New DM...can't decide on edition

[The Big Aang]

Hi! I don't mean to start any arguments by posting this question, just to get some advice. I'm new to Dungeons and Dragons and am trying to start a game with some friends who are also new. I will be the DM. I've done a bit of research on the differences between editions, but without experience playing any of them, I haven't been able to decide which I would like to run. I know that our campaign will be heavy on role playing, which makes 3.5 appealing. However, the somewhat simpler, more accessible rules for combat and role playing in 4.0 seem very good as well. So, being new to Dungeons and Dragons, which edition should I start me and my friends with? Thanks!

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd go with 4e for an all-new group. It's simpler in a lot of ways, you don't have to deal with balance issues, and no-one winds up with an overwhelming number of options (spells) or a complete lack of options (barbarian). It's not great for roleplaying, but then, neither is 3.5, really.

If you're setting out to learn a game from scratch, you might shop around for some other systems to try and find one that best matches the kind of game you all want to play. Fate games tend to be very good for roleplaying, for example.

[Amidus Drexel]

What do you want from the gaming system itself? That's probably the most important thing to consider. Role-playing, for the most part, is independent of the game you're playing, but each edition does different things, mechanically.

From my limited experience with 4e, most of the classes have similar abilities. They're all roughly balanced (especially compared to 3.5) but there aren't a lot of unique things that separate the classes.

3.5, on the other hand, has classes with widely differing amounts of power. Some classes have unique abilites, and most classes have a distinct "feel" to them; a warlock plays very differently from say, a druid. Even classes that occupy a similar niche in the game (like rogue and scout), can have very different sets of abilities. All of this comes with added complexity, which might be intimidating for a bunch of new players.

[oxybe]

try a one-shot of both for free.

there are dozens of free 3.5 resources out there with the free system reference document (SRD). someone can probably point you to a decent free starter module.

there is also a free 4th ed starter/demo thing on the WotC website last i checked and it comes with a module.

once you've played a few sessions of both gather the group and discuss about which you all liked more. pick that one.

[Matticussama]

Are you picking D&D (any edition) because you are mainly interested in playing a sword and sorcery style game, or are you just picking D&D because it is the most popular/well known? D&D is great for what it focuses on - Medieval/Renaissance sword and sorcery - but not much beyond that particular setting. That limits what you can do with D&D quite a bit. Sure, you can add in Steampunk elements (Eberron) or post-apocalyptic (Dark Sun), but at its core D&D is fairly limited in scope.

If you want a heavy RP focus, there are plenty of other systems you could consider aside from D&D. Not that there is anything wrong with D&D, of course, just that you shouldn't limit your options only to what is the most well-known.

[Raimun]

3.5 or 4e? Now, that is hard to decide, even though I've played both editions. I like both but they have their pros and cons.

3.5
- A lot of options. So many splatbooks.
- Magic heavy. Strongest characters have 9 spell levels. And endless variety.
- Lot's of skills/rules/etc. for out of combat stuff.
- There is no game balance. 9 spell levels is way better than 6 or 4. Some classes are hilariously unpowerful. Some can do anything(tm).
- Feats range from useless to "FOR THE HUMBLE DOILY IS INDEED THE PATH TO ULTIMATE POWER!"

4e
- You don't have that many options. You pick a class and that's it.
- Close combat heavy. They tend to out-perform most other specialities. There's this thing called nova, which means you pour a lot of your daily resources to a round (or two) of ultimate mayhem.
- Not a lot of rules for out of combat stuff. I'm not kidding. If you want to do anything even remotely peaceful, you're out of luck.
- Game balance is good. Even the strongest classes can't do anything. No one is invincible and able to solo encounters.
- Feats range from useless to sometimes useful, if things go in your favor and you behave. The most rare grant you static bonuses.

Edit: These are the most glaring points between the two editions. Do note that I'm not listing any of the above specifically as pros or cons. Use your own judgement.

[The Big Aang]

Are you picking D&D (any edition) because you are mainly interested in playing a sword and sorcery style game, or are you just picking D&D because it is the most popular/well known? D&D is great for what it focuses on - Medieval/Renaissance sword and sorcery - but not much beyond that particular setting. That limits what you can do with D&D quite a bit. Sure, you can add in Steampunk elements (Eberron) or post-apocalyptic (Dark Sun), but at its core D&D is fairly limited in scope.

If you want a heavy RP focus, there are plenty of other systems you could consider aside from D&D. Not that there is anything wrong with D&D, of course, just that you shouldn't limit your options only to what is the most well-known.

That's a good point. I think I may have chosen it because it's one of the few role playing games I know anything about, and because I've listened to some D&D podcasts and enjoyed them. Could anyone recommend any RP focused games?

[oxybe]

@raimun, you're painting a rather bleak picture of 4th ed dude.

first: you don't just pick a class.

after picking your class you also pick your race, skills, feats and powers, and continue making feat choices every other level from a list and almost every level you choose a power from a list of 4-5. you're also allowed to retrain an option if it's not working out for you.

later splatbooks also add in things like themes and backgrounds for extra choices, as well as the option for hybrid classes.

picking your class is one choice you make. it's an important one, sure, but i would expect that from a class-based game

second: nova exists in all versions of D&D. it exists in any system that has a limited-use pool of powerful options, really.

it just tends to show it's face in D&D quite often as the recharge mechanic is basically 6-8 hours of rest and D&D has many ways of getting that rest.

in most editions it's called the 5-minute/15-minute workday, where you expend all your abilities in a small time frame, then go to sleep.

i've first seen it in 2nd ed, then 3rd, then 4th and i'm seeing it in 5th also.

three: you seem to be forgetting that whole chapter on skills that 4th ed has. yes it's missing the craft/profession/perform skills of 3rd ed, but using those skills as-written, those tend to be simply numbers for the sake of numbers and all are used to get either a discount on items early game, or in-between session pocket change.

3 points in craft does not good roleplaying make.

beyond those skills i can't think of many out of combat rules 3rd ed has that 4th ed doesn't that doesn't effectively amount to "wizard casts a spell"

[Ashdate]

I would second "playtesting" both editions with your group first. I would also echo the question: "what are you trying to get out of your game?"

Each edition also has some electronic advantages; 3.5 has the advantage of most of the core material being, well, free (d20srd.org). 4e has more robust official online tools however, including a character builder, a monster builder, and an extremely handy compendium. And from a value-per-dollar standpoint, a D&D Insider subscription is hard to beat, giving you effectively access to all the classes, feats, monsters, magic items, etc. printed for a very low price (although I would still recommend you purchase a copy of the DMG, and read up on how to run better "skill challenges").

While some on this forum would argue, both systems are fully capable of running whatever game you wish to play - be it a gritty game of survival, or a more social roleplay heavy game.

As stated, the biggest advantage to 3.5 from a player perspective is that nearly any heroic fantasy character (and then some) can be accommodated in the system. The downside, as stated, is that not all options are considered equal which can lead to varying levels in power. 3.5's balance isn't that bad as long as none of your players willfully tries to optimize their character. One upside/downside to the game is that it tries it's best to have a rule for most situations, which can be a barrier to entry, but can also create a particular level of immersion. Spells in particular are often flavourful, but can also be quite complicated, and (to balance concerns) are quite powerful.

4e's is generally considered easier to run from a new-GM perspective, but combats can drag, especially using "early" monsters (Pro-tip: use Monster Manual 3 and Monster Vault monsters). While characters don't have as many options - which shouldn't be confused as having no options - as long as the player starts with an 18 in their prime stat they'll create an effective character, regardless of whatever options they choose. There are rules for "out of combat" stuff (contrary to what Raimun is saying; not to start an edition war), there are just less readily available magical spells, and the DMG encourages the DM to set appropriate DCs rather than creating a set of static modifiers (which has it's pluses and minuses). The important thing to remember is that "roleplaying" comes largely from the players and from DM encouragement; it's not like the Diplomacy skill disappeared in the edition change, nor did the lack of diplomacy skill hinder roleplaying in pre-3e editions!

[Raimun]

@oxybe

I like 4e a lot. Some of the reasons I listed are not bugs but features.

And yes, you do just pick a class. You can't really multiclass, unless you count picking a feat as multiclassing. You can't get levels in other classes, if you feel like it or the concept you had in mind calls for it. Hybrid rules are a trap, if you don't have a really good idea of what you are doing.

What I meant was that you are locked to your class.

Yet, I actually liked that class system. Everyone has a clear identity, even if it limits the possibilities. You are Class X and not Class X/Y/Z/etc.

Edit: I also liked the fact I could play a warrior and still be a valuable member of the party.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I'd say it depends on what you mean by Roleplaying. 3.5, out of Combat, is more detailed. This comes from the fine details of skills (aka, narrow applications like Hide and Move Silently being separate skills even though they are very thematically linked and in 90% of the situations you want both). 4th is a lot looser with it's definitions. The problem isn't that non-combat options don't exist. It's that most published adventures (And thus most DMs eventually) don't create a focus on the non-combative.

I am the only DM I personally know or have seen that has really created a non-combat focus for 4th edition. Every other DM I've played with, online or off, has been wholly combat focused. So my experience with saying 4th isn't really just a combat game is based on me having to run non-combat focused campaigns with NO experience with it in system. With no guidance from any published adventures I saw. And no players who were experienced going non-combat in 4th edition.

Now here's how it breaks down in "Roleplaying", or rather Non-Combative encounters.

In 3.5 it's very restrictive. The difference between a Skilled character and a non-skilled (Or even only moderately skilled), is HUGE. Not only that there are a lot of items and spells which negate the need for a skill (See for example: Knock to crack open a door rather than using Open Lock skill. So non-combative encounters tend to be 1 man shows. Only one person has a chance of really hitting any sort of difficult task. Or the spellcaster who can burn a slot to auto-succeed despite skill training. The reason why I generally DON'T see non-combat based campaigns in 3.5 isn't that 3.5 isn't suited for Non-combat, it is that at some point everyone around the table realizes it's not as cooperative as it could be. It's one guy making checks or doing all the leg work. Maybe using Aid Another. But each non-combat scene is a one man show. Having a group of four players, and each player is basically only doing something 25% of the time (Presuming you craft your non-combat encounters in such a way that each player gets an equal time to shine in their skill set), is kind of boring.

Of course there are ways around it. Like using open ended problem solving. If the encounter in question requires doing something like getting information on a mission you're about to undertake... bluffing, diplomacy, gather information, intimidate, athletics, profession, craft, all could easily prove valuable means to accomplish this goal. But that's usually the exception, rather than the rule. Usually it's a case where there is a clear obvious skill set to do, and one guy who is set up to do it.

4th is... different. There are fewer skills, and they are more broadly defined. Climb, Jump, Swim, Ride. These are four skills in 3.5, but can be condensed down to one (Athletics) in 4th edition. This means that the few skills a character is trained in is a MUCH more effective boon. The skills your first level character in 4th edition has is equatable to more like having 30 skill points at level 1 in 3.5. So your character's aren't pigeonholed so much into one narrow role out of combat (unless you were a mage). This allows you to create a deeper, richer character in some regards without having weird stumbling blocks. "oh, my Fighter was a Farmboy growing up who took up his pa's woodcutting axe one day when a few goblins attacked and discovered his talent for fighting." "Okay, why don't you have Profession (Farmer) then since you were being raised to be a farmer?" "Umm... I didn't want to waste my very rare skillpoints on it?" "Okay". Yeah, you can do it. Maybe provide some circumstance bonus. But it provides for these pigeonholed characters who are almost defined by their class. Compared to a more generalist feel in 4th.

On top of this, 4th edition's different between "Skilled Character" and "Unskilled character" is much less severe. So you're not forced into a situation where only one character can conceivably succeed. It helps... but it's not the end all, be all. You don't run into a situation where you have to talk something out in character and everyone but the bard stands back and their players go play Mario Kart or Smash Bros. for 15 minutes while the bard does everything to talk their way out of the game situation. Not only that, they did create the "Skill Challenges" and put the rules in for situations where several characters could logically contribute several different skills all to the same scene. Granted you could do that anyway... but it's nice to have rules for it.

So there aren't as many "Non-combat" or roleplaying pieces in the game. But they are there. And broadly defined. There's even non-combative powers for character races/classes. Though they are usually not focused on because... again... DMs don't really run non-combat encounters. If you don't have the chance to solve things without slinging fireballs why would you ever take a spell like Alter Self? Use spells like Ghost Sound and Prestidigitation? Use powers like Words of Friendship or Skittering Sneak? There are rituals, but most of the rituals are narrowly defined, and I will admit, not all that useful for the non-combat encounter due to a very narrow definition, and limited power. And unlike spellcasting in earlier editions, you don't have rules to just "make up" a ritual to do what you want. Least no where I've seen.

My experience running the Non-Combative, Roleplay heavy 4th Edition game is that most players were thrown off at first. They weren't really sure how to handle things. Most 1st level characters were lamenting that they had the wrong build for the game because while they may be combat beasts they were wishing that the team spread out their skills more. People when they hit level 2 were seriously taking Skill Training (Or multiclass) for additional skills they thought were key but no one had, or that everyone should have had (Like Insight). People were taking Skill Trick feats as well to get more non-combat options. People had fun. There was still combat of course. People picked combat powers as needed. But Utility Power slots became a much more interesting choice between the strictly Combat based ones, and ones with open ended non-combative options.

[The Big Aang]

@Ashdate, Thanks, that was very helpful! I'll spend some time pondering the question of what I'm trying to get out of the game. None of my potential players, as far as I know, are very interested in the mechanical side of D&D. They're more excited about participating as characters in an interactive story with friends, as far as I can tell, though I suppose I should really ask them. As a DM, I'm really looking forward to world building and creating interesting, exciting settings, npcs, and adventures for my friends to interact with. And it seems like combat can heighten sense of achievement, feeling of prowess, generally increasing immersion, so offering challenging encounters seems fun and valuable as well.

Also, I think I will try the playtest/one shot idea (especially since we've never played together), that sounds like a good idea.

[Fable Wright]

I'll suggest Legend here. It has close to the breadth of options 3.5 has, with a lot of the simplicity of 4th edition. It's also completely free. It's a good point for jumping into D&D. It gives character options and allows for a lot of personalization with characters and builds. Every character pretty much builds their own class from the options available, adds in feats, skills, and items, and you get 3.5e role diversity with 4e simplicity. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an already built Monster Manual with descriptions, statblocks, and monster ecologies for DMs to work with, though it's easy to build monsters. It's still in beta, so there's a bit of imbalance in the system, though version 1.0 is coming out soon. There also aren't as many worldbuilding powers in Legend classes as there are in 3.5 classes, though there are more than there are in 4e. It's pretty much the balance between 3.5 and 4e, and depending on how your players like it, you could move to 3.5 or 4e, or stick to Legend.

[Ashdate]

Also, I think I will try the playtest/one shot idea (especially since we've never played together), that sounds like a good idea.

Something I forgot: I've never played it, but the 3.5 variant, Pathfinder, might be more appealing to a new group, particularly because it's got the d20 core, slightly better class balance, and more "free" options. Then again, the number of options might be overwhelming for a first-time player, but on the other hand if you were using the 4e Insider character builder you'd be presented with no less (albeit the character builder would ensure the math is mostly correct).

[Raimun]

4e's is generally considered easier to run from a new-GM perspective, but combats can drag, especially using "early" monsters (Pro-tip: use Monster Manual 3 and Monster Vault monsters). While characters don't have as many options - which shouldn't be confused as having no options - as long as the player starts with an 18 in their prime stat they'll create an effective character, regardless of whatever options they choose. There are rules for "out of combat" stuff (contrary to what Raimun is saying; not to start an edition war), there are just less readily available magical spells, and the DMG encourages the DM to set appropriate DCs rather than creating a set of static modifiers (which has it's pluses and minuses). The important thing to remember is that "roleplaying" comes largely from the players and from DM encouragement; it's not like the Diplomacy skill disappeared in the edition change, nor did the lack of diplomacy skill hinder roleplaying in pre-3e editions!

Whoa. I'm not trying to start an edition war. I like both 3.5 and 4e. I'm just saying 4e has less non-combat options. There's no Craft, Profession or Perform in 4e and many people like those skills. There should be an option to be the best basket weaver ever or the option to have one skill point in every profession skill there is. Or to be the medieval Elvis.

Also, the spells of 4e are only generally geared towards combat. There you need all the help you can get and you can't change spells every day, so you need to pick the powers that keep you alive, not the powers that will help you maybe once or twice. Also, in all due respect, no one uses rituals.

4e is more limited but that's not always a bad thing.

Again, 4e is superior to 3.5 in many ways, just as 3.5 is superior to 4e in many ways. I just listed the most glaring points of the game mechanics in my original post.

[Jack of Spades]

That's a good point. I think I may have chosen it because it's one of the few role playing games I know anything about, and because I've listened to some D&D podcasts and enjoyed them. Could anyone recommend any RP focused games?

Oh dear lord can I ever?

Depends on the genre/feel you're looking for, as well as whether you're looking for more rollplaying or more roleplaying, if you catch my drift.

Trying to keep with stuff that's in print and/or easily available:
World of Darkness is a good one for modern werewolves-and-vampires-style fantasy, but it's pretty rules-lite.
Savage Worlds is a decent universal system, with more specific rules for a variety of genre-specific settings-- fantasy pirates, western steampunk, world war steampunk, Cthulhu, and others.
For swords and sorcery, DnD is your best bet. 4e is more focused on balance and tactics, whereas 3.5 throws as many options as possible at you and has very specific rules for a lot of non-combat situations that 4e lets you work out on the fly. For new players, I'd definitely recommend 4e, although I haven't seen any of 5e.
If you're a fan of any GW stuff, there's a few RPG's for both fantasy and 40k that are very fun for those who know the lore.

I know of a lot of others, so PM me if some specific or weird genre or playstyle catches your goat, but those are the main systems I see get played (in person, at least).

Must... Avoid... Fiasco... Plug... Oh dear how did that link get there? Well, if you do decide to follow it, read the reviews before you buy so you know how unorthodox the system is. It's definitely RP focused, though

[Matticussama]

That's a good point. I think I may have chosen it because it's one of the few role playing games I know anything about, and because I've listened to some D&D podcasts and enjoyed them. Could anyone recommend any RP focused games?

It depends entirely upon the setting you want to play in. There are way too many to mention them all, but just off the top of my head (that I'm personally familiar with)....

Mutants & Masterminds (3rd edition) is a very strong system for handling any sort of Superheroic style of play, with a very heavy focus on Comic Book style action. It works on a d20 chassis for attacks and skills, but has a full customization system for powers. The system is broad enough that you can build almost whatever concept you want, without being tied down to a single class archetype. You usually want to establish some sort of power theme before-hand, because otherwise people can just cherry pick any power and do everything; thus, someone with an Ice theme shouldn't be able to pick up fire blasts (unless with tech like flamethrowers), etc. Plus, it has an SRD! http://www.d20herosrd.com/

(New) World of Darkness is very good for games set in the modern era with a heavy emphasis on supernatural activity. You can choose to be humans interacting with the supernatural (WoD Corebook + Hunter: The Vigil), or you can be the supernatural entities themselves (Werewolf: The Forsaken, Vampire: the Requium, and Mage: the Awakening, plus some other splat books). It is a point-buy system so the beginning can be a bit confusing, but actual gameplay is fairly easy. It has a very heavy RP focus, with a decent and adaptable combat system.

Shadowrun (4th edition) is very good for a near-future/SciFi dystopian setting. It also uses point-buy creation as opposed to a level-based system. It also has a heavy RP focus, but slightly more narrow than WoD; you are assumed to be a freelance team taking missions for various corporations. It has strong mechanics for RP, but its combat system is also more detailed than World of Darkness. That comes at a bit of a price, however; when you start dealing with magic and technology, the Shadowrun system is almost too detailed. It is nice to have the options, but can be a little overwhelming at first.

[Matticussama]

Also, the spells of 4e are only generally geared towards combat. There you need all the help you can get and you can't change spells every day, so you need to pick the powers that keep you alive, not the powers that will help you maybe once or twice. Also, in all due respect, no one uses rituals.

As a long-time 3.5/Pathfinder player, the only reason I was able to personally tolerate 4th edition was by making extensive use of the ritual mechanic. My DM encouraged us to do so when it was applicable, and introduced additional ways to mitigate some of the ritual cost so it wouldn't completely bankrupt us. I still prefer 3.5/PF to 4th ed, but I can enjoy it for what it does with a liberal usage of rituals to make up for the lack of "fluff" spells and other effects.

OP: So, as to keep things on topic, if you do choose to run 4th edition make sure to look at the Ritual rules and make use of them. They fix one of the more commonly perceived issues of 4th edition, that being that it is almost entirely combat focused and you don't have adequate resources or rules for significant out of combat influence. By making use of existing rituals - and, later on, using those as a basis to allow players to create new and unique rituals - you can have a fully immersible non-combat system of magic that can allow people to add significant flavor to their characters.

[Ashdate]

Whoa. I'm not trying to start an edition war

My apologies, I just wanted to say that I disagreed with you (and I still do, despite your clarification) but wanted to be clear that my intent was to try and keep things on topic rather than devolve them into a "does 3.5/4e allow X!?" debate. As someone mentioned, you came off a bit harsh on 4e compared to 3.5 earlier, and I didn't want to seem confrontational.

[Raimun]

As a long-time 3.5/Pathfinder player, the only reason I was able to personally tolerate 4th edition was by making extensive use of the ritual mechanic. My DM encouraged us to do so when it was applicable, and introduced additional ways to mitigate some of the ritual cost so it wouldn't completely bankrupt us. I still prefer 3.5/PF to 4th ed, but I can enjoy it for what it does with a liberal usage of rituals to make up for the lack of "fluff" spells and other effects.

I only played with "by the book"-ritual costs. There simply wasn't enough money to perform them. Skills were always the better option and I guess they intended it to be that way.

In 3.5, I always liked to play a gish (that's a melee & magic-character, for the uninitiated), so that didn't work out in 4e. So, I switched to a pure melee and I was thrilled. And I didn't even play a ranger.

4e is different but that just means you can try out different things.

[Matticussama]

By the book the 4th ed Ritual system definitely leaves much to be desired, but that is true for a lot of 3.5 as well. Still, their basic concept is good and can add a lot to the game. I go into every system I play expecting some degree of houserule fixes being necessary, so the group that I play with is fine making those sorts of adjustments as needed.

[Raimun]

My apologies, I just wanted to say that I disagreed with you (and I still do, despite your clarification) but wanted to be clear that my intent was to try and keep things on topic rather than devolve them into a "does 3.5/4e allow X!?" debate. As someone mentioned, you came off a bit harsh on 4e compared to 3.5 earlier, and I didn't want to seem confrontational.

No need for apologies.

Though, in all fairness, I was also harsh on 3.5. I did paint 3.5 as the power gamer's wet dream.

[Rhynn]

If you think D&D 4E has simple rules, though... well, you're obviously only comparing it to 3.0/3.5.

heavy on role playing ... simpler, more accessible rules for combat ... which edition should I start me and my friends with? Thanks!

AD&D or BD&D (BECMI or B/X). Try OSRIC (free, comprehensive AD&D 1E retroclone) or Labyrinth Lord (free B/X). Can't hurt to check them out, at least, since they're free.

Other good fantasy RPGs:
Adventurer Conqueror King, a D&D retroclone with its own twist.
The new RuneQuest 6 (old RuneQuest 3 is, of course, good too, but good luck finding that).
The One Ring, Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild if you like Tolkien. (Set between The Hobbit and LOTR, in the Wilderland.)
Legend of the Five Rings for a pseudo-Japanese fantasy world with lots of politicking (but a lot of people play it pretty hack-and-slash - it's flexible).
The Burning Wheel is all about heavy roleplaying, but with good combat rules (although I'm not sure I'd call them simple, but it's probably just a matter of getting used to them - at least it's no 3.5 or 4E!).

I'm not sure how likely you are to find Pendragon (the definitive game of Arthurian legend) anymore, and The Riddle of Steel (the game for realistic but playable combat, supported by story-based mechanics) is pretty much impossible to get, but both are great games too.

If you think you might go for scifi, western, etc. instead, I can recommend a bunch of those too...

[Studoku]

Legend of the Five Rings for a pseudo-Japanese fantasy world with lots of politicking (but a lot of people play it pretty hack-and-slash - it's flexible).

This. I've only recently started playing L5R but I love the system and its unique dice system (at least I think it's unique- I've never seen x-keep-y used anywhere else.

[Jack of Spades]

This. I've only recently started playing L5R but I love the system and its unique dice system (at least I think it's unique- I've never seen x-keep-y used anywhere else.

I've certainly never seen it elsewhere-- and I'm the kind of guy who buys RPG books for systems I'll never play simply because RPG books.

Is L5R still in print, though? Same question for TOR and Shadowrun.

Burning Wheel is out-of-print too, I think... At least the most-recent-edition books I bought the other day looked pretty damn old.

OH! Aang, are you into anime? I'd expect so, given your screen name. Try BESM. It's an anime RPG based on the *mumblecan'tremembermumble* system. It's pretty fun, and just about universal. I think it's in print. EDIT: It appears to be on DriveThruRPG, at least.

Into Star Wars? There's a new system called Edge of the Empire that just got released. Weird dice, but the way they work is fascinating and fun.

[Hopeless]

When they said Legend did they mean Mongoose Publishing's Legend?

I was going to ask what the person who started this thread fancied running as whilst d&d is great regardless of edition exactly how much does he want to go into the system since 4e has power cards which was the main reason I gave up on that, 3.5 has too many additional classes which upped the power, pathfinder tries to eleviate this but I prefer 3.0 as you only have the core classes and its easy enough to convert the psionics power point rubbish back to what everyone else uses instead of removing the sorceror's only real ace in the hole (you know what I'm talking about those that have those editions!)

Anyway what does the poster want to run?

Do you need to buy any more stuff to run what you want or have you already got the basics to run either edition?

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's a good point. I think I may have chosen it because it's one of the few role playing games I know anything about, and because I've listened to some D&D podcasts and enjoyed them. Could anyone recommend any RP focused games?

The Fate system, as I mentioned, is pretty good for roleplaying, and the books tend to have pretty good advice on the subject. Spirit of the Century is free online, and is a pulp-action themed game. The Dresden Files RPG can be a bit pricey, but is excellent, whether or not you're using it to play in the Dresden universe. (It's very easy to file off the serial numbers).

[1337 b4k4]

AD&D or BD&D (BECMI or B/X). Try OSRIC (free, comprehensive AD&D 1E retroclone) or Labyrinth Lord (free B/X). Can't hurt to check them out, at least, since they're free.

As a third option (and perhaps even simpler than the above two, you might consider Swords and Wizardry

Some of this recommendation comes from my bias towards the earlier D&D style, but honestly, it's also pretty much a distillation workable and common core rules for D&D. It's a simple enough system to pick up and go with, and really easy to house rule. That's key because after a few sessions of playing, you're going to get a better idea of what it is your group actually wants from the system. Look at the house rules you're making and from there you can better pick an edition that supports those rules more cleanly (or you can of course continue with your house rules). As long as everyone is on board with possibly doing a system jump in 4 or 5 sessions, it's a good starting point.

[oxybe]

wait we're linking to systems now? rather then link a lot of systems all over again, here's a single link to a post with a bunch of links.

it's 6 links to 6 difference systems that cover a rather large type of games.

@raimun

i'll TL;DR my normal rant. it would be too much off-topic. if you want me to expound on it i can send you a PM

basically i find 3rd ed multiclassing rather unfulfilling and it only serves to showcase a lack of strong class identity. in 4th i don't need multiclassing to make a viable character or one with an interesting playstyle, the classes each have a distinct playstyle i can reflavor easily if the default fluff doesn't agree with the character but the style does.

Craft, perform & profession as skills are, IMO, better served by either being background only, reflavoring existing skill use or having the player roll against outside forces using existing skills.

[Rhynn]

Is L5R still in print, though? Same question for TOR and Shadowrun.

L5R and The One Ring are both in print (you can order the The One Ring by following the Buy Now links to the store from the page I linked). Shadowrun is probably available even if it may no longer be in print.