Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jedavis" data-source="post: 5953591" data-attributes="member: 35933">I think that, applied in this context, the point of the xk is not &quot;there should be a single standard&quot; (as perhaps the OP would construe it), but &quot;all attempts to create a single standard here will necessarily fail.&quot;&nbsp; This, I think, may be true because people (particularly people like gamers) have strong preferences and a history of resisting 'upgrades'.&nbsp; I know that I have pretty much no interest in 5e; I've got Traveller, ACKS, and Trailblazer, and I think those should nicely cover my RPG needs for the next 3-4 years or so, provided that I can find players.&nbsp; That's part of the issue, though - the more systems there are, the more fractured the community becomes, and if people hold to their strong preferences, eventually it becomes very difficult to organize a game in person in areas of low gamer-density (ex: I'm in a 4e town presently, and I've had a devil of a time recruiting for ACKS).&nbsp; And I'm not sure that's a particularly good thing for the community as a whole.So, conclusion - I don't think there should be One System to Rule Them All (and in the darkness bind them).&nbsp; But there are certainly enough systems on the market that adding another one just seems likely to increase the glut and confusion.&nbsp; It almost reminds me of the 3.x/OGL 3pp heyday, except instead of tons of supplements we have tons of systems.(Also - we still quote Monty Python, but no doritos for us; the powder coating gets everywhere)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jedavis, post: 5953591, member: 35933"] I think that, applied in this context, the point of the xk is not "there should be a single standard" (as perhaps the OP would construe it), but "all attempts to create a single standard here will necessarily fail." This, I think, may be true because people (particularly people like gamers) have strong preferences and a history of resisting 'upgrades'. I know that I have pretty much no interest in 5e; I've got Traveller, ACKS, and Trailblazer, and I think those should nicely cover my RPG needs for the next 3-4 years or so, provided that I can find players. That's part of the issue, though - the more systems there are, the more fractured the community becomes, and if people hold to their strong preferences, eventually it becomes very difficult to organize a game in person in areas of low gamer-density (ex: I'm in a 4e town presently, and I've had a devil of a time recruiting for ACKS). And I'm not sure that's a particularly good thing for the community as a whole. So, conclusion - I don't think there should be One System to Rule Them All (and in the darkness bind them). But there are certainly enough systems on the market that adding another one just seems likely to increase the glut and confusion. It almost reminds me of the 3.x/OGL 3pp heyday, except instead of tons of supplements we have tons of systems. (Also - we still quote Monty Python, but no doritos for us; the powder coating gets everywhere) [/QUOTE]

Verification