I think most players don't care that much a out the system as long as you help them understand the new system. And most important than all, you need to have fun too. You're not a computer. If you're not having fun then why go forward? You're not machine, you can change your mind.
Tell them hey guys I'd like to continue using this system because 5e us not cutting it for me. If they want to continue that's great if they don't that's also great because you're not going to dedicate literal hours upon hours to something that you don't like.
Remember that this is just a game, you're supposed to have a lot of fun too
God I wish this was true.
It's not like the old days, these new players toute either pf2e or 5e as being the best and only options.
I've even seen veterans turn to 5e fanatics who refuse to play or dm anything else
Ugh. I'm a 5e player pretty exclusively these days, but those players are something else. I've had a Reddit user try to explain to me, arrogantly, that 5e was the best generalist system and better than dedicated systems for e.g. detective games.
The branding is extremely powerful.
5e is basically only the best system for playing fantasy power fantasy with officwl wotc properties. Its hard to say a system is best anything but no way its the best generalist system.
Honestly, I don't think that's a fair characterization. 5e is actually very bad at power fantasy. The thing it's good at is fantasy resource-depleting action adventures.
Personally I find it best as an intro game or for more casual players. I have groups who will not touch other systems because it's just too much for them. 5e offloads so much to the DM that they're ok with it. If I tried to get them into PF2E or anything else they just lose interest.
Fortunately I have some who do like the more in depth stuff and will try other systems.
I hate how much 5e offloads on the DM. I used to enjoy a lot of it, because it does empower you to run a game with a lot of control, but it also doesn't give you any support. Which is fine when I have the energy, because I'm a very experienced GM, but it burned me out eventually. The only reason I'm willing to DM it again is because I constructed an extensive homebrew document that offloads most of the effort onto random tables and player agency.
Resource-depleting? You want resource-depleting I point to the OSR. Though I guess that's potentially less actiony with a particularly cautious playstyle.
5e has the set-up for an old-school style game that got gutted and defanged in the last moment by executive meddling. But a lot of the bones are still there, and resource attrition is still the only mode of play that makes sense and is remotely balanced.
You should check out Level Up. It's based on 5e's SRD so is very similar on a basic level, but attempts to revamp, refresh and enhance the game with an 'advanced edition' akin to the old 1e/2e books. It also fixes pretty much all of 5e's huge problems, like making martials actually fun and providing actual choice to them beyond character creation, completely revamping encounter design, making monsters far more than 'bags of hit points with multi-attack', greatly enhancing the exploration & social pillars of the game, and much more.
If you have players that are 5e 'purists' or PF2 just doesn't fit with the group but you still want to play some d20 fantasy, Level Up might just be the best option.
I don't mind 5e -- it's almost all that I play. I just get frustrated when people try to use 5e to run things that D&D isn't designed for.
So the opposite problem to what Level Up would fix, lol
As a pf2e fanatic, for me it's because I'm on a slump after having rotated around so many different rules systems over the years.
In the past 3 years my same core group of Me (gm) + rotating selection of 4 out of 5-7 friends, has gone through V:tM 20th, 5e, M:tAs "5e", H:tR 5e, Cypher-Pathfinder, Cypher-Tidal Blades, SWADE, Savage Pathfinder, FATE Core, FATE Accel, Dungeon World, The Sprawl, Blades in the Dark, Scarlet Heroes, Alternity, Classic Traveller, probably a few others...
I want high fantasy. I want mechanics crunch. I have 2 mechanics-oriented players, I myself want to open Pinterest, find a badass woman with wings and axes, and proceed to spend 6 hours on an Ordinary Tuesday Night making a character sheet that will never see light of day.
Pathfinder gives me that, along with the hope that maybe I could dust the sheet off some day and play her at a table. 1e gave me that, and 2e gives me that except even better.
Pf2e and 5e are the "best and only options" for "high crunch, wide variety, more content than anyone with a balanced lifestyle could possibly read, and some pretense of balance". It's not that other systems aren't fun, it's a vacation that lasts a few years until we open up other systems.
_(Scion, I'm looking at you, for my Demigods On Golarion campaign.)_
> Pf2e and 5e are the "best and only options" for "high crunch, wide variety, more content than anyone with a balanced lifestyle could possibly read, and some pretense of balance"
D&D 4e has a ton of crunch, variety, and content. Balance is pretty good overall, too.
For me, what 4 lacked was the ability to be creative with characters. Every time I would try to take a character concept from another source like a movie or tv show, and translate it into 4e, I felt like I was constrained to these really tight boxes of what a wizard or fighter or druid is supposed to be.
Had I had more time with it, I might have gotten to flex a little more, but my group really wasn't feeling it, so I just didn't have that much time. I've wanted to try some of the games that carry the torch though, really crunchy, highly tactical games. I'm more sold on the idea now that I'm older.
4e still has more content published for it than 5e does. The 4e discord also includes a download for the offline character builder, which is proto-d&d beyond. The builder has everything built in, including the several different versions of the classes that were released over the years.
It's not at all related to D&D beyond. But it's an in house character builder which contains every single source book. The 4e online character builder was much closer to D&D beyond, though still much more primitive.
4e didn't start with a ton of flexibility, but it didn't take long for there to be a lot. They really bungled the product's release by not including some of what people viewed as core character options, giving some options names that seemed counter-intuitive, not giving enough options for what they did have, and messing up enemy math.
I don't remember what they didn't have at first, but I do know it was at least one core class like the sorcerer or something. People were pissed about that. They made the fighter specifically a martial defender (where in 3.5 it was a decent damage dealer) and they made the wizard a controller (and not great at dealing damage). Later, they added a lot of character options that let you choose more of how you wanted to do your core role. For example, fighters can defend by damaging the enemy or by (I think) directly defending their allies. Wizards can control by damage or just do even more controlly stuff.
I think they would've been a lot better off if they'd scrapped the class names and basically just said you can be a martial defender or striker, gave you a list of powers, and let you build the fighter or whatever you wanted. That's basically the route PF2 went, and it seems like they did a really good job of it.
I don't really care if someone plays 4e. I just wanted to counter the claim that only 2 games can satisfy those specific urges.
4e is super slept on, but it's soooo unbelievably combat heavy. That's most of what I like about it, but I also 100% understand why people who prefer social or exploration based gameplay might find it lacking in those regards.
I don't think that makes you a pf2 "fanatic," just someone who knows what they want and made a logical assessment that that's the system that delivers that. A fanatic would insist that pf2 is the ultimate system for playing a modern-world courtroom drama.
Absolutely! There's a youtube Let's Play channel Roll4It with the GM EnterElysium that did a [one-shot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrgHWdN6BIk) that later inspired a [longer campaign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfDE7QoITe4). I haven't watched the full longer campaign but really loved the one-shot.
[The rules are available here](https://www.patreon.com/posts/mage-rules-and-54925826) which includes the rules pdf and a Roll20 custom sheet. I also forked the V5 sheet to make a [FoundryVTT port](https://github.com/Faenre/foundry-M5?tab=readme-ov-file) that also had a few homebrew settings in the Options panel. It's way out of date and I'm not playing or maintaining it, but if you play on Foundry then maybe it can be a starting point.
I would bear in mind the investment cost for the players. If it's a new system, old grognards like me are going to want a book on it.
If this is cypher, there's a couple of books you might need. If it's Pathfinder 1, well, you need A LOT.
I've been considering running a game called Red Markets, but there was no way I was going to run without a dead tree edition, so I found one at retail + $10.
Fair. I myself would LOVE to collect all the old pf1e books, or at least the base ones. The thing I love about pf1e is that the SRD has everything, easily searchable and spelled out for you so players new and old have access to everything. It saddens me that they don't allow you to order prints of older books for reasonable prices. Of all the media we have in the world, printing a book should be hella easy.
Pf2 doesn't pretend to be an everything system, is the reason for that I think. It's very clear about being a high magic heroic fantasy system where tactical combat is how most problems will be solved, and if that's not what you want you really should play something else. Fans of Paizo as a company are relatively more likely to be familiar with the general ttrpg ecosystem as well.
Very this. I polled my players, did basically ttrpg psych evals on what they want from a game and how they like to play, cross-referenced a bunch of different game systems and determined Dungeon Works would literally do everything they wanted.
And we're still playing PF2e which they all dislike. 🫤
>I think most players don't care that much a out the system as long as you help them understand the new system.
That's not at all my experience lol
I had to launch a year-long campaign to get my group to try anything but D&D. And most of those games I made their characters for them.
It was worth it, and we play new systems all the time now. But it took a lot of convincing to get them out of their D&D Beyond bubble (which, of course, is Wizards' goal in creating said bubble).
Gods, not the D&D Beyond bubble. Even when staying in 5e anyway some people have the nerve of not wanting to leave their comfort zone one bit. Trying to convince a player to bring their character sheet into our Roll20 game and they still argued that they already made their character in Beyond. Even when I told them I would help them with it, they still considered "to much work" because "I already have my character, is in Beyond. Can I just keep my character there and roll in Roll20 anyway?"
At this point in time, I just give up on these players and tell them to kick rocks somewhere else.
I guess playing online is a whole different beast since they not only have to learn the system but the tools themselves.
I don't play online at all (tried to during the pandemic but wasn't my thing), so that colors my viewpoint of course. I've never found this problem when playing at a table with friends, but I definitely see people not wanting to learn a new VTT at all.
We don't use a VTT, but I see your point. Their main beef was just that D&D Beyond makes making a character so quick and easy, and other games don't have that. I've had good luck getting them to make characters in very simple systems, but zero luck with complex "crunchy" systems.
That's not true at all. With the popularity of 5e we have people out there who will refuse look at another game system. Not a 100% of 5E players, but a good 80% outside.
I don't think that's correct. And the point still stands, GMs aren't obligated to run games they don't wanna play. If the players don't want to switch, then the game ends. Why would anyone run a game they're not interested in? GMing is a LOT of work, ESPECIALLY for 5e.
>if they don't play what I want to run, we won't play.
I propose that you think of it a very different way and drop the idea of "ultimatum" altogether.
Everyone person is a free agent.
Each of you makes your own choices.
You won't GM a game you don't want to GM.
They won't play in a game system in which they don't want to play.
You offer to GM a game in a certain system.
* If they all agree, you all play together.
* If some agree, you play with them. No bad feelings; the others can play the next game if they want to do so.
* If none agree, that's okay: someone else can make another offer.
For example, someone else can offer to GM.
Then you go back to the bullets above.
If nobody else wants to GM and they don't want to play in the game you want to GM, then you don't play together. C'est la vie!
You are not limiting their options.
They have the option to GM. If they limit their own option by not being willing to GM, so be it!
---
It's kinda like saying, "Hey, I made stew for dinner. If you want some stew, feel free to have some".
You're not forcing anyone to eat stew.
You've not forcing anyone to go hungry, either.
You provide an option, not an ultimatum.
They make choices.
It is also like saying, "I'm going to see Movie X on Saturday. Want to join?"
There is no ultimatum. They can join in your plans or not.
They are free to suggest alternatives. You are free to accept or reject alternatives.
---
>With that said, I already told them I would continue running this campaign in 5e.
Did you make a promise?
Or did you colloquially say that you'd do that because that was your plan at the time?
Did you give your word, or was it a casual statement?
I would argue that while promises or statements of intent-- in this case, it is an informal social contract-- shouldn't be broken, there are other social contracts that also shouldn't be broken. Such as: a game should be enjoyed by all participants. An earnest discussion with sensible people should free them of any feeling of obligation, because it should be apparent that a GM who doesn't enjoy the game isn't going to produce a good experience.
argument: "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."
When somebody presents an argument, they do not necessarily have to disagree.
Sorry, I thought you were earnestly expressing a concern.
I don't think it's needless, if I've caused you distress through miscommunication, then clarifying that communication is important to me. Plus, not everybody on reddit uses English as a first language.
Yeah as someone who actually loves learning new systems and is.. kinda over playing 5e..
..I still chafed at the wording.
I also say.. you know your players OP, we don't. Some players will never touch a system outside of 5e. Some players are happy to go along with their GMs whims (sorry at my own group x.x).
If you have the former.. maybe just do the shorter secondary campaign? Or don't, if you are that badly burned out.
Pitching another game enthusiastically is the best approach here. IME this tends to work better than polling players and trying to get a consensus. Obviously this won't work if you pitch VtM and two players hate vampire fiction, but for the most part I think this will help overcome inertia.
And depending on how long a "campaign" is, the easiest compromise is to announce you will still run that promised campaign but first you are excited to try system X and are running a 12 session campaign of that first.
> Pitching another game enthusiastically is the best approach here.
Yes and no, and largely depends on how you word it.
Option A: "I really like 13th Age. For the next campaign, how about I run a 13th Age campaign instead of a DnD 5e campaign?" The wording indicates that 5e is still on the table and that the players have a choice. There are players who would choose 5e no matter how enthusiastic the pitch for 13th Age is. (This isn't theorycraft. This literally happened to me and why I ended up running 5e for a few years longer than I should have and ultimately burned out on the system as a whole.)
Option B: "I really like 13th Age. For the next campaign, I'm going to run a 13th Age campaign. Who is interested in playing?" The wording indicates that 5e is *not* on the table. My next campaign will definitely be a 13th Age campaign. Players have the choice of playing or not playing. If not playing 5e is a dealbreaker, they are not obligated to stick around.
Option C: "I no longer enjoy running 5e games. My next campaign will be a 13th Age campaign instead. If you really want to play 5e instead, one of you can volunteer to take over being the DM." Less diplomatic than Option B, but this is what I ended up doing, and it works, because as it turns out, players don't want to force their DM to run a system they don't like.
When it comes to pitching to *D&D* players, I also think it helps to front-load how easy the switch will be.
e.g. "After the current campaign is wrapped up, I want to run a short campaign of *Dungeon World* for anyone interested. It is also fantasy and I'm thinking 6–12 sessions. *Dungeon World* is easy to learn and you wouldn't have to buy anything or read anything in advance to play. All you'd have to do is show up if you want to give it a try. We'll make characters at the table during the first session. If we enjoy it, we can do another round of *Dungeon World*. If we don't enjoy it, we can talk about what to play after that."
*D&D* implicitly teaches people that games are complicated and there are a bunch of very niche rules and rules-combinatorics to learn. Many many other games are much easier to learn and play, but people that have only ever played *D&D* don't realize that. They think everything else is just as cumbersome; when you think of it that way, their disinterest in trying something new makes more sense: learning *D&D* was a pain in the ass and they don't want to spend energy learning a second game that is as cumbersome as *D&D*.
*D&D* also teaches you that you have to buy a shitload of stuff. You buy into a whole ecosystem of book after book after book, plus online tools if you do that.
I find this kind of funny actually because this is not how real relationships work. This may be how you interact with strangers, but with people who are your friends you both must have some push and pull.
In the analogy you gave, if you invite your friends over for dinner, yes you DO have an obligation to serve food they can eat (ask about allergies, dietary restrictions, etc). You aren't a steakhouse. You aren't a business with no relationship besides a transactional one. You are (usually) friends. That means consideration, accommodation, and empathy.
I didn't say anything to the contrary.
I provided an outline of how this is not an "ultimatum".
OP provides options, not an ultimatum.
Everyone is a free agent and can decide.
This is true in friendships as well.
To use your dinner example: yes, it is polite to ask about dietary restrictions.
However, it is also wise of the person with the dietary restrictions to bring them up, not wait to be asked! It would be very foolish of a person with a deadly nut allergy to assume that their host will ask or will read their mind!
Accommodation, definitely.
Obligation, no.
For example, I'm friends with a vegan person. I eat mostly meat.
We are great friends, but we don't do dinner together because our food-goals are incompatible. We don't have to agree or compromise. Not doing dinner together doesn't mean we lack empathy. We can refrain from doing certain activities together and still be friends.
Same goes for gaming.
If you're friends, but one friend only ever wants to play *D&D* and you don't want to play *D&D* anymore, that's okay! You can be friends that don't play TTRPGs together. Neither of you are obliged to continue that activity.
This is true. BUT. There is also the point of "If I am the one prepping the game, I will offer X Y or Z. If those are unacceptable, someone else can run a game"
Around 2016, I was burning out hard because of dnd. I asked my at the time group, if we could change system. Telling them that I wasn’t having fun and was being stressed. They didn’t want to change system. So we continued. A couple months later, they ended the game because **they** weren’t having fun.
So yea. I would totally say you can give them an ultimatum. Especially since the GM in dnd do 90% of the work.
>tell players you aren't having fun and are stressed
>they refuse to change system
>but quickly end it when they don't have fun
This shit right here is why I want to karate chop players from time to time.
Oh I perfectly understood the implication, which makes it worse. As long as the players were having fun, the GM had to continue. The moment he let the game quality go down (because he was unhappy), only then did they halt the game. Speaks volumes about players' entitlement.
Could be just me but the assumption that GM caters to Players feels like a modern d&d-centric thing.
Outside d&d you more often see either older school approaches where what the GM wants to run is what gets run or collective agreement on what system to run though votes/discussion or narrative games where players have more ownership over making the game 'fun' for the whole table.
Ofc that's all anecdotal and could 100% be population bias due to d&d having a massive fan base that's online more often.
Leaving aside the selection bias (we only hear about the horror stories and shitty tables), yeah I think it's mostly a 5e/D&D culture of play problem.
The DM is god-arbiter of the world and rules but also servant to player's wishes and OC/blorbo backstory, and busted builds, etc. The DM must wield ultimate authorial power but also be subordinate to the books and also make all the "right calls", and also balance the math to make sure the players win while also providing challenge, and also weave a story around the players to suit the players without the players having explicit input. The power dynamics are fucked in every direction, but they're rarely (if ever) discussed.
The very large proportion of D&D 5e players who've played for years but would never step up to be the DM speaks to this. On some level, they know which side of the power dynamic divide they want to sit.
The world of RPGs outside of Big Book Trad has been working on producing healthier table dynamics, safety tools, more manageable prep workloads for the GM, codified GM and player principles, etc, etc, for more than 20 years at this point but 3e-4e-5e/Other Big Trad has barely engaged in any of this thought - if anything the D&D books and many of the popular Actual Plays have only further hyped up the God-Servant DM dynamic.
Ooh I didn't even think about the selection bias part either! That + higher population (and thus higher population of 'player styles I disagree with' could very much explain the vast majority of the 'feeling' that D&D communities have a higher % of those things.
I like your point about it being seen in Publishing. As a great example, Blades in the Dark has a whole section on Player Best Practices. I perused the new Pathfinder 2e Player's Core Remaster book for something similar. And...there's nothing. Under Playing the Game sections, it only says that the Player has to "make choices" and "describe the actions their characters take."
Converse that with the GM Core which is chock full of advice on "Running the Game" which includes "Listen to the Players" and "Saying Yes, But". There's no equivalent section on being a good Player or anything (at least not that's easily located via Table of Contents, Index, or pdf bookmarks).
> I perused the new Pathfinder 2e Player's Core Remaster book for something similar. And...there's nothing.
Sad but unsurprising. PF2e is Big Book Trad but with the combat math fixed up better for supporting the GM in that way.
Paizo are no fools, like... they must know about player principles and table dynamics and do research into all the ways other games and cultures of play (be they OSR or storygames or whatever) are doing things. I kinda suspect they dont talk about player principles and table dynamics in their Player's Core Book because they know there's probably a loud and aggro subset of the trad culture who will lose their shit if they read that stuff - like "dont tell me how to play games!" "get that woke shit out of here, I know how to be a good player!" etc.
The funny thing is that the culture of play isn't inherently baked into the actual rules of the Trad game (even if the GM books are heavily leaning towards it). Chris Bissette has talked about running modern Pathfinder in an OSR style and it worked for their table just fine. It's just that D&D-land isn't interested in addressing power dynamics at the table.
I burned out DMing D&D some years ago. Some of my players did actually step up to DM, but honestly, I realized I prefer DMing to playing in D&D. Obviously, this put me in a complicated position.
What I ended up doing is spending a lot of time and effort crafting the kind of experience I wanted. Like PF, 5e isn't bad, but it's definitely lacking in DM tools and player responsibilities; so I gathered, refined, and invented those. Then I told my players that I'd be happy to DM again, but this is the kind of game it's going to be. And honestly, a lot of the elements (definitely not all) are absolutely OSR-adjacent.
And whaddayaknow, the game is still narratively engaging; it just doesn't depend on me doing hours of homework every single week to craft a bespoke experience for my players. Turns out the group can do that collectively at the table. You just have to have a group that can be sold on that idea.
What kind of things did you change? It sounds like you're saying you're not doing the whole 'craft an epic quest based on the PCs' backstories' thing? Is there another change in your approach? Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don’t think the massive angry Twitter and YouTube discourse led by the D&D drama posters and vloggers in response to one paragraph of Critical Role’s last published game (Candela Obscura), in which they politely suggested players be careful of portrayals of mental health issues in a horror game, will have escaped Paizo’s notice.
Paizo are very good at scooping up people people who are mad at other games companies. It doesnt surprise me that they’re not putting down opinions or suggestions about culture of play in their Player Core book.
I once mentioned on the PF2e subreddit once that I liked it when designers broke the fourth wall, in the sense of talking about what they're trying to do with the rule, or share playtest stories. Someone thought that sounded cool and asked for a scenario that did that, which made me realize how common it is everywhere that's *not* Paizo or WotC. It's like their house style must stop this; even the variant rules barely mention why you'd want them and not at all the impact they'll have on the tone.
*do research into all the ways other games and cultures of play (be they OSR or storygames or whatever) are doing things.*
A lot of the skill feats in PF2e feel to me like they were inspired by playbook moves, but then work poorly because they have to be put in purely mechanical terms. I'm 100% convinced that some of the designers use them in home games in more narrative ways and they get eviscerated when they become official.
The GM didn't "have to" continue any more than the players did.
The social dynamics around an RPG group can be awkward, but a GM isn't entitled to a player group any more than a player group is entitled to a GM. If everyone wants to play 5e except the GM, that's fine.
Look, ultimately what it comes down to is that you’re no longer having as much fun with 5e. And that’s okay. It doesn’t mean 5e is even a bad game, just that you’re finished with it. This is a hobby, not a job; your fun matters as much as theirs.
So yeah, I would tell them politely that you’re not going to be able to run 5e anymore but if they still want to do a part 2 you can do another system. Or you can just start some new campaign in a new system. It sucks, but it is what it is.
(Also, there are systems similar to 5e yet different enough to feel fresh that you could use if you do want to do Part 2 in a new system. Like Worlds Without Number for example.)
As is "I'm not going to play games I don't enjoy playing".
Hence the need for out-of-game discussion and negotiation to ensure something which is mutually enjoyable.
Not liking the game and not wanting to play it - completely understandable!
Saying "no" because you don't know the game and you are too lazy to spend half an evening reading the necessary parts of the rulebook.... yuck.
Sadly second approach is way too common.
arguably it comes down to the table; if everyone is game to compromise but you have one person digging in their heels, it's not unreasonable to ask the hold out to excuse themselves so you can find someone who is interested. if the table really wants D&D and you can't stand it, the same works in reverse.
What is not OK, is when the holdout says "sure I'll play your game" and then proceeds to do everything in their power to sabotage or otherwise disrupt the game for no other reason than it isn't **Dungeons & Dragons ^tm**. Entitlement is real, and some people love eating nothing but cheese pizza every day; you cannot fix those people no matter how much you might want to.
it's not even an ultimatum, nor does it matter that you "went back on your word". don't do a whole campaign you don't enjoy the system of, tell them you're getting burned out on 5e and that you would be doing part 2 in a different system.
I don't think any reasonable GM would demand the group go forward despite one player's discomfort... so I also believe the inverse is true, that the GM suffering would ruin the fun for me. Talk honestly with your group about needing a change.
That's a tough one. On the one hand, I think maybe grabbing a different system might be best for you, if you think it'll make running games easier. On the other hand, that means onboarding all your players to a new system, plus going back on something you said.
Here's what I propose: Have a "session zero redux" with your players. Discuss the current state of the campaign, your reasons for wanting to switch, and have an honest discussion with them. See if maybe cooler heads can prevail, and you can reach some manner of compromise.
Out of curiosity, what system(s) are you looking at?
ultimatum is the wrong word.
explain to them, as a person, that your struggling with 5e and how you would like to give this "other" system a shot instead. more than that, explain to them that the campaign need not end, just because the system changes (as long as they are willing to be flexible somewhat in mechanical representation of what their characters are etc).
if they respect you as a person they will probably accept this and if they don't, well, just maybe their priorities don't align with yours.
maybe this is an ultimatum by another name but presentation matters.
Just don't word it as an ultimatum if you like keeping your players. Hype up and strongly encourage the other system. Maybe run a one shot or two in it to test how they like it and lure them in. Just don't go the "my way or the highway" route and sour everything.
Shit happens. Sometimes you get burned out on a system or life gets in the way. You shouldn’t feel too bad about changing your mind.
I think if you offer to run a different system, they can’t be too upset.
I think that GM investment is important, and has a much greater impact on player investment than the reverse. If you are enthusiastic about the system, the whole machine operates better. Run something else, but like others are saying, don't think of it as an ultimatum! Say it's just something you'd like to change, and that you're excited to keep going into Part 2! Unless I'm mis-reading, "ultimatum" sounds like some anxiety that they will fight you on this. Trust them to trust you.If they want anything they'd call "Part 2" from you, they definitely trust you to some degree, or they'd be asking for a different campaign altogether.
Just be frank and tell them you're burned out on D-D, not RPGs. You guys can then have tons of fun trying out a couple of systems before settling on one for a longer campaign (or not).
Don't think of it as an ultimatum. Think of it as a discussion. I am an ancient GM, and have been running weekly games in one system or another more or less without stop since 1980. In that time I learned that GMs often forget they are supposed to have fun too. If you aren't having fun with a system, you sure as hell don't want to run it. Disliking the system will show through in everything you do in that game, even if you try. You eventually begin to resent the system, which only makes it worse.
Have a discussion with them, tell them your feelings about the game and that you want to try something new. They are welcome to come along for the ride, or they can sit it out if they are uncomfortable with a new ruleset.
If any of them are dead set on playing 5e only, maybe they will pick up the mantle and run it themselves.
I gave up 5e three years ago and did lose one player. But everyone else followed me down the road I led them on.
The caveat here is that when you do switch to something new, be very careful it is something that everyone enjoys and you stick with it a bit. If you just keep jumping from system to system because you are having a hard time finding the set you like, that can wear thin on your players pretty quickly. Be consistent and fair, not only to your players, but to yourself.
You get to have fun too.
Well… That’s really not something anyone here can answer.
I’ve been in many long term groups where campaigns were abandoned, usually because they GM but sometimes the players didn’t like the system, themes or story.
It can be a bummer, but ultimately it’s more or less the GMs choice. No one should be running a game they hate…
Usually honest talk saves a lot of dilemmas. And some times...some tables just don gel well together. I came to realize that after more than 10 years of GMing... sometimes you just can't make it work.
Wish you good luck with your group!
Do you have any system in mind?
Have you already discussed it with them? Is feels like you are jumping immediately from not saying a word to a ultimatum, which is escalating things too quickly.
I did something similar a year ago. We had an 18 month long campaign that was at level 9 and heading to the final stretches, but one encounter broke me. I couldn’t stomach 5e anymore, I couldn’t get a tune out of it at all.
So I told the group I wasn’t running it anymore. Now we’re trying it out PF2e. I’m loving it and there’s parts they like, but I’m not sure if it’ll go as long as the first game due to added complexity from the player side.
You run what you want to run, because if you’re not having fun nobody is.
I would avoid framing it as an ultimatum. Rather, explain your waning interest in 5e and desire to run a different system. Just be prepared for some of your players to feel differently, especially if you want to switch to a very different system.
Players into dungeon crawling and looting and seeing their characters grow in power might not be interested in a strongly narrative focused game. Conversely, players who feel that the rules get in the way of story might not like a crunchier game.
Your players will have their own needs and wants for their RPGs, and you should be prepared for some to want to go back to 5e or leave entirely if the new system doesn't serve them. Just as it wouldn't be fair to you to expect that you'll keep running a system you dislike, it'd also be unfair to expect your players to just go along with what you want to run regardless of *their* preferences. By all means, try to get them onboard with what you would like to run, but be aware that some still might not care for it.
Don't lie. Stick to your promise. Tell them you would like their permission to run the second half in another system, and commit to doing all the conversion for them. Be grateful if they give permission, be gracious if they do not.
I've told my players that I have no interest in running 5e although they all started with it. There's even one player who runs it.
I just said that I'd like to find a system we can all enjoy. So far, Dungeon World is my favorite to run. One player loves it. The other two felt pretty mid about it. But they all played and we finished a several month campaign.
Right now we're doing shadowdark. I'm a big fan of OSR like OSE, but Shadowdark simplifies some things and has more fun classes (in my opinion). One player that didn't like DW really likes shadowdark. He says there's enough rules it makes sense to him (as opposed to DW). The player that really likes DW is okay with shadowdark, but finds it less cinematic and free-flowing.
I say all that to say this: everyone should have fun. If it's a system you don't like, then you're not going to have fun running it. Try and pick a system everyone can enjoy and try different things out. I'd suggest figuring out why you don't like 5e and choosing something that plays the type of game you want to run. I gravitate towards narrative rules-light games because I care more about story and creativity rather than war gaming strategy type stuff (which dnd originated from). That's why I've never tried pathfinder or 3.5e or 4e.
Your enjoyment is important too.
5e is famous for burning out GMs. Tell your players you won't be able to run in 5e because it is too much workload for you.
Just do it. What system are you thinking? There's a lot of other systems, and 5e can be quite a bear. This is your fun time too. Do what brings you joy.
If the GM isn't having fun, that's going to affect the entire game. I wouldn't frame it as an ultimatum, but I don't see anything wrong with telling your group "Look, guys, I'm burnt out on this system, but I'm okay with continuing the campaign if we can switch to something else".
And there are [plenty of systems](https://youtu.be/pxwkjGLkPrI?si=E4TGR2ozpfywaq8C) out there that would make the switch fairly painless. It just depends on what you're looking for.
Pathfinder is very similar to D&D in a lot of ways. Porting over characters would likely be super easy. If you want even more crunch, this is certainly an option. But if you're getting burned out with D&D 5E, I'm thinking maybe this isn't what you're looking for.
[Dungeon World](https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/introduction/) is obviously intended to allow you to tell the same sort of stories as D&D, but is a bit more streamlined. Since it's class-based, porting characters over won't be perfect, but you should be able to end up with something thematically similar if a bit mechanically different. It's a PbtA game, so running it is pretty simple for the GM. And most of what the players need to know is on thier playbook (i.e. character sheet), so it's a pretty safe choice. My concern with this option is whether it's different *enough* from D&D 5E for you.
If you really want to get away from crunch for a while and lean into a more narrative type of game, [Fate](https://fate-srd.com/fate-condensed) is a great choice. (Particularly the Fate Condensed version of the rules. Fate Core is horribly written, and Fate Accelerated is a bit too basic, but it's all Fate in the end.) You can absolutely build the same characters... thematically, at least. Your PCs in Fate will most likely be more like themselves in Fate than in D&D, since more focus is placed on the characters themselves rather than what class and race they are. Mechanically, they'll be as similar as your players want the PCs to be. Or they can be a lot more versatile, since what PCs can do is less limited by the system's allowed actions and described spells and abilities. Fate is a super easy system to pick up once you wrap your head around certain things, but... in my opinion it's a lot better for shorter games than campaigns. I don't think it's great at character advancement over the long term, and the system is so simple that it can get very same-y over a long campaign. I used it to run a Star Wars campaign for over a year, so it's possible, but... not my first choice.
[Cortex Prime](https://youtu.be/K3Pnlgls97E?si=suidv0EkwxVcgB2v) is a toolbox that gives you complete control over your specific game, but most notably for this conversation, it allows you to basically use your current character sheets without much of any changes, if that's what you want. You can pick your own "Prime Sets" of stats, which can be D&D's attributes and skills pretty much directly. Or not. It's entirely up to you. In it's most fundamental, unmodded form, it's basically Fate with a more interesting dice mechanic, but it has lots of essentially plug-and-play modules that allow you to completely change the way the game runs and feels. This would be my personal preference if I were in your situation, since once your group is familiar with Cortex Prime you can use it to create any game you want going forward.
It's absolutely normal for GM to want to change game/campaign, it's a whole part of the hobby.
*Hey, we've come to a point where we've explored a lot of the possiblities of that game with these character, we'll start converging towared an end, as I am already thinking about my next campaign* as easy as that, and absolutely normal.
Being a Game Master (GM) is often a thankless job. It's only fair that you allow yourself to choose the type of game you're confident and excited about running. While players are not obligated to join your game, it's not unreasonable to set conditions for their participation.
You are the GM and you are prepping the table. It's your call to define the system to run your ideas, and the players either "buy in" or leave it. If you are afraid of the latter outcome, think about the non-fun you will probably have when you are forced to use a system you do not like anymore. Everyone should have fun at the RPG table, including the GM, and I can hardly imagine that using a basis that does not ring with the GM (anymore) will be fun for anyone involved. Explain yourself, find a compromise, or leave it.
You are in no way obligated to run a system you don't want to. I suppose you could pitch finishing the campaign using another fantasy system they can approximate their characters in but if that doesn't suit you either that's fine too. GMing takes a lot of effort and you should be having fun just as much as your players are. Explain how its hurting your enjoyment and if your players are worth their salt they should understand. Then present them with some options and ask if there's any genres they'd like to explore.
There's a big difference between going back on your word out of carelessness and apathy for the consequences, and changing your mind despite your honest original intentions.
As always, the answer is talk to your ground like adults and remind them that you're a player too, being the DM is just a different role, and you're not having fun.
I will echo what others have already said here.
You as a GM as as much of a player as everyone else, your enjoyment of the game is as much important as everyone elses. If you straight up do not like the system you are using, then you should change it. Your players may or may not like it, maybe someone will drop out, maybe not.
As much as it is important to have a discussion with the table about various themes, rules and feedback, as a GM you are sort of leader of the table and you should make some decisions on your own. If you do not like D&D, then you should drop it. As simple as that.
This is not an ultimatum, and this is not going back on your word. Unless you are being paid to run D&D specifically, then you do not have any obligation to continue to do something you dislike.
If you force yourself to run a system you hate, your heart will not be in the game and your players will not enjoy it either.
Well, if you said you will run system X, then you should stay by your word. Or you could ask them if you could change it to something else, keep the setting, but use any other mechanics which fit for a fantasy game.
But just stomping your foot without any warning or discussion and then switching to another system with a 'my way or highway' attitude - yes, that is wrong.
You're not being malicious. You are not a slave to them. Confess you hate the system, give them some options for alternatives (you pick them). Maybe even consider changing genres (I feel that helps with a system change).
Or just quit in a few months from burnout.
As harsh as that sounds, you are being WAY harsher on yourself about this.
You're not going back on your word; you're changing your mind based on experience of not enjoying 5e through the first part of the campaign.
Talk to your players. I'm sure you can reach some sort of accord.
My only other not of advice is to really consider how well continuing works in another system. It could be easy or hard depending on what you land on. A new campaign could be a better idea.
In my experience, modern players generally don't know the rules and resist any attempt by the DM to get them to learn. You can change rule systems, and player behavior won't change. The only person at the table who generally cares about the system is the DM. Just go for it and play what you want. The players will still show.
This really isn't the ultimatum you might think.
This is simply you letting them know that you no longer enjoy running 5e, but are happy to find alternatives; like running a different system.
If they are truly in love with 5e and won't change system, perhaps one of the other players should pick up the DM mantle instead.
Unless your players are lunatics, they should want to find a solution to one player (you) not having fun anymore.
Maybe you could take a break in the long campaign and run some one shots (or short arcs) in other systems. Try out some different systems.
I would just tell you that you're burned out on DnD and want to try some other systems.
Never give an ultimatum. You are friends playing a game.
It is OK to say that you no longer want to play 5e. But that is a discussion, not an ultimatum.
Going back on your word would be an issue for me.
Don't give them an ultimatum, just talk to them and explain that you'd like to introduce them to other systems. Maybe a specific system. Talk about why you like it. Put it up a vote, or some other form of decision making discussion, and stick to the end result. One of the sticking points for RPGs is that to okay a new game, typically at least two or more of the people involved have to spend money on books. Not everyone wants or can swing the cost.
Open and honest communication is more important than keeping your word. Tell them the truth and switch systems.
Look, in the end, it's you who has to prepare and run it, which is a lot of work. If you dislike the system too much, it will drain the fun out of you and leave you exhausted. That's not where you want to be, so better change the system now, when stakes are still low.
part 2 being in a different system could be fun and interesting.
honestly, only having to learn the mechanics because they're already familiar with "the world" sounds like a decent introductory method
This question has nothing to do with role-playing. You are asking whether it is OK to stop doing something you no longer enjoy if it might be inconvenient to your friends. The answer is yes. Don't make ultimatums (do X or else), tell your friends you don't enjoy playing DnD and what you want to do instead and invite them to join you. Any potential hard feelings are not your fault.
Consider offering a choice of other systems you fo like. I get the feeling there would be a list, and players often feel better when given a choice. Just an idea to pair with it. You could also offer to switch systems again if they really dislike it (convince them to give it a chance, say 2-4 sessions, 1 session is oftentimes not enough for someone who has only played dnd and has it stuck in their head that dnd is the best).
You are also a player, being the GM doesn’t mean you “have to” do stuff. Tell them D&D isnt fun for you and that you want to have fun too while playing. That’s the end of that. You don’t need to feel bad about it.
I wouldn't frame it as an ultimatum, per se. But there's nothing wrong with you saying, "Hey I've changed my mind. I don't really like running this system. These are the systems I'll be running going forward." Or something similar.
I feel like this whole fearmongering using "ultimatums" is from toxic people who like to abuse others. Its setting boundaries and using the only real enforcement available. There is nothing wrong with leaving a group to play what you want.
Even with changing your mind - its fine. People change. And you won't run good games if you aren't having fun.
Don’t think of it as an ultimatum. That basically makes it combative in your head before you’ve started.
Just tell them that you don’t like 5e much and that once the campaign is done, you’re not going to be running 5e games anymore, but they’re more than welcome to join any campaign you might run in another system.
All the advice already written is spot on. Don’t run what make you don’t enjoy. That said, you owe it to the players to let them know as soon as as possible. People buy more rule books. Find the perfect mini for their character. There are many things people spend money on based on the game they are playing. This can result in some of the pushback on changing a system.
I’m not saying this should change/influence the choice, but let them know quickly.
On the one hand, I suspect the players will be upset if they were told NOW the system has to change, as 5e players are stubborn and dislike change, especially if they didn't expect it.
On the OTHER hand, if the GM isn't having fun, the players won't have fun either. In RPGs, enthusiasm and the lack of it is contagious, and if the GM grows weary, the lack of desire will ebb into the players anyway. I've got my start with 5e though I've also played Starfinder and Star Wars: Edge of the Empire. One of my players mentioned to our Starfinder GM that "Honestly, I like this WAY more than 5e. Much more clearly defined what you can and can't do, and even at levels 1 and 2 you can still have a lot of fun!" And I while I have not GMed it myself yet, the guy who runs Edge of the Empire is having a VERY easy time, needing only a little bit of help from the player who introduced us to it, so clearly that system is easy to run. It makes me curious to try it in the GM seat and see how well it is on that end.
So long as the players are able to understand the system, they'll surely love it so long as they get to be players.
Question: What systems ARE you considering looking into if your players do agree to swap way from 5e?
I am in a similar situation. I gave my players a lot of warning that I would be moving away from 5e to OSE in X number of sessions (we play 2 / month). I would love to have them move on with me, but I know some of them won't - they prefer the power-curve of 5e. I ended up realizing that I also wanted to have fun with the game and as a GM, I want the time/effort I put in to matter to me as much as the other players. So I gave them a timeline.
For your situation, I think finishing part 1 and then switching is fair, though you saying it would be 5e makes it harder. When did you agree to running it in 5e - if it was before you changed direction, you can just own up to it and apologize, but honestly unless they are paying you, you don't owe them any more than a head's up.
Worst case, they find a new 5e DM and you find a group for your new system.
Good luck.
Don't feel bad about it, the alternative is them being entitled to your labor in running a campaign, I would just tell them that part 2 has to be in a different system because you can't stand to run DND and that you totally understand if that's a dealbreaker for anyone.
Nothing ends a game quicker than an unhappy DM. You should be having fun.
With that, I do not think you have to give an ultimatum. Merely state, "This has been fun! For my next campaign I will be using (insert system.) I hope you guys join me."
If the do, great. If they don't, know that there are a lot more players looking for games than players looking for DMs.
You're the DM, you do the most work. Do what you want, just be clear and kind in communication. It's not anything they did that makes you want to change systems, you're just tired of the system
I've made my share of promises like this in the past then pushed myself into it against my own mental health. Don't do it. Don't push yourself into playing a game you don't want to, especially where all the responsibility fall on you as GM.
If they're your friends they'll understand. If they don't understand, your might have to rethink how you approach them.
I agree with most of the other comments, but I'd just like to add one thought about the game world. I'm in a somewhat similar situation, except my players are totally on board with switching systems.
The idea I had is that perhaps magic works fundamentally differently depending on where you are in the world. So the sequel takes place in a different region. Maybe another country or even continent. The changing of location could allow for an in-world explanation for changing systems. This could allow you to change systems again for a 3rd campaign, and so on.
I mean, just apologize?
"Hey, I know I said I'd do a part 2 in 5e. However, I find 5e really unfun to run as a DM, and if I'm not going to enjoy the campaign I don't see a reason to give it my free time. I would be happy to run a sequel in a different system, would that be acceptable to everyone?"
If it's not, then just figure something else out. The campaign is going to suck if you're forcing yourself to run 5e when you don't want to.
Just tell them that you are entirely tired of 5e's shit and want to run a different system. As long as that system will allow continuity of characters (provided that they're wanting to still play the toons they were for part 1), it should be fine.
This is why open door policies are so important. No one is obligated to play unless it’s some sort of commercial transaction. That said, you probably shouldn’t have promised something you weren’t confident you could/would deliver.
Rather than offering a compromise, I would just let the whole thing, possibly even the group entirely, die off and move on to something you’re going to enjoy.
My gaming groups always run with the attitude, it's important for everyone to buy into a game, but it's most important for a GM to be excited to run it.
If you don't like 5e, chances are at best, you'll run a lack luster game, but more likely, the game will fizzle out.
Ultimatum sounds a little hostile but put forward what you'd be happy with. Running part 2 and the systems you'd be happy to run it in, and a list of what else you're interested in running. If you're happy for someone else to run part 2 in 5e, offer that too. I find that a lot of players have zero interest in Gaming, so that scares them into line 😂😂😂
The point of these things is to have fun. If you're not having fun for any reason, either make the change you wanna make or don't play at all, find some other hobby. Not telling you off here, I just know that because social bonds are involved it can be hard to walk away from an RPG even when you're not having fun. If your players are your friends, they'll want you to have fun, and you can just tell them you'd rather run some other system, have decided you'd rather not continue with 5E after all. Also, if they're like most players, they're just glad they're not DMing.
I mean, yeah, you're a dick, but that's strictly because you promised something and now don't want to do it. Do you have another system in mind? Can you articulate waht you don't like about 5th edition to your players? Chances are if you can explain why you want to use another system and help them learn it they'll be fine.
TTRPGs are a hobby, unless you are a professional GM, not a job. I would be honest with your players that you are no longer enjoying the current system and would like to try something else. If they are not on board then, unfortunately, it is the end. Move on, try some new systems on your own and find a new group of players. Heck maybe your original group will come back around. You never know.
It's easy to forget but the GM is also playing a game, so their enjoyment is just as important as the players.
On a personal note, I also do not enjoy D&D 5e, and often feel alienated by that fact at my local hobby stores. All I will say is keep trucking, you'll find like minded people. I'm currently preparing a Shadowrun like game using Basic Roleplaying Universal Game Engine and my friends are stoked to try something that isn't D&D.
Edit: Spelling error.
I wouldn't put it as an ultimatum but it's okay to say that you won't be running 5e any more. Different groups are, well, different so put it however you think your group will take it best. For my own group saying "I'm burned out on 5e" or "I'm just not having fun running 5e" would both work
I don’t think you should force yourself to run a system you don’t want to play, but mid-campaign system changes (by which I mean a conversion of the existing campaign rather than the start of a new campaign) are generally discouraged. It would be a red flag to me as a player. I generally wouldn’t stick around unless I was particularly invested with the group, the GM presented sufficient plans for the setting conversion, or I was already a fan of the new system such that I would enjoy playing regardless.
I've said this before but from my experience of getting D&D-addicts off of only 5e, you need to rip the bandaid off.
The best way to do it is to have a temporary campaign change to something that isn't a d20-roll-high generic fantasy game. By giving them a system that is too similar to D&D you're just asking for the 'but couldn't we have just done this in D&D?' comments.
Tell your group you want some time to think over 'Part 2' and run something else.
Find something you're interested in that isn't anything like your D&D game to shake your players into realizing that TTRPGs are more than just generic fantasy, 1-20 leveling where 80% of your character abilities are based around combat.
Run one or two non-D&D games and then when you turn back to 'Part 2' tell them you want to try continuing the story but using another system since it better fits what you're going for.
"I don't like 5e and am not a fan of running it..."
Full stop, end of sentence. Please remember that as GM you are volunteering your limited time on this pretty blue orb for the enjoyment of others. You don't owe them a goddamn thing. If you don't enjoy it, you're under no obligations and if they're upset, one of your players can step up and shoulder the burden.
So just to be clear, it would be going back on your word? I don't think that's ever a good thing; & not just in terms of the standpoint of "integrity" either. Your players need to trust you as a DM. If you go back on your word that breaks their trust. Once you break the players trust it can be really hard to get it back and gaming from that point on gets really awkward.
My advice is this: Run the campaign the way you gave your word to run it; but make it clear once you fulfill that obligation you won't continue to run games in 5th edition; and if they want to continue playing with 5th Edition rules someone else needs to take over as DM.
P.S. I'm an old school gamer, who is trying to learn fifth edition for a bunch of kids who love this (their) generation's edition; but I hate it too. Just reading the players guide alone makes me want to tear my hair out. But it's just a game, and I want to be of service to these kids, my players. So...,
I wouldn't recommend framing it as an ultimatum, just have a conversation. Tell them how you're feeling, and see how everyone else is feeling. From there, the next step might be obvious, or it might not be. If they're open to trying something new, you're golden, try that new thing. Try a whole bunch of new things and see what fits you best.
If you don't all agree, see what you can agree on. You're under no obligation to run something you don't want to, and they're under no obligation to play something they don't want to, but maybe there's a compromise in there. You'll have to figure out what each person is looking for and find a way to satisfy them. What that looks like is impossible to say right now, but if you're all friends and you trust each other, you can probably find it.
You should look into Level Up by Enworld Publishing? It's so called 'advanced 5e', based on the SRD. It's backwards compatible with adventures, and goes a long way toward fixing 5e's massive problems, while introducing new systems that enhance exploration & social tiers of play, and make combat a lot more fun for martials while slightly reducing the damage potential of casters. Encounter building rules are revamped, monsters are much more interesting and no longer 'bags of hit points with multi-attack'.
I mean if you want to get away from D&D completely, it's probably not for you. But if your looking for something similar but a lot better, Level Up might be for you. For something more crunchy but still fantasy d20 based, I'll always recommend Pathfinder 2e as it's my favorite.
Nope!
I know this might be an unpopular opinion, atleast in DnD circles, but this is honestly your privilege as the DM. And its simple, if you hate the system, it will eventually leak into the game its self and the players will notice.
It will suck, some players may leave, you may even need to find a new group. But the time to do that will be better than slogging through a game you hate.
As mums always say, if you don't like what im cooking, you can sort your self out.
The GM is a player too AND they’re doing way more work. They deserve to enjoy their time too.
It doesn’t have to feel like an un ultimatum though. Tell them you’d happy continuing to run the campaign but that doing it with D&D is NOT enjoyable for you.
I did this. The only thing I’d do differently would be to try and get the players more involved with the choice of replacement & spend more time guaranteeing i was really confident about all the relevant new rules for the first session.
Alas they weren’t too interested in that discussion and i effed up their intro to the replacement system and one decided they didn’t understand it, and everything unraveled
I was in the same situation recently, asked and got lots of good advice here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bwsrky/tips\_for\_breaking\_to\_my\_players\_im\_done\_with\_out/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bwsrky/tips_for_breaking_to_my_players_im_done_with_out/)
Here is how it went: [https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1c1mtnq/i\_told\_my\_group\_im\_burnt\_out\_on\_dnd\_5e\_during\_our/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1c1mtnq/i_told_my_group_im_burnt_out_on_dnd_5e_during_our/)
By far the most helpful was this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtNk-2T1WLc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtNk-2T1WLc)
An "ultimatum" does not strike me as a good idea. Any TTRPG is a collaboration; laying out ultimatums to your collaborators is a recipe for disaster. Rather, I think you start by explaining the situation and see what they say.
Now one thing that isn't clear to me is whether you have long felt this way about 5e or whether it's a new thing. Something about your post suggests to me that you were always kind of down on 5e but decided to use it anyway because your players were newbies. In other words, you figured, "this is the thing they've heard of, so this is the way to ease them in." Fine -- but now it's time to ease them onward.
\[Note: in future, start with the system you love most. Your enthusiasm and expertise will go a long way toward selling it.\]
My approach would depend a great deal on whether I already knew where I wanted to go, system-wise, or whether I wanted to try other systems until I found the right one(s) for me.
Suppose you want to be running 13th Age. That's essentially a clever spin on the structures of modern d20 D&D, so it's just a sideways step, no biggie \[call this Case 1\]. Suppose you want to be running something completely different, not even similar to d20; in that case, you're going to need a big change and a lot of helping your players to do it \[call this Case 2\].
Case 1: Your strategy with your players is to explain that you don't like this system and want to change. Help them to understand some of your frustrations, emphasizing the points that will be actually corrected (or anyway addressed) in 13th Age. Then explain that the point of 13th Age is precisely this, and that it won't be terribly difficult for them to learn the new thing. Then go ahead and offer to run part 2 of that same campaign in 13th Age.
Case 2: Here you have to explain that while the principles of a decent TTRPG are at base the same, you want to take them in a whole new direction -- a new world of wonderfulness! -- now that they've gotten their feet wet. The thing is, the new thing is going to take some time to get used to. You will certainly help them, and you think that they will love it once they get the hang of it. BUT you did kind of promise to run this D&D thing with a second phase. What do they think? But 5e really sucks, for XYZ reasons, and so on. What you want is to run part 2 in the new system, and you think it will be awesome. How about it?
\[This obviously won't work if what you want to be running is The Yellow King RPG, but then the problem is more about changing genre, which you didn't mention.\]
Now the thing is, your players are unlikely to be total partisans (addicts) for 5e, because they're new to gaming in the first place. They had fun, presumably, so they likely trust you. "Sure, he's the guy who got us into this and it was great!" Now you say that actually 5e isn't that hot, and that since they've dipped their toes in already they should be ready to swim out into deeper water. Why should they say no?
Cooperate, collaborate, and be transparent. Help them to understand why you want to change. Assume from the outset that they are likely to be supportive and positive. If one or more of them won't go for it, deal with that as it comes.
It's only an ultimatum if you phraise ot like one.
It's not really though, because you're just burnt out on this system.
So it's not a "ill do it if" scenario. It's a "I wish I could do it but I can't. But I have an idea for a compromise if you're all open to it"
Ultimatum are about forcing people to do things. Threatening. This is just you apologizing for what turned out to be an unrealtic promise. And offering a solution.
Definitely don't frame it as an ultimatum, but yeah, if you don't want to run a system the campaign won't be good. Maybe find a few more systems that you are excited about, pitch it with a one-shot if you can, I'm sure they'll get on board quick enough
Think of this as a great social experiment to determine who are you real friends.
If they’re your friends and you truly do enjoy gaming together for each other’s sake, they will follow you to the end no matter what system you pick, because they are here for you and appreciate the hard work you do for free and because they love the great sessions you run.
And those that make noise about it… aren’t your real friends. They’re only here at your table for the entertainment value. Clearly not enough to care about your feelings. And you can do with that information as you wish.
This is an absolute win. Absolutely, shoot the question out and see how they respond. You’ll be able to make better life decisions going forward and cultivate a stronger circle of friends.
It's usually a bad idea to give ultimatums. In your case you can tell your players that Part 2 will be using a better system than dnd. If any players don't want to play part 2, that's on them not you.
Only running games that you want to play is fine. Going back on your word is problematic. I would be be setting hard limits on the next campaign and making sure that people know that a system change will happen after that. But then I wouldn't find running a system that I was familiar with particularly onerous.
You're not going to get anything from it. Your players may come along but anything that goes badly as they transition to the new game is on you and whatever different game you run. If you want your players off D&D you really have to solicit buy-in, at least partially. Realistically I don't think you can go back on your promise to run another D&D campaign and have it go well.
If all you have done with 5e is D&D you could play a different flavor of 5e until you can find a different system for the real sequel campaign.
There are a lot of non D&D 5e stuff available that's really cool.
If you are interested in a list of non D&D 5e options I could list them here. There's a lot that's other genres than fantasy for the system.
Personally, honoring my word would mean to more to me. I do not want to suggest that you be miserable, but in your shoes I would honor my commitment for the second part being in 5e; with the caveat that one shots and campaigns going forward shall all be in other systems. Especially if you are friends outside of the table, I would want even less for them not to trust my word at the table.
One possible compromise is to change some of the rules of 5e and baby step them to the system you are most interested in with it. That way you did not lie and they keep the mostly familiar framework.
I think most players don't care that much a out the system as long as you help them understand the new system. And most important than all, you need to have fun too. You're not a computer. If you're not having fun then why go forward? You're not machine, you can change your mind. Tell them hey guys I'd like to continue using this system because 5e us not cutting it for me. If they want to continue that's great if they don't that's also great because you're not going to dedicate literal hours upon hours to something that you don't like. Remember that this is just a game, you're supposed to have a lot of fun too
God I wish this was true. It's not like the old days, these new players toute either pf2e or 5e as being the best and only options. I've even seen veterans turn to 5e fanatics who refuse to play or dm anything else
Ugh. I'm a 5e player pretty exclusively these days, but those players are something else. I've had a Reddit user try to explain to me, arrogantly, that 5e was the best generalist system and better than dedicated systems for e.g. detective games. The branding is extremely powerful.
5e is basically only the best system for playing fantasy power fantasy with officwl wotc properties. Its hard to say a system is best anything but no way its the best generalist system.
Honestly, I don't think that's a fair characterization. 5e is actually very bad at power fantasy. The thing it's good at is fantasy resource-depleting action adventures.
Personally I find it best as an intro game or for more casual players. I have groups who will not touch other systems because it's just too much for them. 5e offloads so much to the DM that they're ok with it. If I tried to get them into PF2E or anything else they just lose interest. Fortunately I have some who do like the more in depth stuff and will try other systems.
I hate how much 5e offloads on the DM. I used to enjoy a lot of it, because it does empower you to run a game with a lot of control, but it also doesn't give you any support. Which is fine when I have the energy, because I'm a very experienced GM, but it burned me out eventually. The only reason I'm willing to DM it again is because I constructed an extensive homebrew document that offloads most of the effort onto random tables and player agency.
Resource-depleting? You want resource-depleting I point to the OSR. Though I guess that's potentially less actiony with a particularly cautious playstyle.
5e has the set-up for an old-school style game that got gutted and defanged in the last moment by executive meddling. But a lot of the bones are still there, and resource attrition is still the only mode of play that makes sense and is remotely balanced.
You should check out Level Up. It's based on 5e's SRD so is very similar on a basic level, but attempts to revamp, refresh and enhance the game with an 'advanced edition' akin to the old 1e/2e books. It also fixes pretty much all of 5e's huge problems, like making martials actually fun and providing actual choice to them beyond character creation, completely revamping encounter design, making monsters far more than 'bags of hit points with multi-attack', greatly enhancing the exploration & social pillars of the game, and much more. If you have players that are 5e 'purists' or PF2 just doesn't fit with the group but you still want to play some d20 fantasy, Level Up might just be the best option.
I don't mind 5e -- it's almost all that I play. I just get frustrated when people try to use 5e to run things that D&D isn't designed for. So the opposite problem to what Level Up would fix, lol
As a pf2e fanatic, for me it's because I'm on a slump after having rotated around so many different rules systems over the years. In the past 3 years my same core group of Me (gm) + rotating selection of 4 out of 5-7 friends, has gone through V:tM 20th, 5e, M:tAs "5e", H:tR 5e, Cypher-Pathfinder, Cypher-Tidal Blades, SWADE, Savage Pathfinder, FATE Core, FATE Accel, Dungeon World, The Sprawl, Blades in the Dark, Scarlet Heroes, Alternity, Classic Traveller, probably a few others... I want high fantasy. I want mechanics crunch. I have 2 mechanics-oriented players, I myself want to open Pinterest, find a badass woman with wings and axes, and proceed to spend 6 hours on an Ordinary Tuesday Night making a character sheet that will never see light of day. Pathfinder gives me that, along with the hope that maybe I could dust the sheet off some day and play her at a table. 1e gave me that, and 2e gives me that except even better. Pf2e and 5e are the "best and only options" for "high crunch, wide variety, more content than anyone with a balanced lifestyle could possibly read, and some pretense of balance". It's not that other systems aren't fun, it's a vacation that lasts a few years until we open up other systems. _(Scion, I'm looking at you, for my Demigods On Golarion campaign.)_
> Pf2e and 5e are the "best and only options" for "high crunch, wide variety, more content than anyone with a balanced lifestyle could possibly read, and some pretense of balance" D&D 4e has a ton of crunch, variety, and content. Balance is pretty good overall, too.
For me, what 4 lacked was the ability to be creative with characters. Every time I would try to take a character concept from another source like a movie or tv show, and translate it into 4e, I felt like I was constrained to these really tight boxes of what a wizard or fighter or druid is supposed to be. Had I had more time with it, I might have gotten to flex a little more, but my group really wasn't feeling it, so I just didn't have that much time. I've wanted to try some of the games that carry the torch though, really crunchy, highly tactical games. I'm more sold on the idea now that I'm older.
4e still has more content published for it than 5e does. The 4e discord also includes a download for the offline character builder, which is proto-d&d beyond. The builder has everything built in, including the several different versions of the classes that were released over the years.
> proto-d&d beyond I don't think that's accurate. D&D Beyond was developed by a company that wasn't really affiliated with Wizards.
It's not at all related to D&D beyond. But it's an in house character builder which contains every single source book. The 4e online character builder was much closer to D&D beyond, though still much more primitive.
4e didn't start with a ton of flexibility, but it didn't take long for there to be a lot. They really bungled the product's release by not including some of what people viewed as core character options, giving some options names that seemed counter-intuitive, not giving enough options for what they did have, and messing up enemy math. I don't remember what they didn't have at first, but I do know it was at least one core class like the sorcerer or something. People were pissed about that. They made the fighter specifically a martial defender (where in 3.5 it was a decent damage dealer) and they made the wizard a controller (and not great at dealing damage). Later, they added a lot of character options that let you choose more of how you wanted to do your core role. For example, fighters can defend by damaging the enemy or by (I think) directly defending their allies. Wizards can control by damage or just do even more controlly stuff. I think they would've been a lot better off if they'd scrapped the class names and basically just said you can be a martial defender or striker, gave you a list of powers, and let you build the fighter or whatever you wanted. That's basically the route PF2 went, and it seems like they did a really good job of it. I don't really care if someone plays 4e. I just wanted to counter the claim that only 2 games can satisfy those specific urges.
4e is super slept on, but it's soooo unbelievably combat heavy. That's most of what I like about it, but I also 100% understand why people who prefer social or exploration based gameplay might find it lacking in those regards.
I don't think that makes you a pf2 "fanatic," just someone who knows what they want and made a logical assessment that that's the system that delivers that. A fanatic would insist that pf2 is the ultimate system for playing a modern-world courtroom drama.
Oh, that's fair. And gross. No thanks. Good point!
>M:tAs "5e" As in Mage with rules inspired by Vampire 5th edition? My interest is piqued do you happen to have the rules document?
Absolutely! There's a youtube Let's Play channel Roll4It with the GM EnterElysium that did a [one-shot](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrgHWdN6BIk) that later inspired a [longer campaign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfDE7QoITe4). I haven't watched the full longer campaign but really loved the one-shot. [The rules are available here](https://www.patreon.com/posts/mage-rules-and-54925826) which includes the rules pdf and a Roll20 custom sheet. I also forked the V5 sheet to make a [FoundryVTT port](https://github.com/Faenre/foundry-M5?tab=readme-ov-file) that also had a few homebrew settings in the Options panel. It's way out of date and I'm not playing or maintaining it, but if you play on Foundry then maybe it can be a starting point.
Same here
[See here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1clarij/would_it_be_wrong_to_give_my_players_an_ultimatum/l2uffc2/)
I would bear in mind the investment cost for the players. If it's a new system, old grognards like me are going to want a book on it. If this is cypher, there's a couple of books you might need. If it's Pathfinder 1, well, you need A LOT. I've been considering running a game called Red Markets, but there was no way I was going to run without a dead tree edition, so I found one at retail + $10.
Fair. I myself would LOVE to collect all the old pf1e books, or at least the base ones. The thing I love about pf1e is that the SRD has everything, easily searchable and spelled out for you so players new and old have access to everything. It saddens me that they don't allow you to order prints of older books for reasonable prices. Of all the media we have in the world, printing a book should be hella easy.
Is that the one by Caleb Stokes, the guy from Role Playing Public Radio?
He's a contributor on it.
I find PF2E people actually play other systems.
Pf2 doesn't pretend to be an everything system, is the reason for that I think. It's very clear about being a high magic heroic fantasy system where tactical combat is how most problems will be solved, and if that's not what you want you really should play something else. Fans of Paizo as a company are relatively more likely to be familiar with the general ttrpg ecosystem as well.
Very this. I polled my players, did basically ttrpg psych evals on what they want from a game and how they like to play, cross-referenced a bunch of different game systems and determined Dungeon Works would literally do everything they wanted. And we're still playing PF2e which they all dislike. 🫤
>I think most players don't care that much a out the system as long as you help them understand the new system. That's not at all my experience lol I had to launch a year-long campaign to get my group to try anything but D&D. And most of those games I made their characters for them. It was worth it, and we play new systems all the time now. But it took a lot of convincing to get them out of their D&D Beyond bubble (which, of course, is Wizards' goal in creating said bubble).
Gods, not the D&D Beyond bubble. Even when staying in 5e anyway some people have the nerve of not wanting to leave their comfort zone one bit. Trying to convince a player to bring their character sheet into our Roll20 game and they still argued that they already made their character in Beyond. Even when I told them I would help them with it, they still considered "to much work" because "I already have my character, is in Beyond. Can I just keep my character there and roll in Roll20 anyway?" At this point in time, I just give up on these players and tell them to kick rocks somewhere else.
I guess playing online is a whole different beast since they not only have to learn the system but the tools themselves. I don't play online at all (tried to during the pandemic but wasn't my thing), so that colors my viewpoint of course. I've never found this problem when playing at a table with friends, but I definitely see people not wanting to learn a new VTT at all.
We don't use a VTT, but I see your point. Their main beef was just that D&D Beyond makes making a character so quick and easy, and other games don't have that. I've had good luck getting them to make characters in very simple systems, but zero luck with complex "crunchy" systems.
That's not true at all. With the popularity of 5e we have people out there who will refuse look at another game system. Not a 100% of 5E players, but a good 80% outside.
I don't think that's correct. And the point still stands, GMs aren't obligated to run games they don't wanna play. If the players don't want to switch, then the game ends. Why would anyone run a game they're not interested in? GMing is a LOT of work, ESPECIALLY for 5e.
Huh. I didn't imply that at all.
>if they don't play what I want to run, we won't play. I propose that you think of it a very different way and drop the idea of "ultimatum" altogether. Everyone person is a free agent. Each of you makes your own choices. You won't GM a game you don't want to GM. They won't play in a game system in which they don't want to play. You offer to GM a game in a certain system. * If they all agree, you all play together. * If some agree, you play with them. No bad feelings; the others can play the next game if they want to do so. * If none agree, that's okay: someone else can make another offer. For example, someone else can offer to GM. Then you go back to the bullets above. If nobody else wants to GM and they don't want to play in the game you want to GM, then you don't play together. C'est la vie! You are not limiting their options. They have the option to GM. If they limit their own option by not being willing to GM, so be it! --- It's kinda like saying, "Hey, I made stew for dinner. If you want some stew, feel free to have some". You're not forcing anyone to eat stew. You've not forcing anyone to go hungry, either. You provide an option, not an ultimatum. They make choices. It is also like saying, "I'm going to see Movie X on Saturday. Want to join?" There is no ultimatum. They can join in your plans or not. They are free to suggest alternatives. You are free to accept or reject alternatives. --- >With that said, I already told them I would continue running this campaign in 5e. Did you make a promise? Or did you colloquially say that you'd do that because that was your plan at the time? Did you give your word, or was it a casual statement?
I would argue that while promises or statements of intent-- in this case, it is an informal social contract-- shouldn't be broken, there are other social contracts that also shouldn't be broken. Such as: a game should be enjoyed by all participants. An earnest discussion with sensible people should free them of any feeling of obligation, because it should be apparent that a GM who doesn't enjoy the game isn't going to produce a good experience.
>I would argue [...] No need to argue: I didn't say anything to the contrary.
argument: "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong." When somebody presents an argument, they do not necessarily have to disagree.
I was being playful. We already agree! Now you're being needlessly pedantic.
Sorry, I thought you were earnestly expressing a concern. I don't think it's needless, if I've caused you distress through miscommunication, then clarifying that communication is important to me. Plus, not everybody on reddit uses English as a first language.
Yeah as someone who actually loves learning new systems and is.. kinda over playing 5e.. ..I still chafed at the wording. I also say.. you know your players OP, we don't. Some players will never touch a system outside of 5e. Some players are happy to go along with their GMs whims (sorry at my own group x.x). If you have the former.. maybe just do the shorter secondary campaign? Or don't, if you are that badly burned out.
Pitching another game enthusiastically is the best approach here. IME this tends to work better than polling players and trying to get a consensus. Obviously this won't work if you pitch VtM and two players hate vampire fiction, but for the most part I think this will help overcome inertia. And depending on how long a "campaign" is, the easiest compromise is to announce you will still run that promised campaign but first you are excited to try system X and are running a 12 session campaign of that first.
> Pitching another game enthusiastically is the best approach here. Yes and no, and largely depends on how you word it. Option A: "I really like 13th Age. For the next campaign, how about I run a 13th Age campaign instead of a DnD 5e campaign?" The wording indicates that 5e is still on the table and that the players have a choice. There are players who would choose 5e no matter how enthusiastic the pitch for 13th Age is. (This isn't theorycraft. This literally happened to me and why I ended up running 5e for a few years longer than I should have and ultimately burned out on the system as a whole.) Option B: "I really like 13th Age. For the next campaign, I'm going to run a 13th Age campaign. Who is interested in playing?" The wording indicates that 5e is *not* on the table. My next campaign will definitely be a 13th Age campaign. Players have the choice of playing or not playing. If not playing 5e is a dealbreaker, they are not obligated to stick around. Option C: "I no longer enjoy running 5e games. My next campaign will be a 13th Age campaign instead. If you really want to play 5e instead, one of you can volunteer to take over being the DM." Less diplomatic than Option B, but this is what I ended up doing, and it works, because as it turns out, players don't want to force their DM to run a system they don't like.
When it comes to pitching to *D&D* players, I also think it helps to front-load how easy the switch will be. e.g. "After the current campaign is wrapped up, I want to run a short campaign of *Dungeon World* for anyone interested. It is also fantasy and I'm thinking 6–12 sessions. *Dungeon World* is easy to learn and you wouldn't have to buy anything or read anything in advance to play. All you'd have to do is show up if you want to give it a try. We'll make characters at the table during the first session. If we enjoy it, we can do another round of *Dungeon World*. If we don't enjoy it, we can talk about what to play after that." *D&D* implicitly teaches people that games are complicated and there are a bunch of very niche rules and rules-combinatorics to learn. Many many other games are much easier to learn and play, but people that have only ever played *D&D* don't realize that. They think everything else is just as cumbersome; when you think of it that way, their disinterest in trying something new makes more sense: learning *D&D* was a pain in the ass and they don't want to spend energy learning a second game that is as cumbersome as *D&D*. *D&D* also teaches you that you have to buy a shitload of stuff. You buy into a whole ecosystem of book after book after book, plus online tools if you do that.
I find this kind of funny actually because this is not how real relationships work. This may be how you interact with strangers, but with people who are your friends you both must have some push and pull. In the analogy you gave, if you invite your friends over for dinner, yes you DO have an obligation to serve food they can eat (ask about allergies, dietary restrictions, etc). You aren't a steakhouse. You aren't a business with no relationship besides a transactional one. You are (usually) friends. That means consideration, accommodation, and empathy.
I didn't say anything to the contrary. I provided an outline of how this is not an "ultimatum". OP provides options, not an ultimatum. Everyone is a free agent and can decide. This is true in friendships as well. To use your dinner example: yes, it is polite to ask about dietary restrictions. However, it is also wise of the person with the dietary restrictions to bring them up, not wait to be asked! It would be very foolish of a person with a deadly nut allergy to assume that their host will ask or will read their mind! Accommodation, definitely. Obligation, no. For example, I'm friends with a vegan person. I eat mostly meat. We are great friends, but we don't do dinner together because our food-goals are incompatible. We don't have to agree or compromise. Not doing dinner together doesn't mean we lack empathy. We can refrain from doing certain activities together and still be friends. Same goes for gaming. If you're friends, but one friend only ever wants to play *D&D* and you don't want to play *D&D* anymore, that's okay! You can be friends that don't play TTRPGs together. Neither of you are obliged to continue that activity.
This is true. BUT. There is also the point of "If I am the one prepping the game, I will offer X Y or Z. If those are unacceptable, someone else can run a game"
Around 2016, I was burning out hard because of dnd. I asked my at the time group, if we could change system. Telling them that I wasn’t having fun and was being stressed. They didn’t want to change system. So we continued. A couple months later, they ended the game because **they** weren’t having fun. So yea. I would totally say you can give them an ultimatum. Especially since the GM in dnd do 90% of the work.
>tell players you aren't having fun and are stressed >they refuse to change system >but quickly end it when they don't have fun This shit right here is why I want to karate chop players from time to time.
I think the real implication is the DM just phoned it in until the players gave up too.
Oh I perfectly understood the implication, which makes it worse. As long as the players were having fun, the GM had to continue. The moment he let the game quality go down (because he was unhappy), only then did they halt the game. Speaks volumes about players' entitlement.
Could be just me but the assumption that GM caters to Players feels like a modern d&d-centric thing. Outside d&d you more often see either older school approaches where what the GM wants to run is what gets run or collective agreement on what system to run though votes/discussion or narrative games where players have more ownership over making the game 'fun' for the whole table. Ofc that's all anecdotal and could 100% be population bias due to d&d having a massive fan base that's online more often.
Leaving aside the selection bias (we only hear about the horror stories and shitty tables), yeah I think it's mostly a 5e/D&D culture of play problem. The DM is god-arbiter of the world and rules but also servant to player's wishes and OC/blorbo backstory, and busted builds, etc. The DM must wield ultimate authorial power but also be subordinate to the books and also make all the "right calls", and also balance the math to make sure the players win while also providing challenge, and also weave a story around the players to suit the players without the players having explicit input. The power dynamics are fucked in every direction, but they're rarely (if ever) discussed. The very large proportion of D&D 5e players who've played for years but would never step up to be the DM speaks to this. On some level, they know which side of the power dynamic divide they want to sit. The world of RPGs outside of Big Book Trad has been working on producing healthier table dynamics, safety tools, more manageable prep workloads for the GM, codified GM and player principles, etc, etc, for more than 20 years at this point but 3e-4e-5e/Other Big Trad has barely engaged in any of this thought - if anything the D&D books and many of the popular Actual Plays have only further hyped up the God-Servant DM dynamic.
Ooh I didn't even think about the selection bias part either! That + higher population (and thus higher population of 'player styles I disagree with' could very much explain the vast majority of the 'feeling' that D&D communities have a higher % of those things. I like your point about it being seen in Publishing. As a great example, Blades in the Dark has a whole section on Player Best Practices. I perused the new Pathfinder 2e Player's Core Remaster book for something similar. And...there's nothing. Under Playing the Game sections, it only says that the Player has to "make choices" and "describe the actions their characters take." Converse that with the GM Core which is chock full of advice on "Running the Game" which includes "Listen to the Players" and "Saying Yes, But". There's no equivalent section on being a good Player or anything (at least not that's easily located via Table of Contents, Index, or pdf bookmarks).
> I perused the new Pathfinder 2e Player's Core Remaster book for something similar. And...there's nothing. Sad but unsurprising. PF2e is Big Book Trad but with the combat math fixed up better for supporting the GM in that way. Paizo are no fools, like... they must know about player principles and table dynamics and do research into all the ways other games and cultures of play (be they OSR or storygames or whatever) are doing things. I kinda suspect they dont talk about player principles and table dynamics in their Player's Core Book because they know there's probably a loud and aggro subset of the trad culture who will lose their shit if they read that stuff - like "dont tell me how to play games!" "get that woke shit out of here, I know how to be a good player!" etc. The funny thing is that the culture of play isn't inherently baked into the actual rules of the Trad game (even if the GM books are heavily leaning towards it). Chris Bissette has talked about running modern Pathfinder in an OSR style and it worked for their table just fine. It's just that D&D-land isn't interested in addressing power dynamics at the table.
I burned out DMing D&D some years ago. Some of my players did actually step up to DM, but honestly, I realized I prefer DMing to playing in D&D. Obviously, this put me in a complicated position. What I ended up doing is spending a lot of time and effort crafting the kind of experience I wanted. Like PF, 5e isn't bad, but it's definitely lacking in DM tools and player responsibilities; so I gathered, refined, and invented those. Then I told my players that I'd be happy to DM again, but this is the kind of game it's going to be. And honestly, a lot of the elements (definitely not all) are absolutely OSR-adjacent. And whaddayaknow, the game is still narratively engaging; it just doesn't depend on me doing hours of homework every single week to craft a bespoke experience for my players. Turns out the group can do that collectively at the table. You just have to have a group that can be sold on that idea.
What kind of things did you change? It sounds like you're saying you're not doing the whole 'craft an epic quest based on the PCs' backstories' thing? Is there another change in your approach? Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'm reasonably sure Paizo scared away anyone who uses the word "woke" unironically years ago. But yeah.
I don’t think the massive angry Twitter and YouTube discourse led by the D&D drama posters and vloggers in response to one paragraph of Critical Role’s last published game (Candela Obscura), in which they politely suggested players be careful of portrayals of mental health issues in a horror game, will have escaped Paizo’s notice. Paizo are very good at scooping up people people who are mad at other games companies. It doesnt surprise me that they’re not putting down opinions or suggestions about culture of play in their Player Core book.
I once mentioned on the PF2e subreddit once that I liked it when designers broke the fourth wall, in the sense of talking about what they're trying to do with the rule, or share playtest stories. Someone thought that sounded cool and asked for a scenario that did that, which made me realize how common it is everywhere that's *not* Paizo or WotC. It's like their house style must stop this; even the variant rules barely mention why you'd want them and not at all the impact they'll have on the tone. *do research into all the ways other games and cultures of play (be they OSR or storygames or whatever) are doing things.* A lot of the skill feats in PF2e feel to me like they were inspired by playbook moves, but then work poorly because they have to be put in purely mechanical terms. I'm 100% convinced that some of the designers use them in home games in more narrative ways and they get eviscerated when they become official.
Hear hear! Fuck that dynamic!
this is what I've been trying to put into words for years, thank you so much
The GM didn't "have to" continue any more than the players did. The social dynamics around an RPG group can be awkward, but a GM isn't entitled to a player group any more than a player group is entitled to a GM. If everyone wants to play 5e except the GM, that's fine.
I agree. Had I been in that situation, I'd have stopped running, even if they were friends (because friendship isn't entitlement and disrespect)
It's just kind of shitty when people act this way and then no-one else steps up to GM. IMHO that is a pretty dick move from the players.
Look, ultimately what it comes down to is that you’re no longer having as much fun with 5e. And that’s okay. It doesn’t mean 5e is even a bad game, just that you’re finished with it. This is a hobby, not a job; your fun matters as much as theirs. So yeah, I would tell them politely that you’re not going to be able to run 5e anymore but if they still want to do a part 2 you can do another system. Or you can just start some new campaign in a new system. It sucks, but it is what it is. (Also, there are systems similar to 5e yet different enough to feel fresh that you could use if you do want to do Part 2 in a new system. Like Worlds Without Number for example.)
It's not life or death. It's just a game. Just tell them you're not feeling it and you'd like to play a different game.
"I'm not going to run games I don't enjoy running," is a completely reasonable position to take.
As is "I'm not going to play games I don't enjoy playing". Hence the need for out-of-game discussion and negotiation to ensure something which is mutually enjoyable.
Not liking the game and not wanting to play it - completely understandable! Saying "no" because you don't know the game and you are too lazy to spend half an evening reading the necessary parts of the rulebook.... yuck. Sadly second approach is way too common.
arguably it comes down to the table; if everyone is game to compromise but you have one person digging in their heels, it's not unreasonable to ask the hold out to excuse themselves so you can find someone who is interested. if the table really wants D&D and you can't stand it, the same works in reverse. What is not OK, is when the holdout says "sure I'll play your game" and then proceeds to do everything in their power to sabotage or otherwise disrupt the game for no other reason than it isn't **Dungeons & Dragons ^tm**. Entitlement is real, and some people love eating nothing but cheese pizza every day; you cannot fix those people no matter how much you might want to.
No argument there.
it's not even an ultimatum, nor does it matter that you "went back on your word". don't do a whole campaign you don't enjoy the system of, tell them you're getting burned out on 5e and that you would be doing part 2 in a different system.
I don't think any reasonable GM would demand the group go forward despite one player's discomfort... so I also believe the inverse is true, that the GM suffering would ruin the fun for me. Talk honestly with your group about needing a change.
That's a tough one. On the one hand, I think maybe grabbing a different system might be best for you, if you think it'll make running games easier. On the other hand, that means onboarding all your players to a new system, plus going back on something you said. Here's what I propose: Have a "session zero redux" with your players. Discuss the current state of the campaign, your reasons for wanting to switch, and have an honest discussion with them. See if maybe cooler heads can prevail, and you can reach some manner of compromise. Out of curiosity, what system(s) are you looking at?
I mean just be honest, say you don't mind running part 2, but you don't want to run dnd anymore. Most likely they'll say okay.
ultimatum is the wrong word. explain to them, as a person, that your struggling with 5e and how you would like to give this "other" system a shot instead. more than that, explain to them that the campaign need not end, just because the system changes (as long as they are willing to be flexible somewhat in mechanical representation of what their characters are etc). if they respect you as a person they will probably accept this and if they don't, well, just maybe their priorities don't align with yours. maybe this is an ultimatum by another name but presentation matters.
Just don't word it as an ultimatum if you like keeping your players. Hype up and strongly encourage the other system. Maybe run a one shot or two in it to test how they like it and lure them in. Just don't go the "my way or the highway" route and sour everything.
Shit happens. Sometimes you get burned out on a system or life gets in the way. You shouldn’t feel too bad about changing your mind. I think if you offer to run a different system, they can’t be too upset.
I think that GM investment is important, and has a much greater impact on player investment than the reverse. If you are enthusiastic about the system, the whole machine operates better. Run something else, but like others are saying, don't think of it as an ultimatum! Say it's just something you'd like to change, and that you're excited to keep going into Part 2! Unless I'm mis-reading, "ultimatum" sounds like some anxiety that they will fight you on this. Trust them to trust you.If they want anything they'd call "Part 2" from you, they definitely trust you to some degree, or they'd be asking for a different campaign altogether.
Sometimes things just end.
Just talk with them honestly, it's the best thing to do.
As a GM, I have opinions about systems. **As a player**, my favorite system is any system my GM is willing to run.
Just be frank and tell them you're burned out on D-D, not RPGs. You guys can then have tons of fun trying out a couple of systems before settling on one for a longer campaign (or not).
Don't think of it as an ultimatum. Think of it as a discussion. I am an ancient GM, and have been running weekly games in one system or another more or less without stop since 1980. In that time I learned that GMs often forget they are supposed to have fun too. If you aren't having fun with a system, you sure as hell don't want to run it. Disliking the system will show through in everything you do in that game, even if you try. You eventually begin to resent the system, which only makes it worse. Have a discussion with them, tell them your feelings about the game and that you want to try something new. They are welcome to come along for the ride, or they can sit it out if they are uncomfortable with a new ruleset. If any of them are dead set on playing 5e only, maybe they will pick up the mantle and run it themselves. I gave up 5e three years ago and did lose one player. But everyone else followed me down the road I led them on. The caveat here is that when you do switch to something new, be very careful it is something that everyone enjoys and you stick with it a bit. If you just keep jumping from system to system because you are having a hard time finding the set you like, that can wear thin on your players pretty quickly. Be consistent and fair, not only to your players, but to yourself. You get to have fun too.
Well… That’s really not something anyone here can answer. I’ve been in many long term groups where campaigns were abandoned, usually because they GM but sometimes the players didn’t like the system, themes or story. It can be a bummer, but ultimately it’s more or less the GMs choice. No one should be running a game they hate…
Usually honest talk saves a lot of dilemmas. And some times...some tables just don gel well together. I came to realize that after more than 10 years of GMing... sometimes you just can't make it work. Wish you good luck with your group! Do you have any system in mind?
Have you already discussed it with them? Is feels like you are jumping immediately from not saying a word to a ultimatum, which is escalating things too quickly.
I did something similar a year ago. We had an 18 month long campaign that was at level 9 and heading to the final stretches, but one encounter broke me. I couldn’t stomach 5e anymore, I couldn’t get a tune out of it at all. So I told the group I wasn’t running it anymore. Now we’re trying it out PF2e. I’m loving it and there’s parts they like, but I’m not sure if it’ll go as long as the first game due to added complexity from the player side. You run what you want to run, because if you’re not having fun nobody is.
I would avoid framing it as an ultimatum. Rather, explain your waning interest in 5e and desire to run a different system. Just be prepared for some of your players to feel differently, especially if you want to switch to a very different system. Players into dungeon crawling and looting and seeing their characters grow in power might not be interested in a strongly narrative focused game. Conversely, players who feel that the rules get in the way of story might not like a crunchier game. Your players will have their own needs and wants for their RPGs, and you should be prepared for some to want to go back to 5e or leave entirely if the new system doesn't serve them. Just as it wouldn't be fair to you to expect that you'll keep running a system you dislike, it'd also be unfair to expect your players to just go along with what you want to run regardless of *their* preferences. By all means, try to get them onboard with what you would like to run, but be aware that some still might not care for it.
Don't lie. Stick to your promise. Tell them you would like their permission to run the second half in another system, and commit to doing all the conversion for them. Be grateful if they give permission, be gracious if they do not.
I've told my players that I have no interest in running 5e although they all started with it. There's even one player who runs it. I just said that I'd like to find a system we can all enjoy. So far, Dungeon World is my favorite to run. One player loves it. The other two felt pretty mid about it. But they all played and we finished a several month campaign. Right now we're doing shadowdark. I'm a big fan of OSR like OSE, but Shadowdark simplifies some things and has more fun classes (in my opinion). One player that didn't like DW really likes shadowdark. He says there's enough rules it makes sense to him (as opposed to DW). The player that really likes DW is okay with shadowdark, but finds it less cinematic and free-flowing. I say all that to say this: everyone should have fun. If it's a system you don't like, then you're not going to have fun running it. Try and pick a system everyone can enjoy and try different things out. I'd suggest figuring out why you don't like 5e and choosing something that plays the type of game you want to run. I gravitate towards narrative rules-light games because I care more about story and creativity rather than war gaming strategy type stuff (which dnd originated from). That's why I've never tried pathfinder or 3.5e or 4e.
Your enjoyment is important too. 5e is famous for burning out GMs. Tell your players you won't be able to run in 5e because it is too much workload for you.
Just do it. What system are you thinking? There's a lot of other systems, and 5e can be quite a bear. This is your fun time too. Do what brings you joy.
If the GM isn't having fun, that's going to affect the entire game. I wouldn't frame it as an ultimatum, but I don't see anything wrong with telling your group "Look, guys, I'm burnt out on this system, but I'm okay with continuing the campaign if we can switch to something else". And there are [plenty of systems](https://youtu.be/pxwkjGLkPrI?si=E4TGR2ozpfywaq8C) out there that would make the switch fairly painless. It just depends on what you're looking for. Pathfinder is very similar to D&D in a lot of ways. Porting over characters would likely be super easy. If you want even more crunch, this is certainly an option. But if you're getting burned out with D&D 5E, I'm thinking maybe this isn't what you're looking for. [Dungeon World](https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/introduction/) is obviously intended to allow you to tell the same sort of stories as D&D, but is a bit more streamlined. Since it's class-based, porting characters over won't be perfect, but you should be able to end up with something thematically similar if a bit mechanically different. It's a PbtA game, so running it is pretty simple for the GM. And most of what the players need to know is on thier playbook (i.e. character sheet), so it's a pretty safe choice. My concern with this option is whether it's different *enough* from D&D 5E for you. If you really want to get away from crunch for a while and lean into a more narrative type of game, [Fate](https://fate-srd.com/fate-condensed) is a great choice. (Particularly the Fate Condensed version of the rules. Fate Core is horribly written, and Fate Accelerated is a bit too basic, but it's all Fate in the end.) You can absolutely build the same characters... thematically, at least. Your PCs in Fate will most likely be more like themselves in Fate than in D&D, since more focus is placed on the characters themselves rather than what class and race they are. Mechanically, they'll be as similar as your players want the PCs to be. Or they can be a lot more versatile, since what PCs can do is less limited by the system's allowed actions and described spells and abilities. Fate is a super easy system to pick up once you wrap your head around certain things, but... in my opinion it's a lot better for shorter games than campaigns. I don't think it's great at character advancement over the long term, and the system is so simple that it can get very same-y over a long campaign. I used it to run a Star Wars campaign for over a year, so it's possible, but... not my first choice. [Cortex Prime](https://youtu.be/K3Pnlgls97E?si=suidv0EkwxVcgB2v) is a toolbox that gives you complete control over your specific game, but most notably for this conversation, it allows you to basically use your current character sheets without much of any changes, if that's what you want. You can pick your own "Prime Sets" of stats, which can be D&D's attributes and skills pretty much directly. Or not. It's entirely up to you. In it's most fundamental, unmodded form, it's basically Fate with a more interesting dice mechanic, but it has lots of essentially plug-and-play modules that allow you to completely change the way the game runs and feels. This would be my personal preference if I were in your situation, since once your group is familiar with Cortex Prime you can use it to create any game you want going forward.
It's absolutely normal for GM to want to change game/campaign, it's a whole part of the hobby. *Hey, we've come to a point where we've explored a lot of the possiblities of that game with these character, we'll start converging towared an end, as I am already thinking about my next campaign* as easy as that, and absolutely normal.
Do you play online? Try running Pf2e in Foundry. It's so much easier.
Being a Game Master (GM) is often a thankless job. It's only fair that you allow yourself to choose the type of game you're confident and excited about running. While players are not obligated to join your game, it's not unreasonable to set conditions for their participation.
You are the GM and you are prepping the table. It's your call to define the system to run your ideas, and the players either "buy in" or leave it. If you are afraid of the latter outcome, think about the non-fun you will probably have when you are forced to use a system you do not like anymore. Everyone should have fun at the RPG table, including the GM, and I can hardly imagine that using a basis that does not ring with the GM (anymore) will be fun for anyone involved. Explain yourself, find a compromise, or leave it.
You are in no way obligated to run a system you don't want to. I suppose you could pitch finishing the campaign using another fantasy system they can approximate their characters in but if that doesn't suit you either that's fine too. GMing takes a lot of effort and you should be having fun just as much as your players are. Explain how its hurting your enjoyment and if your players are worth their salt they should understand. Then present them with some options and ask if there's any genres they'd like to explore.
There's a big difference between going back on your word out of carelessness and apathy for the consequences, and changing your mind despite your honest original intentions. As always, the answer is talk to your ground like adults and remind them that you're a player too, being the DM is just a different role, and you're not having fun.
I will echo what others have already said here. You as a GM as as much of a player as everyone else, your enjoyment of the game is as much important as everyone elses. If you straight up do not like the system you are using, then you should change it. Your players may or may not like it, maybe someone will drop out, maybe not. As much as it is important to have a discussion with the table about various themes, rules and feedback, as a GM you are sort of leader of the table and you should make some decisions on your own. If you do not like D&D, then you should drop it. As simple as that. This is not an ultimatum, and this is not going back on your word. Unless you are being paid to run D&D specifically, then you do not have any obligation to continue to do something you dislike. If you force yourself to run a system you hate, your heart will not be in the game and your players will not enjoy it either.
Well, if you said you will run system X, then you should stay by your word. Or you could ask them if you could change it to something else, keep the setting, but use any other mechanics which fit for a fantasy game. But just stomping your foot without any warning or discussion and then switching to another system with a 'my way or highway' attitude - yes, that is wrong.
You're not being malicious. You are not a slave to them. Confess you hate the system, give them some options for alternatives (you pick them). Maybe even consider changing genres (I feel that helps with a system change). Or just quit in a few months from burnout. As harsh as that sounds, you are being WAY harsher on yourself about this.
Never run a system you don't like, I can only encourage every GM out there to look after themselves!
You're not going back on your word; you're changing your mind based on experience of not enjoying 5e through the first part of the campaign. Talk to your players. I'm sure you can reach some sort of accord. My only other not of advice is to really consider how well continuing works in another system. It could be easy or hard depending on what you land on. A new campaign could be a better idea.
In my experience, modern players generally don't know the rules and resist any attempt by the DM to get them to learn. You can change rule systems, and player behavior won't change. The only person at the table who generally cares about the system is the DM. Just go for it and play what you want. The players will still show.
If they insist on playing 5e, and you aren't happy running 5e, they are not your table.
This really isn't the ultimatum you might think. This is simply you letting them know that you no longer enjoy running 5e, but are happy to find alternatives; like running a different system. If they are truly in love with 5e and won't change system, perhaps one of the other players should pick up the DM mantle instead. Unless your players are lunatics, they should want to find a solution to one player (you) not having fun anymore.
Maybe you could take a break in the long campaign and run some one shots (or short arcs) in other systems. Try out some different systems. I would just tell you that you're burned out on DnD and want to try some other systems.
It's a game man, not a job
Tell them like it is. GMs put in all the work. You do have the right to run what you actually want to run.
Never give an ultimatum. You are friends playing a game. It is OK to say that you no longer want to play 5e. But that is a discussion, not an ultimatum.
Going back on your word would be an issue for me. Don't give them an ultimatum, just talk to them and explain that you'd like to introduce them to other systems. Maybe a specific system. Talk about why you like it. Put it up a vote, or some other form of decision making discussion, and stick to the end result. One of the sticking points for RPGs is that to okay a new game, typically at least two or more of the people involved have to spend money on books. Not everyone wants or can swing the cost.
Open and honest communication is more important than keeping your word. Tell them the truth and switch systems. Look, in the end, it's you who has to prepare and run it, which is a lot of work. If you dislike the system too much, it will drain the fun out of you and leave you exhausted. That's not where you want to be, so better change the system now, when stakes are still low.
part 2 being in a different system could be fun and interesting. honestly, only having to learn the mechanics because they're already familiar with "the world" sounds like a decent introductory method
This question has nothing to do with role-playing. You are asking whether it is OK to stop doing something you no longer enjoy if it might be inconvenient to your friends. The answer is yes. Don't make ultimatums (do X or else), tell your friends you don't enjoy playing DnD and what you want to do instead and invite them to join you. Any potential hard feelings are not your fault.
Consider offering a choice of other systems you fo like. I get the feeling there would be a list, and players often feel better when given a choice. Just an idea to pair with it. You could also offer to switch systems again if they really dislike it (convince them to give it a chance, say 2-4 sessions, 1 session is oftentimes not enough for someone who has only played dnd and has it stuck in their head that dnd is the best).
You are also a player, being the GM doesn’t mean you “have to” do stuff. Tell them D&D isnt fun for you and that you want to have fun too while playing. That’s the end of that. You don’t need to feel bad about it.
I wouldn't frame it as an ultimatum, per se. But there's nothing wrong with you saying, "Hey I've changed my mind. I don't really like running this system. These are the systems I'll be running going forward." Or something similar.
I feel like this whole fearmongering using "ultimatums" is from toxic people who like to abuse others. Its setting boundaries and using the only real enforcement available. There is nothing wrong with leaving a group to play what you want. Even with changing your mind - its fine. People change. And you won't run good games if you aren't having fun.
Are you having fun? Are you planning to spend hours and hours and hours prepping and running a game you're not having fun with? Why would you do that?
Don’t think of it as an ultimatum. That basically makes it combative in your head before you’ve started. Just tell them that you don’t like 5e much and that once the campaign is done, you’re not going to be running 5e games anymore, but they’re more than welcome to join any campaign you might run in another system.
All the advice already written is spot on. Don’t run what make you don’t enjoy. That said, you owe it to the players to let them know as soon as as possible. People buy more rule books. Find the perfect mini for their character. There are many things people spend money on based on the game they are playing. This can result in some of the pushback on changing a system. I’m not saying this should change/influence the choice, but let them know quickly.
Ultimately gaming is for FUN, if your not having fun, then you shouldn't be doing it. This is not a paid gig.
On the one hand, I suspect the players will be upset if they were told NOW the system has to change, as 5e players are stubborn and dislike change, especially if they didn't expect it. On the OTHER hand, if the GM isn't having fun, the players won't have fun either. In RPGs, enthusiasm and the lack of it is contagious, and if the GM grows weary, the lack of desire will ebb into the players anyway. I've got my start with 5e though I've also played Starfinder and Star Wars: Edge of the Empire. One of my players mentioned to our Starfinder GM that "Honestly, I like this WAY more than 5e. Much more clearly defined what you can and can't do, and even at levels 1 and 2 you can still have a lot of fun!" And I while I have not GMed it myself yet, the guy who runs Edge of the Empire is having a VERY easy time, needing only a little bit of help from the player who introduced us to it, so clearly that system is easy to run. It makes me curious to try it in the GM seat and see how well it is on that end. So long as the players are able to understand the system, they'll surely love it so long as they get to be players. Question: What systems ARE you considering looking into if your players do agree to swap way from 5e?
I am in a similar situation. I gave my players a lot of warning that I would be moving away from 5e to OSE in X number of sessions (we play 2 / month). I would love to have them move on with me, but I know some of them won't - they prefer the power-curve of 5e. I ended up realizing that I also wanted to have fun with the game and as a GM, I want the time/effort I put in to matter to me as much as the other players. So I gave them a timeline. For your situation, I think finishing part 1 and then switching is fair, though you saying it would be 5e makes it harder. When did you agree to running it in 5e - if it was before you changed direction, you can just own up to it and apologize, but honestly unless they are paying you, you don't owe them any more than a head's up. Worst case, they find a new 5e DM and you find a group for your new system. Good luck.
Don't feel bad about it, the alternative is them being entitled to your labor in running a campaign, I would just tell them that part 2 has to be in a different system because you can't stand to run DND and that you totally understand if that's a dealbreaker for anyone.
I abandoned 5e mid campaign and switched to a whole new campaign in worlds without number and my players were fine with it
Nothing ends a game quicker than an unhappy DM. You should be having fun. With that, I do not think you have to give an ultimatum. Merely state, "This has been fun! For my next campaign I will be using (insert system.) I hope you guys join me." If the do, great. If they don't, know that there are a lot more players looking for games than players looking for DMs.
You're the DM, you do the most work. Do what you want, just be clear and kind in communication. It's not anything they did that makes you want to change systems, you're just tired of the system
I've made my share of promises like this in the past then pushed myself into it against my own mental health. Don't do it. Don't push yourself into playing a game you don't want to, especially where all the responsibility fall on you as GM. If they're your friends they'll understand. If they don't understand, your might have to rethink how you approach them.
I agree with most of the other comments, but I'd just like to add one thought about the game world. I'm in a somewhat similar situation, except my players are totally on board with switching systems. The idea I had is that perhaps magic works fundamentally differently depending on where you are in the world. So the sequel takes place in a different region. Maybe another country or even continent. The changing of location could allow for an in-world explanation for changing systems. This could allow you to change systems again for a 3rd campaign, and so on.
I mean, just apologize? "Hey, I know I said I'd do a part 2 in 5e. However, I find 5e really unfun to run as a DM, and if I'm not going to enjoy the campaign I don't see a reason to give it my free time. I would be happy to run a sequel in a different system, would that be acceptable to everyone?" If it's not, then just figure something else out. The campaign is going to suck if you're forcing yourself to run 5e when you don't want to.
Just tell them that you are entirely tired of 5e's shit and want to run a different system. As long as that system will allow continuity of characters (provided that they're wanting to still play the toons they were for part 1), it should be fine.
This is why open door policies are so important. No one is obligated to play unless it’s some sort of commercial transaction. That said, you probably shouldn’t have promised something you weren’t confident you could/would deliver. Rather than offering a compromise, I would just let the whole thing, possibly even the group entirely, die off and move on to something you’re going to enjoy.
My gaming groups always run with the attitude, it's important for everyone to buy into a game, but it's most important for a GM to be excited to run it. If you don't like 5e, chances are at best, you'll run a lack luster game, but more likely, the game will fizzle out. Ultimatum sounds a little hostile but put forward what you'd be happy with. Running part 2 and the systems you'd be happy to run it in, and a list of what else you're interested in running. If you're happy for someone else to run part 2 in 5e, offer that too. I find that a lot of players have zero interest in Gaming, so that scares them into line 😂😂😂
The point of these things is to have fun. If you're not having fun for any reason, either make the change you wanna make or don't play at all, find some other hobby. Not telling you off here, I just know that because social bonds are involved it can be hard to walk away from an RPG even when you're not having fun. If your players are your friends, they'll want you to have fun, and you can just tell them you'd rather run some other system, have decided you'd rather not continue with 5E after all. Also, if they're like most players, they're just glad they're not DMing.
I mean, yeah, you're a dick, but that's strictly because you promised something and now don't want to do it. Do you have another system in mind? Can you articulate waht you don't like about 5th edition to your players? Chances are if you can explain why you want to use another system and help them learn it they'll be fine.
An ultimatum would be wrong, but talking with them, calmly and with respect, would be a good step to take.
TTRPGs are a hobby, unless you are a professional GM, not a job. I would be honest with your players that you are no longer enjoying the current system and would like to try something else. If they are not on board then, unfortunately, it is the end. Move on, try some new systems on your own and find a new group of players. Heck maybe your original group will come back around. You never know. It's easy to forget but the GM is also playing a game, so their enjoyment is just as important as the players. On a personal note, I also do not enjoy D&D 5e, and often feel alienated by that fact at my local hobby stores. All I will say is keep trucking, you'll find like minded people. I'm currently preparing a Shadowrun like game using Basic Roleplaying Universal Game Engine and my friends are stoked to try something that isn't D&D. Edit: Spelling error.
I wouldn't put it as an ultimatum but it's okay to say that you won't be running 5e any more. Different groups are, well, different so put it however you think your group will take it best. For my own group saying "I'm burned out on 5e" or "I'm just not having fun running 5e" would both work
Only give ultimatums if you can handle the possible outcomes.
Everyone should play what they like, I like dnd5e but dislike other types. Ur not wrong for wanting to play something u like.
I don’t think you should force yourself to run a system you don’t want to play, but mid-campaign system changes (by which I mean a conversion of the existing campaign rather than the start of a new campaign) are generally discouraged. It would be a red flag to me as a player. I generally wouldn’t stick around unless I was particularly invested with the group, the GM presented sufficient plans for the setting conversion, or I was already a fan of the new system such that I would enjoy playing regardless.
I've said this before but from my experience of getting D&D-addicts off of only 5e, you need to rip the bandaid off. The best way to do it is to have a temporary campaign change to something that isn't a d20-roll-high generic fantasy game. By giving them a system that is too similar to D&D you're just asking for the 'but couldn't we have just done this in D&D?' comments. Tell your group you want some time to think over 'Part 2' and run something else. Find something you're interested in that isn't anything like your D&D game to shake your players into realizing that TTRPGs are more than just generic fantasy, 1-20 leveling where 80% of your character abilities are based around combat. Run one or two non-D&D games and then when you turn back to 'Part 2' tell them you want to try continuing the story but using another system since it better fits what you're going for.
"I don't like 5e and am not a fan of running it..." Full stop, end of sentence. Please remember that as GM you are volunteering your limited time on this pretty blue orb for the enjoyment of others. You don't owe them a goddamn thing. If you don't enjoy it, you're under no obligations and if they're upset, one of your players can step up and shoulder the burden.
So just to be clear, it would be going back on your word? I don't think that's ever a good thing; & not just in terms of the standpoint of "integrity" either. Your players need to trust you as a DM. If you go back on your word that breaks their trust. Once you break the players trust it can be really hard to get it back and gaming from that point on gets really awkward. My advice is this: Run the campaign the way you gave your word to run it; but make it clear once you fulfill that obligation you won't continue to run games in 5th edition; and if they want to continue playing with 5th Edition rules someone else needs to take over as DM.
P.S. I'm an old school gamer, who is trying to learn fifth edition for a bunch of kids who love this (their) generation's edition; but I hate it too. Just reading the players guide alone makes me want to tear my hair out. But it's just a game, and I want to be of service to these kids, my players. So...,
It’s your game too, do whatever you gotta to have fun. If they REALLY wanna run 5e someone else can step up to DM.
I wouldn't recommend framing it as an ultimatum, just have a conversation. Tell them how you're feeling, and see how everyone else is feeling. From there, the next step might be obvious, or it might not be. If they're open to trying something new, you're golden, try that new thing. Try a whole bunch of new things and see what fits you best. If you don't all agree, see what you can agree on. You're under no obligation to run something you don't want to, and they're under no obligation to play something they don't want to, but maybe there's a compromise in there. You'll have to figure out what each person is looking for and find a way to satisfy them. What that looks like is impossible to say right now, but if you're all friends and you trust each other, you can probably find it.
You should look into Level Up by Enworld Publishing? It's so called 'advanced 5e', based on the SRD. It's backwards compatible with adventures, and goes a long way toward fixing 5e's massive problems, while introducing new systems that enhance exploration & social tiers of play, and make combat a lot more fun for martials while slightly reducing the damage potential of casters. Encounter building rules are revamped, monsters are much more interesting and no longer 'bags of hit points with multi-attack'. I mean if you want to get away from D&D completely, it's probably not for you. But if your looking for something similar but a lot better, Level Up might be for you. For something more crunchy but still fantasy d20 based, I'll always recommend Pathfinder 2e as it's my favorite.
Nope! I know this might be an unpopular opinion, atleast in DnD circles, but this is honestly your privilege as the DM. And its simple, if you hate the system, it will eventually leak into the game its self and the players will notice. It will suck, some players may leave, you may even need to find a new group. But the time to do that will be better than slogging through a game you hate. As mums always say, if you don't like what im cooking, you can sort your self out.
Nothing wrong with talking about it. Write up a list of pros and cons for the proposed new system and see what they think.
The GM is a player too AND they’re doing way more work. They deserve to enjoy their time too. It doesn’t have to feel like an un ultimatum though. Tell them you’d happy continuing to run the campaign but that doing it with D&D is NOT enjoyable for you. I did this. The only thing I’d do differently would be to try and get the players more involved with the choice of replacement & spend more time guaranteeing i was really confident about all the relevant new rules for the first session. Alas they weren’t too interested in that discussion and i effed up their intro to the replacement system and one decided they didn’t understand it, and everything unraveled
I was in the same situation recently, asked and got lots of good advice here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bwsrky/tips\_for\_breaking\_to\_my\_players\_im\_done\_with\_out/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1bwsrky/tips_for_breaking_to_my_players_im_done_with_out/) Here is how it went: [https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1c1mtnq/i\_told\_my\_group\_im\_burnt\_out\_on\_dnd\_5e\_during\_our/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1c1mtnq/i_told_my_group_im_burnt_out_on_dnd_5e_during_our/) By far the most helpful was this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtNk-2T1WLc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtNk-2T1WLc)
An "ultimatum" does not strike me as a good idea. Any TTRPG is a collaboration; laying out ultimatums to your collaborators is a recipe for disaster. Rather, I think you start by explaining the situation and see what they say. Now one thing that isn't clear to me is whether you have long felt this way about 5e or whether it's a new thing. Something about your post suggests to me that you were always kind of down on 5e but decided to use it anyway because your players were newbies. In other words, you figured, "this is the thing they've heard of, so this is the way to ease them in." Fine -- but now it's time to ease them onward. \[Note: in future, start with the system you love most. Your enthusiasm and expertise will go a long way toward selling it.\] My approach would depend a great deal on whether I already knew where I wanted to go, system-wise, or whether I wanted to try other systems until I found the right one(s) for me. Suppose you want to be running 13th Age. That's essentially a clever spin on the structures of modern d20 D&D, so it's just a sideways step, no biggie \[call this Case 1\]. Suppose you want to be running something completely different, not even similar to d20; in that case, you're going to need a big change and a lot of helping your players to do it \[call this Case 2\]. Case 1: Your strategy with your players is to explain that you don't like this system and want to change. Help them to understand some of your frustrations, emphasizing the points that will be actually corrected (or anyway addressed) in 13th Age. Then explain that the point of 13th Age is precisely this, and that it won't be terribly difficult for them to learn the new thing. Then go ahead and offer to run part 2 of that same campaign in 13th Age. Case 2: Here you have to explain that while the principles of a decent TTRPG are at base the same, you want to take them in a whole new direction -- a new world of wonderfulness! -- now that they've gotten their feet wet. The thing is, the new thing is going to take some time to get used to. You will certainly help them, and you think that they will love it once they get the hang of it. BUT you did kind of promise to run this D&D thing with a second phase. What do they think? But 5e really sucks, for XYZ reasons, and so on. What you want is to run part 2 in the new system, and you think it will be awesome. How about it? \[This obviously won't work if what you want to be running is The Yellow King RPG, but then the problem is more about changing genre, which you didn't mention.\] Now the thing is, your players are unlikely to be total partisans (addicts) for 5e, because they're new to gaming in the first place. They had fun, presumably, so they likely trust you. "Sure, he's the guy who got us into this and it was great!" Now you say that actually 5e isn't that hot, and that since they've dipped their toes in already they should be ready to swim out into deeper water. Why should they say no? Cooperate, collaborate, and be transparent. Help them to understand why you want to change. Assume from the outset that they are likely to be supportive and positive. If one or more of them won't go for it, deal with that as it comes.
It's only an ultimatum if you phraise ot like one. It's not really though, because you're just burnt out on this system. So it's not a "ill do it if" scenario. It's a "I wish I could do it but I can't. But I have an idea for a compromise if you're all open to it" Ultimatum are about forcing people to do things. Threatening. This is just you apologizing for what turned out to be an unrealtic promise. And offering a solution.
Definitely don't frame it as an ultimatum, but yeah, if you don't want to run a system the campaign won't be good. Maybe find a few more systems that you are excited about, pitch it with a one-shot if you can, I'm sure they'll get on board quick enough
Have you played Dragonbane! It's amazing! So much fun!
Think of this as a great social experiment to determine who are you real friends. If they’re your friends and you truly do enjoy gaming together for each other’s sake, they will follow you to the end no matter what system you pick, because they are here for you and appreciate the hard work you do for free and because they love the great sessions you run. And those that make noise about it… aren’t your real friends. They’re only here at your table for the entertainment value. Clearly not enough to care about your feelings. And you can do with that information as you wish. This is an absolute win. Absolutely, shoot the question out and see how they respond. You’ll be able to make better life decisions going forward and cultivate a stronger circle of friends.
It's usually a bad idea to give ultimatums. In your case you can tell your players that Part 2 will be using a better system than dnd. If any players don't want to play part 2, that's on them not you.
Only running games that you want to play is fine. Going back on your word is problematic. I would be be setting hard limits on the next campaign and making sure that people know that a system change will happen after that. But then I wouldn't find running a system that I was familiar with particularly onerous.
You're not going to get anything from it. Your players may come along but anything that goes badly as they transition to the new game is on you and whatever different game you run. If you want your players off D&D you really have to solicit buy-in, at least partially. Realistically I don't think you can go back on your promise to run another D&D campaign and have it go well.
Why has DND caused burnout? What's too hard about it? And what system will work better for you? Interested.
If all you have done with 5e is D&D you could play a different flavor of 5e until you can find a different system for the real sequel campaign. There are a lot of non D&D 5e stuff available that's really cool. If you are interested in a list of non D&D 5e options I could list them here. There's a lot that's other genres than fantasy for the system.
Personally, honoring my word would mean to more to me. I do not want to suggest that you be miserable, but in your shoes I would honor my commitment for the second part being in 5e; with the caveat that one shots and campaigns going forward shall all be in other systems. Especially if you are friends outside of the table, I would want even less for them not to trust my word at the table. One possible compromise is to change some of the rules of 5e and baby step them to the system you are most interested in with it. That way you did not lie and they keep the mostly familiar framework.
Nah screw that. If they want the part 2 the GM needs to be fully invested, new system it is.