PDA

View Full Version : Starting a playgroup: 4e or 3.5e?



Maho-Tsukai
2011-05-11, 07:25 PM
I have had nothing but online chat groups for a long time now and as a result have contemplated trying to get some of my RL friends into D&D so I can once again have the joys of a RL playgroup. The issue? NONE of them have EVER played a PnP RPG, ever. Most of them have played RPGs, but almost exclusively videogames and one of them has done freeform forum-based RPs before, but that's about it. None of them have ever played a true PnP RPG and as a result I am not sure they will be that much "into" it, and as a result I have debated starting them out in 4e instead of my personal favorite system, 3.5e..and that's where you come in.

When it comes to the systems, each has it's pros and cons. 3.5e on one hand is my favorite system and the one I am most familiar with. I have the most experience with it and also have TONS of 3.5e resources at my finger-tips. On the other hand, though, I fear that 3.5e will not mesh well with my friends. They are big into videogame RPGs but PnP is not quite an MMO and I fear that 3.5e's complexity and it's massive amount of rules will turn them away and bore them, especially since only one of them seems to REALLY get into the RP aspect of RPGs.

Thus, while I am less familiar with the system, I do have experience with 4e and I personally feel that 4e mechanically would be better for them. There's less rules to learn, less focus on RP, more focus on combat, the latter of which can be very engaging and tactical. There's also the similarities to an MMO, which while often criticized may actually be a GOOD thing here since many of these people will come from a RPG background that's strictly based in videogameing.

Also, 4e is almost dependent on a mini-system and grid, and powers lend themselves well to "power cards", all of which can provide a strong visual element to give them something else to look at other then numbers on a character sheet and some doodles of a hallway on some old printer paper which would be a big help in keeping their interest. That's not to say I can't use nice-looking hex-grids, minis, spell cards(And maneuver cards for melee types since I am against using the fighter and other sup-par melee classes as a hazing ritual for new players(my first character was a sorc.)...so I'll be teaching them of TOB right away.) for 3.5e, but 4e overall lends itself better to it then 3.5e dose.

The downsides to 4e however are my general lack of experience and resources for the system. I am familiar enough with 4e to run some games, but the lack of resources is what kills me here. I hardly have any 4e books at all and I, if at all possible, want to make sure my group dose not have to spend money before they even know if they like PnP RPGs and due to my anemic amount of 4e material I fear I may have to cough up some serious cash for a DDI account just to get access to what I need to teach them the system.

So, the question for you all is thus...which system should I start them off with and how can I mitigate the drawbacks of that choice?

Ozreth
2011-05-11, 07:29 PM
Everybody that comes here with this question mentions that "3.5 has tons of books, rules, complexities etc that will turn their friends away." My question to you is if they are your friends and you are trying to get them to like the system why would you ever dump all of that on them?

Play with simple rules, ignore tons of things, dont look stuff up during the session, break the rules, makes them up etc. Just play a basic game of 3.5 and they will love it. Once they decide they are in just say "ok we are going to start implementing more of the rules as we play, I will explain them if/when they come up."

Also, only use core books and don't talk to them about min/maxing/whatever. Them liking video games will have nothing to do with whether or not like they 3.5 or 4e. Im sure most of us that love 3.5 also love video games, I know I do. No point in wasting time teaching them a version of the game that isnt your favorite and that you dont want to run in the future.

It's a misconception that one is easier to pick up than the other. It's all the same basic concept, roll the dice, add modifiers, move your character, take damage.

ken-do-nim
2011-05-11, 07:37 PM
3.5E starting at 1st level with PHB only is not all that difficult a game. I've seen lots of people learn it quickly.

Maho-Tsukai
2011-05-11, 07:40 PM
I actually am more worried about resources when it comes to 4e vs. 3.5e as I don't hate one system and love the other I find both entertaining, I just lack 4e books because as a collage student I flat out don't have the funds for a massive collection and the vast bulk of my 3.5e collection are pdfs that where obtained in less then ethical ways. Also, I hate core 3.5e because everything in it that is not a wizard, sorc, cleric, druid, bard or MAYBE rogue sucks so badly it's not even funny. I HATE to make my players suffer the pain of being weaker then another member of the group and as a result I would HAVE to introduce TOB to them. Though I could always just replace all the core melee classes with TOB and call it a day since that's an easy enough fix and the non-tier 1 classes that are not the fighter, ranger, paladin and monk are all good enough to not seem underpowered compared to the broken likes of the cleric, druid and wizard.

Of course, instead of using TOB I COULD just teach them 3.Pe using the pathfinder player's guide in place of 3.5e Core. Sure, it's still not all that balanced but at least fighters and such get SOME nice stuff when they just get total crap in 3.5e. 3.Pe also has the benefit of having in-print sourcebooks meaning that if they like it they can actually go out and buy it instead of having to rely on me for everything. Yet at the same time all the resources I have for 3.5e and pathfinder(I do have a decent pathfinder collection, featuring quite a bit of third party material too.) are still open to them as 3.5e is VERY compatible with pathfinder and vice-versa.

Overall 3.Pe solves a lot of my party balance/feelings of uselessness as the fighter issues, though I am not sure that 3.5e will be engaging enough and even when limited to the pathfinder SRD and maybe some extra 3.5e material I fear the complexity will be a turn off.

ken-do-nim
2011-05-11, 07:55 PM
... collage student I flat out don't have the funds for a massive collection and the vast bulk of my 3.5e collection are pdfs that where obtained in less then ethical ways. Also, I hate core 3.5e because everything in it that is not a wizard, cleric, druid, bard or MAYBE rogue sucks so badly it's not even funny. I HATE to make my players suffer the pain of being weaker then another member of the group

Ah, the irony of being a gamer. In college, you have more time to play D&D, but few funds to purchase it, and also the packing up and moving syndrome makes you want to stay rules light. In the professional world, you have the money to get a nice collection, but no time to play.

For me, I have two groups, but each meets once a month. Neither group is using 3.5 at the moment, but even if we did, at a once a month pace we're never going to get anywhere near double digit levels, and the core 3.5e imbalances don't surface until then.

Knaight
2011-05-11, 08:02 PM
I'd reccomend ditching D&D entirely in favor of a completely different system. GURPS can be relatively simple, the assigning of points is very similar to many videogame character creation system, it provides an incentive to roleplay through the gifts/flaws system, and it doesn't involve as much specialized stuff. If you think GURPS is too heavy, dial down to Fudge, Fate, or Savage Worlds.

Note that every game I suggested either has a "Lite" system for free (GURPS, Savage Worlds), or is completely free (Fudge, Fate).

Ozreth
2011-05-11, 08:02 PM
Dude, these guys won't even notice that one pc is weaker than the other. Plus you named almost every class in the phb, why can't they play one of those.

You are reading too far into this and some of your inquiries are ones that even experiences players have.

Besides I've been playing for 7 years and actually find class imbalances appealing. You are making assumptions about how these people who haven't ven touched the game yet will view it.

No need for gurps or anything. If you want to be playing d&d with these guys then play d&d. Seriously d20 d&d at level 1 with core books is super streamlined, easy to pick up, and tons of fun. 12 year olds learn this game.

Maho-Tsukai
2011-05-11, 08:03 PM
You do have a point, though it may be easy enough to just to disallow the broken classes(wizard, druid, cleric) and replace them with the favored soul(cleric replacement) and spirit shaman(druid replacement.) that way the imbalance is not nearly as massive and they don't have to learn a new system or even new spell lists.

Though in the end I could just run core and call it a day. Maybe the overpowering nature of the wizard, druid and cleric won't be apparent if they actually run them as they where intended(blasty wizard, healbot cleric ect..) to be run?

WitchSlayer
2011-05-11, 08:05 PM
This won't end well.

That said, I would recommend 4e as it is very easy to run as a DM and is fairly easy to slowly segue them into more RP situations after a good number of sessions after they get familiar with it and get comfortable with their characters on a whole. This is going to be brought up by everyone but if you can get access to a DDI subscription, whether by splitting the monthly cost or managing the 10 dollars for yourself you will not regret your purchase decision as it has rules for most every class. For general rules pick up the rules compendium which should only be about 20 dollars and gives you the latest updated errata for everything.

Maho-Tsukai
2011-05-11, 08:12 PM
The monthly payment is whats the killer. However, since I've already gone the unethical route once I could always just pay for one month, print out everything and call it a day....and I do prefer 4e combat to 3.5e. It's FAR more dynamic and I absolutly love 4e's power system. I know some people hate it, but I frankly prefer it to vacian casting and it actually allows melee to be awesome again. No more "I hit it with a big stick and thats it" for fighters. No more "I wiggle my fingers and break the game" for wizards. 4e dose a great job of making everybody awesome and letting all types of characters in on the fun rather then giving only certain classes good things while others are left with crap.

The only reason 3.5e is the system I play more is my love of it's non-combat mechanics and, again, resources. I love 4e just the same but don't have the money and can't find anything essentials based available from unethical sources though at that point may just forget ever using essentials and use 3rd party + hombrew whenever I need a necromancer or just pay for DDI one month and then proceed to transcribe and print as necessary.

Jude_H
2011-05-11, 08:22 PM
I think 4e would be the better of the two options, but if it's not practical, it's not practical.

If scrounging the books and learning the system is an option, 4e dropped a lot of the artifacts of AD&D that made absolutely no sense to me when I was learning 3e. Things like arcane/divine magic distinctions, spell memorization and arcane spell failure still don't really make sense to me, but I guess I can accept them.

The basic structure of 4e makes it much easier to teach, IMO: you don't have to simultaneously give different people different rules to follow, and you don't have to deal with 3e's jury-rigged action economy, where two out of six action types were inelegantly tacked on halfway through the game's production.

Mitigating 4e's drawbacks... the ones you mention are A) a lack of RP compared to 3e, B) your familiarity with the system and C) availability of resources.
A) For the first, they're both D&D: neither game actively supports RP any more than the players are willing to support RP; if this is a problem, it's a problem on the players' end.
B) If you want to become familiar with the system, maybe read the first three books, see if you can run a game with people who already play, maybe look up some play-by-posts to browse.
C) For the problem with having materials on hand, the maneuver-card idea you were throwing around in the first post should work fine for the players' end. You'd probably still need to scrounge up the PHB/MM/DMG for your own purposes, but it sounds like you have a few books already.

If learning a new system or taking the time to print out power cards is a deal-breaker, that's fine. 3e still works, but I think 4e would make the actual game run more smoothly.

Maho-Tsukai
2011-05-11, 08:34 PM
I am not totally unfamiliar with 4e and I am confident I can run a game of it on my own. I already own all the 4e core books, have PHBs II-III, some of the setting books(Ebberon and Forgotten Realms, to be exact.) a few of the 1st "power" books(Martial power, arcane power and divine power.) and a generous helping of 3rd party sources, which are almost all adventures or books dealing with necromancy. Despite that, the issue here was still primarily one of resources and a lack of unethical means to obtain 4e material. The latter issue, however, is one that's solvable and I already working on mitigating. Also, lack of RP was never a downside since I know full well each system can do RP fine. After all, I also am a VERY long time freeform forum-based RPer so I know how to RP and RP well without crunch dictating how I do it and I VERY MUCH prefer 4e's combat system to 3.5e's

Sebastrd
2011-05-12, 10:28 AM
Given the list you posted, I'm not sure what other 4E resources you could be looking for. That's a pretty solid collection of stuff, and there shouldn't be any reason you can't run an effective 4E campaign with what you've got.

Kylarra
2011-05-12, 10:43 AM
Well he could be looking for essentials stuff, but I agree that he does have enough books to run a solid game of 4e.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-12, 10:48 AM
For 4th Edition, just get a year's subscription to DDI and split the cost with your friends. If you split it 4 ways, that's less than $20 per person (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Subscription.aspx) for the entire year.

That gives them the Character Builder (and up to 20 Characters at a time), and it gives you the Rules Compendium (all the rules, instantly updated by Errata) and Adventure Tools (all the monsters). If you pick up a PHB I and DMG I as well, you'll be able to run the game effortlessly. I know, because that's what I do.

Money should not be stopping you from playing 4e.

Kurald Galain
2011-05-12, 10:50 AM
I have debated starting them out in 4e instead of my personal favorite system, 3.5e..and that's where you come in.
Well, there you go. Don't do that. They don't have a favorite, but you do. You have one system that you know well, are good at, and are enthousiastic about. USE IT.

Kurald Galain
2011-05-12, 10:59 AM
For 4th Edition, just get a year's subscription to DDI and split the cost with your friends.
Well, except that (A) this is not actually allowed by WOTC, even if they can't technically stop you; and (B) 3rd Edition is available for free on the internet at http://d20srd.org .

No, cost shouldn't stop you, but $20 per person is still quite a bit more than $0 total.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-12, 11:12 AM
Well, except that (A) this is not actually allowed by WOTC, even if they can't technically stop you; and (B) 3rd Edition is available for free on the internet at http://d20srd.org .

No, cost shouldn't stop you, but $20 per person is still quite a bit more than $0 total.
Snarkilly, I'd say I wouldn't play 3.5 even if it were free - and without XP tables, you can't run a game of it with just the SRD :smalltongue:

Maho-Tsukai wants to introduce some new players to RPGs and is choosing between 3.5 and 4. Ey raised issues about cost and I thought it would be helpful to point out that the real cost wasn't that high - and it came with a lot of value. Splitting a DDI license is as legitimate as playing 3.5 using a developer's tool; neither is strictly intended by WotC and yet they are available.

Personally, I don't agree with Maho-Tsukai's reasons for thinking about running a 4th edition game, but I also don't think it would be a bad idea to do so. As should be perfectly clear, I think 4e is a great game and everyone should try it at least once. Plus, I am always of the opinion that you should try new games when you get the chance: I've played 3rd Edition for years and didn't like it; now I play 4th Edition and love it.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-12, 03:09 PM
I have had nothing but online chat groups for a long time now and as a result have contemplated trying to get some of my RL friends into D&D so I can once again have the joys of a RL playgroup. The issue? NONE of them have EVER played a PnP RPG, ever. Most of them have played RPGs, but almost exclusively videogames and one of them has done freeform forum-based RPs before, but that's about it. None of them have ever played a true PnP RPG and as a result I am not sure they will be that much "into" it, and as a result I have debated starting them out in 4e instead of my personal favorite system, 3.5e..and that's where you come in.

Ok, I like D&D a lot...but I'm not sure it's the best first pen and paper RPG. There's an awful lot to grok with either 3.5 or 4.

I'd probably start them off with something extremely rules light and work them up. Entirely new groups certainly can play D&D, but the transition time is harder.

TheThan
2011-05-12, 04:15 PM
Regardless of system I agree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread. If you keep the game simple and don’t overwhelm your players with rules and books and options, then they should be able to pick it up relatively quickly.

As to whether or not your players will actually like it that will greatly depend on how good a job the OP manages to do as a DM. I suggest starting simple, save some villagers from a small group of orcs, go treasure hunting etc. you don’t need to get complicated until after your players have a firm grasp of the rules. Also keep things simple and quick, nothing kills a good fight or trap like having to dig up rules. So play it fast and easy with them and stick to the basics. In fact I’d recommend you mentioning this to the players so they know that you’ll be tightening up on the rules once people begin to get familiar with the basics.

LibraryOgre
2011-05-12, 05:18 PM
Go with what you are most comfortable with. Be willing to break rules, but be aware that you are breaking rules.

Given your OP, I'd say go with 3.5. You know it better, and you've got more resources. Give them some pregen characters with a couple hooks each and let them get a feel for it, then let them replace them as they want to.

Analytica
2011-05-12, 06:12 PM
I recommend Pathfinder. Most of it is fully online and free, it is in print if you want to, it is slightly better balanced but has most of what you might want from 3.5, and above all: if you _only_ use PF, no legacy 3.5, then there will be a lot less pressure to optimize; you have no incentive for hunting through 30 books for the perfect 9th level feat if the game line is limited.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 08:25 AM
Oh, good call. Pure pathfinder is a good starting point. From there, they can easily later adjust to 3.5, and there's things actively being printed for PF, so they can pick up books in their local game shop if they wish....and the online SRD is fantastic if you want to save money.

mathemagician
2011-05-13, 09:34 AM
Well, except that (A) this is not actually allowed by WOTC, even if they can't technically stop you;


Where does it say that? I felt like I combed the terms and conditions pretty carefully and didn't see anything about sharing accounts.

For 4e, you can get by with allowing them to share a players handbook for the first session. No matter what system, I would make pregenerated characters for the first session or two with an entirely new group, just to help with the rules.


Anyway, I like 4e. Half the group I DM have never played a PnP before, and they quickly got a good grasp of it. It really helps the players decide on a class early on, by giving a brief description of the different roles, Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller... players will gravitate toward certain roles, and therefore can pick the classes appropriate toward those roles. It also encourages them to think more like a team, since you probably want to encourage them to at least fill out the different roles (I've never had a problem with that, but I've heard of times when everyone wants to be a striker).

Once a role is selected, you can highlight the different classes that fill those roles: are they ranged combatants, or melee combatants? What's the other "flavor?" 2 players in my group don't like the idea of divine characters, so that ruled those out quickly. One was afraid that I'd make them sing if they played a bard :)

From there, they just have to pick powers that sound cool! Help them out with basic armor / weapons. The character builder does a good job of listing the interesting class feats first, and can pick recommended feats. Also just tell them what the skills basically do, and let them pick the ones they want.

I find that character creation is really overwhelming for the new player, so I like the way 4e breaks it down. And it's really balanced enough that the player can pick whatever they think is coolest, and it'll be OK. I'm pretty generous with swapping around powers the first few play sessions, chalking it up to the character really trying everything he can to get ahead in combat. This takes the pressure off the player too "if I pick this, and don't like it, I'm not stuck, I can try a different power next session."
I like 4e for this because everyone has lots of options, but everyone plays by the same rules.

Once they settle into the powers they like, then you can help them flesh out basic RP details, "I see your sorcerer is using acid orb a lot... Let's come up with a cool idea for your backstory about why you have an affinity towards that kind of acid magic...maybe you have a little blood of an Acidic Black Dragon flowing through you?" It lets their powers define their role in combat, but also reminds them that they are more than what is on the sheet.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 10:22 AM
You can find the eula here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/blank/eula). It contains the usual blanket statements about a person only using their own account.

Yes, it is possible for accounts to be shared. It is also possible for books to be torrented off the internet. I do not recommend doing either. Only use free resources that were actually meant to be free.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-13, 11:12 AM
Yes, it is possible for accounts to be shared. It is also possible for books to be torrented off the internet. I do not recommend doing either. Only use free resources that were actually meant to be free.
Likewise, you shouldn't use the SRD to run 3.X games. Why? Because the SRD is available under the Open Game License ("OGL") which is intended to be used by game developers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License), not players.

As long as we're using such things to justify our choice in gaming, after all :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 12:42 PM
Likewise, you shouldn't use the SRD to run 3.X games. Why? Because the SRD is available under the Open Game License ("OGL") which is intended to be used by game developers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License), not players.

As long as we're using such things to justify our choice in gaming, after all :smalltongue:

That may have been the purpose for it, yes. However, it is legally open and available to all.

Ignoring a license on something you purchase or subscribe to is a very different thing, and advocating ignoring it treads dangerously close to forum rule issues. In general, sharing rules in violation of licensing, etc is a Bad Thing.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-13, 12:47 PM
That may have been the purpose for it, yes. However, it is legally open and available to all.

Ignoring a license on something you purchase or subscribe to is a very different thing, and advocating ignoring it treads dangerously close to forum rule issues. In general, sharing rules in violation of licensing, etc is a Bad Thing.
Very well.

As a last point, I'd like to point out that at least someone is paying for the use of a DDI account instead of piggybacking for free on a developer's tool.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-13, 12:50 PM
Very well.

As a last point, I'd like to point out that at least someone is paying for the use of a DDI account instead of piggybacking for free on a developer's tool.

How much money the developer makes is fairly irrelevant to if it's ok to use something. It's not really any different from buying a book and scanning it for your friends.

Plenty of good games out there that are entirely free, or that are very inexpensive. If cash is a really tight issue, I'd probably start on one of those.

mathemagician
2011-05-13, 04:12 PM
You can find the eula here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/blank/eula). It contains the usual blanket statements about a person only using their own account.

Yes, it is possible for accounts to be shared. It is also possible for books to be torrented off the internet. I do not recommend doing either. Only use free resources that were actually meant to be free.

Please don't equate me so quickly with someone who pirates books or any other media through torrents, I in fact take such matters very seriously. I stated that I felt like I read the eula pretty closely, and did not see any clause which forbade me from sharing the account. You say it contains the usual blanket statements, but I didn't see them upon yet closer inspection. Can you please point them out?

Not really trying to be a jerk here, so please don't continue to attack me.

Beyond that, there is no moral compromise in allowing your players to use your computer to generate, update and print their characters between sessions.