Single System Monogamy

I have never been monogamous with a game system. I learned gaming in two separate groups simultaneously, one played AD&D1e and the other, which was larger and had more interesting referees, played OD&D. It was obvious that neither system could handle everything I might wish to do with a TTRPG.

Nowadays I mostly play and run GURPS, with a fortnightly Honour & Intrigue session, and play those old varieties of D&D at conventions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

RareBreed

Adventurer
Suggesting that it's unhealthy to play a single game, or that everyone should look at a leisure activity as something they should want to get "better" instead of just enjoying for what it is, is extremely narrow-minded.
I never tried to assert that entertainment is the same as a social service.

The analogy of a food is meant to show that it's not good to not have diversity in your "education" so to speak. If someone told me they only ever read one genre of books, watched one genre of TV's more movies, or one specific "flavor" of anything, I would literally be concerned.

I believe that diversity and exposure to different ways of doing things to be quite the opposite of being narrow minded....wouldn't you agree?
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
1. How many of your are monogamous with a single system?
I think responders here are more system-monogamous than they think, given that it seems to have been interpreted as "system-exclusive." And anyone who'd say "I only play D&D" is probably not using an online forum for role-playing games. News. And reviews.

2. If you are system monogamous (or almost) do you run the same kind of game all the time? (only D&D, only Traveller, whatever...)
Erm, I mostly run medieval fantasy, if that's what you mean. Some Metroid-setting games in recent memory were fun, though.

3. If you are system monogamous what system are you faithful to? What kinds of games does it run well, and where does it struggle?
Modos RPG gets my love, or it would wander into some dark corner of the internet and wither away :cry: It runs whatever I need well, which means that it struggles to be a technical, reference/simulator or OSR (the table-heavy aspect). Those options are possible, but without another modder's efforts, I'd have to write up those modules for it myself. Or pick up the books in question, and write an easy conversion rules-module.

In my case I'm considering pruning back my physical collection and am seriously considering whether I could get by with just a single system and use the vast pdf collection to supplement and inspiration. I just have to figure out if I can run something akin to a WHFRP game in SWADE or not.
You totally could. Rules-light games put the weight on the GM, and I have faith in you.

Now here's the more dangerous question to ask...is being a mono-game-system-only player healthy?
That's not what the OP asked, but plenty of casual D&D players do just fine with that. One can be friendly to other games, without loving them.

When a recent thread talked about how the Golden Age of TTRPG is ending because (as the assertion went) the dominance of 5e was coming to an end, I could only think: "If true, it's about time". Not because 5e is bad per se. But because of the monopoly it has on the industry. And I can't blame WotC for the monopoly really. For some reason I can't fathom, it's a community-imposed monopoly because so many gamers only want to play one system and even in just one setting.
I think the dominance (it's not a monopoly) more instinct-imposed than community-imposed. In the same way that most people have a hearty amount of sugar-added items on their grocery bills, though such items are 100% unnecessary.
 

Longspeak

Adventurer
I am Monogamous. But... you drift apart... you learn things, begin to see the imperfections. Eventually you realize you need more. You break up, and spend a while trying out new things. And then... you fall for one... and they consume your whole being. And like that, you're exclusive again...

But... you drift apart... you learn things, begin to see the imperfections. Eventually you realize you need more. You break up, and spend a while trying out new things....

Then, one day, you see your first across a store. You approach, nervous, hesitant... You see the changes, the newness as part of the same old one you first loved. You spend some time together, get one know one another again. Sooner then you imagine you find all your thought turning back to this old flame....

And before you know it... you're in the old, new relationship.
 
Last edited:

RareBreed

Adventurer
That's not what the OP asked, but plenty of casual D&D players do just fine with that. One can be friendly to other games, without loving them.
True, which is why I even prefaced it with the "more dangerous question to ask". But, I think the question is sort of buried there. Why would someone only want to play one system, or even just one setting?

But you said something that only just now clicked. You said, "friendly to other games without loving them". So is the term "monogamous" really like as in a "faithful relationship"? :) I had assumed it was kind of a play on words, but now that you said it that way, is the question really "Do you only love a single system and remain committed and faithful to it"? As if playing another system would be akin to "cheating" or betraying the system you like the most?

So that being said, I hope I did not derail the OP topic
I think the dominance (it's not a monopoly) more instinct-imposed than community-imposed. In the same way that most people have a hearty amount of sugar-added items on their grocery bills, though such items are 100% unnecessary.
Even in a monopoly you can have "competitors". But they can be so small, that they are essentially insignificant to the industry. But perhaps you are right. Gamers are different from the mass public in that more of them are aware of other games than non-gamers. It may just be an instinctual or nostalgic flight back to their first gaming. A sort of "first love that got me into the hobby"
 

hgjertsen

Explorer
I am DnD monogamous but only because that's the only game system anyone has the books for or wants to learn. My group didn't want to buy the Shadow of the Demon Lord books or try the Modiphius Conan system so they sit unused on my shelf.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
(Other than a tiny, tiny minority) gaming isn't something you earn a living from. We don't require a range of different gaming experiences in order to provide a variety of substances essential to good health. Comparing it to a trade skill or basic nutrition is ridiculous hyperbole. Playing only one game is worse for you than only ever eating pizza? Really?

Suggesting that it's unhealthy to play a single game, or that everyone should look at a leisure activity as something they should want to get "better" instead of just enjoying for what it is, is extremely narrow-minded.

It's ok to enjoy a hobby and not take it too seriously. In fact, if anything is unhealthy, it's believing your hobby is so important that everyone should take it as seriously as you do, and like it in the same way you do.

And I say this as someone who couldn't imagine playing just the one game for more than a few years.



I would accept that they're allowed to make their own decisions about what they want to enjoy, and while I might recommend things a bit outside their usual comfort zone from time to time, I wouldn't lecture them about it or insist they are doing themselves harm.
Social gaming is a healthy activity for almost anyone. One or many is not relevant to me if you anre entertained. It’s like saying a one sport athlete is not going to be fit to say otherwise.

I don’t think diversity of gaming experience means anything important beyond finding what kind of game best entertains you. It’s great and fine! Just not imperative.

Only eating candy though means you miss nutrients.

So I agree with you here—-I can appreciate evangelists for different systems and their excitement. I just don’t think it’s imperative to have more than one.

If I am playing video games, wargames and only one rpg, I don’t feel that someone is impoverished in their hobbies.
 

RareBreed

Adventurer
I would accept that they're allowed to make their own decisions about what they want to enjoy, and while I might recommend things a bit outside their usual comfort zone from time to time, I wouldn't lecture them about it or insist they are doing themselves harm.
To each their own, but I personally don't think it's healthy, and would border on an obsession possibly. So I would lecture them.

My grandfather told me a long time ago, "don't be nice, be kind". It took me a long time to understand what he meant by that. But being nice, means you want people to like you. So, for them to keep liking you, you don't want to tell them things they don't want to hear. You don't challenge or push them to become stronger. On the other hand, being kind means helping people even if they don't like it. You kick them in the butt when they are doing something harmful.

My analogy to the food was that eating only one food type is literally not healthy for your body. Only being into one genre or worse, one specific instance of a genre is I believe also unhealthy. Smoking is someone's choice, as is overindulgence of eating sugary foods. That doesn't mean it is healthy for the person.

Am I suggesting that it could be as serious as smoking or overeating? Yes, I do. If you wish to call that narrow-minded, that's your choice. But I would literally try to get someone out of an unhealthy habit like that and not just say "well, it's your life". I can't force them to of course, but I would definitely explain the dangers and be nagging about it (until I realize it is hopeless). Exposure to only one way of thinking or doing things leads to a closed way of thinking and understanding things. It is easy to measure physical health, as my example with smoking or eating too many carbs and becoming diabetic. But this same over exposure to the mind can be damaging just like it is to the body.

If the argument is "it's just a game", I would argue that gaming is also art. And art is what leads us to appreciate things and see both beauty and ugliness. If all we ever see is pictures of one ethnic group with a certain body type, then we may formulate in our minds: "this is what beautiful is, but I don't look like that". What about only seeing the world by playing only one genre with one game system? Would that not also restrict our way of thinking and seeing things? Gaming, for many people, is also their safe (and perhaps only) outlet for expression, and to interact with and experience another world. In other words, it can be a therapy. So I dismiss any notion that roleplaying "is just a game".

What I believe IS narrow minded, is saying "you must only like this genre" or "there's something wrong with anyone who likes that game system". And that's not what I am saying. It's perfectly fine to be exposed to many game systems or genres and realizing you really only like one. At least that person will have been introduced to other settings and systems so they have the groundwork and basis to compare things. And even then, I'd recommend to occasionally try out something new in a genre they previously dismissed. It's always possible whatever system they picked out for a certain genre just wasn't that good. One of my exGF said she hated Science Fiction, but I told her to try watching the rebooted Battlestar Galactica. After much protesting, she finally watched it, and loved it.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
True, which is why I even prefaced it with the "more dangerous question to ask". But, I think the question is sort of buried there. Why would someone only want to play one system, or even just one setting?

In the first case, mental overhead. Especially with people who prefer heavier systems, learning multiples can be unattractive to people, especially if they've got one really down.

In the second its because they want to really explore the setting in a way one campaign can't do.
 

RareBreed

Adventurer
In the first case, mental overhead. Especially with people who prefer heavier systems, learning multiples can be unattractive to people, especially if they've got one really down.

In the second its because they want to really explore the setting in a way one campaign can't do.
Perhaps I was lucky that I was in a gaming group with more than a single GM, so the responsibility of learning a system and teaching others could be distributed. I can also be sympathetic with people who just don't have time to learn, as that's definitely a real thing especially as you get older and responsibilities of work and family grow.

For me though, learning a new game system and learning a new world is about as fun as actually playing a game system/world I already know. I have a feeling that's why Solo roleplaying is becoming more popular. In fact, they say it's even a good methodology (solo roleplaying) to initially learn a system and world. I personally haven't tried that, but I can see why.
 

Remove ads

Top