TheRPGSite

From the How did RuneQuest never overtake D&D? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27444) thread, so as not to derail it ...

Quote from: Bill;690093

Quote from: soltakss;689801

Quote from: Bill;689785I know one gamer that resists learning new games and will often say "Why not just use Pathfinder?" for any setting.

Substitute RQ/BRP/Legend for Pathfinder and that's me, that is.

I am a huge Elric and CoC fan, but I still gladly try new games.

It's fine to have favorite games but some people choose such a limited selection it seems strange to me.

Over the years, I have played a fair few games, not as many as a lot of the posters here, but enough to get a broad selection of different types of games.

What have I learned from this?

That I have found a games system that I really like, that is flexible enough for me to use in almost any genre, that can be houseruled very easily, that has a wealth of material available both as supplements and online, and which is going to be supported for quite a while yet.

Now, whenever I play a new game, I always compare it to RQ/Legend/BRP and it always comes up wanting, in my opinion. Sure, there may be specific rules that are better and can be adapted to a D100 game, but as an overall game then I haven't found anything that even comes close. Maybe HeroQuest, but I count that as part of the family anyway.

To be honest, I haven't played GURPS or Savage Worlds, which seem to occupy similar niches to RQ/Legend/BRP. I am sure they are good, probably as good, but are they considerably better? I doubt it.

Now, I am getting on a bit and don't have as much free time as I used to, so the idea of learning a whole new game just for the sake of it is really not that appealing.

Totally reasonable.

the only reason really to try a new system is cos you want to reach out to meet new players or you just want to try it for fun.

but in reality if you have a system you like, SW, BRP, D20, that you can mod to suit any setting then you're done.

Now some settings are harder, not sure how well BRP Supers would work for example and d20 modern hits issues with HPs and guns for a lot of people.
But the base idea is very true.

I got into a habit of reading a game at a con and just lifting the 2 new/interesting mechanics and adding them to my own homebrew game.

So I added Advantage from Next, great rule works really well and added a modded version of the Amber spell system alternative that Pundit proposed on the Amber forum. Now I moved the whole thing to Strontium Dog SciFi and the conversion took me 2 hours, new skill lists new class archetypes, Psyker powers and an equipment list (I had a lot of the stuff from a SW Strontium Dog I had written.

I think it's a bit like the strengths/weaknesses thing we were discussing over in the 'why so many games suck' thread. Different strokes.  Not a thing wrong with not liking mechanical variety.

I use to collect new systems but not anymore.

I think game systems are like traveling. New experiences are usually a good thing. Travel to a new place is fun exciting and educational, doesn't mean I want to live there. Same with game systems, love reading them, occasionally stealing some new idea or mechanic but don't want to learn it to the "I can run this" Extent.

Not resistant so much as tired and have limited time.

Just my thoughts :)

When I buy icecream, I can guarantee you that I'm getting chocolate.  Probably chocolate fudge brownie.   If I get two or three scoops, I might get something in addition to my chocolate.

I'm the same way with RPGs.  If I'm in a lot of games, I'll try new systems.  I'll even read systems I'm not playing.  But I won't play them unless I'm getting enough of my favorite first.

There's nothing wrong with being comfortable with a particular system and not particularly seeing the advantages of shifting systems depending on what particular game or campaign one has in mind. If the baseline of the system is what you're looking for at all times, then that's that. Period.

Now, other gamers will shift systems depending what they want to accomplish with a particular feel, universe, game play and so on. I personally tend to see game systems as the blades of a Swiss Army knife, so to speak, with different blades fitting different jobs the best. If I want different types of magic with a medieval-to-ancient-world feel, an emphasis on the lethality of combat situations and the like, I'm likely to use RuneQuest. If I want a game that emphasizes expeditions into the unknown, striking it rich, exploring the weirdness that lies beyond and, in effect, changing one's surviving character from a mundane man to a hero, if not a Cosmic Champion, I'll use some variation of D&D.

So different games systems are best used when emulating different types of worlds and situations. There's no one system that absolutely does it all, to me. Now I have a tendency to think twice before picking up an entirely new game, however, simply because I have a damn lot of blades on my RPG knife already. I AM more picky now than I was some years back. But that is normal, I think, when you already have a lot of tools at your disposal in addition to your own imagination and experience.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I've taken a similar approach, although not just one system. The systems I know and am comfortable with are:

-D&D through to 2nd edition AD&D
-Cyberpunk 2020
-Risus
-Pendragon
-Call of Cthulhu

Can't be bothered with anything else as they cover all my gaming needs. The only thing missing is proper SF, although I rarely if ever run it.

What you play or don't play, and your reasons for either, are your business. You are the best judge of what makes you happy.

-clash

Personally I am always eager to explore new systems.

For some general styles of play (and people), who you play with is more important than the system, in whether you're going to have fun. In those cases, I think it's also generally true that a lot of systems make the GM more or less happy, as opposed to the players, who really couldn't care less.

This isn't really anything new to people who've been reading this site.

I'd say the biggest issue in picking a system, under this philosophy, is what sorts of setting-assumptions are embedded in the rules, and how well the rules can be adapted to a particular setting. It's no great surprise that BRP is popular among folks with this perspective:

It's very adaptable, with lots of examples for setting adaptations
It scales well in terms of complexity/detail
The fundamental mechanics are very transparent and straightforward

Other systems come close to BRP, but I don't think there are any which hit all three points quite as well. GURPS is probably stronger on settings, but it's harder to whittle down the complexity in chargen and combat--partly because of presentation.

Historically, classic D&D was somewhat handicapped in terms of setting adaptations--there were homebrews for scifi, etc., I'm sure, and any number of fantasy variants. But I think it's only recently that we've started to see some solid examples of how D&D can be tweaked effectively for multiple genres. (Or at least, well-received--I can't personally vouch for Stars without Number, Other Dust, Arrows of Indra, Backswords & Bucklers, Hulks & Horrors, etc.)

There is a difference between "what I will play," "what I will run," and "what I will buy."

The odds of me buying anything these days are microscopic, as are the odds of me running anything I don't already know because I can't be arsed.

I'll play almost anything if it's easy to get into.

New isn't always better.

Then again, the systems that I stick with have a longevity measured in decades, so they can't be that bad.

I'm just getting old and I can't be bothered to read new systems, and believe you me, I've read and run and played a LOT.

My eyes slide off the page. WHich is good really, at last I focus on planning and running the games I know.

I've never been much of a rules monkey, once I had BRP, GURPS, Traveller most of the other games I bought were because their settings looked interesting and maybe I could steal some cool ideas from it. Nowadays I get more and better ideas off of blogs and forums it seems.
Still, once in a while something like LotFP or DCC comes along that makes me want to run it as is.

I'll read any new game that comes along, but honestly I've already got a system that fits all my needs, and I barely feel I even need that anymore. My group has been crawling towards free form for a while now, we just pay lip service to the system during combat.

I'm open to new flavors, but I already know what I like, too.

And since I haven't had my fill yet, because there's hardly the amount of gaming time as youth, I want to gorge on my french fries, chocolate bars, and coca cola while I still can.

Age just refines our selectivity, as we've had to learn how to prioritize.

There is a kind of weird subset of gamers who believe (and openly state that they believe) that everyone should play every system they are offered a chance to play. And *like* it. Sort of like how there are fantasy/SF fans who think you have to watch/read and enjoy every single F/SF product ever made, and if you express dislike for something or say "Based on the ads/cover blurb/trailer and reports from people who've seen it, it doesn't sound like something I would like," then you get a lot of hostile responses.

What it's sometimes easy to forget is that these people are really only a very small group, and most people aren't like that. They *might* try to play every game possible and buy every game as it comes out, if they feel pressured because "everybody seems to like Exalted/Savage Worlds/Apocalypse World/FATE". But really, you don't have to like all that stuff, and you don't have to buy something you don't think you'll like.

Quote from: talysman;691061There is a kind of weird subset of gamers who believe (and openly state that they believe) that everyone should play every system they are offered a chance to play. And *like* it.

I feel that pressure sometimes... such as when a guy in our group who bought the latest incarnation of Hero starts pushing to play it... I feel bad saying I've really got no interest. Like I'm throwing a fit just because I'm stating my taste.
D&D 4e is the only thing so far that I've just put my foot down about, "I've tried it, I don't like it, I'm out."
Certain games, like Fate, I'm more inclined to think "I'd be willing to play that, but not with you."

QuoteSort of like how there are fantasy/SF fans who think you have to watch/read and enjoy every single F/SF product ever made...

I've seen the same thing among animators, poets, fans of horror movies... etc.

Quote from: talysman;691061There is a kind of weird subset of gamers who believe (and openly state that they believe) that everyone should play every system they are offered a chance to play. And *like* it. Sort of like how there are fantasy/SF fans who think you have to watch/read and enjoy every single F/SF product ever made, and if you express dislike for something or say "Based on the ads/cover blurb/trailer and reports from people who've seen it, it doesn't sound like something I would like," then you get a lot of hostile responses.

It's not just gamers.  It's a subset of people who pull this.

But, as with games, it's not that these folks want you to try "everything" -- it's that they want you to try the things they themselves want to do.  (They're not at all shy in loudly rejecting that which they find valueless.)

Quote from: talysman;691061There is a kind of weird subset of gamers who believe (and openly state that they believe) that everyone should play every system they are offered a chance to play. And *like* it. Sort of like how there are fantasy/SF fans who think you have to watch/read and enjoy every single F/SF product ever made, and if you express dislike for something or say "Based on the ads/cover blurb/trailer and reports from people who've seen it, it doesn't sound like something I would like," then you get a lot of hostile responses.

What it's sometimes easy to forget is that these people are really only a very small group, and most people aren't like that. They *might* try to play every game possible and buy every game as it comes out, if they feel pressured because "everybody seems to like Exalted/Savage Worlds/Apocalypse World/FATE". But really, you don't have to like all that stuff, and you don't have to buy something you don't think you'll like.

Yeah, wow, that pretty much nails my feelings on it.  I really don't have the time to dedicate to learning a new RP system from a player's perspective (and I don't like sitting there with the GM saying, "Just roll the dice, I'll tell you whether or not it's a success" - I need to understand what's going on), and I sure don't have the time to learn to DM a new system...so I stick with what I know..  I've got a ton of RPGs I will likely never play: Last Unicorn's Star Trek game, Star Wars D20, SPI's DragonQuest, Lejendary Adventures (sorry, Gary...), Cyborg Commando (Gary, you should be sorry...), and on and on.  Meanwhile I can grab one of the 3 versions of D&D I have and regularly play and be gaming in just a few minutes...

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;690885I use to collect new systems but not anymore.

Me, too.

I can enjoy very different game system experiences, but there are only so many big distinctions, not much new under the sun.

Interesting rules can be portable at a smaller level. One thing about old D&D is that it's not really systematic to start with.

Quote from: talysman;691061There is a kind of weird subset of gamers who believe (and openly state that they believe) that everyone should play every system they are offered a chance to play. And *like* it. Sort of like how there are fantasy/SF fans who think you have to watch/read and enjoy every single F/SF product ever made, and if you express dislike for something or say "Based on the ads/cover blurb/trailer and reports from people who've seen it, it doesn't sound like something I would like," then you get a lot of hostile responses.

What it's sometimes easy to forget is that these people are really only a very small group, and most people aren't like that.

More generally outside of geek/nerd type niches, the absolute worst offenders for this type of behavior I ever came across, are people who are food and drink aficionados.

These days, I absolutely refuse to socialize with individuals who are like this, for both geek/nerd niches and non-geek/non-nerd niches.

The worst offenders of this type, can't take "no" for an answer.

I don't know.  I mean, it's one thing to tell someone 'you should do these 400 different things' and it's another things to say 'you should try this thing that I really enjoy'.  

Not taking no for an answer is bad.  But if you don't ask people to play with you, you're not going to grow the hobby.  In the long run, I appreciate people making the attempt to 'evangelize', even if I'm not receptive to their particular plea.  

I'll listen, and that may factor into my ultimate decision - and I'll certainly be honest about my intentions.  I'm not going to worry about hurting someone's feelings by saying something like 'you know, Traveller just doesn't sound interesting to me' or 'maybe another time, but right now I'm pretty happy with the games I'm playing and I don't have time to commit to another game'.  

Like with most things, the specific thing is good if approached correctly.  Sometimes people approach it incorrectly.

Quote from: soltakss;690758From the How did RuneQuest never overtake D&D? (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=27444) thread, so as not to derail it ...



Over the years, I have played a fair few games, not as many as a lot of the posters here, but enough to get a broad selection of different types of games.

What have I learned from this?

That I have found a games system that I really like, that is flexible enough for me to use in almost any genre, that can be houseruled very easily, that has a wealth of material available both as supplements and online, and which is going to be supported for quite a while yet.

Now, whenever I play a new game, I always compare it to RQ/Legend/BRP and it always comes up wanting, in my opinion. Sure, there may be specific rules that are better and can be adapted to a D100 game, but as an overall game then I haven't found anything that even comes close. Maybe HeroQuest, but I count that as part of the family anyway.

To be honest, I haven't played GURPS or Savage Worlds, which seem to occupy similar niches to RQ/Legend/BRP. I am sure they are good, probably as good, but are they considerably better? I doubt it.

Now, I am getting on a bit and don't have as much free time as I used to, so the idea of learning a whole new game just for the sake of it is really not that appealing.

I'm pretty much with you. Give me a good, versatile general system any day and I think it's better than a custom-job.

I think that's especially true because the games I run and play in rarely stay in one genre, especially if they run long enough. I need something that's open-ended and flexible.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691112But, as with games, it's not that these folks want you to try "everything" -- it's that they want you to try the things they themselves want to do.

For a social hobby like RPG's, it's the same impulse as the people who would rather stick with what they know; the need to have someone to play your toys with. Both groups are exactly the same, and if they're stubborn, nobody gets to play anything.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691112It's not just gamers.  It's a subset of people who pull this.

But, as with games, it's not that these folks want you to try "everything" -- it's that they want you to try the things they themselves want to do.  (They're not at all shy in loudly rejecting that which they find valueless.)

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691199I don't know.  I mean, it's one thing to tell someone 'you should do these 400 different things' and it's another things to say 'you should try this thing that I really enjoy'.  

Well, I'm not really talking about people evangelizing for one or two games they really like. I'm talking about the people on RPGNet (mostly) who think you should buy/play the hottest 3 to 8 games released every year, plus a list of 10 to 20 mainstays of the hobby. Or, back when I actually still frequented The Forge, the people there who considered you gaming illiterate if you hadn't played everything from a list of 30 to 40 games, plus something like 10-15 board games and 10-15 card games. All these people that I have actually encountered online made it quite clear they weren't promoting one specific game, but were promoting a snobby attitude about gaming as a devotion or educational program. In some cases, they didn't even care which games you played, but the quantity of games you played.

That kind of attitude is annoying, unless you spend a moment to realize that they're so insecure that they have elevated the number of games they've played to the highest ideal - the one thing they think their life should be evaluated on.  

I like gaming.  I consider myself a gamer.  I play most every week (but we're off this coming week), as well as playing online via Play-by-Post.  I spend time on discussion boards (like this one) discussing my hobby.  But it's just a game.  

How many games I play is less important than how many friendships I make through gaming.  And that is not nearly as important as how good a husband and father I am.  

The internet is full of unpleasant people - don't give them the power to bring you down.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691214That kind of attitude is annoying, unless you spend a moment to realize that they're so insecure that they have elevated the number of games they've played to the highest ideal - the one thing they think their life should be evaluated on.  

I like gaming.  I consider myself a gamer.  I play most every week (but we're off this coming week), as well as playing online via Play-by-Post.  I spend time on discussion boards (like this one) discussing my hobby.  But it's just a game.  

How many games I play is less important than how many friendships I make through gaming.  And that is not nearly as important as how good a husband and father I am.  

The internet is full of unpleasant people - don't give them the power to bring you down.

All of my experiences with such awful unpleasant individuals has been offline.  (Both geek/nerd and non-geek/non-nerd niches).

talysman mentioned RPG net specifically, but I have to admit to seeing this behavior more often in real life.  But unless they're a close friend, it's not difficult (or particularly rude) to blow them off.

Quote from: talysman;691209Well, I'm not really talking about people evangelizing for one or two games they really like. I'm talking about the people on RPGNet (mostly) who think you should buy/play the hottest 3 to 8 games released every year, plus a list of 10 to 20 mainstays of the hobby. Or, back when I actually still frequented The Forge, the people there who considered you gaming illiterate if you hadn't played everything from a list of 30 to 40 games, plus something like 10-15 board games and 10-15 card games. All these people that I have actually encountered online made it quite clear they weren't promoting one specific game, but were promoting a snobby attitude about gaming as a devotion or educational program. In some cases, they didn't even care which games you played, but the quantity of games you played.

The one common feature of such awful individuals of this type (in both geek/nerd and non-geek/non-nerd niches), is their snobbishness.  A general personal sense of superiority (whether real or perceived), in their own minds and amongst other like-minded individuals of similar persuasion.

Quote from: ggroy;691232The one common feature of such awful individuals of this type (in both geek/nerd and non-geek/non-nerd niches), is their snobbishness.  A general personal sense of superiority (whether real or perceived), in their own minds and amongst other like-minded individuals of similar persuasion.

New systems - that is, new-to-me-systems; I don't care when they were released - are very important to my enjoyment of the hobby. My interest is primarily in exploring the expanding the boundaries of RPGs, and finding out the breadth of what can be done with the hobby. Exploring all RPGs have to offer is contradictory to limiting it to comfortable systems - I always have to explore new ones, looking for surprises.

What ruins this whole practice is the culture of snobbery you describe. It influences prospective players to keep their bets safe, become insular, and that's really what shrinks the hobby - false associations visited upon wary gamers by self-important Internet assholes.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: soltakss;690758I have found a games system that I really like, that is flexible enough for me to use in almost any genre, that can be houseruled very easily, that has a wealth of material available both as supplements and online, and which is going to be supported for quite a while yet.

I feel much the same about the same system (Chaosium's BRP framework). On the other hand, I also enjoy different flavors. TSR-era D&D is the crowd pleaser in my regular gaming group, and one of my friends would prefer that we use that basis for everything.

It's certainly feasible; I've used it for all sorts of things in the past. However, I also enjoy sessions in which we're using GDW's house system (as in Twilight 2000, Dark Future, etc.). Variety can be a pleasure in itself.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;691137I really don't have the time to dedicate to learning a new RP system from a player's perspective (and I don't like sitting there with the GM saying, "Just roll the dice, I'll tell you whether or not it's a success" - I need to understand what's going on)

I and most of my bunch are pretty comfortable with the latter. At least one is somewhat resistant to learning formalisms -- amazing how little of BTB AD&D he's picked up despite playing for decades -- and seems to prefer "just playing his character."

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691199Not taking no for an answer is bad.  But if you don't ask people to play with you, you're not going to grow the hobby.  In the long run, I appreciate people making the attempt to 'evangelize', even if I'm not receptive to their particular plea.

(shrugs)  I've brought dozens of people in to the hobby.  (Heck, two separate GMs I brought in still used my 1970s homebrew system, many years after *I'd* abandoned it.)  I ran the gaming track at a World Science Fiction Convention, I've done convention runs, been a panelist, written products, the whole nine yards.  I figure I've done my duty to the hobby ... presuming I had a "duty" to the hobby.

Which I didn't.  And neither does anyone else.

No one has an innate duty to any hobby.  This is our entertainment, not a chore.

Beyond that, there's a standard false dichotomy in these arguments: that "growing the hobby" requires buying into whatever oddball system or milieu the speaker wants to try out.  Nonsense: if our motivation was truly behind "growing the hobby," we'd stick with the tried and true.  D&D is the only RPG with general name recognition in the wider world, and it's the overwhelming industry leader.  Fringe games that'd consider 5% of the market an outstanding surge in sales will never get any broad traction, and those taught to prefer such games will always have a harder time finding groups than D&D players do.

So let's uncouple these from the argument, shall we?

Well I will play almost anything providing the people I'm playing with are fun to play with. If anything I often prefer to play new games.

I'll buy almost anything that catches my interest regardless of system because I like to see what neat ideas other people have come up with. Money and time is the main issue here. I do have quite a backlog of things I've only skimmed.

But it's been a long time since I've run anything which isn't BRP/RQ/CoC. The overhead of running a game is much higher. If the right opportunity came up there are systems I would like to run (e.g. Savage Worlds, FATE, Icons) to see how they feel but I tend to find that if I see a setting I'm interested in (e.g. Airship Pirates) I find myself thinking it would be more fun to convert it to some flavour of BRP and run that instead.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691429(shrugs)  I've brought dozens of people in to the hobby.  ... I figure I've done my duty to the hobby ... presuming I had a "duty" to the hobby.

Which I didn't.  And neither does anyone else.

I get that.  And I'm pretty squarely in the 'I don't like trying new games for the sake of trying new games' camp.  I like chocolate ice cream, and I don't care if I might like something else, too.  Some people like the 'tried and true' and don't feel the need to experiment.

But, on the other hand, I don't get mad because someone suggests I might like pistachio ice cream more.  They might be right - but the only time I'm going to try it is if they have it at their home and chocolate isn't an option.  If we go to the ice cream parlor, I'm going to spend my money on chocolate and say 'well, maybe I'll try it next time'.  But I never will.  Not unless they run out of chocolate, first.  Assuming I don't just turn around and leave.  

There's nothing wrong with suggesting to someone you've met that they might enjoy a hobby you enjoy.  Full stop.

If you're in this thread complaining about people making suggestions, you're wrong.  I'm not saying that ANYONE is actually saying that.  Mostly I hear people complaining about 'hard sell' type of stuff.  And I agree that's annoying.  But let's draw the line - coming on too strong is objectionable - not suggesting to someone that they try something new.  

I'm not particularly receptive to new things, but I don't get annoyed when people make such suggestions.  Despite my general reluctance, in some rare cases I'll actually take a suggestion.  I'm going to try a game of Warhammer 40k Deathwatch or some such for just that kind of reason.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691448Mostly I hear people complaining about 'hard sell' type of stuff.  And I agree that's annoying.  But let's draw the line - coming on too strong is objectionable - not suggesting to someone that they try something new.

Definitely.

I've walked away from gaming groups which had hardcore "hard sell" types as the DM.  In such groups, the DM was so "hard sell" that their relentless hard selling continued on even after finding enough players.  Essentially they would be telling the players how to create their characters, and telling the players what to do at almost every step during the game.  It was as if the game was a one-man "puppet" show.

Outside of rpg games, the most annoying "in your face" "hard sell" types I came across, were typically people involved with "multi level marketing" (MLM) type stuff (such as Amway).  For such "in  your face" MLM types, they were quickly demoted to "persona non grata" and not invited back to anything anymore.

I've never understood this. My players don't go out of their way to try new stuff for novelty; but they've never had any problems with learning a new system just because its new.

Obviously, if they decide that a system isn't good after learning the basics of it they won't want to continue, but there's never been any fear of novelty in my groups.

I wonder if its because we play VERY long-term campaigns as a rule, and so my players are fairly secure that we're not just going to go around changing (and re-learning) systems on a whim; and they trust that I'm going to think through what I will run very carefully.

RPGPundit