Which system?

[Nellisir]

In two weeks I'm starting a new D&D campaign, my first in 5(?!) years. And I cannot decide between Pathfinder (I have a ton of d20 books, am very familiar with the system, love the OGL, and lots of OGC material online for easy reference) and 4e (never played, never DMed, have no particular bias for or against, but know several people who swear they will never go back to 3e anything).

The plan is to meet only once a month, so making sure all the players have fun every time is a priority. Speed is also a priority - I'm familiar enough with d20 to make a few changes and speed it up, but I've heard scary things about 4e & combat.

I don't know who all the players are yet -- the two I do know don't, or won't, express a preference.

So. Thoughts & opinions?

 

[Dausuul]

To me, the biggest advantage of 4E is that it's vastly easier to DM. There's much less flipping through rulebooks, encounter design is a snap compared to 3E, high levels are no longer an arms race between the DM and the party wizard, and all manner of cool monsters are all statted up and ready to go.

If you're happy running 3E/Pathfinder, and your players are cool with it, there's not much reason to change. That said, if you go with Essentials 4E, I don't think you have to worry too much about combat grind--Essentials has done wonders to cure that particular problem. (You do have to get used to running fewer combats, though. 4E is all about the big set-piece battle rather than the series of quick skirmishes.)

What sort of a campaign do you have in mind?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Nellisir,

If you were to run 3.x, I would go Pathfinder on it's own with no extras; at least to begin with. I have done this with my Kingmaker campaign and can thoroughly recommend the changes they have made that make GMing easier and the classes more fun. Going back to a more conservative expanse of balanced options has addressed many of the issues that players had regarding 3.x. It's not perfect but then no game is and it is a step forward from 3.5.

4e (which I also play in and have a DDI account for which I recommend if you go this path) feels different to 3.x. It really encourages teamwork and emphasizes the party over the individual in many different ways. DMing is significantly easier due to how encounters are structured and how monsters are built and displayed - you can run them direct off the page which you can also do with pathfinder due to how they have done their statblocks although you still need to know your spells back to front.

However, part of the feel of 4e is like a boardgame as well as an MMO. It is not just a boardgame or an MMO but it does have enjoyable elements derived from such sources. (You can dull these elements if you don't jive with such but they will always be there). If you're used to questioning that some in game action does not make sense in 3.x, this feeling can be significantly amplified in 4e. Some player's are happy to make such sacrifices for the overall enjoyment of the game while for others, this can stamp all over the enjoyment of their personal experience and the verisimilitude they are looking from their play experience. If one thing I have noticed is true, it is that 4e can really divide a playing group - it certainly did ours.

I would certainly suggest you read into 4e and see if you like the vibe. It might very well be what you are looking for. Otherwise try Pathfinder without the 3.x extras - it will be familiar but new and comfortable as well.

By the way, what type of campaign are you looking to run? Kitchen sink, story-focused, sandbox, linear or what flavour?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[scourger]

Go with what you know. Stick to d20. 4e would be great if they would make a more streamlined version like Gamma World. But if you know d20 then stick with it. In fact, if Pathfinder is new for you, then just go back to your favorite d20 iteration. Make it easy on yourself. Have fun.

 

[Aldarc]

In two weeks I'm starting a new D&D campaign, my first in 5(?!) years. And I cannot decide between Pathfinder (I have a ton of d20 books, am very familiar with the system, love the OGL, and lots of OGC material online for easy reference) and 4e (never played, never DMed, have no particular bias for or against, but know several people who swear they will never go back to 3e anything).

The plan is to meet only once a month, so making sure all the players have fun every time is a priority. Speed is also a priority - I'm familiar enough with d20 to make a few changes and speed it up, but I've heard scary things about 4e & combat.

I don't know who all the players are yet -- the two I do know don't, or won't, express a preference.

So. Thoughts & opinions?

Go with what you are most comfortable managing. There are distinct advantages to 3.X, Pathfinder, and 4E. if you are most comfortable with d20 and 3.X games, then go with that. You can always look into (or borrow ideas from) 4E later. What's important is that you and your players have fun.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm planning on a set of short, quick, linked adventures. I have a storyline in mind, but I'm not tied to it. If one of the players wants to pursue a side angle, I'm happy to accomodate. We're looking at one game a month, however, so long meandering adventures are not going to work. In fact, I'll probably arbitrarily bump the characters up a level every month or two, just so we don't spend 9 months at 1st level, and they can explore the different levels.

Based on these comments, I'm leaning towards 4e. The increased mobility in combat is really interesting to me. I could go back to 3e, but frankly I've house-ruled it so much it'd be easier to switch to Pathfinder.

I've been working on a 3e/4e hybrid for personal use, but I want more time to work on it.

I have Essentials, as well as the 3 core 4e books - between MM2 & MM3, which has a better selection of lower-level monsters?

 

[Nellisir]

Oh, and thank all of you for your comments - they're exactly what I was hoping for.