Alternative to WoTC D&D

[Khairn]

There are some great 3.5 options available to you that have already been mentioned above. I'd not be worried about the system no longer being supported as there are a few companies that have made the decision to continue with it in the future. (Especially Pathfinder. WOOT, Go Paizo!) Bit if your group wants to try something other than D20, there are a couple I would recommend.

For more standard fantasy I would look at Runequest by Mongoose which I believe has an OGL license, or HARP by ICE.

If you like high very high fantasy with crunchy rules, try Exalted by White Wolf.

And if you're looking for a rules lite system with lots of flexibility, I'd jump on Savage Worlds.

 

[Simon Atavax]

We love 3.5! It ain't broke!

We are never playing teh 4e!

Now recommend a new system for us.

 

[Zil]

Hi,

My gaming group has played v3.5 since it came out (and 3.0 before that). We all have hundreds of dollars worth of books...<snip>...However the question has arisen (which I am sure it has for so many others); do we even want to stay with the D&D system over the long haul.

Thus my question is: what are the better D20 gaming systems out there that people have played? Especially ones that are “closest” to the WoTC D&D universe? As well as others like Iron Heroes?

I would say your best bet is to keep an eye on Paizo's Pathfinder. One of their stated goals is some measure of backwards compatibility with 3.5; if they pull that off not all of your old 3.5 will be invalidated. In addition, Paizo is putting out some of the best (if not the best) D&D 3.5 adventures these days with their Pathfinder Chronicles line.

Other things to look at are some of the tweaks that Monte Cook has put out recently.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Your reasons for not wanting to go 4E are valid. I'm going to give it a try, and will probably do some design work for it, but at this point I really don't know whether or not my home group will adopt it.

Go Pathfinder for your D&D fix. Go True20 for your Modern and Future games. It boggles my mind that so many people are so caught up in heroic fantasy just because it was the first genre represented in RPGs. There's a lot of other ground to cover which, in my opinion, is just as fun but a lot less explored. Right now the only way I'd run another D&D game is if there were some truly epic campaign that had captured my interest. I could see going with a Pathfinder adventure path or the War of the Burning Sky.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Deciding not to switch because of how heavily your invested in the current system is perfectly valid. As Eric Noah said, there has never been a better time NOT to switch.

However, arguements along the lines of "The Evil Corporation who Hates all that is Good and Righteous are out to screw me, and I will hate them forever for ruining my fun" is quite frankly deeply flawed. Some of your points lean in that direction.

The only reason to buy 4th Edition is if you think it will be a better game than what your currently playing, or if you think you will have enough fun to justify paying the purchase price. WotC could be staffed by reptilian kitten eaters from outer space who desire noting more than to bring down freedom and democracy. But would that really have any impact on how much fun 4th edition might be to play?

Anyway the popular suggestions these days seem to be either Castles and Crusades, if you crave a simpler game, or giving Paizo's Pathfinder a shot. Some people will probably also mention True20.

If your looking for a more significant departure from what you usually play, then look into Gurps or Shadowrun, or Paranoia, or Exalted. Just step into your local gameing shop and take a look around. There are alternatives out there.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Fifth Element]

My gaming group has played v3.5 since it came out (and 3.0 before that). We all have hundreds of dollars worth of books. Now that v4.0 has come out we have universally and unanimously chosen to never, ever partake in it

I'm not going to pile on, but I'll just say that this decision is extremely short-sighted, given that you've never even tried the game. It's not a rational decision, and colours the rest of your post.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

It boggles my mind that so many people are so caught up in heroic fantasy just because it was the first genre represented in RPGs.

I think there are two reasons for this myself.

1) Gygax and Arneson truly caught lightning in a bottle when they invented D&D. Not only did they do it first, but for a long time they did it the best.

2) High Fantasy is a hell of a lot easier to simulate at the game table than modern or future setting games. With most modern weapons, people just die too damn easily. So its pretty hard to run a plausible combat where someone take eat more than one hit.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm not going to pile on, but I'll just say that this decision is extremely short-sighted, given that you've never even tried the game. It's not a rational decision, and colours the rest of your post.

How is it not a rational decision to say that you enjoy the fundamental structure of the game you already play and don't want to buy into something that will be a radical departure? It makes perfect sense to me. What's not rational is to say that you must follow a brand purely out of loyalty.

 

[Imaro]

First let me preface this by saying...I am pretty much on the fence about 4e...it hasn't wow'd me in anyway (though this may be WotC lack of good marketing) so I'm more just meh about it. I will probably buy the 3 corebooks (on their second printing)but I can't say I will be switching over. I have alot of the concerns the OP is professing and replied to TMiTFH' comments about those concerns below

Some of these are valid reasons. Some are not. Some just miss the point.It isn't a matter of fixing what's broken, it's more a matter of attempting to improve on what's there ANYWAY. You're being silly if you think that 3.5 is D&D/gaming perfection and ought to actually be graven in stone, never to be altered again.

And the same could be said for 4e...Do you really think it will be the penultimate in game design? Do you think it won't have any flaws? Actually depending on what someone deems important for their roleplaying experience either D&D 3.x or D&D 4.0 could be the "perfect" gaming system for them. So how can you tell someone, for them, 4.0 is an improvement over 3.x (especially since, unless your a playtester, you haven't even seen the rules)

And did your purchase of $x.xx amount of gaming material also buy you a guarantee that the game would never change? To say the money is an issue is only valid if you actually DON'T have the money to spend. And then it's just a personal problem - not a valid complaint that 4E even exists.

Uhm...isn't this thread about why his group won't be switching to 4e, and where did he talk about a guarantee? How is this not valid as a reason for his group. 4e involves a financial investment, if his group has made a previous financial investment and doesn't want to dish out more money for a new edition, it sounds perfectly valid as a reason.

I hope you're just exaggerating to make a point because otherwise this doesn't really hold up. it was 3 years between 3.0 and 3.5. It was supposed to be 5 years and its eventual release was anticipated right from the start of 3.0 as INEVITABLE. Its release was accelerated by "bean counters". It was a bad move whose repurcussions are still being felt. But again - the game doesn't have to be widely "broken" for there to be sufficient incentive to try to improve on it anyway.

Sooo..it was a bad move that cam early and unexpectedly from WotC...yet somehow he is wrong for being cautious it may happen again. Yeah, because you should never look to a company's past history in dealing with them as a consumer.

That is eminently debatable. 2E had more issues, many that were still legacy issues from 1E that SHOULD have been fixed already, but as you say 3E is NOT perfect. Nobody was ever told that the system would NEVER again change. And, you say you spent large amounts of money on books. Well guess what? EVERY book you buy and use CHANGES the game that much more. One of the reasons given for both the change from 1E to 2E, and 2E to 3E was that the sheer volume of rules had become cumbersome and problematic, suggesting that a good solution is to start over with a revised system. That is also a valid criticism of 3.5. You say YOU can work around various issues with ease - but you DO HAVE TO work around them. And every book for it that you buy can only add to what you have to work around.

So 4e isn't going to produce splats and supplements? Otherwise the same issue will arise with 4e. The difference is 3.x rules are already known to both him and his group, they have had time to fix or work around what they don't like. With 4e it's starting from square one, spending more money, and (one could argue) you will have to deal with problems that haven't even been discovered yet.

What did 2E offer you that you couldn't get in 1E? Again, it isn't that there is a claim that the existing system is broken or insufficient, only that it CAN be improved upon. Personally I can play/DM and enjoy ANY version of D&D, though some versions are definitely preferable over others. And for me the ability of a player to "do almost anything" with a character is not the defining attribute of the game, though it certainly is a positive factor.

Well 2e offerd me Dark Sun, Planescape, Skills and Powers build system, etc.
As far as the defining attribute of the game for you...this thread isn't about what defines the game for you.

Now that's just plain not true. In fact its SO not true it smacks of trolling.

Let's see...
The dynamics of encounters have changed, magic has changed, skill tests have(supposedly) changed, how characters are created has changed, available classes and races have changed, etc., etc.

I would argue it's kind of trolling to come into a thread where the OP states upfront why he doesn't want to switch to 4e and asks for suggestions of OGL games...and the reply is to tell him why his feelings and oppinions on the game are badwrong.

But, what about all that MONEY you've invested? Weren't you saying that your expenditures to date must never be devalued by a NEW edition, much less a different name on the book covers altogether?

In all honesty most OGL games or alternatives don't cost the $100+ that the three corebooks do for another version of D&D.

Look at Paizo's new version of 3E/3.5. It sounds like what you might want. You also might want to actually READ 4E when it comes out and give it an HONEST evaluation. I'm not saying you have to love it - just that you and your group are being extremely, unjustifiably prejudicial.

And you seem overly eager to justify 4e as the "right" choice for someone who has stated they don't want to move to this edition (especially seeing as how you don't have the rules yourself).

To the OP: Besides Pathfinder, let me also suggest the Iron Kingdoms setting for D&D if you can get your hands on it for a decent price. Another suggestion, if you're into high fantasy(Dawnforge) or grim low fantasy(Midnight) both by Fantasy Flight Games.

 

[Darrin Drader]

1) Gygax and Arneson truly caught lightning in a bottle when they invented D&D. Not only did they do it first, but for a long time they did it the best.

I can't argue with this. However, sticking with heroic fantasy over all else is like saying "Hey, I like Lord of the Rings, so I'll never watch Star Wars, no matter how good it is."

2) High Fantasy is a hell of a lot easier to simulate at the game table than modern or future setting games. With most modern weapons, people just die too damn easily. So its pretty hard to run a plausible combat where someone take eat more than one hit.

I totally disagree with you here. The key to running an enjoyable science fiction game is to make things more cinematic. If you take a hit, does it represent a scorched hole in your chest, or is it a near miss, a bit of exhaustion, or a flesh wound. Besides, when was it any easier to take a claymore hit to the head than a bullet? I don't buy into the notion that swords and sorcery are any less lethal than plasma rifles.