The Forge </> 	The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games

About the Forge </about/> | Support The Forge </donate.php> | Articles

</articles/> | Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/> |

Forums </>

  System Does Matter

by Ron Edwards <sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com

<mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>>

Copyright Adept Press

I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for

almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is

used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system

can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely

disagree.

"Whoa," you might say, "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can

suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks." 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. (Recall here I'm

talking about system, not source or story content material.) I'm

suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't

waste Herbie's time.

"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.

Some definitions would be good. First, I'm talking about traditional

roleplaying games, in which the GM is a human, and the players are

physically present with one another during play. Second, by "system" I

mean a method to resolve what happens during play. It has to "work" in

two ways: in terms of real people playing the game and of the characters

experiencing fictional events.

    System Design: Part One

(The following is based on the ideas presented at

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/, but I'm expanding

their application pretty widely.) Three player aims or outlooks have

been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing

situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much,

crossover possible.

    *

      Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest

      which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the

      character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System

      Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to

      Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun.

    *

      Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session

      results in a good story. RPGs for Narrativists include Over the

      Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway.

    *

      Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a

      little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the

      well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists

      include GURPS and Pendragon.

Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at

once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in

real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances

accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or

complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success?

The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants

to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should

player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't

care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social

system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field.

One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often

try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a

guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the

system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example,

to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A

"good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not

eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to

use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that

building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is

the first priority of RPG design.

(Note, therefore, that I might praise a given system because it matches

beautifully with one of these outlooks - even if I don't share that

outlook and might hate playing that game. This is an important point,

because I now have some criteria to judge, instead of just yapping about

"what I like.")

    System Design: Part Two

Now that a system has an outlook or aim to use as a yardstick, it's time

to dissect that resolution method in some detail. Here I follow Jonathan

Tweet's suggestion (found in the rulebook of the excellent RPG Everway)

that there are three modes of resolution in role-playing.

    *

      Fortune, meaning a range of results is possible for each instance

      (I rolled a 10 on 3 dice, under my skill of 12; I hit!). Most RPG

      systems are primarily Fortune-based for historical reasons;

      methods include dice, cards, and all sorts of other things.

    *

      Karma, which compares two fixed values (I have a 7 in fencing, you

      have a 4, I win). Amber is one of the few mainly-Karma games.

    *

      Drama, in which the GM (or rarely, the player) resolves the

      outcome by saying what happens ("You skewer him!" says the GM,

      without rolling or consulting numbers of any kind).

A given system may certainly mix and match these methods, and in fact

Everway actually permits the GM to concoct his or her own smooth blend.

Amber, for example, modifies its Karma system with Drama; Extreme

Vengeance modifies its Drama method with Fortune; and Sorcerer modifies

its Fortune method with Drama. Some systems use different methods for

different sets of activities; e.g. AD&D uses Karma for magic and Fortune

for combat.

Let's consider Fortune methods as the example because that's what most

of us are used to. So the question becomes, given that a system is

(e.g.) mostly Fortune-based, how well does it actually work during play?

I suggest two things to check carefully (these terms are stolen from

ecology, of all things).

    *

      Search time, meaning, how long does it take to know what you got?

      This includes knowing how many dice to roll, calculating

      modifiers, counting up the result, and so on.

    *

      Handling time, meaning, so what happens? This includes comparing

      the outcome to another roll or to a chart, moving on to the next

      step if any, ticking off hit points, checking for stunning, and so

      on.

I certainly can't dictate how much is too little or too much - but I do

claim that if they are not appropriate for the player outlook of the

game (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist), players will complain,

rightly, that the system "bogs down" (Narrativist), is "unfair"

(Gamist), or isn't "realistic" or "accurate" (Simulationist). A good

system's resolution should get the job done in appropriate amount of

real time. Which job, and how long is appropriate, depend on the

outlook. A new RPG system has no excuse simply to rely on the old

paradigm of (1) roll initiative, (2) roll to hit, (3) roll defense, (4)

roll damage, (5) check for stunning, etc, etc. This is a leftover from

wargaming and is strictly Simulationist + Gamist. The RPG for you might

be very, very different. In Zero, for instance, the order of actions,

the success of each action, the degree of success for each action

(including damage), and every other aspect of resolution are determined

by ONE roll per player and ONE roll by the GM, in all cases, even in

large-group combat. This game's system is truly an eye-opener for those

used to the older methods.

(Again: it so happens that I'm a hard-core Narrativist who enjoys

Karma-based systems most, with a little Fortune mixed in. But according

to the principles above, I can now judge a system according to its

priorities, rather than just going by "what I like.")

Another interesting question about resolution methods is, what is

actually being resolved in terms of numerical game mechanics? Consider

three things: the actual event ("do I hit?"), the energy it takes to do

it ("deduct 4 Endurance"), and the reward ("You did 18 damage, that's 18

EP's, mark'em down"). Food for thought: maybe an RPG needs only one of

these, two at most, and can let the third just vanish - and it doesn't

matter which. I'm still thinking about this issue, though; at the moment

it's just a notion, not a conclusion.

    In Conclusion

To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and

doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks. Its resolution

method(s) are appropriate for the outlook: they have search and handling

time that works for that outlook, in terms of both what the players have

to do and what happens to the characters. (One might even suggest that

the method be thematically suitable as well, as in marbles for Asylum

and playing cards for Castle Falkenstein; I like this idea too, but it's

not absolutely necessary.)

Perhaps the ongoing debate about "system-light" vs. "system-heavy" is a

waste of time. A system is not automatically good if it is more or less

complex than another. The degree of acceptable complexity comes from the

game's outlook, and should be judged in that context only. A

Simulationist, Fortune-based game almost has to be complex, but a

Narrativist, Karma-based game is most satisfying with a simpler system.

Please consider comparing a few systems yourself before reacting too

strongly to this essay. I do respect your opinion, but it's fair to

consider how many role-playing games you have actually, truly played.

That is, real stories and sessions with characters the players created

and cared about, not demos at a tournament or running a quick combat. I

suspect that those of us who've played more than five or ten RPGs in a

committed fashion will agree that "system doesn't matter" is a myth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last updated 28-Jan-2004 15:28:37 CDT

/The Forge/ created and administrated by Clinton R. Nixon

<mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com> and Ron Edwards

<mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>.

All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their

designated author.