Poll: D&D or Pathfinder?

[King of the Sandbox]

The thing that makes me laugh about Pathfinder is that every single problem I have ever heard leveled against 4E was said against 3E. That being said I much, much, MUCH prefer 4E to 3E (in whatever form you want to put it in).


That's not to say that I don't have my problems with 4E, especially this most recent wave of books. But, let me put it to you this way: 4E makes for fun games, while 3E was so bad it inspired me to quit playing D&D altogether & write my own gaming system. Which I did. And it was fun. And we played the homebrew for 10 years.


Here's my 3E/4E experience in a nutshell:
-3E-
Me: I want to {insert any action here}
DM: Ok, let's check the book & see what penalties you get.

Not only did I get penalties for doing something that my character was designed to do, but the DMs (this was multiple, independent DMs playing in multiple, independent games on multiple, independent continents, btw) didn't even know what kind of penalties to expect & so had to waste time looking them up each time.


Meanwhile...

-4E-
Me: I want to {insert any action here}, & I get bonuses just because the game system is pure awesome!
DM: Nice!

Pretty much. 3.5 is just cluttered with so many damn rules. I feel that 4E allows for a lot more improv without having to sift through books just to find out whether or not I can use my pants as a makesshift weapon for example.

In the end, though; the playing experience has a lot more to do with who you play with rather than what you play. I run 4E DnD games, and I always make it clear that the core combat rules are the most important part to maintain, anything else isn't set it stone. Custom classes, custom spells, abilities and even a few custom races come together to give us a unique experience.

Spell weaving is one thing I've been working on. When a caster reaches a certain level of arcane acuity, he or she may weave new spells on the fly. I haven't laid down the specific rules yet, but the first roll is a roll to determine if the spell is even casted. Another roll to determine whether it hits, and the last to determine damage. Overall, the rolls receive penalties depending on how powerful (read: difficult to cast) the spell is. Once the spell is cast, the caster remembers it, and the next cast only receives a small penalty in damage. Subsequent casts after the 3rd do not receive any penalties. Casters can only weave one spell per day. (Having him weave them all night would take forever, after all. )

I dig the spellweaving idea. It reminds me of a type of spellcasting from 2nd edition, Wild Magic. I may be stealing this idea for my game, as I have two mages that hate having to trek all the way to civilization to learn new spells when they level up.

 

[Silverfox99]

I enjoy 3.5 and Pathfinder the best. I mix both rules sets to create the world I DM in. The system doesn't matter as much as the group. I haven't played 4th because there is no need to buy new rule books when I am content with the system I currently use.

To me a lot of the complaints about the system(s) come down to the fact you don't have a good DM. A good DM doesn't need to look up rules to make a decision if a druid that has turned into a alligator can jump the bar at a tavern or whatever situation comes up. The best role playing always happens outside of the rule set in my opinion.

 

[trooper6]

Neither. I prefer GURPS.

I prefer to roleplay a game and have fun, not spend all night doing hard math.

If you prefer to roleplay a game and have fun, not spend all night doing hard math, then you should play GURPS. Almost all the math you'd need is done at character creation. In practice all you do is roll 3d6 under skill. That's it.

Also, as a modular game, you can play GURPS without all the tactical choices and have quite a rules-light game. Or you can add in more options.

GURPS is sleek, lean, fast, and fun with option to add on complexity where you like it. It certainly isn't more complicated than D&D.

Plus, I enjoy that it handles multiple genres well, as well as supporting social as well as combat, and gritty as well as cinematic.

I guess my only exposure to the game was at the hands of very precise, exacting people. But right now I'm doing just fine with Pathfinder.

Though it is true for most game system, for a game like GURPS, which can be so many different things, it is especially important to play with people who have the same gaming vibe as you do. I played in one near future sci-fi detective game where, in three years time, there were only three combats, and when combats happened, we didn't use combat maps, and used the basic combat rules. Then I've played in a Renaissance game where combat happened at least once every session--often twice a session, where we used advanced combat rules and all the martial arts combat add-ons.

I think with any game system, it is important to play with more than one GM of different styles. I also think it is important to figure out what sort of gaming style works best for you, and then seek out groups that have a similar gaming style. I think gaming style is more important than rules set.

That said, I've played every edition of D&D except 4e...(I've been gaming since 1984) and while I can have fun playing it with the right group, the rules sets aren't my favorite. Class/Level/Alignment/xp-for-killing-things, just isn't my thing. Though I'd play D&D before I played a number of other different rules sets which I think are actually broken.

ETA: Oh and also, since I haven't played D&D 4e, only read the rules, I'd certainly try that out with two different GMs to get a feeling for that as well.

 

[h0wdyth3r3]

"Dungeons & Warcraft: The Gathering"
I lol'd so hard I fell out of my chair. As a wow, magic, and Dnd player, I got ALL those references.
Seriously though. I tried DMing 4E with my play group shortly after it came out. Upon discovery that WoTC wasn't releasing ALL the game content at once, I tossed my hands up in frustration at the blatant money-grabbing. Seeing the way the powers were distributed evenly across all the classes, I silently wept for the loss of the wizards-start-weak-but-rock-later and fighters-start-awesome-and-climb-slower. I also saw the Wow-ism of daily/encounter powers, and nearly tossed the book through a window. It's not hard to grasp the idea of power cooldown time on a wizard's spell.. what with daily spell allotments. But a fighter who can only use a move once per day? Give me a break.

4E, on the whole, is easier to learn and easier to pick up and play. But bear in mind the adage "Nothing worth doing is ever easy." I find 3.5 and pathfinder much more rewarding and deep game play, as opposed to the feeling of a rules straitjacket from 4E. I don't like the idea of the game telling me how to roleplay (and forcing you to start over at level 30).

Tl;dr: 4E is easier imo, 3/3.5/P are more fun imo.

 

[monstersquad]

The problem is, not all players know (or are willing to follow) rule 0.

do you know what happens to those players?
Strike 1
Strike 2
Save or die

I've just kicked people like that out of my house. Fuck strikes. I spend a lot of time and effort to make engaging original storylines, and if someone can't play ball, then they can just go the fuck home.

 

[Fappy]

Wow D&D is winning this poll? For shame.

 

[gamer_parent]

for me, it comes down to a very simple thing

pathfinder is better than 3.5 D&D if you like the flavor of 3.5 D&D but not all the random crap that you have to add to make it work.

3.5 is better if you're looking for versatility and alternate fluff. (i.e. I like adding a dash of Tome of Battle for my 3.5 games)

Having said that, dude, whoever mentioned FATE and Spirits of the Century deserves a cookie. That's my favorite system right there.