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

[Balesir]

So, can certain upcoming games toting "modules" meet the One True System requirements? What if one RPG is more like a toolbox?

I don't think so, no.

That's not to say that a system can't do a number of things - spreading accross genres is completely feasible, for example. The problem is that some styles require, or at least are hugely aided by, a completely different approach from the ground up. An example is the "rules or rulings" dichotomy. DDN, to pick a "modular" system at random , took a specific position on this right from the start. But whether the resolution is by rules that all can read or by judgement of some agreed party can be crucial to the success of a system for some styles of play. Likewise, whether the resolution mechanism resolves the outcome of described actions or resolves the outcome of expressed intentions of the character makes a huge difference to what play will focus on - whether it be on player intentions or on player competence (either with the rules system or with understanding the judge of outcomes).

A system that aims to be a "toolbox" can only go so far. If the very fundamentals of the game need to be changed for one "configuration", then it's not really the same game. You need a chassis to attach the tools to, and if the chassis is wrong then the tools you attach don't matter that much.

 

[Desdichado]

To me, it seems clear that the quest for a One True System is a very personal thing. What's the One True System that I can be happy playing around with for the rest of my life is going to be the most frustrating and annoying experience ever for someone with wildly different tastes, approach and priorities with regard to the hobby than me.

I had thought when I first read the OP and first few replies that that was implicit and self-evident, but possibly I was making just an unfounded leap of logic there, and it is in fact neither of those things.

 

[dm4hire]

I had thought when I first read the OP and first few replies that that was implicit and self-evident, but possibly I was making just an unfounded leap of logic there, and it is in fact neither of those things.

One would think it would be simple, but the “One True System” is actually very existential in nature. It’s just another part of our psyche we are trying to understand or at least some of us are. It’s definitely a fallacy in the sense that no matter how hard a person tries to find the perfect game there will always be something that needs to be tweaked or changed. I’ve said I think it can be obtained, at least to some extent, but it would be better to try to find two or three systems that cover all your needs the more I think about it.
The quest almost becomes a question for Zen. We are seeking the game that brings us the most harmony in our gaming life. However, harmony is often subjective to our own whims and determinations.
So you’re not alone in feeling lost in the conversation as that tends to happen when people ask questions that really can’t be completely answered. It definitely has had me thinking.

 

[Desdichado]

So you’re not alone in feeling lost in the conversation as that tends to happen when people ask questions that really can’t be completely answered. It definitely has had me thinking.

Indeed, I don't even feel alone or lost myself.

I'm merely commenting on my assumption that the quest for the One True System meant the One True System for the individual gamer (or, at best, his group) not for a true One System to Rule Them All that everybody in the entire hobby would enjoy equally.

A number of posts in this thread seem to approach the question from the latter stance.

 

[Hyper-Man]

Indeed, I don't even feel alone or lost myself.

I'm merely commenting on my assumption that the quest for the One True System meant the One True System for the individual gamer (or, at best, his group) not for a true One System to Rule Them All that everybody in the entire hobby would enjoy equally.

A number of posts in this thread seem to approach the question from the latter stance.

I think the former stance is a fair one. Many casual gamers (non-GM's) do not have the patience to invest time in learning the new mechanics of a new setting if they stray too far from what they are familiar with. For many, once they have that magical experience of a long lived campaign they tend to want to either play that same setting/system or at least something similar. Having to start at square one with a different setting/system can be discouraging when it's a major change. This is where the promise of generic systems comes in. The GM can alter the setting without having to alter the system. "I'm tired of running a fantasy game, lets do space opera instead!" is probably a much easier sell to a group using a generic game engine than to one playing a setting that is married to its system. Of course there are always going to be some who get tired of a particular system's mechanics and want to change for that reason more than just boredom with a setting. It is what it is.

 

[dm4hire]

Which is why we are see such popularity of Savage Worlds, BRP, and Cortex. They cover a broad range of settings. I think Monte's Cypher system would definitely fit the bill once, if ever, he would decide to make a generic book. That is if someone doesn't beat him to the punch.

 

[GMMichael]

the quest for the One True System meant the One True System for the individual gamer (or, at best, his group) not for a true One System to Rule Them All that everybody in the entire hobby would enjoy equally.

It might be more complex than this. One gamer, or a group, can pretty easily have a favorite system. Why would they call it their favorite? Because it does the best job of running the games that they want to play.

I'd expect the One True System to uphold its title beyond one game group. To live up to the name, it really should have the potential to end all other RPGs. Or, failing that, be the game that acts as a yardstick for all other games.

Touchy definition. It points at D&D again...

 

[Balesir]

I'm merely commenting on my assumption that the quest for the One True System meant the One True System for the individual gamer (or, at best, his group) not for a true One System to Rule Them All that everybody in the entire hobby would enjoy equally.

I don't think it matters, to be honest - I don't think a "one true system" actually exists for either individuals or groups or the whole hobby. Some - perhaps even many - folks might be reluctant to move beyond what they know, and naturally most people will prefer some systems to others and may have favourites at specific times. But, in the round and taking the long view, I think different systems can do different things well; they support different types of "fun". So, given enough time and experience of different game systems, I think most, maybe even all, roleplayers would find several systems that really suited them.

I view RPG systems as being a bit like types of food. There are many foods that are delicious - looking for a "one true food" makes little sense. I think the same applies to RPGs.

 

[Desdichado]

I'd expect the One True System to uphold its title beyond one game group. To live up to the name, it really should have the potential to end all other RPGs. Or, failing that, be the game that acts as a yardstick for all other games.

Touchy definition. It points at D&D again...

I expect that there's no such thing. Certainly not D&D... to a greater or lesser degree, all other games are attempts to "fix" what's "wrong" with D&D. And given that D&D has split and branched so much, many of the folks who once played D&D (whichever version was current) there's no been a diaspora of gamers into all kinds of systems.

Many of which are, granted, still various versions of D&D itself. But you can't exactly call D&D the One True System when in reality, it's actually multiple systems, that in some ways, don't even resemble each other very closely.

I don't think it matters, to be honest - I don't think a "one true system" actually exists for either individuals or groups or the whole hobby. Some - perhaps even many - folks might be reluctant to move beyond what they know, and naturally most people will prefer some systems to others and may have favourites at specific times. But, in the round and taking the long view, I think different systems can do different things well; they support different types of "fun". So, given enough time and experience of different game systems, I think most, maybe even all, roleplayers would find several systems that really suited them.

Sure, and tastes and preferences can change over time. But I think many gamers do in fact embark on the quest for the One True System, or they've already found it. To a great degree, the entire presence of the OSR suggests that for those gamers, there was a One True System. They played it in the late 70s and early 80s, and now they're still playing it, or playing it again. Possibly under the guise of a retroclone, or tweaked set of houserules that has a unique title, but not really a significantly different system after all.

I view RPG systems as being a bit like types of food. There are many foods that are delicious - looking for a "one true food" makes little sense. I think the same applies to RPGs.

Of course it makes sense. TexMex is the One True Food. Especially lime and chili marinated steak fajitas.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think the former stance is a fair one. Many casual gamers (non-GM's) do not have the patience to invest time in learning the new mechanics of a new setting if they stray too far from what they are familiar with. For many, once they have that magical experience of a long lived campaign they tend to want to either play that same setting/system or at least something similar. Having to start at square one with a different setting/system can be discouraging when it's a major change.

Wow...thanks for opening my eyes to different perspectives. I'm so much the opposite that it barely makes sense to me for people to have that attitude. For me, if another system is too derivative of an existing system, it's a waste of space. Just give me the setting and skip the rules in that case. If I'm trying a new game I want a new system. Or even, as you mentioned, a generic system that can cover multiple settings/genres, so I'm really just buying the new setting that interests me.

I see this attitude of mine manifested in my extreme dislike of all non-D&D systems that make use of the d20 OGL. (Note, I'm not objecting to having twenty-sided dice as part of a system, just using WotC's d20 system.) I've actually seen some settings that looked extremely interesting to me, but once I discovered they were d20 I had no interest in them anymore, and it was a shame.

Using d20 for your own game feels like design laziness to me, like saying, "My game isn't worth really making a game. I'll just use a system that isn't a good fit because everyone else is doing it."

I don't know, maybe it's true that the majority think like you say, and if so then that would be a good business decision. I'm just an RPG child of pre-OGL, so I'm used to new games always coming with a customized system.

Maybe I'll continue this rant in it's own topic as more polished and useful criticism.