Worlds of Design: Playing Favorites

Does anyone stick with a game anymore?

Do you have a favorite RPG?


chess-6592318_1280.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Does anyone stick with a game anymore?

As games have proliferated and entertainment options have become more numerous, it’s increasingly hard to get an audience to truly dedicate their time and effort to the game. This is important, because games rely on people agreeing to play together, and a fractured community means there’s nobody to play with. It happens a lot in board and card games. How much does it happen in RPGs?

When "Favorite" Means "Today"​

The word “favorites” has changed meaning owing to Internet Explorer and many music programs where you save your favorites, where this means anything that you like; you can have ten thousand “favorites.” That's nothing like the old favorite game or favorite anything. I discovered this particularly when I taught video game development. I'd ask students to name their favorite games or game; most could not say, or would only say the game they were currently playing was their favorite.

A favorite game is one you strongly prefer, even though you play others sometimes. I can name mine throughout my life. My favorite games from when I was very young went from Conflict to American Heritage Broadsides, then for maybe seven years Stalingrad and Afrika Korps, from age 19 Diplomacy, from about five years later Dungeons & Dragons and then (from more than 20 years later) the “game of designing games.” When Dungeons & Dragons was my favorite game, practically speaking I didn't play other games (except video games). I played lots of video games because I was not participating in the tabletop game hobby at large.

Favorites aren’t necessarily great games; they’re just the games you especially like to play. Favorites change, great games don’t. (See What Makes a Game Great?)

Times Have Changed​

So how was it 50 years ago? A favorite game was one you'd often play in preference to others that you might play occasionally, and in strong preference to most others that you wouldn’t play at all. Sometimes a gamer would have several favorite games. Some people had a lifestyle game and only played that one game seriously. This game traditionally was (and for some still is) often Chess, Bridge, Diplomacy, Magic: The Gathering, Dungeons & Dragons, or even Warhammer. Your lifestyle game is your hobby.

Of course, in the 60s there were very few “intelligent” games available, that is, games that were not party games or family games, which are much easier to pick up and play without in-depth knowledge of the rules. You could know most of them enough to have a favorite or three.

Now we have thousands of tabletop games, hundreds of thousands of video games. No one can know more than a small fraction. At the same time, the “cult of the new” has become strong in modern society. People assume that something that is new is somehow better despite that being demonstrably untrue (more or less mathematically) for games, so perhaps inevitably this makes favorite games less likely.

People who are tired of learning new rules are more likely to settle on favorite games, so that they can play the games, concentrate on strategy, not on the rules.

Video Killed the Gaming Star​

A lot of today’s gaming trends comes from the influence of video games: single player video games have historically been athletic puzzles that you solve. The computer could not put up enough opposition to be counted as a second player, and was predictable once you “beat the game,” which is to say, you figured out the always-correct solution to the puzzle. There was no reason to continue playing. This is why so many of the older video games have speed runs: the “runner” already knows the solution and so can play through very fast. No game that you're “done” with, that you’ve “broken,” is at all likely to become your favorite.

Think about how on the tabletop we now have a great many games that are parallel competitions, where the person who best solves the puzzle wins the game. There are often “multiple paths to victory,” which is to say more than one solution, but people are still trying to solve the puzzle of what we call a “game.” Most would never become favorites because after a small number of plays you know (or think you know) nearly all there is to know about how to play the game and how to win, you've solved it. (This is called a “transparent” game as opposed to a deep game.) You don't have an intelligent opposition in these games to vary things. In these kinds of parallel competitions, all players are trying to get to the same point but rarely have an effect on each other. A few Eurostyle games and many wargames take a different approach, but they’re the exception.

In this context, RPGs are co-operative games with human-controlled opposition, making them (in my view) the best of all co-ops. (See Tabletop RPGs Are the Most Naturally Cooperative Games) Co-ops are a form of puzzle (a solo game played by more than one) unless there is sufficiently skilled opposition, which RPGs usually provide.

One and Done​

I think that most board games are played only one to three times by any given individual, and I suspect it's much more common than in the past to play an RPG for several sessions and then be done with that set of rules.

Given the large number games available, many gamers are looking for exploration rather than mastery. They want to know how the game works, and how player succeeds, and then they move on to another game. Which makes sense in a universe of thousands of games.

Nowadays intelligent games for more than two players are common. And there’s a social aspect, you play what others want to play, rather than play your favorites. This is a problem sometimes for those who have strong favorites. Moreover, in RPGs you may want to play a game that lots of others play, so that recruiting new players (or finding a campaign) is easier.

For game publishers, this is a very strong incentive to keep a game “fresh” by giving it the veneer of a new version. Indeed, it now seems every game will be updated every so often in perpetuity as long as someone owns the rights to republish it. You don’t seem this as much with board games, likely due to production costs, but it’s certainly become an increasingly faster cycle in video games (issuing new versions with better graphics) and tabletop games (incorporating errata and adapting to current play styles).

What this means then is that games can be less a lifestyle and more an experience; and that’s not a problem, unless you’re looking to play a cooperative game where knowledge of the rules matters. Ask any player of tabletop role-playing games outside of the D&D sphere (e.g., Pathfinder, OSR, etc.) and it’s clear the struggle is real. Here’s hoping that over time, the gaming community continues to branch out and find each other, so that when you want to play your favorite game, you have friends who can join you.

Your Turn: What is your favorite RPG system and how often has that changed over time?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
As a soloist, I have a campaign binder for: Dragonbane, Fantasy AGE 2e, Romance of the Perilous Land, Shadow of the Weird Wizard, Clash of Steel 2e (Zozer), D&D BX + 1e + 2e + 3e + 5.5e, Barbarian Prince and Numenera. I just received Starforge (Ironsworn), Star Trek Adventure Captain's Log and Outgunned Adventures.

I alternate games, choosing one per week.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

@lewpuls I really appreciate this article. Very thought provoking. I especially like the analogy of collecting "favorite" songs on your music player to the point where the word favorites loses its meaning and becomes more akin to likes. It's not unlike accumulating an unreasonable number of "friends" on Facebook for the sheer volume that you never interact or engage with. It becomes less impersonal and doesn't mean much without substance. Likewise, buying games and books that sit on a shelf for appearance are rarely appreciated beyind their aesthetics as they contribute to the overall illusion of someone who has greater eclectic interests, obsessive tendencies, or finacial means to flaunt their frivolous spending habits.

When I consider what my (true) favorite systems are/were, I think about the ones that I enjoyed most regardless of who I played with, and the ones I continually go back to and revisit. In the case of D&D, I've always moved forward with every edition until 5th. Not because 5e was bad or wrong; I wanted to like it, tried to embrace it. But it was 4th Edition that gave me exactly what I wanted from this kind game ever since I started playing in the early 80s with Basic and Advanced D&D. It is unfortunate that I cannot live in a world where I can still enjoy my favorite version of this game so freely and openly as others can with theirs because it was too different. But that had made me realized I never loved D&D for the system, but for the ideas it presented. It was never really the game I wanted to play, just the game I thought I was supposed to play.

Of a handful of other systems I tried outside the D&D sphere, the Star Wars RPG from Fantasy Flight Games remains my absolute favorite. Not only did it remind me of my love for Star Wars, it introduced me to a lot of great stories, content, and details I had missed about the setting beyond the original films that had evolved and expanded over decades. More importantly, it finally took me outside the D&D sphere and showed me a different style of play that didn't require mastery of the rules to "win" the game. Instead, mastering the rules would only enhance your enjoyment of the game itself because you were no longer burdened by the endless chase for better numbers. The story became central to the experience, empowered through collaboration and exchange over rules debate and system mandate.

And this is where my RPG journeys ended. There are no more systems or games out there offering me incentive to buy into another set of books and accessories I need to play a different game pretending to do something different or better than a hundred other systems already do. I prefer modern board games now that give me essentially the same experience with a single purchase, and the option to expand without needlessly complicating the game.
 

I've played a ton of games over the years but the one that keeps bringing me back is... D&D. Yeah it's got its issues, but in terms of long lasting play, it's the champ.

I do end up with some newer favorites that pop out from time to time. I really enjoy Modiphius' Star Trek Adventures, which does an amazing job of simulating an ensemble cast TV show. Unlike D&D, it's not a grind for more numbers, either. Characters start out competent and don't evolve much numerically; well-run and played, you can really focus on character evolution.
 

I voted "no", because these days there's no single game I would always choose over others, but rather a set of games I know I enjoy and that I'm happy to play. This can change a bit over time, especially since I try to play new games at least once in a while, but for the past couple of years, a few have stayed on the list: Broken Compass, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Forbidden Lands (I like most Year Zero games, but this is my favorite version so far). There's also a number of games, where it depends a bit on the specific group, but where I'm also generally open to playing like Call of Cthulhu (especially the Pulp Cthulhu variant) or Savage Worlds.

For completeness: this used to be different when I started playing in the 90s and early 00s - back then, I had one favorite game, which also was my main game (first Shadowrun 2e, then D&D 3e). This lasted roughly until 2015, when my old D&D group dissolved, and I started consciously exploring more games.
 


I voted "it changes over time," because that's true, but I also feel it's kind of splitting hairs.

I started in TTRPGs with Earthdawn 1st Edition, but quickly fell in love with AD&D2e. I switched to 3e then 3.5 when they came out, took a breather udring the 4e era (more or less coincidentally), then returned with 5e. 5e at first felt more to me like the game I knew from the pre-WotC era, but that feeling quickly faded. A few years ago I discovered DCC and it quickly became my favorite RPPG of all time.

I tend to think of/refer to all D&D-derivative games as "D&D," including stuff like Pathfinder, and I've played/ran them all more or less the same way since 1994, which is why it feels like I'm splitting hairs a bit here. So my overall favorite has always been D&D, but if we want to get really specific about rule sets/systems it's easily DCC.
 

Your Turn: What is your favorite RPG system and how often has that changed over time?
The one I wrote, obviously! 🤓
It changes each time I write a new module for it, which is annually, to estimate. But the base game gets the most play, since that's easiest for casual/new players to grasp.

I tend to think of/refer to all D&D-derivative games as "D&D," including stuff like Pathfinder,
Hear, hear! It was my favorite for a long time, until I got sick of "you miss: turn wasted."

People know what "favorite" means just like they know what "literally," "insane," and even "apologize" mean.
 

Favorite of favorites is Traveller Cepheus Kosmic from far future with psi and nobles to my own near future gritty without, I like it. It's different than D&D, which I like also, as well as BRP games like Call of Cthulhu.
 

Agreed. This is 100% me; I am absolutely a neophile. I enjoy the onboarding and "gaining proficiency over the rules" aspect of gaming, and I have almost zero interest in gaining any sort of mastery. I'm a proud dilettante. :)
I tend to be a neophile, too, but certain games have lasting appeal. For me, WEG D6 Star Wars, Pendragon 4th, Starships and Spacemen, and LUG-Trek. Newer systems in that space include Sentinel Comics, and likely, Daggerheart.
Certain settings, as well, call to me: Mekton Empire, Twilight 2000, Jovian Chronicles, Heavy Gear, Battletech, Renegade Legion...

Note the lack of overlap.


Does anyone stick with a game anymore?

As games have proliferated and entertainment options have become more numerous, it’s increasingly hard to get an audience to truly dedicate their time and effort to the game. This is important, because games rely on people agreeing to play together, and a fractured community means there’s nobody to play with. It happens a lot in board and card games. How much does it happen in RPGs?

When "Favorite" Means "Today"​

The word “favorites” has changed meaning owing to Internet Explorer and many music programs where you save your favorites, where this means anything that you like; you can have ten thousand “favorites.” That's nothing like the old favorite game or favorite anything. I discovered this particularly when I taught video game development. I'd ask students to name their favorite games or game; most could not say, or would only say the game they were currently playing was their favorite.

A favorite game is one you strongly prefer, even though you play others sometimes. I can name mine throughout my life. My favorite games from when I was very young went from Conflict to American Heritage Broadsides, then for maybe seven years Stalingrad and Afrika Korps, from age 19 Diplomacy, from about five years later Dungeons & Dragons and then (from more than 20 years later) the “game of designing games.” When Dungeons & Dragons was my favorite game, practically speaking I didn't play other games (except video games). I played lots of video games because I was not participating in the tabletop game hobby at large.

Favorites aren’t necessarily great games; they’re just the games you especially like to play. Favorites change, great games don’t. (See What Makes a Game Great?)

Times Have Changed​

So how was it 50 years ago? A favorite game was one you'd often play in preference to others that you might play occasionally, and in strong preference to most others that you wouldn’t play at all. Sometimes a gamer would have several favorite games. Some people had a lifestyle game and only played that one game seriously. This game traditionally was (and for some still is) often Chess, Bridge, Diplomacy, Magic: The Gathering, Dungeons & Dragons, or even Warhammer. Your lifestyle game is your hobby.
By 1981, when I moved from board games to RPGs, we only stayed single system because others were relatively expensive and in genres we (the guys I played with) didn't grok. To wit, what I saw on the shelves at the grocery store: D&D, James Bond 007, and Dallas. (Longs Drugs was actually a grocery store. this was the C-Street location in Anchorage. B&N is now located there.) I don't recall any others at the time... but a space game would have gotten my attention... and allowance.

Video Killed the Gaming Star​

A lot of today’s gaming trends comes from the influence of video games:
Hard disagree; D&D has been, it was clear in 4e, but 5E backpedaled there.
There are a bunch trying hard to link to the more successful properties, but they're the minority.
Then again, I am running the Fallout TTRPG... it's videogame elements are unusual... the crafting system especially

One and Done​

I think that most board games are played only one to three times by any given individual, and I suspect it's much more common than in the past to play an RPG for several sessions and then be done with that set of rules.
I think you're wrong here, too. Most of the people I've gamed with get at least 5 plays per game; for me, TTR New York has over 20 plays. TTR Europe over thirty, and at least 15 of those with 5 players; 7 or 8 with 6 players. Flash Point Fire Rescue has been 5 plays in 2025 alone. And Catan? peak year was about 40 plays (1-2x a week for about 30 weeks). It is bimodal tho'.. I've a number of games that got a partial play, and then put away forever. one of the recent Dune games was such. Formula De got at least 2 plays per track..
I played Doomtown more than 3 times on other people's sets.
The handful of recent only once since purchase, all but one were played on others' sets first.

I got one I'd been playing on the computer for years, I got it in dead tree, and have yet to get FTF game 4, but it's only been a few months.

Hell, my Supremacy set got 10 plays before I sold it.
 

I did a little unscientific analysis on BoardGameGeek, looking at just the top 5 rated games and comparing the number of recorded plays versus the number of people who own or previously owned them. The ration goes from roughly 2 to just over 6 which does not suggest a huge number of replays.

Comparing the number owned versus (number owned + number previously owned) as a measure of retention they vary from 86% (Pandemic Legacy, a legacy game so theoretically limited re-play value?) up to about 96%.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top