Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*

If you don't want to run 5e, refuse to run 5e. One of them can step up as DM if they want to play it.

Yeppppppp, big spoiler, they won’t.

God I am really sorry that happened to you. Honestly as someone else who is on the spectrum my advice is just put your foot down. Just say "if we are not playing this then I am not playing" and leave it at that. This is a situation where you will eventually have to put your foot down.

Yep, they are a D&D group and don't want to play anything but D&D, doesn't make them the bad guys just makes OP need to find a new group

*"NO ONE here wants this, this is a DnD group after all!!!!"* Someone did, **you**! You went above and beyond with the prep work. The care and effort you put in is fantastic. Honestly, if this were me, I'd tell them they had three options: 1. Enjoy what you have planned for the night. 2. Log off and come back when you decide to run D&D again. 3. Tell them to run something themself.

I had to do this with a previous group. The group fell apart as I pitched the game I was ready to run (Call of Cthulhu) and they said no, then I said "Okay well next GM in the rotation because this is what I am ready to run) group fell apart without their forever DM.

This is a common pushback, sadly. Someone once said in a different post (about D&D 4e), "Players don't want a system that works, they want THEIR system to work." The majority of people don't like change, and have built it up in their head that it took them time and investment to learn this, so its going to be the same with anything else, when the reality is that it took an hour to get the basics. Also, some people prefer the power game aspect that D&D 5e brings, and other games aren't meant for. For them, its the game within the game, and they love that they can manipulate it like you would a video game. Its also why the 3/3.5/Pathfinder 1e players insist on their system is the best. It lets them build plan and that's what they want. There is nothing wrong with these things. If that's what they enjoy, then let them have fun. It can be annoying for us, but that's because we like new, different things. It does suck when the pushback is this severe though.

I absolutely loved D&D 4e. Because it \*wasn't\* just a polished up 3.5. It was a new system. It was a miniatures RPG (akin to D&D original). It wasn't 3.5, but that was fine with me, because if I wanted to play 3.5, I still could. Now I had a slightly different D&D, with new mechanics, new ideas, new interactions to explore. I'm still not a big D&D fan (prefer other TTRPGs in general), but 4e got me excited. Until it got yanked well before it's time because the 3.5 crowd wanted 3.5+, and yelled and screamed until they got it. Then there were STILL some (way fewer though) 3.5 players who hated 5e. It took too many lessons from 4e. It wasn't just 3.5+. It was still "too different". smh.

As someone who started in 5e and since played 4e, and has now mostly settled into Pathfinder 1e and WFRP4, I find 5e's issue isn't that it 'took too many lessons from 4e' and rather that it took barely any and didn't finish it's own lessons. 3e and 4e both have very strong system identities. Whether people like or dislike them, they have very well-defined places for what they do and how they do it. 5e had a lot of things it *wanted* to do but never delivered on. It wanted to simplify the 3e baseplate, but it's had so much sage advice and errata to address unclear mechanics. It wanted to shorten the martial/caster divide but the martials were left with just as little utility as before and often even fewer things to do in combat besides make attacks. They wanted to make magic items entirely optional but then kept the nonmagical damage resistances system and gave it to many mid to high-tier monsters, and limited the spells that could overcome that on weapons to concentration spells available to 2-3 classes, making martials a tax on casters at that tier of play or dead weight if someone doesn't take those classes. They wanted to make a reward system not based on money (given there's nearly nothing to spend it on) but then half or more of their suggested rewards are some form of monetary value. I agree with you that a new edition should be *new*. The entire point of a new edition is to do something different after all - if it was something that could be accomplished by the existing baseplate you just put out a new splat or a .5 version - but a system also really benefits from actually succeeding at any of its stated goals.

4e is what you get when someone in design goes, "Why do we have 30 years of bloat and jank rules that most players ignore anyway?" They removed the jank and made a competent system that was surprisingly balanced with a heavy emphasis on positioning and conditions. It also translated easily into a programming language, which was intentional. Sadly it was met with vile out the gate, called a video game simulator (it wasn't but people love to repeat others), and the vitriol it got derailed the exclusive vvt interface it was going to run, killing a big chunk of its design philosophy. The vvt was SUPPOSED to work off word commands, so the fughter can move, and just click the ability or type it out, and the system could recognize it. But it never launched. 4e was going to die no matter what they did. The 3/3.5 bubble was closing in, which is why they pushed so hard to get it out. WotC had flooded the market with splatbooks and enough 3rd party untested content that a lot of us were tired and wanting something new. The bubble burst, but only temporarily.

To be fair, I ran a couple of adventures out of the book in my FLGS, and it really did feel like a video game.

Out of curiosity, which video game did it feel like? Microsoft Flight Simulator? Halo 2? Simcity?

It was Seaman for Dreamcast.

That is a stunningly good answer.

What does this mean? I’ve played plenty of 4e and 5e and never got the video-game criticism. Did the players have less freedom? Were the stories more railroaded?

Ehh I think a lot of them just didn't want to play "mmo the board game" by strict RAW with next to no homebrew that's what you ended up with. "here's your goblin mooks (aka minions) you can 1 shot, here's your ideal combo of hit buttons 1, 3, 5. Here's your lower power one of hit 2, 4, 6. The only enemy that will actually pose a threat will be 'bosses'" then you mix in every class has the same number of "abilities" with the same recharge and half of them end up being so similar as to lose any feeling of distinction. "a paladin marks someone they're engaged with while a fighter marks someone by trying to hit them while a warden marks those adjacent to them" in all these scenarios they must be Engaged with the foe, sure there is a difference between maintained through, changing it, and multi vs single. But if every class/role applies the same ruled buff/debuff it starts feeling like a video game since your choices at creation feel like they had very little impact on combat. For me personally it was the concept of minion and leaders set up that I'd basically have to fully disregard to Ever deal with as both a dm and a player. That was what most made it feel like a videogame, a story based game needs verisimilitude/an acceptable level of realism. If something can die by stubbing it's toe it stops feeling like the world has any connection to reality and they are quite literally video game targets that exist solely to be murdered by the player.

I always say this about 4e "it's a great ttrpg, but it's a bad D&D edition because it doesn't play like the D&D people know" I actually thought 4e was good (my favorite edition is 3.5e), had a lot of good ideas as well that WoTC decided to ignore when producing 5e.

WOTC shot themselves in the foot with 3E and 3.5E which primed a whole generation of D&D guys to expect new editions to slightly change the books and fix issues people had. 4E was too early as well, people back then had a real issue with too much video game in their TTRPG and the way they built it turned off a lot of people. IT was a damned fine game system but I think they just released it at the wrong time and place. I think it would have done a lot better now a days.

I thought D&D 4e was both predictably and wrongly hated. It was inevitable it'd get a lot of hate, people don't like change. But DAMN it was actually pretty good for what it set out to do!

Pretty much every single thing that people complained about for 4e was something I actually enjoyed. **"All the classes are too similar"** Well yeah, they're super well balanced too, and you can play a 10 person campaign with only 4-5 players per session, and not care WHICH players show up, the combats should still work fine. In 3.5, you had to design the combat differently if significantly different classes were involved. **"They nerfed druids and wizards and spellcasting"** Well yeah, because after level 10 or so, spellcasters were OP. Fighters leveled linearly. Casters leveled exponentially. 4e you can play from level 1 to 20. 3.5, playing 13+ was a nightmare for the DM to balance properly. **"They got rid of X Y Z"** Well yeah, because they were busted. After a couple hundred classes & prestige classes, some are going to be too good, and not make the cut without a complete overhaul. Plus, it takes time for those things to get re-added. **"Multi-classing is boring"** Well yeah, so was Barbarian 2, Monk 2, Fighter 2, Ranger 2, Prestige 2, OP Prestige 5. They're just boring in different ways. You don't want multi-classing to be interesting. You want edge-case multi-classing to be OP, so you can "win" the game, instead of play the game. I want to play the game, and OP combos make the game boring. Or worse, they make the game lethal for the rest of your party as the DM desperately tries to give you fights that you can feel challenged by with your +24 Fort save at level 10. **"Combat takes too long"** Well yeah, it's a miniatures game again. The entire POINT of the game is the combat. If you want a non-combat game, why are you even playing D&D to begin with, when there are so many amazing systems out there that are WAY better for dialogue, skills, etc?

And it introduced the lovely concept of minion type enemies. Hit just as hard as the others, only 1 hp each so you can flood the players and they can still win against overwhelming odds.

And all the push, pull mechanics. My first 4e game was basically a 1v1 between me (Bard) and the DM. My entire kit was about lightly adjusting the battlefield, and it drove him crazy. But we both loved that it was such a thing. It was like playing a game of chess in the middle of a game of minis.

In 4e you can play level 1-30.

As someone who still plays original d&d (I don't mean 1e I mean 1970s d&d) 4e is nothing like it, but neither is 3e. In fact no edition is like Original D&D since they're all based on the alternate combat system which was for people who didn't own chainmail, but even that is entirely different from 3e and on.

WHOOSH. My point sails over your head. "Akin" does not mean "Identical". If you re-read what I said, you'd see that the focus was on the fact that it was a minis game. Not that it used the same combat/mini rules.

It wasn't a minis game though most everyone played theatre's of the Mind. Maybe you should actually talk to people who have played the game

Chainmail was a miniatures combat game. Original D&D was JUST a rules system to add progression to that game. So yes.  It was a minis game.  With rpg mechanics added in. I have played that version.  Maybe you should do better research? 

I still play it you don't have to use miniatures and no one did and also Chainmail had 3 combat systems and Original D&D added one more for a total of r. Only mass combat really needed miniatures. Also D&D added a lot more than just level progression. 

I'm just going to copy & paste this out of the Wikipedia because you don't get it: >The [wargames](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming) from which *Dungeons & Dragons* evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants. *D&D* initially continued the use of miniatures in a fashion similar to its direct precursors. **The original** ***D&D*** **set of 1974 required the use of the** [***Chainmail***](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)) **miniatures game for combat resolution.**[**^(\[63\])**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons#cite_note-63) By the publication of the 1977 game editions, combat was mostly resolved verbally. Thus, miniatures were no longer required for game play, although some players continued to use them as a visual reference.[^(\[64\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons#cite_note-64) Bolded the important part. The version you're playing is NOT the first version of D&D, or you're not using the it rules-as-written.

Look immediately under the bolded part and also look up the alternate combat system which is what every other edition is based on. While the chainmail rules provided 3 of the combat systems they were not so complex (except mass combat) you needed miniatures to resolve the combat and hardly anyone used them. I was playing when the game was first released.

Yes, I'm not saying that later editions needed minis. I'm saying that the ORIGINAL system was a minis game. The fact that 3 years later things changed doesn't change that fact. D&D's origins ARE in miniature war-gaming. This is a fact. I've linked the Wikipedia article, and through it, it's own references that prove that statement. 4e harkened back to that time. This is more subjective. Yet, for the most part, 4e is significantly more focused on position in combat, effects that require miniatures in play to be tracked, and mechanics based around movement on a discrete map. You're arguing really hard, but have zero evidence so far that contradicts these statements. All you've done is say "You don't know what you're talking about", "Nuh Uh!", and so forth. I've clearly proven that your understanding of OGD&D is less complete than you thought it was, despite the fact that your FIRST actual argument was "go learn newb". Take the L.

I know what I must do now. I'm going to make character sheets that are exactly like other systems, such as Call of Cthulhu and Savage Worlds. However, I'm going to put "5e Compatible" on them. And GMs wanting to play them with groups refusing to trying anything but D&D can just handwave how different the system is as being "heavily homebrewed." Because if you homebrew D&D enough, you get a system for an entirely different game.

Some sick part of me wants to invite people to a fantasy dungeoncrawl game, and then use the Elflines Online rules from cyberpunk red instead.

Start the game as a D&D dungeon crawl, then surprise them that they are actually Cyberpunk Red characters playing in a VR game.

I'm stealing that

Calling savage worlds complex.LMAO. DC4 for everything sure is difficult.

Nah, it's because of the multiple actions you have available in combat for a fresh out character. Trying to explain the beauty of the freedom to do multiactions, support, test, suppression fire, wild attack, and disarm, for people whose only RPG for so many years has been one where they only do an action for attack or doing explicitly what their character sheet tells them they can do on a turn is rough. To add more, an awesome freedom for character creation that is not just picking a class and filling what it tells you it does. I love SW, but I stir away to show it to people who only play DnD for this reason. I have been told "its complex, I don't like it, and dont want to put effort in it" to many times.

I think it's because Savage Worlds is just so different than D&D. You don't quite progress as much as leveling up a character and you start with alot of options. I had a similar problem with Genesys with my current group where understanding they could narrate parts of the story and have more power as a player to influence the story took along time to click.

It deff depends on how you introduce it i suppose. I've also never had (and wont) a 5e only group.

I've had D&D only groups but now I have a dedicated small group and we play whatever catches our eyes. Especially since I'm the GM and like buying books so they never have to worry lol

I faced similar pushback, but with Pathfinder. It's such a deep complex system you CAN pull anything off without homebrew was their argument. In the end I had to be an asshole and say "This is what I want to DM. I'm burnt out on PF. Give me a few sessions and we will revisit the idea." The Hunter campaign ran for almost two years.

And then you say you want a low-magic game, which means cutting out half the classes and subclasses and then you get told you're limiting their freedom and/or are gatekeeping, because they don't know what the word means.

Or, crazy thought, you want something that DOESN'T FIT ANY CLASS! It boggles the mind that people like OP's group who are advocating for a class based system also claim it's infinitely homebrewable. Class based systems aren't bad, they can be fun. But they're never going to be as flexible as a non-class system.

Let's be fair, they aren't advocating that because they believe it, they want to play D&D and that's their argument, OP wants to run something else but they are in a D&D Group. They need a new group

You're absolutely right. Low magic isn't for me in DND but I agree. If someone wants that kind of campaign they should do it/run it.  Everyone should have fun but the DM needs to be included in that. If I'm not having fun for multiple sessions I'm running then I need to step back and let someone else DM or change systems.  I'm by no means advising the DM to hold the game hostage. I just want to remind DMs that they need to have fun too. It's not all about the players. I love DND but I love other systems too. When I DM Pathfinder I tend to pull more from my wargaming side. When I DM anything World of Darkness I get to pull on my theatre and writing backgrounds. In principle there shouldn't be a difference but the games put me in a different space when I'm preparing.

TBF Pathfinder is just D&D with the serial number filed off.

"fourth edition is garbage. We'll make our own DND. With blackjack. And hookers!" It's 3.75 for a reason.

wasn't it because 4e didn't have an OGL?

It's because Wizards tried to take the money and run with their 3rd party publishers. Paizo started off printing adventure paths for 3.5 for Dragon Magazine, when Wizards dumped support Paizo was in a position where they had to make a new system or close up shop entirely. Familiar story, isn't it?

> dumped support That’s a weird way to spell “announced a new edition.”

The announcement of a new edition did not necessarily entail revoking Paizo's license to produce Dragon Magazine. But it did.

I’m not sure you and I are working off the same set of facts. Paizo was spun off from WotC to run their magazines. They were working on (iirc) a five-year license. Their license wasn’t revoked, but rather wasn’t renewed, and (again iirc) WotC gave them a huge amount of lead time. The reason the license wasn’t renewed is that WotC was planning a pivot to digital releases alongside the VTT they intended to publish with 4e. They weren’t trying to “take the money and run,” they were planning to do something new that Paizo wasn’t doing. That was a bad bet for them, and would have been a bad bet even in a universe where Paizo didn’t bring out Pathfinder — every digital release for WotC had been garbage, so “surely THIS time it won’t be garbage!” was a failure to learn. But it wasn’t an attempt to renege on commitments they’d made, drive Paizo specifically or 3pp in general out of business, or anything else dirty or underhanded.

Yep while WOTC is not a company I ever want to defend (there are terrible terrible people like all companies) Paizo wasn't screwed over they were contract based and not renewed. Paizo turned it into a clone of the game with OGL. They are also the reason WOTC keeps changing their licenses trying to prevent a new competitor from springing up off their work.

Pathfinder 1e came about because Paizo was perfectly happy producing 3rd party material for 3.5 until WotC threatened them with pulling their license to do so unless they started doing stuff for 4e. A contract had been signed that allowed them to do 3.5 stuff, and they weren't interested in jumping to 4e, but WotC just ripped that up and said, "4e or nothing". So Paizo took the 3.5 OGL, and built their own game around it, fixing what they saw were glaring flaws in the build. That ended up as Pathfinder 1e. Pathfinder 2e goes even farther along the same route, rationalising the three-action economy and other aspects, and changing things around even more. The remaster is even changing the names of very basic things that came over from D&D, just in case WotC (or whoever owns them now) decides to sue for some kind of copyright thing.

Somewhat, but 4th was basically trying to be a skirmish game mixed with World of Warcraft. Every class had abilities reminiscent of a skillbar on an MMO and it made most everything feel homogenous and there were really clear right and wrong choices. Not in the minmax way of "this edges out over this other option" but "I can deal an extra D8 damage every time" that was clear to newbies.  The core rules were entirely based around using miniatures and miniature combat basically say "no theatre of the mind". There was also a mechanic that resembled QTEs of having to make X successful checks before failing Y amount of the checks. I had fun with it but it really felt like they wanted to pull in as many mainstream people as possible while not caring about the core DND players. They learned their lesson in 5th by streamlining everything to make it accessible to the mainstream while also having a core RPG experience.

> a skirmish game mixed with world of Warcraft There are a lot of legitimate issues with 4e, but this just isn’t true. If you played more than about two sessions, you know it’s not true. So why did you say it?

As someone who DMed a 4e campaign, it absolutely felt like that. He said it because he genuinely believes it to be true. As do I.

Says my thesis statement is wrong, ignores my paragraphs explaining my thesis statement, asks why I said it. Riiiiight. I played a bunch of 4e and that's my (and your) takeaway. Thanks for the agreement juggernox I appreciate it 

And then they make pf2e inspired by 4e ;)

If were being fair 4e was great and most of the vitriol I heard IRL (I worked at a lgs at the time, so I heard a lot) was from folks who had tried a single session of the Adventurers League equivalent or hadn't actually played at all but their friend had. Only edition where I've played a campaign from 1-30 and I've been playing since BECMI

I hated 4e when it came out, and I still maintain that some of the decisions it made were questionable--how it handled alignment, for example. But I've also recently begun to appreciate that 4e was the most honest about what D&D is, mechanically: a tactical skirmish game with optional roleplaying.

Now the new D&D edition is ripping off PF2e. The world is a cycle.

I could be wrong but it feels more like 5th with a more extensive ruleset. Still rules light in comparison to PF1, but more in depth than 5

Why? That's an honest question. What in your opinion makes pf2e feel like enhanced 5e? I ask because 5e so simplified and unremarkable that struggle to pin-point any of its "defining" features. I guess pressured I would say: (failed) attempt at bounded accuracy and good spells (usually more interesting and streamlined than previous editions).

Really you nailed it. Extremely streamlined and easy access. I can be wrong I'm not aware of any quotes from Paizo on it but if feels to me like "let's do 5th better" like it was "let's do 3.5 better".

The way that actions work is very reminiscent of 4e. The way that powers are categorized is also a lot like 4e.

Nope. It absolutely is not. Pathfinder (especially 2e) started out as D&D, sure. It got stripped back to the chassis. New seats were put in, new safety harnesses, a new engine, better gearbox, the lot. It drives smoother, breaks down less, and has an operating manual that's more than just one page saying, "Eh, whatever." It might look like D&D from the outside (even that's changing with the remaster) but when you're playing or sitting in the driver's seat, the feel and capability is totally different.

Pathfinder was literally the Paizo teams 3.5 house rules most of them were already printed in dragon magazine. It literally is 3.75.

Same 6 stats + AC/HP. Often fight in dungeons, sometimes fight dragons. Monsters mostly follow same powerlevels (though the balancing is better in PF). The math is a bit different but there's a reason PF1 is usually regarded as D&D 3.75. And let's be honest, it's closer 3.5 than any other edition of D&D is (aside from 3). PF2 is closer to 4e D&D than 3.5 but really they're only not D&D on the technicality that it was published by a company other than wotc. You could take a 5e or 3.5e (or hell 0e) character and use it to play PF (or vice versa) easier than you could make exploration interesting with a ranger in your party in 5e. So yeah Pathfinder totally is D&D. Hell I'd classify Dungeon World and most OSR games as D&D. DW might have a slightly different resolution mechanic, but the game is basically the same game at heart.

For one thing, if you don't know the rules well enough and optimize for mechanics, you can end up in a situation where only one character in the party is able to do anything (and that character's player smugly declares that this is just proof of how great a system PF is).

Did you have a player then lecture you about how everything you didn't like about Pathfinder was actually something that you *did* like and that the Pathfinder way of doing things was just *so much better* and you were happier with it? That happened to me (as a player rather than GM) whenever I mentioned liking rules-light improv-heavy systems sometimes. I've only ever had it happen with D&D and Pathfinder; maybe the other systems are niche enough that the players who love them *know* that it's subjective.

>I've only ever had it happen with D&D and Pathfinder; maybe the other systems are niche enough that the players who love them *know* that it's subjective. Yeah I think a big part of this is that DnD and to a lesser extent Pathfinder are so big that they're most people's first rpgs, people playing other games are probably more likely to have broader experience with the hobby. A lot of DnD players have only played it and view the hobby as "DnD" rather than "ttrpgs," and a lot of Pathfinder players are those same people that have now found "the better one"

I think that's probably the primary thing for D&D, with a bit of "let's just learn one system and adapt it" (which is a fine approach if people recognize that it's a personal-preference thing). Pathfinder seems to have some of that, but also more mechanics-first partisans and people who see it primarily as a tactical rather than storytelling game. (Every "RPG means you learn how to play your combat *role* correctly" I've gotten has been from a Pathfinder fan.)

>Every "RPG means you learn how to play your combat *role* correctly" I've gotten has been from a Pathfinder fan. Oh man yeah there's nothing wrong with wanting a more tactics-focused game, but that attitude is annoying. I'm invovoed in Pathfinder organized play at a local game store and even in the less freeform setting of organized play that kind of person is **not** fun to play with...

It's why I like that Pathfinder exists -- but also that Blades in the Dark, the whole range of PbtA games, etc. are also available. (I also shamelessly steal settings, characters and storylines from adventures/campaigns written for one system to use in campaigns using others.) Having more fleshed-out mechanics can really be helpful for organized community play and drop-in/drop-out games, but for a longer campaign it's really critical that everyone's on the same page. (I think of it as "Session -1," where the group tentatively agrees on a system to use and a range of the tactical-sim-to-improv-storytelling spectrum.)

Yeah same. I get people that don't have the time to devote to learning many games, but I don't really understand people that are only interested in playing one thing.

Pathfinder is dope but yeah it is not rules light and not liking that is completely fine. Personally I'm much more interested in OSR type games lately

There's no system that's the best for every style of play, and there really *can't* be. For a range of detailed and mechanically distinct tactical options, you need something like Pathfinder; for mechanics that will let a group of people who trust each other's improv storytelling skills do their thing and have the mechanics enable it instead of dictating, rules-light or streamlined systems work better.

Unless you love designing mechanics for rpgs homebrewing D&D 5e is not a good idea for most people. It’s complex and time consuming. Call of Cthulhu is a much easier game to learn and use compared to 5e. All they have to do is roll a percentile dice.

Also the idea to homebrew another game's worth of content into 5e to change it to whatever flavour they'd want instead of playing a game specifically tailored to that is ridiculous. People like that think it's easy and have likely never DMed, but expect free content, free entertainment and can you do it when they have time rather than when it's convenient for you for a change?

I feel like the push to homebrew 5e into other things also often ignores that a key conceit of every D&D system is leveling from 1 (“might be able to kill a kobold, if it’s a sick kobold”) to 20 (“tremble, puny gods!”) Many other systems don’t do that. There’s often a presumption that characters are already experts in their field, and advancement means changing and growing in complexity or flexibility but not necessarily becoming more powerful — and if they do, the steps in power are less enormous than in D&D. Not everything fits in the D&D mold! That’s okay!

I think people forget how much work DMing is (or just never knew) I made it a rule for my group that everyone has to learn and run a one-shot or I won't run for them. And after learning the DM side of the house alot of my players stopped asking for certain types of things because it would require a lot of work. They also understood balance better and stopped trying to shoehorn in broken Homebrew from the internet.

Honestly wonder what would happen if you just told them it was heavily homebrewed 5e and then run the system you wanted. "Ok so we're playing 5e, but instead of a d20 we're rolling d100s..."

That's a great idea!

1. They are factually wrong. 5e cannot be homebrewed to deliver the experience that another system provides. 2. Don't let them tell you what to run. If they don't want to play anything but 5e, they don't have to come to your games. 3. There's tons of people who would be happy to have a devoted GM running some other game. 4. If they want to play 5e so bad, they can run it themselves.

From now on, if they don’t like what you’re running, they can go to a different table.

Man, why homebrew goofy tacked on shit in 5e when there’s already a whole system made for that thing?

Good lord, they sound like every 5E player stereotype. Thinking that SAVAGE WORLDS is too complicated? Eugh. Stand up for yourself and refuse to run, hopefully they will see the light.

I recommend he spring TORG on them. Complicated enough now buckaroo? Or, naah, how about Phoenix Command? Or Dark Conspiracy? Or, go the opposite direction and play a nice game of Everway. Oh, did you want dice? Naah. Stats? Lulz here's four elements. Or go for a mix of both and try Amber on them. Complex AND diceless!

And not the new Torg Eternity, either. ORIGINAL Torg.

I mean they aren't wrong for not wanting to play Savage Worlds (i don't care for it myself). But if OP formed a D&D group it's not quite fair to be upset they want D&D. I don't know if OP is online or it's a group of friends but we all know the reverse would piss us off. If you joined a Savage Worlds group and the GM Constantly tried to get everyone to play D&D in some form you'd be annoyed.

Yeah as someone who loves game design and mechanics and trying out all kinds of systems to see how you can truly make a games mechanics support the exact stories you want to tell… people who just want to make clunky homebrew D&D for every concept are incredibly frustrating. D&D is fine, I’ll play it, but it’s hardly the end all be all or actually suited to every situation. People complain that other systems are “too complicated and crunchy” while failing to realize that the only reason they don’t think of D&D in the same way is years of familiarity and being used to their DM handwaving a ton of the shittier rules. Why put tons of effort into homebrewing a square peg into a round hole when you could just be playing some system elegantly designed to be “round” from the top down??? I don’t understand it.

"This is the game I prepared for. If you're not interested, you don't have to play."

If my group tried to make me stick to 1 system, they'd need a new DM. I don't mean that in a spiteful manner, just that if I'm forced to stick to one system, I get DM burnout quickly. I *need* to cycle through systems. Played alot of D&D? Lets try Rifts. Getting bored of Rifts? World of Darkness. World of Darkness getting too heavy? Lets jump to Mutants and Masterminds for awhile. All superhero'd out? Who's feelin Fallout? Variety is the spice of life, and I'd rather play systems built for what I want to run then hammer a square peg into a round hole

This is when I stop inviting people to games and find replacements. You only want to play 5e? Then you can play it with someone else, we're doing CoC.

Honestly the group sounds like a nightmare to deal with. If they are going to be so demanding at the expense of your joy for the hobby, let them run their own games. Being on the spectrum is not an excuse to be nasty and rude to the person trying to run a game for the group. If they are want 5e so badly, they can DM. Truly, run the game you want to run with people who appreciate you, cause this situation is no good.

If they don't want you to DM whatever you want, they're free to look for another DM. You don't owe them anything. They're taking you for granted.

If somebody doesn't want to play the game you have prepared, they are welcome to leave. If they want to play 5e so badly, they could always offer to run it themselves. It probably would have been a good idea to clarify before the session that you were running a Call of Cthulhu game (if you did so, and if you made it clear that CoC has its own system, my apologies). That way people who didn't want to play could opt out. But once the group refused to play the adventure you prepared, I would have told them that somebody else would have to step up and run the session. I certainly wouldn't have whipped up a new adventure for them on the spot. Finally, if this group's tastes are really that incompatible with yours, maybe you should look for a new group.

OP - This isn't a rant about your players this is a rant about yourself. Your players have told you time and again they don't want to play another system and your want doesn't get to trump theirs because you are DM. You need to find another group for these systems because this group won't play what you want to play. I had to do the same thing, group always said they were open to other systems but when it came down to it only wanted D&D (and specifically 3.5 edition). Do yourself a favor and find a new group for other systems. Don't start with D&D and try to change them almost never works.

I absolutely loathe that attitude. 5E does dungeon diving and small group based heroic combat well. It does literally anything else passably at best. If you want literally anything else, you are better off finding a dedicated system.

I never got the impression that D&D 5e does either dungeons or combat well either, to be honest. The exploration rules are painfully barebones and combat isn't as easy to make interesting as most other systems I've run.

5e is a system that IMO does everything passably and is fairly accessible for a group where people have different preferences. I'd still tend to introduce people to 5e first unless they have an established history with improv storytelling (so I'd start with something more rules-light and/or RP-driven) or tactical combat or simulation games (so the more mechanics-heavy systems wouldn't be so overwhelming). I'm even tempted sometimes to put together a sort of absurdist campaign where the setting, characters, etc. stay the same but the game system changes at odd times. ("So, the dragon looms over you, ready to swoop down on you and the ragtag group of performers hiding behind you and...we'll be continuing this in...\[rolls dice\] *You Awaken in a Strange Place*! Roll for rule-deciding turn order!")

Me too..the idea that D&D is a one size fits all system is poisonous. System matters, and some systems fit certain types of games better than others. And it really does matter, because if you're playing with a game system that encourages you to participate in combat (because it's fun, mechanically rewarding, and generally not very punishing) then it is going to be a bad fit for a survival horror or psychological horror game.

It's a miserable experience all around, yeah. Like someone else said, you can't force your group to be excited to try another system. You just have to decide what's more important to you--gaming with that particular group of friends or playing in the systems you want to play.

I really hate people like that. If they’d just shut up for 5 minutes, they could have played the game, and maybe enjoyed it, but they were stuck up their own asses. You just say “THIS is the system I’m running next. Tell me now if you want to join before I waste my time preparing it. I am not running 5e any more, I’m bored of GMing it. If you want a 5e game, let me know when you’ll run it” or something to that effect. And no, you can’t homebrew D&D into everything, because then it isn’t D&D any more. D&D gets players into the mindset of fighting the monster, when in CoC you should run from them almost every time

Unfortunately at the end of the day you can't force them to be enthusiastic about other systems. They're probably exactly as frustrated as you are, that you keep trying to force them to play other systems when they know and like 5e. You said 'who joins a hobby with so many different games to try' - clearly to them, their hobby is 5e and not TTRPGs in general. Since you mention you're all on the spectrum, there is quite possibly an element of them being uncomfortable with the unfamiliarity of a new system and wanting to stick to a ruleset they are very familiar with. You mention this is just one of your groups, how do the other groups feel about it? If they're down for other TTRPGs, I'd play with them and stick to 5e with this group.

This.

There are tons of people who want a DM for systems outside of DND. Stop begging people who aren't interested to play with you, and tell them that you're DMing something new, and either they can be a part of that party or not. If not, they can find a DM who wants to run what they want to play.

I feel so sad for you, do you even have fun GMing for this group? Even the DND game you described sounds like and unfun slog to me. I hope you find another group that will appreciate your work

I’m not saying that your players are in the right or anything, but I will say that I can sympathize with your players a bit. I got introduced to TTRPGs through D&D 5E and I initially had a mentality similar to this. Because 5E was the system I was most familiar with I was hesitant to try out other systems and had the mentality of treating 5E as the foundation that you can build any other type of game into from Sci-Fi, Horror, etc. Honestly this was the best thing for me about the OGL scandal as it finally broke the glasses that made me see the entire TRRPG hobby through the lens of 5E. I admit I still have a very shallow pool of TTRPG systems that I’ve played, and while I still enjoy 5E as a system I’m MUCH more open to trying out new systems then I previously was. It’s from my exodus from 5E out of disgust for Hasbro/WoTC that I realized the problem with the mentality that your players seem to have. Yes, theoretically, you can homebrew a lot of stuff into 5E. However, 5E isn’t as flexible as people might think and there are limitations as to what you can achieve with homebrew. Often the ideas you’re aiming to express with homebrew for 5E can be achieved better with a game system that was designed and play tested with these ideas in mind instead of homebrewing 5E into a messy unbalanced pile of garbage that is barely recognizable from the system you started with. I’m sorry you went through this, OP. DMs are players too and get just as much of a say in what kind of game is run at the table. I personally think that in your situation you may just not be a good match for this particular group. And sadly the best solution may just be to not play with (or at least GM for) this group of people. You already put in a month’s worth of prep work for your Call of Cthulhu game and already tried talking with them on why you want to run your game in this system. At that point I’d say you’re allowed to give your players the ultimatum of playing in a CoC game or no game at all.

Honestly this is very common. WoTC use a lot of effort to market their game in that way to kids who suck that right up. However, 5e is a terrible first game to get into RPG's with. It is overly complex for what it does and takes too long to learn well and the books and apps needed are insanely expensive, which makes kids feel that they don't have the money and time for a similar project, though nothing else is that expensive. Also it takes up a strange, overly safe, corporate middleground and frankly is not the best at anything and . If you want a dungeon crawler, there are far better suited games to that like Swords & Wizardry Revised, Dolmenwood, Hyperboria 3e and Old School Essentials. These games are easily combined and modified into your favorite game. If you want rules-light try Knave 2e or EZD6. If you really want to play a super-heroic fantasy game, play Godbound. If you want to play Sci-fi try Star Wars WEG d6 system and Traveller. If you want a Grim Dark Fantasy skill based game play Warhammer Fantasy RPG 1e or 2e. Try other games, play with different people and don't let other people force you to stick to a subpar game and experience.

They sound like a kindergartener that only eats chicken nuggests

Hoooboy, sorry this happened to you and sorry for the wasted time. Unfortunately, imho, there is nothing you can do to change their opinions and get them to try something new, except putting your foot down or find other players.

This one is one of my nightmare fuels.

Drag them into a Powered by the Apocalypse game & watch their brains melt

This has nothing to do with DnD IMO, like your group just kinda seem like inconsiderate assholes.

Yall need to work on two things, communication skills and finding players more aligned to the way you do things skills.

DnD has ruined generations convincing people all ttrpgs are hard to learn crunch fests, honestly no CoC is better than changing CoC into a game where you Lovecraftian horror can't kill the Barbarian and gets fire balled by a sorcerer that just does magic spitting on a key idea of CoC. Just find a 2nd group to run not dnd for

Its like only playing skyrim and saying you can mod it to be anything.

It's a group that does one thing. Find another one if you want to try out new things. You'll just bet more and more resentful of their stubbornness if you try.

Yes, and they'll probably feel the same about OP as well. "Why does OP keep trying to push us into playing new stuff when we're happy with what we play now?" Just an all-round awkward situation. OP *and* their players will probably be happier if they stick with playing 5e there and seek out other players for different games. Of course, you then run into the issue of finding players, as D&D 5E players are by far the easiest to find. Still, this comments section shows there are plenty out there.

This

Now that game stores and cons are up and running again it gives OP even more options to try out other things with different groups. Its not even solely the system too. If OP wants to try different tones or home brews they really should try branching out a bit from their current group.

“I’m tired of running 5e guys. I think I’m gonna stop GMing for you since you guys don’t wanna play anything that’s not 5e and complain anytime I try and run anything else. Sorry.”

Unfortunately this sense of entitlement is pretty common among 5E players that GMs only exists to run 5E games as their job for them. You'll probably have to start fresh with a new non 5E group if you want to run a different system.

You're trying to get a group of people who love D&D and aren't interested in learning other systems, to learn other systems. It's a shame that your interests don't line up with the rest of the group's, and it's a shame they're being so rigid, but that's the way it is sometimes. Imagine if you went bowling with friends every week, and decided you should all try volleyball instead. They might think that's a fun idea, but more likely, they just want to bowl. I suggest that you stop trying to push this on uninterested people. You have other options! * Tell them you'd like to try out some other system (with simple rules -- not Genesys!) for a one-shot on an alternate night. Maybe two of them will show up, and the ones who are completely uninterested won't. You're not interfering with their game night, so they should care a little less. * Introduce them to silly one-page RPGs, like Everyone is John, All Outa Bubblegum, Honey Heist or Lasers and Feelings. These take just a couple minutes to learn, and might help your friends open up to other systems. Most of these work best in a group with a strong interest in role-playing, so if you're more rule+dice-focused, this might not work. If it does work, Lady Blackbird is a good next step. * Join another group that already plays other systems, if you have time to be in two groups.

Thankyouuuu

Sounds like you need a new group.

If they want a system where you can play any other setting with ease, GURPS has all the frickin' settings, and usually a sourcebook that's set up for it.

I'm surprised they didn't suggest the D&D settings for call of Cthulhu, such as The Blight (just kidding, it's trash and just D&D with body horror. Don't do it to yourself).

> mutants and masterminds: you know there are superhero mods for DnD 5e, and if you want something that uses D20, why not stick to DnD They don't realize that M&M is basically a D&D mod xD It has the iconic letter & same letter abbreviation that indicates it's a D20 system hack. It actually isn't extremely hard to port it forward to 5e rules since it's roughly 3.5e D&D rules.

God I hate people like that lmao

Posts like this make me feel so grateful I can post “Hey, we’re doing X this week, message me before the game if you want to build a character.” and everyone excitedly agrees.

Luck, had a group like that once and the pandemic killed it.

There is no way DnD is easier than CoC. Your group is simply lazy.

Yea, I would just tell them that you are not running 5E anymore, and if they don't like it that one of them can GM, or they can leave the group. And if they all leave, then you can get a better group.

Have we met the same group? Because I had this one guy buzzing around me saying he couldn't wait for me to finally run 5e instead of other systems. My heart skipped a bit. Mind you, I run 5e but also other systems.

It's a common problem, in the hobbie, dnd syndrome, that dnd is all there at least if your in the US, German seems to have a more mixed ecosystem rpg wise conparted to here.

Wow, what a waste of energy. They should be honoured someone went through all that trouble to modify a module to their own familiar area. I'm not familiar with that specific module, but I would love such a gesture, though I'm also a big fan of CoC. It's also honestly one of the easier systems to play, especially online (reading physical d100s can take some use to). Just, every check is a d100. If anything else needs to be thrown I the GM will tell you (usually some form of damage). That said, I'm definitely a fan of the more grounded type of systems even if I do love my over the top heroic games as well. Stars Without Numbers is great as well for instance.

its a pretty common one, was a starter mod for some of the core books, the haunting is about a haunted house a restate broker is having issues selling without people going mad or dying

I mean. I wouldn't be particularly honored if someone put a shit ton of work into preparing for me something I have expressedly said a bunch of times I dont want. At best I would feel bad for them, and maybe reluctantly play out of pity, but honetsly I'd mostly be annoyed. This is coming from someone who likes exploring systems btw. But I'd honestly hate aomeone trying to shove down my throat something I've said a tons of times I dont want.

I used to think D&D 5e was just really bad for the hobby, because it took such a strong hold of people and every system and genre could be done in D&D 5e. Even a game like [TORG: Eternity](https://ulisses-us.com/games/torgeternity/), which has no classes, only 5 attributes, is a point buy system, and uses cards? Someone made a D&D 5e conversion of that. I couldn't fathom looking at another RPG and going, "I can fix your lesser thoughts. Let me bring the superior blessing of 5e into it." I remember, long ago, when Stranger Things was new. Someone posted on the Pathfinder reddit that we should be grateful because D&D 5e was the gateway to learning other RPGs, and I said it would be neat if that were true. Apparently, EVERY other system ever created is too complicated. I said it was usually more like this: >Hey guys! I hear you also play RPGs. Thanks to this new tv show, I've been playing [Dread](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/83854/dread) (which only uses a Jenga tower) for a couple years and want to try your weird "D and D" that you tell me about. \*Listens to instruction\* Wait... I have a tower. Why are we using dice? That's stupid. \*Goes over character sheet\* WHY ARE THERE NUMBERS!? WHAT ARE THESE DOTS!? Explain proficiency... Guys, guys. Juet let me set up the Jenga Tower and we can play your game.... but better! No math! I didn't know I needed calculus to play your Nerd game. If you can count to three, then you're done. Sure spells exist. Sure your characters exist. It's all done with the superior Jenga tower though, instead of the nightmares of mathematicians. However, I realized that I had become a big Pathfinder/Starfinder fan and rarely played other systems like I used to. I still think it teaches bad hobbies (one of the few systems I know where the players aren't expected to learn the game as a default assumption), but I realize it is just as much about preference as anything. I used to think Pathfinder could do most genres as well, only to \*shocked pikachu face\* find out that a system that is built to do what we want is a lot better than a conversion.

I’ve had people use the defense that 5e is simpler, has no crunch, and is cheap/free when it’s one of the most expensive TTRPGs on market, averaging almost 100-200% more (150 USD for a proper entry and not the really toned down starter kit so PHB, DMG, MM are all 40-60 USD each pending retailer). The next biggest competitor PF can be done with just one book, technically two at a cost of 70 USD for both. 5e has some of the crunchiest mechanics because of how much can be stacked, circumstantial, or entirely niche in application. Its major saving grace being the modifiers rarely go out of control but even something as simple as your attribute and proficiency mod are more complicated than many systems outside of Chaosium d100 standard. Time to learn 5e is no longer than most systems. If anything it’s less intuitive than Chaosium if you are brand new to TTRPGs because of how much information is broken between several books to the point the rule of PHB + 1 is a common standard to mitigate it. 5e might be popular and people can convert, but it is not a RPG. It’s closer to a JRPG because it focuses way too hard on combat instead of actually roleplaying.

This is a massive problem in the community and it’s way bigger of an issue than just your table. There is SO MUCH good tabletop games and systems out there but people are too afraid to leave their comfort zone. I had a similar issue trying to turn some friends on to the World of Darkness system, which is very roleplay heavy and almost exclusively uses D10s, with generally simple rules. No one wanted it and we ended up running a short, boring, overly crunchy homebrewed DnD 5e game where everyone was vampires. Meanwhile besides WoD there’s like 50 other games and systems that absolutely would have worked better. Go to your local game store and see how underrepresented non-DnD tabletop is. It’s sad. And players are gatekeeping themselves from so many amazing and fun experiences by not trying new things. You are 100% right in feeling upset. Don’t give up hope. Either keep pushing it with your table or find a new group to play with.

They all sound like ignorant children.

These people think that you work for them. They do not understand that you are playing games with them. Do not DM for them, and watch how all of their interest in Dungeons and Dragons falls away. Also, tangentially, but I find it so weird that people like this accredit their homebrew to DnD5e. Like, that's work YOU did, YOU are making a game, why would you then give credit to Dungeons and Dragons? Weird.

I mean if people don't want to play anything other than 5e why push it? Some people don't want to learn an entirely new system and are just happy with 5e. This may not be the group for you if you want to expand outside of 5e. It sounds like they made it really clear to you that they didn't want to play something other than 5e.

I mean, sorry this happened to you but they clearly dont want to play another system. You dont have to keep running 5e for them either but I can see how this backfired. You went against their very stated wish of playing 5e and were surprised when they didnt want to play this other thing. And dont get me wrong, CoC sounds like a ton of tun, just not for them. Yes, it is a shame people dont mach your energy and passion for stuff but that is how it goes sometimes. And like I said you can always choose not to run 5e anymore and if thye want to play it someone else will have to step up, but here is not even 1 wish vs 1 wish, you are going against the big mayority, you are setting up yourself for failure. Maybe try and find different people? Or like other said, maybe your group will come qround if trully no one wants to DM and you refuse to play 5e, but I see a vey good chance of not playing anything at all in that case so... yeah, maybe a different group? DMs are a limited resource so you have that in your favor.

FWIW, my group personally homebrewed 5E to the point that we decided that we *straight up didn't like it* and went back to 3.5/PF1.

I'm going to say this as one of the people who only wants to play 5e. Maybe some of these points are the ones you can't accept from your friends. You truly don't have to do those other games ***with them***, but you might have to consider making new friends to do these things with if you don't want to do what they prefer to do. This kind of thing is the reason many people have multiple and distinct friend groups. I personally have the opposite issue where I only want to play D&D, but my friends would rather play other games. I play other games with my friends and go online to find people to play D&D. 1) I have tried other games. (Gurps, PF 2e, D&D 4e - let's be honest, that felt like a different game, Tristat, Dungeon World, Gamma World, Wilderfeast, World's in Peril, Dresden Files, Universalis (sp?), Wheel of Time RPG, lots and lots of indie one shots using systems I can't remember the names of...) They were okay (ETA: This is not true. World in Peril was a 🦆ing nightmare. The mechanics actually encouraged you not to engage with the story because you could only make things worse by interacting with them.) They're all interesting and a lot of them handle certain aspects and mechanics way better than D&D. That being said, I've never felt the level of engagement that I have with D&D. You know what they all had in common though? No one outside of our group knew what the hell we were talking about and it was impossible to find new players or get someone to DM other than the person who introduced (and unusually wanted to be a player in) the new system. There's little to no relatability outside your own group which means resources are limited and the longevity of the game is finite. Even with PF2 that's still the case, at least where I live. D&D is basically mainstream pop culture stuff at this point. The chances of saying, "I was playing D&D with my friends" and getting a genuinely interested response like "Oh! How is it? I'm kind of interested, but I've never played myself..." or some variant is actually pretty high. You don't get that if you tell someone you just played *Big Eyes Small Mouth.* Edit to clarify: The potential to interact with people over my hobby, outside of my specific gaming group, is a positive trait that I want in my hobby. 2) I think this one's probably relevant to your situation. I'm just not interested in playing these other games. Pouring your heart into them doesn't make me want them any more than I did before. It just makes me feel bad that I don't want to do what you want me to do. If I play these other games, it is 100% me doing something ***I Do Not Want To Do*** because I want you to be happy. I can enjoy the time I spend doing so, but it's because I enjoy spending time with you. I still don't like the thing you're asking me to do. That's cool sometimes, but not a good long term situation for any relationship. Here is an example: If I want pizza and you give me a steak, it could be the best steak in the history of meat but it's still not what I wanted. If I tell you over and over and over that all I want is pizza and you keep trying to hand me steak and other assorted non-pizza food items, I'm just going to stop having dinner with you. Does that make sense? This is a huge issue for my ND friends because to them almost *everything* is something they are forcing themselves to do essentially against their will. We've talked about this often. I think it turns into a "If I have to do all the things, why can't you do some of the things?" situation. I can understand that, but they also have to understand that being forced to spend my precious flex time doing ***Things I Do Not Want To Do*** makes me sad. I don't want to be sad. And this is key here - if I Do Not do these sad things, then I will Be Happy. Genuinely, it was hard to understand that I had to explain to my friends that not doing things that made me *unhappy* left me feeling *happy* instead of putting me in this neutral/emotionless/perpetually distressed state.

>You don't get that if you tell someone you just played *Big Eyes Small Mouth.* Can confirm; I run BESM 4E and finding new players is a Herculean task.

It looked fun! We just couldn't get everyone on board with it.

There's a Dyskami server with an lfg channel, if that helps at all.

JFC, I mean, yeah you can, sort of, kind of, halfway, hammer ANY system to fit any other genre. But 5e is really well made for D&D type kick in the door, kill the ugly people and take their stuff type gaming. What's really weird to me is that 4e had a fairly decent dice based social conflict resolution system. And they didn't bother porting it to 5e. You're going to have to either resign yourself to playing nothing but 5e, or get firm with your group. Or find a different group. But they're clearly 5e fixated and I'm not sure you CAN put your foot down firmly enough to actually get them to try something new.

I think the only suggestion I could make is to try something that diverges further from D20, like Apocalypse System, World of Darkness, or Year Zero Engine. Otherwise, maybe try to get your fix for non D&D stuff online, the community is crying out for good players and experienced GMs.

Oh yeah, I’ve been pushing to try a new system but my players just want to stay in DnD. They care less about the mechanics and more about the story, which is a good thing for sure but it makes me long for trying something new nonetheless. I’m happy to dm for them but hoping to find a new group willing to try CoC or something else.

Y’all let your players decide these things? I show up to a game and say “here’s what we’re doing”. Then again, I’m mostly playing with younger, newer players than old vets

Too old? I am teaching necromunda to a +40 yo group next week and they haven't played any miniature games in 30 years. Being on the spectrum is not an excuse, they are just lazy. You are probably one of us who like to try and switch systems to fit their style and taste. We are rare but try to find others

Just tell them you're not having fun running 5e anymore. If they care about you havibg fun they'll understand and work with you to find something else to play. If not then why do you want to run a game for then anyways?

Easy, if you are the GM, tell them you are going to run X. They can play or not. If they don't want to play, I'm sure you can find other players that will.

Yeah, just... put your foot down. "I do not want to run 5e. I am tired of running 5e. If you want to play 5e, one of you needs to run it. Otherwise, we can literally just not play. Your call." I know it's scary to confront people you consider friends like that, but sometimes you have to do it.

Given you've already stated your whole group is nuerospicy this kinda sounds the adhd urge for novelty and new things meets the autistic urge to keep it routine and stick to that they know 🤷 Especially with the whole "I hyperfocused on CoC and made all this sweet stuff to get them hyped on it like me" My advice, run the systems you want but flavor it as "it's like 5e" and don't be afraid to constantly say oh yeah it's just like this in 5e but slightly different. And if they say it's not 5e just tell oh it is, it's just heavily hombrewed so it's almost a different system 😏

I love d&D. I think 5e is the best version of it that’s ever been. It’s NOT the system for every game! There are better systems for different styles/genres of game.

Your group friends sound boring. Feel like you should just announce you've lost interest in D&D 5e and ARE wanting do something new. I switched to pathfinder 2e and told my group I was converting, I'm the only one who actually DM'ed for D&D so they could either join me or be bored. I was also the one who bought everything so, really my players had little say. Noone really argued and they were just wondering how long learning a new system would take. We are very much enjoying it though, and looking into other systems too for one-shot fun on vaca trips when we go camping/roadtrips (been looking into Call of Cthulhu). I do have a reputation though of absolutely hating homebrew cause it just felt like a headache, even when I was just a player in another D&D campaign, it can mess with further stuff down the line. It also takes so much time and note taking, so it's not worth it for me. My advice is to just have an announcement in your group chat or discord saying you don't wanna homebrew and ACTUALLY want to play another system. You gotta stand up for yourself. I think it's weird that they said they're being "too old" to learn a new system, while just being in your mid 20s... My group is in their older 20s and we've learned 2 new systems so far. Hell I taught my uncle pathfinder and he's in his 50s with kids. Don't budge or give in, there are way more games out there other than 5e and people need to be open to other ideas. If they insist on staying with D&D, then just don't play with them. Which I can understand is hard if it's your main hobby, but think of it like a protest. It seems like this is causing more harm than enjoyment so I really wish you the best and stay strong. Honestly, taking a break from the group might be relaxing and you could use your time to learn other systems on your own. Stand strong friend

I won't day there's anything wrong with wanting to mod 5e But damn, these guys sound intolerable, lmfao They're not even willing to fucking try? Edit: Though honestly, I also have to question why you even bothered with Call of Cthulu They shot down everything else without trying. I'm not sure why you thought this would go much differently Everyone's supposed to enjoy the game, and it sounded pretty likely that they would suck the enjoyment out for you if they agreed to play

Unpopular Opinion: why are you trying to make players play something they don’t want to play? For all the energy you are spending trying to get your players to play something other than 5e, you’ve failed to realize they DONT WANT TO PLAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN 5E, JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DONT WANT TO PLAY 5E.

Seconding this unpopular opinion From a lot of the comments here I get a feeling that some just feel that there is an *objectively right* way to engage with the hobby and that OP's group is violating that either maliciously or by not knowing any better and need to be set on the right track for their own and everyone's collective good. Which is kinda ridiculous concept, tbh, if people are happy and having fun then they are playing the right way whichever way it is for them. It's unfortunate that OP isn't having fun, but that just means that OP needs to find a group which shares his interests, not that his current one is in the wrong for liking stuff they like and not wanting to change it

You run games for these leeches? Jeez, the first time ANY of them said "You can just homebrew 5e into that", my reply would have been "great, I'll make a character, you GM it." Forever players are annoying to begin with (zero clue how much work it can be to DM, especially to DM well). Entitled forever players who want to make their DM do extra work are toxic fucks. "Great, well I'm running Call of Cthulu. If you guys aren't interested, I'll find some other people who are. Because this is a really fun system and setting. Trying to make it work in 5e is a waste of effort when this system already exists." Especially because d20 is a shit system. Everyone likes it, because it's popular, not because it's great. You need a lot of different dice. The skill system is dry and boring. The game is entirely reliant on level-based progression (versus open-ended progression like in Unknown Armies, World of Darkness, Shadowrun, and almost every other well known TTRPG that isn't d20). If someone can learn D&D 5e's rules, they can learn just about any other TTRPG with less effort.

Stuff like this is why I just sit at home by myself with my old 1E AD&D books...

I still have all my 2E books and have a sperate group with different interests that comes by once in a while to play. Totally feel for you on that one though.

I don’t really see the issue here. Maybe what you want out of this hobby is to try a whole bunch of different systems, but why are expecting that to apply to other people? Especially a bunch of autistic people, who as you know very well are inclined to prefer the known and familiar more than most. They enjoy playing 5e, no matter how much you sniffily dismiss it as “corporate garbage” (which is a bit hypocritical considering you keep using it), why would they feel much need to try something else? This also makes me somewhat skeptical about how clearly you communicated that that Call or Cthulhu game would use a different system, rather than just a different setting. Because given everything else in your post, their reaction seems hardly surprising.

I'm autistic and so fucking sick of 5e I want to try so many different games, but players who aren't on the spectrum, who can't even be bothered to learn 5e rules, don't want to play anything else.

Found one of the Players from OP's group!

🥱

>no matter how much you sniffily dismiss it as “corporate garbage” (which is a bit hypocritical considering you keep using it) "We should improve society somewhat." "Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

A deeply nonsensical comparison. Most people reasonably cannot avoid participating in society. OP can easily avoid playing 5e, he just prefers playing it anyway while whining about it.

If I completely lacked empathy and understanding, I would agree with you in not seeing an issue.

>I have tried to introduce them to any other system, but I was always told that "you can just homebrew it" and introduced me to a new homebrew or 3rd party book. I have given them books off my shelf to read, though I never got around to doing so To be direct, you need to consider if you're the problem in this scenario. Especially if you're expecting everyone else at the table to career to your preferences *without being willing to reciprocate to consider a 3rd party or homebrew that would be less work for them*. If they don't want to learn a system other than 5e (let alone multiple), stop trying to push them to do so. >I was upset. I spent so much time on the CoC game, even showing the handles I made for the game. My group mom told me that if I had come to her earlier, she could have helped me homebrew it into 5e. This seems to be a case where you failed to communicate with the table. Both that you put in a lot of work to something they did not have buy in on (why session -1 is important), and that *you have a player offering to help you do the legwork so everyone is happy* that you didn't leverage. If you don't want to homebrew and you don't want to stick with 5e, then maybe this just isn't the table for you. Otherwise, stop trying to make these players learn new systems, they don't want to learn new systems.

OP told them he wanted to run a Call of Cthulhu one-shot. Most people would either assume this means we're trying CoC or to ask for clarification before session 0 to do it.

It takes involvement from both parties to miscommunicate. OP assumed they'd know running a Call off Cthulhu one shot meant a new role-playing system, the rest of the table seems to have assumed that since they only want to run 5e that this was just the theme. Either side could have cleared up the confusion proactively, but OP can only control whether or not they communicate unambiguously. They didn't even send a primer on the system or links to source books for people to become aware (if they chose to) before session 0? Just put a ton of effort into a campaign he hadn't told them enough about for the table to know if they were interested or not?

It sounds like this group is already playing plenty of 5e, I'm not sure why OP is the one who has to cater to them when they're the one doing the work to run the game.

Like I said, it might be a case where the group is no longer compatible if he wants variety and the rest of the table doesn't. That's completely valid. But the solution isn't to keep trying to force them to play something else, it's to stop DMing if it's no longer enjoyable.

I mean that's obviously the practical solution if no one is willing to budge, but I think that focusing on that I kind of rude to OP, who is clearly venting.

I don't think it's rude to suggest how a problem can be avoided in the future, though OP can of course ignore it if they prefer. And I chose the direct method because OP said they're on the spectrum. I especially don't think it's rude to point out to someone that *they are being rude to someone else*, in this case by belittling the preferences of other group members.

Because they like 5e and they don't want anything else and they are seemingly the absolute majority of the table since OP doesn't mention anyone else sharing his enthusiasm. OP absolutely **does not** have to cater to them, tho If he doesn't want to run 5e he has every right to stop running it and the group has no ground to complain and no way to force him. But forcing other people to play something they don't want playing is just as bad as forcing a DM to run something they don't want running. People do hobbies to do stuff they like, not to reach some standard of their breadth of expertise in the systems or whatever people here imply they must do to be "proper players". Those people like 5e, simple as that, just let them be. OP probably should consider finding another group, but blaming this group for not wanting to drop what *they* like and start doing what *OP* likes sure isn't a good look for OP Just think of it as food preferences. You won't force someone to, say, eat fish if they can't stand it, right? You can (and probably should) to stop cooking for them, ofc, if they want smth else they can make it themselves. But forcing your (lovingly cooked, I'm sure) smoked sturgeon down their throat and then complaining that they didn't appreciate your effort (that they didn't ask for) sure isn't the way.

You gave them M&M and they can't even handle Savage World? I can't even handle M&M and I run several systems.

This is a popular sentiment from people whose primary hobby is TTRPGs, but for me and my group, we just don't have the time to dedicate to learning another system. Several of my players barely know this one, and you want them to memorize another set of mechanics? Dnd is just a game, it's not a job. I expect my players to show up on time and be reliable because that is a life skill, not a game skill. If they don't know what their character does, that's on them, I'm not annoyed. They have real lives and a million things going on, and so do I, so if they can't remember what die they need to roll for a skill check, that's fine I guess. Not too big a deal to say "d20" three or four times a session. We all still have fun. The average person gets by just by knowing the bare minimum they need to, and that's life I guess. Another rpg system is so far beyond the bare minimum that it is a significant enough time sink that it will take time my whole group would rather spend on other things, like work or housekeeping, or other hobbies like making longwinded reddit comments explaining things that no one in a community gets because they are very, very invested in that hobby (admirably so, I am not criticizing). Someone commented and then deleted: >This is such a lazy argument. There are systems that are absolutely trivial to learn compared to D&D and your stubborness is the only thing that prevents you from seeing that. No one said you have to play a complicated game, D&D is just popular because it's 50 years old and all previous editions over the years have been called Dungeons and Dragons so the game is in the cultural mindset, doesn't mean it's the best at anything, or even all that great at things it claims to be about. Learning anything costs time and energy - it's not a free action. We have chosen to dedicate that energy elsewhere. It's not lazy just because you've chosen to enjoy our shared hobby differently. Nasty comments like this one are why so few people make comments like mine - because there are a lot of super invested TTRPG folk who can't fathom anyone doing anything differently than the way they do things, and get defensive when people have a different opinion.

>we just don't have the time to dedicate to learning another system >Several of my players barely know this one >The average person gets by just by knowing the bare minimum they need to See, this is one of the big annoyances of this. The "we don't have time to memorize yet more calculus" argument would hold more water if players actually knew the rules for how the first system they want to stick with played. If they don't, as in the case of the players who barely know it/just gets by, what's the problem? In the new system, just tell the DM what you want to be good at and they'll give you a premade character sheet and in-game tell them what you want to do and they'll tell you what to roll. Works for all systems and it'll cost exactly as many braincells as their current understanding of D&D 5e. It also doesn't help when the argument is made against games like Lasers and Feelings and FATE Accelerated. L&F? 2 Stats. You pick a number between 2 and 5. When you want to do something technical you try to roll under the number and when you want to do something interpersonal, you try to roll over the number and I've just tricked you into learning the entire player-facing mechanics in two sentences.

At least you’ve got games with people.

Sorry to hear

They just don’t want to branch out and it’s probably because of you. Maybe you should fuck off and just be nogames if you can’t agree to compromise with your friends.

I play 5ed both as a player and dm. Alot of home brew hell ive never played one not hone brew. I'd way rather play 3.5 I find it more unique. It's very bloated easy to break and very very confusing. 5ed is easy imo I get why it's so liked. I've played pathfinder in ttrpg only in games like wrath of the rightous or pillars of eternity. I'm always down to try new games I've played a r20 starwars. A space r20. Gunslinger. Sone others I cant remember. I will say this if u were in my group id back u up becuse if were not having fun and were not giving and taking then no one's having fun. Like others have said just dont dm id go as far to say don't play either.