With her year-long Pathfinder campaign finally wrapping, Gemma couldn’t wait to get started on her next campaign.
“What an awesome finale!” she said excitedly. “Starting next week we’re starting a new campaign. I’ve decided to run Shadows of Esteren, which is a gothic horror fantasy game with Celtic trappings.”
“Excellent!” Adam grinned as he eyed the pile of Pathfinder books on the shelf behind her. “Time to roll up new characters! Are there any class or race restrictions?”
“Actually, Shadows of Esteren has its own system. I’ll be teaching it to you as we go.”
“A new system?” Patti looked mortified. “It took me the better part of a year to learn Pathfinder! Why are we changing now?”
“I agree,” Renaldo nodded. “If this new game is still fantasy, why can’t you just convert it to Pathfinder?”
Gemma was crestfallen. She really loved the atmosphere of Shadows of Esteren and she felt it simply wouldn’t work well with a different system. Worse, she didn’t want to eat up the time she had to prepare between sessions doing stat conversions. She shouldn’t have been surprised. This was a battle she always waged whenever she wanted to change systems; her players simply didn’t want to learn them.
Does the above vignette sound familiar? For me it happened recently, as a Star Wars: The Edge of the Empire (SW:TEotE) campaign was sort of wrapping up (more on that later) and I was pitching new campaigns. Shadows of Esteren actually was one of the contenders, but I’ll have a hard fight with the players if I don’t convert it to Pathfinder or GURPS.
This is something I’ve frequently encountered over the years, especially when my players have settled into a particular rules system and simply don’t want to waste time getting used to new rules. It’s especially difficult when it’s not the setting/campaign that the players are objecting to but the mechanical bits. As GMs, we can sometimes forget that character generation is exciting for players and there are likely many rules combinations that the players want to try out with new characters rather than change systems.
On the other hand, we GMs have reasons for wanting to change. Sometimes the rules are a better fit for the particular genre, sometimes we have a wealth of adventure material that would be a pain to convert, and sometimes we just want an easier rule set to use. Thus, we approach a change of systems differently than our players.
Here are a few common points to consider when you and your players aren’t on the same page regarding system changes.
Is there a compelling enough reason for changing systems?
Necessary Evil is a Savage Worlds superhero setting with an awesome premise: aliens have taken over the world, killing the heroes that tried to stop them; now it’s up to former supervillains to save the day. That said, is there anything particularly compelling about using Savage Worlds as the rules engine if your group prefers Champions or Mutants & Masterminds? Conversely, Rotted Capes is a superhero-zombie apocalypse mash-up where the PCs are low-powered heroes and sidekicks. If the group’s preferred superhero system doesn’t feel “gritty” enough then that may be enough to change systems.
If the reason is simply “I have a prepared campaign and I don’t want to do conversions” then the campaign pitch needs to be compelling enough to get the players to switch systems. Even then, you’ll need to be prepared for passive-aggressive acceptance, as the players continually compare the new system to the old. Sometimes, they’ll be pleasantly surprised; other times, you may find yourself agreeing with them.
How difficult will the conversions be?
Presuming that you’ve determined that a change in systems wouldn’t harm the overall feel of the new campaign, how difficult would it be for you to swap out mechanics? Some systems convert better than others, and if one of your reasons for using a new system is to reduce your workload, saddling yourself with conversions may not be appealing.
Remember that “difficulty” does not equal “complexity.” Pathfinder, for example, is a relatively crunchy system, especially if the PCs start at a higher level. That said if your group has been playing it for several campaigns, you are probably familiar enough with it to easily convert from another system. By comparison, Savage Worlds is not as crunchy, but if your experience is limited to a quick read of the rulebook then you likely have little experience with the ins-and-outs of the system and may have difficulty determining the appropriate challenge level of NPCs. I once ran a GURPS campaign where I pasted the PCs because I threw one too many Ogres (or Trolls, it’s been a while!) at them at once, as I’d misjudged their combat effectiveness.
How compelling is the campaign?
It’s been my experience that even the most intractable players will accept a new system if the fluffy bits really interest them and you’ve made it clear that conversion is not an option. If your players are really excited about adding some cyberpunk or steampunk to their fantasy, then they’d probably be open to learning the rules for Shadowrun or Victoriana if you’ve made it clear that you can’t convert the systems.
One way to make this easier is to highlight the aspects of the new system that each player would find most appealing or useful. If one of your players enjoys combat, tell her how combat works in the new system and what character generation bits would help her succeed. If one of your players enjoys magic, tell him how magic in Witchcraft differs from the way his sorcerer uses it in Mutants & Masterminds.
Highlight the fun bits!
One way to entice players to try out a new system is to show them the most interesting and fun aspects of the new system. Back in the 1980s, I was a sucker for more “realism” (defined as “more detailed combats”). Ninjas and Superspies appealed to me because of the plethora of martial arts styles and moves, which all sounded a lot more interesting than the AD&D monk’s mere “open hand” attacks (in spite of the latter’s assumption that “open hand” was code for “various sweet unarmed attack maneuvers”).
As another example I have one player who normally doesn’t like to change systems, but if I show him how easy it is for him to grok his character’s abilities in the new system, then he’d definitely get on board.
A word of warning: if the fun bits of your new system can be easily grafted onto the old, your players would probably rather you do that than drag them into a new system. Victoriana, for example, puts an emphasis on social class. Many systems have something similar or easily emulated through feats/talents/abilities. Call of Cthulhu‘s Sanity mechanic can, and has been, easily incorporated into other systems.
Another word of warning: you may find that what you think are the fun bits just aren’t that interesting to your players. Call of Cthulhu is an awesome game of horrific discoveries and descent into insanity, but if your players would just rather confront and destroy evil beasties then they aren’t going to be swayed by Sanity mechanics or their relatively low pool of hit points.
Does the new system offer as much for the players as the old?
Here’s where I get back to Star Wars. We had a few growing pains with SW:TEotE, including dice that were hard to grok and a high combat lethality. I investigated the old West End Games version of Star Wars (SW:WEG) and found it to be a much easier system with a wealth of ready-to-play material. Given the grumblings in the group over SW:TEotE, I thought they’d embrace SW:WEG with open arms.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. As it turned out as much as the players had issues with the SW:TEotE rules, they enjoyed the various bells and whistles that the PC talent trees offered them, something notably missing from SW:WEG. I realized that my pitch, which seemed compelling to me, really boiled down to “it’s easier for me to create NPCs in this system.” That’s hardly a convincing argument for the players to give up the “fun” aspects of their characters.
Are you fixing something that ain’t broke?
Another lesson I learned from the Star Wars Incident was that while I found the combat lethality to be an issue, it didn’t really bother most of the players. They’d been used to playing characters that steered clear of firefights and that parley was a preferable alternative. All I was really doing with changing systems was encouraging them to use more “blaster diplomacy,” something that didn’t appeal to them.
Also, while the players still have trouble adjusting to the rules (especially the SW:TEotE dice), they still thought the rules held together well enough that they didn’t see the need for change. All I’d effectively be doing is swapping out one set of rules with which they weren’t comfortable with another set of rules in which they definitely weren’t comfortable.
Wrapping up
If your players are really reluctant to try new systems then sometimes you just aren’t going to get them to switch. While this may mean that you have to discard a great campaign idea, it’s often better to let it go than try to force your group to play it. That said it may be possible to find common ground, and I hope that some of my experiences may aid you in determining whether that is possible for your group.
How stuck are your players on a particular system? Do you enjoy that system as well or do you favor another? How do you get your groups to switch? How have you accommodated your players by adding new bits from one system to another so that they can stay in their comfort zone while giving you what you need for the new campaign?
We play new systems all the time, using a very simple process called: keep it short. A one-shot or short campaign (4-6 sessions) is a MUCH easier pitch to sell to players then the commitment of an ongoing campaign.
Then if we like the system we might come back to it for a longer campaign; and even if we don’t like it, usually we’ve learned something that we can apply in other systems. (It’s amazing how many game rules are really “codified GMing techniques” that port easily.)
Most people’s gaming time is limited and they don’t want to waste it having to learn new systems, especially if the group plays long campaigns. I personally just want to play Pathfinder these days.
There are two gaming clubs at my hometown; The SAS which plays long campaigns (6 months+) and the RPGS which plays short ones (1-2 months).
As you can probably imagine, SAS campaigns seem to stick to a few core systems that everyone knows well (Pathfinder, Cthulhu, WH40K, white wolf), whereas the RPGS plays a plethora of different systems.
How long did it take you to learn the basics of Pathfinder? That is just an excuse so you can avoid learning new systems. No game is so complex that you can’t figure out the basics rather quickly. I have yet to experience this and I have played in over fifty systems. It does take time to master those systems but if you are so much of a monster about being a rules master then you have crossed the line into rules lawyer. No one wants players at the table that know everything about the game, ever.
Now now, no need for hostility. Different gamers have different preferences so it’s not fair to judge someone as a better or worse gamer by comparing them to your own standards.
Anyways, I think you had the point nailed in your own reply. If a group doesn’t suit your gaming style, just find another (as there are plenty of us out there). That’s the main reason my town has two clubs to suit two different play-styles. Keeps everyone Happy 😉
My gaming philosophy is this: GM only what you want, but play anything. I realize not everyone is going to agree with this, but the GM is definitely doing a lot of heavy lifting. They should call the shots in regards to system.
That being said, the various systems that you offer to play should do something noticeably different. When I want players to focus on resource management and teamwork, I go to Torchbearer. When I want to play a more lax, pulpy fantasy game, I go DCC. When I want to play a story-centric game that is mechanics light, Fate. When I want to play a dramatic game with deep mechanics, Burning Wheel.
Of course, many campaigns could work within multiple games, but it’s always about optimization.
I remember trying to pitch 3rd Edition D&D to my players, who all had years of experience in 2nd Edition. The resistance was ridiculously high. The sad thing was that the problems they brought up were largely personal, either being unwilling to dip their toe into a pond they weren’t intimately familiar with, or just being mulish. I finally had to put my foot down and pitch it to each one of them, wrapping up with “if you don’t want to play, then start running your own game.” Since that first campaign, there has been no looking back.
For exploring new game systems I run what I call Disposable Games. They are usually a long Saturday/Sunday where the group plays a new game, genre, or house rule(s).
When I introduce new game systems, I create pregens that have all of the information that a player will need on the sheet itself. Sometimes I have options for the players to pick from, e.g. pick two feats out of a list of four feats. This helps to make the player more comfortable and puts a better light on the game system.
As a GM one may be inclined to try and run the new system perfectly, and this is a bad idea. Run the game for the fun, and just mention now and again that “this may not be how this really works, we’ll look it up later”.
This is typically what we have done. We have a few systems that we like because, as others have stated, our playing and prep time is limited. However, every now and then someone will bring a new game to the table and we’ll play a couple of times, or do a one-shot introduction with pregens.
Conversions usually aren’t an issue with me these days as I tend to have a pretty prep-lite approach. A lot is done on the fly, regardless of the system.
I’ve been lucky with this. My group is usually more than willing to jump into new systems to try games out and never questions switching systems when starting a new campaign.
An issue we do run into is when we like the story and the characters but don’t like the system. We end up hitting an inertia wall and have never successfully translated from one system to another.
I like Gazrax’s philosophy. I mean, if you’re not putting in any work beyond showing up, you’d think you could be a little less picky in what the guy who is doing tons of work for everyone’s entertainment is ‘allowed’ to do.
Also, I think the “people don’t want to waste time learning new systems” defense is a crock. More particularly, it’s a crock that is generally offered up by people whose game experience centers around Pathfinder, D&D, and sometimes Shadowrun or World of Darkness, all of which are hugely crunchy games that have vast numbers of splatbooks and such nonsense, and which artificially inflate the amount of time it takes to ‘learn a new system’ – leading players whose experience is with those games to be paranoid of having to spend all the time they’ve already spent learning those games to learn a new one, ignorant of the fact that a huge number of modern game systems can be explained in five minutes and be ready and playing in under an hour (Whereas it takes longer than that just to get through chargen as an experienced player in the aforementioned systems.) That said, running a one shot or short shot of a game is a great way to PROVE this to people and also just to see how a game plays out with your group. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s… unwise to run a campaign in a system you’ve never used before. Start small.
But yeah. I think more players should give their GMs the benefit of the doubt. Because an excited GM is more valuable than all the system familiarity in the world. And honestly, as I get older, I give less and less value to the ‘but it’s what we’re used to’ argument.
I agree 150%! The idea of people using the “we don’t want to learn a new system” defense is just a form of bull headiness. Players do normally like a few systems, but good players will play everything at least once. It is how you find new systems that work for you as a player and as a GM down the road. If you are unwilling to put in the “work” of learning new things then you will never experience the vast array of games that exist.
I had this problem with another of my groups. They were stuck on one or two systems, they refused to try anything new. I switched groups and have not looked back. I am still friends with the old group, but I game with the new exclusively. Some times you just have to find a group that is open to trying new things.
It’s tricky, because I love new systems, both as a GM and a player. But I get that the investment of time and cash is less appealing–particularly for a player who might never again play the system.
Everyone benefits from system mastery–which is something I try to remember when we return to a familiar system. Sure, new and shiny calls… but not having to explain each step of each conflict is a relief too.
A bit of the issue can also be how valuable learning THIS new system will be; if it sounds like a weird world that we’ll play once and never return to, how much effort (and expense) does a smart player dump into the game?
If you don’t get your cool new system this game, don’t worry… if your players are getting in lots of experience in their system (particularly gaming with other groups), they’ll eventually look for novelty. Everyone wins in the end!
My current group is in love with two systems (the Classic Cortex system used by Serenity, BSG, and Supernatural) and a home brew hybrid system of d20, Shadowrun, and Palladium Fantasy Second edition.
When trying to convince players to try a new system I was regularly met with strong resistance and the suggestion I simply convert it over to one of the groups preferred systems. (Only a few of my group is familiar with Savage Worlds, or COC, and even then they prefer the current rule sets over those ones.)
After expressing the dislike for length of time such conversions would take I was pleasantly surprised when a couple members of my group who were more familiar with the alternate system in question offered to help with the majority of the conversion. (Not specific NPC’s so much as generally X=Y and class/ability X would best convert in this manner)
Letting them handle a large chunk of conversion did free up my time to focus on game prep, and allowed everyone to stick with the rule set they preferred.
One of the unexpected benefits was in learning how things converted from SW over, everyone learned a bit about how Savage worlds played, and when the next campaign came around, were much more willing to give the system a try now they had a better understanding of it and how much fun it could potentially be.
That’s a great trick; they get to demonstrate their mastery now, and help reduce your workload–and it sets them up to understand the system that you want to try for the future. Nice!
My solution has been fairly easy, I have a public Google drive folder that I keep all the rpgs I have in PDF and I share it with the group. Since I am the main GM and buy all the PDFs I find sharing it helps players get into the mindset of trying new things. My current drive has 15gigs of PDFs to chose from.
The plus side is that not only do i tell my players whats in the folders but just allow them to browse. My one GM has started a 13th age game mainly cause he saw that the pdf was in the drive.
The downside is that while I offer all my players the pdfs not all of them do. and not all of them have tablets to use at the table. but most do.
My advice use google drive, dropbox, whatever and share it with your players. When they see all the options their curiosity might be piqued.
An excellent idea Wookie, I regularly share gaming pdfs with my group (and a few trusted friends) and I;ve found it helps a lot with letting the players learn the rules when they have access to the books outside of the gaming table. (And lead a couple of friends into buying/trying some new systems/settings)
One thing to keep in mind however, is to be careful how public you make the pdfs, sharing them among your group is usually no big deal, but making them “too” public can lead to copyright complaints and possibly being blacklisted at drive thru rpg if that;s where you obtained your pdf’s from. (they watermark their pdfs with account name and order #)
I only share via links with my group and they know not to share it online.
The common assumption I see isn’t that players generally don’t want to learn a new system (even though that too is true), but the assumption that Pathfinder RPG is not ideal for dark fantasy – which I see as totally wrong. The Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) is a very dark and esoteric setting of a very gritty, low fantasy nature. While there are changes to certain spells (raise dead, reincarnation, resurrection, teleport, plane shift) and some cases do not function at all, for the most part Pathfinder rules are left intact. What is changed is the expectation that the PCs will “win” or that they will become the heroes to save the world – Kaidan is unsaveable.
While I am sure there would be some level of work to adapt the Shadows of Esteren to Pathfinder, the assumption that it cannot be adapted is plainly wrong.
For me, resistance to adapting everything is that different rules sets emphasize different things–often via interlocking mechanisms. Primetime Adventure’s simple system, fan mail, narration trading, and screen presence reinforce the “feels like a TV show” and a feel of conflict. Adapting even a fantasy PTA show to Pathfinder would have an entirely different feel in play. Similarly, grafting one or two mechanics onto Pathfinder wouldn’t capture the feel of “like a TV show”.
I’m not saying it can’t be done, but rules sets have extensive assumptions baked in–like healing, raising from the dead, etc.–as you mention in your Kaidan example.
I can’t argue that some mechanics of a given system will need a drastic make-over to fit in the mechanics of Pathfinder, even requiring new interactions between specific mechanics, something that would be completely new to Pathfinder – so there will be some level of work in that conversion. And adopting mechanics specific for one system and direclty integrating that to PF, rather than redeveloping those mechanics is another viable option. A true full conversion, might not be possible, but is that even necessary? As stated, some specific unique mechanics to Kaidan isn’t generally applicable to PF in general, but including those new mechanics is all that is needed to work in PF. While I don’t need to do so, I would see little problem in converting Kaidan to work with any other major fantasy system.
Honestly, I think it’s absurd to try a lot of conversions; You’re basically re-inventing the game from the ground up at that point, and you end up in a situation where you:
A) Have a game that is less good at producing a particular ‘style’ and ‘feel’ than the one you converted from
AND
B) Have a game that bears only a passing resemblance to the game you converted TO, because you’ve had to buckle on so many additional systems.
You’ve spent a ton of time to end up with an inferior experience so that your players can…what? Not have to learn how to roll six sided dice and count successes? At the end of the day, I think my biggest objection to doing this is that I don’t see the benefit except catering to selfish players.
Even a fairly standard fantasy setting – indeed, THE fantasy setting from some perspectives – Middle Earth, benefits hugely from being run in The One Ring (a game designed for the purpose, and fairly good at it) as opposed to run in Pathfinder. At the very least, you’d need to graft the following stuff onto the game:
Fatigue system
Corruption System
New Races (Yeah, the idea of using Pathfinder elves to model Tolkien Elves is kinda laughable.)
Huge list of banned stuff
Probably some new skills, or you can leave that out and lose further ground on the feel of the game.
And at the end of the day you still have something that feels way less like Middle Earth than it does like D&D with Middle Earth names.
Are there settings where a conversion to Pathfinder is viable? Sure. You could probably run Iron Kingdoms in it without too much trouble, really. Not every setting needs its own game system (duh?) – but this is way more complicated than “Well, Pathfinder can do dark fantasy if you change some of the underlying assumptions of the system.”
Its not a true conversion of OA, it is a ground up development of feudal Japan with Asian horror tropes built in, specifically designed for Pathfinder with an emphasis on more historic, cultural and folklore authenticity, unlike most Japan analog settings previously published. D&D OA is the closest comparable setting and ruleset to PF Kaidan only – its not a conversion really, it is completely its own thing.
As a half-Japanese amateur historian/folklorist and Japanophile, OA in every previous edition had many concepts taken out of context and actual mistakes – I wanted to correct that, moreso than convert what was done wrong before.
Consider that Ravenloft while D&D has different underlying assumptions that conform only to Ravenloft vs. a typical D&D setting. The differences in Kaidan to PF standard is similar.
The cosmology is different. The Death mechanic is different. Some spells are nerfed or non-functional (not many though). Analog religions based on Buddhism and Shinto is much more closely tied to the setting. Other than new monsters, new classes, new archetypes, it is virtually PF in every other way.
If you read the reviews and feedback from customers, it is not inferior to OA, rather it is superior – or at least more esoteric and authentically portrayed.
…
So basically, what you are saying is that you didn’t do ANYTHING LIKE what is under discussion, but rather, essentially created your own, far less awful, Asian-themed setting for Pathfinder?
That’s a job well done, but not really relevant, because you didn’t convert systems. You basically just took the core idea of a setting supplement and built a better implementation.
I didn’t convert systems, because conversion isn’t necessary, not only for my case, but for “Gemma” the person in the article. While the article is about conversion, I’m saying there’s no reason to convert. It is better to tweak the rules, and for subsystems completely unique to Shadows of Esteren could be imported as is, without changes, just tweaked to fit PF rules.
I only need to match the settings atmosphere to be successful, I don’t need to convert the rules to make it work – no need for that, ever.
I included new subsystems built to work better with dark fantasy, that the basic PF game does not. The point of my first post was that you could develop dark fantasy settings using Pathfinder with just a few modifications. My post really reflects the idea that the atmosphere of Shadows of Esteren could not be replicated using Pathfinder, which I completely disagree. Now, I never suggested that one needed to convert Shadows of Esteren to Pathfinder. If you’re trying to achieve dark horror with Pathfinder, only a few small changes will let that happen. While at the same time, it is otherwise nothing like Shadows of Esteren, the rules, only Shadows of Esteren the setting.
A full conversion is unnecessary, all you need is a little tweaking.
I don’t know Shadows of Esteren rules, per se, but some rulesets are built for settings where the use of magic has always a detrimental side effect. If that’s the case, if I wanted to use PF instead, I would force every spellcaster to make a Fort DC check of 20 (or whatever would be balanced with other systems rules on this), if the spellcaster fails the check then some detrimental thing is applied – a curse, ability damage, some negative thing. I don’t need to convert the other rulesystems chosen tact to handle the mechanic, I just alter PF to have a similar result, even if handled a completely different way. I don’t need to convert anything – just tweak and accomplish the same results with a different system.
Let me qualify myself by reflecting what Scot Martin, above, stated regarding Primetime Adventures system. Unless I’m mistaken that sounds like a completely different RPG animal than D&D/Pathfinder. For very different systems, trying to adapt D&D/PF would be a failure, more than likely. When I state there’s no need to convert, that only regards systems with similar aspects – D&D, PF, Shadows of Esteren, Dungeon World, and 13th Age. In most ways these systems are very similar, so with a little modification, you could use any of those systems and adapt a specific setting to work with it, without any serious levels of conversion. On the other hand systems that are completely different – conversion or even slight modification won’t help. So some systems cannot be converted in use to others, while many systems can.
At the risk of jumping in to someone else’s conversation, let me add that I understand Gamerprinter’s point. I have created an extensive custom world within the rules system I’m most familiar with, D&D 3.5, and I have populated it with a number of interesting cultures that feel very different from one another. Doing this did not require having different game engines for each culture. I also run my world a bit darker than typical D&D. That does not require a game engine change, either.
At the same time, I absolutely agree that there are limits to how much you can implement a particular campaign idea as a matter of setting before you must also change the underlying rules system to support it. One simple example is healing magic. In D&D systems it’s readily available to anyone with cleric levels or moderate wealth. If your campaign idea is one where getting injured is supposed to really hurt and “dead means dead” then this you need to significantly reduce the healing mechanics. But healing is such a core component of the whole system that it’s hazardous to make just that one change and leave everything else the same. You’ll be better off choosing a rules system that aligns from the start with your campaign idea.
At the end of the day, I’m not really interested in discussing whether a ‘conversion’ is necessary for a different campaign setting; I think my point about trying to play Middle Earth in Pathfinder stands. It would SUCK and it would be a ton of work. You are better off with a specialist system.
Similarly, I think it would be a fool’s errand to convert Tenra Bansho Zero or Dogs in the Vineyard to Pathfinder, even though neither of those is as removed from D&D as Primetime Adventures. It would also be completely stupid to ‘convert’ Dungeon World to Pathfinder, because the whole point of that system is to play D&D without all the paraphernalia that Pathfinder brings to the table. Are there cases when you can ‘convert’ a fantasy world to another setting? Sure. Are there many of them? No, probably not. Pathfinder has too many inherent assumptions to really be a good ‘generic’ system.
Use the right tool for the job. While sometimes the right tool is a file to get your square peg to fit in the round hole, you don’t want to try to hammer in a screw if you’re looking for a secure fastener. 😛