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

[steenan]

I used to search for "One True System", but I stopped some time ago.

And it's not because I became disappointed with existing games and decided that none will be perfect. Quite the opposite.

I found several games that I like very much. Games so good that I have no idea how to significantly improve most of them.
And they are completely different. Each scratches a different itch. One for flexible, player-driven style, another for fast, rules-light action, another for tactical combat, another for tough moral choices, and so on...

One game just couldn't do it, because it would become an unfocused mess, losing all the advantages of the games I like.

 

[LordNightwinter]

I used to search for "One True System", but I stopped some time ago.

And it's not because I became disappointed with existing games and decided that none will be perfect. Quite the opposite.

I found several games that I like very much. Games so good that I have no idea how to significantly improve most of them.
And they are completely different. Each scratches a different itch. One for flexible, player-driven style, another for fast, rules-light action, another for tactical combat, another for tough moral choices, and so on...

One game just couldn't do it, because it would become an unfocused mess, losing all the advantages of the games I like.

Also good points. Honestly sometimes you hunger for dungeon crawling, sometimes you want to blast space pirates out of the sky, and other times you just want to be a steampunk rabbit with a jetpack and lightsaber.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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...)

Yeah I can understand that. It sounds like it's just more of the same. I'd probably get burnt out if my DM was cycling through all the OSR retroclones just to see how the subtle differences played out.

How would it work if your group had only played D&D and Star Wars d20, and your DM wanted to try FATE and Savage Worlds? (Just an example, that doesn't represent my group.)

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

True. I suppose part of it has to do with how much additional work is put on the player. If you're given 10 hours of homework, or just as bad, have to spend three sessions on character creation before actually playing, I don't think I'd go for that. As a DM, I usually try to minimize player time investment. I'll premake characters, tell them what they might want to read ahead of time (and assume most of them won't) and plan for a 10-30 minute review/presentation of what they need to know to get started in the first session, and then have us learn as we go.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think that a "One True System" is possible for an individual, but not for the gaming collective body, nor for every individual.

For instance, I'm creating my own OTS from scratch. Lots of research and experience has gone into it. It will meet my needs for just about anything with a hybrid narrativist/simulationist style, high side of rules-light (or low-side of rules moderate), trait-based (rather than class/level) system, and most genres. Adaptability for levels of grittiness, strength of narrativism, and even whether it can be run as a "game" or not are included.

When it's up and running, I'll probably rare have any interest in using other systems for the sorts of experiences it is designed to handle--it will have them covered. I'll still scan systems and settings for ideas, though.

My system can't handle strong gamism, class-based systems, rules-heavy or low side of rules-light, and it would struggle with high supers or complex and unique world-specific mechanics.

Basically, I'll almost always use it for the areas it covers, and when I want to play something it doesn't (which I do), I'll use a variety of quality systems that meet those needs.

 

[GMMichael]

I found several games that I like very much. Games so good that I have no idea how to significantly improve most of them.
And they are completely different. Each scratches a different itch. One for flexible, player-driven style, another for fast, rules-light action, another for tactical combat, another for tough moral choices, and so on...

Valid point. Some games can meet some needs better than others.

But each game that you use to scratch another itch has a cost: time and/or money. What is the price you pay, per rule, to perfectly meet another gaming need?

Maybe the One True System doesn't meet every need of every gamer. Maybe it just does a really good job of meeting most players' needs. At first I'd say, "well, that's D&D." But D&D is firmly stuck in one genre. I'm not going to nominate GURPS either, because the GURPS "lite" rules don't even make sense to me. I haven't played Savage Worlds yet, but I've heard some good things.

 

[Dethklok]

I think that a "One True System" is possible for an individual, but not for the gaming collective body, nor for every individual.

The OTS exists for me. But I agree that for other people, it wouldn't - it isn't possible for highly detailed and complex systems to be very flexible, and those who like rules-heavy games would therefore be expected to require more than one system.

Maybe it just does a really good job of meeting most players' needs. At first I'd say, "well, that's D&D." But D&D is firmly stuck in one genre.

D&D is awful. Even in the genre where it belongs, it scratches a specific itch, and this not especially well, or there would be no need for drastic changes from one edition to the next. Most people play it simply because it's what everyone else plays.

I'm not going to nominate GURPS either, because the GURPS "lite" rules don't even make sense to me.

To me, GURPS is awkward. I can appreciate the kind of philosophy that gave rise to it, but the execution was wrong. Lite or regular, GURPS has too few attributes, with too much detail heaped on top. 7URPS might be better, but it's still complex for my tastes, and it still has the same sterile, overintellectual feel. GURPS seems like the kind of thing they would all play on the Starship Enterprise, after ridding society of the evils of dirt, money, discrimination, and alcohol.

I haven't played Savage Worlds yet, but I've heard some good things.

Savage Worlds ain't bad.

 

[Desdichado]

Also good points. Honestly sometimes you hunger for dungeon crawling, sometimes you want to blast space pirates out of the sky, and other times you just want to be a steampunk rabbit with a jetpack and lightsaber.

And sometimes... all the time, in my case... you want to do those things without having to learn an entire new "game engine" just to do what is, fundamentally the same thing.

To nitpick; I don't ever want to dungeon crawl. And a steampunk rabbit sounds like... at best... a tongue in cheek one-shot. But I get your point.

 

[dm4hire]

And sometimes... all the time, in my case... you want to do those things without having to learn an entire new "game engine" just to do what is, fundamentally the same thing.

Which has been part of my point. If you think of how often someone talks about it you will see that they often describe elements of their favorite game system, but with modifications that meet what they don't like about it. It becomes a desire in essence for a home brewed system without them actually doing the work.

 

[Dethklok]

Which has been part of my point. If you think of how often someone talks about it you will see that they often describe elements of their favorite game system, but with modifications that meet what they don't like about it. It becomes a desire in essence for a home brewed system without them actually doing the work.

Hey dm4hire, I read through your posts on this thread and can't see how that was part of your point. But I do want to respond to this:

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.

The oldschool games really didn't have a central mechanic. This has been a major criticism of them for some time now. Typically they did use d20 for ability checks, hit rolls, and saving throws, but also d100 for random skill checks (like bend bars lift gates), d6 for initiative, surprise, and searching, and even things like 2d10 whenever they felt like it. Given the personality profile of people who like D&D (vs. other games) it seems much more likely that the OSR movement is primarily fueled by conservatism and nostalgia.

It is true that some OSR games are simple; Mazes and Minotaurs is wonderfully straightforward. Although, M&M isn't consistently d20 (e.g. feats of strength are d10 against Might modifier). And many of the supposedly simple OSR games are not simple in practice; consider like Adventurer Conquerer King, once play progresses to the stage of managing kingdoms. The common thread in OSR is not elegance, but rather the seductive allure of "that old-time religion."

 

[dm4hire]

Hey dm4hire, I read through your posts on this thread and can't see how that was part of your point.

Dethklok, here is where I first mention core mechanic and point out players wanting to stick to familiarity:

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.

In response to your counter of:

The oldschool games really didn't have a central mechanic. This has been a major criticism of them for some time now. Typically they did use d20 for ability checks, hit rolls, and saving throws, but also d100 for random skill checks (like bend bars lift gates), d6 for initiative, surprise, and searching, and even things like 2d10 whenever they felt like it. Given the personality profile of people who like D&D (vs. other games) it seems much more likely that the OSR movement is primarily fueled by conservatism and nostalgia.

It is true that some OSR games are simple; Mazes and Minotaurs is wonderfully straightforward. Although, M&M isn't consistently d20 (e.g. feats of strength are d10 against Might modifier). And many of the supposedly simple OSR games are not simple in practice; consider like Adventurer Conquerer King, once play progresses to the stage of managing kingdoms. The common thread in OSR is not elegance, but rather the seductive allure of "that old-time religion."

The central mechanic in terms of dice should be viewed as the system used overall for resolving the largest portion of variable needs, i.e. combat and skills tend to be the two largest. While you are correct that many OS games and early D&D weren't uniform in there use of their dice one could actually say that in itself was the central mechanic style for those games; roll dX. Though there are many early OS games which focus primarily on d100, such as CoC, TSR's Conan, Rolemaster, and Runequest to name a few.

If we try to limit the system down to only one die type then we'll be hard pressed since many use variable dice outside the central mechanic. Fate would be one, Amber the diceless system, The SAGA system, the Marvel game (the one that used the bidding system), True20, and a few others I've forgotten, so yeah the list gets pretty small in that respect.

The overall point of OSR is to try to capture the rules lite aspect of the early gaming era. The problem with most of those systems is that they tend to be true adaptions of the games that inspired them with some changes, while great for those who are trying to perfect and create their "One True System", they fall in the myth since they will automatically not please everyone. In terms of OSR have you looked at M20? Very adaptable and some of the adaptions I believe leave it as the only die used.