Why the hate, people?

[Salad Shooter]

I've noticed a trend on forums. A large portion of the population ( or at least a number of the more vocal ones) have their pet game/system/etc, and will argue to the death why their chosen game is superior to the rest of them. This isn't completely universal, Enworld is one of the more friendly places to appreciate other games, but there is still some here. The wizards forums are notorious for such.

So why the hate?

Am I a naive person who is missing some golden light somewhere? Or am I one of the enlightened few who acknowledge that there is no one true way? And for those out there who shoot down all but their chosen system, have you played in any other system? I know many of you have, so please don't lynch me. My one friend dislikes White Wolf products because there is too much fluffy stuff, White Wolf's strength, in my opinion, before you get to the rules. I enjoy d20 because of the (relatively) solid ruleset. I enjoy WoD because of the huge amounts of fluffy goodness. I enjoy Palladium games because of the great ideas they tend to come up with.

So, does the majority of you that only like one system like it because you've found your perfect world? Do you only like one system because you've never played in another setting? Do you fear for your wallet to much to branch out (I know mine is hurting...)? Why?

 

[Desdichado]

I like one system these days because I don't want to mess with learning another one. I've played plenty of systems before, though, and I certainly don't hate any other game company.

There are plenty that I avoid for one reason or another, though.

 

[fusangite]

I don't think this has anything to do with system allegiance. I think it's just another manifestation of the fact that lost of us come to web forums to argue. Online forums are not great ways to do most kinds of social activities but when it comes to arguing, arguing online is actually more fun than arguing in person.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm with Salad Shooter. I love a number of different systems, and like (or dislike) individual games within those systems. I've had glorious and abominable games of D&D, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, Deadlands. . . although there are exceptions, it's far more the GM than the system for me.

Some people have huge chips on their shoulders about certain game systems, and I just don't get it. Life's too short. And EN World isn't a very satisfying place to argue, if that's what makes you happy.

 

[der_kluge]

I've yet to really find the perfect system. I really like HARP currently way more than d20 for numerous reasons, but there are still numerous little things that I will house rule about HARP if I ever get the chance to actually run it.

There's a lot of systems I'd like to look at it as well, but time and economics prevent me from doing that. I just can't justify buying up a bunch of systems to find the one perfect one, when I know in my heart I'm not going to find it.


I used to be a "one true system" kind of person. I prefered D&D over anything else. And that was even after having played a fair amount of Shadowrun in College, and a smattering of WEG Star Wars. I've never really tried any of the D&D clones like HERO, or GURPS, or RoleMaster. I'm not that familiar with those. Only in the last year or so have I come to realize that d20 "isn't all that" and I'm more open to looking at other systems now.

 

[Henry]

I have recently been put in touch with a book that is very insightful on this subject: Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.

In it, he theorizes that there are several different types of role-players, and gives names to each category. Each is fairly broad, and no one fits perfectly in one single category, but it gives the idea of what is each person's "emotional kick" that drives their role-playing appreciation. Some are driven by in-game reward, some by vicarious butt-kicking, some by the storytelling aspect, some just by the social aspect, etc.

However, when people tend to be in groups that favor only ONE style of play, they begin to assume that the only "emotional kick" out of the game is the type that they enjoy. It's like a bunch of people who agree that Rocky Road is darned good ice crean, and by extension so is moose-tracks, but forget that there are those who like Strawberry and Sherbets, too. How can you possibly like an ice cream that tastes like LIME, for God's sake!?!?!?

Anyone who's ever gamed in a group that has its butt-kickers, its power gamers, its storytellers, its casual gamers will realize that just like there's more than one skin color, or gender, or flavor of ice cream, there's more than one "emotional kick" that people get out of the wacky hobby we call RPG's.

 

[Insight]

I have recently been put in touch with a book that is very insightful on this subject: Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.

In it, he theorizes that there are several different types of role-players, and gives names to each category. Each is fairly broad, and no one fits perfectly in one single category, but it gives the idea of what is each person's "emotional kick" that drives their role-playing appreciation. Some are driven by in-game reward, some by vicarious butt-kicking, some by the storytelling aspect, some just by the social aspect, etc.

However, when people tend to be in groups that favor only ONE style of play, they begin to assume that the only "emotional kick" out of the game is the type that they enjoy. It's like a bunch of people who agree that Rocky Road is darned good ice crean, and by extension so is moose-tracks, but forget that there are those who like Strawberry and Sherbets, too. How can you possibly like an ice cream that tastes like LIME, for God's sake!?!?!?

Anyone who's ever gamed in a group that has its butt-kickers, its power gamers, its storytellers, its casual gamers will realize that just like there's more than one skin color, or gender, or flavor of ice cream, there's more than one "emotional kick" that people get out of the wacky hobby we call RPG's.

That's a great book, Henry! I recommend it to everyone I know who's a gamer. The non-gamers just tend to look at me funny, so I stopped recommending it to them.

 

[Darkness]

Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering.

In it, he theorizes that there are several different types of role-players, and gives names to each category. Each is fairly broad, and no one fits perfectly in one single category, but it gives the idea of what is each person's "emotional kick" that drives their role-playing appreciation. Some are driven by in-game reward, some by vicarious butt-kicking, some by the storytelling aspect, some just by the social aspect, etc.

I'm a tactician/method actor, which is kind of an odd combination but that's just how I am.

 

[johnsemlak]

I'll give some nod to Joshua Dyal that somehow I have less patience to deal with learning a new system now.

Not sure what it is. When I was a Kid, I could buy a new game and read it from cover to cover. Now, it's just not enjoyable.

THus, I can say that I prefer to stick to d20. If I were to play an RPG that was outside the fantasy genre, I'd prefer it to be d20 based. But i try to be open minded.

 

[fusangite]

EN World isn't a very satisfying place to argue, if that's what makes you happy.

It's the best place online I've found to argue. Here are my top 5 reasons ENWorld is a good place to argue:
1. Everybody has enough information to participate in most of the arguments because they are grounded in a rules system everyone knows. This is superior to a place like The Forge, where half the treads begin with multi-page essays that the thread poster writes to in which he creates various neologisms and redefines various English words that you thought you know the meaning of before you started reading the first post.
2. Thanks to the moderators, people are limited from engaging in ad hominem attacks so the arguments tend to be about ideas and concepts rather than name-calling.
3. The culture of the boards encourages clip and quote responses so that people stick closely to what others are saying in their responses.
4. ENWorld attracts an intelligent bunch of posters, many of whom bring education and professional expertise to the forums that enriches debate.
5. Because things other than arguments happen here and many of the most prolific posters have met in person, the boards are never enveloped by a general tone of acrimony as some exclusively conflict-oriented fora are.