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

[ExploderWizard]

There can only be a "one true system" so long as there is only one type of game that I want to play forever. Since that is very likely to never happen, the chances for the one true system to reveal itself are slim to none.

 

[dm4hire]

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."

The problem with that logic though is that there are a finite number of ways to generate probability when it comes to games. Eventually you have to repeat or it becomes tedious.

Roll dx
Roll 2dx
Roll 3dx
Roll 4dx
Roll (and you see the progression)

Alternative styles such as roll and keep, percentile, dx+dy, draw a card, draw a card from a bigger deck, and so on, cover that gambit but eventually they would expound to an unmanageable level.

The use of the OGL or d20 license serves only to allow association to a shared system, originally D&D, but now has grown to include other game systems. The copying of the mechanics itself isn't lazy, it's just picking a mechanic that works for what you want.

That's actually why you can't copyright mechanics because they realized that there was a limitation on methods of producing variables. Even if you switched over to a computer format using basic mathematical calculations you would be limited. For simplicity sake you have to use a standard variable generator or every time someone decided to create something new they would have to create an outlandish formula and then somehow verify no one else was using it in order to add it to a new game.

Even if you mean that "using the d20 system to create your game is lazy" that still really isn't since they are modifying it to their own uses a lot of time. If we didn't modify or adapt something then there would be no evolution in technology or in terms, gaming. People would still be living in caves because there is not point in having anything better. No car, since there would have been no predecessor to it dating back to the wheel. Because why build a wheel when walking is just as good?

No, the use of the d20 is not lazy. It's just practical. Why wrestle with trying to make the next mathematical break through in order to be different from company Z?

The only time I think you could justifiably call someone in the game industry lazy related to d20 was when Mongoose published the OGL verbatim in book format, both the player's guide and the gamemaster's book. Even then it was ingenious on their part because they realized that people would pay for a cheap printed copy of the material.

 

[amerigoV]

The only time I think you could justifiably call someone in the game industry lazy related to d20 was when Mongoose published the OGL verbatim in book format, both the player's guide and the gamemaster's book. Even then it was ingenious on their part because the realized that people would pay for a cheap printed copy of the material.

At the height of the d20 glut I saw graph paper with the d20 logo on it on sale at a local game store. I am glad I did not get it since I would now have to convert it over to Savage Worlds

 

[dm4hire]

There's a difference though in branding something in line with a product or product line, which d20 is really a form of branding, and copying the system. I agree that sticking the d20 logo on stuff that wasn't really using the game was pretty dumb on a lot of peoples' part. It was a commercial movement that allowed people to cash in on it and they took advantage of it.

I think a lot of us, if we had a good idea that might of worked with d20, would have taken the risk also if we had had money and the gumption during that time period.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There can only be a "one true system" so long as there is only one type of game that I want to play forever. Since that is very likely to never happen, the chances for the one true system to reveal itself are slim to none.

Agreed. (I tried to XP that to you, but it came out "ag" or something.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The problem with that logic though is that there are a finite number of ways to generate probability when it comes to games. Eventually you have to repeat or it becomes tedious.

Roll dx
Roll 2dx
Roll 3dx
Roll 4dx
Roll (and you see the progression)

Alternative styles such as roll and keep, percentile, dx+dy, draw a card, draw a card from a bigger deck, and so on, cover that gambit but eventually they would expound to an unmanageable level.

Sure. There is only so much you can do. But I've seen an awful lot of variety. I doubt we'll hit the ceiling any time soon.

The use of the OGL or d20 license serves only to allow association to a shared system, originally D&D, but now has grown to include other game systems. The copying of the mechanics itself isn't lazy, it's just picking a mechanic that works for what you want.

But would a different mechanic work better? The vast majority of the times I believe the answer to be yes.

That's actually why you can't copyright mechanics because they realized that there was a limitation on methods of producing variables. Even if you switched over to a computer format using basic mathematical calculations you would be limited. For simplicity sake you have to use a standard variable generator or every time someone decided to create something new they would have to create an outlandish formula and then somehow verify no one else was using it in order to add it to a new game.

Although it may have sounded like I was saying that people should create their own systems just to be different, that isn't really what I'm getting at. My contention is that systems have a strong impact on the entire tone of the game, and that the wrong system hurts your game, while the right system makes it come alive.

The GURPS versions of White Wolf's Storyteller system were well-received, if I'm not mistaken, but I personally think you're losing half of what made the games if you convert it to a hard sim like GURPS. It's definitely not the same experience. If White Wolf had started off with Vampire: The Masquerade being a GURPS setting, it wouldn't have succeeded anywhere near how it did.

Savage Worlds d20 is a pretty silly idea. Sure, you could convert the settings over, but although I'm not overly familiar with them, I can predict that a lot of the play experience would be lost.

About the only time when it makes sense for me to use an existing system is when you are, in fact, taking a very generic system and intentionally making a setting based on it, intending to keep the same feel. Basically seeking to expand an existing game with another setting.

When making a new game, it seems productive to start with the feel you want and designing a system that gives you that in the most effective way you can think of.

There is something fundamentally different, to me, between a setting based off of a generic rules system, and a distinct game.

Even if you mean that "using the d20 system to create your game is lazy" that still really isn't since they are modifying it to their own uses a lot of time. If we didn't modify or adapt something then there would be no evolution in technology or in terms, gaming. People would still be living in caves because there is not point in having anything better. No car, since there would have been no predecessor to it dating back to the wheel. Because why build a wheel when walking is just as good?

Sounds like you are making my point for me here, so I'll avoid commenting on the analogy.

No, the use of the d20 is not lazy. It's just practical. Why wrestle with trying to make the next mathematical break through in order to be different from company Z?

See above. It's not to be gimmicky (or shouldn't be), but rather to better express a feel you are trying to convey.

The only time I think you could justifiably call someone in the game industry lazy related to d20 was when Mongoose published the OGL verbatim in book format, both the player's guide and the gamemaster's book. Even then it was ingenious on their part because they realized that people would pay for a cheap printed copy of the material.

I was using overly harsh language with the lazy comment, since I don't think it really boils down to intentionally deciding to be lazy at all. Rather I think it's simply a lack of understanding how much better and satisfying a game can be with a customized system, or at least with picking a universal system that best fits your feel, rather than picking the one that is most popular.

My best friend would disagree with me, but I also tend to think that WotC's d20 is a poor system in general. That didn't stop me from having plenty of fun with it, but after a few years I started yearning for the RPG renaissance of the 90s.

 

[amerigoV]

Savage Worlds d20 is a pretty silly idea. Sure, you could convert the settings over, but although I'm not overly familiar with them, I can predict that a lot of the play experience would be lost.

You do not have to convert for Deadlands (their most popular line) and Weird War II - they were d20 back in the day and the PDFs are still available on Pinnacle's webstore (Deadlands had its own original system as well that was partially SW then they got into the whole d20 thang). Given they ditched d20, I suspect you are right.

 

[Dethklok]

Although it may have sounded like I was saying that people should create their own systems just to be different, that isn't really what I'm getting at. My contention is that systems have a strong impact on the entire tone of the game, and that the wrong system hurts your game, while the right system makes it come alive.

I wish more people could grasp this.

When making a new game, it seems productive to start with the feel you want and designing a system that gives you that in the most effective way you can think of... There is something fundamentally different, to me, between a setting based off of a generic rules system, and a distinct game.

One point that I don't think has yet been raised is that it is only complexity which allows diversity. At the maximum end of simplicity, all systems are exactly alike: The GM decides what happens. It isn't hard to see, then, that if one uses very simple games, a similar family of character generation systems, conflict resolution systems, and character advancement systems would arise even in response to highly distinct settings.

A case in point: My gaming group and I made a simple game for adventuring Ancient Egypt. Changing the monsters, some equipment, the coinage system, and a few spells, it rapidly became a game for adventuring in Hellenic Greece. It wasn't that we refused to make changes that would break the mold, but that after rebuilding everything we needed in order to capture the spirit of rationalism and seafaring that marked ancient Greece, the core of the system was exactly the same.

So while I do agree in principle that mechanics meshed with setting are much better than generic systems, if one is willing to move in a minimalist direction, I also think that the idea of finding One True System that does everything becomes much more feasible.

I also tend to think that WotC's d20 is a poor system in general.

Out of curiosity, why would you say that is?

 

[Hyper-Man]

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.

Just to be clear, that's not my personal view on systems but just a guess that there is a significant portion of the market that operates that way. I'm a 'Generic' all the way. I'm pretty sure that it comes from my playing Hero/Champions since the 80's and internalizing the system's core concept* of 'reasoning from effect'. It colors my view of every other RPG as a result. I often see a lot of cool settings with very 'so so' mechanics that drive me crazy. It doesn't keep me from playing those games when invited as long as I don't have to purchase books.

*The 'Powers' in Hero are just building blocks. They are not the finished ability that goes on a character sheet. So the core rules do not have a Power called 'Heat Vision' or 'Magic Missile' but both of those abilities can be built using the Blast or Ranged Killing Attack Powers combined with various Advantages and Limitations for flavoring. There are other books besides the core rules that have many example power and spell builds for those folks that don't want to go the 'do it yourself' route, but those books are just gravy, they are not actually needed to play the game, they just help save time at character creation.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I wish more people could grasp this.


One point that I don't think has yet been raised is that it is only complexity which allows diversity. At the maximum end of simplicity, all systems are exactly alike: The GM decides what happens. It isn't hard to see, then, that if one uses very simple games, a similar family of character generation systems, conflict resolution systems, and character advancement systems would arise even in response to highly distinct settings.

A case in point: My gaming group and I made a simple game for adventuring Ancient Egypt. Changing the monsters, some equipment, the coinage system, and a few spells, it rapidly became a game for adventuring in Hellenic Greece. It wasn't that we refused to make changes that would break the mold, but that after rebuilding everything we needed in order to capture the spirit of rationalism and seafaring that marked ancient Greece, the core of the system was exactly the same.

So while I do agree in principle that mechanics meshed with setting are much better than generic systems, if one is willing to move in a minimalist direction, I also think that the idea of finding One True System that does everything becomes much more feasible.

The funny thing is, I'm actually working on my own One True System. I'll probably use it for pretty much any idea I have that the system can handle with it's narrativist/simulationist hybridization.

On the other hand, I can't play D&D with it and get that D&D feeling. For that I'll be playing 5e. And I'll be playing 5e fairly hard-core simulationist, which my own system isn't designed to do at all.

I also like trying other systems, and expect I will continue to do so. However, once my OTS has been completed, I expect I will be much less likely to try new systems unless they are really designed to the feel of their setting in the way I was discussing. If the setting really grabs me, and that isn't the case, I'll use my own system. Unless those other games are designed for a more simulationist or gamist style, in which case I might be out of luck if they have a bad system.

Out of curiosity, why would you say that is?

I'll include D&D in general, rather than just d20 as being poor systems. It's understandable since they were extremely early design and we've learned since then.

At the highest level I guess I would say that any system which provides a detailed rules-framework which has serious problems creating the experience it aims to provide is a heavily flawed system. I would say that most role-playing games that are and ever have been on the market have fallen into that trap.

I consider any sort of disclaimer to the GM to the effect that he can change the rules and use or ignore them as he prefers to be a red flag as to system integrity. It is basically a straight up admission:

"These rules don't work unless you override, change, or ignore them."

A higher quality game would be designed in such a way that you never need to break the rules, and that the game is not improved if you do break them.*

Note that a game which encourages arbitrary assignments within definite parameters is not necessarily guilty of that failing. The +2/-2 DM's best friend is a good solid mechanic, for example.

Now, I don't think there are many high quality games out there. I don't think the role-playing hobby has fully matured yet. It's still in it's childhood.

Also, just because I don't think a game system is high quality, doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing it. Taco Bell might not count as high-quality Mexican food, but that doesn't mean it don't enjoy it on occasion.

I think 5e D&D will be my favorite version of it, and honestly, the only one I'll be able to play without cringing, but I don't think you can really get away from the problems I'm talking about with any sort of D&D or d20 OGL system.

If you're interested in more details, I can write-up a critique of specific elements.

Just to be clear, that's not my personal view on systems but just a guess that there is a significant portion of the market that operates that way. I'm a 'Generic' all the way. I'm pretty sure that it comes from my playing Hero/Champions since the 80's and internalizing the system's core concept* of 'reasoning from effect'. It colors my view of every other RPG as a result. I often see a lot of cool settings with very 'so so' mechanics that drive me crazy. It doesn't keep me from playing those games when invited as long as I don't have to purchase books.

Yep, I'll play in just about anything short-term if invited.


*Unless breaking the rules is the point of the game. Kind of like how you make up rules in the card game Mao. A game designed around a group of rule-breaking characters could profitably be designed in such a way that breaking the rules of the game is encouraged and accounted for, with every effort to make it feel like you are, in fact, actually breaking the rules (even if, in reality, you aren't).