3.5 better for world building?

[Glade Riven]

The advantage of the 3.5/D20 system is just how much stuff there is for it, and not just D&D - things like D20 modern, Future, etc. Then there's all the 3rd party products. It's easy to cherry pick what you want and make a custom setting.

4e doesn't have as much of a library, although there's a lot more options now than there were. I'm not as familiar with other systems.

 

[Aldarc]

To answer the principle question of the thread: the best game system to use for a game depends on the nature of the setting.

There can be little doubt that 3.5E possessed an incredible amount of flexibility. But at the same time, it became apparent through the d20 system that it still contained a certain amount of rigidity in its setting assumptions. For example, Vancian magic or the split between arcane and divine magic. A number of third-party systems within d20 would address this and prove to be far more flexible for a multitude of settings.

4E has its own degree of rigidity within its system, but it also contains a tremendous amount of flexibility in its own right. The class/power source modularity is one of my favorite aspects of 4E that has been a great boon to my campaign designs. Taking clerics or divine magic out campaigns in 3.5E can be difficult, but it is a piece of cake in 4E. If you remove just the divine power source from your setting, the artificer, bard, warlord, shaman, and ardent could all fill its party or setting function.

 

[Ariosto]

The class/power source modularity is one of my favorite aspects of 4E that has been a great boon to my campaign designs.

How is that? A PHB class has about 70 powers of various levels, plus those for Paragon Paths. Later books add more, both of classes and of powers. The overwhelming majority consist of causing X points of damage and Y selection from the combat bits box (move so many squares, dazed, immobilized, slowed, healing, etc.). What "power source" has to do with anything I don't know, because I have not noticed any significance at all.

Taking clerics or divine magic out campaigns in 3.5E can be difficult, but it is a piece of cake in 4E.

That statement makes no sense to me, unless one is somehow fixated on the mere edition-specific jargon of "clerics" or "divine magic" -- a petty semantic quibble I can hardly imagine anyone taking seriously as either asset or impediment.

I am not seeing much here, I am afraid, except a rather baroque set of combat rules.

I can only think that whatever you mean by "campaign design" is not really what "world building" means to me.

 

[Psion]

I dunno. 4e is so "concept follows mechanics" that I'd feel I had to shove stuff in that I think I agree with Auld Grump. But that won't have been the first time.

That being said "late 3.5 + supplements" was just as bad, because it pretty much followed the same philosophy. But at least up until Stormwrack or so, the design of the game was ABOUT building to the world.

Which is perhaps, in part, why I started to feel that 3.5 started to go south after Stormwrack.

EDIT: Let me refine this statement a little. I think that 4e has a less strong link between mechanics and setting. That gives the DM a bit more freedom, but at the same time, I find the result unsatisfying. AFAIAC, the mechanics should reflect what the world is like in some capacity, and emphasize their effect on the world and vice-versa.

 

[Aldarc]

How is that? A PHB class has about 70 powers of various levels, plus those for Paragon Paths. Later books add more, both of classes and of powers. The overwhelming majority consist of causing X points of damage and Y selection from the combat bits box (move so many squares, dazed, immobilized, slowed, healing, etc.). What "power source" has to do with anything I don't know, because I have not noticed any significance at all.

Power sources has a lot to do with designing world settings. No matter the gaming system, the classes - with all of their various combat rules included - create the perception of the operatus mundi of the world. 3E largely assumes the presence of divine magic in the world. While 4E makes a similar assumption, removing divine classes does not have the same effect on gameplay as it would in 3E. That "baroque set of combat rules" impacts the flavor of the world setting. The heroes and characters of the world will operate along lines defined by the classes themselves. Assumptions regarding the world will be drawn from the classes as well. There are different types of magic, and magic is drawn from different sources. This in and of itself has large implications for the world itself. Even if divine magic comes from

That statement makes no sense to me, unless it's a petty semantic quibble or Newspeak.

Why not? Or does your condescension impair your reasoning skills?

I can only think that whatever you mean by "campaign design" is not really what "world building" means to me.

In which case, it would help the discussion if you did not assume that we shared the same understanding and berate me for it. Would you mind then sharing what your idea of "world building" entails?

 

[Kaiyanwang]

The advantage of the 3.5/D20 system is just how much stuff there is for it, and not just D&D - things like D20 modern, Future, etc. Then there's all the 3rd party products. It's easy to cherry pick what you want and make a custom setting.

4e doesn't have as much of a library, although there's a lot more options now than there were. I'm not as familiar with other systems.

The point here is not the amount of books. The SRD is available for everbody, and contains a great part of Unearthed Arcana.

UA is filled with alternative rules for HP, AC, and spellcasting. You can make creatures in your game feel dramatically different. Add to this the fact that different levels play differently in 3.5, an you can just decide the flavour, the grittyness and so on just tuning these aspects.

If I'd play a campaign with cap at level 6, with not spellcasting, and different rules for wounds and armour (armor as DR as an example) the game would feel dramatically different. it would play like another game.

With a cap at level 12, adding adepts (and maybe eberron magewrights) and incantations, the game would play different.

A "standard" (???) D&D would play different.

An epic gestalt play would play different.

 

[Glade Riven]

Don't forget d20 Modern/Future - or even d20 Star Wars. d20 Star Wars used the Vitality Point system (I don't remember if that was in the SRD, but it was in Unearthed Arcana). d20 Modern uses several of the alternate d20 rules, such as class bonus to AC instead of armor or an ability score.

Heck, Book of Nine Swords and Tome of Magic introduced several alternative systems.

 

[Aldarc]

But these were things that were a part not so much of 3.5 as they were of the d20 System.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

When it comes down to it, I'd rather hash out the setting details then hash out math and mechanics.

 

[Primal]

I'm a huge fan of 4e, but I think the observation that 3.5 supports worldbuilding better is true. I wouldn't go so far as to say that worldbuilding is difficult with 4e, but 3e definitely gives the DM a few useful tools that aren't present in the 4e system like breakdowns of classed NPCs by total population, wandering monster tables, random treasure generation tables, stronghold building guidelines and the follower/Leadership rules.

Exactly; and Pathfinder has even improved these tools. You don't require them -- just as DDi isn't required to run 4E -- but those rules and tables surely help. Furthermore, as a friend of mine noted: "I used the random tables in Gamemastery Guide to create all the NPCs in the characters' home town, and I was positively surprised by the end results -- most of them became far more interesting than I could have come up on my own".