Does anyone run just one system anymore?

[AsenRG]

And for what its worth, I really didn't; I don't know quite the detail to say that in particular, but from what I remember of the one version I owned, other than using a D100 (and by itself that isn't enough or every D20 game would be classed as a D&D derivative) I didn't see much else that showed a relationship. I'm mostly counting things (when outside Chaosium games) like OpenQuest, Mythras, Revolution and the like.

And yeah, the wounds consequence chart in the non-hit location Chaosium gritty games is more like the wound consequence chart in SW in that regard.

Well, I do count all the d20 games as "D&D derivatives"...

But I mean here the d20 system, not the die. As an example, Dragon Warriors, Pendragon and Heroquest aren't d20, despite using a d20 in their core mechanic.
Warhammer, though, has more than a little DNA from BRP and Maelstrom, IMO. That doesn't mean it's not very much its own thing, just that it's "close enough for similarities to work in its favour".
Of course, I'm saying that as an unapologetic BRP/d100 fan!

And honestly, even if I was--just being popular isn't enough for me to not count something as an outlier if other games of similar design don't use that design element. There are things in D&D that are not outliers just because D&D uses them, but because a whole bunch of other games do; they've cast a long design shadow. Rolled-table critical hits don't seem to land in that category; if anything they seem less common than hit location, and that's not exactly a majority design choice.

Well, those are some interesting assertions. So, you're telling me you use a scale where all games count the same?

Personally, I think when we're talking popularity and trends the popuarity of a game should matter. But I don't see any reason why we wouldn't agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Paragon]

Well, those are some interesting assertions. So, you're telling me you use a scale where all games count the same?

When I'm talking about how common something is in games or designs, what else could you use? One system no matter how popular is not a common design element by itself.

Personally, I think when we're talking popularity and trends the popuarity of a game should matter. But I don't see any reason why we wouldn't agree to disagree on that one.

Again, I was talking popularity in design, not in end users.

 

[AsenRG]

Again, I was talking popularity in design, not in end users.

OK, then we were talking about different things. To me "outliers" are those systems that end up having few to no users.

 

[ffilz]

Nor mine. I require regular attendance from my players: period. I don't negotiate a time to play: we do 2nd and 4th Saturdays, 12-6 PM. Those who can make that time slot are good. Those who can't, I wish them well. For the last nine years, the only one of my players living closer than an hour's drive away has been my wife, and somehow they all manage all the same. I've never believed that people lost the ability to commit to regular times after college. It's more a matter of motivation, and a plethora of handy excuses: oh the job, oh the spouse, oh the kids, oh the yardwork, oh I'm tired.

My perspective on game scheduling...

In college students tend to not have commitments to anyone other than school itself. I did MOST of my gaming on Friday or Saturday so there weren't big tests or projects due the next day. Everyone has finals the same week (but usually I could find some folks willing to play during finals week...).

Post-college, the external commitments start to build up, especially after marriage, and super especially after kids. The most difficult to work with is the person who doesn't have the seniority to have a dependable work schedule. When you are at the whim of the boss and the more senior people, you can't always have a particular evening free. Even with a dependable schedule there are crunch times or customer escalations or other crisis that throw monkey wrenches. Depending on how a marriage is negotiated, game time may or may not be protected time.

I'm not going to judge ANYONE for what their schedule allows. Now yea, some folks aren't committed and they find excuses. And some folks just can't commit because they are legitimately more committed to something more important. If folks can't commit enough to what works for my game, then I'm sorry and we''ll part ways. But I won't call you lazy because your job doesn't result in a dependable schedule or your family pulls in a way that makes things not work out.

 

[ReluctantGM]

I'll run any system that my table wants to play - provided they buy me whatever books I don't already have.

When I'm the one pitching the game to them, though - it'll always be some flavor of BRP.

 

[Paragon]

OK, then we were talking about different things. To me "outliers" are those systems that end up having few to no users.

I'm not really talking about those either; among other things, you usually don't see actual print runs for those games except among the over-optimistic (which can happen, but I don't think describes any of the games I'm talking about).

 

[Paragon]

I'm not going to judge ANYONE for what their schedule allows. Now yea, some folks aren't committed and they find excuses. And some folks just can't commit because they are legitimately more committed to something more important. If folks can't commit enough to what works for my game, then I'm sorry and we''ll part ways. But I won't call you lazy because your job doesn't result in a dependable schedule or your family pulls in a way that makes things not work out.

I won't judge them for it--as you say there can absolutely be exterior constraints they only have a limited amount of control over it--but someone who can't show up on a fixed schedule at least 80% of the time is also not someone I'm going to consider a viable player, either.

 

[TJS]

A lot depends on the type of game.

There are games where not having the same group of players every session leaves a big gap in continuity. There are others where it doesn't really matter at all. A West Marches style game, or a Star Trek game with a big crew and the PCs are whoever gets beamed out to shore every week, or the PCs are a mercenary company, or a noble house in Game of Thrones. All of these can handle a somewhat rotating cast reasonably welll.

 

[ffilz]

I won't judge them for it--as you say there can absolutely be exterior constraints they only have a limited amount of control over it--but someone who can't show up on a fixed schedule at least 80% of the time is also not someone I'm going to consider a viable player, either.

Yea, I was reacting to this:

I've never believed that people lost the ability to commit to regular times after college. It's more a matter of motivation, and a plethora of handy excuses: oh the job, oh the spouse, oh the kids, oh the yardwork, oh I'm tired.

 

[Ossian]

I think a good way to find consistent players would be to run an open table game, and then switch it up to a campaign once you have the same people consistently showing up.

 

[ffilz]

A lot depends on the type of game.

There are games where not having the same group of players every session leaves a big gap in continuity. There are others where it doesn't really matter at all. A West Marches style game, or a Star Trek game with a big crew and the PCs are whoever gets beamed out to shore every week, or the PCs are a mercenary company, or a noble house in Game of Thrones. All of these can handle a somewhat rotating cast reasonably welll.

Sure, I tend to run "D&Dish" fantasy, so missing players isn't so horrible. We also go with a bit of having PCs of non-present players in NPC mode.

 

[TJS]

I think a good way to find consistent players would be to run an open table game, and then switch it up to a campaign once you have the same people consistently showing up.

Open table is a bit of a gamble though. If no one feels any obligation to show up then noone may show up. Or you may get one player showing up (which some people are cool with, but I wouldn't personally run a game for just one player).

 

[Moonglum]

An issue you can run into with the 'one system to rule them all' systems, is that some of the most widely used are also quite complex — I'm thinking of GURPS and Hero here. So, if you go down this path you can end up having to deal with a rules-heavy game every time you play. This is another factor that keeps me happily penned up in my TFT universe, as it is functionally universal for pre-modern settings, but has far lower level of complexity than GURPS (its closest relative).

 

[TristramEvans]

I assume, like anything, the more familiar it becomes, the less of a burden that seems.

GURPs, for one, can be exceedingly light in play, most of the crunch is front-loaded. I'm not familiar with Hero system, but Rolemaster is also that way.

 

[Paragon]

An issue you can run into with the 'one system to rule them all' systems, is that some of the most widely used are also quite complex — I'm thinking of GURPS and Hero here. So, if you go down this path you can end up having to deal with a rules-heavy game every time you play. This is another factor that keeps me happily penned up in my TFT universe, as it is functionally universal for pre-modern settings, but has far lower level of complexity than GURPS (its closest relative).

Somewhat true, but there's a lot of incarnations of Fate as counterarguments, and I've definitely seen some other rules light multigenre systems. They aren't my cuppa, but they clearly exist.

 

[Paragon]

A lot depends on the type of game.

There are games where not having the same group of players every session leaves a big gap in continuity. There are others where it doesn't really matter at all. A West Marches style game, or a Star Trek game with a big crew and the PCs are whoever gets beamed out to shore every week, or the PCs are a mercenary company, or a noble house in Game of Thrones. All of these can handle a somewhat rotating cast reasonably welll.

Yeah, I rarely run much any more that doesn't have too much continuity for that to work well.

 

[Ravenswing]

Funny enough, I also don't think "I'm out of college" is a good excuse. But I'm not planning to change people's minds, so reliable players just get priority if there's ever (hopefully never, only happened once IME!) drama that might involve one of them or an "irregular" leaving.

Oh, aye, I'm not looking to change anyone's mind either. Someone who can commit to regular attendance has set a priority. Someone who can't has set another, even if it's a "meh, it's not that I have all that much going on in my life, I just don't care all that much."

Which is okay: every hobby and pastime has people who are hardcore about it, and those who are casual about it.

But I won't call you lazy because your job doesn't result in a dependable schedule or your family pulls in a way that makes things not work out.

And I don't call people lazy because of those things either. But c'mon: most people have a pretty good idea what their schedules look like, week in and week out. I haven't had a job that required me to work Saturdays (and even then, only one Saturday in three) in over 30 years. When I did, I just didn't schedule gaming sessions for Saturdays; the three groups I ran were Friday evenings, Sunday afternoons and Wednesday afternoons after work. My wife doesn't mind me GMing every other Saturday, and is in that group; she'd mind me running every Saturday, so I don't. These are not difficult choices to make.

And I've had players with some built in excuses. I know that the Army reservists, at the very least, will be called up for summer training sessions. I know the player that's the tech director for a Boston theater group is going to have the occasional weekend rollout. Hell, the father of the aforementioned diabetic player (pre-transplant) called me up once to tell me that Dave wasn't going to make the session that day, because the routine surgical procedure scheduled for a few days before went seriously, seriously wrong, he was pronounced dead on the table, and wasn't going to leave the hospital any time soon. I'm sure all of us have known players with ongoing, longstanding Stuff.

But most folks aren't in that boat, are they? In my observation, a good number of the folks who blow off sessions because of "work" or "family" or suchlike aren't really. It's because there's a movie they wanted to watch, or they just didn't feel like it, or had a better offer ... and figure, with some justification, that such an answer isn't going to bring joy and smiles to the group. It's the gaming version of "Oh I'm allergic to X food, I can't eat it" = "Actually, all it is is that I don't like X food, and I don't want to eat it, but using the word 'allergic' gets me a free social pass."

 

[Gabriel]

Screw it. I'm gonna burn my entire RPG library and just focus on TWERPS from now on.

 

[AsenRG]

Screw it. I'm gonna burn my entire RPG library and just focus on TWERPS from now on.

Youcan instead send the books to people!
I mean, you know what they say about those who start by burning books, right?

 

[AsenRG]

I assume, like anything, the more familiar it becomes, the less of a burden that seems.

GURPs, for one, can be exceedingly light in play, most of the crunch is front-loaded. I'm not familiar with Hero system, but Rolemaster is also that way.

Yeah, there was a time when me and the wife started a thread (using my account) on TBP "why do people think GURPS is heavy, that's some kind of misunderstanding"!

 

[Ravenswing]

Yeah, there was a time when me and the wife started a thread (using my account) on TBP "why do people think GURPS is heavy, that's some kind of misunderstanding"!

The biggest mistake SJG ever made in respect to GURPS was NOT putting GURPS Lite in the front of the book, with a tag line in big, bold letters right behind saying something like "These are all the rules you need to play the game! You can have many years of great, exciting play with nothing else. But we've got a whole lot of optional rules that add flavor and crunch -- here they are!

 

[AsenRG]

The biggest mistake SJG ever made in respect to GURPS was NOT putting GURPS Lite in the front of the book, with a tag line in big, bold letters right behind saying something like "These are all the rules you need to play the game! You can have many years of great, exciting play with nothing else. But we've got a whole lot of optional rules that add flavor and crunch -- here they are!

FWIW, I agree...but I don't think you could persuade SJG. Actually, I suspect you might have tried!

 

[AsenRG]

I meant one-roll resolution, not One Roll Engine, but come to think of it, ORE would work really well!

Well, ORE is named this because of the one-roll resolution. And it manages to pack up quite a bit in that one roll!

 

[ffilz]

And I don't call people lazy because of those things either. But c'mon: most people have a pretty good idea what their schedules look like, week in and week out. I haven't had a job that required me to work Saturdays (and even then, only one Saturday in three) in over 30 years. When I did, I just didn't schedule gaming sessions for Saturdays; the three groups I ran were Friday evenings, Sunday afternoons and Wednesday afternoons after work. My wife doesn't mind me GMing every other Saturday, and is in that group; she'd mind me running every Saturday, so I don't. These are not difficult choices to make.

And I've had players with some built in excuses. I know that the Army reservists, at the very least, will be called up for summer training sessions. I know the player that's the tech director for a Boston theater group is going to have the occasional weekend rollout. Hell, the father of the aforementioned diabetic player (pre-transplant) called me up once to tell me that Dave wasn't going to make the session that day, because the routine surgical procedure scheduled for a few days before went seriously, seriously wrong, he was pronounced dead on the table, and wasn't going to leave the hospital any time soon. I'm sure all of us have known players with ongoing, longstanding Stuff.

But most folks aren't in that boat, are they? In my observation, a good number of the folks who blow off sessions because of "work" or "family" or suchlike aren't really. It's because there's a movie they wanted to watch, or they just didn't feel like it, or had a better offer ... and figure, with some justification, that such an answer isn't going to bring joy and smiles to the group. It's the gaming version of "Oh I'm allergic to X food, I can't eat it" = "Actually, all it is is that I don't like X food, and I don't want to eat it, but using the word 'allergic' gets me a free social pass."

I have played with people who worked in the service industry who couldn't guarantee Saturday off. I haven't played with such folks in ages but...

In my current gaming, I have players miss for some of the following reasons:

College student who doesn't manage to stay awake for the game. Note that for him, the game STARTS at 11:30 PM and runs to 1:30 AM... I honestly can't blame him. He's also maybe missed due to exams once or twice. He also missed when he had to return to his parents house during lock down. Totally understandable that he wasn't going to get away with those hours at his parent's house.

Folks who have had to miss due to work emergencies (I myself have managed to not have work emergencies for many years now). A college professor who has had to bow out a few times because of grading or having to prep for class.

What I have NOT gotten the impression since starting Roll20 gaming is that folks are bailing because a "better offer" came along (that did used to happen with in person gaming).

Note that we play Wednesday evening starting at 8:30 PM Pacific Time and run til 10:30 PM so it's a bit on the late side on a weekday. We run then because weekend time is family time for me. Besides, some time ago, I figured out that post-college folks were actually more consistently available on week nights, and it was more reasonable to run every week (though my current games are every other week) which made the odd cancelled session not result in a month long gap, or longer, especially around the holidays. I myself had reasons to do other things on weekends like conventions or camping trips. Again this goes to post-college folks quite often having more of a life. And it depends on priorities. I personally respect those who put a higher priority on family than gaming and can not remotely blame anyone for whatever their work demands are.

And as someone with food sensitivities, and with a wife with worse food sensitivities, I wouldn't assume anyone stating such is just trying to avoid eating something they don't like. Like don't try and feed me onions. I've gotten into onions and despite having taking a reasonable acid blocker medicine with the meal, and a second does at bedtime, and sleeping propped up, have still stayed up much of the night with my stomach rebelling and quite often still having to rinse my mouth out after a bad acid reflux. I used to LOVE onion rings. These days I say I love onions but they don't love me. So yea, I'm picky and careful of the food I eat that I haven't prepared myself (or had my wife prepare).

 

[Ravenswing]

FWIW, I agree...but I don't think you could persuade SJG. Actually, I suspect you might have tried!

No on one, yes on two.

 

[AsenRG]

No on one, yes on two.

They should have listened. But what more can one do?