Ahnehnois
First Post
In other words, know your players. Always good advice.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Divided gaming group - looking for help.
- Thread starter Wulfgar76
- Start date
That would be the way I'd approach things.
And if there is sufficient dislike for what you prefer, politely ask the dissatisfied if there is a game he or she would like to run.
Pliantreality
First Post
Starting with a caveat; I am no master GM, I'm a barely competent player, and I can't even play the cello (last one is less relevant to this post, though). Consequently, take what follows with a grain of salt. Like, a really big one. Rough size and density of Betelgeuse, in fact. Imagine a plane of existence whose full substance was nothing but NaCl. That kind of grain of salt.
So, yeah. On to the question at hand; 4e and Pathfinder.
I played the old 3.5, from both in front of and behind the GM's screen. It had a certain texture, mechanically, which for me could be perversely rewarding as a player and unendingly frustrating as a GM. Building custom monsters was tough, certain rule interactions required massive oversight, and spellslingers in general found themselves somewhere between 'Awesome McCooljoe' and 'Unholy Power Nexus of Unlimited Potential'.
I am generalizing, but stick with me. Or read some classic literature, I seriously wouldn't hold it against you and your time would likely be better spent there.
When 4e rolled around, I found a lot of that ironed out. The races are simple in execution, and interact intuitively with classes. The classes (for the most part) make sense. A fighter does largely what I imagine a fighter could do. Similarly, rogue. Wizards feel wizardy. In short, each class has a carved niche (again, for the most part) into which they slot. That said, multi-classing is a hassle. And I think it is a hassle for the precise reasons above; each class already has a niche, so multiclassing in 4e sometimes feels like a home DIY project while slightly inebriated. I knew what I wanted to do, but I was working against what someone else had built. And the person who had built it was a lot smarter than me, when it came to numbers. And also what I thought was a studfinder turned out to be the garage-door-opener. So now my girlfriend is mad becuase I also knocked down a wall which turned out to be the back of her closet? And we got into a fight about dinner with the folks (how was I supposed to know her parents only drink white zinfindel?) so now I'm sleeping on the couch.
I kinda lost the analogy there. Back on track.
4e's strength, for me, is that it doesn't lose the forest for the trees. All elements seem designed (successfully or not) towards a game system which is easily accessed, utilized, and executed.
That is also 4e's weakness because, frankly, some trees are cool. For some people, the tree is more important than the forest. In 3.5, you can make spells! That's cool! Is it balanced? Sometimes (a lot of the time) it isn't. But for some people that is both desirable and forgivable.
Pathfinder attempted to find a nice middle-ground. Wizards are no longer squishy meatballs for the first couple levels, and warriors no longer stand in front of the wizards at high levels wondering what else they could do (HUGE generalizations there, please don't kill me). It has texture and isn't woefully unbalanced.
Is it better than 4e? Not the point of this thread, and beyond my purview anyway. I play 4e and I have fun. I play Pathfinder and I have fun. I have found GMing easier to do in 4e.
Best advice I've read on here is to know your group. I would suggest discussing with them their specific qualms with each system, and possibly take whatever steps you can to ameliorate them.
Good luck, in any case.
So, yeah. On to the question at hand; 4e and Pathfinder.
I played the old 3.5, from both in front of and behind the GM's screen. It had a certain texture, mechanically, which for me could be perversely rewarding as a player and unendingly frustrating as a GM. Building custom monsters was tough, certain rule interactions required massive oversight, and spellslingers in general found themselves somewhere between 'Awesome McCooljoe' and 'Unholy Power Nexus of Unlimited Potential'.
I am generalizing, but stick with me. Or read some classic literature, I seriously wouldn't hold it against you and your time would likely be better spent there.
When 4e rolled around, I found a lot of that ironed out. The races are simple in execution, and interact intuitively with classes. The classes (for the most part) make sense. A fighter does largely what I imagine a fighter could do. Similarly, rogue. Wizards feel wizardy. In short, each class has a carved niche (again, for the most part) into which they slot. That said, multi-classing is a hassle. And I think it is a hassle for the precise reasons above; each class already has a niche, so multiclassing in 4e sometimes feels like a home DIY project while slightly inebriated. I knew what I wanted to do, but I was working against what someone else had built. And the person who had built it was a lot smarter than me, when it came to numbers. And also what I thought was a studfinder turned out to be the garage-door-opener. So now my girlfriend is mad becuase I also knocked down a wall which turned out to be the back of her closet? And we got into a fight about dinner with the folks (how was I supposed to know her parents only drink white zinfindel?) so now I'm sleeping on the couch.
I kinda lost the analogy there. Back on track.
4e's strength, for me, is that it doesn't lose the forest for the trees. All elements seem designed (successfully or not) towards a game system which is easily accessed, utilized, and executed.
That is also 4e's weakness because, frankly, some trees are cool. For some people, the tree is more important than the forest. In 3.5, you can make spells! That's cool! Is it balanced? Sometimes (a lot of the time) it isn't. But for some people that is both desirable and forgivable.
Pathfinder attempted to find a nice middle-ground. Wizards are no longer squishy meatballs for the first couple levels, and warriors no longer stand in front of the wizards at high levels wondering what else they could do (HUGE generalizations there, please don't kill me). It has texture and isn't woefully unbalanced.
Is it better than 4e? Not the point of this thread, and beyond my purview anyway. I play 4e and I have fun. I play Pathfinder and I have fun. I have found GMing easier to do in 4e.
Best advice I've read on here is to know your group. I would suggest discussing with them their specific qualms with each system, and possibly take whatever steps you can to ameliorate them.
Good luck, in any case.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Arcane Springboard: The Pros and Cons of 4e seems to be a pretty fair assessment of this particular person's likes and dislikes of 4e.
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible is someone's look at the pros of 4e after playing it for two years (this was posted in May of 2010, so keep that in mind). They followed it up with a list of cons: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible. He seems like a reasonable enough guy to me.
Another view, this time with a more 3e slant: The Vacuum Of Reason: The Pros and Cons of D&D 3.0/3.5, AD&D and D&D 4th. The author still seems reasonable, and spells out his problems with both editions to some degree (and comments on AD&D, too).
Another pros and cons list: Dungeons & Donuts: Old School 4th Edition: Pros & Cons
Reboot your game with Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition | Nuketown. Another 3e slanted post, but a few of his complaints aren't as applicable now. His post was in 2008, so many problems have been addressed (such as bards, druids, and barbarians being added, math fixes for certain areas, much more content to provide options, and the like).
Hope some of these help. As always, play what you like
Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible is someone's look at the pros of 4e after playing it for two years (this was posted in May of 2010, so keep that in mind). They followed it up with a list of cons: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible. He seems like a reasonable enough guy to me.
Another view, this time with a more 3e slant: The Vacuum Of Reason: The Pros and Cons of D&D 3.0/3.5, AD&D and D&D 4th. The author still seems reasonable, and spells out his problems with both editions to some degree (and comments on AD&D, too).
Another pros and cons list: Dungeons & Donuts: Old School 4th Edition: Pros & Cons
Reboot your game with Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition | Nuketown. Another 3e slanted post, but a few of his complaints aren't as applicable now. His post was in 2008, so many problems have been addressed (such as bards, druids, and barbarians being added, math fixes for certain areas, much more content to provide options, and the like).
Hope some of these help. As always, play what you like
Last edited:
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Plenty of good advice in this thread. I'll sum up the main ideas I would recommend:
1) Play the one you prefer (DM's comfort level with game is critical to being a DM in the first place). In my case, that would be Pathfinder.
2) Play a different game altogether.
3) Play both on alternate meetings (or some other arrangement that gives each equal time in the long run). That way, everybody gets their flavor of D&D itch satisfied. Hopefully, they can all agree with this as adults since there's no way they can expect to get their own gaming desires fulfilled while preventing other players from having the same satisfaction.
1) Play the one you prefer (DM's comfort level with game is critical to being a DM in the first place). In my case, that would be Pathfinder.
2) Play a different game altogether.
3) Play both on alternate meetings (or some other arrangement that gives each equal time in the long run). That way, everybody gets their flavor of D&D itch satisfied. Hopefully, they can all agree with this as adults since there's no way they can expect to get their own gaming desires fulfilled while preventing other players from having the same satisfaction.
Halivar
First Post
If there is anything I've learned, it's that you shouldn't even both trying convincing people who have made up their minds on the edition wars. It's also not a good idea to force someone to play the game they don't want to. If they're willing, fine (one of our DM's hates 4E with a passion; but he's willing to run it for us [the players], so we ask him to). If not, leave them be.
If this group really wants to game together, this may be your opportunity to try something new and off-the-wall. Download the free PDF's of the old version of Deadlands. Go buy some really old D&D 1st Ed. modules at the used bookstore and run OSRIC. Try playing "The Pool". Get a copy of Burning Wheel. Or the old West End Star Wars d6 game, which you can also probably pick up at a used book store.
Anyway, take this opportunity to be adventurous. The game that is the furthest away from d20 will be the best in bringing your group together.
If this group really wants to game together, this may be your opportunity to try something new and off-the-wall. Download the free PDF's of the old version of Deadlands. Go buy some really old D&D 1st Ed. modules at the used bookstore and run OSRIC. Try playing "The Pool". Get a copy of Burning Wheel. Or the old West End Star Wars d6 game, which you can also probably pick up at a used book store.
Anyway, take this opportunity to be adventurous. The game that is the furthest away from d20 will be the best in bringing your group together.
Similar Threads
