Quest for the "perfect" all-in-one game

[Set]

I'd go with GURPS 3e at one end of the complexity scale and M&M 2e at the other end.

I imagine Hero system is equally flexible, but I've never played it, and it seems to be at the GURPS side of the scale.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Rifts is another all-in-one book that I still have after all these years. Patchy as the rules are, I can't wait to run it again. If I could just get the group into it.

Have you ever run a campaign using RIFTS as the setting, but with an entirely different set of mechanics...say, from something your players enjoy? Personally, I've done this in HERO a couple of times, with positive results. Who knows, they might even have MORE fun if they never see your sourcebooks...

 

[dm4hire]

It's too bad there wasn't a streamlined D&D 3e. I know some are trying it now with OGL books, but it isn't the same. Most OGL games have some variations that may be great but vary from the core game (by definition), which really cuts into my mastery over the system in unsatisfying ways. The promise of d20 was great, and it achieved modularity for me with many alternate games--my favorites being Omega World and Judge Dredd. Good as they are, they aren't really all-in-one books though.

I can agree with this sentiment. I love PF and what Paizo has done in that regard, but I still want that one book system so there’s no fuss carrying around multiple books. The question is though how would you streamline it? My thought would be if one could cut out about a fourth of the PHB and the DMG that would leave plenty of room to include all or a majority of the OGL monsters. Then again I’m wondering if a “perfect” all-in-one would have such an expanded monster list or instead maybe a smaller list, but provide various templates or even a matrix for creating new monsters. Maybe both?

From the suggestions given, it seems clear though that a class based system tends not to work well in an all-in-one. It’s not that it can’t be done, as the Rules Cyclopedia shows, but rather I think due to space required in presenting them. The exception seems to be when the classes are limited by only being able to do a limited number of things, completely streamlined so as to be able to fill a broader role (i.e. the True20 class system.), or the rules system is light to begin with.

 

[Umbran]

If not, what do you think should be in a “perfect” all-in-one rpg book?

I don't think a perfect all-in-one book exists, because I don't think a perfect all-in-one game is a practical possibility. Games are, IMHO, at their best when they work with their genre. Since different genres have different needs, no one game can do them all well.

That being said, I don't make perfect the enemy of good - there are a lot of really good single-book games out there, many of which have already been mentioned.

 

[nedjer]

I don't think a perfect all-in-one book exists, because I don't think a perfect all-in-one game is a practical possibility. Games are, IMHO, at their best when they work with their genre. Since different genres have different needs, no one game can do them all well.

That being said, I don't make perfect the enemy of good - there are a lot of really good single-book games out there, many of which have already been mentioned.

Unless, perhaps, you can edit the rules yourself? I think nothing of re-writing either Traveller or Treasure and I just use a different colour of text to show the groups' changes.

Genre is the sticking point but modular games like Traveller and Treasure make it much easier. I was playing Treasure a couple of weeks ago and we'd pulled together a lot of stuff that basically let us travel through time. The GM just says jump through the portal and converted everything to modern equivalents on the fly. A Web spell became a Glue Grenade, a low powered Lightening became a Taser . . .

So, there ain't no perfect, but we can maybe get closer to it if systems are designed to make it easier for players to take control of the content?

 

[Marx420]

I'm surprised no one recommended it yet, so I'll put it out there and say pathfinder is my one book system of choice for fantasy.

As others have said both savage worlds and M&M are solid one book systems as well.

RIFTS is fun too if you don't care one whit for balance.

Thats the limit of my experience

 

[dm4hire]

Pathfinder doesn't work because there are no monsters in the core book, you need the Bestiary. An all-in-one has player/gm/monster info in it.

 

[Imaro]

I'm going to go with Reign: Enchiridion.

Company rules, esoteric disciplines, magic system, monster creation, etc. All in a nicely done 9.99 package... Oh yeah, and the supplements for it are done on a ransom model where the PDF is released onto the internet for everyone once the ransom is met. There's a setting up for ransom right now here.... NAIN — Kickstarter

 

[Umbran]

Unless, perhaps, you can edit the rules yourself?

Well, I can always edit rules myself. I feel proper genre-integration takes a bit more than editing - it takes game design of whole subsystems, and is best when matching a genre is done with intent from the ground up. If I wanted to write my one game, I'd just write my own game.

I'm a "right tool for the job" kind of GM - I'd rather have a half dozen games that each do different things and do them well, than one that does them all just kinda-sorta-okay.

 

[nedjer]

Well, I can always edit rules myself. I feel proper genre-integration takes a bit more than editing - it takes game design of whole subsystems, and is best when matching a genre is done with intent from the ground up. If I wanted to write my one game, I'd just write my own game.

I'm a "right tool for the job" kind of GM - I'd rather have a half dozen games that each do different things an do them well, than one that does them all just kinda-sorta-okay.

You are, as usual, sharper than a pointy stick

That should have been how convenient it is to edit the rules, and a modular design, customisation and/ or on-screen editing help me out there.

But, yeah, one size doesn't fit all. I couldn't hack just one game all the time, forever and ever . . .