Single System Monogamy

[SableWyvern]

Never been monogamous never will be

Now here's the more dangerous question to ask...is being a mono-game-system-only player healthy?

I'm always amazed at the parallels between the TTRPG hobby and software engineering. Someone mentioned that being both a player and a GM makes you better at both. I feel the same about game systems. The more you learn other game systems, the more ideas you have and the more you realize there are different ways of approaching things.

The same thing happens with programming languages and frameworks. Unless you are a brand-new, out-of-school college grad, if you've got 4+ years of experience, IMHO, you better know at least one other programming language and more than one framework (even if you have to learn it on hobby time). Why? Because it broadens your ability to think about how to solve problems and see there's a different way to design and architect things.

So why don't more engineers learn more programming languages and frameworks? The most common reason is either "I already know how to do it in X so why learn Y?" and/or "I don't have time to learn X". It's similar to what I hear in the TTRPG community. Many don't want to buy a new game system or take the time to get familiar with a new one. One difference though is most software engineers are aware that other languages and frameworks exist often due to one or more (sometimes over)zealous compatriots suggesting to the team to try this new language or framework that promises better functionality.

I've used the analogy many times before, but to me it's like saying "I love pizza, and so from now on, I only want to eat pizza". And it's even worse, because if we use the pizza as an analogy for a genre, and toppings for a game system, people not only want a pizza with the same toppings....they only want to eat pizza from the same restaurant! (or maybe chain of affiliated restaurants if you stretch the analogy to 5e compatible systems). Not only will some people only want 5e, it has to be 5e in Eberron, or Dragonlance, or "fill in your favorite game world here".

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.

If people tell me "that's my choice if I only ever want to eat Sausage and Mushroom deep dish pizza from Pizza Hut", yes I suppose it is. But think about what we would do if a child refused to eat everything except only one kind of food? Or read only one kind of book. What would you do if you had a room mate, significant other or family who only ever wanted to watch one kind of TV show or movie?

(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.

What would you do if you had a room mate, significant other or family who only ever wanted to watch one kind of TV show or movie?

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.

 

[aramis erak]

1. How many of your are monogamous with a single system?
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...)
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?

My own answers

• I am not system monogamous but feel more and more like I'd like to be.
• I run alot Savage Worlds in different genres. I don't always run the same kind of game. Last year I ran some Savage Pathfinder, and a alot of Savage Worlds Core + Horror companion when I was running my Night's Black Agents in SWADE game.
• If I were going to be system monogamous it would probably be with Savage Worlds. It handles most action oriented games quite well. It struggles with gritty realism in my opinion, which is one of the reasons I haven't been able to commit.

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.

I am a polysystemic gamer and evangelist.

Not every game is suitable for all genres... Savage Worlds is great for pulp feel. But I'd not want to run Trek using it. I could see using Genesys for Trek, tho'...

A couple good genre engines and some skill adapting, and one can get good results across a wide range.

• GURPS: Best for low-power heroic and for near future SF, or gritty fantasy. Can do others with the right touch.
• EABA: (Note: I was a playtester for 1.0) Good for more heroic. Did Traveller very well. Not quite to Errol Flynn levels of swash.
• Savage Worlds: Pretty pulpy - every fight is riding the edge of disaster... or overwhelming victory... depends upon the dice
• CORPS: gritty, crunchy, yet simple. Hardest bit is that the GM is expected to create the skill tree for any setting not published by Mr. Porter/BTRC.
• Genesys: more heroic pulp, the law of large samples becomes relevant in play. The funky dice are a problem... but they are used well, and for many, including me, worthwhile. Note that Star Wars differs slightly from Genesys, but the dice are the same sizes, names, uses, and probabilities, tho the specific symbols for a given result are slightly different on the Genesys dice vs the Star Wars dice.
• Hero System: it can do many genres well... but it takes work.
• Simply Roleplaying, Plain Label Game System, and several others: I dont know them well enough to comment accurately.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not in any meaningful way. I have some systems I return to frequently for certain purposes, but it'd be unlikely a single system--even one of my favorite generics--could serve all my purposes.

 

[Vael]

No ... but I do end up coming back to some. I like FATE and 5e a lot, and have bounced off a lot of other systems. I kinda liked Exalted, but admit that I kinda smooth-brain it (as in I am totally that player that still doesn't quite know how to calculate the dice pools and often needs help with the mechanics).

I have discovered my preference now tends to the lighter end of the RPG pool, super crunchy systems that I am not already familiar are probably not going to get me interested, bounced of Pathfinder 2 hard.

 

[MGibster]

I'm finding that bespoke systems offer an extremely focused experience right out of the box, often with months or years of designers trying to get every aspect of that vibe right -- more than I could do homebrewing, which I do a lot of.

And this is pretty much where I am at this point in my gaming life. While I can use Savage Worlds for a variety of action/adventure games be they fantasy, science fiction, horror, etc., etc., I can't use it to run games that feel like Alien, Fallout, Call of Cthulhu, or Legend of the Five Rings. I'm perfectly happy buying a game like Alien knowing I'm only likely to get so many hours of gaming out of it.

 

[dbm]

As a person who has been RPG-ing for over 40 years I have ‘sowed some oats’ to bend the analogy but I have mostly settled down with ‘the one’ now. Our group is heavy into D20 fantasy so I will always be playing that on-and-off, but in terms of games I want to run it is just Savage Worlds for me, now. The advantage of having a genre-flexible system like Savage Worlds is that it covers a wide range of campaign experiences using the same core rules with a few tweaks each time. Savage Worlds has all the tools and hits all the notes I am personally looking for.

I will still play a wider range of games, and some games are fine-tuned for a specific purpose which is cool when that is exactly what you are looking for. You can flex toolkit systems to fit those needs, but at some point it becomes counter productive from a time and head-space perspective. You could run an Ars Magica style game in Savage Worlds, or GURPS or Cortex for that matter, but the original is worth it sticking with over all the work that would take.

 

[TGryph]

Heck I can't even be monogamous to a single Fantasy genre system...though I would like to be. My groups just have different tastes...one likes Class & Level systems, the other prefers Skill systems. Other than that, I DO only have one Sci-Fi and one Horror system...so that is something..

 

[Staffan]

Heck no. Never have been. I was playing both Drakar och Demoner and Mutant pretty much from the start, as well as some Star Wars.

 

[schneeland]

Like most others that have commented, I have never been a single-system person. However, I think it would be fair to describe D&D 3e as my go to-system during the 00s - in numerous variations it probably made up about 80% of my playtime.
These days, I wouldn't spend the effort to bend the d20 engine to my will anymore. I still have some favourites (e.g. the Year Zero engine generally works pretty well for me), but what I play will vary depending on genre and intended tone.

 

[Blue]

I am a polysystemic gamer and evangelist.

Not every game is suitable for all genres... Savage Worlds is great for pulp feel. But I'd not want to run Trek using it. I could see using Genesys for Trek, tho'...

A couple good genre engines and some skill adapting, and one can get good results across a wide range.

• GURPS: Best for low-power heroic and for near future SF, or gritty fantasy. Can do others with the right touch.
• EABA: (Note: I was a playtester for 1.0) Good for more heroic. Did Traveller very well. Not quite to Errol Flynn levels of swash.
• Savage Worlds: Pretty pulpy - every fight is riding the edge of disaster... or overwhelming victory... depends upon the dice
• CORPS: gritty, crunchy, yet simple. Hardest bit is that the GM is expected to create the skill tree for any setting not published by Mr. Porter/BTRC.
• Genesys: more heroic pulp, the law of large samples becomes relevant in play. The funky dice are a problem... but they are used well, and for many, including me, worthwhile. Note that Star Wars differs slightly from Genesys, but the dice are the same sizes, names, uses, and probabilities, tho the specific symbols for a given result are slightly different on the Genesys dice vs the Star Wars dice.
• Hero System: it can do many genres well... but it takes work.
• Simply Roleplaying, Plain Label Game System, and several others: I dont know them well enough to comment accurately.

I agree. And to expand, even within good systems you might want a different feel.

You mentioned Hero System. It's earlier incarnation, Champions, was one of the games I played and ran the most in my teen years. And it's great as an insanely flexible supers physics simulation. But I also enjoy Masks: A New Generation, which is a teen superteam PbtA that puts next to no mechanics behind actually defining numerically and modelling the powers - as long as the player and the GM have a decently close idea on what the power can do, it's golden. But it put a lot of mechanics on relationships, on defining who you are, on being angry or insecure or guilty with mechanical repercussions. Both as superhero RPGs, but they are amazingly different in approach and mechanical focus. Both are good to have in a bag of tricks to be able to run the game you want to run next.

I read a lot of people going "I like just this one generic system", and to me that is very close to liking only one system. Because you have the same viewpoint, the same types of challenges (combat, etc) with the same types of repercussions, the same mechanical focus and the same places the mechanics lack support. Liking multiple varied systems like you mention, be them generic, big tent, narrow, or bespoke, I think gives that widened viewpoint as more robust toolbox. No matter how good a single system like Savage Worlds is, it will always have a Savage Worlds feel and not be able to give you something like Masks, or Blades in the Dark, or even Fate where you need to play up your character's flaws in order to power their strengths. Variety is more tools in your toolbox. And even if you don't need one all that often, just that you have it and know about it means you aren't using a rubber mallet when you need a pipe wrench.