diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/system_does_matter.txt --- /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 | Support The Forge | Articles + | Reviews | Resource Library | +Forums + + + + System Does Matter + +by Ron Edwards > +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 + and Ron Edwards +. +All articles, reviews, and posts on this site are copyright their +designated author. +