PDA

View Full Version : DM switching systems mid-campaign



USS Sorceror
2015-02-08, 02:34 AM
This is mostly to vent a little and get advice on how to approach this situation. So I've been playing in a Pathfinder campaign since last summer, and I've been having a pretty good time in all sessions. But last week the DM said at the end of the session to make new characters for the game 13th Age, a system I've never played in before. I'm a bit frustrated because I was playing an alchemist and so far as I can tell this new system has absolutely nothing similar to how my character operated. I don't wanna abandon my character concept, and I don't wanna leave the group just because the system changed.

Has anyone else ever had a GM switch the system mid-campaign? How did it go? Also does anyone whether I could make a Hulked out character in 13th Age like I did in Pathfinder?

aspekt
2015-02-08, 04:52 AM
And this was never discussed with the table?

Thrudd
2015-02-08, 10:23 AM
If you're going to be playing a new game, look at the new rules and options and then pick your character concept, not before. You will likely need to abandon your old concept, at least the mechanics of it, just by the fact that it is a totally different system.

The issue of whether or not you want to play this new game, and why the GM is abandoning the old game, is something you'll need to discuss with the GM.

USS Sorceror
2015-02-08, 10:35 AM
And this was never discussed with the table?

No he literally just sprang it on us at the end of our last session.

I probably will ask him about it, I have reworked my concept a little bit, rather than a mutagen form my character just gets more belligerent/violent when he is drunk.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 11:11 AM
My first reaction is, if the campaign is just continuing under a new system, this is probably a total dramatic failure.

The system-shift should absolutely be the result of the PCs either activating the Lost Doohickey or failing to stop the villains for activating it.

But that's beside your point.

Almarck
2015-02-08, 11:19 AM
Your DM likely has become enamored with a new system and thinks that it is superior in every way to your current one. This is a bad thing, because it's likely the DM does not realize that doing this is going to cause major upset.

I have never played 13th age before, but regardless, it is likely going to cause a dramatic power shift in the party, cause characters to have to completely rewrite character concepts, even key traits, and cause discrepancies and plot holes ("But I used a fly spell last game, but I can't anymore because when I switched, I lost that power because I couldn't afford it under the new rules!")

It is more than reasonable for you to call your DM out on this, getting an answer as to why he believes this is a good idea. If you are dissatisfied, you are more than justified for walking out.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 11:31 AM
I have never played 13th age before, but regardless, it is likely going to cause a dramatic power shift in the party, cause characters to have to completely rewrite character concepts, even key traits, and cause discrepancies and plot holes ("But I used a fly spell last game, but I can't anymore because when I switched, I lost that power because I couldn't afford it under the new rules!")


Which is why having the changeover keyed to the Magic Doohickey is so useful. "Your AD&D character was an assassin/illusionist/barbarian, which isn't included in 2e--sorry, Time of Troubles, re-write him as a thief/wizard/fighter with the same XP."

All further questions? "Magic Doohickey."

EDIT: This all still assumes that the DM has gotten some amount of buy-in from the players about the new system. If not, the Magic Doohickey doesn't solve the OOC problem of the players being jerked around.

Kiero
2015-02-08, 11:36 AM
My first reaction is, if the campaign is just continuing under a new system, this is probably a total dramatic failure.

Depends entirely on how the change is handled, how big the difference is between the two systems, and how well the expectations of all parties are managed. We switched a Star Wars game from Saga Edition to FATE and it was a vast improvement for all involved.

Almarck
2015-02-08, 11:38 AM
Given the information the op has described it seems that the session was based spontaneously and created solely at the DM's whims with no players involved in or urging the decision making.

I do not believe this will end well. Nor do I believe it will improve the situation to change things. Yes it's possible the players will like it but the dm suddenly changing things up is very risky.

USS Sorceror
2015-02-08, 01:29 PM
I feel like the DM is pretty enamored with this new system, as he has talked about it some in previous sessions during downtime. He describes it as a fusion of 3.5 and 4th edition D&D (which is difficult for me because I am completely unfamiliar with 4e).

I don't know that there was anything that "triggered" this change in game last session. We went into a mansion possessed by an evil entity, accidentally freed that entity from its prison, and then at the end of the session our DM told us to roll up characters in this new system. There was no indication we'd be trying a new system at all, he just told us to make new character sheets for this system he'd been talking about for a while.

I'm also concerned the DM might have changed things because of power disparity. I was a Mr. Hyde alchemist, very focused on damage dealing, and another player was playing an orc barbarian who dealt more damage than me on the regular. I don't know if he felt we were outshining our characters with more supportive roles (our cleric) or who are not as good at optimizing (our samurai, or our slayer, who knows how to make an archery build and that's about it). I want to ask him about that, but I'm not sure how to approach it.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 01:58 PM
I feel like the DM is pretty enamored with this new system, as he has talked about it some in previous sessions during downtime. He describes it as a fusion of 3.5 and 4th edition D&D (which is difficult for me because I am completely unfamiliar with 4e).

I don't know that there was anything that "triggered" this change in game last session. We went into a mansion possessed by an evil entity, accidentally freed that entity from its prison, and then at the end of the session our DM told us to roll up characters in this new system. There was no indication we'd be trying a new system at all, he just told us to make new character sheets for this system he'd been talking about for a while.

I'm also concerned the DM might have changed things because of power disparity. I was a Mr. Hyde alchemist, very focused on damage dealing, and another player was playing an orc barbarian who dealt more damage than me on the regular. I don't know if he felt we were outshining our characters with more supportive roles (our cleric) or who are not as good at optimizing (our samurai, or our slayer, who knows how to make an archery build and that's about it). I want to ask him about that, but I'm not sure how to approach it.


You might be responding here to my idea of the Magic Doohickey, but I want to repeat that that only helps in-character. If the DM hasn't gotten player buy-in out-of-character, it's still a problem.

Freeing the demon is a perfectly serviceable Magic Doohickey, but the system is changing right now because of DM fiat.

Maybe raise the idea of trying 13th Age as an experiment, and when the PCs re-imprison the evil entity, the group decides whether to stick with 13th Age or go back? (Nobody said the Magic Doohickey wasn't resettable.)

Thrudd
2015-02-08, 02:05 PM
Is it actually continuing on in the same campaign with the same characters? Or is he planning on abandoning the old game and starting a brand new campaign, with new characters? The latter makes more sense, unless the campaign is new enough that your characters don't really have much development yet.

Almarck
2015-02-08, 02:06 PM
I'd give it 2 or 3 sessions to make the judgement call myself.

BrokenChord
2015-02-08, 02:23 PM
I'd have a complaint in that situation, but of a different variety... "You seriously expect me to be able to accurately grasp the nuance of an entirely new system within a week?"

And from what I've heard, 13th Age isn't exactly rules-lite.

I would certainly be peeved to be expected to build a fair and similar character for a system I have no experience with in between a single session. If I were the one being system-switched, I'd demand the DM to treat me as an RPG newbie, and if that were denied I'd leave. But that's just me.

johnbragg
2015-02-08, 02:46 PM
I'd have a complaint in that situation, but of a different variety... "You seriously expect me to be able to accurately grasp the nuance of an entirely new system within a week?"

And from what I've heard, 13th Age isn't exactly rules-lite.

I would certainly be peeved to be expected to build a fair and similar character for a system I have no experience with in between a single session. If I were the one being system-switched, I'd demand the DM to treat me as an RPG newbie, and if that were denied I'd leave. But that's just me.

My answer, if I were doing this as a DM (GM, I suppose) is that no, I don't expect you to fully grasp the new system. That's part of the challenge of the encounter. Your PC is as unfamiliar with the new setup as you are.

But that puts a lot of responsibility on the DM to keep things fair. And I kind of like my idea of an end-point to the experiment (recapturing the demon, etc.) Then decide whether to go back to the old system, or to re-re-build the characters under the new system now that the players know what they're doing. (i.e. convert a 2e Paladin to a 3.0 Paladin, discover that 3.0 Paladin blows and switch him to a 3.0 Cleric)

This sort of thing requires a LOT of DM-player trust and/or a lot of DM-player communication.

Knaight
2015-02-08, 03:09 PM
I'd have a complaint in that situation, but of a different variety... "You seriously expect me to be able to accurately grasp the nuance of an entirely new system within a week?"

There's no particular reason to. I'd consider it a better idea to at least convert the characters while the people who know the system are there to help, but just letting the characters get modified while the system is in use and the players are getting used to it pretty much covers things. This is particularly true for systems which aren't particularly rules light - getting the nuances of Fudge to the point you can play it in a week is easy, you read the first 40 pages of the free .pdf and call it a day (this doesn't hold for the GM side, but the GM has more time here). Burning Wheel? Good luck with that.

USS Sorceror
2015-02-08, 04:57 PM
I'd have a complaint in that situation, but of a different variety... "You seriously expect me to be able to accurately grasp the nuance of an entirely new system within a week?"

Yeah that is another issue I'm having. I've never had experience with anything even remotely similar and now I'm trying to build an artificer. Another part of why I posted is I wanted to know if anyone had worked in it before and could give me advice.

Kiero
2015-02-09, 05:07 AM
Dealing just with the mechanics of the system shift, rather than the why's and wherefore's of whether it's desirable. I've played 20-odd sessions of 13A recently, it's definitely not rules light (though it is much lighter than 3.x and 4e). Nor is it so wild a departure from 3.x that you wouldn't recognise what you're playing. However, it doesn't do game balance or roles in anything like the way 3.x or 4e do.

Converting 3.x characters, where appropriate analogue classes exist in 13A is not hard. "Learning" the rules of 13A similarly will be trivial for someone already familiar with 3.x, it's like a much-simplified version in many respects. Bear in mind also that the rules are freely available in the SRD (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=13316).


Yeah that is another issue I'm having. I've never had experience with anything even remotely similar and now I'm trying to build an artificer. Another part of why I posted is I wanted to know if anyone had worked in it before and could give me advice.

There are a plethora of custom classes out there besides what appears in the corebook and supplement. I don't think there's a direct equivalent of the artificer, but there might be something close enough that can be reskinned. For example, would the Thaumineer (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Acrozatarim/Thuamineer)fit at all?

aspekt
2015-02-09, 05:25 AM
Purely my opinion here, but even if 13th Age were the ultimate consummation of all our hopes and dreams for a tabletop system, it STILL wouldn't give the DM the right to just permanently change the system over without involving everyone at the table in the decision.

Any GM worth their salt knows that you must always get your players onboard for anything, especially changes to the core gaming experience.

More importantly, a good GM knows they are just another player with a different role.

kyoryu
2015-02-09, 02:47 PM
I think it's generally a poor idea.

Apart from the whole "springing it" aspect, even with agreement, I think it's a bad idea.

Different systems are different. They model different parts of characters. When coming to a new system with an existing campaign, it's *way too easy* to bring over assumptions from the old system. I mean, that can be easy anyway, but it's worse with a new campaign.

To start, with character creation, you're trying to shoehorn an idea of the character generated in one system into another system. It *can* be done, but generally the best way is to go to a system-neutral idea of what the character is, forget the original character sheet, and rebuild from scratch. That's super-hard to do.

Even once that's done, since you're playing *the same character*, the tendency will be to do the same things you did before. Which likely won't be one hundred percent accurate or viable.

Switching systems in a campaign tends to highlight the differences between the two systems in the worst possible way, and is probably the least likely way to do a system switch that I've encountered.

endur
2015-02-09, 05:26 PM
Any GM worth their salt knows that you must always get your players onboard for anything, especially changes to the core gaming experience.

More importantly, a good GM knows they are just another player with a different role.

True. This is also an opportunity for one of the players to step up and offer to GM D&D.

Too many players fail to realize how much work GMing is.

USS Sorceror
2015-02-09, 05:54 PM
True. This is also an opportunity for one of the players to step up and offer to GM D&D.

Too many players fail to realize how much work GMing is.

Actually I usually do GM for this group. However, due to burnout and my new job taking up a lot of my time I can't really run a game. Also (and I'm sure people can relate to this) I just want to be a player for a while.

USS Sorceror
2015-02-09, 06:05 PM
Dealing just with the mechanics of the system shift, rather than the why's and wherefore's of whether it's desirable. I've played 20-odd sessions of 13A recently, it's definitely not rules light (though it is much lighter than 3.x and 4e). Nor is it so wild a departure from 3.x that you wouldn't recognise what you're playing. However, it doesn't do game balance or roles in anything like the way 3.x or 4e do.

Converting 3.x characters, where appropriate analogue classes exist in 13A is not hard. "Learning" the rules of 13A similarly will be trivial for someone already familiar with 3.x, it's like a much-simplified version in many respects. Bear in mind also that the rules are freely available in the SRD (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=13316).

There are a plethora of custom classes out there besides what appears in the corebook and supplement. I don't think there's a direct equivalent of the artificer, but there might be something close enough that can be reskinned. For example, would the Thaumineer (http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Acrozatarim/Thuamineer)fit at all?

Ah, the "artificer" class my GM linked me was a home brewed thing. It has alchemy as a talent/power, which let's me do some of the things I used to, but it's not a perfect translation. I intended myself to be a frontline fighter, but this class seems more designed for support.Here it is. (https://drive.google.com/a/missouriwestern.edu/file/d/0B-miQcW0BS8ucnVEUEpVX29KcHo3Q3hXVXo5aUZoUkFqX2JV/edit)

Would anyone recommend this or should I aim for something else?

Kiero
2015-02-09, 06:29 PM
Ah, the "artificer" class my GM linked me was a home brewed thing. It has alchemy as a talent/power, which let's me do some of the things I used to, but it's not a perfect translation. I intended myself to be a frontline fighter, but this class seems more designed for support.Here it is. (https://drive.google.com/a/missouriwestern.edu/file/d/0B-miQcW0BS8ucnVEUEpVX29KcHo3Q3hXVXo5aUZoUkFqX2JV/edit)

Would anyone recommend this or should I aim for something else?

What's more important to you, playing something called the Artificer, or something that fulfils the role you had in mind? Like 4e, 13A supports reskinning the fluff of anything in the game to suit what you have in mind. Furthermore, there are Backgrounds to cover the non-combat capabilities of any given translation, too. So what is it about the Artificer that you were keen on playing?

USS Sorceror
2015-02-09, 07:21 PM
What's more important to you, playing something called the Artificer, or something that fulfils the role you had in mind? Like 4e, 13A supports reskinning the fluff of anything in the game to suit what you have in mind. Furthermore, there are Backgrounds to cover the non-combat capabilities of any given translation, too. So what is it about the Artificer that you were keen on playing?

Mostly the utility part interests me, but my original character used most of his buffs on himself. I also like the "scrivener" talent that allows versatile casting and of course the ability to still make bombs.

I think I'll ask the GM how okay he is refluffing things though because I also made a rogue who would fill my old role of frontline fighter.

aspekt
2015-02-10, 02:04 AM
True. This is also an opportunity for one of the players to step up and offer to GM D&D.

Too many players fail to realize how much work GMing is.

Goodlord yes.

Even when improving it takes a lot of energy.