What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?

I suppose the reverse question - what makes a system fun - is easier to answer but the specifics will vary from person to person.

For some a fun system is one with exciting, unpredictable features like critical tables or exploding dice.

Some people enjoy using the game mechanics creatively, as in original applications of spells, clever use or Fate style Aspects or building the best possible a character from fixed budget of points.

Others might fun a system that offers deep tactical choices. If you are into guns you might feel it's important that armour-piercing rounds act differently form hollow points (or something, I don't really know enough about guns to make a useful example).

And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.

So all in all I guess there is no real right or wrong answer, but I am just curious, what makes a system bland for you and is it really an issue?

depends on its iteration at the table...
People
Setting
System
(Snacks in there somewhere)

an un-skilled/fractualized group will ruin any system/setting.

as we are dealing with opinions here...there are no boring systems/settings just boring people...IMO!

Quote from: Soylent Green;431635What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?

First thing coming to mind: bland and generic to me are not the same thing.

A game system can involve tons of options, promote some specific game play, and be generic. GURPS comes to mind, for instance.

A game can be non-generic, and kinda be bland, however. The recent thread about Dragon Age made me think of that.

I guess 'bland' in this case means that it's a game that lacks personality or features that make you think of it on its own terms, as a game that is worthwhile to play on its own merits. Something that makes you say "ok, this game is definitely not like that game."

In that case, to me, a bland game is minimum "meh," which means I'm unlikely to play it instead of some other game. In that regard, this means the game's design fails, since the point of game, I'd think, would be for it to be played and enjoyed on its own terms, right? So yeah, bland is generally a bad thing, from that POV.

Depends, really some systems I like to fade into the background, to me that's not the same as uninteresting (bland) it just means that play is fast, and doesn't draw too much attention away from the characters and what they do.

I'm interested in what the characters do first, not what the players do.

Bland, for me, are usually games that heap on loads of detailed mechanisms to simulate 'reality' (usually someone's opinions on various models of firearms)... Maybe there's fun in there but I can't stay awake long enough to find it.
Games that try really hard to be 'interesting' and 'flavorful' can be just as annoying...

If it's annoying than by definition its not bland.

Supplimentary question: does your assement or feelings towards a bland system change dependding on which side of the GM screen you are seated?

Quote from: Soylent Green;431658Supplimentary question: does your assement or feelings towards a bland system change dependding on which side of the GM screen you are seated?

Not really, no.

I am interested in game systems themselves as constructs and works of art, so this is a question I have thought about in reverse (What is an interesting system?) quite often.  I submit Shadowrun First Edition as an example of bland system.  The setting was interesting, some of the art was fun, but the system itself (other than the interesting failure of the computer hacking abstraction) did not break any new ground or come together as being better at portraying that world than, for example, GURPS.  That doesn't make it a bad game - the fact that there wasn't a good "social combat" system, for example, might have helped the game - but it was not a system I would consider using again or even talking about at any greater length than this.

Quote from: Soylent Green;431635And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.

That pretty much my opinion. Rules and mechanics should be functional but not the focus of play. I just I'd say bland systems can be good.

Something which elicits a "been there done that" and/or "here we go again" type of meh response.

Quote from: Esgaldil;431661I am interested in game systems themselves as constructs and works of art, so this is a question I have thought about in reverse (What is an interesting system?) quite often.  I submit Shadowrun First Edition as an example of bland system.  The setting was interesting, some of the art was fun, but the system itself (other than the interesting failure of the computer hacking abstraction) did not break any new ground or come together as being better at portraying that world than, for example, GURPS.  That doesn't make it a bad game - the fact that there wasn't a good "social combat" system, for example, might have helped the game - but it was not a system I would consider using again or even talking about at any greater length than this.

There's only so many permutations of system mechanics using a set of polyhedral dice, until it starts repeating itself ad infinitum.

Quote from: Esgaldil;431661I am interested in game systems themselves as constructs and works of art, so this is a question I have thought about in reverse (What is an interesting system?) quite often.  I submit Shadowrun First Edition as an example of bland system.  The setting was interesting, some of the art was fun, but the system itself (other than the interesting failure of the computer hacking abstraction) did not break any new ground or come together as being better at portraying that world than, for example, GURPS.  That doesn't make it a bad game - the fact that there wasn't a good "social combat" system, for example, might have helped the game - but it was not a system I would consider using again or even talking about at any greater length than this.

? didn't Shadowrun 1e start the whole 'die pool' craze of the 90s - before White Wolf ? I'd class it as as quite the opposite, a revolutionary system - even if some of the implementation perhaps doesn't look so great in hindsight.

Johnson - Mea culpa - I apologize to the makers of Shadowrun.  I'm pretty sure I picked up Vampire: the Masquerade before I saw Shadowrun, but looking up the publication dates I see that Shadowrun was indeed two years earlier, and if they were innovators at the time, they should get credit/blame for that.

Quote from: Soylent Green;431635What makes a system bland and is that a bad thing?

I suppose the reverse question - what makes a system fun - is easier to answer but the specifics will vary from person to person.

For some a fun system is one with exciting, unpredictable features like critical tables or exploding dice.

Some people enjoy using the game mechanics creatively, as in original applications of spells, clever use or Fate style Aspects or building the best possible a character from fixed budget of points.

Others might fun a system that offers deep tactical choices. If you are into guns you might feel it's important that armour-piercing rounds act differently form hollow points (or something, I don't really know enough about guns to make a useful example).

And then there is an entirely different school of thought that says that bland is good. The system should be invisible, something that fades entirely in background. It's the characters and situations that are meant to be interesting, not the mechanics.

So all in all I guess there is no real right or wrong answer, but I am just curious, what makes a system bland for you and is it really an issue?

GURPS epitomises blandness to me, even though the sourcebooks are well researched and in depth. It all smacks of numbers and charts and where there is depth and detail it's lifeless and dull. The concept is great but the appeal, like the word itself - Gurps, is just...not.