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.
).