"I fear not the man who played 10,000 sessions in different tabletop games, but the man who played 10...

"I fear not the man who played 10,000 sessions in different tabletop games, but the man who played 10,000 sessions in a single tabletop game"

Do you agree, and if no, why are you so shit at applying system to different things?

I disagree because certain systems are meant for one very specific style of game, and their mechanics do not translate well to other styles of game.

I dunno, I think it still might be better to see, like, 1,000 sessions each in 10 tabletop games. Seems like it would help to see some different perspectives on how to do things.

Mechanics can be changed and refluffed, and the whole "BE TERRIFIED OF ALTERING GAMES" that you huff and puffers are trying to build up just so people will try your specific but specifically shit hipster games is getting obnoxious at this point.

I disagree. There is something to be said for knowing a rules set so well that it fades into the background and using it becomes more like breathing than an exercise in research. That said, looking at and trying out other systems is good because if nothing else it can show you other styles and options for how to play, which you can take advantage of even if you continue using the same system.

the only thing "different perspective" leads to is more systems from one RPG ripped wholesale and without thought into another, most often while similar things already exist within a system and need just refluffing.

>another poster falling for "different perspective" meme

You don't need different perspective if the one you have is good enough. Worse, these perspectives will clash, ruining the overall experience.

user, 10,000 sessions is a lot more than you think.

Let's be reasonable and assume that this singular person plays every weekend that they can but misses a few here and there so let's go with 45 sessions a year.

That's about 222 years of gaming for one man. Good luck with that.

However, let's day we go with the "10,000 hours to master a skill" notion. If each game session was a conservative 3 hours then it would take that same man about 74 game sessions or about a year and a half to master said game in theory. Much more reasonable.

Ad Hominem aside, you can absolutely hombrew rules as you please. But for the sake of OP's argument, that runs into two problems. First is the Ship of Theseus Paradox. If you keep stripping out and replacing rules and changing things about the system, can it really be called the same system? Second, why even bother with all that work in the first place when someone's already done it for you? Your time as a GM is valuable, do you really want to spend it trying to kludge together some houserules just so you can use your pet system for the game you want to run? Or would you rather spend that time actually planning your game?

You won't know how good your perspective is until you try others out.

I never said it was necessary, just helpful to broaden your perspective and see different ways of approaching a game format. As an example, I really, truly dislike Fate but there are certain philosophies it has at its core which have changed, subtly, the way I run certain games even though I continue using my preferred system.
Again: not saying it's mandatory. If you're already having fun then no need to change your formula. But it has the potential to expand your perspective and change the way you play for the better (for YOUR version of "better," specifically, not some universal golden way of playing), or if nothing else reinforce your commitment to the game concepts you already like and provide context and additional perspective on why you enjoy the game you already did.

Wow, that is an incredibly close-minded statement that says volumes about your personality and character.

> 222 years
Now let's be completely unreasonable. Let's say we go with the 3 hour session assumption and then say that this man plays 24/7. That's 8 sessions per day. That means it would take 1,250 days to do 10,000 sessions or 3.42 years of 24/7 gaming.

Absurd.

A lot of games operate on similar principles when you really get down to it
So it follows that depth would be more useful than breadth because you could then apply that depth to other slightly different systems and gain an instant advantage.

But this doesn't apply to systems that are genuinely wildly different.

>10000 session
>4 sessions a week for like 50 years
I'd fear him either way.

If they're playing one session every day they're going for 27.38 years. Insane, but not impossible with proper dedication.
My question is if it's all one campaign? I have trouble keeping campaigns going for half a year, much less 27.

>Second, why even bother with all that work in the first place when someone's already done it for you?

Because you should know what you want better than some stranger who's never met you.

Modifying a system to suit your specific needs and tastes is an inherent part of playing any system more complex than Candyland.

And, you can stop with the whole "Don't you want to be lazy and stupid and pretend it's hard or particularly time-consuming to adapt games" business.

I agree because he clearly has mental issues and he's probably a fucking cannibal or something.

No, because someone like that invariably has shit taste in systems and has latched onto whatever came around first. He clings to it like a grown man trying to suckle on the breast of his mother's corpse. It's the same thing as the guy who only plays Urist Stonecleaver in every game, never altering the character or thinking to even try out a different class. So, no, I do not fear him, but I do pity him. His gaming experience will be boring for him and his fellow players.

I disagree and instead of answering your loaded question, I'll ask one of my own. Why do you have a learning disability that prevents you from picking up new mechanics and concepts?

So the argument is "the fewer things you know the happier you are with how things are"?

>74 * 3 = 10,000

Yeah, our hobby hasn't even been around for 50 years. Even if they started as a child on chainmail, you'd be talking about an extremely prolific player.

Everybody quotes this and nobody stops to realize that Bruce Lee used more than one type of punch and one type of kick. So either he wasn't taking his own advice or it's been very badly ripped out of context.

Spoiler: it's the second. Most of his writings are on the importance of accepting good ideas wherever you find them.

>Because you should know what you want better than some stranger who's never met you.

If this were truly the case, then we would have all written our own systems ages ago. Most people do not know what they want or are (rightfully) unwilling to put the effort in to get what they want (adding house rules is one thing, adding balanced, flavorful, and fun house rules is another). Even then, having a system closer to your intended result is going to be easier in most cases then adapting Pathfinder into Everyone in John.

Meanwhile, as a player, I would be wary of anyone telling me he's running a heavily modified system. As stated before, even if the DM knows what he wants, it takes actual talent and effort to implement it; talent and effort that I am not sure this random DM I've found has.

You can't save them. They've got whatever brain-rot convinces people that their inept, $90 waste of an afternoon that they "hand-made" at the beginner level is in some way better than the same thing available professionally made for $3 at the store. Once "I'm a special snowflake and Corporate America doesn't understand my completely unique needs" takes hold you can't do much but just have to wait and see if their immune system fights it off.

>So the argument is "the fewer things you know the happier you are with how things are"?

Surprisingly, this is true. It's called the Paradox of Choice

> then we would have all written our own systems ages ago.

Are you telling me you haven't?

I don't think it matters so much as it must be the same system.

At least that gives room for some kind of variety.

No, that's not quite the same thing. That's a problem of not knowing which choice to make. Trying different things out of curiosity and/or knowing which choice to make for a given purpose (i.e. system to use for a particular kind of game) is a different matter.

Moreover, consider that you are already aware that there are a multitude of games that do things in various ways for various purposes. The singularity of purpose and knowledge that's supposed to lead to greater happiness according to OP is already compromised, even if you never played a different system. What's left is simply resorting to masturbatory "This is the right choice because it's what I decided to do" thinking.

No, the Paradox of Choice literally means that the more options you have the less happy you will be with the one you eventually settle on. That's why it's a paradox because you would image the more options you have the more able you will be to find something you like, but the opposite actually occurs.

Your second paragraph mistakes knowing for knowing of. I can be intellectually aware of the existence of something without taking the time to seriously consider it in the light of other options. Knowing that there are 100s of brands of gum does not obligate to make a serious study of which will best suit my needs.

>10,000 sessions
That's outside of human possibility, but you probably can emulate it by sufficiently powerful super-computer (or some form of distributed computing) in reasonable time.

If you try a lot of systems (IE, use whatever system is best suited for what you're playing currently and don't lock it in when you play something else), then you will have plenty of opportunity to see if you would have been happier.
Just as an example, I've played literally over a dozen of "fantasy RPG" systems, 5 different editions of D&D included. The differences in mechanics lead to differences in tone and themes, and in some cases the mechanics are tailored specifically to the setting or tailored specifically to create certain tones.

I wouldn't use a highly lethal, low magic system for a fun fantasy romp, and I wouldn't use an over the top crazy system for an overly serious game. I also wouldn't use, say, the SOIAF RPG for anything outside of that setting.

Fair enough on the Paradox of Choice, I didn't read carefully enough. Even so, it doesn't apply to the subject matter of the thread, in my experience. I think it's because being able to try a lot of systems is, for many of us, considered a good thing. That is, the ability to sample a lot of things is pleasant in itself (of course, I also just download whatever systems I want to check out, so there's no material loss for me involved)

Your second paragraph... Yes, that's what I said in the last sentence of my second paragraph.

Yeah, I fucked up. It should take about 74 years of playing 45 game sessions a year.

5e is my medium-crunchy general purpose dungeon crawler, Dogs in the Vineyard is my rules light/narrativist system that I can rework quickly for different settings. MonsterHearts is my character focused interpersonal drama system. Everyone is John is my beer and pretzels system. Microscope is my oddball wildcard. Once I decide what type of game I'm running, I already know what to pick.

I could drive myself up the wall trying to decide between 500 RPGs, but I don't. Those 5 work at their respective jobs so I use them. Less decision, more satisfaction.

Holy shit guys, it's the developer of VTNL!

I don't drive myself up the wall either, because I get to try out whatever I want and know from experience what kind of tone the different games have.