Fair enough. Context is an important thing. However, I don’t think this answers my main complaint which I (quite probably) failed to make entirely clear: ‘System does matter’ means one thing when we say it to prove it true and another thing when it informs our designs.

When we want to prove that it’s true, we look to the Lumpley Principle. ‘Actually, your awesome group and/or GM are an integral part of your system, so of course system matters.’

When we use it to inform our design, we think of our games as holistic. There’s a strong expectation that because system does matter, people won’t hack our games up and use them for immoral purposes. The design paradigm we work under means that we don’t design games with the intention of having people use only part of them. We have an all or nothing mentality.

There’s nothing wrong with it, really. It makes for some cool games. I just don’t think that it’s a necessary consequence of the system does matter realization.

Thomas

But, I’ve never had a problem with the phrase because it was written in a deliberate context: Amid the devastatingly widespread notion (still widely held, I believe) that “System doesn’t matter … because [Insert my awesome group and/or GM here]”

It was written as a reaction against that notion. Now, frequently, it’s getting criticized itself (which is more than a little weird) and without that context.

Carry on!