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

[dm4hire]

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.

I understood, which is why I tried my best to ensure my tone was neutral in my reply.

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

I agree. I definitely think that it is better for a specific setting, meaning popular IP, to be designed with the rules focused to aid it instead of the setting forced upon the rules. Bad examples that fit the bill being Wheel of Time, original Thieves World box set and Diablo shoe horned into D&D just to name few.

The benefit of a OTS being simplistic is that it would be easier then to fit it into a setting. My comments about Monte Cook's Cypher system is a good example since at the core you are simply rating everything on a scale of 1-10 to determine the level of difficulty. People are familiar with that rating method. How often, figuratively, do you hear the question "on a scale of one to 10 how would you rate this?" Granted that's over generalizing the simplicity of the system, but it's that approach that will make a simplistic system better adaptable to being a OTS.

Like you say, we really are still in the infancy of roleplaying and how it will evolve only time will tell.

 

[Balesir]

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.

It is clearly true that different ways of generating a random result are limited, and that they represent a fairly bland difference between RPG systems, but generation of random results is only a (rather small) part of an RPG system. If you conflate "system" with "randomisation method" I think you are missing a world of variation.

Arguably the biggest differentiator between systems is "what are you rolling for?"

Are you rolling to see if an action succeeds? Or are you rolling to decide who wins a conflict? Or are you rolling to determine which player's vision of the outcome is taken to actually happen in the game world?

Another key system element is "how do characters change and/or develop?"

Do they get ever stronger at combat? Do they change their passions and goals? Do they change at all*?

Considerations like these will alter radically the way the games play out - regardless what randomisation tools are selected to generate the random outcomes.

*: In Classic Traveller characters didn't change mechanically after character generation at all - unless they died...

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.

a) Why does it have to be the GM? Games like Primetime Adventures and Universalis achieve diversity by having simple mechanical systems that determine who gets to decide the details of an outcome, and how they are constrained when they do so (e.g. who 'won').

b) What is 'simple' about the human brain? It's the most complex and capable computer we know of by a fair margin (closest runners up being brains of other apes, I'd guess). Just because a system isn't written down doesn't mean that decisions aren't "systematic" - the individual doing the deciding is just making up the system as they play. The biggest downside of this tends to be that the system is not shared or communicated effectively among the players.

In the end, I think I see what you are driving at , but you miss a 'layer'. To have a diversely engaging game you need not only subtlety/complexity of adjudication, you also need shared understanding and communication of that subtlety of adjudication - and that will tend to make the communication load quite heavy. One way to lighten that load during actual play is to have complex and detailed rules systems that can be read before play begins. It works, but it's not the only way to handle the communication load.

I would maybe argue that it's vital to understand how you are handling the comms load for any RPG you run, because otherwise you risk doing something that you imagine to be shared which actually isn't. My nightmare scenario is the GM sat there making subtle and intriguing decisions based on firm game concepts while the players make random decisions and get increasingly bored since they are not privy to any of this wonderful stuff and just see a bunch of arbitrary outcomes that they don't understand.

 

[Balesir]

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.

Lots of people went questing for the Fountain of Youth - that doesn't mean it really existed!

Likewise, just because some folk want a "One True System" doesn't mean there is one.

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 don't think that shows they have found any sort of "One True System" - but it does show that just because a system is new and different doesn't mean it's unequivocally "better". No longer publishing material for a game doesn't make it "obsolete" or "irrelevant" - it merely represents missed opportunity (as Paizo have shown very adequately - along with the OSR itself).

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

Well, there you have a point. TexMex and good Thai food; good Thai food is the one true food, too. And well cooked Classic French. Those are all the One True Food. Plus fish and chips, obviously. And anything else that succeeds in being utterly delicious...

 

[Desdichado]

Lots of people went questing for the Fountain of Youth - that doesn't mean it really existed!

Likewise, just because some folk want a "One True System" doesn't mean there is one.

Lots of people make analogies and comparisons on the internet. That doesn't mean that their comparisons mean anything!

I don't think that shows they have found any sort of "One True System" - but it does show that just because a system is new and different doesn't mean it's unequivocally "better". No longer publishing material for a game doesn't make it "obsolete" or "irrelevant" - it merely represents missed opportunity (as Paizo have shown very adequately - along with the OSR itself).

I'm sure that that's true for some people. Quite possibly some of your acquaintance. But I imagine that there are a great many people for whom your statement is not true; they have, in fact, found the One True System--the only game that they will ever need, for decades of gaming, without ever getting tired of it, or having issues with it, or looking for something else.

In fact, I don't have to imagine such people, as I in fact know quite a few of them personally.

Well, there you have a point. TexMex and good Thai food; good Thai food is the one true food, too. And well cooked Classic French. Those are all the One True Food. Plus fish and chips, obviously. And anything else that succeeds in being utterly delicious...

Nope, just TexMex. It stands head and shoulders above any other food that manages to be merely utterly delicious.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You know nothing of cuisine! CREOLE is The One. All the recipes are in the old tongue:

Typical Lovecraftian cultist: "Iä! Iä cthulhu fhtagn!"

Typical creole cook: "Aa-YEEE! Dem crawdaddys's so good, you slap you mama!"

Coincidence? I think not!

 

[amerigoV]

*: In Classic Traveller characters didn't change mechanically after character generation at all - unless they died...

I never played Traveller, but from what I have ever seen from postings, this is cuz no one ever played the game after rolling up the character

 

[Balesir]

I'm sure that that's true for some people. Quite possibly some of your acquaintance. But I imagine that there are a great many people for whom your statement is not true; they have, in fact, found the One True System--the only game that they will ever need, for decades of gaming, without ever getting tired of it, or having issues with it, or looking for something else.

Yeah, I believe that psychologists have a phrase for that - something about "denial"...

Typical Lovecraftian cultist: "Iä! Iä cthulhu fhtagn!"

Typical creole cook: "Aa-YEEE! Dem crawdaddys's so good, you slap you mama!"

Coincidence? I think not!

Ah, you can't beat that ol' time religion

I never played Traveller, but from what I have ever seen from postings, this is cuz no one ever played the game after rolling up the character

Well, since I have only ever "nearly" experienced an ongoing campaign of it, you might even be right, there! I have played some pretty fine one-shots and convention slots, though. It plays pretty well for those (and, without "levels" and such, I guess it would work pretty much the same no matter how long you played it for...)

 

[Dethklok]

a) Why does it have to be the GM? Games like Primetime Adventures and Universalis achieve diversity by having simple mechanical systems that determine who gets to decide the details of an outcome, and how they are constrained when they do so (e.g. who 'won').

You're describing something fundamentally more complex than a system containing only rule zero.

If you want a game without even rule zero, this system would be even simpler, yes, but to me you have the definition of a freeform storygame there, rather than an rpg. And in any event, once we admit that a system without rule zero is simpler, then we still find that, at the simplest level of complexity, there is only one system.

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."

Well, I do agree that a better ruleset will require less changes or improvisation than a worse one, and... I can honestly say I've never broken a rule in the system my gaming group made. So if all you want to say is that rule zero is a red flag, that doesn't bother me. But seriously, Sword, the rules aren't what runs the game. The GM is. And understanding this, I don't see how rule zero could ever be seriously denigrated. Even Gygax understood this:

“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don’t need any rules.”
–Gary Gygax

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

Naw, man, that's fine! I was just curious. I hate D&D.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Well, I do agree that a better ruleset will require less changes or improvisation than a worse one, and... I can honestly say I've never broken a rule in the system my gaming group made.

That's inspiring to hear about your system. I'd love it everyone could find a game that lets them play it without fix-breaking the rules.

So if all you want to say is that rule zero is a red flag, that doesn't bother me. But seriously, Sword, the rules aren't what runs the game. The GM is. And understanding this, I don't see how rule zero could ever be seriously denigrated. Even Gygax understood this:

“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don’t need any rules.”
–Gary Gygax

The rules aren't what runs the play experience, but the system is what runs the product.

Of course, the thing to understand is that I'm perfectionistic in my design, but in practice I'll play and enjoy just about anything--though I have my preferences.

 

[Balesir]

You're describing something fundamentally more complex than a system containing only rule zero.

If you want a game without even rule zero, this system would be even simpler, yes, but to me you have the definition of a freeform storygame there, rather than an rpg. And in any event, once we admit that a system without rule zero is simpler, then we still find that, at the simplest level of complexity, there is only one system.

If all you have is "rule zero" (and I'd argue that you have that even if one guy is just daydreaming) then I'm not convinced you have "play" at all. You just have a guy telling a story (possibly taking in suggestions from the audience).