--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/references/system_does_matter.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500
@@ -0,0 +1,220 @@
+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.
+