Gamer Guilt Over Potential Gaming Shift

[Jeffrey]

Just like in any relationship, communication is the key. It starts with "Hey folks, I've been thinking and..." see where it goes from there. I'll bet that at least some of your players, if they are disappointed in your decision to stop playing/running, will appreciate that you had the respect to come to them and get their input on it.

 

[IronWolf]

I've noticed I'm of two minds on this. On the GM side of the screen, I like telling a story, so I don't mind saying "if you guys can do X, this fight is over," but from the player's side, once I've been told that my character is in a fight, I really want it to play out, because once in a while I want to see how much I can do with my character. As a player I've been very frustrated when GMs "call a fight" before its actually over, even though as a GM I hate to go through the motions and try to play out the whole fight.

Yeah, I agree - it definitely takes buy-in from both the GM and the players for this to be successful. My previous DM had a pretty good sense of when it was time to switch to a more cinematic narrative. Certainly more an art than science. Perhaps with a different GM or different set of players we could not have pulled this off successfully.

 

[amerigoV]

Plus, they are giving out a package for Free RPG day (adventure, figure flats, character handouts, and test drive rules).

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150253045889750&set=pu.114839544749&type=1&theater

 

[frankthedm]

So I'm kind of mulling over what I should do. I've got easily a few months before I have to really worry about this, but I'd rather be thoughtful about this than to pull the trigger on the fly.

Then just tell them next session. You are done with the d20 Numbercruch & Splat-book Hamsterwheel after you wrap this campaign in X months & you'll be running Savage Worlds from there on out.

 

[the Jester]

I'm seriously looking at moving on to Savage Worlds, using the Fantasy Companion for my own setting or the Hellfrost setting for my campaign.... snip...

However, I do feel responsible for some of the players. Some of them followed me to my Star Wars Saga game and picked up those rules. Some of them picked up the Pathfinder rules because I was running a game and they wanted in. I feel like I almost owe them as many sessions as I can squeeze out to repay their trust in me.

The burn out I can empathize with. Sounds like switching systems is exactly what you need.

But feeling responsible for some of the players is silly, IMHO. Finish the campaign and switch. If those players enjoy your games and are open-minded, they may well decide that they'd like to try SW... and if not, so what? Running a game someone isn't interested in is not the same as telling that person to shove off or cutting their face or something. You are not obligated to do something you don't enjoy just because someone else does like doing it.

If you introduce someone to Asian food, but you don't like sushi, do you feel obligated to go to a sushi bar with them? I don't.

Obviously, YMMV, but offer to include all of them and none of them have any reason to take offense.

 

[IronWolf]

But feeling responsible for some of the players is silly, IMHO. Finish the campaign and switch. If those players enjoy your games and are open-minded, they may well decide that they'd like to try SW... and if not, so what? Running a game someone isn't interested in is not the same as telling that person to shove off or cutting their face or something. You are not obligated to do something you don't enjoy just because someone else does like doing it.

I think it is fine that he is taking his friend's interest in what they play. That doesn't mean he should make himself miserable, but to consider friends thoughts that he plays with when it comes to what game he runs then I don't see the harm in that.

I know in our group our primary GM would likely have us playing different systems quite frequently. But he knows the group he runs for is sort of set in our ways and prefer fantasy RPGs with an openness to try a different system occasionally in shorter bursts. It is the group dynamic.

Again, I don't think a GM should be miserable but I am pretty sure the "my way or the highway" approach would be bound to lead to fewer people to game with in the future.

 

[Henry]

KnightErrantJR, sounds like you are on the right track -- simply call a meeting after the next session ends, (wrap 15 min early or what have you) and simply talk to the group about this. Level with them, tell them your interests, and get input from them.

Maybe someone else wants the GM reins and now's the time to act.
Maybe the group is not averse to trying out new systems, and as long as you're GMing, they'lll try anything for a few sessions. (This honestly sounds like the case with most of them). I personally will play ANY RPG with a good Gamemaster that I trust at the helm, regardless of system, and sounds like several of your players feel the same way.

The main thing you SHOULDN'T do, is run a game system you are getting burned out on, and risk hard feelings with the group if things turn sour. Getting burned out on a system is nothing shameful - but CAUSING a flameout of the group because you're pushing past the point IS something to be guilty about.

So, level with them, and get the input of the group like the friends and decent human beings you make them out as.

 

[Ulrick]

I'm kinda in the same boat, too. My D&D 3.5e campaign wraps up in about three or four months, and I know I don't want to run another d20 game after that. Maybe I'd play in one, but I definitely don't want to DM. My current game is a blast, but I know as the characters go past 10th level things will become more of a headache.

I also get a "mental static" effect when my players start discussing options and feat combos, etc. I'd prefer something more rules light, like an earlier edition of D&D.

The problem is: My players don't want to play pre-3.0 D&D, and they don't want to invest in Pathfinder, none of us like 4e (though that's a not a problem IMO), and I'm getting tired of 3.5e. So we have to go with another system if I'm going to continue running games.

I guess the solution is to tell the players early on that they need to start considering another rules system.

 

[the Jester]

Again, I don't think a GM should be miserable but I am pretty sure the "my way or the highway" approach would be bound to lead to fewer people to game with in the future.

"I'm running game x, would you like to try it?" is a far cry from "my way or the highway".

Once the campaign is done, the dm has no obligation to run another game of the same system for the group. He's not (usually) being paid or anything. Don't get me wrong, it's wonderful to think of your group's preferences, and all things being equal it's good to run what they prefer- but all things aren't equal, and the factor in play is dm burnout.

Nothing obligates anyone to dm at all, much less a system he has burnt out on. A dm who keeps going when the fun is gone may well burn out on rpgs altogether for a while.

EDIT: In fact, I'd bet most of us have played in campaigns that never got to an end point and yet we don't automatically consider those dms either bad dms or bad friends for failing in some sort of social obligation to run the game to completion. In my experience, far fewer campaigns actually come to a conclusion than peter out.

 

[IronWolf]

"I'm running game x, would you like to try it?" is a far cry from "my way or the highway".

I probably mistranslated the intent of your post.

It had sounded more like "I am going to run this game next, you can play it if you want or you can leave the group." That to me is also one sided communication and taking players for granted just as players often take a GM for granted.

I agree a GM shouldn't run a game they don't want or are getting burned out on - I just think open communication between the GM and players is apt to facilitate happier players and gaming. Open communication likely garners the same result, just with less miffed players.