POLL: Don't Scenarios Make the Game?

unknown member writes:

I recently hosted a modern Ukrainian Conflict game, and it went well, but it got me thinking – wasn't the game's outcome pretty set from the initial disposition of forces, their missions, locations, entry times/points, with so much largely determined by the initial scenario?

"Dicta" – German fighter ace Oswald Boelke back in WWI penned a series of precepts on how to ensure aerial victories – the thrust of his guidance was to always achieve positional advantage before engaging the enemy (if this was gained, kills were a matter of 'just pulling the trigger').

As a long-time member here on TMP, I often read the threads asking "what's the best ruleset for this or that period, or the most accurate, or most realistic"…

I think these threads often are putting the cart before the horse – do rules actually make the game, or is it how the forces are arrayed on the tabletop for the encounter actually, and largely influence what happens once the trigger is pulled?

If this is true, or what mostly influences game outcomes by/through the initial game setup – then do most rules actually operate to interject randomness into this formula, by dice rolling to make the results less predictable (and therein enters "the game")?

Furthermore, wouldn't the most realistic rules reinforce expected and predictable outcomes, and therefore make the original scenario creation that most important factor for getting expected results?

Poll set up by unknown member, based on this pre-poll discussion.