Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9047606" data-attributes="member: 2629">This is what I see happening:&nbsp; As the new games release, GM/DM will select a system to run and will use the books of that system - introducing house rules as they go.&nbsp; They'll ask people to join, and some of their usual players will grumble because they want to use a different system.&nbsp; In some instances, players will decline to join a game because of the system used and we'll see some increased turnover in gaming groups, perhaps resulting in some people getting caught on the outs in the game of musical chairs and seeing them tend towards other hobbies.&nbsp; In other situations, they'll play, but feel less invested (think about how you feel when you're asked to try a new system that you don't think will be used enough for you to really invest in it).&nbsp; When they do play, many of them will have that tendency to point out why their choice of a game system does things better - which will be subjective and cause frustration, if not arguments (see: Edition Wars of 3.5/4E and 4E/5E).&nbsp; As players get used to seeing multiple systems, they'll get confused on which features are in which system.&nbsp; They'll use &quot;common&quot; houserules that steal from one system that did something differently, and they'll bring house rules from one table to other tables in increasing numbers.&nbsp; It is much harder to master 3 or 4 systems than it is to master 1, so there will be a lot more rule questions - which some tables will handle with a, &quot;we'll just make a call&quot; attitude, but others will struggle under, &quot;No, this matters, and I want to play it right, so let me look it up, AHA!&nbsp; You were wrong DM!&nbsp; Right here on page 139 it says ... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'RE OVERRULING THE BOOK!&nbsp; THAT TOTALLY SCREWS MY CHARACTER!&quot; (Yes - I know those players are not our first preference for players at our tables ... but that doesn't mean those types of players are not amongst our good friends, and that we don't either end up playing with them or damaging friendships that mean something outside the game).All in all: If the industry does not have a single dominant game, the industry will suffer.&nbsp; And, unfortunately, WotC/Hasbro screwed up and too many people have invested in too many competing systems for us to have the benefits of a psuedo monoipoly that we had in the AD&amp;D, 2E, 3E and 5E eras.&nbsp; We'll be stuck with an even more devisive version of the 4E/Pathfinder schism with 4 or 5 games splitting the market for a while until some start to fail ... but by then the damage will be done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9047606, member: 2629"] This is what I see happening: As the new games release, GM/DM will select a system to run and will use the books of that system - introducing house rules as they go. They'll ask people to join, and some of their usual players will grumble because they want to use a different system. In some instances, players will decline to join a game because of the system used and we'll see some increased turnover in gaming groups, perhaps resulting in some people getting caught on the outs in the game of musical chairs and seeing them tend towards other hobbies. In other situations, they'll play, but feel less invested (think about how you feel when you're asked to try a new system that you don't think will be used enough for you to really invest in it). When they do play, many of them will have that tendency to point out why their choice of a game system does things better - which will be subjective and cause frustration, if not arguments (see: Edition Wars of 3.5/4E and 4E/5E). As players get used to seeing multiple systems, they'll get confused on which features are in which system. They'll use "common" houserules that steal from one system that did something differently, and they'll bring house rules from one table to other tables in increasing numbers. It is much harder to master 3 or 4 systems than it is to master 1, so there will be a lot more rule questions - which some tables will handle with a, "we'll just make a call" attitude, but others will struggle under, "No, this matters, and I want to play it right, so let me look it up, AHA! You were wrong DM! Right here on page 139 it says ... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU'RE OVERRULING THE BOOK! THAT TOTALLY SCREWS MY CHARACTER!" (Yes - I know those players are not our first preference for players at our tables ... but that doesn't mean those types of players are not amongst our good friends, and that we don't either end up playing with them or damaging friendships that mean something outside the game). All in all: If the industry does not have a single dominant game, the industry will suffer. And, unfortunately, WotC/Hasbro screwed up and too many people have invested in too many competing systems for us to have the benefits of a psuedo monoipoly that we had in the AD&D, 2E, 3E and 5E eras. We'll be stuck with an even more devisive version of the 4E/Pathfinder schism with 4 or 5 games splitting the market for a while until some start to fail ... but by then the damage will be done. [/QUOTE]

Verification