Single System Monogamy

[SableWyvern]

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!

While I feel much the same way, the fact is that this is a zero sum game -- we only have so much free time, and time spent trying a new game is time not spent playing something you know you will enjoy. I can certainly empathise with that because, while I don't have my one game I want to keep playing, I do have an overfull plate of games I really want to get the table, and it's going to take me a good 20 years to get through the current list. That being the case, something is going to have to really capture my attention and make me excited if it's going to supplant some of those games any time soon. "Maybe this will be fun" isn't going to be remotely good enough to get me to run something ahead of the games that have me genuinely excited.

 

[Older Beholder]

I've played multiple games over the decades, but I'm pretty much a one system guy if given a choice.
The best thing about trying other games is how much I enjoy going back to my old fave afterwards.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think responders here are more system-monogamous than they think, given that it seems to have been interpreted as "system-exclusive."

What do you mean here?

I'm monogamous inasmuch as I usually only run one campaign at at time, and I'm usually faithful to that system for the duration of the campaign (although I have, on occasion, had a secondary campaign on the side) but my impression is that the OP is referring more to "until death do us part", and not counting serial monogamy.

I would certainly be accurate to refer to me as a serial system monogamist, though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

While I feel much the same way, the fact is that this is a zero sum game -- we only have so much free time, and time spent trying a new game is time not spent playing something you know you will enjoy.

OK, but modern RPG games like Mork Borg or Shadowdark can take 15 minutes to pick up, if you've ever played D&D.

 

[SableWyvern]

OK, but modern RPG games like Mork Borg or Shadowdark can take 15 minutes to pick up, if you've ever played D&D.

I'm not talking about learning curve (in fact, learning curve isn't even a consideration for me, really), I'm talking about time actually spent playing. I have plenty of time to learn new games, but only so much time to actually play (ie, "try") them.

I've literally been waiting about 14 years to get Mythras to the table. At the moment, my plan is to finally run Mythras Dark Sun when my current game wraps up (probably in 6 - 12 months). I also really want to run The Enemy Within Campaign for WFRP. I have recently been looking into Planescape, and am really impressed with it as a setting. I have plans to run it using Worlds Without Number. I ran some A|State a long time ago, but the campaign never went far, and I would like to get it back to the table properly, probably using Cities Without Number. I also have a Mythras Al Qadim conversion I'd like to try. The list goes on.

Mork Borg and Shadowdark would need to offer me a lot more than, "easy to pick up" to push any of those games back in my list. The fact is, neither do anything that particularly excites me, so it would be nonsensical to let them jump the queue over games that actually have me excited.

 

[Thomas Shey]

OK, but modern RPG games like Mork Borg or Shadowdark can take 15 minutes to pick up, if you've ever played D&D.

Of course the problem there is not everyone finds a game you can pick up in 15 minutes worth bothering with. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm monogamous inasmuch as I usually only run one campaign at at time, and I'm usually faithful to that system for the duration of the campaign (although I have, on occasion, had a secondary campaign on the side) but my impression is that the OP is referring more to "until death do us part", and not counting serial monogamy.

Being monogamous doesn't mean that you don't have relationships with others. It just means that only one relationship involves love (or coitus, to use the parlance of the times). So you can play different games and still be "monogamous," depending on what the OP had in mind.

Of course the problem there is not everyone finds a game you can pick up in 15 minutes worth bothering with. I certainly wouldn't.

You can pick up chess in 15 minutes. Good luck mastering it in ten ^10 times that number.

 

[SableWyvern]

Being monogamous doesn't mean that you don't have relationships with others. It just means that only one relationship involves love (or coitus, to use the parlance of the times). So you can play different games and still be "monogamous," depending on what the OP had in mind.

Unless we have some accepted understanding as to what a platonic relationship with an RGP is, I don't think the definition you're providing is particularly useful to this conversation.

 

[Mars Hall]

While I feel much the same way, the fact is that this is a zero sum game -- we only have so much free time, and time spent trying a new game is time not spent playing something you know you will enjoy. I can certainly empathise with that because, while I don't have my one game I want to keep playing, I do have an overfull plate of games I really want to get the table, and it's going to take me a good 20 years to get through the current list.

This is my point, though. We only have so much time, so playing only one system just seems like madness.

 

[SableWyvern]

This is my point, though. We only have so much time, so playing only one system just seems like madness.

I personally feel much the same way. It's just that I can also understand someone who knows they're going to have fun with Game X not having any interest in stealing time away from Game X just so they can try out Game Y because it might turn out to be fun.

I regularly have people who are shocked I don't like sticky date pudding, and I'm often being told, "oh, once you try this sticky date pudding, you'll understand how awesome they are." A long time ago, I let someone convince me to give it one more go. And, shockingly, I didn't like it. So I have no time for people still trying to convince me I should try this sticky date pudding, that is supposedly the exception. Maybe, because of this, I've missed the one truly awesome and amazing sticky date pudding that would convert me. More likely, I've saved myself a lot of money and sub-optimal dessert choices by standing my ground and ordering things I know I will like, and not listening to the people who think they know my tastes better than I do.