Too much of a good thing
I have a serious glut of systems. I love that, no mistake, but it mismatches the irregular gaming non-schedule my group has.
In the last while[1. "While" being defined as "the last few months".] we've played some HackMaster Basic and some Diaspora. Neither have we played much, but I'm optimistic about getting at least a decent campaign out of the latter. Science fiction is a nice change of pace for all of us, and it's even more of a change for me since I get to be a player instead of the GM.[4. HMB might turn out to be a campaign of some note too, but for once I'm letting the players drive whether we continue with it or not.]
I like to try new systems. That's not the best feature to have as the group's default GM, but I have yet to find a system that suits me well enough to stand head-and-shoulders above the field of contenders. I have been looking for a new system that felt like "home" ever since parting ways with the venerable lineage of Dungeons & Dragons—and, having looked up from the vast continent of D&D Land, there is an entire world of games to explore. It's wonderful and frustrating in equal parts.
I love the potential in Burning Wheel for deep, character-driven stories and long-term development. I really like how easy Savage Worlds is to customise for any setting and how it makes things easy to stat on the fly. I'm intrigued by the mechanics and setting of Reign, and I especially like how flexible its magic system is for both the GM to customise and for the players to use in-game. HackMaster Basic's crunch level is not too high yet remains satisfying, and it supports D&D-style setting assumptions well. The Shadow of Yesterday is just deliciously player-empowering and has some impressive game-design pedigree behind it.[3. And pedigree "ahead" of it, too: So many games I've read cite The Shadow of Yesterday as an inspiration.] The Riddle of Steel sounds like a lovely combination of deadly combat and player-driven stories.[2. If only the copy I ordered two years ago had ever arrived, or my multiple email inquiries ever been answered, The Riddle of Steel might have become my default system. I'm hesitant to even mention it now, given my tainted feelings about the game. I could have pirated it ages ago without compunction since I've paid for it, but I really prefer a physical book. But, I digress from the digression.] Those are just the systems for fantasy that I really like, and it looks like there will be a FATE-based fantasy system out this Christmas to expand the attractive options even more.
I don't think there would be any problem sampling so many systems if we played even half as regularly as some groups. It does seem, though, that my interest in a system is tied not so much to how many sessions we play it for, but simply how much time has passed since it caught my attention. I think if we played more frequently I'd feel less like a magpie, catching every shiny thing that comes near, simply because we'd get a half-decent campaign out of every new discovery. As it stands we get one or two sessions out of a game, and those are the ones I've been lucky enough to get any play out of at all.
I'm not sure what purpose this post serves except to air out my brain. There doesn't seem to be a good solution, apart from magically increasing the frequency that we get together to game. There's no way for me to commit to a system for the next ten sessions or so, since that represents the investment of six months to a year of gaming and that's a lot when I don't even know if I like running the system. That's leaving alone how much of a commitment that would be asking from the rest of the group when I'm the one excited about an obscure game's reviews.
Does your group play, or try to play, many different games? What has your experience been? How do you balance group commitment to a campaign against the desire to try the latest and greatest game?
Comment by Zargon — Oct 24, 2009 9:25:56 PM | # - re
Comment by Swordgleam — Oct 25, 2009 7:34:37 AM | # - re
Comment by mxyzplk — Oct 25, 2009 8:32:06 AM | # - re
Comment by ScottM — Oct 26, 2009 4:47:49 PM | # - re