Converting people to Tome

[Chamomile]

It looks like I might finally be able to pin down a live RP group for weekends. There is only one problem. The game right now is set up to be Pathfinder, and I don't want to learn Pathfinder when it's inferior to a system I already know, namely 3.Tome.

The group so far seems to be heavily into setting background and etc. There's a huge emphasis on narrative over mechanics, and I can work with that since I tend to value narrative over mechanics myself, just by less wide a margin. But it does mean that getting people to convert to a new system is harder, since they don't care about the system so much in the first place.

What would be handy are a few examples of "here is how I can break your gameworld into tiny little pieces using Pathfinder. I can do it using only spells that actually exist and work exactly as they are intended, but by combining and/or reusing them in clever ways, I can destroy your entire setting, and it actually makes very little sense that the setting hasn't already been destroyed this way, what with it being thousands of years old and all."

[Archmage]

What would be handy are a few examples of "here is how I can break your gameworld into tiny little pieces using Pathfinder. I can do it using only spells that actually exist and work exactly as they are intended, but by combining and/or reusing them in clever ways, I can destroy your entire setting, and it actually makes very little sense that the setting hasn't already been destroyed this way, what with it being thousands of years old and all."

If your group really does strongly value narrative over mechanics, you're going to get told "none of that happens, because the GM houserules it not to happen."

[Bihlbo]

What would be handy are a few examples of "here is how I can break your gameworld into tiny little pieces using Pathfinder.

I played in a game where I tried this using a fighter. Another guy in the group had already done it with a sorcerer and was going to try it with a rogue. The end result? Everyone got angry and the game fell apart. The others' concept of Pathfinder is now "It is the best D&D experience I've ever had, as long as I don't play with tools who try to bend the rules over a chair."

From my experience, in the end, the player who proves a point is the villain, not the rules that made it possible.

I'm starting from another tack in a game I'm going to run. I'm using PF to show that the way that world works just ends up falling to pieces. After the pieces are picked up, Tome happens - and with an in-game reason to abandon PF, we take the story they've loved and use it to oil mechanics that suck less.

[fectin]

Seriously, it's not that bad. Don't take trap options; sandbag yourself a bit, and you'll be fine.
You don't have to pretend the shit sandwich tastes nice, but if it comes with a fun group on the side, just smile and get it over with.

[Bihlbo]

Seriously, it's not that bad. Don't take trap options; sandbag yourself a bit, and you'll be fine.
You don't have to pretend the shit sandwich tastes nice, but if it comes with a fun group on the side, just smile and get it over with.

I kind of agree with this. If you're playing a game with people you like, let it be Rifts, PF, or some gothy trash from White Wolf and have fun with the people. If you want to play the system you want to play and that's more important than the people then crap, dude, just find new people.

[shadzar]

It looks like I might finally be able to pin down a live RP group for weekends. There is only one problem. The game right now is set up to be Pathfinder, and I don't want to learn Pathfinder when it's inferior to a system I already know, namely 3.Tome.

so you found an existing group that plays Pathfinder, and as the new person to the group want to jump into it and get them to change what they play, do i have this correct?

[Josh_Kablack]

Personally, I haven't seen "here's an exploit (or dozen)" arguments to be all that effective in actually getting people game groups to change systems.

My advice for selling a group on Tome can be found in this recent thread

[Chamomile]

This is my first time playing with the group. I don't really know anyone in it very well, so I'm not sure how it'll work out in general. I am most definitely not planning on actually breaking the gameworld, I just want to try and persuade the GM that it is very, very doable and that we'd be better off in a system where this is less true, since it doesn't make any sense that no one's figured this out and done it yet. It'd be like if everyone decided not to use guns in the real world because they're overpowered. You don't do that when you have the option to use a gun and your life is actually on the line.

[shadzar]

if you start in trying to change what they do, do not be surprised if you are not welcomed for very long.

"you got to work here longer before you get vacation time"

you are going into an established group and wanting to start off rocking the boat. you should play what they like and see if they would agree with you on any level, before jumping in trying to change things to suit you.

if they ask what you want to play, then by all means speak up to what you say here, but dont just go in with the idea of changing them just for you.

[RobbyPants]

What would be handy are a few examples of "here is how I can break your gameworld into tiny little pieces using Pathfinder. I can do it using only spells that actually exist and work exactly as they are intended, but by combining and/or reusing them in clever ways, I can destroy your entire setting, and it actually makes very little sense that the setting hasn't already been destroyed this way, what with it being thousands of years old and all."

The problem is that Tome isn't really complete either, and it can totally break the game, too, depending on the player's/DM's expectations. So pitching them Tome instead of PF isn't necessarily even fixing things from their point of view.

And as Archmage said, if they're heavily into narrative over rules, it probably won't matter anyway.

[hogarth]

I am most definitely not planning on actually breaking the gameworld, I just want to try and persuade the GM that it is very, very doable and that we'd be better off in a system where this is less true, since it doesn't make any sense that no one's figured this out and done it yet.

I have never yet seen anyone convinced to quit playing a system they liked by argument alone. There's always a first time, I guess.

I can sympathize with not wanting to learn a new system, especially when it's as potentially confusing as PFRPG vs. 3.5 (which are exactly the same, except when they're not).

[RiotGearEpsilon]

Just play the group. The group is more important than the game, usually. Focus on having fun, not on inter-game politics.

[NineInchNall]

If this is a narrative focused group, you may even attract their ire for doing things like casting spells as a Wizard, using a reach weapon as a Fighter, or multiclassing, and no, I'm not exaggerating. It's happened to me.

My advice is to play what they want to play and offer to DM a parallel campaign.

[virgil]

I got lots of ranting from my DM for playing a Fighter that took archery feats, taking Skill Focus (Perception), animating a corpse with a necromancer, and bringing clubs to use for telekinesis instead of small rocks on the ground. Because the monk in the party got hasted in my campaign, everyone lost their iterative attacks in the next campaign that wasn't run by me.

This wasn't even a narrative focused group.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I tried to convert my players to Tome by running a Tome game. It didn't take, but they at least tried it. I think that might be better than trying to convince them to change the rule set mid-game.

[virgil]

I can tell you that in my experience, you'll probably never convince a group to switch systems by showing them the flaws, especially by using them in the game. I inadvertently did this by playing a wizard, as my expectations of what's balanced differed (as I discovered), and this has soured them to ALL gaming-related opinions from me; they will literally dislike ideas regarding the rules solely because it came from me, and then when they forget about the suggestion months/year later and someone else mentions it, they love it and implement it.

The best chance you'll get is to tell them of the fun in Tome as if it were a completely different game, avoiding any mechanical comparison to Pathfinder if you can.

[hogarth]

I can tell you that in my experience, you'll probably never convince a group to switch systems by showing them the flaws, especially by using them in the game.

Maybe not game systems, but I've had GMs change their mind on particular rules after swearing up and down "there's nothing wrong with rule X" and then subsequently seeing it in use.

[Hieronymous Rex]

I got lots of ranting from my DM for playing a Fighter that took archery feats, taking Skill Focus (Perception), animating a corpse with a necromancer, and bringing clubs to use for telekinesis instead of small rocks on the ground. Because the monk in the party got hasted in my campaign, everyone lost their iterative attacks in the next campaign that wasn't run by me.

This wasn't even a narrative focused group.

This sounds like it deserves an In the Trenches post.

[Psychic Robot]

This sounds like it deserves an In the Trenches post.

agreed

[RobbyPants]

I got lots of ranting from my DM for playing a Fighter that took archery feats, taking Skill Focus (Perception), animating a corpse with a necromancer, and bringing clubs to use for telekinesis instead of small rocks on the ground. Because the monk in the party got hasted in my campaign, everyone lost their iterative attacks in the next campaign that wasn't run by me.

This wasn't even a narrative focused group.

This sounds like it deserves an In the Trenches post.

Seconded.

[Seerow]

I got lots of ranting from my DM for playing a Fighter that took archery feats, taking Skill Focus (Perception), animating a corpse with a necromancer, and bringing clubs to use for telekinesis instead of small rocks on the ground. Because the monk in the party got hasted in my campaign, everyone lost their iterative attacks in the next campaign that wasn't run by me.

This wasn't even a narrative focused group.

This sounds like it deserves an In the Trenches post.

Seconded.

Thirded.

[Chamomile]

This sounds like it deserves an In the Trenches post.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

On the original subject though, this is a new game with a new group starting up a brand new campaign. Asking people to switch mid-game is asking them to abandon the campaign so far which is obviously going to be nigh-unto impossible unless they're already thoroughly frustrated with it. On that note, this situation is kind of time critical.

[Prak]

There's this thing called reasoned arguement. It's where you present your points as to why one thing is better than another, and try to sway people through concrete evidence.

This is what I suggest you do. Get the group together not to game, but merely discuss system. Hell, if you can afford to, take them out for pizza or something, people are generally more willing to listen to a person when said person is feeding them.

Present the reasons why you think Tome is better than Pathfinder, or why Pathfinder is a bad system, or whatever. Have an actual discussion.

[Psychic Robot]

look you can't convert people to the tomes.

if ordinary people who aren't rules spergs like we are here play the tomes, they're going to shit themselves with OMG OVERPOWERED, especially when the base tome material is on par with heavily optimized casters. codzilla accidentally breaking the game will not compare to what tome classes will deliberately do.

if you honestly want the players to try a powered-up version of the base classes then use tome of battle.

What would be handy are a few examples of "here is how I can break your gameworld into tiny little pieces using Pathfinder. I can do it using only spells that actually exist and work exactly as they are intended, but by combining and/or reusing them in clever ways, I can destroy your entire setting, and it actually makes very little sense that the setting hasn't already been destroyed this way, what with it being thousands of years old and all."

this argument will never work because any sane GM does not allow shit to break his game. most of the "gamebreakers" in D&D are things that don't ever come up. chainbinding wish loops? no. pun-pun? no. candle of invocation cheese? no. scry + teleport nonsense? no. most players a) don't understand the rules well enough to try anything like that, or b) are polite enough not to smash the game.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

One would be more likely to succeed by playing up the tome's intentions as a series of spot fixes with an eye to verisimilitude rather than showing problems in other rulesets. The latter tends to be received as the acts of a munchkin jerk by those more narratively focused.