Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 3331743" data-attributes="member: 10201">Well, considering it took nearly 3 years [from the original publication of D&D3E PH] for someone to publish a D20 System that i would willingly play, and it wasn't until the 3rd(?) generation of D20 System games (Blue Rose) that i found one i really love, no, i don't think i'd be content with D20 System as my only game system. On top of that, i find that the mechanics of an RPG have a significant impact on the play of the RPG, and i like variety, so i don't think i'd be content with any single system for the long haul. Any more than i'd be content with a single genre or single setting indefinitely. ----Oh, and regarding the 80% number, until i see a well-supported citation for that, i'm gonna remain skeptical. First, he doesn't say what you quote him as saying--he says that "at most 20%" want different games to have different systems (and even me saying that is interpolating a little bit, based on who he's responding to). So, first problem is that the only thing we can definitely conclude from that statement is that the other 80% don't specifically want different systems for different games--whether they are indifferent, or have a specific different preference is unknown. But, even given that claim's converse (or is it inverse?)--that 80% of people want just one system--there are still a number of problems.First of all, it's judging people's state of mind, not their actions--he's not claiming that they do any particular thing, he's claiming they hold an opinion, which can really only be figured out by asking them. AFAIK, nobody's done any sort of large, much less comprehensive, statistically-sound study of RPers in over a decade--and certainly not since D20 System came out. So the number itself is, at best, based on anecdotal observations. If there have been such, as Ryan speculates, he admits that he isn't privy to them, so, again, just anecdotal.Secondly, if Ryan's assertion is correct, it's just as reasonable to conclude that 80% of players don't mind using multiple systems, as it is to assert they prefer one system. After all, he implied they don't care what rules they use.Thirdly, he's taking a reasonable, plausible (if not provable) assumption (people want to spend more time playing, less time preparing to play), and implying (he's outright asserted in other places) that the only sensible solution to that is a very complex system with potentially lots of pre-game prep involved, but the same system for whatever you're playing. Ditto for the issue of finding a play group. Yes, if your only choices are a complex system requiring lots of time required to learn, and to prep on an ongoing basis; or a complex system you already know, requiring lots of time to prep on an ongoing basis, obviously sticking with the current system is the easier choice. But it completely ignores the possibility of a system that involves less learning/prep time even than the currently-familiar system. And completely ignores the learning curve for that first complex system. I've played RPGs that we learned the rules to, created characters, and prepared a session, in less time than it takes me to stat up a single mid-level D20 System NPC. IOW, we saved time, and got to playing faster by switching to a whole new game, than we would've by playing the next session of our D&D game.Finally, it's not something Ryan says, but something you read into it: It is quite plausible to me that a large portion of RPG players might only have exposure to one system--how would they know whether or not they might have system preferences? Somebody who's only tried one system can't possibly make an informed decision that the system doesn't matter. Heck, even someone who's tried several systems might have only tried variations on a theme (most commercially-visible RPGs are pretty much the same, mechanically, with just different number ranges and slightly different names for things), and see them as all basically interchangeable--because they basically are--yet discover, given the opportunity, an active like or dislike for other, more significantly different, systems. Not to say that if you've only tried one system you're fooling yourself if you think you're having fun--that's not what i'm saying at all. Just that you can't possible claim that you know you wouldn't have more fun with a different system. Now, mind you, i'm a strong advocate of "good enough". It doesn't matter if a system is the most-fun one for you, so long as it's fun enough that you're not driven to look for another one. Just like i don't look for the very cheapest price on something, i stop looking as soon as i find a price that is cheap enough.</blockquote>

Verification