System Mastery

So I've been thinking more on the topic of system mastery in the core of the gameplay and how it effects the game. I wanted to get a few of these thoughts down. This expands a bit on my last post, but really delves into a different topic.


System Mastery is of course the players knowledge of the details of the system. It ranges from knowing how the game is played all the way up to the perfect theoretical character builds. The part in between is where most people are. System mastery in RPGs is, as far as I've seen, is considered a bad thing by anyone without it, and good by those that have it (and enjoy it).

Unfortunately if you don't play one game long term, players don't have the opportunity to gain system mastery. Some times players don't even bother with the basics of the system (knowing what their character can do). The average player learns that much, as well as a few basics about the other players characters and the system overall. The next group starts to learn a bit about balance and what abilities they need to take to really get more bang for the buck.
If a group does stick to one system over several years (not uncommon at all) they'll slowly learn these things naturally. To keep up with this, systems with a high volume of book releases (I'm looking at you D20) builds in a requirement for system mastery. In order to challenge those players that are setting the curve, the game has to force the issue onto the players. So the less experienced players are left to the curb. In a casual group that doesn't have a "that guy" (or that guy is the DM), the bar for system mastery for the players is pretty low. There isn't a person directly teaching the group and pushing them for a higher level of play. There isn't a tactics boss in combat. It's not serious and it doesn't need to be.
This is where Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition really flopped. They looked at the level of system mastery in the most vocal area of optimization and set the bar based on a small minority of players. This led to more than one instance of a slightly sub optimal build for 3.5 (totally playable) into complete garbage in 4th. In 3.5 I felt a 16 prime stat at level one was acceptable. In 4e a striker with anything but a 20 was a hindrance to the group often enough that many groups of people hate the game, but don't know why.
Playing in a system that requires mastery, while not having the expected level of mastery is generally a bad idea. Especially in RPGs it creates a heavier burden on the GM to closely monitor the players and adjust things on the fly. Particularly troubling is when players change strategies ineffectively or use the same strategy in two different situations. When changing things on the fly, this can cause everything to fly out of balance again, making an unsatisfying experience and generally being a lot of work to little or no payoff.
Now, there is nothing wrong (or should be nothing wrong) with players lacking system mastery. The only time it should be an issue is when players still don't understand their own character sheet after playing a game for a reasonable amount of time. Especially in a casual group (like mine) that play a number of various game systems, lacking system mastery is nothing to be ashamed of.
I don't expect my players to be intimately familiar with systems that we play, especially not to the scale that I know them (yes, I'm the "that guy" in our group). The problem ends up being that when games require a level of finesse in character building and player skill (miniature combat especially), my group is punished by the game. I have basically no system loyalty and my solution is to find a better system for my group. D20 and 4e are both fun systems to play. They're both well written and executed. But they're not games for my group (and that's fine). My group lacks a collective system mastery, and for that reason, it's important for me to keep that in mind while selecting a game to play. Of course it could easily be noted that playing a game for longer periods of time and instilling my power gamer aspects on them could fix this problem, but that's not always the best solution.
Requiring system mastery can be good. Theoretical builds are fun.  Some people enjoy the art of power gaming and min-maxing. At my table (and most tables) it really hurts the group though.
Some games have a good use of system mastery, unfortunately they're usually competitive games (Magic the Gathering, Warhammer, etc.) and not cooperative RPGs.
The solution to system mastery in RPGs is simple. Forget having satisfying combats. Let the players run their stories and let the characters fill in the blanks. Give the players more opportunity to interact meaningfully with their environment. I feel this is needed because otherwise you have the exact same game with a chunk missing. You need to fill it with something and not just cover it with what's already there. However if you want satisfying combats, and don't want to delve into the pit that system mastery becomes, I've found it's better to just move on to a system that fits your group better.

There's no right or wrong on the subject of system mastery, only what is fun and what works. For my group, something lighter that doesn't require system mastery to the scale of 4e works much better. Same goes for Star Wars Saga and D20. We experimented with Dungeon World (a far cry from the burdens of D20) but that proved to be somewhat too light and lacking for some of the group (who after some struggles, really nailed the narrative aspect). With that, I can't wait to try 5e since I've seen claims of a smaller burden of system mastery.