If I am already having fun, why should I change?

[Zeke]

D&D is not really a game about social interactions. There are games that are. In my experience, trying to get a game to do too much is a bad idea. It is better to switch to a game that does what you want to do.

[flannel]

I don't guess I'm too up-in-arms about system and mechanics.  I'm a little too story/mood/engagement-oriented to get bogged down by this mechanic or that.  At least, I can say that as intangible as "fun" is in the games I run, I don't think the rules have been a very big factor in determining whether its had.

[Zeke]

The best role playing experiences I've had have been influenced by roleplaying related rules.

[flannel]

The best role playing experiences I've had have been influenced by roleplaying related rules.

The best RP experiences I've had could have been done with different systems--given the same storyline.  *shrug*

[Zeke]

I would argue that they could not, that the system would change them. The question is if you are then a dwarf fighter dreaming you were a  ventrue vampire or if you are now a ventrue vampire dreaming you area dwarf fighter.

[flannel]

I would argue that they could not, that the system would change them. The question is if you are then a dwarf fighter dreaming you were a  ventrue vampire or if you are now a ventrue vampire dreaming you area dwarf fighter.

I'm of two minds, then, about this... First, we probably mean radically different things by "systems".  You seem to (and don't let me put words in your mouth here, but I'm not far from the mark I don't think) consider "systems" to include--for example--Ventrue and dwarves and fighters.  I, honestly, consider those not much more than labels or categories.  System, for me, is almost exclusively "how to translate intention, aptitude, chance, and environment into occurance".  So, less "Ventrue are a part of the system" and more "I can put the label Ventrue--with all its connotation and story elements--onto a D&D racial splat" or less "fighter is part of the system" and more "fighter is what we call this arrangement of traits or dots or build".

For instance, we could call Potence something like "Wackydoo"--and it really wouldn't matter so long as the relationship that label had was the same as Potence.  So, it seems terminology isn't the deciding factor so much as the relationship that term's essential components have to other components.  That just seems to make sense.  Maybe I'm offbase there.

And yet, Secondly, there's the idea of "so what?".  If I accept that any change to "Ventrue" literalism (the specific, by the book components) would mean that the result is not actually "Ventrue" (whether I invent a racial D20 splat for it or just alter the discipline package) no matter what I choose to call it, is it possible to tell the same story?

Well, possible, sure.  I mean, naturally, what if I had a game that never used Presence (by accident, nobody took it and no NPC had it) and I use a variant of WoD rules where Ventrue don't have Presence--then I could, naturally, have the exact SAME story either way.  But, obviously, that's absurd, right?  The odds of that are pretty low, so much so that its only technically true.

So, we have to give a nod to the idea that there's a sufficient truth independant of a technical truth--where that Ventrue-with-no-Presence-thought-experiment is technically true... its not really all that meaningful because it doesn't alot for a likelihood or a general accuracy.  A more sufficient and reasonable truth would be that if I made Ventrue different, then it would be reflected in your average game.  I think we can agree with that, right?

However, if the expectations of the story weren't all that dependant on specificity (the story wasn't particularly Ventrue specific at all, or even so far as to say that the dragon having died by a blade or a bow didn't really make a storyline difference sufficient enough to call a "reasonable truth" difference between them), then one could have the same experience with reasonably different components.  So, instead of elven rangers killing a dragon, the same general experience was had (same plot points and same revelations and same mysteries and same player-to-player interactions) even if they'd been human fighters.  Or so close as to represent no meaningful difference, despite a technical one.

I would go so far to say that from the looks of it--its entirely possible to use a different system (either in my extremely narrow view of what system is or a more general view) and have the same experience (certainly the same sufficiently meaningful experience).  I don't think we're disagreeing about that, actually.

So, can one have the same experience across different mechanics?  Looks likely.  Across different categories of fluff (elves vs. humans in the dragon example)?  Harder, but seemingly reasonably possible.  Across genre's?  Time periods?  Metaphysics (Star Trek levels of far future space fiction vs. old school V:tM)?

That's tougher.

[Josh]

[Brainpiercing]

I would have to agree, system IS the gameworld.

Take conflict resolution:
Physical conflicts in D&D are VERY different that conflicts in any system that uses wound modifiers. Plot points must match the system. It is impossible to write a plot point in D&D that has an NPC badly wounded and therefore unable to fight properly (unless you use magical effects like ability damage), without him being basically at below 0 HP.

In Shadowrun it is highly unlikely that an average Joe NPC has the chance to do anything quickly before players can stop him. The reason being that while average Joe acts, Character X takes three actions and has a cup of coffee. That is a system effect on the game world. (In our groups we made this even worse by reversing initiative and separating stated action and taken action. High initiative states last and acts first.)
Also, it's highly unlikely any meaningful NPC should die with a single shot. If you want to portray an assassination with anything less than a sniper rifle you should accomodate for this fact.

Game world without system does not work, because the two must fit together. A gritty fantasy setting in D&D doesn't work without a good deal of cutting corners or making different rules. (You could do it in E6 I guess.) Hack&slay doesn't work in Burning Wheel because people are wounded, die and don't get up again. At least you could never make a hack&slash campaign against nearly equally strong enemies, like you could in D&D.

If you want to make a cohesive game world you should never disregard the system. In fact, every meaningful plot-point should be written with mechanics in mind. In D&D, even a hundred low-levels couldn't kill a (powerful) dragon unless they're both lucky and really optimised to the task, or of course you write the Dragon to be an utter fool. Writing that kind of plot-point would make everything seem unrealistic and constructed. In other games it might be possible, in which case you COULD write the plot point like that.

[Zeke]

Ventrue is more than a label it controlls access to game powers and mechanical changes. Sure you could call it something else, but then something else would have that same mechanical advantage, hence: system.

[flannel]

That's where we start to lose each other, then.  I consider system just mechanics--tools of the trade bridging the gap between "want to happen" and "happens".  The GM and the Story are "what happens", the system is no sooner "everything that happens" than the cameras and computers and techwork are "the movie".  They're the unavoidable required mechanics that take expectation and translate it (fairly, hopefully) into results for the Story to interpret into Happening.  You seem to take them very much more seriously than I do.

Dwarves could be called Turtlemen they could have goiters instead of beards.  It would not matter to the playing of the game, ie Swinging swords.  It would affect the framing of the game, ie dwarves kill bad guys because they hate them. 

By definition changing the system changes the game.  You cannot possibly play the same if the way you play is different.

Ohhhhh.

But, nobody is arguing that you could play the same game--specifically--if the way you play is different.  Only that depending on what experience was had, one can have a sufficiently similar one under a slightly or even (possibly) very different conflict resolution system.

Was that not clear?

Ventrue is more than a label it controlls access to game powers and mechanical changes. Sure you could call it something else, but then something else would have that same mechanical advantage, hence: system.

Well, no "Ventrue" is ONLY a label.  It doesn't control anything.  Its the title for a predefined category of rules, as evidenced by the fact that you could call  those rules anything and they still work the same.  But whether "Ventrue" is or isn't a label is kinda beside the point, don't you think?

I mean, certainly given the notion that if I changed the system to a personally invented system where Ventrue don't have Presence--but Presence wasn't taken by any players or NPC's nor was it story relevant... then the system was different and the same experience was had.  Something you said wasn't possible.  I mean, is that not just technically logically true?

I agree that its absurd, but "lack of absurdity" is not a prerequisite for "correct".

However, we can say that if you change the system to something wholly different in all regards (go from, say, "Changeling" to "Space and Steel") with different referrents and different fluff and different conflict resolution system... then you couldn't have had the same exact experience.  But then, it doesn't appear that you're disagreeing that one can have the same experience with different systems--only that you can't have the same experience with some different systems.

So, we're apparently in agreement--its just degree thats the question.  Which would mean your first response is wrong.  Which leaves me confused.

Can you explain?

[Josh]

System is everything that happens. It is the mechanics.

Do I take it seriously?  Not really, or rather as seriously as anything.

Ventrue is a label as is Fighter or decaf.  It is a word that means something.

You cannot have the same experience with different systems.  Even if just because the systems are not equal.

[Orion]

System is everything that happens. It is the mechanics.

Well, no, actually, that's not true. Lots of things happen in the game that aren't mechanical. Most role-play isn't mechanical.

You cannot have the same experience with different systems.  Even if just because the systems are not equal.

Taken holistically, this is absolutely true.

[Josh]

System is everything that happens. It is the mechanics.

Well, no, actually, that's not true. Lots of things happen in the game that aren't mechanical. Most role-play isn't mechanical.

Incorrect.  It often does not have explicit mechanics, but the term is "dramatic resolution" and it is a mechanic(a poor one).

You cannot have the same experience with different systems.  Even if just because the systems are not equal.

Taken holistically, this is absolutely true.

Or taken any other way.

[flannel]

You cannot have the same experience with different systems.  Even if just because the systems are not equal.

What about the example where there were two different systems (the one with Presence-y Ventrue and the one without Presence-y Ventrue, where nobody played a Ventrue and none of the NPC's were Ventrue and the story didn't have a relationship with Ventrue-ness) where the same story, rolls, action, dialogue, etc. happened?

Isn't that the same experience with different systems?

Or, another example might be "you're playing D&D and nobody ever does anything with magic, there are no magical enemies, its a gritty little low-level street-level prison breakout game" and given the possibility of using D&D with Sorcerers or without, or perhaps even with a magic-side of the system or not... would it, then, not be possible for two games to be the same?

Or taken any other way.

...except logically, analytically correct-wise.

Can you see how there is an exception, here?

[Brainpiercing]

Or, another example might be "you're playing D&D and nobody ever does anything with magic, there are no magical enemies,

Duh, if you leave something out it IS a different system. If only no players take any magic, but there are magical NPCs, then it's the same system, but with different focus.

[Wordman]

[flannel]

Or, another example might be "you're playing D&D and nobody ever does anything with magic, there are no magical enemies,

Duh, if you leave something out it IS a different system. If only no players take any magic, but there are magical NPCs, then it's the same system, but with different focus.

Right, right.  If I changed it, its different--no problems there.  Simple premise. 

Now I run a game, and the players didn't want to play magical characters, or fight magical enemies, or use magical fluffyness at all in the first place.  We run the simple story and everyone does X, Y, and Z and the story goes "Blah, blah, blah" and the dice are rolled and the conclusions happen and XP is calculated and that was the game.  Simple premise.

How was their experience any different than if I'd used that other system (the one with magic hoodoo)?  We can say "the underlying elements MIGHT have influenced how they acted" and all that, but the actual behaviors and rolls and dying and chatter and everything was no different (comparing a measurable thing like "what happened" instead of a non-measurable thing like "the penumbra of environment nobody interacted with").

Same experience (which is the observable or testimonial) either way.  Different game.  Simple premise.

It is possible.  Simple conclusion.

This conflicts with presently two of the three BG's statements.  And, truth be told, if we can't accept /this/ simplified argument--we won't make any progress expanding upon what is or isn't possible or likely and won't explore any of the space in the "gameosphere" because we're putting on blinders and trying to make possibility fit our narrower view of "how it is".

[Shoggoth]

Or, another example might be "you're playing D&D and nobody ever does anything with magic, there are no magical enemies,

Duh, if you leave something out it IS a different system. If only no players take any magic, but there are magical NPCs, then it's the same system, but with different focus.

Right, right.  If I changed it, its different--no problems there.  Simple premise. 

Now I run a game, and the players didn't want to play magical characters, or fight magical enemies, or use magical fluffyness at all in the first place.  We run the simple story and everyone does X, Y, and Z and the story goes "Blah, blah, blah" and the dice are rolled and the conclusions happen and XP is calculated and that was the game.  Simple premise.

How was their experience any different than if I'd used that other system (the one with magic hoodoo)?  We can say "the underlying elements MIGHT have influenced how they acted" and all that, but the actual behaviors and rolls and dying and chatter and everything was no different (comparing a measurable thing like "what happened" instead of a non-measurable thing like "the penumbra of environment nobody interacted with").

Same experience (which is the observable or testimonial) either way.  Different game.  Simple premise.

It is possible.  Simple conclusion.

This conflicts with presently two of the three BG's statements.  And, truth be told, if we can't accept /this/ simplified argument--we won't make any progress expanding upon what is or isn't possible or likely and won't explore any of the space in the "gameosphere" because we're putting on blinders and trying to make possibility fit our narrower view of "how it is".

You're using a very limited example to make a large statement, and you're confusing color and system again.  Let me elaborate.

In your example above, you suggest running D&D without magic, and further suggest that you could get the same experience from it having changed the system.  In a very limited, short term way, you could perhaps do so.  But if you really look at the D&D system, magic is integral to how how half the classes function, it is integral to the mechanical character development process (magic items, etc.), and it's integral to the color of the world.  If you remove magic, then you remove all magical healing, which changes the game from heroic to gritty.  If you remove magic, then you remove all ranged combat except bows and slings, which changes the tactics considerably.  Furthermore, if you remove magic but then replace everything that it does with something else (technology, maybe) , then the system is the exact same, but you've changed color.

You could get a single, limited play session or two to come out "the same" if you made those changes, but prolonged play of any sort will be very different.  Because the system is different.

If you want to run a game with no magic hoodoo, no magic characters, no magic anything, then the entire point of this discussion is that while you CAN use D&D, or any system, you are better off using one that specifically is designed to work without it.  Cutting out the parts you don't like is changing the system, and ignoring the parts you don't like is changing the system.

[Josh]

Playing a game where no one happens to be an elf is effectively the same as a world with no elves.

The distinction is pointless except as a zen statement.  Like if a tree falls in the woods.

So is there something else or are you done?

[Orion]

Pardon me a moment. I'm going to interrupt this argument that is of no use to me in order to actually address the original poster's question. Frightfully rude, I know.

I think you're over-stating your case, here. It's not the same as staying in the harbour. Playing a game you like and enjoy and not branching out to other systems is more like sailing that ship up and down the same coastline that you know and love and can rely on. There may very well be fantastic vistas and beautiful sailing if you strike out for a few days and take the time to look for them, but there's nothing wrong with sticking to the shores you like. I realise I'm saying basically the same thing you did, but I think I'm creating a more appropriate sense of scale, and I'm being neither as witty nor as sarcastic about it.