The Quest for the "One True System" Is It a Myth or Something More?

[dm4hire]

One true system for every game is a myth.

One true system for a player has got to be a myth too, unless you always want to do the same thing. My preferences for an SF game are different than from a fantasy game.

And if you want to build a one true game you have to do it yourself, because no one will have exactly the same preferences as you. Lots of people find games that are pretty close and tweak them, though.

As pointed out by several a "One True System" is definitely a personal goal and I think it can be achieved. BRP, Cortex, Gurps, and Savage Worlds, to name a few, definitely seem to be adaptable to different genres. The myth is definitely a "One True System" for everyone.

If you think about it the system is not the actual goal as much as the central mechanic. Each major system which serves multiple genres doesn't actually stick with a set of rules throughout all the settings as much as they share that central mechanic between them, i.e. roll d20, d100, dx+dy, and so on. Which means the real quest is finding a central mechanic with a fairly good system build around it that meets your needs.

The central mechanic is definitely the reason people cling to a specific game for so long. Start with D&D you get use to rolling d20 and the math that goes with it. It can be intimidating to learn a new dice mechanic. Throw a heavy rules system around it and you up the intimidation factor. That's probably why the OSR movement is so big right now as they tend to focus on making rules light systems. In that regard M20 is definitely climbing the heap as a universal system.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's a myth to me because the "One True System" does not actually cover what we think it does. The "One True System" is a mechanical framework to create randomness and specific ideas. But that's not actually the game we are playing.

The game we are playing is "Roleplaying".

"Roleplaying" is improvisation. A handful of people having conversations and disputes with each other in the guise of a personal fictional character.

You don't need game or dice mechanics for that. Heck... there are schools and theaters that teach you how to do that. No rulebooks. No dice. No "game mechanics". I could play "Dungeons & Dragons" right now without using ANY of that stuff.

Because all I'd need to do is pretend to be a character I've made up and improvise with one or more other people to create a story together.

That's "roleplaying". That's the game. The other stuff? The dice? The game mechanics? The classes and races, and spells, and weapons etc.? All of that are nothing more than extra bits pre-created for us which help us to improvise and maintain a continuity of our story. That's all.

Which is why a "One True System" is a myth for me. Because any of those "extra bits" (IE "rules") that are created for me to help me improvise or "roleplay" with my friends should be whatever is best to help us create the story we are creating. Why would we want to tie ourselves down to just one set of "extra bits"? What does that gain us? Why do that, when a different set of "extra bits" might be better and easier... for helping us emulate the genre, the stylings, the narrative, and the propulsion of our "roleplaying" and the creation of our story?

Which is why I don't tie myself down to any one game, nor any one edition, nor get upset about any changes to the "extra bits". Because all that stuff is just the frosting. Improvisation is the cake. And if the cake is delicious, I don't care what color the frosting is, nor if the cake even necessarily has it.

 

[dm4hire]

I agree with you in that regard, but the mechanics used to arbitrate the randomness of reality (or in this case imaginary reality) is what people are looking for. They don't want to have to learn multiple systems to determine if their character succeeds or fails. Which is why it's an element of gaming. We can roleplay all we want, but if we don't keep that aspect of randomness we are left with just storytelling as we sit around and tell our story and try to agree or disagree with what we hear. Acting is portraying a written story in a visual format unlike roleplaying, which seeks to create the story as you go.

 

[gamerprinter]

it's obnoxious that some folks refuse to try supers, or cyberpunk, but this seems to be the utopia system. Sadly.

I don't think that's a fair to impose folks as being obnoxious for that. If you'd regarded "folks who refuse to try other genres", I could accept that. Other genres like historical games, sci-fi or horror, versus standard fantasy. Really, because the two you picked... supers or cyberpunk, both are (to me) silly and far outside my interest. I never got into super hero games, comics or movies, and cyberpunk simply does not interest me at all. There's more to the world than fantasy, supers and cyberpunk, a lot more. Sorry, I just don't want to pretend to be some guy in tights.

And as far as the OP goes, no such thing as the ultimate system for everyone, nor would I believe it if some publisher said they created the "perfect system" - nor would the idea of a "perfect system" attract me to want to play. Which ever system works best for you and your group for the kinds of games you want to play, is as perfect as it ever needs to be - and if it's a different system for every genre, that's fine too.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I was reading the latest thread about Savage Worlds when I saw reference to the “One True System” by the original poster. This got me thinking about my own quest for said mythic legend. I find it interesting that eventually almost every gamer seems to start down this path, looking for one system that will meet all their gaming needs. I’m not sure if this is a subconscious desire to recapture the essence of our early days in gaming or if it is just the desire to settle down with just one game and no longer compile a huge library of books. For me the quest was more trying to find the perfect game in one book. The closest I’ve come is Dungeons and Dragons Rules Cyclopedia, however I don’t like basic because it had races as classes.

So what does make the “One True System” for a gamer?
In my opinion it has to have the following in one book:
Core rules
Character information
Monsters
Basic setting info or enough detail to generate a setting on the fly
There are a few other core books I think meet most of those conditions. These are games such as Basic Roleplaying, Numenera, Savage Words Deluxe, and several OSRs just to name a few.

So what elements do you think belong in the “One True System” and why do you think gamers pursue this mythic quest? Can one system really capture everything?

Yes, it's a myth.

Partly because aspects a One True System would need for me include
* Fast
* Simple
* Easy to learn
* Covers the game we want to play

This is going to lead to multiple small systems rather than one big one.

And partly because we are not only different but we want different things at different times.

But this doesn't mean that specific games can't be improved on.

 

[Jhaelen]

For me it's not only a myth, it's also completely undesirable!

Just like I don't want to eat the same meal every day, I don't want to play the same rpg every week.

I have fun playing D&D, but after a while it would get really old, if I didn't get to play different systems every once in a while.
I also firmly believe in using the best system for a particular job, ratther than looking for a 'one-size-fits-all' generic rpg.

Different systems scratch different itches for me, and it wouldn't be possible to create a single, cohesive system that managed to do everything.

 

[Smoss]

One system to rule them all... Yeah, impossible when we all have different tastes.

It is why I crafted my own RPG system. It is as perfect as humanly possible... For what *I* want to do. For others? Not so much.

For example, it is tied heavily to my fantasy world. Now while some might enjoy a medieval fantasy world that is less Tolkien, more Game of Thrones - minus the sex but with more Cthulhu... Other people prefer a game for "big damn heroes". Or cyberpunk.

Getting a completely different game feel for each player to fit their utopian game is beyond any of us. I have tried a lot of the "toolkit" RPGs (Savage worlds, gurps, etc), and a lot of the more focused ones (D&D, Shadowrun, etc). None of them are perfect for everyone. Most are good enough for what they were made for (Exceptions apply. Like FATAL).

So I stole what I liked for MY perfect system, and left behind what I did not like. I love my system and my world and would not want to DM anything else - But that is me. And the whole world rejoices in that I am the only ME that exists. If they start cloning me, though, the world is in for a serious panic.

 

[valhallions]

Unfortunatly there will never be a "One true System" as everyone has their own needs, desires and expectations. At best each GM can develop thier own mechanic that pleases them and try and adapt it for different settings. I do think that there are some systems that are perfect for specific genres so there might be a Holy Grail out there

 

[fireinthedust]

I don't think that's a fair to impose folks as being obnoxious for that. If you'd regarded "folks who refuse to try other genres", I could accept that. Other genres like historical games, sci-fi or horror, versus standard fantasy. Really, because the two you picked... supers or cyberpunk, both are (to me) silly and far outside my interest. I never got into super hero games, comics or movies, and cyberpunk simply does not interest me at all. There's more to the world than fantasy, supers and cyberpunk, a lot more. Sorry, I just don't want to pretend to be some guy in tights.

That's fair, and I wouldn't say *you* individually are obnoxious. It's more the state of affairs that gets me: supers are just as silly as fantasy elves, possibly less so. They're equally silly. It's... kind of like hearing crack addicts complain about how lame needle users are, or how needle users say "at least I don't smoke crack" (which they do, btw). Weird analogy, I know. RPGs are somewhat healthier than hard drugs, but the analogy itself stands.

My issue is that it's just as hard to get gamers to play other genres as it is to get non-players to game.

More than this: that there are people stuck in their ways. Unwilling to stretch their horizons due to stubborness.

As a GM who's done fantasy for going on 20 years, I've been waiting just as long to stretch my imagination's legs. Yet here I am, stuck waiting on others (or, well, writing stories I wish I was playing in as RPGs).

At a point it becomes boring for me.

I as GM just want to enjoy the game, but there are gamers pretending that there's only 'one true genre'.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More than this: that there are people stuck in their ways. Unwilling to stretch their horizons due to stubborness.

Yes, and I've been a part of such a group since 1998. There was a flirtation with RIFTS for a year and a few months of a M&M game set in a 1912 as Verne or Wells might have imagined it.

Everything else has been D&D. Not even other FRPGs. Even the clones have only been used as sources of yoink.

I as GM just want to enjoy the game, but there are gamers pretending that there's only 'one true genre'.

For some, there is.*







* not me, though- I've owned over 100 different RPG systems covering many genres. I just don't get to play the vast majority of them often...