PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else hard pressed to decide which system to play?



Ozreth
2010-08-17, 08:48 PM
I started with 3.5 and played for a few years on and off, eventually falling out of the loop due to time restraints and trouble finding people to play with as the rest of my friends had moved on from gaming.

I recently picked up 4e and got some friends into it and we are having a good time, but I often miss 3.5 and feel that I never got as much play out of it as I should have. The rest of my group has expressed interest in playing 3.5 and I wouldn't mind DMing it if it weren't for the fact that I thought we'd be missing out on a lot of the cool 4e stuff coming out.

None of us have time to play two systems, and they are still getting a hang of the 4e system.

So, I can either revert to playing 3.5, a system that I truly enjoy, but miss out on the 4e stuff coming out, a system that I enjoy more as I play it. Or play 4e and always like I got jipped for not playing enough 3.5.

Anybody else have similar stories with any of the editions?

Volos
2010-08-17, 08:55 PM
3.5 is easier to run with right now being that everything you need to run your adventure is already published. And you get the added benifit of running either 3.5 straight, 3.5 with extra source books, or pathfinder. 4e is fine, but it's still new and if you would feel more comfortable running 3.5, then do so. Never run with a system that you haven't had a good amount of experience playing yourself or that you aren't comfortable with. The more consistant your knowledge of the material is, the more fun you and your players will have.

Vitruviansquid
2010-08-17, 08:56 PM
I guess you could play the systems alternately, but keep the same game schedule.

Ozreth
2010-08-17, 08:59 PM
I guess you could play the systems alternately, but keep the same game schedule.

Yeah this is definitely an option, but being the DM I don't want to worry about writing for both campaigns ha.

Leaning towards 3.5, as wolfgang said, I'ts something I feel more comfortable with. Just don't want to feel like I missed out on tons of cool 4e stuff down the line. It's nice to finally be playing a system that is fresh and I can be excited about new releases and discuss them with people and whatnot.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-17, 09:05 PM
The rest of my group has expressed interest in playing 3.5 and I wouldn't mind DMing it if it weren't for the fact that I thought we'd be missing out on a lot of the cool 4e stuff coming out.

So, I can either revert to playing 3.5, a system that I truly enjoy, but miss out on the 4e stuff coming out, a system that I enjoy more as I play it. Or play 4e and always like I got jipped for not playing enough 3.5.

So, you and your friends enjoy and want to play 3.5. Go ahead, do it. 4e isn't going to vanish overnight. I still play systems that haven't been in print for a decade. So, you won't miss anything by not playing the new 4e stuff now. It'll still be out there.

Note that new stuff is still being published for pathfinder, which is essentially 3.5. If you want something new and shiny, you can use that with minimal work. Hell, some people still publish things for 3.5 itself. It's a popular system.

Aroka
2010-08-17, 09:20 PM
Holy crap and how.

I want to run a couple of different Cthulhu games (a purist campaign and a pulp campaign) and a bunch of oneshots, an Iron Heroes Arthurian game, an Artesia: Adventures in the Known World game, a Riddle of Steel game in Weyrth, a 4E Dragonlance War of the Lance game, a 4E Eberron game, a giant 3.5 FR campaign into epic levels, a Shadowrun Hong Kong game, my forever restarting 15+ year RuneQuest heortling game, a reboot of our old Rolemaster game in Lord of the Rings, a Legend of Five Rings magistrate horror game, a Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game set in ruined Wolfenburg, a standard Twilight 2013 survival game, a Twilight 2013 XCOM game, a GURPS Transhuman Space noir detective/mystery game, an Old Republic era Star Wars game, a Ravenloft campaign where the PCs hunt down a lycanthropic lineage, an All Flesh Must Be Eaten game set in rural California, and a Conan d20 campaign.

And that's just the ones I've done the groundwork on.

I have too many RPG rulebooks.

As an extra bonus, my group only meets about every other month because of babies, etc.


For all that, though, the idea's never crossed my mind that I should stick to one system. What sense does that make? Different systems work for different things, and I'd be awfully bored just watching the same movie or series or reading the same book or comic or eating the same food over and over, too.

valadil
2010-08-17, 10:01 PM
I played with groups that switch off between games. Games usually last between 5 and 15 sessions, then somebody else GMs, usually with a new system.

If that's not to your liking, we've also been alternating games. We play once a week, but two GMs take turns running their own games. It's a little harder to keep track of, but a lot easier to GM for since you have more time to prep each session. Currently we're doing GURPS and Dark Heresy.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-17, 10:10 PM
My friends all like to play D&D, I like to play Fate.

...Actually, I think that's all the conflict there is in this story. When they GM, we sneak into monsters' lairs, when I GM, they infiltrate the nefarious Interplanetary Chef's Union.

I don't think any of us really care enough to make a stink.

IdleMuse
2010-08-18, 08:11 AM
I'm part of our university roleplaying society, so I get a lot of options to try out new and varied systems (we have about 8 GMs running weekly games each tuesday, and the same on thursday), with little to no overlap in system. I mean, there'll usually be a couple of WoD games, but usually varying in specifics. Maybe two CoC and two D&D games.

Unfortunately, all this does is make it harder for me to make up my mind on which systems to run!

The current choice I have to make is between homebrewed nWoD and homebrewed (d20 modern+d&d) for a modern-day Psionic oneshot.

Yora
2010-08-18, 08:27 AM
I know the 3rd Ed. D&D rules almost inside out and there's not much to complain about the system, in my eyes.
I'm actually quite interested in other systems, but none of which I've heard seem really that appeaing to me. The high customization offered by class-less systems is a very good sounding idea. But at the same time, it also makes character creation much more complex and requires player to have a much deeper knowledge of the rules. When a new player wants to make a cleric or a fighter in D&D, you explain him the six abilities, tell him what feats he can chose from, and you're ready to go.

What I need is a system that has simple rules, does not bother with dealing with all the small details of a character, and is generic enough to be played with all kinds of settings.
Maybe I should go back to 2nd Edition? :smallbiggrin:

Dr.Epic
2010-08-18, 08:29 AM
Nope. I always play 3.5. I did d20 modern a few times (it's worth playing), and I tried 4th, but I didn't like it.

Aroka
2010-08-18, 08:40 AM
The high customization offered by class-less systems is a very good sounding idea. But at the same time, it also makes character creation much more complex and requires player to have a much deeper knowledge of the rules.

It really doesn't. In RuneQuest, for instance, you have a bunch of self-explanatory skill names, and that's pretty much it. There's no "abilities" (unless you count spells, of which there are a far less than in D&D's PHB) to choose from. Pendragon is even simpler. In fact, most classless systems are nowhere near as byzantinely complex as D&D 3.5 is in practice, and aren't full of traps like the monk class (which specializes in ensnaring new players).

tcrudisi
2010-08-18, 08:49 AM
If you own the books, it's not as though they will just up and disappear. Say 5e comes out... what difference does it make? You can continue to play both 3.5 and 4e.

I can relate, except way back my decision was always between oWoD and D&D 3.5. I still own all the books for both games, though, so if I wanted to, I would be able to go back and play/run a game of either one.

darkpuppy
2010-08-18, 08:50 AM
I know the 3rd Ed. D&D rules almost inside out and there's not much to complain about the system, in my eyes.
I'm actually quite interested in other systems, but none of which I've heard seem really that appeaing to me. The high customization offered by class-less systems is a very good sounding idea. But at the same time, it also makes character creation much more complex and requires player to have a much deeper knowledge of the rules. When a new player wants to make a cleric or a fighter in D&D, you explain him the six abilities, tell him what feats he can chose from, and you're ready to go.

What I need is a system that has simple rules, does not bother with dealing with all the small details of a character, and is generic enough to be played with all kinds of settings.
Maybe I should go back to 2nd Edition? :smallbiggrin:

Just two words for the simple rules bit: Amber Diceless. For the whole thing? Why not try one of the generic rulessets like Forgotten Futures (easily customisable, and fairly simple), or FUDGE, or BESM? Maybe even Unisystem?

dsmiles
2010-08-18, 08:51 AM
Nope. All of my friends play 4e, so I play 4e (and like it).

Yora
2010-08-18, 08:51 AM
Just two words for the simple rules bit: Amber Diceless. For the whole thing? Why not try one of the generic rulessets like Forgotten Futures (easily customisable, and fairly simple), or FUDGE, or BESM? Maybe even Unisystem?
I think I'll open a new thread for this. :smallsmile:

Loren
2010-08-18, 08:56 AM
One little note, as I player going from 4E to 3.5 I really missed having powers for my meelee. Going from have half a dozen ways of attacking to "I attack it" really isn't very appealing. I spent entire combats wishing I had just one Power, anything interesting to do really (and this was in Red Hand, which is one of the best put together adventures). Tome of Battle off sets this, but that requires you to have it and to teach it to the meelees. As a DM I like 3.5, but as a player I find it hard to go back for the mechanics.
I recommend thinking about things from the players' perspective as well as your own. It is critical that you, the DM, feel comfortable with the system, but is equally important that the players enjoy the game. 3.5 offers more custimization and use of a very limited supply of spells. 4E offers a strong tactical gameplay. What style of play does your group lean towards?

As for regrets, 3.5 isn't going anywhere. Pathfinder is expanding on it (and improving it? I've not tried it yet). 4E is still coming out, but it ain't going to disappear. Ultimately, through your life you'll be able to get use out of what ever systems you want. So I'd pick the system that fits your story and group best.

Kiero
2010-08-18, 11:46 AM
Not really. I never liked 3.x and my group are playing 4e which I do like.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-18, 12:36 PM
One little note, as I player going from 4E to 3.5 I really missed having powers for my meelee. Going from have half a dozen ways of attacking to "I attack it" really isn't very appealing. I spent entire combats wishing I had just one Power, anything interesting to do really (and this was in Red Hand, which is one of the best put together adventures). Tome of Battle off sets this, but that requires you to have it and to teach it to the meelees. As a DM I like 3.5, but as a player I find it hard to go back for the mechanics.

ToB is the easiest way to offset it, but not the only way. Sure, in 3.5, it's easy and possible to build terribly boring melee players, but you don't HAVE to.

Loren
2010-08-18, 01:20 PM
Tyndmyr,
Absolutely, tactic feats also give fun options. Unfortunately, most first time players don't know where to find those options and at low levels they aren't availible. It is also possible to work in some skills to get neat attacks, but that requires DM assistance. Anyways, I'm afraid that new players would be underwhelmed by changing to 3.5