Troll Lord Games

I've ended a 2-year 3.5 D&D game recently. I've made it clear to my players that not only do I want to take a break from running games (which includes getting some play time in), but I don’t want to go back to 3.5 D&D. Other than a small game I run for my wife and 10-year old son, I’m done with 3.5.

Well, my players have stepped up and have been understanding. One of them, which I’ll name “Player A,” has taken the GM screen and has started running Star Wars Saga Edition. It’s been a pretty fun couple of sessions and I look forward to the opportunity to play more. However, he’s not known for his longevity behind the screen. On top of that fact, “Player B” will have to break in December for the birth of his baby, in which he hopes to be back sometime in January. Player A and Player B are good friends and I don’t think A will run if B’s going to be out for an extended period of time. So I fully expect to have the month of December off (considering Xmas, too).

Sorry, for the preface to my issue but I wanted to get some backstory in!

Well, I was hoping not to run anything until maybe March or April. However, Player B (who is my friend, too, though I’m not as good as friends with A as B is) thinks that Player A will lose the will to run after the break in December and in January (or February) we will be game-less. This is only part of the issue.

Player B despises Castles & Crusades. He’s very much a tactical gamer. He likes that 3.5 and PF (and the like) have given the player a lot more power and C&C reverses that trend. But, re’s threatened to leave if I run C&C. He cites that his “prior experience” with C&C and its shortcomings are the reason why he doesn't like it. He was in a group I ran, but only it only ran for three sessions (maybe two?) before we had to take an unexpected break. I can’t remember the exact reasons, as it was about 4 years ago that we tried that ill-fated campaign. I know we went into a SWSE game about 2 months after that, which ran for a while.

As for the rest of the group:
Player C (my wife) – she’ll try anything, and loves to roleplay.
Player D (female friend of wife, now converted gamer) – pretty much the same as my wife.
Player E (longtime friend and gamer) – I think he prefers more tactical games, but he’d be game.

Now, Player A is pretty much like Player B, but I think he’s a little less tactically minded than A is. I’d like to say he’s willing to give C&C a chance (he’s pretty much said so). One of my concerns is that B’s dislike of C&C might “infect” Player A to the point of not wanting to try it (when the time comes) or leaving since his buddy, Player A, wouldn't be at the table.
I've tried to explain to Player B that C&C is a little tighter now, with plenty of combat maneuvers, and with the Advantage system it brings another dimension to C&C that I know he’ll like. Even with that argument, I've had little luck trying to make a convert out of him. He really wants to play Pathfinder and has outright said that if it’s PF or 3.5 D&D, he’ll play, but if it’s C&C he won’t.
So, I’m at a crossroads.

I don’t want to exclude Player B, as he is a good friend of mine. But I simply don’t want to run Pathfinder. That said, I am (stupidly) prepping the next campaign with Pathfinder in mind. There’s an almost 100% of losing Player B if I run C&C, and possibly Player A, too. To prevent this from happening, I’m on the verge of making the next campaign Pathfinder instead of C&C. I’ve run C&C in the past - small one-shots, mini-arcs (6-10 sessions) that mostly included other people, and that ill-fated game- but not at my main table. I really think it’d be a good change for them and most of them, I think, would enjoy it. I even think Player B would enjoy it, if he didn't go into it with such a bad attitude.

So, about that crossroads...

What do you all think? I could go into it with PF and slog through the campaign. I think if I make that concession, I won’t get any recompense come next campaign, meaning I won’t get “my way” with C&C without the same drama I’m facing now. And I think the rules-intensive systems are what are burning me out every few years. If I run Pathfinder, I’m already restricting the crap out of it (Core classes only, with very select bits from the Advanced Player Guide) because I don’t want to have to deal with all the options it brings. At least not at the beginning.

And then, there’s C&C. It’s the system I want to run. I think I’d be happiest running it over anything else (save, maybe a sweet 2e game ). I can finally see C&C at my home table; it’s that close to a reality. But do I alienate a good friend over C&C? I know, a good question to ask is, “if he’s that good a friend, shouldn't he give C&C a try?” I never said he wasn't selfish. Should I think of myself and run what I want to run? Should I continue on with the, “here’s what I’m running, those who want to stay can stay, those who don’t, so long,” attitude?

One, neutral friend suggested that I run a C&C mini-arc, to “get it out of my system”, maybe even during the break Player B will have to take anyway, then start PF when he comes back. At first, I thought that was a great idea, but the more I think about it, the more I really dislike that option. All it will do is get me hyped on C&C, and then I’ll be disappointed when I switch over to PF. And then I feel like I have to tiptoe around Player B and that kind of pisses me off.

So, for those who've read this very long discourse, I thank you very much. For those who offer me some advice, I thank you even more. I’d love to hear what you all think of my predicament.

Anyone who refuses to play a RPG because they can't maximize their cheatvantage is not a gamer. Dump that serleran and get real people to play at the table.

I always run the rules set I want to run. If that means I lose players, so be it. I have to be happy behind the screen to run a good game anyways. I am NOT there to be their RPG slave. So I'd say "Goodbye Gamer B, and A too." if that is their decision. If your really friends, you will still be friends.

So put it to them that way. Tell them, if they want you to be the DM, then they have to play what you want to run. Otherwise, they better step up and run the games they like. You are not their RPG slave any more than they are yours. No one should be forced to do anything. Which is precisely what your one player is doing. "Run what I want or I quit." Since I have raised all the children I want to in my life time, personally I'd tell that player, "In that case, good bye." Assuming he can't handle running games he likes for the rest of you.

Then the other player is going to have to decide what is more important to him, playing with the group, or with that one friend. If it is the friendship that matters, it should be maintainable outside of the game anyways. Then just be patient and look for and wait for new gamers to join your group. It may take months, but when you get that right player, it will be worth the wait.

If you are done with 3.5 - well, Pathfinder is really just more of the same, so I don't think you're going to get any relief there. Which means you're going to be an unhappy GM, and when the GM ain't happy, then nobody's happy.

A couple of thoughts on how to proceed. First, you could try a completely different system that's neither C&C nor Pathfinder. In the fantasy genre, something like Dragon Age or Song of Ice and Fire RP might fit. You could also try a completely different genre - say, pulp action using Hollow Earth Expeditions or Amazing Adventures. (The latter has the advantage of being a SIEGE game, so it can subliminally condition your players for when you eventually run C&C.) Run a short arc, or perhaps a series of loosely-linked adventures, letting everyone know this is a palate-cleanser, and that you'll be doing something else (TBD) after that.

You could - and probably should - have a candid discussion with Player B and tell him that you're simply done with the overtly-tactical style of game, at least for now, and the person who has to do the lion's share of the work, this is your call. Tell him that you want to continue gaming with him, but that he needs to adapt a bit. Ask him for suggestions other than Pathfinder or 3.5 that he might find enjoyable.

You might also want to explore something I've encountered with some folks I know around here. In their case, the tactical aspect is only one factor; their deal is that they really want to feel "Heroic". They want their PCs to feel like they are exceptional beings. This doesn't mean they don't want to be challenged - but it does mean that they don't like to be 3rd level and still having trouble hitting a vanilla orc. This can be addressed by running a somewhat more high-powered game.

But if he sticks with "my way or the highway", well - that's his choice. While it is a GM's job to make the game fun for everyone, that "everyone" includes the GM. It's OK for you to say "I'm sorry to see you go, but what you want and what I want are in two different places, and if you're not willing to give this a shot, then I hope you find what you want elsewhere."

CKDad wrote:If you are done with 3.5 - well, Pathfinder is really just more of the same, so I don't think you're going to get any relief there. Which means you're going to be an unhappy GM, and when the GM ain't happy, then nobody's happy.

A couple of thoughts on how to proceed. First, you could try a completely different system that's neither C&C nor Pathfinder. In the fantasy genre, something like Dragon Age or Song of Ice and Fire RP might fit. You could also try a completely different genre - say, pulp action using Hollow Earth Expeditions or Amazing Adventures. (The latter has the advantage of being a SIEGE game, so it can subliminally condition your players for when you eventually run C&C.) Run a short arc, or perhaps a series of loosely-linked adventures, letting everyone know this is a palate-cleanser, and that you'll be doing something else (TBD) after that.

You could - and probably should - have a candid discussion with Player B and tell him that you're simply done with the overtly-tactical style of game, at least for now, and the person who has to do the lion's share of the work, this is your call. Tell him that you want to continue gaming with him, but that he needs to adapt a bit. Ask him for suggestions other than Pathfinder or 3.5 that he might find enjoyable.

You might also want to explore something I've encountered with some folks I know around here. In their case, the tactical aspect is only one factor; their deal is that they really want to feel "Heroic". They want their PCs to feel like they are exceptional beings. This doesn't mean they don't want to be challenged - but it does mean that they don't like to be 3rd level and still having trouble hitting a vanilla orc. This can be addressed by running a somewhat more high-powered game.

But if he sticks with "my way or the highway", well - that's his choice. While it is a GM's job to make the game fun for everyone, that "everyone" includes the GM. It's OK for you to say "I'm sorry to see you go, but what you want and what I want are in two different places, and if you're not willing to give this a shot, then I hope you find what you want elsewhere."

You say things so much nicer than I do.

Lord D,

Why not do something that could be a win/win for everyone. Let everyone know that you're going to be running a Castles & Crusades game BUT, that it will be a FLAILSNAIL compatable game. Meaning that if a Player wants to roll up a Pathfinder character or a Lamenations of the Flame Princess character, all will be welcome and they'll be able to use their abilities and such, but the over-arching rules will be C&C.

That way, Player B will still get to have all the tactical and character optimization that he wants and you'll be able to run things like you want

TheMetal1 wrote:Lord D,

Why not do something that could be a win/win for everyone. Let everyone know that you're going to be running a Castles & Crusades game BUT, that it will be a FLAILSNAIL compatable game. Meaning that if a Player wants to roll up a Pathfinder character or a Lamenations of the Flame Princess character, all will be welcome and they'll be able to use their abilities and such, but the over-arching rules will be C&C.

That way, Player B will still get to have all the tactical and character optimization that he wants and you'll be able to run things like you want

True, that is very do able in C&C. I'd still limit him to only the Core book, though. Its having to keep those thousands of Feats, Spells, PrC's, etc... in mind that makes 3E/PF so draining. So keeping it to the core rule book would be much more manageable and far less draining.

Definitely a potential compromise.

For me it's more important WHO I play with, rather than which game I play.

Lord Dynel,

If you're done with 3.5 then be done with it and Pathfinder since they're pretty much the same. You should also have fun in the group. Player A said he's willing to give C&C a whirl and your other players are game so if Player B wants to throw ultimatums (which, if he were such a good friend, he shouldn't do) then let him walk the talk. Besides, with a baby on the way, Player B may not have as much free time for gaming...

Have fun running C&C!

The market is always right.

GM's are in demand far more than players, in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine from reading your posts on this forum that no matter what you ran, it would be fun...

Ancalagon wrote:Lord Dynel,

... . Besides, with a baby on the way, Player B may not have as much free time for gaming...

Have fun running C&C!

Rgr on that. A new little one takes up ALL free time and time that isn't free

Like others have said, it should be fun for all at the table including the DM. If you are burnt out from rules heavy games, then you won't have fun in another rules heavy game.

so if Player B wants to throw ultimatums (which, if he were such a good friend, he shouldn't do) then let him walk the talk

Rgr on that. If he wants a game you don't want to run, he can run it and let you play.

I can imagine from reading your posts on this forum that no matter what you ran, it would be fun...

Rgr on that!

Either way, enjoy the game and being around a table of friends!

I don't think you need any advice, you know what you need to do

I will say that 3 players + 1 DM is probably a sweet spot. Games are fast paced and fun, all of my son's favorite games if been 2 or 3 players. Once you've started the new game the odds are are that if Player A & B want to actually game they will be back. If they are not, 3 main characters plus henchmen/hirelings/animals makes for party

-Mike

Having a similar situation twice in the past. Here is what I recommend:

1) Run a short C&C campaign, without them. Just a few months long. Invite them to it, let them reject it.
2) Play the game without them and have fun.
3) Invite them to the next non-3.5/Pathfinder game and try to suppress the grins when they are surprisingly interested.

Thanks for all the replies, guys! I've been watching this thread, but I haven't replied until now, as I was reading all the replies and contemplating them. Thanks again for the responses - they've been very insightful!

In the end, I think it comes down to me - the GM - being happy. If I'm not happy, then I think it equates to the cracked foundation of a building. It'll be fine for a while, but in the end, it'll fall down horribly around us all.

I have to do some thinking. I'm not terribly opposed to giving them..or him, rather...a Pathfinder game. But before that happens, I really want to get some serious C&C time in. Then, when I've got my fill of C&C I'd be more willing to run Pathfinder. Hopefully by then, though, maybe they won't want PF.

I talked to Player B today and he seemed a bit more sympathetic to my desire to run C&C. Maybe he's coming around. His one poignant comment today was, "hey man, I don't mean to be the rock and the hard place, I just don't want to start complaining after three sessions that I don't like it." Maybe he's just trying to sound sympathetic, kind of reverse psychology. I don't know. My reply was that before (4 years ago) there weren't as many options as there are now, with the CKG (advantages, combat maneuvers, etc) that he may be surprised with the outcome. That, coupled with the fact they didn't know jack about the system (and didn't care much to learn) and I can honestly see why those fateful few sessions turned out the way they did.

Anyway, I don't want to say anything about a future PF game, because I don't it to sound like C&C's on a timer. I'm going to keep prepping the new campaign for PF, but also for C&C. The dual-system campaign sounds interesting, too. Maybe as a last resort, if I really want to keep Player B in the end.

Use my house rules on SIEGE checks to do Feat like actions. In the end its far better than 3E or Pathfinder, because you don't need to wait until level "X, Y, or Z" to do something, you can attempt it at any time. Just roll. Plus I even let them permanently earn it after 25 successful attempts as a "Signature Move".

You can always C&C-ize anything. The reverse... too much damn time. If they want a PF game, make them do it. Once a game becomes an occupation, it's time to get back to the hobby.

CKDad wrote:If you are done with 3.5 - well, Pathfinder is really just more of the same, so I don't think you're going to get any relief there. Which means you're going to be an unhappy GM, and when the GM ain't happy, then nobody's happy.

A couple of thoughts on how to proceed. First, you could try a completely different system that's neither C&C nor Pathfinder. In the fantasy genre, something like Dragon Age or Song of Ice and Fire RP might fit. You could also try a completely different genre - say, pulp action using Hollow Earth Expeditions or Amazing Adventures. (The latter has the advantage of being a SIEGE game, so it can subliminally condition your players for when you eventually run C&C.) Run a short arc, or perhaps a series of loosely-linked adventures, letting everyone know this is a palate-cleanser, and that you'll be doing something else (TBD) after that.

You could - and probably should - have a candid discussion with Player B and tell him that you're simply done with the overtly-tactical style of game, at least for now, and the person who has to do the lion's share of the work, this is your call. Tell him that you want to continue gaming with him, but that he needs to adapt a bit. Ask him for suggestions other than Pathfinder or 3.5 that he might find enjoyable.

You might also want to explore something I've encountered with some folks I know around here. In their case, the tactical aspect is only one factor; their deal is that they really want to feel "Heroic". They want their PCs to feel like they are exceptional beings. This doesn't mean they don't want to be challenged - but it does mean that they don't like to be 3rd level and still having trouble hitting a vanilla orc. This can be addressed by running a somewhat more high-powered game.

But if he sticks with "my way or the highway", well - that's his choice. While it is a GM's job to make the game fun for everyone, that "everyone" includes the GM. It's OK for you to say "I'm sorry to see you go, but what you want and what I want are in two different places, and if you're not willing to give this a shot, then I hope you find what you want elsewhere."

Yes.

Treebore wrote:You say things so much nicer than I do.

Sure does. :p

R-

Lord Dynel wrote:“Player B” will have to break in December for the birth of his baby, in which he hopes to be back sometime in January.

I took a break from face-to-face gaming right before my daughter was born. That was almost three years ago. I realize not everyone's situation is the same, but children are a full time gig. He might not be back as soon as he thinks. Now, excuse me while I go change a diaper.

DeadReborn wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote:“Player B” will have to break in December for the birth of his baby, in which he hopes to be back sometime in January.

I took a break from face-to-face gaming right before my daughter was born. That was almost three years ago. I realize not everyone's situation is the same, but children are a full time gig. He might not be back as soon as he thinks. Now, excuse me while I go change a diaper.

Well, that's true.

I have three kids, and I was lucky to get back into gaming relatively quickly. I took a few months off each time (I think 6 was the most, but the other two times it was 2-3 months). I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he took more like 2-3 months off, or more I'm sure my decision to run C&C will have a direct impact on the amount of "maternity leave" he decides to take.

Lord D,

Rather timely thread, as I am now in a similar situation. I was at work this weekend and while giving a brief I mentioned that I played D&D and was gamer. It got a few laughs, but afterwards, one of the guys was totally stoked that I played and now wants to get a game going. We had a good talk and is totally down for a game and knows several others that will play. As we talked he explained He's a big Pathfinder player and not into dungeon crawls.

Now my preference would be to run C&C or Swords & Wizardry, specifically I'd love to run Rappan Athuk. Now don't get me wrong, I like Pathfinder have a bunch of stuff for, but most of my gaming with it has been on Fantasy Grounds II virtual table top as a GM while running a Kingmaker Campaign. It was a little...well...tedious to run. It was fun, but a combat slowed things way down along with slow downs to look up rules. Now perhaps things might be different face to face with others who know the rules. But I don't know. Anyway, I had picked up the Rise of the Runelords anniversary edition and showed it to him, and he really wants to play something like that as it's not just simply a Dungeon crawl.

So now, I'm kind of torn. I'm more than willing to run it and get a face to face game going and Rise of the Runelords would be fun. Just finished up reading the first adventure in it and I know it will play out very well. Since Rappan Athuk is probably out (at least at this point. I will pick up the S&W version first - perhaps, in time, I'll pick up the Pathfinder version, but who knows)

My heart is leaning towards sharing the Crusade and having the journey begin with A0. Maybe I should just take my own advice and run a FLAILSNAIL Game.

It takes a long time, but try to run convention games and/or on shots with your friends. Give them the opportunity to see how fun C&C can be. Slowly, as these other games become passe' C&C will be played at your table more often than not.

If you can't wait that long, sometimes you just have to move on without your friend. Start up a new game, with new people or whomever is going to stay. Eventually, your friend will join you at your table.

~O

Have you considered a series of one shot games of various games?
Like, play a 1 night session of Savage worlds (which might balance tactical guy with RP people) and a 1 shot of X-plorers, and then a 1 shot of C&C, then a 1 shot of DCC, a day of kobolds ate my baby (all hail king Torg!)... use all the free Quickstarts if you need. This might just shake up people's preconceptions and introduce the joy of non-tactical play to tactical guy, and get the non tachs into some hard strategy also.

or something.

you could also try this: get a stack of games and roll for who will DM next.... I dunno, just thinking out loud.

Thanks again for all the responses. I think I'm going to start with C&C. While I agree that if the "GM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy," ( ) I think that the pendulum swinging all the way the other direction - me saying, "this is what I'm running, deal with it!" - might be a little unfair also.

So, after all the fantastic advice, I think I've figured out what I want to do. I am, indeed, going to start with C&C. Out of my 5 players, only two have experience with it. One of them is the infamous Player B (the other is the guy who's pretty much down for anything). I figure that I want to see what the overall player response with C&C is going to be. As fantastic as C&C is, I know I don't live in a vacuum. While I love C&C, not everyone is going to receive it as well as I do. If the player reaction is mostly favorable, then I'm going to stick with it and we'll continue down the C&C path. If we lose one, even two, players because of that...then so be it. If it's not well liked then I will reconsider my stance on continuing with C&C. Maybe I'll allow them to convert their character's directly over to PF, or whatever game I settle on.

This decision comes from who I am. I'm not someone who's going to push a game down everyone's throat without consideration of how everyone feels. But neither am I going to be forced into running something I don't want to by another player at the table. Maybe it's a fault, but I'm not happy unless my players are and I can't be uncaring or unfeeling of the table as a whole. If I lose one or two, I can dismiss that a difference of opinion or whatnot. If C&C is generally disliked by the whole (sacrilege!) the I'm not stubborn enough to say "oh well, suck it up" - I'm more than willing to reexamine the game of choice and consider changing it to make the players, as a group (and not one individual!), happier.

Thanks again, all. I appreciate all your input!

Whatever works for you & your group. If people are rolling dice and having fun, it's all good.

I had a similar situation with my 4E group that I was running for. We were having a blast. Even the Pathfinder guy who initially refused to play 4E. In fact, he probably ended up loving it most of all. (He's also into tactics and 4E tactical rules are light years ahead of anything in PF). Anyway, I was kind of getting tired of running 4E, having run it for 2 weekly groups for over 2 years. I had wanted desperately to run a long term C&C campaign but people were having too much fun in 4E to consider a change. Well, I was actually the one to have the child arrive (our third) and needed to take a break. It ended up being about 5 months. After that, I said I was able to play regularly but just didn't have the time to prep and run for a while longer yet. The Pathfinder guy offered to run PF (at my urging since I was wanting to play it and never really had). So we did a mini campaign in pathfinder and it was not particularly fun. Everyone was ready to be done with Pathfinder after just a couple of months. I kept trying to pitch C&C but nobody seemed to be interested. They really just wanted to get back to our 4E game. But I kept working them. After the bad PF experience, they were really wanting me back running. I said that I wanted to do C&C because prep time was absolute minimum and they pretty much agreed to anything to get me back. Now we're several months into a great C&C campaign. We may eventually go back to 4E because those characters were kind of left with some important stories to finish, but otherwise, we're all loving C&C. It's taken some time to get everyone used to the idea that they can attempt whatever they can imagine but it's been great fun making the journey.

I really hope your table works out. I know exactly what it's like to have players be closed minded about certain games. Tons of people hate on 4E for the same reasons. But it can be just as fun as any game if people are willing to give it a try and take some time to learn how to enjoy it. In fact, 4E has a lot in common conceptually with C&C in that it's very easy to run. Rules are super simple, consistent, and easy to remember. Prep time is pretty low. It works well as a rules light game, is very easy to wing it, and leaves alot to the players to decide how/what they do. In a different world, I would suggest giving it a try with your group, but I'd rather not suffer the responses that tend to be filled with pitch forks and torches.

Hehe, you'll get no pitch forks or torches from me. I don't particularly care for 4e, but that's my opinion. I don't take any issue with those who enjoy it. As CKDad said, as long as you're rolling dice, it's all good!

It's interesting to hear others have had similar issues. I know C&C isn't mainstream (yet) and I guess this is probably more common with less popular games. Since games like D&D or Pathfinder are more popular, they seem to be the games that are played more often. Since they're played more often, they're more familiar. Being more familiar, people are sometimes loathe to try something new, to get out of their comfort zone. It's interesting to me because it's surprising my players aren't more willing to spread their wings and try something different. Well, I guess I can't say all my players. I guess we'll see!

Lord Dynel wrote:Hehe, you'll get no pitch forks or torches from me. I don't particularly care for 4e, but that's my opinion. I don't take any issue with those who enjoy it. As CKDad said, as long as you're rolling dice, it's all good!

It's interesting to hear others have had similar issues. I know C&C isn't mainstream (yet) and I guess this is probably more common with less popular games. Since games like D&D or Pathfinder are more popular, they seem to be the games that are played more often. Since they're played more often, they're more familiar. Being more familiar, people are sometimes loathe to try something new, to get out of their comfort zone. It's interesting to me because it's surprising my players aren't more willing to spread their wings and try something different. Well, I guess I can't say all my players. I guess we'll see!

I've had similar problems getting players to play anything other than D&D. I had them refuse to play Shadowrun, Traveller, just name it, if it wasn't D&D, at least one player had an issue with it. Fortunately, for them, these were all when I was playing in player rich environments, so when I told them I was running it and they were welcome back when I returned to D&D, I knew they would find another game to play in during the mean time. I usually had more players than I wanted anyways, usually 8 to 10, so losing one or two didn't exactly bother me.


I am really lucky with my current face to face players, their willing to play anything, and in fact, when they tried Pathfinder and 4E, while they liked it, they much preferred the other RPG's we play, such as C&C.

On line, I hunt for players who want to play RPG X, Y, or Z, so naturally I do not have that problem on line. Even my 5 year old group is open to playing other RPG's for short periods of time, so I have even ran Savage Worlds Solomon Kane and Traveller with them. For a few years I was even in a Thursday group where we played a different RPG every 6 weeks or so.

So the only way I would even sweat your situation is if I was not in a player rich environment. Which I am assuming you are in. Not a lot of players to be had.

mbeacom wrote: In a different world, I would suggest giving it a try with your group, but I'd rather not suffer the responses that tend to be filled with pitch forks and torches.

I, along with several other board members around here, played 4E for months. Long enough to get through several of the modules they published. Ultimately we decided that, while we had fun playing 4E, going back to C&C would be a lot more fun, so thats what we did. I also went to several of those WOTC sponsored games at an LGS that is about an hour from me.

So yeah, I agree you can have a good time while playing 4E, but I prefer having the most enjoyable time possible, and that is why we just went back to C&C. For whatever reason, I enjoy C&C far more than any other version of D&D. Whether I am running the game, with my house rules, or playing under nwelte, Rigon, Rhuvein, Kayolan, or anyone I play with face to face. I can't say that about other versions of D&D, or any other RPG, really. I've only enjoyed Shadowrun under 1 DM. I only enjoy L5R with my daughter as the GM, or me running it. I've only ran Traveller over the last 20 years, so don't know of any GM, outside of Conventions, who I'd enjoy playing under.

So one of the unique things I have noted, for me, about C&C is that I have yet to find a CK that I can't have a good time playing under.

Treebore wrote:So the only way I would even sweat your situation is if I was not in a player rich environment. Which I am assuming you are in. Not a lot of players to be had.

They're around, Tree, they're just not thick, hanging around the FLGS waiting for a GM to drive up and invite them to a game. I like my current table, as the core has been gaming together for the last 6 years or so (3 of my 5). My wife, I've gamed with since we've been married, probably 5 of our 10 years. I only have one player (my wife's female friend) and she's already been here two years. It's a good mix of personalities and play types. I tend to try to hang on to ones who've been around and ones I deem assets to the my table, of which all of them are (yes, even Player B ).

I don't want any more than 5 players...maybe 6 in a game with lighter rules. I've handled 13 on a regular basis in the past, but it's not something I ever want to do again. I've found, for me, that 5 is a nice number - not too many, not too few. Allows for a good mix of classes and provides a good number for roleplaying rapport (in my opinion).

So, while there are a few players I could recruit to replace ones that might find my next game not to their liking, I would probably just play with a reduced number (3 or 4, depending on who leaves) rather than try to replace ones who depart. The reasons are twofold - it doesn't upset the rapport that exists among the existing players (by introducing a new player to the mix) and it would allow those who leave to reconsider and have an open spot for return. I don't want to sound like an elitist, as I have no problems with adding new players to my table. I guess I'd leave the spots empty as an unspoken message to the players that have left, saying, "no hard feelings, guys, come back when you're ready," and not feel like they can't return.

I can understand that. I do usually keep a core, like 4 out of my 7 Monday players have been there since day one, the rest have been with us for over 2 years now, and in one case over 3. Actually, 2 of the 3 I think are actually over 3 years now. So I understand how nice it is to have a nice solid group that gets along well. Even though the Tuesday group I play in hasn't been playing for more than 30 sessions, all but one of us have been playing together on and off for 4+ years, and Lord Seurek and I first played together about 6 years ago.

Still, while that continuity is great to have, its also good to look for new players, bring in new play styles and perspectives. Of course the problem with that is you usually have at least 1 failure before you have a success, so it can disrupt things a bit until the good ones are found. Or you may get lucky and get one or two new players right off the bat. Hard to say, and still a difficult decision to decide to do.

Either way, I am sure you will end up with good results, however you decide to do it.