Here are two blog posts in response to a video and it’s all about the old discussion if systems matter.
Here the question is slightly different: How do systems matter?
If an RPG system puts a great focus on combat (like 5e), does that make the game focus on combat? Alternatively, does it relieve the GM from combat simulation and instead let’s them focus on other aspects (roleplaying, drama, improv, story, exploration, etc)?
I would say that, if a system focuses on combat, it will contain combat. It doesn’t have to focus on it, but it does have to contain it, or you’ve wasted most of the system.
I would not argue that it relieves the GM from combat simulation. The GM still has to think through how the enemies would act, and how the current environment would work in the system presented. The presence or absense of combat mechanics does not permit or dissuade focus on narrative elements.
D&D has really limited our ideas of what an RPG can be. If a fight breaks out, you need to roll initiative, right? An adventure will contain combat, so you need a system in place to deal with it, right?
I recently bought a game called Golden Sky Stories where it dedicates only a paragraph to combat. You make an Animal test, then take a reputation penalty for being violent. That’s it. You don’t need to simulate it any more than you need to simulate cooking.
(Sidenote: Can someone make a cooking-focused RPG? It could be pretty interesting.)
This is why I love more abstract systems like Fate Core or Cortex Prime. They’ve got systems flexible enough to be turned into really anything you want. I ran a Fate Core game for a year that had tons of cooking and feasts, modeled off of the Redwall books. The heros were always preparing some feast or finding some new food to forage.