Super agree, especially about how the social dynamics and the unique house rules and GMing style of each table are in some ways more important than the original system.
But I do think that system definitely affects player behavior and expectations. In your example with the golem, if we were playing 5e/Pathfinder, I think it’d be more likely that players would just say some quippy comeback and start fighting the golem. But in Mothership or Into the Odd or some other system where combat is not the expectation, players would be more likely to engage with the golem as a noncombat puzzle, because those are the behaviors that the systems encourage. I think it’s important to understand those incentives, although like you said it’s totallly possible for a more freeform narrative-focused group playing 5e to choose to not fight the golem because that’s their playstyle.
Systems are there for a reason. I mean, systems should support and direct play. So you are right, if expectation is combat, it's because the system AND the players want that kind of behavior. But the contrary is also true in ttrpg.
I know there’s a debate about what kinds of games people want to play. And it’s interesting. But are there any games you’d play that didn’t allow some fudging to keep players alive for the story’s sake. I’ll write more about this, but I can’t think of a fun game that has one life, no real progression, and still can tell an interesting story while doing remotely heroic stuff.
Narrative games tend to avoid death as a possible result just consequences that propel further the story. Progression... What if we considered progression as all the past character's experiences?
On a side note, I learnt not to fudge dice, ever. I badly want to respect the system and its design and embrace fate 😊. Even a bad roll series might be fun to play!
Setting is key, always. Can't think of a game without one solid setting. Or at least a solid set of staple vibes. Mechanic should serve the setting, always!
Your post has many common points with the one of @mageadvice and both of them made me think back to the 'last rule' of the How to run a KUP game series ...
Yes. I remember early in my role playing hobby that sometimes the rules worked best if you ignored them.
I quickly (as DM) learned to sketch wing-it scenarios that I mostly fleshed out on the fly based on the players and their characters behavior and desires.
We only used the rule books for inspiration, not arbitration.
Super agree, especially about how the social dynamics and the unique house rules and GMing style of each table are in some ways more important than the original system.
But I do think that system definitely affects player behavior and expectations. In your example with the golem, if we were playing 5e/Pathfinder, I think it’d be more likely that players would just say some quippy comeback and start fighting the golem. But in Mothership or Into the Odd or some other system where combat is not the expectation, players would be more likely to engage with the golem as a noncombat puzzle, because those are the behaviors that the systems encourage. I think it’s important to understand those incentives, although like you said it’s totallly possible for a more freeform narrative-focused group playing 5e to choose to not fight the golem because that’s their playstyle.
Systems are there for a reason. I mean, systems should support and direct play. So you are right, if expectation is combat, it's because the system AND the players want that kind of behavior. But the contrary is also true in ttrpg.
I know there’s a debate about what kinds of games people want to play. And it’s interesting. But are there any games you’d play that didn’t allow some fudging to keep players alive for the story’s sake. I’ll write more about this, but I can’t think of a fun game that has one life, no real progression, and still can tell an interesting story while doing remotely heroic stuff.
Narrative games tend to avoid death as a possible result just consequences that propel further the story. Progression... What if we considered progression as all the past character's experiences?
On a side note, I learnt not to fudge dice, ever. I badly want to respect the system and its design and embrace fate 😊. Even a bad roll series might be fun to play!
100% agree!
Great thoughts. I do prefer the setting, vibe, and story over mechanics.
Setting is key, always. Can't think of a game without one solid setting. Or at least a solid set of staple vibes. Mechanic should serve the setting, always!
Your post has many common points with the one of @mageadvice and both of them made me think back to the 'last rule' of the How to run a KUP game series ...
May the fun be always at your table!
https://viviiix.substack.com/p/how-to-run-a-kup-game-last-and-utmost
At the end of the day what we all want is to have some fun... bending/adapting/erasing some rules is not a sin, afterall uh?
Absolutely! On the contrary it'd be a capital sin not to do that! 😜
Yes. I remember early in my role playing hobby that sometimes the rules worked best if you ignored them.
I quickly (as DM) learned to sketch wing-it scenarios that I mostly fleshed out on the fly based on the players and their characters behavior and desires.
We only used the rule books for inspiration, not arbitration.
Inspiration vs arbitration is such a lovely wording!