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

[dm4hire]

* 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...

I feel your pain on that one. I have bought many a good game only to have it sit on my shelf and gather dust after reading it because I couldn't find someone to play with.

Which is another illusion that feeds into the quest since a "One True System" would have playability for everyone the person seeking it knows, i.e. their fellow players. It's also part of the reason I think that at least the mechanical part is attainable because players tend to flock to specific mechanic based systems such as d20, d100, and so on as I've mentioned before. So while my players are more attuned to D&D they will more likely enjoy a d20 variant of a different genre because of the familiarity of the core mechanic. That's not saying they won't enjoy other games with different mechanics, but because of the smaller learning curve they will most likely enjoy something different because of not having to learn everything completely.

 

[MJS]

For class based systems, I go with Castles & Crusades, which is far closer to anything else in regard to being a perfect version of D&D. If just the editing wasn't so abysmally bad. But the system itself is close to perfect.
For classless games, I think Fate Core covers everything perfectly well.

I have two leather C&C books that don't seem full of errors. But the reputation is so bad I won't buy any more of their stuff. Typos turned me off to 2E, it's inexcusable imo (beyond a few rare errors)

i also just plain don't need C&C, AD&D works better for me anyway.

what do you think of the stat-based saving throws? In a dead(but not buried) thread it was said C&C saving throws were a mess. I don't like stat checks to begin with, what do you use?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I feel your pain on that one. I have bought many a good game only to have it sit on my shelf and gather dust after reading it because I couldn't find someone to play with.

Which is another illusion that feeds into the quest since a "One True System" would have playability for everyone the person seeking it knows, i.e. their fellow players. It's also part of the reason I think that at least the mechanical part is attainable because players tend to flock to specific mechanic based systems such as d20, d100, and so on as I've mentioned before. So while my players are more attuned to D&D they will more likely enjoy a d20 variant of a different genre because of the familiarity of the core mechanic. That's not saying they won't enjoy other games with different mechanics, but because of the smaller learning curve they will most likely enjoy something different because of not having to learn everything completely.

The funny thing for me is that many people don't want to learn new systems. Apparently they see it as some kind of chore. I see it like opening up presents under the Christmas tree when I was a kid. Wonder, excitement, etc.

I guess it's just one of those things to be aware of...until we learn how to convert them all...MUHAHAHAHA!

 

[GMMichael]

The funny thing for me is that many people don't want to learn new systems. Apparently they see it as some kind of chore. I see it like opening up presents under the Christmas tree when I was a kid. Wonder, excitement, etc.

I don't want to learn a new system because it often goes like this:

Me: okay, I have attributes, and health, and a profession. Now what? Can I play yet?
GM: Not yet. You need a Hobby, which can be found under your profession tree. And you need perks, feats, and traits. Each has a chapter. But first, you need a race, and don't bother trying to pronounce any of them, because they're all in an alien language.
Me (4 hours later): okay. I have all of that jazz. I walk to the nearest pub to kick back and have a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.
GM: sorry, but you have to use a movement, then you have to roll 1d6 for your Carousing, add 1 for the alcohol and subtract the bartender's Shmoozing roll (rolls 3d80)...

Get the picture? I'd rather just play something simple that works, and add a few house rules that the game group can agree on. (See signature link...)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The funny thing for me is that many people don't want to learn new systems. Apparently they see it as some kind of chore.

For some- especially those with large families- it CAN be a chore.

 

[Yora]

I have two leather C&C books that don't seem full of errors. But the reputation is so bad I won't buy any more of their stuff. Typos turned me off to 2E, it's inexcusable imo (beyond a few rare errors)

i also just plain don't need C&C, AD&D works better for me anyway.

what do you think of the stat-based saving throws? In a dead(but not buried) thread it was said C&C saving throws were a mess. I don't like stat checks to begin with, what do you use?

I use just regular stat rolls and they work fine.

The only difference to AD&D is, that in AD&D high level character are supposed to make almost every save, while in C&C successfully resisting something is always hard. Which I think makes kind of sense and is more interesting than "if you get bitten by a spider and have really bad luck, you might get poisoned". Instead, when you get hit by a spider, you need really good luck not to get poisoned.

Some people consider it a problem that at higher levels, there are increasingly more and more things that can kill or completely disable with a single failed save. These exist in AD&D as well, but it's unlikely that they will actually succeed. So while hit points increase, lethality doesn't actually go down in C&C but remains relatively stable.
If as a GM you prepare your own adventures, you can keep that in mind and don't use enemies who will attack with finger of death and so on. If you run low-level modules, it also isn't a problem because lethality is similar to AD&D. It only becomes a "problem" when you try to use unmodified modules for high level parties, which assume that lethality is much lower than it actually is in C&C.

 

[Desdichado]

The quest for the One True System is important in its own right, I think. Without it, how to we home in on what exactly our tastes are, and what we want system to do? Certainly it's been an important component of my own roleplaying "career", and I say this even as a guy who generally doesn't really care about system very much, and am not in the least a system junkie. I do find, however, that I want a broad system that I like well enough that I can use it in a variety of formats, for a variety of games, and a variety of genres without much tinkering to get it to work there. And as I've homed in on systems that I've liked, I've tinkered a lot with aspects of them.

For years, I looked at d20 Modern as my One True System; the last system I'd ever need. Even for fantasy, I'd take the d20 Past book, and the Shadow Stalkers campaign model, and use that (in lieu of D&D, for instance) because it better matched my taste.

Over time, I've become less patient with the complexity and clunkiness of the system, which I had previously thought I'd made peace with, so I'm starting to migrate a bit into m20 territory. But since m20 is a derivative of d20, I don't see that so much as a change in systems as it is a refinement and honing of the system to be a bit better adapted to my tastes than it already was.

I do miss a lot of the character definition options of a more fully robust d20 variant, but otherwise, I find that m20 (Modern) meets my needs ideally.

As others have said, finding a One True System doesn't mean every detail of the system, though. In order for it to be One True System, it needs to be flexible, modular, or adaptable enough to be used in a variety of genres, and with a variety of tones and feels. Depending on how strict you are about defining a system, there is, of course, no such thing. If you take a looser approach, though, you can have a family of very closely related, yet slightly different systems, that work for almost anything you'd care to play with the exception of extremely divergent ideas. I think that's not only doable, but even desireable for most gamers.

But again, I don't assume that most gamers are system junkies who enjoy playing games specifically because of system. What most gamers (IMO) want is to play without the system getting in the way.

 

[Bluenose]

Unfortunatly there will never be a "One true System" as everyone has their own needs, desires and expectations.

I think you mean "Fortunately" there. If there ever comes a time when all the tabletop RPGers agree on something, it'll be when all but one is dead.


And I'll say again, there's no hope of it, not just because different genres need a different approach, but because the How something is done matters more to many people than what the game can do.

 

[LordNightwinter]

Honestly you hit the nail on the head with the base requirements. I also believe the system should be relatively simple to pick up. I've got a relatively large collection of RPGs, some basic and some crazy complicated. My groups (and I've had a few!) have all preferred systems like Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder. Recently I've picked up Savage Worlds and Deadlands Reloaded/Noir. I hope to start running SW games soon. Other than that the ability to expand the worlds/system and create your own content with ease is a plus. I've seen some systems out there that are so complicated you are better off not trying to customize anything for balance reasons.

Numenera is a good one, Savage Worlds, Wild Talents, Monsters and Other Childish Things.

 

[MJS]

I use just regular stat rolls and they work fine.

The only difference to AD&D is, that in AD&D high level character are supposed to make almost every save, while in C&C successfully resisting something is always hard. Which I think makes kind of sense and is more interesting than "if you get bitten by a spider and have really bad luck, you might get poisoned". Instead, when you get hit by a spider, you need really good luck not to get poisoned.

Some people consider it a problem that at higher levels, there are increasingly more and more things that can kill or completely disable with a single failed save. These exist in AD&D as well, but it's unlikely that they will actually succeed. So while hit points increase, lethality doesn't actually go down in C&C but remains relatively stable.
If as a GM you prepare your own adventures, you can keep that in mind and don't use enemies who will attack with finger of death and so on. If you run low-level modules, it also isn't a problem because lethality is similar to AD&D. It only becomes a "problem" when you try to use unmodified modules for high level parties, which assume that lethality is much lower than it actually is in C&C.

Thanks for that, makes sense to me. Seems a good way to maintain a challenge to high levels with certain things, rather than making already deadly poison increasingly deadly via a minus to save.