Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="malkav666" data-source="post: 4984103" data-attributes="member: 70565">I played 4e in two groups (including my main one) for about a year after release. We collectively decided in both groups that it really was not the game for us for a variety of reasons, some of them expressed in this thread, some not, but certainly expressed somewhere on the internets by this point. So I don't feel a real need to rehash them here again.When we left 4e, we became game system promiscuous and tried several different games:M&M: which I liked but I could not really sell the group on a supers game. I plan to try them again with the sorcery supplement for the game next time an open day pops up to see what they think.Monte Cook's Books of X: We tried spicing up D&D with Monte's books. This went over very well, and some of the rules and systems presented are still used in our games to date.Dark Heresy: Really only got to play a couple of games of this as we only had a single rulebook, and we could not seem to drum up enough interest to get more rules at the table (as a side note I really want to try Rogue Trader)Sw Saga: we played this some, and still do on some days (we use the system and CoC d20 to run space horror games)Pathfinder Beta: We picked this up and participated in the beta and had a good time.We settled on the final release of Pathfinder for our D&D game. It feels like more of an effort to update 3.x, and since my group really likes that ruleset, it resonates with them. They also really like some of the flavor of the printed campaign setting. Cheliax has probably gotten as much love as Waterdeep at my table as far as places characters "want to be from". Its not really that I feel that 3.x/Pathfinder is a hands down better game than D&D4e. Its just a better game for my group. They did not like the subscription aspects of 4E's marketing. And they liked better the freedom that 3.5/Pathfinders ruleset gave them. Which is weird to some as 3.x/pathfinder definitely uses a much more complex ruleset than 4e IMO.And to be honest Pathfinder is definitely NOT everything I wanted in an a new version of D&D. But when compared side by side with 4e, it is more in line with my wants for "D&D" flavored play than 4e is. My group tends to play and treat 4e like a board game, and the focus is always on the pawns and the battle mat. We never broke that barrier and saw the diversity that I see spoken about by those that speak about the system in a positive light. Thats certainly not saying that this diversity and freedom does not exist. My groups just never found it with 4e.But thats all gravy. There is a D&D flavored product in print that my group really digs from both a system and a flavor standpoint. So we went there. Is it the perfect D&D Utopian play experience? Nah, but its good enough to hold the interest of my groups, and the debate over which system to go with has been solved. One group plays a 3.x game, and my main group is playing Pathfinder. And it has been my experience that large pieces of 3.x have made it into play in our PF game, and streamlined PF mechanics are sneaking into the 3.x game. So despite 3.x and Pathfinder being two different versions of a ruleset from two different companies, they are becoming almost synonymous in the eyes of 3.x/ogl community that I lay down the dice with. And thats cool for everybody. Its kind of strange having two different editions of D&D flavored stuff in print and being actively supported at the same time in the limelight.But I think its situation in which everyone wins.love,malkav</blockquote>

Verification