I like Harrigan’s answer: “Playing a single game steadily has increased my appreciation for system mastery.”
It’s great to dabble in rules. It’s healthy for the hobby. It’s entertaining to read different books and consider new things. But at the same time, finish the sampler and pick a pint. Take a leap of faith on a single system and allow the game to age like a fine wine. The GM and players will steadily grasp the rules, and eventually those guide rails will become second nature, then become invisible entirely. And that’s exactly what you want as a GM: A ruleset that gets out of your way.
To Sean’s question on what to do when someone says “You should play X game instead of Y game.”
Not only is that statement inherently vitriolic, it assumes the person needs advice and is gaming the wrong way.
Who really believes the recipient of this kind of pointed guidance would ever activate on it? Imagine someone who’s spent days or weeks prepping a complex Lovecraft game only to hear “No no … This could have been done better.”
Isn’t it hard enough to recruit players to commit to a long campaign, while also teaching them the rules? It’s incredibly difficult to pull off the hat trick to even get a game going in the first place. 1. Learn the rules. 2. Create the adventure. 3. Gather and educate players. That’s a lot.
On what planet would someone entertain the idea of exploring an alternate ruleset on top of all the rest of a GM’s duties?
It’s such an arrogant and elitist question, one that is likely born from that person’s insecurities in engaging with an individual who’s actually done the heavy lifting in running or preparing a richly envisioned game.
It’s hard to imagine Brett or Sean or many of the other seasoned BSers and GMs ever making such a statement.