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

[Derren]

4E is good for beginners and when you want to play "traditional" fatasy like "You are the shining hero, kill the evil beast, rescue the princess and take all the loot" then a good fit.

But if you want to deviate from that by playing something more exotic, playing some not so good guys or be more involved in politics and other out of combat abilities 3E offers more support for that.

Also, there are a lot of 3rd party products for 3E which gives you access to a huge number of different setting and games, inluding non-fantasy stuff like Spycraft. So far 4E does not have this 3rd party support.

As for the often mentioned skill challenges, be aware that the rules for them a bad, even after WotCs errata and that many people resort to use the rules which were developed on this board.

About the rules, it depends if you are more comfortable with having rules for (nearly) every situation or by having as few rules as possible (nearly only for combat).
I like more rules as I think that hard rules are the only way the gurantee that an action gets resolved in a fair way as when the DM makes a ruling its, because of human nature, either a railroad or the DM goes easy on the player and allows pretty much everything. In both cases imo the character doesn't really have an impact on the action.
But many people think differently and say that rules just stifle role playing.

The answer to this question is in the end the one which should decide which edition you use. As beginners you likely don't know yourself what you prefer so I suggest to simply start gaming with one edition and see if you like it.

 

[Mallus]

4E is good for beginners and when you want to play "traditional" fatasy like "You are the shining hero, kill the evil beast, rescue the princess and take all the loot"...

This is the new character in our 4e campaign (played by ENWorlder Atlatl Jones):

"Sir Lien Repossessed is a deva avenger who's equal parts Cathar heretic and sadomasochist. He believes that the physical world is innately evil, and flesh is just a corrupt prison for innately pure soul. Therefore, anything that damages or demeans flesh is actually a good thing, and he takes great spiritual pleasure in being wounded. Unfortunately, as a deva he's trapped in a cycle of reincarnation, and will never be free of his prison. This makes him rather testy.

In his current incarnation, Lien is tall and gaunt, and dressed in flowing black robes, like a Jihadist version of Lurch from the Addams family."

He joining a group that's equal parts mercenary company, theater company, socialist revolutionary cell and start-up religion, whose members include an sorcerer in an incestuous relationship with his sister, a partially-dead PI/ritual magician, and a Dragonborn paladin/poet/playwright with a small deity housed in his codpiece.

You were saying something about 'traditional fantasy'?

 

[Mistwell]

I think you can do what you want to do with either edition.

I think 4e will be easier to learn up front, but once you guys learn the game that won't matter much anyway.

4e will have more long term support for you than 3e. 3e will continue some support, but it will be drastically lower than 4e. However, the body of stuffy to draw on for 3e is already massive (far more than 4e right now), so again I am not sure how much of a role that will play with you.

If you ever need to add or replace players, the odds are with time it will be harder to find 3e players than 4e players. But, based on your description, I am not sure that is an issue that is likely to come up.

So, basically, I think you will have fun with either edition you choose, and the reasons to choose one over the other are pretty minor. Pick one. Once you learn it, then learning the other wouldn't be that hard anyway if you change your mind later.

 

[Mistwell]

4E is good for beginners and when you want to play "traditional" fatasy like "You are the shining hero, kill the evil beast, rescue the princess and take all the loot" then a good fit.

But if you want to deviate from that by playing something more exotic, playing some not so good guys

I have not found any of that to be the case. In fact, I am not even sure how one could draw any of that from 4e. I'd say there are more "exotic" and "not so good guys" options in what we have seen of 4e than what we saw of 3e at this point in its publication schedule.

or be more involved in politics and other out of combat abilities 3E offers more support for that.

I agree there is more support for political games and other out of combat abilities so far to be found in 3e than in 4e. That may change with time, but right now it's a correct statement.

Also, there are a lot of 3rd party products for 3E which gives you access to a huge number of different setting and games, inluding non-fantasy stuff like Spycraft. So far 4E does not have this 3rd party support.

I do not see how a game like spycraft is in any way relevant to the OPs question. 4e has some 3rd party support, and I suspect that support will grow with time. 3e had a lot of support, but that support is shrinking with time. So, it's a matter of whether you want to work off of the body of resources that was already published, or want the new body of resources that is coming in the future. I can see arguments for both.

As for the often mentioned skill challenges, be aware that the rules for them a bad, even after WotCs errata and that many people resort to use the rules which were developed on this board.

I think they work fine now, and also the rules developed on this board are also quite good, and easy to learn, and available for free. So, the question is "is there a skill challenge system available for me for 4e that works well", and the answer is "yes". So, what's the point in bashing it?

About the rules, it depends if you are more comfortable with having rules for (nearly) every situation or by having as few rules as possible (nearly only for combat).
I like more rules as I think that hard rules are the only way the gurantee that an action gets resolved in a fair way as when the DM makes a ruling its, because of human nature, either a railroad or the DM goes easy on the player and allows pretty much everything. In both cases imo the character doesn't really have an impact on the action.

All rules are created by people, and are therefore likely not perfect fair and unbiased. That is true whether it is in a book written for every player and setting of the game, or in the mind of a DM with the context of his particularly players and game.

But many people think differently and say that rules just stifle role playing.

Sometimes. Certainly if you are flipping pages constantly to find out what some obscure rule says about a situation that could be resolved without pause by simply making a ruling right away based on what seems right for the situation, I'd say it harms role playing.

The answer to this question is in the end the one which should decide which edition you use. As beginners you likely don't know yourself what you prefer so I suggest to simply start gaming with one edition and see if you like it.

I agree. Heck, try both editions at your local game store, if you can.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If this is your first attempt at tabletop rpg gaming, you might want to make sure that you and your players will enjoy the general experience before dropping the kind of cash that either 3E or 4E requires.

There are some free systems available:
Swords & Wizardry
Labyrinth Lord
OSRIC
Basic Fantasy

There are probably a few others too. Grab something that won't drain your pocket and just start playing. You can always explore other gaming systems once you are sure that your group enjoys the experience.

 

[Derren]

I have not found any of that to be the case. In fact, I am not even sure how one could draw any of that from 4e. I'd say there are more "exotic" and "not so good guys" options in what we have seen of 4e than what we saw of 3e at this point in its publication schedule.

3E practically allowed you to play nearly everything in the monster manual. Its hard to top that.
And I don't use hypotetical books which might come out in my discussions, only what exists and what is announced.

I do not see how a game like spycraft is in any way relevant to the OPs question. 4e has some 3rd party support, and I suspect that support will grow with time.

Again, pure speculation. Fact is that 3E has a huge 3rd party support ranging from alternate fantasy settings to science fiction. Currently WotC is a lot more restrictive in allowing 3rd party support and so far it doesn't look like there will be as much 3rd party support for 4E than what existed, and still exists, for 3E.

 

[Harlekin]

Hey, I'm just getting into table top RPGs. Wanted to for a long time, but I'm now finally getting it together. I always wanted to GM and I have at least 3 players waiting for me to get this started.

My only problem though is which edition should I choose.

Hey Zombie Master, welcome.

As I beginner, I would direct you either towards 4th edition or some form of BD&D, both of them have a robust structure that allows you to play and that will provide you with a fun experience, even if you get a few things wrong in the beginning. 3.x is probably the worst choice for a starting game.

I tried to do my own research into things (enough to know I might be hitting upon a touchy subject), but some help from some more experianced players would be appreciated.

Now I'm not trying to turn this into some kind of one version sucks and the other rules kinda things. I'm assuming that both have their pros and cons depending on the people playing.

From what I've gathered 3e has much more flexibility with PCs and adds more depth to non combat adventures. And that I could, with enough understanding of the rules, pretty much create anything I wanted. While the downsides of 3e are some somewhat unbalanced character classes and a system which some find tedious.

I am not sure I agree with these conclusions. The perceived flexibility of 3e is mostly a result of the system providing a large array of false choices that a beginner might make but that could turn out to be bad choices after a couple of months of play.

Furthermore, 3ed ability to customize characters really only kicks in around levels 5-8, in the beginning you will be playing a rump that may eventually grow into the character you are envisioning (Assuming you are avoiding those false choices).

I've also gathered that 4e is simpler, more streamlined, and easier to understand. And evens out the classes in combat. But it sacrifices flexibility for a more rigid structure, and less depth in non-combat adventures.

I don't think that is actually true when you start out. Especially at early levels 4th may be the most complicated edition of D&D out there. However, that changes quickly as you level up.

 

[Bodhiwolff]

A lot of people have made some very good points, so I'll try not to repeat them.

3E is a very detail-oriented, somewhat simulation-oriented game. There are tons of detailed options with specific rules and rulings for how to handle a wide variety of non-combat situations. There are detailed procedures for coordinating with NPCs, using specific skills in specific ways to reach specific ends, and so forth. The entire group of people at the table, players and DM alike, can tap into this detailed set of rulings to create their play experience. Occasionally, this can be frustrating for the DM, as the players will often have written rules to back up their plan, or their objections to the DM's rulings, and the DM should usually acquiesce to the rules-as-written in order to maintain continuity. Thus, there is a certain amount of power and sway in the hands of the players, if you look at it from this perspective.

4E is detail-oriented in combat, but not in other situations. It is very "old-school" in that respect, in that it goes all the way back to the original AD&D mentality where the roleplaying aspects of the game are the result of a social contract between the DM and the players, with minimal mechanical influence. The rules for adjudicating these non-combat roleplaying situations are *extremely* minmal, and it is assumed that all of these situations will be handled by a non-rules, non-mechanics mentality. Occasionally this can be frustrating for players, as the DM has ultimate say as to what works and what doesn't in various situations, according to his needs, and there are no "rules" or "mechanics" to make reference to in order to persuade the DM away from his position. (in theory, the DM is always right, but in 3E this mentality doesn't necessarily mesh well when the mechanics don't mesh with the DM's needs). Thus, there is a certain amount of power and sway in the hands of the DM, if you look at it from this perspective.

I, personally, don't feel that roleplaying, story, plot, or character is assisted overly-much by a detailed set of rules and rulings. I want a *lot* of such things in my games, but I don't want them hampered by structure. Indeed, I prefer a more fluid setup, being an old fart who played AD&D originally where there *were* no rules for those situations (and yet we made do just fine). Thus, I often found a complex system of mechanics to be more of a hindrance than a help, even for the players, since it tends to make one think "inside the box" instead of outside. Thus, 4E for me fits *very* much in my playstyle. Lots of detail in the combat, but the DM has absolute liberty to spin the greatest adventure yarns ever, free from outside hampering of mechanics.

I can understand completely, however, if new players and new DM's feel less compelled by this lack of structure. Indeed, in a situation where the DM has gone off the wire, and the players are uncomfortable with the way things are going, a more structured system would be the perfect way to bring back a feeling of comfort and control to the players.

But if you have a DM who is even the least bit creative, and if you and your players are comfortable that you're all playing the game together (and don't have an adversarial relationship) then I believe that 4E is the best possible option for new players, and new DMs.

 

[RefinedBean]

A Werewolf Bard, huh?

Pick up an old World of Darkness book, Werewolf: The Apocalypse. Play a Galliard.

All joking aside (and honestly, W:A is a pretty fun game), I'd second the motion to try both systems, if you can. Both 3E (in whatever form) and 4E are excellent systems that allow for a wide range of gameplay. Cook up a few one-shots using both the rules system and let your group decide.

 

[pawsplay]

I find 3e to be a superior game for my preferred gaming style. That will not hold with many people, of course. I'll go as far as saying that 3e has been tried and tested and found to be an excellent game. 3e still has many players. 4e is, as yet, new and untested and could yet disappoint despite the favorable reception it has gotten from so many people. Even that does not matter if you are really only concerned with the next campaign or two you are planning on running.

3e is a lot more concerned with the simulated reality, 4e with the simulated challenge. Whereas 3e will tell you how tough a 6th level elf fighter is, 4e will tell you how tough they should be. 4e suffers a bit from the moving goalposts phenomenon, in that higher level gamers are mostly just lower level games with more utilities and options available (and slower combats). 3e, on the other hand, suffers from the problem that many concepts are played to their inevitibly destructive end. 4e PCs are notoriously alike, mechanically, whereas 3e characters are notoriously unpredictable.

I like the unpredictable. If something is sensible enough to be allowed into play, then I am prepared to deal with the consequences. I care a lot more about surprise and fun than about some abstract measure of balance. I have a tough ego and I expect the same of my players; I offer no guarantees, do not promise to pull punches or fudge dice, do promise to challenge them at every turn. Great success or great failure are always possibilities. That is why I roll 3e.

All that said, neither 3e nor 4e is ideal for "werewolf bards" and other exotic types. I would consider Mutants & Masterminds with its fantasy sourcebook first. I would definitely consider GURPS and might consider Hero system. If you want to run a high-powered, low-math game, BESM might be the answer.

Very few games are absolutely useless for the narrative side of gaming. You can always have fun. You can almost always make game mechanics conform to some sensible interpretation of the fictional reality.

Ordinarily, I tend to suggest the most recent edition of a game because you can find players. In this particular case, there is no shortage of 3e players and will not be for a long time.

As for Pathfinder... do not run a game using the Pathfinder beta if you are looking for a game to really get comfortable with. The Pathfinder lead developer has stated that a lot of stuff is being dialed back to be more compatible with 3.5, so in many ways, 3.5 is closer to Pathfinder than Pathfinder beta will be. That said, there is nothing wrong with running Pb just because you like it.

Otherwise popular games with little or no support for werewolf bards: Castles & Crusades, Warhammer FRP, Runequest, Rolemaster, HARP, Riddle of Steel.