. What I care about is what gamers think about. Ron has elsewhere rightly pointed out that consumerism IS a factor here. That's sad but true, I think. Hell, it's likely part of the reason I HAVE Mutants & Masterminds in my bag.

But, the concern is this: Gamers aren't doing enough critical thinking about their hobby. They think Product X is good because it has nigh-novel-like entertainment value, regardless of play value. (There are, however, other issues here, as this thread illustrates.)

Don't get me wrong -- wonderful settings are, well, wonderful. I just don't want that to become the emphasis for what makes playing a game good, which means that I'm NOT interested in READING a game, really. There are too many great authors out there for you to be wasting entertainment time reading games. Play the things, damnit! Wonderful settings should have wonderful systems, too, regardless of GNS mode.

Here's a question about the entertainment value of game books. Does anyone suspect that the reason some people enjoy reading games-as-books because they enjoy the idea that they could play in that universe . . . but never actually do. As opposed to a novel, where the reader does not participate on the same level as a "potential player." Is that faux-interactivity part of the reason you'd read Fading Suns rather than Dune?

Hello,

I've done my fair share of system ranting. I think the core of the "problem" is that there are A LOT of gamers who have come to see The System as literrally an extention of the GM. That is, the GM not only determines what the results of the application of system are, but how, when and why the system gets applied in the first place.

So when you say, "System Matters" to these people they shake their head and say, "No, only GM Matters." Why? Because even if they don't admit it, in their minds the GM IS the System.

THAT's the concept I try to fight. Basically I rally heavy against the single most broken and disfunctional rule ever created -- the so called "Golden Rule," that the GM should feel free to treat the system with wreckless abandon and ignore and alter rules as the drop of a hat all in the name, of "fun."

And frankly, I don't care what mode you're playing in. If the GM isn't bound by the System the same way the Players are (even if they are two different sub-systems) then you aren't playing a game, at all.

Drifting is functional. Just saying these are the rules except when the GM says so, is not.

Jesse

Interesting that you equate "matters" with "causes me problems."

Sylus, you're on the right track here, but let's be clear. I do not equate D20 with this problem per se. I have in my bag currently a copy of Mutants & Masterminds my friend got me for my b-day. It's amazing what they did to the game in this book, and I applaud not only the presentation and content (design -- wow, the design -- characters, etc.) but also the implementaion/interpretation (as I understand it thus far) of the D20 rules within.

That said, I agree with you pretty much. That my "angst" -- let's call it concern -- is the RESULT of such market forces. But I don't care about the market, really. What I care about is what gamers think about. Ron has elsewhere rightly pointed out that consumerism IS a factor here. That's sad but true, I think. Hell, it's likely part of the reason I HAVE Mutants & Masterminds in my bag.

But, the concern is this: Gamers aren't doing enough critical thinking about their hobby. They think Product X is good because it has nigh-novel-like entertainment value, regardless of play value. (There are, however, other issues here, as this thread illustrates.)

Don't get me wrong -- wonderful settings are, well, wonderful. I just don't want that to become the emphasis for what makes playing a game good, which means that I'm NOT interested in READING a game, really. There are too many great authors out there for you to be wasting entertainment time reading games. Play the things, damnit! Wonderful settings should have wonderful systems, too, regardless of GNS mode.

Here's a question about the entertainment value of game books. Does anyone suspect that the reason some people enjoy reading games-as-books because they enjoy the idea that they could play in that universe . . . but never actually do. As opposed to a novel, where the reader does not participate on the same level as a "potential player." Is that faux-interactivity part of the reason you'd read Fading Suns rather than Dune?

Hi Sylus,

I wrote,

Interesting that you equate "matters" with "causes me problems."

If you think about it isn't this usually the case? When you ... [etc]

Sylus Thane wrote: If you think about it isn't this usually the case? When you do or participate in something that works do you often think about it? In truth it doesn't matter because it does not cause you any discomfort, agitation, need for improvement etc. But, if something causes you these or any other myriad of potential problems then it does matter as it takes up time and usually effort on your part to make it so that it doesn't matter anymore because you have made it work for you and you are once free to enjoy doing something. So yes, at least for me, system doesn't matter if it serves it's intended purpose and requires no effort on my part other than perusal of rules and playing, but does matter if I must go through the motions of fixing a game that the designer should have done.

Ahh, but you should care about the market as an Indie designer and publisher for it is those very same large scale forces that influence gamers and give focus to they should formulate their critical thoughts. For example. You may have the greatest game ever designed called "Sliced Bread", but should you not have the means to get "Sliced Bread" to the masses no one will ever know. For all the great game bakers are the ones with their products in the bakery saying "We're good, who else do you see in the bakery but us few bakers, if they were all that great don't you think they'd be here in the store too for your convenience? If you want to go out and the woods and look for something better go ahead. But, you're just going to get hungry in the meantime. Why not just take a slice of our loaf and makes things easier on yourself?" If you want to give people cause to perform critical thinking you have to be in a position to influence it.

No, in regard to myself. Emphatically not. This question and the paragraph that follows shows that you and I are apparently very different people in regard to this issue.

That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, but I do think it's wrong to ascribe one's own outlook to "them out there" without recognizing the diversity involved.

Best,
Ron

How does this refute that system does matter? All you're saying is that there are no objections, not that the system doesn't matter.

I'm not understanding how you can say that system doesn't matter if it works. Of course it does! That's how you got to that level of enjoyment in the first place. You had to choose that system from a sea of options, and for whatever reason (let's hope it was something to do with the system), it worked for you. This matters. It matters to you because it's the engine that propels you on the road to having fun. Why are we ignoring this? Why are we taking it for granted? That's a dangerous road, I argue. It will inevitably lead to taking something for granted that we should not. I think it's largely how we got to where we are, with no one questioning how RPGs could work, and how they might offer something really different and exciting.

We should be, and are certainly, championing that system matters because it WILL help you continue to have fun. Recognize and cherish that fact, don't just ignore it until problems arise.

Now, I think what you're saying is system problems don't matter, because they don't exist.

Matt Snyder wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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 achieve that with D&D. Therefore, the "any game works" argument stands.

Matt Snyder wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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.

I don't agree, here, Fang. I think saying we can't "convince" anyone is false.

Matt Snyder wrote: 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?"

Matt Snyder wrote: In fact, we are, but I just wanted to call attention to it again to re-focus efforts in that regard. Letting them "figure it out" seems to me to ignore the premise of the Forge. So, that leads to -- should we be so "evangelical?" 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.

Yes, this is one of the primary the reasons I started this thread! I have a game called Sliced Bread .. . er Dust Devils (and more on the way). I do not have the wherewithal to get it on shelves across the U.S. Heck, not even on shelves here in town, effectively. Therefore, my "fight" in the system-does-matter is quiet and largely un-influential. So, a good chunk of why I started this thread was to get people vocal about this stuff so 1) I can reach more customers (selfishly!) and 2) people enjoy their hobby more (selflessly?).

Jesse wrote: I've done my fair share of system ranting. I think the core of the "problem" is that there are A LOT of gamers who have come to see The System as literrally an extention of the GM. That is, the GM not only determines what the results of the application of system are, but how, when and why the system gets applied in the first place.

So when you say, "System Matters" to these people they shake their head and say, "No, only GM Matters." Why? Because even if they don't admit it, in their minds the GM IS the System.

Fang, with respect, please refer to my several replies in this thread. I'm getting the notion from your reply here that I'm taking a personal issue of mine, and my group's, and projecting that onto "the Forge." Not so. I offered up other instances of evidence for my reasons for posting, including evidence as presented in RPG.net's poll. I frankly regret bringing up my group's discussions because folks are not getting my larger point, apparently. Forget about "fixing" my group. Ain't broke.

Further, you said I "implied we aren't doing anything" and that I "imply [you're] not evangelizing." I really don't think I did, and there's no reason to bristle. I'm on your side.. Please re-read, and don't assume the negative of what I'm proposing. I am emphatically not saying anyone here isn't doing enough.

Again, I asked are we doing enough? Should we be doing more? I later said we should be evangelizing -- how about advocating, I now hate the term "evangelizing" -- our viewpoint, AND that we do so by creating good games.

So, in effect, I'm asking for nothing new. My point, then, was 1) a simple reminder to everyone that I at least, and others too I'm sure, think this is a good thing and 2) bringing to light recent observations (not just within my own group) that gamers at large seem to emphasize issues counter to what we're advocating.

I find little to fault in me simply posting for discussion of the topic (which has happened in droves in just a few hours) and reminding folks or retreading "old" territory. I think it IS worth saying something on this issue, even if it's just repitition. I think it's more than simple repition, but failing that chanting the mantra, so to speak, can only be a good thing.

To answer your points:

• What do you want us to do specifically for you?

• What do you think you can force your friend to believe?

• What do you think the Forge is for?

• What makes you think we aren't doing that already?

Matt Snyder wrote: I am emphatically not saying anyone here isn't doing enough.

Again, I asked are we doing enough? Should we be doing more?

...The reason I brought them up was to illustrate a larger point -- that is, how can we keep advocacy of "System Does Matter" going, can it be better, or should it just ride as is?

Le Joueur wrote: What do you think the Forge is for?

Advocacy of Indie games. That's all I can say, other than I think that's a damn broad stroke.

Le Joueur wrote: What makes you think we aren't doing that already?

I never said otherwise, and in fact effectively said at a minimum "Keep up the good work, and here's a reminder to so do." Hopefully, there's more to my point than just that, though.

Holy hell and double damn. I composed one helluva reply, then lost the damn thing (even while using Word.)

Anyway, I'll try to recapture what I said:

A compliment makes sense, but needing a reminder says we're forgetting. Hence my bristle.

I'm getting the feeling I should add something to the imponderables thread, like 'What more can we do?' Hey, if we knew the answer to that, we'd be doing it! I mean, that's a way-open question, also not a good place to start a thread. (Worse, it almost always comes off as a rhetorical introduction to someone's beliefs about 'how things should be.')

And more importantly on the "Are we doing enough?" question. Why not start a thread like this (since it seems to beg no question) with an answer (not necessarily the answer) to 'what more can we do?' I'm a little tired of being reminded to do something I'm already doing; it begs me to do more as though I am forgetting something. I like compliments (I am flattery operated, after all), but if all you're saying is 'don't forget' you're adding gristle, not meat.

It really gets me in that spot I can't 'itch.' 'Should we do more?' overlooks if we can. 'Are we doing enough?' begs if we can do more and implies that we aren't even if we can't. 'Can it be better?' has so obvious an answer I'm forced to wonder why you're asking it.

p. s. I'd like to think a compliment is reminder enough; anymore sounds like parenting.

You seem to want to describe "system matters" in such a way that ignores when it works correctly. I think that we do agree, and that system matters universally, not in some funky regional anthropological way. I really see no way at all that your anthropology argument works, nevermind that it's about "how" we are discussing this, not "what" we are discussing.

For example, I said:

Matt Snyder wrote: I think it's harmful to put forth the "if it ain't broke" solution. That's a purely negative viewpoint on why you play your games. We should (and are) take a positive viewpoint, a proactive and complementary stance that system does matter for your enjoyment, not just for your dynfunctionality.

Sylus wrote: We are in fact agreeing that system does matter, but for you when it works and should be emulated and I when it doesn't work and should not be emulated. It is now that I believe we are in the larger discussion that it is overall that Game Matters. Perhaps it is not sytem nor setting we should be drawing attention to but games as a whole that are well thought out designed to a degree that surpasses the larger companies that tend to just churn out product with no real care as to whether all of it's parts work well as a whole?

You seem to want to describe "system matters" in such a way that ignores when it works correctly. I think that we do agree, and that system matters universally, not in some funky regional anthropological way. I really see no way at all that your anthropology argument works, nevermind that it's about "how" we are discussing this, not "what" we are discussing.

Sylus Thane wrote:
Actually Matt, I don't want to ignore when it works correctly, but by showing how it does not.

Perhaps it would be better to discuss this as the differences of when System Works or Does Not Work than whether system matters/ doesn't matter. This way we don't have to worry about the funky subjective anthropological points of view. :)

Overall what MATTERS is so subjective between people that we lose what we are talking in points of view. But, if can agree on a set of common guidelines when looking at a system to say whether or not it Works/Does not Work then I think we can eliminate these differences of point of view that get in the way of things being accomplished.

System Does Matter wrote:
"Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely disagree.

Overall I personally feel that it is the Game that Matters not system. What I need to know is whether the System Works/Doesn't Work? This is the only way I feel that system Matters, but not unless taken as part of a whole that Mattters More.

I hope this makes a little more sense so that we don't get grumpy at each other.

Matt Snyder wrote: I guess I see asking any question pertinent to gaming as a valid reason to post anything here on the Forge.

...There's no reason to question the work we're doing?

Matt Snyder wrote: I have no idea what you're saying here, Fang.

Matt Snyder wrote:

• Further, what are you doing currently?
• What works for you?
• Where is Scattershot?
• How will it affect the system does matter agenda?
• This is not an affront or challenge -- I'm plainly unaware. That fact that I don't know your answers makes my questions worth asking, I think. I have something to learn. You and everyone else likely has an analogous relationship here on the Forge alone.

Matt Snyder wrote: As for presenting an answer, I'll take up that gauntlet:

How can we do better?

More money.

Matt Snyder wrote: Why [are] Dust Devils, kill puppies for satan, the Pool, octaNe, [and] etc. not in your local store?

Matt Snyder wrote: But, I was paid for all that work on an individual basis -- it wasn't a real co-operative wherein I worked for a pool of publishers. Such a pool could achieve extraordinary efficiencies given the small nature of each individual. There are myriad talents here on the Forge, and we could better capture those with a working co-operative agreement/organization.

Matt,

I've now read through this whole thread (which wasn't here yesterday -- that was quick!), and it seems to me that you're asking the following:

1. If we agree that System Does Matter (tm), and
2. Our best games demonstrate this point [e.g. Dust Devils, Sorcerer, etc.], but
3. The damn things just don't sell the way they really ought to, then
4. Shouldn't we be out there fighting the good fight?

Along the way, lots of side points have come up, of which I'd like to note the following:

A. Your friend, who in a sense doesn't listen to reason. She grants that shifting system changes the game, and that she likes some games more than others despite the GM, but doesn't admit that sytem matters.
B. Lots of gamers out there have been conditioned to associate "system" with "GM," leading them to think that system doesn't matter because a good GM can run anything.

Let me start at the end, and work backwards.

B -> A. If it is true that gamers in general associate system with GM, this is because they don't want to think about system. The vast majority simply would rather leave such matters to others; this is why the whole "let's all GM together" thing never really spreads all that much. Similarly, most people do not want to work on things like literary theory, figuring that they don't need it in order to enjoy literature. And in the latter example, lots of people go so far as to say that since literary theory doesn't help them enjoy literature, therefore literary theory is useless, irrelevant, pretentious, and doesn't matter. Similarly, if I can have a great, fun game with a cool GM, and not have to worry about system or whatever, then clearly system and theory and so forth doesn't help me enjoy my hobby, so clearly it's all stupid and pretentious and doesn't matter anyway.

You can't win that argument, Matt, I'm sorry to tell you. You just can't. Look at the Forge: how often do nasty remarks come up about things like literary theory, or critical theory, or whatever? This is a forum of theorists, but there's still a tremendous willingness to dismiss other folks' styles of theory, usually without a lot of knowledge, on what amounts to the same old practical grounds: "Doesn't help me enjoy X, so theory of X is useless."

Okay, so let me suggest something to you: stop arguing it. You're only going to make yourself pissed off, and it's not going to sell games. Keep your eye on the only two goals that matter: selling games, and having fun. They don't understand theory? Screw 'em. They're stupid, or lazy, or ignorant, or whatever. Can you educate 'em? No. Years at a university beating the stuff into them won't educate them.

But can some of them learn? Yes. Can some change their minds, and see that actually you are right? Yes. So what will convince them, if they're ever going to be convinced? Playing your cool game, and others like it. And nothing else. Nothing. Ever.

You're not going to sell games on a theoretical basis, except via the Forge. That's the basic logical fallacy in steps 1-4 above. Just because system does matter doesn't mean that going out and convincing people of that fact will help. If you actually succeeded at convincing them, it might help, but what's actually going to happen is that they're going to refuse to listen, or misinterpret your arguments, or shift to the old ad hominem "Yeah, you're just a pretentious dweeb," or whatever.

If you think we ought to be more concerned about selling games, and generally getting attention for the things we do here, OK, I'm cool with that. [I don't happen to have very strong feelings, since I don't sell any games as yet, and even when I start I doubt I'll ever make back the value of the time I put in, but hell.] But arguing theory with people who don't accept that theory is valuable isn't going to help -- it's probably going to make things worse. Enjoy doing theory on the Forge for its own sake, and don't bother evangelizing -- you'll just end up with an ulcer.

Clehrich,

Your post is excellent, well reasoned, and well taken. But, please understand I have not called up the troops to go waving theory in anyone's face. In fact, I've said in at least two posts here (if not more!) that doing so is the wrong appraoch. Instead, I've done just what you're proposing (or perhaps simply agreeing with?)-- focus on getting playable, fun games in the hands of players.

I'm at a loss why anyone has missed this as my primary point in the thread, but that certainly seems to have been a problem thus far. I'm a practical guy -- my whole onslaught of posts boils down to a simple, practical point:

How can we get our games out there to more players?

In so doing, we get people to realize the play's the thing, and the system matters because of it.

It really is that simple. That's really all I'm espousing, though obviously there are many sub-points in that agenda. I can only get a game in their hands. Whether they go "A ha!" is up to them. My effort to "convince" goes precisely that far.

Hi there,

With respect to all involved (and multiple agreements with many of the points), the dialogue is really getting deep into I-said-you-said that isn't addressing any topic besides who's in charge or who's most aggrieved. Thanks to Chris for presenting an excellent overview of the issue as I see it, and for boiling out the side issues.

If the real issue at hand is as Matt just stated,

"How can I get my game out to more players?"

... regardless of whether this was clear or really the original point or any other rhetorical thing ...

then it's time to start a new thread in Publishing, I think.

Best,
Ron