Alternative to WoTC D&D

[Arkhandus]

To the OP: I would suggest trying Mutants & Masterminds (and if the power design confuses your group, pick up the Ultimate Power supplement, which goes into better detail on how it works and provides a bunch more sample powers). Or Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. Or Spycraft.

That should cover a good variety of stuff. I'd also suggest picking up Horizons: Mechamorphosis if you happen to like Transformers (it's a d20 TF-mimicking book). I heard that Sidewinder: Recoiled is good for wild west-style games, sort of, but I can't remember exactly what it's like since I don't have it myself.

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 you're building a straw man. He never said it was perfect, but said that no game system is perfect. And that his group is comfortable enough with 3.5, so it suffices for D&D among them.

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.

No, but obviously they spent all they feel they really need to spend in order to play D&D. They apparently don't feel the need for another, different way to play D&D by purchasing another set of rulebooks for it. That doesn't invalidate the desire to try out other games besides D&D. Buying two or three different versions of D&D doesn't serve much purpose if they already like the way they're playing with one of those versions.

But again - the game doesn't have to be widely "broken" for there to be sufficient incentive to try to improve on it anyway.

And a new edition doesn't always mean it's universally better; many new editions change so many things to where some people consider it as much a worsening as an improvement. Not everyone who likes GURPS likes its 4th Edition, and not everyone who likes Shadowrun likes its 4th Edition, because they changed some things that many people considered just right they way they were. So too do some people not consider 4e D&D a net improvement.

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.

Except that 3e has much less of a different-subsystem-for-everything approach, so it's easier to deal with the supplemental material. Also, nothing says 4e isn't going to have various issues that have to be worked around as well. Even moreso because it won't support the same breadth of concepts and stuff as 3e supports, until several years down the line.

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.

Though it is much easier to make the character you want in 3e, with its vast library of WotC and third-party supplements, because you can find what you need for most concepts without having to cobble it together yourself. Also, 3e's been around long enough for people to get a decent grasp of the rules, balance, and quirks.

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

Looks much more like you're just trying to cr*p on somebody just for expressing why their group is considering other d20 materials rather than switching to 4e. They're expressing their opinion and reasons, and they're not cr*pping on 4e, so why are you insulting them?

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?

Again, wanting to try out other d20 System games does not invalidate their D&D purchases. Most RPGers play more than one game. And they already said that it's not a money problem, just that they feel they're spent enough on D&D for now. Variety is cool too, y'know, and buying another version of D&D doesn't add so much variety as trying out something like Shadowrun or Iron Heroes or Mutants & Masterminds.

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.

Stop being so insulting to someone who wasn't even bashing your beloved 4e. Nothing says somebody has to buy something before they can decide if they'll like it or not. That's what reviews and previews are for, y'know, so people can form a reasonably well-informed opinion about a product BEFORE they decide whether or not to spend money on it.

And I doubt that what they're looking for is Pathfinder. They seem to have what they want for D&D as-is; they're looking for other games to try out whenever they're not in the mood for D&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

It's not rational because it's not an informed decision. Never actually having played a game, you decide that you will never, ever play it. The way it's written in your post, it comes off as being an emotional decision, which is fine. But it's also not rational.

What's not rational is to say that you must follow a brand purely out of loyalty.

Indeed. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

 

[Fifth Element]

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?

I also doubt you'll get much traction around here with the claim that 4E's "fundamental structure" is radically different from 3E.

 

[Darrin Drader]

It's not rational because it's not an informed decision. Never actually having played a game, you decide that you will never, ever play it. The way it's written in your post, it comes off as being an emotional decision, which is fine. But it's also not rational.

Incorrect. They have a system. They have a lot of stuff for it. They don't wish for their stuff to be obsolete by adopting a new system, no matter how good it supposedly is. They wish to continue using more or less the same system they already know so their stuff doesn't become obsolete, especially if it will receive ongoing support. Perfectly rational.

I also doubt you'll get much traction around here with the claim that 4E's "fundamental structure" is radically different from 3E.

So apparently we've not been reading the same previews? Sorry, but I'm not here to participate in the game system popularity pageant.

 

[Imaro]

It's not rational because it's not an informed decision. Never actually having played a game, you decide that you will never, ever play it. The way it's written in your post, it comes off as being an emotional decision, which is fine. But it's also not rational.

Just one question...have you tried every roleplaying game ever created before deciding they weren't for you. If so, just wow...really just wow that is amazing.

If not, why does someone have to spend money on something or even try someting for disinterest in it to be a rational choice. Rationally I don't want to eat a worm...and guess what, I didn't have to "try" one in order to make that very rational decision.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't have any interest in roleplaying games at all, in my FLGS some of them come in and play or purchase Star Wars minis. Are they making an irrational decision when they spend their money on the minis instead of at least trying a new rpg? I don't think so...they enjoy something, spend money on it and would rather build their mini collection and play that game. Yet according to you any of them who have never bought or played a rpg are making an irrational decision in choosing the mini game.

I understand you're one of the super proponents for 4e...but really this statement is so flawed it's not even funny. We make decisions everyday based upon impressions, advertising, and how we think...what makes D&D 4e this special snowflake that one has to actually spend money on (even if they are negatively disposed towards it) in order to make a decision on whether they want to play the game or not? It is WotC job to market the game so that I WANT to give it a shot. If they haven't done that why should I give them my money as a consumer, to try something which to date hasn't impressed me?

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's worth taknig a look at the main websites for some of the alternatives, like these: True20 - I advise waiting for the revised edition, which includes the contents of the True20 Companion, and which should be out soon; Spycraft, for which a fantasy supplement (Fantasy Craft) is also coming out soon; Conan the Roleplaying Game, of which I recommend the Atlantean edition over the 2nd edition, even though it's older - it's in full colour, and has much better binding, by all accounts; Mutants & Masterminds, another d20-based system receiving a fantasy supplement this year (Wizards & Warlocks is the wroking title, I believe.) There are others, of course. Each has forums, where fans, writers and publishers can help out quite a bit. And a few, if not all in fact, offer previews, quick start rules, or something like that.

Also, the reviews section here, and the one at www.rpg.net, are very useful. Among others.

I'm familiar with a fair few of these games, if you have any specific questions. And there are many other, probably even more knowledgable, folks who can do likewise. What is it you want to know? What kind of things appeal the most, or the least?


edit --- Oh, and Pathfinder, of course. That's one I don't want to omit.

 

[Fifth Element]

Just one question...have you tried every roleplaying game ever created before deciding they weren't for you. If so, just wow...really just wow that is amazing.

Depends on what you mean by "deciding they weren't for me". There are many games I think are most likely not for me, and as such I gravitate towards other games. That doesn't mean I would never, ever even try those other games.

 

[Fifth Element]

I understand you're one of the super proponents for 4e...

LOL. Whatever, dude. Please don't ascribe motives to me. I am going to try 4E, and I think I will probably like it enough to switch from 3.5, but there are some things that make me hesitant about it, and may be enough to keep me from switching.

 

[Imaro]

Depends on what you mean by "deciding they weren't for me". There are many games I think are most likely not for me, and as such I gravitate towards other games. That doesn't mean I would never, ever even try those other games.

Okay...but there are games that you have chosen not to spend money on...without having played them. Right? SO how is this any different from someone deciding 4e isn't for them without buying and trying out the game.

LOL. Whatever, dude. Please don't ascribe motives to me. I am going to try 4E, and I think I will probably like it enough to switch from 3.5, but there are some things that make me hesitant about it, and may be enough to keep me from switching.

I apologize if what I claimed wasn't true or offended you, but I have(on EN world) seen you push and defend 4e (such as in this post) on more than one occasion...Here, the OP has stated they are clearly not interested in it and want suggestions for an OGL game. Instead of offering that, you disparage his reasons as non-rational but in the end liking an imaginary game of make believe is a purely "emotional" response.

I mean honestly D&D is doing things now that other games have been doing for years and it's still got the largest market share. In a purely rational world people would have moved to other games which had skills(Runequest/Exalted/Strombringer), feat-like abilities(Earthdawn/Exalted), Non-Vancian magic (almost every other fantasy game that isn't based of D&D) etc. long before 3e or 4e came out, but that's not how people are. In fact please tell me what makes 4e superior or an improvement over anything else on the market...easy answer... one's particular preferences. Thus again how is any of this rational or non-rational? I feel like stating the OP's reasons aren't rational is condescending, they are rational as far as his preferences go...and he, like I, may feel like we shouldn't have to pay $100+ to be convinced to like a product...that's what marketing is suppose to do.

 

[ejja_1]

Just my 2 coppers

I am fortunate enough that my local game store is puting on a demo for 4e with info that's been released so we can get a feel for it. Im in the same boat as a lot of people in as far as what I have seen im not paticularly enthused with 4E, but I will definatley play it at least once before making my decision. For those of you who are on the fence like myself, you may want to check with your local store and see if they are doing anything similar.
Just a suggestion.....