Saw this article over on the the RPG Blog II. I respond there, but thought I'd put my reaction with just a bit of expansion here as well.
-
I agree and disagree.
I agree in that once you find a system that matches your needs- just stay with it.
I agree in that if you don't find a system that matches yours needs- create your own, in whole or as house ruled modification. Then just stay with it.
A different system is only required if the needs change. Most often some changes in your existing choice can meet those new needs just fine. I haven't changed game systems in 30 years save for version updates.
I disagree however that this is possible for most people. That's because they keep picking poor systems, but they never realize it. Dissatisfaction builds, and off they going looking for a new game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
here's how the conversation goes around my house:
Me: "I'm thinking of running X campaign. I want to try out Y system for it."
Sherri (the wife): "Really, why don't you use the homebrew we've been using for the last six campaigns which you wrote in the first place."
Me: "I'm really curious about Y system, people are talking about it, it does a bunch of things well."
LATER
Me: "Man I'm having a hard time with system Y- there a bunch I don't like about it. It is proving to be a ton of work to get it to do what I want."
Sherri: "Homebrew. The one we've used."
Me: "No, I really want to experiment..."
STILL LATER
Me: "I'm thinking I'm going to run Campaign X using our homebrew system."
Sherri: "Thank god. Now you can stop agnst-ing and actually tell us how to make characters."
I've had the same experience with only slightly different wording.
Tried Shadowrun and Deadlands. Both failed with their systems and I ended up converting them to HERO.
I doubt my players would allow me to try a new system now even if I wanted to.
But I doubt I would, I'd have to find something I couldn't do in my current rules to justify the attempt. And I don't see that happening.
The thing about homebrewing games is that they're all inevitably based on tweaks of the games you've played. I always laugh when I see someone touting a "totally original" game system homebrew that does a whole bunch of spectacular things and it's painfully obvious that the only thing they've played is D&D 3.5 or Rolemaster or White Wolf games and their homebrew is just a few tweaks to the game they grew up with.
However, once a homebrewer get's a whiff of something new and revolutionary, they start to wonder about what makes it work because they want to know how they can implement these new ideas into their homebrews. The problem being that getting an established group to try a whole new game is akin to convincing everyone to all change careers. It requires a major leap from comfort zone, a revamp of schedule and a change in skillsets, for not just one person, but 5 to 7 people. Daunting to say the least.
Overall, I like trying new games almost as much as I like long running campaigns with a beloved character. I also like building homebrews and writing my own settings. My groups has appreciated some of the new games I've introduced them to just as they've panned others. I'll always be one to check out new RPG's and try to introduce the ones I think are good to people that I think would be a good fit for them.
There are home brews and there are home brews. I've seen some that had no relation to anything, and it improved nothing.
And others are copies with minor changes, like all of the OSR (and that's the stuff that is any different which is a just subset).
I'd just call them house rules myself.
But whatever they are, in the end home brews are for the group that plays them, nothing more needs be said.
Post a Comment