|
1 The Forge </> The Internet Home for Independent Role-Playing Games |
|
2 About the Forge </about/> | Support The Forge </donate.php> | Articles |
|
3 </articles/> | Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/> | |
|
4 Forums </> |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 System Does Matter |
|
9 |
|
10 by Ron Edwards <sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com |
|
11 <mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>> |
|
12 Copyright Adept Press |
|
13 |
|
14 I have heard a certain notion about role-playing games repeated for |
|
15 almost 20 years. Here it is: "It doesn't really matter what system is |
|
16 used. A game is only as good as the people who play it, and any system |
|
17 can work given the right GM and players." My point? I flatly, entirely |
|
18 disagree. |
|
19 |
|
20 "Whoa," you might say, "my GM Herbie can run anything. The game can |
|
21 suck, but he can toss out what he doesn't like and then it rocks." OK, |
|
22 fine. Herbie is talented. However, imagine how good he'd be if he didn't |
|
23 have to spend all that time culling the mechanics. (Recall here I'm |
|
24 talking about system, not source or story content material.) I'm |
|
25 suggesting a system is better insofar as, among other things, it doesn't |
|
26 waste Herbie's time. |
|
27 |
|
28 "Oh, okay," one might then say. "But it's still just a matter of opinion |
|
29 what games are good. No one can say for sure which RPG is better than |
|
30 another, that's just a matter of taste." Again, I flatly, entirely |
|
31 disagree. |
|
32 |
|
33 Some definitions would be good. First, I'm talking about traditional |
|
34 roleplaying games, in which the GM is a human, and the players are |
|
35 physically present with one another during play. Second, by "system" I |
|
36 mean a method to resolve what happens during play. It has to "work" in |
|
37 two ways: in terms of real people playing the game and of the characters |
|
38 experiencing fictional events. |
|
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 System Design: Part One |
|
42 |
|
43 (The following is based on the ideas presented at |
|
44 http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/, but I'm expanding |
|
45 their application pretty widely.) Three player aims or outlooks have |
|
46 been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing |
|
47 situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, |
|
48 crossover possible. |
|
49 |
|
50 * |
|
51 |
|
52 Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest |
|
53 which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the |
|
54 character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System |
|
55 Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to |
|
56 Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun. |
|
57 |
|
58 * |
|
59 |
|
60 Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session |
|
61 results in a good story. RPGs for Narrativists include Over the |
|
62 Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway. |
|
63 |
|
64 * |
|
65 |
|
66 Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a |
|
67 little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the |
|
68 well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists |
|
69 include GURPS and Pendragon. |
|
70 |
|
71 Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at |
|
72 once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in |
|
73 real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances |
|
74 accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or |
|
75 complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? |
|
76 The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants |
|
77 to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should |
|
78 player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't |
|
79 care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social |
|
80 system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field. |
|
81 |
|
82 One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often |
|
83 try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a |
|
84 guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the |
|
85 system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, |
|
86 to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A |
|
87 "good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not |
|
88 eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to |
|
89 use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that |
|
90 building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is |
|
91 the first priority of RPG design. |
|
92 |
|
93 (Note, therefore, that I might praise a given system because it matches |
|
94 beautifully with one of these outlooks - even if I don't share that |
|
95 outlook and might hate playing that game. This is an important point, |
|
96 because I now have some criteria to judge, instead of just yapping about |
|
97 "what I like.") |
|
98 |
|
99 |
|
100 System Design: Part Two |
|
101 |
|
102 Now that a system has an outlook or aim to use as a yardstick, it's time |
|
103 to dissect that resolution method in some detail. Here I follow Jonathan |
|
104 Tweet's suggestion (found in the rulebook of the excellent RPG Everway) |
|
105 that there are three modes of resolution in role-playing. |
|
106 |
|
107 * |
|
108 |
|
109 Fortune, meaning a range of results is possible for each instance |
|
110 (I rolled a 10 on 3 dice, under my skill of 12; I hit!). Most RPG |
|
111 systems are primarily Fortune-based for historical reasons; |
|
112 methods include dice, cards, and all sorts of other things. |
|
113 |
|
114 * |
|
115 |
|
116 Karma, which compares two fixed values (I have a 7 in fencing, you |
|
117 have a 4, I win). Amber is one of the few mainly-Karma games. |
|
118 |
|
119 * |
|
120 |
|
121 Drama, in which the GM (or rarely, the player) resolves the |
|
122 outcome by saying what happens ("You skewer him!" says the GM, |
|
123 without rolling or consulting numbers of any kind). |
|
124 |
|
125 A given system may certainly mix and match these methods, and in fact |
|
126 Everway actually permits the GM to concoct his or her own smooth blend. |
|
127 Amber, for example, modifies its Karma system with Drama; Extreme |
|
128 Vengeance modifies its Drama method with Fortune; and Sorcerer modifies |
|
129 its Fortune method with Drama. Some systems use different methods for |
|
130 different sets of activities; e.g. AD&D uses Karma for magic and Fortune |
|
131 for combat. |
|
132 |
|
133 Let's consider Fortune methods as the example because that's what most |
|
134 of us are used to. So the question becomes, given that a system is |
|
135 (e.g.) mostly Fortune-based, how well does it actually work during play? |
|
136 I suggest two things to check carefully (these terms are stolen from |
|
137 ecology, of all things). |
|
138 |
|
139 * |
|
140 |
|
141 Search time, meaning, how long does it take to know what you got? |
|
142 This includes knowing how many dice to roll, calculating |
|
143 modifiers, counting up the result, and so on. |
|
144 |
|
145 * |
|
146 |
|
147 Handling time, meaning, so what happens? This includes comparing |
|
148 the outcome to another roll or to a chart, moving on to the next |
|
149 step if any, ticking off hit points, checking for stunning, and so |
|
150 on. |
|
151 |
|
152 I certainly can't dictate how much is too little or too much - but I do |
|
153 claim that if they are not appropriate for the player outlook of the |
|
154 game (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist), players will complain, |
|
155 rightly, that the system "bogs down" (Narrativist), is "unfair" |
|
156 (Gamist), or isn't "realistic" or "accurate" (Simulationist). A good |
|
157 system's resolution should get the job done in appropriate amount of |
|
158 real time. Which job, and how long is appropriate, depend on the |
|
159 outlook. A new RPG system has no excuse simply to rely on the old |
|
160 paradigm of (1) roll initiative, (2) roll to hit, (3) roll defense, (4) |
|
161 roll damage, (5) check for stunning, etc, etc. This is a leftover from |
|
162 wargaming and is strictly Simulationist + Gamist. The RPG for you might |
|
163 be very, very different. In Zero, for instance, the order of actions, |
|
164 the success of each action, the degree of success for each action |
|
165 (including damage), and every other aspect of resolution are determined |
|
166 by ONE roll per player and ONE roll by the GM, in all cases, even in |
|
167 large-group combat. This game's system is truly an eye-opener for those |
|
168 used to the older methods. |
|
169 |
|
170 (Again: it so happens that I'm a hard-core Narrativist who enjoys |
|
171 Karma-based systems most, with a little Fortune mixed in. But according |
|
172 to the principles above, I can now judge a system according to its |
|
173 priorities, rather than just going by "what I like.") |
|
174 |
|
175 Another interesting question about resolution methods is, what is |
|
176 actually being resolved in terms of numerical game mechanics? Consider |
|
177 three things: the actual event ("do I hit?"), the energy it takes to do |
|
178 it ("deduct 4 Endurance"), and the reward ("You did 18 damage, that's 18 |
|
179 EP's, mark'em down"). Food for thought: maybe an RPG needs only one of |
|
180 these, two at most, and can let the third just vanish - and it doesn't |
|
181 matter which. I'm still thinking about this issue, though; at the moment |
|
182 it's just a notion, not a conclusion. |
|
183 |
|
184 |
|
185 In Conclusion |
|
186 |
|
187 To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and |
|
188 doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks. Its resolution |
|
189 method(s) are appropriate for the outlook: they have search and handling |
|
190 time that works for that outlook, in terms of both what the players have |
|
191 to do and what happens to the characters. (One might even suggest that |
|
192 the method be thematically suitable as well, as in marbles for Asylum |
|
193 and playing cards for Castle Falkenstein; I like this idea too, but it's |
|
194 not absolutely necessary.) |
|
195 |
|
196 Perhaps the ongoing debate about "system-light" vs. "system-heavy" is a |
|
197 waste of time. A system is not automatically good if it is more or less |
|
198 complex than another. The degree of acceptable complexity comes from the |
|
199 game's outlook, and should be judged in that context only. A |
|
200 Simulationist, Fortune-based game almost has to be complex, but a |
|
201 Narrativist, Karma-based game is most satisfying with a simpler system. |
|
202 |
|
203 Please consider comparing a few systems yourself before reacting too |
|
204 strongly to this essay. I do respect your opinion, but it's fair to |
|
205 consider how many role-playing games you have actually, truly played. |
|
206 That is, real stories and sessions with characters the players created |
|
207 and cared about, not demos at a tournament or running a quick combat. I |
|
208 suspect that those of us who've played more than five or ten RPGs in a |
|
209 committed fashion will agree that "system doesn't matter" is a myth. |
|
210 |
|
211 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
212 |
|
213 Last updated 28-Jan-2004 15:28:37 CDT |
|
214 |
|
215 /The Forge/ created and administrated by Clinton R. Nixon |
|
216 <mailto:webmaster@indie-rpgs.com> and Ron Edwards |
|
217 <mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>. |
|
218 All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their |
|
219 designated author. |
|
220 |