|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 8, 2012 14:20:14 GMT -8
I agree with JiB. The system matters only as much as the group allows it.
I've seen Amber rules-whored into oblivion (literally, much to my regret), and I've seen HERO games where the dice weren't touched.
Can the system help to flavour the RP? Sure. No question about that. Is it some sort of straight-jacket? No.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 8, 2012 21:40:44 GMT -8
I agree with JiB. The system matters only as much as the group allows it. I've seen Amber rules-whored into oblivion (literally, much to my regret), and I've seen HERO games where the dice weren't touched. Can the system help to flavour the RP? Sure. No question about that. Is it some sort of straight-jacket? No. So the system can flavour the role-play but the players influence the system design (be it off-the-shelf convenience or assiduously house-ruled tailoring). Players ( all players, lest anyone forget the GM is player too) trump system. This informs what I posit: the table conversation the players have “over-rules” system. The system will shape the player conversation and their in-game behaviour according to the story wanted and you may either use a system off the shelf, or, create it whole cloth. For a deadly game, it is just as acceptable to use GURPS off-the-shelf, or to house-rule Hong Kong Action Theatre! And, even in an off-the-shelf game like GURPS, there may be some house rules to the deadly game because negotiation is the nature of RPGs: the player conversation (and the character dialogue). The suggestion of a broken game, that house rules exist to unbreak a game, is purposefully erroneous. It is fallacious. The game fits someone else’s table of players (and possibly their game and/or their play-style too). If you’re into Marshall McLuhan, I offer the definition of RPGs to be a cool and low definition medium. The RAW controversy privileges a sales agenda of ballyhoo that differentiates every system fighting for market position. “RPG” video games are to movies what tabletop RPGs are to TV. Is Bioware’s Dragon Age: Origins an RPG? No. But it plays different than Bladur’s Gate or LA Noire. It looks like an RPG as a shadow looks like its caster. [Bending RPGs to fit into the larger video games market is a doomed marketing strategy perhaps a mirrors trick to increase investor interest.] So does system choice matter? No, on is own, not according to the above definition of role-playing games. What matters is the player conversation at the table. Players matter more in RPGs than in board games where the system is king: the Monopoly system, the Chess system, or Careers system delineates the game to be played and rather not the players. Build it and players will come is the engineering attitude, and players are expected to fit the system. In RPGs, the system follows the players. House-ruled and off-the-shelf systems are equally valid. The discussion that some brand named “shitty" system should not deter a satisfying game at the table only underscores and emphasizes my point of player engagement. The game control rests with all its players and not with its designers.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 9, 2012 13:38:50 GMT -8
I agree with JiB. The system matters only as much as the group allows it. I've seen Amber rules-whored into oblivion (literally, much to my regret), and I've seen HERO games where the dice weren't touched. Can the system help to flavour the RP? Sure. No question about that. Is it some sort of straight-jacket? No. So the system can flavour the role-play but the players influence the system design (be it off-the-shelf convenience or assiduously house-ruled tailoring). Players ( all players, lest anyone forget the GM is player too) trump system. This informs what I posit: the table conversation the players have “over-rules” system. The system will shape the player conversation and their in-game behaviour according to the story wanted and you may either use a system off the shelf, or, create it whole cloth. For a deadly game, it is just as acceptable to use GURPS off-the-shelf, or to house-rule Hong Kong Action Theatre! And, even in an off-the-shelf game like GURPS, there may be some house rules to the deadly game because negotiation is the nature of RPGs: the player conversation (and the character dialogue). The suggestion of a broken game, that house rules exist to unbreak a game, is purposefully erroneous. It is fallacious. The game fits someone else’s table of players (and possibly their game and/or their play-style too). If you’re into Marshall McLuhan, I offer the definition of RPGs to be a cool and low definition medium. The RAW controversy privileges a sales agenda of ballyhoo that differentiates every system fighting for market position. “RPG” video games are to movies what tabletop RPGs are to TV. Is Bioware’s Dragon Age: Origins an RPG? No. But it plays different than Bladur’s Gate or LA Noire. It looks like an RPG as a shadow looks like its caster. [Bending RPGs to fit into the larger video games market is a doomed marketing strategy perhaps a mirrors trick to increase investor interest.] So does system choice matter? No, on is own, not according to the above definition of role-playing games. What matters is the player conversation at the table. Players matter more in RPGs than in board games where the system is king: the Monopoly system, the Chess system, or Careers system delineates the game to be played and rather not the players. Build it and players will come is the engineering attitude, and players are expected to fit the system. In RPGs, the system follows the players. House-ruled and off-the-shelf systems are equally valid. The discussion that some brand named “shitty" system should not deter a satisfying game at the table only underscores and emphasizes my point of player engagement. The game control rests with all its players and not with its designers. I think that the system will flavour the tone of your game, rather than the amount of RP that's happening. But you are absolutely right. What the players want out of a game is going to override whatever the tone of the game "dictates". However, as a side note, Dragon Age: Origins is absolutely an RPG. What an RPG is defined as is different when you are speaking about video games and tabletop.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Aug 9, 2012 17:13:20 GMT -8
I think I'm going to disagree with you guys a little bit here. Sure, the players at the table (including the GM) have more power over the shape of the game than the RAW of the system do. As ayslyn said "What the players want out of a game is going to override whatever the tone of the game 'dictates'." I absolutely agree there.
But if the players and system are completely at odds with each other with regards to tone and genre of game, then why use that system? As an example, new World of Darkness and Ubiquity are both very similar game systems; you build a die pool that is stat + skill + modifiers, count individual successes, and compare that to a TN. But the nWoD system uses d10s with success on a 7+ result, while each die in Ubiquity has a 50/50 chance of success. After playing both systems, one of my fellow players remarked that he was scared to have his PC attempt things in nWoD because of the low chance of success the dice mechanics guaranteed. He was more willing to have his PC try things, and felt more like a hero in Ubiquity because of how the dice worked. I replied that I felt the mechanics fit the tone of the games perfectly. The nWoD system is supposed to be a dark, dangerous horror game, while Ubiquity is a 1930's pulp action adventure game.
Now I could swap the dice mechanics for the two games very easily; allow a 50/50 chance of success for each die in nWoD and use d10s in Ubiquity. But that would change the tone of the games. Would Vampire be the same danger around every corner horror game if your PC was more competent in his/her actions? Would Ubiquity be the same Nazi-punching, dino-riding pulp-fest you PC was more likely to fail in his/her heroic attempts? No, they wouldn't.
My point is this. Players can change the mechanics of a game system to better match what they want, whatever that may be. But eventually you reach a point when you realize you're trying to make the system do something it was not designed to do. Different games can be pushed further than others before you get to that line. Universal systems like GUPRS are designed to take a lot of modification, other games, usually indie systems, are not. If you get to the point where you've changed more of the RAW than you've kept intact, why bother to continue playing that game?
I agree with you creativecowboy. As you said, "a 'shitty' system should not deter a satisfying game at the table". But again, at what point do you stop playing that shitty system? When your group has ignored or modified 25% of the RAW? 50%? 90%? If you're tossing out most of the system to make it fun and enjoyable, why stay with that system?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Aug 10, 2012 0:11:41 GMT -8
It all depends on what expectations the players bring to the table. The player you mentioned as being 'afraid' to try new things is one who is obviously aware of the meta game and mechanics (and that's not a criticism . . . I don't treat meta gaming as a horror that must be expunged rather it is an unavoidable fact of life that should be controlled eg: F1is supposed to be all about the driver skill not the car, but the car makes a difference at some point and to some degree and it is easier to recognise it than ignore it). Consider the converse . . . A set of players who want to change tone but not system??? . . . It all depends on how the group RP's and what they want to do with it. Aside from house ruling there is just the whole 'here is my world, here is the tone, I've scaled the challenges to match', Cthulhu now exists in how many systems?? They're all horror, all Cthulhu but all use very different mechanics that have been adapted to suit the genre. It would be more accurate to ask 'does the die mechanic determine the genre/tone or does the pure free form RP??' . . . Since it should/would be both that could be further refined as 'which is more important??' . . . Personally I believe that "it depends on the group as a unique social construct . . . No two groups are the same only ever similar and often with more differences than similarities" (if that were not the case then RPG design would have halted a long time ago . . . There being no need for further genres or systems or methods of play)
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 10, 2012 6:30:07 GMT -8
As usual Hyve we're in agreement. My premise that you COULD play any style of game with any system is caveated repeatedly by the question, "but why would you want to?" I've made the assertion that you can have any number of different hammers and though they can all hit things they do so differently. Let me narrow that premise a bit to say that a ball peen hammer can be used to drive a nail. It will do it and suffer not ill effects (unlike the mirror polished planishing hammer I mentioned on the podcast) but it is not the right or preferred tool for driving a nail and one should only use it to drive a nail under fairly extreme circumstances.
So by extension, I could use Pathfinder (which is a perfectly fine game system) to play a pulp detective mystery game. I'd have to do a lot of translation, but it could be done. The real question is not could I use Pathfinder for that purpose, but would it give me the results that I want? My answer is probably not, for a couple of reasons.
1. The resolutions of events in Pathfinder are geared towards what the designers wanted their game to be, and that may very well not be what I want for my pulp game.
2. More importantly though I'm going to have to do a LOT more work to get it to work. Why would I want to do that when I have Savage Worlds or Ubiquity (Which I have yet to play but want to) or Hero or GURPS any one of which will do what I want without tailoring. The question then becomes which one flavors the resolutions the way I want?
So here's my quick and dirty rule of thumb guide for which system I (emphasis intended) generally pick for different flavors.
1. Over the top adventure and somewhat light hearted, you guessed it, Savage Worlds.
2. Heroic but not over the top, like a movie, Hero
3. Gritty in your teeth, GURPS (though for me Hero is close).
But that's my rule of thumb it may be different for other people.
Oh, one addition, if I want a heroic fantasy game with lots of magic and the feel of the games we played when we were kids, my pick is Pathfinder.
As always just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Aug 10, 2012 8:00:37 GMT -8
I think that the system will flavour the tone of your game, rather than the amount of RP that's happening. But you are absolutely right. What the players want out of a game is going to override whatever the tone of the game "dictates". However, as a side note, Dragon Age: Origins is absolutely an RPG. What an RPG is defined as is different when you are speaking about video games and tabletop. As a side note to this discussion, but not entirely off its topic and essential to defining RPGs by systems (in use, and, in design) over players ,or, by another criterion entirely, is that system definition creates a confusion and has the definition of role-playing fall between two very separate identities: video game and tabletop RPGs. This becomes an over-reliance on (and acceptance of) the use of hard-coded systems for our definition of RPGs – something that was not obvious to the hobby 37 years ago. Marketers wanting to raid the other market’s pie *cough*WotC*cough* also encourage this over-reliance. Does the system define role-playing? Is that why Monopoly cannot be a role-playing game because it does not have RPG trademarked into its name? Or is there something deeper preventing Monopoly donning the mantle of role-playing game? Both share the three dominant characteristics of games… Or, since others have used Monopoly to exemplify RPGs to outsiders, I ask: can Monopoly be played as a role-playing game and still be the game of Monopoly? I chose Dragon Age: Origins for my example because it really is a great computer game. It’s not an RPG because it is a codified system. Once you know the gift items to play against the NPCs, and without any improvised script to go off the rails, the game runs itself. It’s no more an RPG than Space Invaders or Missile Command though DA:O casts an impressive shadow that resembles one. It is passive after a certain point. It is no more an RPG than the old Pick Your Path To Adventure books though one can argue we still go through the motions flipping pages. Much is said about the comparison of novelisation to role-playing, and its degenerative affects to the game and hobby. Gygax likened the DM process to a playwright following Aristotle’s Poetics, and other games suggest the GM is a Storyteller and The Director, both connotations of limitation on The Players’ agency. The hue and cry goes up: enthralling the players to the GM’s authorship is not an RPG! It is megalomania. In the broad context of happening within RPGs, such megalomania is anathema to play rather than merely a reflection of game-style. We do not offer a critic to the players on this point and say: suck it up. We call it for what it is: a cry for help. And look at the other unwanted, non-collaborative, behaviours at the table from lording over a player to incessant rules lawyering. There is a line of aberration the so-called RPG computer game crosses, no longer on the continuum of active entertainment but a measure of passive extending the extremes of more or less. What I am saying, in this side note relevant to the topic, is player agency extends into system not as far as system. Thus, a computer game may ape the appearance of RPGs but it can never be an RPG because of that inherent lack of player agency. Same correlation to apes not being men, though there may be some shared evolution there. The divide goes beyond making choices that affect the story for the character. It permeates the mechanics separating choices. The first example of a surface character agency is not being able to join the bad guys (story boundary) whereas the second deeper example of player agency is reflected in the mechanics of, say, doing non-lethal damage ( system influence – the RPG player conversation). The essence of the dividing line is Dragon Age: Origins lacks player conversation. It replaces it in witty and clever character dialogue. It removes the “GM” from player influence. This, too, can be said of WoW. Player conversations over headsets only shadow the table negotiation over rule sets. I am going well beyond the “video games are railroading RPGs and that’s bad” argument. I do not deny the railroading aspects for the character exist, but I recall they exist in meta-gaming. I am saying the lack of player agency and the lack of the player conversation (not to be confused with play acting) makes video games not RPGs. RPGs require these conversations. There is a disservice to the hobby to equate video games to tabletop RPGs. I think I'm going to disagree with you guys a little bit here. Sure, the players at the table (including the GM) have more power over the shape of the game than the RAW of the system do. As ayslyn said "What the players want out of a game is going to override whatever the tone of the game 'dictates'." I absolutely agree there. You may be surprised how little weight that statement holds with some players who enter the RPGs hobby, an active medium of game, from the passive medium of the video game market in my experience. The required level of player engagement in RPGs can be totally unexpected by players in one media who cross to another. To passive gamers, the rulebook replaces their table conversation, a negotiation that does not exist in video games. What you just took for granted is not an idea that even enters their mind. Sitting around a table with toy army men, they know RPGs are different on the surface but may not be able to accept how or why. Such players can look as if RAW holds the GM’s feet to the fire, without even realizing the GM is a collaborative player as well as the system behind the game experience; or, players can delight in a game to break the system with the expectation that the GM’s role is to be their chief adversary rather than a role-play facilitator, which, requires the GM to have great capability to manipulate the RAW against the players for their enjoyment. (Hence, without published RAW, the game would be unfair to the non-GM players.) On the surface, the GM provides this adversarial content…. As well the deeper player conversation in guise of barmaids, hirelings, and others available for the dual purpose of role-play and game information in table conversation that involves both speaking and listening. I do not discount for a table of bickering, masochistic sociopathic, passive player personalities this adversarial game (players vs RAW Game adMinistrator) concept may be the very concept that informs their idea of “role-playing.” Fun is not an absolute concept. But if the players and system are completely at odds with each other with regards to tone and genre of game, then why use that system? As an example, new World of Darkness and Ubiquity are both very similar game systems; you build a die pool that is stat + skill + modifiers, count individual successes, and compare that to a TN. But the nWoD system uses d10s with success on a 7+ result, while each die in Ubiquity has a 50/50 chance of success. After playing both systems, one of my fellow players remarked that he was scared to have his PC attempt things in nWoD because of the low chance of success the dice mechanics guaranteed. He was more willing to have his PC try things, and felt more like a hero in Ubiquity because of how the dice worked. I replied that I felt the mechanics fit the tone of the games perfectly. The nWoD system is supposed to be a dark, dangerous horror game, while Ubiquity is a 1930's pulp action adventure game. Now I could swap the dice mechanics for the two games very easily; allow a 50/50 chance of success for each die in nWoD and use d10s in Ubiquity. But that would change the tone of the games. Would Vampire be the same danger around every corner horror game if your PC was more competent in his/her actions? Would Ubiquity be the same Nazi-punching, dino-riding pulp-fest you PC was more likely to fail in his/her heroic attempts? No, they wouldn't. My point is this. Players can change the mechanics of a game system to better match what they want, whatever that may be. But eventually you reach a point when you realize you're trying to make the system do something it was not designed to do. Different games can be pushed further than others before you get to that line. Universal systems like GUPRS are designed to take a lot of modification, other games, usually indie systems, are not. If you get to the point where you've changed more of the RAW than you've kept intact, why bother to continue playing that game? I agree with you creativecowboy. As you said, "a 'shitty' system should not deter a satisfying game at the table". But again, at what point do you stop playing that shitty system? When your group has ignored or modified 25% of the RAW? 50%? 90%? If you're tossing out most of the system to make it fun and enjoyable, why stay with that system? I am saying the GM is the system in tabletop RPGs: his or her table, his or her rules. This means the GM can initiate new players to the hobby as well as new players to a new game without reliance on a rulebook. Regardless if the GM accepts RAW off the shelf or creates a whole new rule set from a blank page, the GM remains to be the system – and is accountable to the game. Evolving a game system should continue to encourage players so long as they retain their voice to the system. “If you get to the point where you’ve changed more of the RAW than you’ve kept intact, why bother to continue playing that game?” Well, were the game being played Monopoly, I could see your point. We would stop playing Monopoly. We would have left that realm. But RPGs are not so RAW dependent than they are less dependent upon good player relationships. It is central to the nature of RPGs that they have this very evolutionary conversation between players. So I ask you: why would you stop? If you have replaced 90% of a system by cobbling together a “best of” home-ruled working system with your players, does it matter to your table if it has a brand name or not? Would not the evolved trust between players drive this conversation more than a RAW pre-package? So I now go back to Stu’s controversial statement: The RAW vs. house-ruled discussion, to me, is kind of nonsensical. "All systems can be tweaked, house-ruled and twisted to do anything, so, no, system doesn't matter." ... but if you have to make huge tweaks to RAW, doesn't that mean it *does* matter? Otherwise, just start with a blank piece of paper and house-rule as needed And I say the GM is that blank piece of paper. If the GM wants to use GURPS or Savage Worlds or design his or her own game from whole cloth, the GM is the system. Like a chef, the recipe may be his or not, and he or she may have grown all their own ingredients or not, but the result is the chef’s creation. In RPGs, the other players aid the chef because the dish is not for the eating but for the conversing. But the chef gets the satisfaction for the effort in the players participation. Does the GM apply the system coherently and/or consistently? That is a side issue about competency or douchey-ness of a GM, and I point it out to show how easy it is for the system to be corrupt no matter the printed RAW. Example: Tappy’s wing-nut convention game was about as blank sheet as it gets. But it sounded like the players had fun. If they enjoyed their system conversation with him, chances are they had fun and will trust him to GM the next time too. Someone wise once asked the question that stuck with me: if you want to play a game RAW then why play any role-playing game instead of a video game? I think this is a very salient question here, if system (and not GM) matters.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 10, 2012 8:20:57 GMT -8
But again, at what point do you stop playing that shitty system? When your group has ignored or modified 25% of the RAW? 50%? 90%? If you're tossing out most of the system to make it fun and enjoyable, why stay with that system? Well, let me turn that question around: If you've modified 90% of the RAW and the result is that the system is now fun and enjoyable for your group, why would you not keep playing it? I mean, you now have something tailored exactly to your group's taste, and which works! A group might search for years and not find anything that fits them that perfectly out of the box. My premise that you COULD play any style of game with any system is caveated repeatedly by the question, "but why would you want to?" We tend to overlook the practical reasons on this thread and assume that the person doing the choosing has unlimited time to assimilate new systems, money to buy them, and access to the material. That's not true for everyone. Consider, for example, the teenager with a small allowance (but loads of imagination and free time) who has to make do with a set of hand-me-down books in a single system. But Pathfinder is a subsystem of the genre-neutral D20 system. Do you think you could not run a satisfactory pulp detective mystery game in a D20 system? All the other systems you compare are universal (GURPS, Hero, Savage Worlds). This strikes me a bit like using the fact that Granny Smith apples aren't as sweet as oranges or bananas to prove that apples in general are not a sweet fruit. Now, if you do think it is not possible to run a pulp detective mystery game in any D20-based system, then that's another matter.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 10, 2012 9:10:23 GMT -8
There again, we get into trying to define words that have amorphous meanings at best.
What is a d20 system? What defines it? Is it any system that uses a d20? A system that carries the d20 OGL?
Are there not games out there that include the d20 OGL and logo for purely marketing reasons? Some of these games use almost none of the design conventions that *I* would use to define "d20." Even though I haven't seen it, I'm sure there's a game out there with a "d20" on the cover that would work fine for a pulpy game.
There are probably games out there with a "d20" on the cover that use a "d20 vs. target number" mechanic, but virtually nothing else from the SRD. Is that the same system as DnD3.5?
Now we're getting into a discussion of what defines a system in general.
And this gets into my misgiving about even including the caveat re: RAW vs. houseruling.
OF COURSE any system can be houseruled into any genre, story or flavor. That makes the question "does system matter" completely moot, as the word "system" now doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 10, 2012 9:14:22 GMT -8
On a side note, there needs to be a truly generic d20 offering -- D20 Univeral Role Playing. DURP. 'cause there needs to be a game with that name.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 10, 2012 10:09:41 GMT -8
kaitoujulietI was using Pathfinder as an exemplar not as a definitive. Absolutely I COULD run a pulp detective game in any d20 construct. I probably WOULDN"T, but I could. Cheers, JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2012 10:15:54 GMT -8
On a side note, there needs to be a truly generic d20 offering -- D20 Univeral Role Playing. DURP. 'cause there needs to be a game with that name. Wasn't True 20 just that? they should have called it DURP...i'd have bought DURP
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 10, 2012 10:19:28 GMT -8
On a side note, there needs to be a truly generic d20 offering -- D20 Univeral Role Playing. DURP. 'cause there needs to be a game with that name. I'd play it three times just so I could say "durp durp durp" JiB
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Aug 11, 2012 10:18:11 GMT -8
I'd play it three times just so I could say "durp durp durp" Then someone would come along and make the Holistic RolePlay system (HRP). And someone else would hybridize the two into HRP-DURP, the best game ever! Though TBH, I don't know whether anything can really beat BRP when it comes to acronyms. Some people use the term CRPG for this type of computer game, which seems like a reasonable compromise to me. What is a d20 system? What defines it? Is it any system that uses a d20? A system that carries the d20 OGL? Are there not games out there that include the d20 OGL and logo for purely marketing reasons? Yes yes, I didn't want to get into the minutia of what constitutes D20 at this stage. ;D I was merely pointing out (as Kainguru did on the first page of the thread) that comparing generic systems to a system designed for fantasy and then saying the generic systems did not-fantasy better was rather unfair. But I think it is worth considering the "umbrella" structure where there's a generic system with multiple genre-specific variants. For example, to shift it away from D20: you constantly speak of GURPS as a gritty, deadly, realistic game. But some of the GURPS supplements are specifically designed not to be any of those things because they're modeling genres or settings which are cinematic and low-lethality. So do those sub-systems of GURPS effectively become new systems, in your opinion? (Honest question; I'm curious.) Absolutely I COULD run a pulp detective game in any d20 construct. I probably WOULDN"T, but I could. Okay, I'm getting mixed messages from you, JiB. You say that system only matters as much as the players want it to (which I agree with, within reasonable limits), but so far you haven't said that you consider D20 variants suitable for anything except fantasy games that resemble the stuff you played as a kid.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Aug 11, 2012 17:04:40 GMT -8
I'm still chewing through your response creativecowboy, and will probably have to read it several times before I can respond properly. But I think I found something. I am saying the GM is the system in tabletop RPGs: his or her table, his or her rules. We're going to completely disagree on that point. In my opinion, the only time that the GM is the system is when the group is playing a completely free-form game that has no system other than the GM. My very first introduction to RPGs was driving back from some karate exhibition where one of the older kids ran me through an "in head" Choose Your Own Adventure style game. There were no dice, no stats, no rules, and the kid acting as the GM simply decided on a whim what would happen and what results my actions would have. I died because I walked through an unadorned wooden door and caught a rain of arrows in the face for no apparent reason. In that situation and others like it, yes. The GM is the system. But in my opinion, in any game that has a system (even a home-brew one created by the person running the game) the GM is merely the interpreter and adjudicator of the system, but not the system itself. To put it another way, the nine judges of the US Supreme Court interpret the US Constitution, but they are decidedly not the US Constitution. They have a set of laws and rules that they are working from, that other people can look at, and (I would argue) most reasonable people would reach the same conclusion when presented with the same issue and the same set of rules. To continue the judge analogy, the only time that a judge is the law is when there is no other legal code. Not even Judge Dredd fits this description, as all Judges are trained at the Academy of Law; they have a unified code to refer to though they may all interpret it differently. For a judge to be the law, there have to be no other laws. For a GM to be the system, there has to be no other system. And I say the GM is that blank piece of paper. I agree with you here, so long as that sheet of paper remains blank. As soon as the GM writes down that first rule, they have a system. And sooner or later a situation in the game will arise that doesn't quite fit neatly into the system you've created, and the GM will have to make a judgement call. They will have to interpret and adjudicate their own rule. Some published systems try to solve these hedge cases by creating a rule for every possible situation. The more rules they create, the more they take away the need for a GM to adjudicate player actions, and the closer they move to being a CRPG. Other published systems solve hedge cases by explicitly telling the GM to use their own judgement. The more they allow the GM to do this, the closer they move to that blank sheet of paper where the GM is the system. To answer the question both creativecowboy and kaitoujuliet posed: if you've changed 90% of a game's RAW to fit your group's tastes and playstyle, then by all means keep playing it. But you can't tell me that system doesn't matter in this case. If the system didn't matter, you wouldn't have felt the need to change anything about the system, because... well... it wouldn't have affected your game at all. I'm working under the assumption that at some point in the house ruling process, the GM will realize "Hey. I've changed a lot of the RAW of this system. Why?" and then decide if they want to continue to use the current system or move on to something else. It's entirely possible that the GM will say "Well, I've changed a lot of the RAW here, but you know what? We all love this hybrid system I've created." and continue to play. Another GM may say "I've changed a lot of the RAW here. How much more of this system doesn't match up to what we want? Maybe we'll try something else." It's almost like a slightly dysfunctional relationship. At some point you realize things aren't going well and are faced with a choice; stick it out and try to change things for the better or simply end things before they possibly get worse.
|
|