System Matters...24 years later

[robertsconley]

That's as opposed to Swords and Wizardry, which has totally different artwork, and it has an effect, ah, and then the other thing, the other effect of the rules that's like really important, I think one of the reasons D20 is so popular, DND is so popular, is because it's essential that you'd be familiar with the rules. You need to really actually understand how the worlds work because without knowing how the worlds work or how the rules work and having a very good understanding of the rules, then you could end up with inconsistencies, and you can end up with distractions as you quickly, "Oh, how does that work?" Right, you gotta look up a rule.

You have to look it up in the middle. Again, that's terrible. If you watch my video on the Flow State, looking up rules in the middle of the game breaks the flow. It just kills it dead. You do not want to be in that situation. It's all right to look things up, like I got so quick. As you can see, I've got tabs here, so when I was playing Rolemaster, I just got so quick at looking stuff up, I just didn't have a problem. It didn't break the flow at all, but that's because I got very familiar with the rules.

And that familiarity helps keep you from those distractions of having to look things up, but also keeps you from inconsistencies. Because you might think, "well, I don't have to look up the rules, I'll just make up something on the fly." Well, yes, that's a really good thing to do, as long as when you have to do it again, you make up the exact same rule. Because any inconsistencies, nothing breaks flow worse than inconsistencies in a game. So if you make up a rule, you want to make sure you make up the same rule the next time.

Yes when assembling the rules to run your setting, you should pick rules or a system that you can internalize easily.

What I generally find myself doing is noting them down on a piece of paper, and then those become my homebrew rules. Because I don't want to break the flow, I don't want to break the flow and have to look up a rule. If I'm going to house rule, I want to make sure that house rule stands forever. That's just how it's done now. And I'll go back and look up how the rule actually works and then change it. Nothing destroys the game faster than that, destroys the flow faster than that.

So that's the other thing, is why the rules are so important. Because you really need to know the rules to stay consistent and to minimize distractions.

Keeping the described circumstance, players describing actions, adjudicate loop flowing is a good priority. The only thing I would put ahead of it is whether the circumstances of the campaign are interesting and fun for the players.


And to wrap it up

So, just to summarize the rules of the interface:

1. They define how your world works. That has a fundamental effect on your world.

I will repeat my corollary to Lord Vreeg's law, "Only if you let it."

2. The rules themselves are an artboard, which gives your world a certain flavor, a certain feeling.

The flavor of a setting comes from how its inhabitants are roleplayed first and how their actions are adjudicated second. Within reason. Using Toon RAW is not going to work for a Game of Thrones set in Westeros. Neither is D&D 4e. But OD&D will. D&D 5e will be provided you stick with the core books. Using the Chronicle system by Green Ronin will take the least amount of work for certain. Harnmaster will also work with little work.

3. Rules inform the players of how your world works.

Yes, rules are an effective shorthand for communicating how a setting works. Although that fact has nothing to do with whether the system matters. The presentation of the system determines how well it fulfills this role. GURPS can be used to run a Westeros campaign, but its presentation is such that it will take a lot of work to use and just handing GURPS to a player tells them nothing about how to make a character for Westeros.

So, the levels: how do they have character points? Do they not? Do they have hero points? Do they not? Do they have hit points? Do they not? It all informs the players of how your world works, so they're extremely important in that perspective. And they're extremely important from the perspective of keeping the flow of your game going and minimizing inconsistencies.

My advice is to understand thoroughly how the system work before deciding whether to use it to run your setting.

For example, Gygax did a poor job explaining his assumptions when writing OD&D. He wrote it for the miniature wargaming community and assumed that they would know his unstated assumption. Something that didn't work out well when it spread to college students in California and other groups outside of midwestern wargames.

But after the research in the past decades about the origins of D&D, I understand Gygax and Arneson's assumption better thus I get how OD&D can be used for my campaigns involving the Majestic Wilderlands. For when a player as their character tries to grab the chalice out of the lich's hand. When I am using S&W (or OD&D, I have them make a to-hit roll, and the lich makes a saving throw to avoid having the chalice snatched It is not likely that the lich will fail their save but it is a chance.

I made this ruling because saves in OD&D/S&W are used when something bad is being avoided by a character or creature. "Something bad" has traditionally been interpreted broadly in classic D&D. It also has the virtue being scaled based on level or hit dice. This makes sense as a more experienced character or capable creature would have an easier time avoiding (or resisting) something bad.

Which is also consistent with how things worked in GURPS where higher skill and higher attribute mean creatures and characters winning various contest of skills that many GURPS rules had to resolve things.

 

[DeadBob]

This discussion has me thinking about the difference between rules-as-written and rules-as-used (RAU). Depending on perspective, the gulf between them can be spun into an argument that rules don't matter--because any given table may ignore, misunderstand, or alter them--or that they do matter--because otherwise why would people hack them?

That's basically the conclusion I came to ages ago, that both "sides" were saying essentially the same thing even while fighting the whole time.

It was a matter of perspective, on par with glasses filled with varying amounts of liquids.

 

[EmperorNorton]

If system truly didn't matter, you wouldn't have to be considering how the rules work or how you are using them. That is why most people are confused by your posts, rob.

I would need to know what in the world you think "System Matters" means, because everything you are saying is supporting my view that the system does matter. If it didn't matter I wouldn't have to be cognizant of it and adjust it.

 

[Endless Flight]

If system didn’t matter, than everybody should be playing 2d20. Right? Right?

 

[Afterburner]

Anybody who says system doesn't matter has never attempted to resolve combat in Skyrealms of Jorune 2e.

 

[TristramEvans]

Anybody who says system doesn't matter has never attempted to resolve combat in Skyrealms of Jorune 2e.

welcome to The Pub Afterburner

 

[Afterburner]

welcome to The Pub Afterburner

 

[Tulpa Girl]

I've always though the core of the statement "system matters" always made sense. It just got taken too far and bent into a ironclad rule to beat people over the head with in the culture war (and by this I mean culture war within the RPG community, not referencing stuff outside the bounds of this forum).

Nerds gonna pedant. Film at 11.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

If system didn’t matter, than everybody should be playing 2d20. Right? Right?

And conversely, if system was all that mattered, then we would all be playing Mythras, amirite?

 

[malc]

I think what also confuses this argument is that there are several completely unrelated factors when considering a set of rules (which for the sake of argument here, I shall refer to as a "system"):

• How well does this system reinforce my desired setting?
• How much do I actually like this particular system?
• How much effort would it be to learn and use this system?

All of these are likely to factor in to people's decision to use one system or another. i should point out that the learning curve is (IMNSHO) a perfectly valid reason to choose a system. There’s also another question that people may ask when they’re picking a system:

• How much work will it take to customise this for my setting?

I list this separately, because I don't believe most people think of systems as something you can customise - my belief is that mostly, people want to take RAW and run a game, whether published or home-brew.

Disclaimer: I have system ADHD. Whether it's because I've never really found a system that suits me perfectly, or just because that's how I am, I find I start getting bored with systems after a while. I've forgotten who said it here (apologies if you read this), but I find that tactical, crunchy combats in particular feel like playing the same 30-60 minute board game 3-4 times weekly for 6 months or more. After a few months, I find myself wanting to skip the fights and get on with the actual plot - which doesn't work too well when you've committed to a 6-month dungeon bash :-(

This, combined with the fact that I seem to have become an involuntary forever GM, is probably why it's been about 40 years since I ran the same system twice in a row.

 

[Ladybird]

System matters... sometimes. Sorta. But it's not by genre, or campaign, or setting; it's by the group how much it matters to them, and what gaps in the setting / rules assumptions / player assumptions about the setting mix the group can paper over themselves vs break their immersion entirely and make that system invalid.

So for example...

I'd have figured that 22 years of people enjoying Exalted with anything but the system that was "designed" to go with it would have solidly debunked this stupidity and foolishness by now.

There are people who use the official Exalted systems to run Exalted, and they have fun... but there are also so many other homebrew Exalted systems out there, that are perfect for given groups, that fit their assumptions about the setting differently.

Star Wars, Shadowrun, Dungeons and Dragons, Marvel, DC... all are the same. Different takes work for different groups.

what's interesting about Joy's argument is that it is not just about rules but he argues that the aesthetics of the rulebook are equally important "the artwork is going to have an effect on your world"

This makes a lot of sense to me. For a lot of settings, the art is the only way players can actually see the setting, and what it looks like to people in it; it's why I get annoyed about books that are supposedly set in a different time or world or area of life, and only show me things that I could see just by leaving my own home. It's a waste.

As a result, the art also strongly affects the mood of the setting; for example, the stark monochrome art in SLA 1e gives the entire game a different feel (Grim, humourless, unwelcoming) to the colourful art in 2e (Which makes the setting look nicer, almost actually lovable, less serious).

 

[Sharrow]

I'd have figured that 22 years of people enjoying Exalted with anything but the system that was "designed" to go with it would have solidly debunked this stupidity and foolishness by now.

That may just show that the system bundled with the setting is the wrong one, not that the system doesn't matter.

 

[Sharrow]

All of these are likely to factor in to people's decision to use one system or another. i should point out that the learning curve is (IMNSHO) a perfectly valid reason to choose a system. There’s also another question that people may ask when they’re picking a system:

• How much work will it take to customise this for my setting?

I list this separately, because I don't believe most people think of systems as something you can customise - my belief is that mostly, people want to take RAW and run a game, whether published or home-brew.

A lot of people, because they don't want to/are afraid to hack the rules, turn this around and ask themselves "How much work will it take to customise my setting to fit these rules?", especially if the rules do (or encourage) something cool they they want to add to the setting.

 

[Dr. Gnome]

what's interesting about Joy's argument is that it is not just about rules but he argues that the aesthetics of the rulebook are equally important "the artwork is going to have an effect on your world"

unlike Edwards, Joy also acknowledges rules familiarity as a factor.

Eh... I don't know about this. My "main group" is me running a table to my wife and our best friend, with occasionally more players if we are having more company over for whatever reason that wants to play. Artwork is cool but it has seldom had an effect on my gaming world; especially in an era where all our books are digital and people are looking up rules for chargen on their iPhones. Physical books are nice and I like them but I've given up trying to get any gaming group under the age of 40 to adopt physical books as a "thing" in a tabletop RPG.

I do think that the rules systems have an impact on the world you're playing but some of my most successful, fun games have been taking a system that wasn't meant for a certain genre - say like Esper Genesis did with the 5E rules, or running a Dark Sun campaign using a low fantasy OSR hack; or even a narrative system - that's all possible and sometimes people playing games will have a lot more ideas about how something can be used than the designer did; just as people can look at art and see things the artist never intended or knew their work would produce in a person.

Certainly, some systems are suited to some types of games. If I have a storytelling narrative group of players at my table I'm not going to try and get them to play some crunchy system; I'll run something more narrative in style. Etc. I recently changed a campaign I was running for a few friends and my main group from OSR to 5E just because the players preferred that rule system.

I'd argue that if you're having fun you're probably doing everything right.

 

[Ladybird]

A lot of people, because they don't want to/are afraid to hack the rules, turn this around and ask themselves "How much work will it take to customise my setting to fit these rules?", especially if the rules do (or encourage) something cool they they want to add to the setting.

I've seen a lot of players who resist changing rules because of sacred balance and perfection, what was written in the book must be immutable because the Games Designers intended it that way. I also know of at least one actual published system that was wrote during a night-long coffee binge and received absolutely no testing whatsoever.

I get not wanting to have to rewrite things and develop house rules - you paid for a thing, you want it to do what it says on the box. Fair play. But not feeling able to do house rules, especially for something basically consequence-free like most RPGs, bothers me.

 

[RangerRupert]

Someone tag me when we start arguing the definitions of narrativist vs. simulationist games. Bonus points if someone mentions immersion.

;)

 

[malc]

Someone tag me when we start arguing the definitions of narrativist vs. simulationist games. Bonus points if someone mentions immersion.

;)

I mentioned suspension of disbelief. Do I get the bonus points

 

[RangerRupert]

I mentioned suspension of disbelief. Do I get the bonus points

You win 1000 Internets!!!!

 

[Fritz]

I agree, the rules do matter and have a big impact on the setting. One of the big reasons why I add or ignore a rule is to serve the setting we want to create.

I also agree with aesthetics of the rulebook being important. I do work in on the production side of the publishing industry so the whole of the product (layout, print quality, illustration, materials) is a big factor in how I approach or think about a game. I don't know if it's equally important, though.

 

[Fenris-77]

Of course system matters. Sometimes. In certain ways. Different systems focus on and highlight different game elements/diegetic possibilities/whatever due to their design. A good example would be the panic mechanic in the Alien RPG, or the Stress mechanic in Blades in the Dark. In both cases the presence of the mechanic has a definite, specific, and purposeful impact on gameplay. To a somewhat lesser extent, the presence in a system of things like extensive encumbrance or travel rules do the same thing. You want to pick the system has the right buttons for whatever genre or campaign you want to play and that also doesn't have too many buttons you don't want for that same genre or campaign. You can certainly fudge around the edges, a little or a lot, to hack a system into more the desired shape, but that desire in and off itself is a good example of the fact that rules matter.

 

[Savage Schemer]

That may just show that the system bundled with the setting is the wrong one, not that the system doesn't matter.

The problem is that saying, "system matters," and then couching the entire argument in terms of having a system affect how a game plays at your table is that it's a non-observation. It's like saying the presence of air has an effect on your ability to breathe. It's got to be one of the single most willfully unintelligent statements ever made, and it boggles my mind that so many intelligent people would waste so much thought energy arguing about its veracity.

Of course, Fate is going to play differently than Mythras. And because of this my decision to play Exalted in Fate is going to play out very differently than my decision to play Exalted in Mythras. Nobody needed some wank to write an essay about it and point that out. In the immortal words of Buffy Summers, "does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?"

 

[TJS]

I feel like structure of play gets left out a lot. It should be system, setting and structure of play.

The One Ring emulates it's setting well, in part because it has a system that supports structures of play that evoke the things that happen in the books. If you want to emulate something you really need all three things to be working.

It doesn't really matter how well the D&D rules evoke Forgotten Realms as a setting. If your game is about a pair of rapier wielders wandering around towns in the circle sea and getting into formal duels all the time with ne'er a monster stomping to be seen then the system isn't going to be your friend here - there are much better choices for this style of game.

 

[Ladybird]

Someone tag me when we start arguing the definitions of narrativist vs. simulationist games. Bonus points if someone mentions immersion.

;)

DING DING

System matters... sometimes. Sorta. But it's not by genre, or campaign, or setting; it's by the group how much it matters to them, and what gaps in the setting / rules assumptions / player assumptions about the setting mix the group can paper over themselves vs break their immersion entirely and make that system invalid.

oh no i'll go blind

Of course system matters. Sometimes. In certain ways. Different systems focus on and highlight different game elements/diegetic possibilities/whatever due to their design. A good example would be the panic mechanic in the Alien RPG, or the Stress mechanic in Blades in the Dark. In both cases the presence of the mechanic has a definite, specific, and purposeful impact on gameplay.

Alien's stress is so good, because it's something you both do and don't want at the same time; managing it is fun and forces the player and PC to make choices, and it leads so well into the Panic system. Blades is fine, but it's more like a second health track than something that's fun to play with.

I'm not sure I could imagine playing Aliens without that mechanic; take it away and the game could easily just become a shoot-'em-up, and characters would just feel too competent and reliable.

 

[Fenris-77]

Alien's stress is so good, because it's something you both do and don't want at the same time; managing it is fun and forces the player and PC to make choices, and it leads so well into the Panic system. Blades is fine, but it's more like a second health track than something that's fun to play with.

I'm not sure I could imagine playing Aliens without that mechanic; take it away and the game could easily just become a shoot-'em-up, and characters would just feel too competent and reliable.

We all like different things. I'd agree that panic in Aliens is awesome. I seem to enjoy the stress mechanic in Blades more than you do, I find it adds a lot of delicious tension to big scenes, but that's ok, we don't all need to love the same things.

 

[SJB]

I think the best answer is to be found on the banner of the OSR blog Methods & Madness.

“I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create.”

It’s William Blake from Jerusalem.

 

[AsenRG]

So to be specific on where rules matter, take for example dungeon crawling with GURPS 3e in the mid 90s. Compared a decade earlier with AD&D 1e.

With GURPS and how combat works, and how nuanced the character can be defined. Dungeon crawling is far more of a stealth affair than it was in AD&D. The tactics vary a lot more with GURPS as a result of each players building their character differently enough. So the experience of a dungeon crawl in GURPS 3e versus AD&D 1e has important different.

Yes. And to me, that does change how the game feels in a way that's significant enough.
I'm a simple man, with simple pleasures...also, when I see the parties employing stealth and tactics, it pleases me!

But not when it comes to the roleplaying side of things, why the players are in the dungeon in the first place. In both the AD&D campaign and the GURPS Campaign, the players are doing the same things for the same reasons. What changes are the specifics of tactics used to achieve those things?

Maybe. Maybe not. If you use AD&D1/2e verbatim, I'd argue that it would lead to differences, because "if you kill enough people and do nothing but learn how to kill more people*, you get your own keep" isn't something that's present in either GURPS or your setting.


*The Fighter class is a joke, I've been saying it for ages. I think it was somewhere in 2000-2005 (I can't find it any more) when me and a friend started jointly a topic on now-defunct Bulgarian RPG forum where we argued that the Fighter class should be seen as "an incomplete warrior" due to its lack of stealth, awareness and sense motive.

Because I lived in rural NW Pennsylvania all my life, most of the campaigns involved AD&D (1e or 2e) encountering GURPS for the first time. After the initial shock of just how deadly GURPS 3e is, which comes after the initial joy of finally being able to exact character they want to play, what most of them do is rise to challenge. They start to think. "Given how deadly things are, how can I still kick down the doors, kill the monsters, and take their shit."

And GURPS has the answer to that question as well as Hero System as well as Harnmaster and the other system I played over the decades. Answer that are just as fun and interesting as the bog standard D&D approach with AC and Hit Points and levels.

Yes, that's my experience as well.

Yet still result in the door being kicked down, the monster killed, and the loot being taken.

Sure - if there are dungeons in the setting (and that's not a system matter), why wouldn't it happen?

Any one else suspect the starting this thread, know the reactions it would get, was TristramEvans evil plan to celebrate the Pub's 6th birthday?

...sounds likely. And well, it worked, right?

This discussion has me thinking about the difference between rules-as-written and rules-as-used (RAU). Depending on perspective, the gulf between them can be spun into an argument that rules don't matter--because any given table may ignore, misunderstand, or alter them--or that they do matter--because otherwise why would people hack them?

I'd suggest adding Rules At The Table, because RATTs sounds better...

If system didn’t matter, than everybody should be playing 2d20. Right? Right?

Well, given the settings they've got...

And conversely, if system was all that mattered, then we would all be playing Mythras, amirite?

You mean we aren't?

 

[Skarg]

So to be specific on where rules matter, take for example dungeon crawling with GURPS 3e in the mid 90s. Compared a decade earlier with AD&D 1e.

With GURPS and how combat works, and how nuanced the character can be defined. Dungeon crawling is far more of a stealth affair than it was in AD&D. The tactics vary a lot more with GURPS as a result of each players building their character differently enough. So the experience of a dungeon crawl in GURPS 3e versus AD&D 1e has important different.

But not when it comes to the roleplaying side of things, why the players are in the dungeon in the first place. In both the AD&D campaign and the GURPS Campaign, the players are doing the same things for the same reasons. What changes are the specifics of tactics used to achieve those things?

Because I lived in rural NW Pennsylvania all my life, most of the campaigns involved AD&D (1e or 2e) encountering GURPS for the first time. After the initial shock of just how deadly GURPS 3e is, which comes after the initial joy of finally being able to exact character they want to play, what most of them do is rise to challenge. They start to think. "Given how deadly things are, how can I still kick down the doors, kill the monsters, and take their shit."

And GURPS has the answer to that question as well as Hero System as well as Harnmaster and the other system I played over the decades. Answer that are just as fun and interesting as the bog standard D&D approach with AC and Hit Points and levels. Yet still result in the door being kicked down, the monster killed, and the loot being taken.

Huh. Maybe that works in one direction. I too have seen players used to D&D be able to play in a GURPS game and have a good time. A D&D player can say what they want to do based on their knowledge of D&D, and the GM can translate that into GURPS terms. The things they can't do will be Classes or magic they're used to in D&D if it's equivalent doesn't exist in the campaign (but it might exist, especially if they're playing GURPS Dungeon Fantasy (ugh)), and they can't rely on being higher level with more hit points to keep them alive. and they can't take a "rest" to make their wounds evaporate.

What I haven't seen, is me or the players I've most enjoyed playing TFT and GURPS with, be able to have much fun with D&D. Mainly because many of the things available in TFT and GURPS, are not available in D&D, unless perhaps you have a great GM who ignores/expands/changes the rules of D&D, but they you're playing/enjoying that GM's cool game, not the D&D rules.

Things that tend not to work are low-level options and tactics that don't exist in D&D. And having things work in more realistic/logical ways, rather than how they work in D&D rules.

 

[Ladybird]

We all like different things. I'd agree that panic in Aliens is awesome. I seem to enjoy the stress mechanic in Blades more than you do, I find it adds a lot of delicious tension to big scenes, but that's ok, we don't all need to love the same things.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think they are both good mechanics; both games are about characters who are ultimately adrenaline junkies, existing on the edge of their skills, and they reflect that in different ways. They're also not exchangeable; each game wouldn't work with the other's mechanic.

But they model completely different types of adrenaline junkie. Blades characters are professionals who can execute a plan, and roll with it when things go badly, but they can only cope so much. They need to excel right now but can take their time recharging for the next big event.

Aliens characters are misfits who are good enough at what they do, but not quite as much as they need to be; they have to rely as much on their skill as they do the constant threat that messing up means nobody goes home. Stress keeps them going, but being constantly on the edge makes them volatile; they don't know when the blowout is coming, or what will cause it, only that it is coming eventually.

They reflect very different circumstances. Blades characters burn brightly but rapidly, whereas Aliens characters are constantly smoldering and trying to avoid letting it go too far. Conversely, Blades characters need focus to do what they do, whereas Aliens characters can't afford to make many mistakes; switching the mechanics wouldn't do either group justice.

 

[Mankcam]

Even toolkit systems are not truly universal.
If I want to play something gritty, I'ld go with Mythras or GURPS, for example. Lots of skills, tactile combat, hit locations, passions/motivations, etc
If I want to create something rollicking and pulpy, I might go with Fate, Everywhen, PDQ, Tricube Tales, stuff like that.
If I want something kinda inbetween I might try Cypher System, PbtA, an OSR influenced system, or even 5E or a 5E variant.
They are often all billed as universal rpgs, but they do have their instrinsic differences that make them suited for different setting flavours and genres.

 

[Sharrow]

The problem is that saying, "system matters," and then couching the entire argument in terms of having a system affect how a game plays at your table is that it's a non-observation. It's like saying the presence of air has an effect on your ability to breathe. It's got to be one of the single most willfully unintelligent statements ever made, and it boggles my mind that so many intelligent people would waste so much thought energy arguing about its veracity.

Of course, Fate is going to play differently than Mythras. And because of this my decision to play Exalted in Fate is going to play out very differently than my decision to play Exalted in Mythras. Nobody needed some wank to write an essay about it and point that out. In the immortal words of Buffy Summers, "does the word 'duh' mean anything to you?"

Oh, absolutely. What's interesting is where people went with the idea when they weren't arguing about whether or not some game or idea was customised to a setting enough to be any good. Some pretty cool games came out of the idea that a system should completely reinforce a settings themes and should give positive and negative incentives to encourage the sort of play and game the author was writing.

That said, I'm a very trad gamer, and while I look at those indy games and go "That's cool", I never feel any desire to run them. The same goes for all these 'narrative' games that use meta-currency to 'give agency' and/or to encourage players to have their characters act in suitably dramatic ways. Not for me.

 

[sharps54]

Oh, absolutely. What's interesting is where people went with the idea when they weren't arguing about whether or not some game or idea was customised to a setting enough to be any good. Some pretty cool games came out of the idea that a system should completely reinforce a settings themes and should give positive and negative incentives to encourage the sort of play and game the author was writing.

That said, I'm a very trad gamer, and while I look at those indy games and go "That's cool", I never feel any desire to run them. The same goes for all these 'narrative' games that use meta-currency to 'give agency' and/or to encourage players to have their characters act in suitably dramatic ways. Not for me.

And that’s the bottom line. Yes system matters but ultimately it is the combo of system, setting, and group preferences that win the day. The right system for a particular genre / setting will vary group to group.

 

[sharps54]

To give an example I’m sure there are people here that feel Mythras is the perfect game for the Sword & Sorcery genre. There are some out there that feel Swords Without Master is the perfect game for it. I find Barbarians of Lemuria to strike the perfect balance. None of these are wrong for the groups that prefer them but some are definitely wrong for some groups.

There is no “objectively better” game between the three but there are “subjectively better” ones. That’s why I tend to eye roll at gaming theory articles and prefer to spend my precious free time with objectively better pursuits, like watching B movies.

 

[robertsconley]

What I haven't seen, is me or the players I've most enjoyed playing TFT and GURPS with, be able to have much fun with D&D. Mainly because many of the things available in TFT and GURPS, are not available in D&D, unless perhaps you have a great GM who ignores/expands/changes the rules of D&D, but they you're playing/enjoying that GM's cool game, not the D&D rules.

Here is the roster from my last GURPS campaign from a few years back.



Delvin's player prefers to play classic D&D. His opinion that the options for GURPS are nice but overkill. He fine with the rulings when he want to execute a special combat manuevuer or tactic. He is also fine that most of the stuff outside of combat and spellcasting are notes on the character sheet.

Aeron's player prefers a midway point between classic D&D and GURPS, currently that is D&D 5e. He also fine with most of the stuff outside of combat and spellcasting being notes on a characters. But rather be playing with a skill system.

Cei Kerac player prefers mechanics that make sense, that anything he wants to attempt (whether combat or not) be consistent. Doesn't care for D&D either 5e or classic, although he did well with classic D&D despite trying to powergame it as much as he could get away with. Eventually he (and my group) wound up trying Dragon/Fantasy AGE and liking it as a good compromise. However Fantasy Age has flaws so he made his own system that is a close relative that is more grounded called the Crit System.

Durgo played GURPS because of it options for character customization. From campaign to campaign he bounces around on what he focuses on. The hallmark of his roleplaying that his character always make sense in terms of what they are about and why they do what they do. However his tolerance for GURPS mechanical fussiness has descreased and like Delvin's player he is find with the non-combat stuff being notes on the character sheet, and ruling for any special tactics he wants to do.

Kermit likes to play a character concept and will take advantage of whatever customization a system like GURPS has. But when it comes to classic D&D he is also fine with non-combat stuff being notes on a character.

Henry Keifer is a causal player who relys mostly on the group to tell him what to roll and when. However he has a strong sense of what his character is about and is a good roleplayer when he does play. He doesn't currently play but probably would enjoy the basic stuff of 5e or classic D&D more than than GURPS. He also been my friend for decades and likely with classic D&D he would do the same thing as what we did with AD&D 1e in the early 80s which is notes on a character sheet.

The secret sauce for making this work as far as seamlessly going from system to system is how I handle things in my campaigns. To whit they are

I mandate describe first, roll second. I am not a dick about this but I do make it a point to be consistent about this.

Character background matters regardless of system. I don't go for umpteen page backstories but whether they are expressed by mechanics are not, if a player has a background detail, I follow up on it. The only difference between how things work out in GURPS versus the Majestic Fantasy RPG is that in GURPS as some point advantage and disadvantage will be looked up, purchased, and the points costs tallied. As far as the roleplaying goes there is zero difference.

Heroic not superheroic, as part of describe first, roll second, is that the action tends to be more grounded regardless of system. Basically if it something you can do in life and it makes sense in terms of the character's experience then I will make a ruling to allow an attempt at a reasonable chance of success for the circumstances. Even if the system doesn't address it specifically. Likewise, if a system has something that is obviously following game-logic not setting logic then I will ignore it. For a trival example the D&D 5e rest rules.

In systems that have issues with hit point bloat, like Fantasy Age, D&D 4e, etc. This overcome by the fact that I consider level a mark of experience not a mark of being a special hero. So in the Majestic Wilderlands every character has a level. When it comes to creatures, I ignore any advice on game balance and put them where they would make sense as if the setting was real.

Also tactics matter. Not game-logic tactics that D&D 4e embodied, but real world tactics like flanking, concentration of numbers. If something worked in real life, then I would give a similar type of advantage regardless of the system I was using. For example granting advantage to players who managed to postion themselves on either side of an opponent.

All of this was something that GURPS supported well and so when I continued to do this for subsquents RPGs It meant that the overall tone and feel of my Majestic Wilderlands didn't shift as much as you think it would. The most dramatic change was one that was the most well-liked by the players, combat was way shorter with classic D&D.

Doesn't mean everybody was a classic D&D. Aeron's player and I are part of a another group of friends that game. And they prefer 5e and only tolerate classic D&D because I am running the campaign. Plus two of our mutual friends are outright powergamers, which was kind of funny when they played in my campaign using the Majestic Fantasy rules. They basically gravitated to doing what powergamers did in the 80s with AD&D 1e, searched high and low for the right magic items to create the right build. And they succeeded in part because they were smart enough to overcome the challenges of finding them.

But one flip side that was true of GURPS. The only other players who like GURPS as much as me was Cei Kerac's player. And Durgo's player was the only other one out the group, other than Cei Kerac's player and myself to have refereed a GURPS campaign.

I have enough pull with my current group (which has some but not all of the above players), if I really wanted to, I could push a GURPS campaign and get them to try it. Likely it will go like the other times I did this. They would enjoy it but only because I would be the one running it.

 

[Jacob Rodgers]

I don't think clearly broken and distorted rules actually help. Is there a way to make that argument again with a more realistic example?

If there was an example given, I missed it but, I'll take a swing at it using two rules that I feel both achieve similar (but wildly different) objectives and are (I believe) good rules, once you know what they are trying to achieve.

1. The OSR style 'gold = XP' rule

2. The One Ring's rule that 'Treasure = Encumbrance' rule

In a #1 game you want to get as much loot as possible, with as little danger as possible. In a #2 game, every bit of loot wears you down, so either ignore it, spend it, invest it (into a Holding, another excellent part of the rules), or transform it into something more bearable (like Dwarves pay less encumbrance costs for war gear, so a Dwarf turning Treasure into weapons and armours is both a mechanically rewarded choice and reinforces the setting as well).

 

[JAMUMU]

"What we're dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the system!"

Every system/rules-set creates an implied setting. Some do this in fantastical ways that feed the imagination and drive play, like early D&D or BitD. Others are fucking stupid, like the Intimidate skill in PF2 taking one minute to affect a target ("What!? Do people on this world intimidate each other through the medium of dance? Are mime enforcers a thing?") or modern D&D having everything always in it all the time and an apocalypse every other Wednesday.

But I have never, ever, not once, found a system that didn't need tweaked to run better at the table or work better for a given setting. Hand me the lug wrench, the laser torch, and my mankini, babies, it's time to hack!

 

[robertsconley]

Yes. And to me, that does change how the game feels in a way that's significant enough.
I'm a simple man, with simple pleasures...also, when I see the parties employing stealth and tactics, it pleases me!

Stealth and tactics work with any of the systems I use for my campaigns. The extra round or two of unanswered combat exchange is pretty decisive in most systems. Granted for something like D&D and Fantasy Age it is not dramatic like it would be with Mythras, GURPS, or Harnmaster but it is there and it does make a difference.

It goes back to Wargaming 101 with Avalon Hill's hex and chit wargames. Now if you going to go with the theater of the mind, with vague notions of positioning then you are going to run into problems with tactics. Because tactics are all about bringing a greater amount of force in a specific way and place. Flanking is devastating even without explicit mechanics because when you look at the position of the figures, the end of the defender's line is outnumbered while the rest of the line is just one on one fights.

Maybe. Maybe not. If you use AD&D1/2e verbatim, I'd argue that it would lead to differences, because "if you kill enough people and do nothing but learn how to kill more people*, you get your own keep" isn't something that's present in either GURPS or your setting.

RAW the rules of AD&D 1e and 2e were vague on exactly how the keep was acquired. In fact, the rules were vague on a lot of things outside of combat and spellcasting. For all the advantages because of my life experience, I enjoy today, I can say the one thing I got right from the get-go was applying my experience with wargaming to my D&D campaign. Despite only being in Junior High, I got right away how expansive RPGs can be compared to the SPI and Avalon Hill wargames I played prior.

Very little of that was written in the rulebooks. Gygax was a wargamer so there were bits and pieces of what I learned wargaming in the AD&D DMG. As I mentioned in another post, the main thing that kept my campaigns feeling similar is that the roleplaying and the reason why folks roleplayed the way they did didn't change from system to system. What changed were the nuts and bolts of how things played out. Something that was handled in great detail with GURPS and Harnmaster were glossed over with fewer rolls in D&D 5e, and even fewer rolls in classic D&D.

The main thing that make my campaign flow wasn't how stuff like combat was fought, but why one got into the fight in the first place, and how one dealt with the consequences of the aftermath of the fight. The difference between GURPS and AD&D was that in GURPS combat could take up most of a session with a lot of interesting options in how to take out your opponent. With AD&D it was pretty much roll initiative and whack away with d20 rolls. With the caveat that movement and positioning were important in both because I used minis.

But understand, that if the PC were 150 pts character in GURPS 3e fighting 50 pt city guards they are going to have an easy time of it as AD&D 5th level character fighting 1st to 2nd level city guards. Again the difference is that the GURPS fight with its added detail was more interesting to some of my friends than the AD&D fight. But the reason they got into that fight in the first place, and the consequences resulting from the fact they just killed some city guard were exactly the same.

This is why I say system doesn't matter except when it comes to the enjoyment of the campaign. And to be clear I have done this RAW multiple times.

*The Fighter class is a joke, I've been saying it for ages. I think it was somewhere in 2000-2005 (I can't find it any more) when me and a friend started jointly a topic on now-defunct Bulgarian RPG forum where we argued that the Fighter class should be seen as "an incomplete warrior" due to its lack of stealth, awareness and sense motive.

Mechanically, classic D&D fighters have issues compared to other character classes. Using RAW the way I overcame this was that fighters were free agents in a way the other classes (except for thieves) were not. Clerics, Ranger, Paladin, and even Magic-User had complications as a result of the setting of my campaign.

Sure - if there are dungeons in the setting (and that's not a system matter), why wouldn't it happen?

Interesting that you bring that up about it is not a system matter, because a lot of what I do when I have to use a system RAW to make it work for my Majestic Widerlands setting are things that system generally don't concern themselves with.

For example, when I use level based systems like D&D or Fantasy Age, every character has a level. I figure out what is a novice, apprentice, journeyman, and master at various levels and adjust the stats of my NPC accordingly.

Another example is fighters. Other than thieves, all the other classes have roleplaying complications. Make sure as the referee those are followed up on. Don't be a dick about it. But weave them in. Fighter and thieves are truly the only two blank slate classes. You will be surprised of how many players treasure their freedom of action over a mechanical advantage.

The secret here is that while the system may dictate how an action is resolved, it doesn't constrain how you roleplay nor does it constrain the world you build around the system's conceits. And if a system does constrain roleplaying like Blades in the Dark well in my book that is a completely different issue as those systems are concerned with metagaming their central thesis more than pretending to be characters living out adventurous lives in a setting.

 

[ffilz]

I would love to get to a place where I could run games like Rob does. It would help to have players that played that way. I get that Rob coaxes players into playing that way.

Given how Rob runs his games, it makes sense that he sees less difference between systems than people who mostly play the rules in the book. And I would point out that by some definition of "system" all that stuff Rob does outside the rules in the book at totally part of system. Rob has a system of play that supports his goals.

My games really sing when I do stuff like Rob does. I think that's why my "Traveller" campaign of the 80s went so well and played well as we mucked around with game mechanics eventually switching to Hero system. What mattered was what the players did in the campaign, not the mechanics of how things were resolved. Also, one important mechanic stayed constant through the campaign - how space ships worked - which was actually NOT Traveller, because the campaign started as a RuneQuest in space hack using my own ship design and combat system (and while the star map was 2d, there wasn't a hex in sight on it). Aspects of my current RQ campaign work outside the mechanics and that adds to the fun.

 

[AsenRG]

It goes back to Wargaming 101 with Avalon Hill's hex and chit wargames. Now if you going to go with the theater of the mind, with vague notions of positioning then you are going to run into problems with tactics. Because tactics are all about bringing a greater amount of force in a specific way and place. Flanking is devastating even without explicit mechanics because when you look at the position of the figures, the end of the defender's line is outnumbered while the rest of the line is just one on one fights.

Sure, but that doesn't require minis, BTW. Never had any issue representing flanking in theater of the mind - that is, to me, another change that's exactly as significant (again, in my book) as your change of systems).

Then again, I also used to play chess without the figures - with a friend, during class. So it might not be as easy to other people.

RAW the rules of AD&D 1e and 2e were vague on exactly how the keep was acquired.

Yup, I even remember a guy who said "eh, the GM should just allow you to get a keep, 'cause it makes for a better story"...somewhere circa 1999-2001, and I can bet he'd never heard of Fate, much less Ron Edwards!

Very little of that was written in the rulebooks. Gygax was a wargamer so there were bits and pieces of what I learned wargaming in the AD&D DMG.

...and he failed notoriously at explaining those, assuming everyone would know them. Because he assumed that what's second nature to him, shall be exactly as easy to everyone else as well. Sounds familiar?

Mechanically, classic D&D fighters have issues compared to other character classes. Using RAW the way I overcame this was that fighters were free agents in a way the other classes (except for thieves) were not. Clerics, Ranger, Paladin, and even Magic-User had complications as a result of the setting of my campaign.

Sure, but that still doesn't change the fact that fighters suck at what they should be best at: dispatching their enemies in an expedient manner.

Another example is fighters. Other than thieves, all the other classes have roleplaying complications. Make sure as the referee those are followed up on. Don't be a dick about it. But weave them in. Fighter and thieves are truly the only two blank slate classes. You will be surprised of how many players treasure their freedom of action over a mechanical advantage.

Yeah, but I've also noticed that "RP complications" are a problem for many Referees - sometimes myself included.

The secret here is that while the system may dictate how an action is resolved, it doesn't constrain how you roleplay nor does it constrain the world you build around the system's conceits. And if a system does constrain roleplaying like Blades in the Dark well in my book that is a completely different issue as those systems are concerned with metagaming their central thesis more than pretending to be characters living out adventurous lives in a setting.

Yeah, d20 systems are my go-to example for systems that would constrain roleplaying (say, by demanding restrictions on certain classes), and/or demand particular features from the setting. You don't notice the latter, because said features are part of your setting already. Not so in my case.