Game of Choice

[r_Chance]

I advise a high school game club. They play it all from video games to card games to paper and pencil RPGs. The paper and pencil crew is hip deep in 3.5 D&D and d20 modern. More than half are new players, none seem to be having any great difficulty and all seem to be having a blast. They loooked over 4E and chose 3.5. The relative complexity doesn't seem to bother them. Given the rate at which WotC is cranking out books (each thinner, often subdivided, and more expensive than it's 3.5 equivalent) for 4E I suspect the complexity issue is relative. Different players will like each (or in some cases both). My own game is rolling over to Pathfinder with some house rules. It's a better fit for my homebrew campaign. I see it as a differnt balance between world simulation (3.5) and game (4E).

*edit* My campaign world originated with the original D&D game in 1974-5. Too many differences for a comfortable transition from 3.5 to 4E.

 

[Archon]

Not to make this an argument about THACO, but it's unreasonable to attack the Basic/1e Combat System for its Armor Class rules. Armor Class is just a modifier to the attacker's die roll. If (Die Roll) + (AC) + (To Hit Bonus) = 20 you hit. THACO is just (20) - (Attack Bonus) which some peopel find intuitive and others don't.

But if my fighter has +3 attack bonus, my target has AC3, and I roll a 15. 15+3+3=21. I hit. That's it.

The higher the armor class, the bigger the bonus to the (attack) roll. I genuinely don't understand why this is perceived as complex. If I told you "Large creatures are Size Class 10 because they are easy to hit; you get to add the Size of +10 to your attack" and "Small creatures are Size Class 3 because they are harder to hit; you only add the Size of +3 to your attack" and "Tiny creatures are Size Class -2; you subtract 2 from your attack" that wouldn't be hard to understand. So why is it hard to understand to say "Unarmored creatures are Armor Class 10 because they are easy to hit; you add the Armor of +10 to your attack", etc.?

As for speed of play, we ran a battle in Basic D&D last week that pit a party of 5 5th level characters and 6 2-4th level NPCs against 480 skeletons. The entire battle took only 30 minutes to adjudicate. Fighting that battle in 3.5 or 4 would take hours.

 

[Hammith]

I enjoy 3.5 or Pathfinder most, because of the complexity to it. It's the exact right amount of rules for my group and I, whereas 4th edition is far too simple in some regards to really hold my interest. 4th edition also feels less dangerous, and I have a hard enough time challenging my players in 3e.

My last gripe against 4th is probably the largest in my mind. That's the fact that all the classes feel too 'same-y'. I like that wizards start out wimps and rise to out power the warriors in 3e (though, oddly enough, the guy that plays warriors in my games is just such an insane twink he normally gets in just as many good hits). I like the unbalance of things, it makes things more interesting.

I have a number of other small gripes against 4th, but I do have to say that there are quite a many things I've pulled from it to use in my 3e games. It's not a bad game, it's just not for me.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Oh, dear. Not That Game System. It's right down there with Steve Jackson's GURPS in terms of convoluted rules complexities. If you need to know calculus to stat a vehicle, something is terribly, terribly wrong with your game. Both suffer from being so-called 'universal' games. There's so much rules lawyering in both because they must encompass almost every possible game situation. Overall, they just collapse under their own weight, and they don't have a specific stylistic flavour to them that makes the slog through rules hell worth it.

Savage Worlds does the same Universal System dance, only much faster and easier. However GURPs is still a better system then That Game System, it's mostly balanced and while it takes a million years to figure out, it can be quite rewarding when you do. Also Steve Jackson learns from his mistakes and is by all accounts a stand up guy.

 

[Woem]

You can talk about easier/harder games, but I think 4th is a better fit for new gamers. Simply put, while a 3.5 character is an Adventurer, a 4E character is an Action Hero. The entire system is based around kicking ass and looking good while doing it. 3.5 is grittier in comparison (while still being fairly low in realism).

My group still plays both systems, as they scratch different itches. The big 3.5 advantage is that there are a lot of "reskins" out there to change the feel of the game without needing to learn another ruleset. (Two that come to mind are Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes, from Monte Cook).

I think 4E is better fit, not so much for new gamers but for younger gamers. The very nature of 4E with its at-will, encounter and daily powers are very easy to understand and manage, and they are very similar to the concepts of many current MMORPGs. They are much easier than the previous (A)DND editions where you had to keep track of spells per days and resting. I'm not saying they are better, I'm just saying they are easier.

Having started with ADND2E and following up with 3E, 3.5E, 4E and Pathfinder I now tend to look at more generic rules. Apart from the modern day setting Modern d20 already went a long way in this. Injury [http://true20.com] variant however it is probably one of my favorite systems. Making things even more generic I'm now looking at some Robin Laws systems like Over The Edge or the narrative HeroQuest (the RPG, not the boardgame).

I'm looking forward to the follow-up article to see how it all went!

 

[Artemis923]

By the love of Thor, go with 3.5.

4th edition feels more like a WoW/Diablo knock off on pen and paper.

 

[Woem]

Not to make this an argument about THACO, but it's unreasonable to attack the Basic/1e Combat System for its Armor Class rules. Armor Class is just a modifier to the attacker's die roll. If (Die Roll) + (AC) + (To Hit Bonus) = 20 you hit. THACO is just (20) - (Attack Bonus) which some peopel find intuitive and others don't.

But if my fighter has +3 attack bonus, my target has AC3, and I roll a 15. 15+3+3=21. I hit. That's it.

The higher the armor class, the bigger the bonus to the (attack) roll. I genuinely don't understand why this is perceived as complex. If I told you "Large creatures are Size Class 10 because they are easy to hit; you get to add the Size of +10 to your attack" and "Small creatures are Size Class 3 because they are harder to hit; you only add the Size of +3 to your attack" and "Tiny creatures are Size Class -2; you subtract 2 from your attack" that wouldn't be hard to understand. So why is it hard to understand to say "Unarmored creatures are Armor Class 10 because they are easy to hit; you add the Armor of +10 to your attack", etc.?

As for speed of play, we ran a battle in Basic D&D last week that pit a party of 5 5th level characters and 6 2-4th level NPCs against 480 skeletons. The entire battle took only 30 minutes to adjudicate. Fighting that battle in 3.5 or 4 would take hours.

I completely agree. I think the thac0 issue is more myth than reality, and it is usually used by people who never played a game that actually used thac0. Most current systems aren't any less complex when it comes to combat. You usually have to compare a die + str + combat modifiers against a die/number + dex + armor + defense modifiers.

Out of curiosity: was this the game with Chris Brackett?

 

[Woem]

By the love of Thor, go with 3.5.

4th edition feels more like a WoW/Diablo knock off on pen and paper.

This is exactly what it appeals to a younger generation, which has one big advantage: It keeps Dungeons and Dragons as "the first role-playing game I ever played" for this generation. A whole lot of role-players, myself included, first came in contact with it through on of the many DND installments. And those players either stay with that version of DND or they move to an older version or they start exploring the vast world of non-DND systems.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

By the love of Thor, go with 3.5.

4th edition feels more like a WoW/Diablo knock off on pen and paper.

I think that's just D&D playing to its strengths. D&D has never been a very narrative-driven game, it was all action and the story is just what you make of it. While I have no strong feelings about whether that's a good thing or not, I do like that 4e basically says "I'm an action game, you make up a story to go with it if you want to".

I've often heard people claiming that 4e discourages roleplaying because it doesn't have a huge list of skills, classes, prestige classes etc like 3.5 did, but it's that focus on simple action that makes it so attractive. People who want action get it in spades, and people who want roleplaying aren't restricted by an arbitrary skill-value on your sheet telling you how good your character is at something that has little to no value when it comes to the mechanics of actually playing the game.

Games that focus on the narrative can be a blast (with the right group), but D&D has never been one of those, and IMO it's a good thing that it isn't trying to be one.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Ha ha, good luck getting kids to have fun with 4E. 4E is much harder than 3.5, and not in a good way. The encounter balancing is completely out of whack and the available customization options to the players are distressingly thin. Magic items are total weaksauce and buff spells basically don't exist. In fact 4E essentially doesn't have magic at all!

The purpose of 4E was not to create a better game it was to evade the open gaming license, which Wizards of the Coast felt was stealing their profits.

4E kills all the creativity of the game. Want your character to do something? You need to have a "power" for it. What are powers? Pretty much just regular attacks with a lot of fluff attached to them. Right now my 3.5 game all the PCs are impossible to make in 4E. A mage who specializes in illusion and enchantment? All those spells are gone. A cleric summoner? Gone. A dual-wield rogue? Two-weapon fighting is now ranger only. The design concept behind 4E seems to be how limited they can make it and how many things they can take out.

Argh, I hate 4E and I hate what it's doing to the industry. It makes me sad to think of that as someone's first "D&D" experience.

 

[Woem]

Ha ha, good luck getting kids to have fun with 4E. 4E is much harder than 3.5, and not in a good way. The encounter balancing is completely out of whack and the available customization options to the players are distressingly thin. Magic items are total weaksauce and buff spells basically don't exist. In fact 4E essentially doesn't have magic at all!

The purpose of 4E was not to create a better game it was to evade the open gaming license, which Wizards of the Coast felt was stealing their profits.

4E kills all the creativity of the game. Want your character to do something? You need to have a "power" for it. What are powers? Pretty much just regular attacks with a lot of fluff attached to them. Right now my 3.5 game all the PCs are impossible to make in 4E. A mage who specializes in illusion and enchantment? All those spells are gone. A cleric summoner? Gone. A dual-wield rogue? Two-weapon fighting is now ranger only. The design concept behind 4E seems to be how limited they can make it and how many things they can take out.

Argh, I hate 4E and I hate what it's doing to the industry. It makes me sad to think of that as someone's first "D&D" experience.

You should very well know that they announced there would be no decent conversion from 3E or 3.5E to 4E, and definitely not on a class-to-class basis. Here is an official guide [http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4dnd/20080613a] for you. Here's a nice example:

Most barbarians fit best into the great weapon fighter build (p76), though barbarians wielding a pair of weapons should instead consider the two-blade ranger build (p104). Note that the former build slots you into the defender role and the latter into the striker role, so be sure you?re happy with the destination.

So 3E barbarians should now look for the fighter or ranger class. Other examples suggest converting a bard to a warlord, wizard or warlock. So if you want to convert a dual-wielding rogue and you still really want him to dual-wield, then start off by playing a 4E ranger. Don't hang on too tight on the name of the class and what it used to represent in previous editions. You are absolutely correct about the Illusionist though, there are no real illusion spells to speak of. Even in their Wizard Act [http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20080616] they only included combat illusions instead of "real" illusions like Major Image. For me that was a major let-down as well.

Of course no one is forcing you to switch to 4E. You can keep playing 3.5 or Pathfinder or True20.

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

It has been quite a long time since I've played 1st edition D&D. I think my uncle has the red box. I need to do that so I can do a side-by-side comparison of my own.

 

[GonzoGamer]

All good suggestions but I would go with That Game System. It's the most versatile and it's probably got one of the easiest sets of rules to grasp... for a versatile rpg: like if they want you to make it high-tech, involve super-heroes, involve mutants, or anything else.

You're kidding right? That Game System only makes sense if you beat the rules with a hammer until they work. I played it when I was 14, thought about going back to it, took one look at the rules and nearly had a heart attack! Woefully Unbalanced Character Options, a confusing as hell battle system and nearly meaningless skill choices with a very cumbersome Percentile System.

It's like a "How To Guide" of bad rules design.

Besides, the column author already knows of a system that does what That Game System does better than That Game System it's called Savage Worlds, and it is awesome.

Spoiler

I call it That Game System because it's creator has a very bad reputation of sending cease and desist letters to anyone who criticizes the game and suggests it might be anything less than perfect. He is not a popular man in the industry by my understanding, something to do with not paying the freelance writers who worked for him and then taking credit for their work, but that's just hearsay.

Okay but I wasn't badmouthing Palladium.
And I really hope you're joking. The only thing more simple than the Palladium rules is a choose your own adventure book. I always liked it because there wasn't too much fiddling with things, the head gets to concentrate on the story, not being a rules lawyer.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Okay but I wasn't badmouthing Palladium.
And I really hope you're joking. The only thing more simple than the Palladium rules is a choose your own adventure book. I always liked it because there wasn't too much fiddling with things, the head gets to concentrate on the story, not being a rules lawyer.

Check out FATE, Savage Worlds or Feng Shui, they do the same thing only better. Rules Light games that let you focus on story. Though I suppose Palladium does do one thing well, it leaves a lot open to interpretation, which can lead to either a lot of creativity, or a lot of boredom.

 

[LostintheWick]

I genuinely tried giving 4th ed a try... but I could leave 3.5 behind. I think it is still the best system for my group and myself. AND... 4th ed doesn't seem dumbed down, but it feels like alot of the diversity and control you had in sculpting your own characters has been lessened since 3.5.

I hate that 4th ed is what the next gen is starting with. I started with AD&D and it was great (despite some of its probs). At least start with 3.0.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Okay but I wasn't badmouthing Palladium.
And I really hope you're joking. The only thing more simple than the Palladium rules is a choose your own adventure book. I always liked it because there wasn't too much fiddling with things, the head gets to concentrate on the story, not being a rules lawyer.

Check out FATE, Savage Worlds or Feng Shui, they do the same thing only better. Rules Light games that let you focus on story. Though I suppose Palladium does do one thing well, it leaves a lot open to interpretation, which can lead to either a lot of creativity, or a lot of boredom.

That's precisely what I loved about Palladium. I was able to mold the rules into anything I wanted to make. Really, all you needed was the one book and you could build off that.

 

[Grampy_bone]

It is true that if you don't like 4E you can just keep playing 3.5 or Pathfinder. However, D&D tends to shape the PnP industry as a whole. In fact, D&D pretty much IS the industry. So I lament a future where hard-coded 'builds' and powers that all read 'make an attack and move' become the norm.

 

[New York Patrick]

Wrong answer, play World of Darkness.

 

[Archon]

I completely agree. I think the thac0 issue is more myth than reality, and it is usually used by people who never played a game that actually used thac0. Most current systems aren't any less complex when it comes to combat. You usually have to compare a die + str + combat modifiers against a die/number + dex + armor + defense modifiers.

Out of curiosity: was this the game with Chris Brackett?

Well, we don't play in a game *with* Chris Brackett. But in the game we've run at the office we've made extensive use of dungeons created by Chris and had an absolute blast. Thus when we started the "High Adventure" column series, I reached out to Chris to ask him to do Dungeon World as a series of new modules.

 

[kingcom]

Ah lucky kids, I always wanted to get into table top rp gaming but there was never a group around that i could join