Single System Monogamy

[Thomas Shey]

Because - assuming that one system does (or can be tweaked to do) what you want/need it to - doing so takes much less time and effort than learning a new system and then having to tweak that.

Assuming the tweaking isn't just as much time and effort.

 

[dragoner]

Ultimately taking a dig at 5e is low hanging fruit.

 

[Blue]

I see lots of people who really only know* one system saying that they only need one system.
*I'm using know as in: have played at least short campaigns in other systems. Just "I read it" or "I tried a one-shot with others who hadn't played it" isn't enough.

But none of the people who know multiple systems are saying that. At the least, they are saying they want a good generic system like Savage Worlds that is designed to handle a lot of different games, and the others who know multiple systems are saying multiple systems are goods.

I have to say that since it really seems to be in a minority that people who actually know multiple systems only want one, that perhaps the people who only know one type of system and say that's enough don't have the information to make an informed choice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see lots of people who really only know* one system saying that they only need one system.
*I'm using know as in: have played at least short campaigns in other systems. Just "I read it" or "I tried a one-shot with others who hadn't played it" isn't enough.

But none of the people who know multiple systems are saying that. At the least, they are saying they want a good generic system like Savage Worlds that is designed to handle a lot of different games, and the others who know multiple systems are saying multiple systems are goods.

I have to say that since it really seems to be in a minority that people who actually know multiple systems only want one, that perhaps the people who only know one type of system and say that's enough don't have the information to make an informed choice.

The problem is this is almost impossible to determine, because people naturally prone to not wanting to use multiple systems are unlikely to get into them more deeply than your second line above, unless events force them. So there's going to be way too few samples to work with.

(This does not mean there isn't a strong tendency to use a wrench as a hammer on the part of people who really don't want to learn a new system, but I still think your criterion here is functionally impossible to use to assess).

 

[Scott Christian]

How many of your are monogamous with a single system?

I have never been monogamous. My present group of three years is not monogamous. That said, we have only played The Adventurer's Arts and Borderlands outside of D&D 5e. And D&D 5e has dominated two and a half years of that three. Borderlands lasted four weeks, and The Adventurer's Arts was approximately two short campaigns for about six months.

If you are system monogamous (or almost) do you run the same kind of game all the time? (only D&D, only Traveller, whatever...)

Our D&D games the past three years have had two different DMs. They have been run technically the same. One short six week campaign only used the PHB for classes and species. Prior to that, my two different tables used only D&D. It was basically the same outside of very, very small DM tweaks.

If you are system monogamous what system are you faithful to? What kinds of games does it run well, and where does it struggle?

D&D does it for almost all the players I have played with, especially 5e. I know people that play Pathfinder and other systems, but eventually, the table almost always reverts back to D&D.

 

[SableWyvern]

I never tried to assert that entertainment is the same as a social service.

The analogy of a food is meant to show that it's not good to not have diversity in your "education" so to speak. If someone told me they only ever read one genre of books, watched one genre of TV's more movies, or one specific "flavor" of anything, I would literally be concerned.

I believe that diversity and exposure to different ways of doing things to be quite the opposite of being narrow minded....wouldn't you agree?

A hobby you do for fun isn't comparable to "education".

I'm not suggesting your interest in a wide range of games is narrow-minded. I'm saying your inability to accept that some people feel differently is narrow-minded -- especially the fact that you think it is genuinely unhealthy for them to enjoy their hobby in a way that is different to you. The fact you are stating you would literally be concerned for someone's well-being simply due to them have an interest in only a limited range of movies is ... concerning.

I can assure you that "only watches movies if they are romcoms/thrillers/action/insert genre of choice" is not a warning sign that someone is unhealthy and needs your assistance in bettering themselves.

 

[grankless]

Of course not. It's like playing a single video game or watching a single movie. No one TTRPG can do everything (not even GURPS or FATE!), so why constrain yourself to doing one thing over and over?

 

[SableWyvern]

To each their own, but I personally don't think it's healthy, and would border on an obsession possibly. So I would lecture them.

You would lecture someone if you feel they don't watch a sufficiently diverse range of movies or read a sufficient wide number of fiction genres? [Edit: Also, lecturing them means you don't really believe "to each their own".]

In all seriousness, what you're suggesting here genuinely isn't healthy behaviour.

If the argument is "it's just a game", I would argue that gaming is also art.

Again, you are judging people because they don't take their hobby as seriously as you do. You appear to be projecting your own feelings, and assuming that every healthy person should feel the same way you do. If you want to treat your gaming as art, you're welcome to. What you shouldn't be doing is lecturing other people, who are running their own games, with their own friends, in their own homes, because they don't treat their game with the same degree of reverence that you do.

What I believe IS narrow minded, is saying "you must only like this genre" or "there's something wrong with anyone who likes that game system".

I agree that both those things are also narrow-minded.

 

[Umbran]

.I have to say that since it really seems to be in a minority that people who actually know multiple systems only want one, that perhaps the people who only know one type of system and say that's enough don't have the information to make an informed choice.

Or, try this hot take: They found something they like, and that's enough for them. They're good, thanks.

I find this tendency or desire to paint those who don't do things they way you do as wrong is rather more disturbing than someone who plays only one game.

 

[Mars Hall]

I have never been monogamous with a single system, though I did play almost nothing but World of Darkness for a decade.

Honestly, though, I don't understand why anyone would want to be system monogamous. Why not try new things? There's so many interesting RPGs out there!