thread: 2005-03-23 : Strong Stuff Indeed
On 2005-03-25, John Kim wrote:
First of all—to all four of the prior posters—I am absolutely 100% down with "System Matters". I have seen it in action again and again. Lousy or inappropriate systems don't completely doom a game, but they sure do drag it down. By and large, I'm fine with Storytelling system bashing. I have limited experience but what I have seen is largely sucky. On the other hand, bashing (say) Champions or Ars Magica or James Bond 007 will get me to object.
Ninja Hunter J wrote: The system didn't support that. If your pointed nonuse of that power didn't give you resources, it was just a point sink
...
If, on the other hand, you didn't use it and got bonus points for not using it, for instance in the form of Great Responsibility dice, that would be a different thing.
OK, here is where I completely disagree. This is exactly my objection to Vincent of reducing meaning to bonus dice. Meaning comes out of the narrative, not from the labels which are attached by the system. In my opinion, the system did support my example. Champions has a hideous learning curve as well as some other faults, but once you can get players creating their own powers, it is excellent at supporting meaningful narrative within its niche. (Obviously, in my opinion.)
Once again, in case anyone is reading me wrong—I am not saying that any system is good for this. There are tons of systems which are terrible at this. And I don't inherently reject the idea of Great Responsibility dice. But the proof is in the pudding. Just having Great Responsibility dice doesn't mean that the system supports meaningful narrative. Nor does lack of them mean that the system does not support meaningful narrative.
Emily Care wrote: I don't think any of us think it was meaningless, but the system of the game sure did, for the reasons Ninja J outlined.
Of course the system of the game thought it was meaningless. Meaning comes from humans, not from system labels. The question is, did the system support creating a narrative which has meaning to the humans? My answer is yes, it absolutely did.
Superheroics is a great genre because everything is so richly symbolic. By creating a superhero with a name, costume, and powers, you are engaging in the creation of meaning. So, say, when Ron made Farslayer, or Joe made Archetype (who channeled ideals of social roles), or Craig made Statuemaker (who teleported by making bodies out of material that was there), or Ingrid made Nicole (a girl with an invisible friend), they were all rich with meaning. This was driven by the Champions system. They also got to engage by defining who their subplots were and who their enemies were. That's from the system.
Vincent wrote: On the other hand, there's no good reason for you to want to have this conversation with me. You enjoy your roleplaying, right? So what are you hoping to get out of this?
Well, I'm here because I'm interested in what you say. For example, I've got a copy of Dogs in the Vineyard beside me, and I've been trying to organize a game of it. I enjoy much of my role-playing—but I nevertheless want to try out new varieties and hear other points of view. That's why I went to Knutepunkt in Norway, for example. I'm at least hoping not to be closed to new ideas.
However, when things which you say clash with my experience of games I enjoyed, then yes, I'm going to express disagreement. I have a fair intersection with you on many points—I despise the total-GM-control / linear-plot track that role-playing got into, particularly in the 90's. I think that mainstream tabletop games today are in a rut, and really have been by and large since around 1990. But I expect I will disagree with you on some other points.
