Très très intéressant article ici : http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
En particulier sur une surprenante analyse des besoins fondamentaux des joueurs (ou pourquoi un système ne peut pas être universel car il ne satisfait pleinement qu'à une ou deux des catégories évoquées
"Specifically, I'm looking at the theory commonly known as GNS. This theory suggests that role play styles divide into Gamists who enjoy facing the challenges of play, Narrativists who enjoy great stories that involve themes or issues, and Simulationists who seek to know what another reality might be like"
"Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun.
Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session results in a good story. RPGs for Narrativists include Over the Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway.
Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists include GURPS and Pendragon. é
Et les trois réponses existentent du point de vue des système de jeux
"Fortune, meaning a range of results is possible for each instance (I rolled a 10 on 3 dice, under my skill of 12; I hit!). Most RPG systems are primarily Fortune-based for historical reasons; methods include dice, cards, and all sorts of other things.
Karma, which compares two fixed values (I have a 7 in fencing, you have a 4, I win). Amber is one of the few mainly-Karma games.
Drama, in which the GM (or rarely, the player) resolves the outcome by saying what happens ("You skewer him!" says the GM, without rolling or consulting numbers of any kind). "