New player asking for some advice/help, please. 3e vs 4e. Which one is for me?

[Krensky]

Well, to play the "try my favorite game" game, I'd recommend Pathfinder or FantasyCraft.

To answer the question though:

If you're completely new to the tabletop, you may not be in the best position to decide on a game for all time. However, based on what you said, D&D 4e will preform admirably, for most fantasy. It's fairly simple to play and run, with a decent amount of complexity under the hood. It doesn't allow the gonzo example you gave in a full blown sense, and I don't think there is a Necromancer class at the moment, so 3.X or a derivative might serve better. You should spend some time trolling (in the fishing sense) DriveThruRPG/RPGNow, e23, YourGamesNow, and Indie Press Revolution for free and cheap quick-starts, demos, and core books to get a better sense for what's out there. I know Exalted 2e, GURPS 4e, and Castles & Crusades have introductory adventure/rulesets, I think Green Ronin has Tru20 and M&M2 quick-starts.

I'm assuming western medieval fantasy is your desired genre at the moment, if this isn't the case, you should speak up now. Also, a little background on you and your friends and what led you to the hobby and what you want out of it may help us avoid pitfalls.

 

[jamorea]

My advice, try them both and pick the version you prefer. You're the DM so use the ruleset you feel most comfortable with.

Use the newly released 4E quickstart rules and H1 for 4E. You can use the Pathfinder beta or the SRD for 3E. Do a one off using each system to see how you and your players like the systems. Also, keep in mind, you're not stuck with one system. There are plenty of others out there to try if/when you get bored or just want to try something different.

Have fun and welcome to the tabletop RPG fold.

 

[Mercurius]

To the OP: Well, that's because one DOES suck and the other rule, but which one is which depends upon the individual

Seriously though, a lot of the specific differences have been outlined quite well, but I would simply address the overall feel of each edition and what type of approach each emphasizes, with the caveat that either are perfectly suitable for playing most styles of gaming.

3ed is better for "system thinkers"--those that like lots of rules and want to customize their characters ad infinitum, or DMs that like to stat every little detail. 4ed is better for "improv thinkers"--those that like to play off the cuff. To put it another way, 4ed is less reliant upon rules than 3ed; in gamer vernacular, 3ed is "rules heavy," 4ed "rules medium."

You could also look at this in terms of when they came out: 3ed in 2000, after D&D had floundered for some years with an anachronistic system years, even decades, behind the cutting edge of RPGs. It was a move towards system and organization; its core mechanic allowed for countless rules exceptions, modifications, and add-ons, making it seem more cumbersome than it originally was. It was, in some sense, the pinnacle of "first generation" D&D in that it retained the core feeling of earlier editions but with an updated game system.

4ed came out in 2008, well after the booming of World of Warcraft, wuxia, anime, Hong Kong cinema, etc, so it has some very "non-traditional" elements making it, in some sense, the first 21st century version of D&D.

Let us know what your final choice is!

 

[timbannock]

Tough call, definitely:

Social Stuff - 3e might have some more feats for social stuff, but 4e has Skill Challenges and Quests. Both have social skills. I disagree with the basis of the argument that 4e has less social stuff in it: 4e has less books out...but I feel that if we compare just the Core books, 4e actually has more system & advice for social stuff than 3e.

Playable Werewolf Bard - 3e's got the rules in the core books for this (PHB, DMG, MM1). 4e would require the PHB2 to get the Bard, or a subscription to DDI (which provides a billion other benefits, though).

3e's monster race rules are kinda clunky in various parts. 4e is much more streamlined in this regard, but that also means it's a little more open to DM calls, which could be a problem.

Necromancers + Undead legions - I don't see a clear winner here. There is no necromancer base class in either, though a Wizard or Cleric in 3e can do the job, while in 4e you'd need to look into rituals or any of the several monsters that do necromancy. It's just different ways of doing the same thing.

Both editions have crap tons of Undead, so no issues there. Both have expansion books on the undead as well (Libris Mortis for 3e, Open Grave for 4e). DDI for 4e can you give you ALL the undead that have been published. 3e would require some extra book purchases.


Personally, I favor 4e. It's not simpler to me...but it is streamlined. The one is not the other, necessarily. 3e definitely has "more to it," but I feel that largely comes from the ridiculously huge library of books. 4e might have less, but with DDI, you won't notice it. Frankly, I feel like both have too much junk out for them, but at least DDI makes it much easier to access and sort through.

That help at all?

 

[Mercurius]

Well, to play the "try my favorite game" game, I'd recommend Pathfinder or FantasyCraft.

Not to "thread-jack", but how can FantasyCraft be one of your favorite games if it hasn't even come out yet? Or has it? I've never played SpyCraft but I'm definitely interested in this game, if only for the uber-cool borders.

 

[billd91]

3ed is better for "system thinkers"--those that like lots of rules and want to customize their characters ad infinitum, or DMs that like to stat every little detail. 4ed is better for "improv thinkers"--those that like to play off the cuff. To put it another way, 4ed is less reliant upon rules than 3ed; in gamer vernacular, 3ed is "rules heavy," 4ed "rules medium."

Personally, I don't think there's a significant difference in the rule-heaviness of 3e vs 4e. The difference is in how they're handled.
4e has literally thousands of encapulated rule-ettes but they're pushed out into the hands of the players to run as individual powers. Their scope is highly limited in duration each time one is involved.
3e's rules filter more through the DM since they are, particularly in the case of spells, more open ended.

3e is oriented toward system thinkers since it was the first of the D&D family to really impose structured systems on things outside of combat - combat principles were applied to skill in general netting the d20 system, something largely continued in 4e. 3e also devised a system for classifying and building monsters in an organized fashion, one focused mainly around the type of monster and how that type of monster generally interacts with the world and PCs.
4e is less system thinker oriented, in part, because its design system is based more on the role the monster is expected to play in combat and the level of opposition it expected to play to the PCs. I would say that the difference, fundamentally, is that the 3e system is intended to generate monsters with stats that fit in with its general type while 4e is intended to generate monsters with stats that fit with the combat math assumptions of a given level.

I don't think either is more improv-oriented than the other. 4e promotes more strongly certain types of adjudication on the fly by systematizing them as an attack roll - appropriate attack vs appropriate defense - to handle unexpected actions that aren't delineated as powers. 3e's more open-ended design of spells and abilities allow for more improvisational use than 4e's strict power construction.

One thing about 4e is that it is benefiting from a different approach to information presentation than previous editions. Everything with respect to powers, magic items, and feats is designed to be tightly compacted and readily managed by players with a set of cards. This sort of idea has been percolating a long time since the 1e days back when Dragon magazine articles suggested players put their magic items on index cards so they didn't have to refer to the DMG during play. This is the first edition to really make that presentation style a core part of the game's design. 2e had it with spell and magic item cards, but as a supplemental product that I don't recall actually seeing in 3e from WotC (though I might have missed it).
This is the main feature that allows DMs to travel lightly, without so many books. So if you go with 3e, I would suggest you consider doing something similar with your players. Cards are easy to make since pretty much all of the core rules are available on-line for free and can be cut and pasted into documents, formatted, and printed out on index cards or any other format that makes things easy on you and your players.

 

[Particle_Man]

Whichever you pick, keep in mind that there are errata for both, and an FAQ (I think for both). I believe the skill challenge DCs changed in the errata for 4e.

 

[Mercurius]

The question we should all be asking is which edition does Vin Diesel play?

 

[malraux]

One other element to consider is how much electronic support for your game you want. IE, do you want to do everything via pencil and paper or do you want to be able to just click a level up button and automatically get all the numbers right. IME, 4e is currently the winner here. Because only some stuff was released under the ogl in 3e, you never got a comprehensive (ie includes all source books) character builder in 3e. 4e currently has an excellent comprehensive character builder.

For DMs too, the electronic 4e support is superior, IMO. You can search for any monster that has been published by a wide range of criteria and end up with stats that are basically ready to run.

 

[JackSmithIV]

I've never personally spoken to someone who has tried 4th Edition and returned to 3rd Edition. My players would hate me if I even suggested it. We are having such a good time in 4th Edition, and are very addicted.

I could reiterate all of the reasons that people have listed to go with 4th, but instead I'll confirm them:

They are right.

4th Edition rocks. I apologize if this was not more constructive.