Single System Monogamy

RareBreed

Adventurer
Yet the former will come across as the result, notwithstanding.
I agree, it's a very difficult balancing act and difficult to get right.
So you're suggesing instead that the majority should bend to the minority?

Last I checked, that ain't how democracy works.
So you are suggesting that the minority has no say whatsoever. That is called tyranny of the majority.

Democracies aren't perfect. If one party never wins, it will start to realize it has no voice and will become marginalized. And that's when things start to get radical and extreme.

A decent group of people, will see that a minority of players would like to try something else. Why not? If the minority group of players are willing to be the GM and teach the others, is that too much of an ask? I remember when one of my GF's asked me to watch some reality TV with her. Honestly, I didn't like it. But at least we got to poke fun of what was going on and so it wasn't quite as dreadful as I thought it was going to be. Would I go back and watch reality TV? Nope. But because she wanted me to experience it with her, I indulged. The show never did grow on me, but at least we did share a couple of funny moments blasting the contestants.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I am not saying everyone must play a variety of TTRPGs. But TTRPGs, are a combination of many things. They are part art, part entertainment, part hobby, and part education.
EDIT: The emphases should be must play. You can always choose not to play at all. It's a hobby and we all only have a limited amount of time to spend on a hobby
  • If you are going to watch TV, should you only watch one show? or one genre?
  • If you are going to eat pizza, should it only ever be with one set of toppings from the same restaurant?
  • If you are going to read books, should it only ever be from one author, or one genre?
  • If you are going to listen to music, should it only be from one artist or one genre?
You don't have to watch TV, or eat pizza, or read books, or listen to music. You can get information and entertainment from other sources. You could watch movies instead, or surf the web. Ok, so lets try that exercise again
  • If you are going to watch movies, should it only be one franchise, or one genre?
  • If you are going to surf the web, should it only be from one website?
Do you see the pattern yet?
Yes; and in some cases only having one is fine, while in others maybe not so. It completely depends on a) the individual and b) the thing being sampled.

Would I be happy if I could only listen to one music genre? No. (though there's a few genres I'd be quite happy to never hear again)
Would I be happy were I limited to only one set of toppings on a pizza? Sure, if I got to make the choice I'd then live with forever.
Would I be happy if I could only ever watch one TV show? No.
Am I happy only playing one RPG system? Yes.

And to all four of these, my answers only apply to me. Others would answer differently, in all likelihood.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
Well I don’t care what people do as long as it does not cause harm. Only play poker and not bridge?

Not giving me the vapors.

I guess the other issue is does trying a game briefly count? I have done a number of one offs and they were “fine” but we did not invest. They were “fine”

If someone says that is mental illness I laugh. What if bob only watches football? Not baseball.

Who. Cares?
 

RareBreed

Adventurer
Oh no, I'm not saying if you only play one game you're wrong/bad/mentally unstable etc.

Nevertheless, I realize that what I am saying here is tantamount to suggesting there is a one true way....so I will stop. Nevertheless, I hope I at least got some people to think. Especially with regards to letting players in a group who would like to try something else have a go at it.

Other players who only want to play a single system may not realize they are crowding out what other people in their group would like.
 

SableWyvern

Adventurer
Should we not inform people that there are benefits to new things and expand our horizons? Should we not challenge others to try something new because the argument is that only one way is good enough?

Is it now considered condescending to point out that there are other ideas in games (and hobbies in general) that they may not only enjoy, but broaden their views?
It's ok to politely suggest these things or have conversations about them.

It's not ok to insist on them, or give people unwanted lectures about them, or claim that people are causing themselves damage by not approaching these things the same way you are, or that it's unfair if they don't agree play the game you want.

Can you really not see the difference here?

My point is we should be broadening our horizons. It's your right to ignore my suggestions or not even hear me, and it's my right to point out the benefits of diversity and drawbacks of a single point of view. It's even ok to find what I am saying offensive. Challenge, almost by definition, requires discomfort and some kind of offense (to our bodies, our sensibilities, our beliefs, etc etc).
I'm not offended. I'm bewildered by your insistence that you are doing a favour and preventing great harm by telling people how they should be consuming their entertainment. You are claiming the right to be a rude busybody .... I guess you do have that right, but it's not going to lead you to any happiness.

Other players who only want to play a single system may not realize they are crowding out what other people in their group would like.
Ok ... so now it's becoming more apparent that this is what it's really all about. You didn't get to play the game you want to play, and you think the world should be more accommodating of your preferences.
 


SableWyvern

Adventurer
Oh no, I'm not saying if you only play one game you're wrong/bad/mentally unstable etc.

Nevertheless, I realize that what I am saying here is tantamount to suggesting there is a one true way....so I will stop. Nevertheless, I hope I at least got some people to think. Especially with regards to letting players in a group who would like to try something else have a go at it.

Other players who only want to play a single system may not realize they are crowding out what other people in their group would like.
Fair enough. Don't feel obligated to reply to my previous post. I'm happy to let the matter drop.
 

RareBreed

Adventurer
Despite my previous post, I will respond to these because I believe they have become somewhat personal attacks (at least one in particular).
Ok, so if it's in my own best interests to watch a wide variety of movies, what are the minimum number of movies I should watch per year for good mental health, and how many different genres should I watch? If I only watch four movies a year, will that be unhealthy? Should I be watching a minimum of eight movies a year, across a minimum of four genres? How do you arrive at the numbers you've chosen, and what dire perils will I face if I choose to watch (shock horror!) zero movies?
I probably didn't do a good job of explaining that my higher goal here is about diversity. If we restrict ourselves to a single point of view, there is a danger to that. People have latched on to my use of "unhealthy" as somehow me declaring mental unhealth.
It is unhealthy from the point of view that it means a person can become stuck in only one point of view. You say later about strawman attacks, well, the mental health claim is one, and so is some kind of claim of quantification. Ideally, it'd be great if everyone had a PhD, or heck if everyone could go to college or a trade school. So should we suggest that "well, i can't afford college or trade school", so I may as well not bother reading anything at all. My point isn't that we should all get PhD's (from your example, watch X number of movies), but that we should expand our horizons. We should try to get out of our comfort zones once in awhile
Yet again, this is you arrogantly deciding you speak for everyone and telling us all what roleplaying can and does mean to us. You simply don't have that right, and I find it deeply disturbing that you genuinely feel that you think you can tell me that I would be better off if I treated roleplaying as "a way of life". I love sport, but I am deeply disturbed about people who live vicariously through the teams they follow, to the point that they allow success in a game they are merely watching to dramatically impact their everyday lives. That's what's unhealthy, not the ability to understand it's just a game.
Notice my original quote:
"Entertainment can be a rather large source of learning and even a sense of identity. I would argue that roleplaying isn't just entertainment, it's a hobby, perhaps even a kind of way of life for some with our own subculture and in-jokes"

Did you read the "for some" part? No, I am guessing you didn't even though you quoted me. So do you still want to claim I am arrogant for assuming that this is the experience of all people in the hobby?

I am pointing out that some do feel this way. If you are not this way, more power to you. While I credit roleplaying with shaping a lot of who I am today, it is not a huge part of my life anymore. I probably spend 90% of my hobbytime with software engineering now. I'm actually with you about identifying too strongly with a hobby (or team). And indeed, that's one of my arguments about trying new game systems and genres, so as to minimize over identification.

This is a what's known as a strawman. At no point have I suggested that anyone should preventing other people from playing the games they wanted to.
My apologies, this comment was meant to be for everyone in general, not to you specifically. Sometimes when I directly quote from another, I forget about that, and make more generalized comments for other readers of the thread.
However, based on your comments to this point, I find it not at all surprising that you would consider it unfair if a gaming group didn't bow to your demands to play a game that only you were interested in. "If I want to play Chasms and Chimeras, but my friends don't want to, it's totally unfair and they're bad, unhealthy people who should cater to my needs and preferences before any of their own. I shouldn't have to confirm to them, the should conform to me. But it's not out of selfishness that I want this. It's for their own good!"
Interesting. I didn't say groups must acquiesce to other players who want to try another game. I do think a considerate group would be willing to accomodate others. I should consider myself very fortunate that the gaming groups I played with were all very much into trying new systems and settings. If this is the kind of reaction that gamers in monogaming groups have to deal with, then I do feel sorry for them.

I do find it quite fascinating how much of a nerve I touched though.
 


aramis erak

Legend
Well I don’t care what people do as long as it does not cause harm. Only play poker and not bridge?

Not giving me the vapors.

I guess the other issue is does trying a game briefly count? I have done a number of one offs and they were “fine” but we did not invest. They were “fine”
Most games take at least 3, usually 5-7, sessions to get to really get the flow and scope... the worst aspects can come out in the first session or two, but the nagging minor pains take familiarity to notice...
If someone says that is mental illness I laugh. What if bob only watches football? Not baseball.

Who. Cares?
The advertizers, the investors in the baseball team, Bob's roommates and/or neighbors...
For some, such as the neighbors, that he holds his beer-n-ballgame with the boys on mondays while they do their baseball parties on saturdays is a good thing...
For the advertisers and investors in the Baseball and Basketball teams? Him being only a football guy is a thing they'd like to overcome...

For the games industry - everyone but WotC has an interest in people finding their way away from D&D... because the more who find a second game system, the more who will be encouraged to do so...
 

Remove ads

Top