CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Anybody on the sight a long-time player of DnD? I was wondering a few things about picking it up to play.

I've been playing since the age of 10.

This should probably go in the games section.

I've played some at my college; it's a lot of fun.

I Dm'ed and payed for about 4 or 5 years in the current edition. Also been looking at the upcoming 5th edition some.

Also, moved to general entertainment for now.

mechana2015 wrote:I Dm'ed and payed for about 4 or 5 years in the current edition. Also been looking at the upcoming 5th edition some.

I started playing in AD&D (that's 2nd edition D&D) back when I was around 10-14, graduated to playing with 'real' groups (serious groups) around 15-17, and eventually moved on to 3.5 D&D. I've tried 4e, but I really didn't care for it (I played two sessions of 4e to give it a shot -- I wasn't impressed with the PHB -- and that was enough for me. 3.5 isn't perfect, but it's better than 4e IMO).

Well, I know there is this whole edition wars fiasco...I'm not really concerned with absolute ideals about which edition is better. I would like to start playing and I have a whole group of newbie friends who are interested in starting with me. I thought about going with 4e/essentials, but I'm not all that concerned about ease of play. I know alot of people say it plays like table top wow and what not. I'm just wondering what your favorite version is and why? I would really also like to experience dnd in a way that seems to be supported by the players who have covered the scope of multiple editions and from what I've read the two most praised are 2e and 3.5.Would any of you recommend one over the other and why. Also, how would I get ahold of 2e as it is hold, and if you played it what would I need to start out on 2e? I know it's alot of questions. Sorry and THanks!

tronethiel7 wrote: I have a whole group of newbie friends who are interested in starting with me.

whole group of newbie friends

Then I would suggest 4e. It's most forgiving of new persons. The samey-ness that some people decry is to a newbie DM's benefit for fostering balance. 3.x can have a steep learning curve, and the core flaws are so close to the surface that you're almost inevitably going to bump up against them. 2e is surprisingly refined and semi-tuned for its age, but it possesses its own quirks and can be pretty **** esoteric and inscrutable at times. All this can be compounded by out-of-print books for older editions; that said, WotC is re-releasing everything if you're willing to part with mountains of dosh. That being said, It depends what you want out of a game. 3.5 is more complex, less balanced. This means characters are more customizable and less samey. So that's one tradeoff. 4e is very combat focused. 3.5 combat rules can be daunting for beginners, but it is better for out of combat stuff. I personally prefer 3.5, but either will be fun (it's really more about the group) and personally I like 3.5 because its the ruleset I'm most familiar with. I've played 2E, and found THAC0 annoying. I've played 4E, and was too ingrained in my 3.5 mindset to bother switching. I've played pathfinder and actually like it better, but I constantly substitute in 3.5 rules so I just keep playing that. And as an edition, it felt more complete than 4e was, and the presentation of splatbooks and such was much nicer. Plus, I like the slower-pace of the game. (I'm having a ton of fun in my current campaign. It's only once a month, but the players are all older (28-40), all experienced, and all roleplayers (instead of hack and slashers). I play again on the 28th, so I'll maybe let you guys know how it goes )

Honestly they're all decent rulesets. Also, 3.x is the Swiss Army System. It has rules or a splat for everything. With the ability to take class levels separate from a controlled progression path, there are literally an uncountable number of potential character combinations. Yes, quite a few are hideously awful, and learning what's what takes time. But there's something to be said for the satisfaction of putting together a solid character build that does what you want it to, without having to be bound to a single thing.



To answer your question though, you will never, ever receive a straight, unbiased answer to "Which edition should I start off with?". This is a very touchy question you are asking. For what it is worth, I would recommend 4e (Essentials or otherwise), since it is fairly beginner-friendly.


Also, here are some good selling-points for going with 4e when you are a beginner:


1. Nearly assured class balance. Some classes are definitely weaker than the others (assassin, seeker, warlock [binder], to name a few), and some classes can *grow* to be substantially stronger than the others (fighter, ranger, and warlord, namely). However, the imbalance is nowhere as substantial as it was in previous editions, and it only really starts to become apparent at level 11+.

2. DMing is a breeze. Encounter-building is fun and intuitive, and you can easily come up with balanced yet challenging encounters for your players. The treasure parcel system is simple and, again, intuitive, and it allows players to influence what they will receive.

3. You get to be incredibly cool in combat. It is like playing a video game character, *and I consider this a selling point*. You have cool special attacks that you can bring out every encounter, along with signature "Look at how bada** I am" daily attack powers that make you feel powerful and can turn the tide of a battle. That said, if you want the full effect of this, you probably want to start at level 5 or 6, when your silo of powers is more well-rounded.

4. You get to fight cool, interesting, and varied enemies. (Caveat: As long as you stick to the latest monster books, the Monster Manual 3, the Monster Vault, the Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale, the Dark Sun Creature Catalog, and the Demonomicon). Very few monsters unfairly kill PCs, and the monster role system allows you to send some astoundingly diverse monster teams at your party for them to fight.

5. More streamlined out-of-combat options. In my opinion, it is more natural to be using skills outside of combat in 4e, because the skill list is small and intuitive. You do not have Gather Information and Knowledge (local); you have Streetwise, which you use to be all street-savvy and good at greasing some wheels. You do not have Handle Animal, Knowledge (geography), Knowledge (nature), and Survival; you have Nature, which is used to be an expert tracker, a masterful animal-hander, and a sage on the wilderness.

#5 here is fairly newbie-friendly, since a short and compact skill list is going to reduce confusion on what you need to roll to get X or Y thing done outside of combat.



6. When you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points or fewer in 4e, you can decide whether to knock it out or kill it. With this one simple rule, characters suddenly have *that* much less reason to go killing everything in their path. They can knock enemies out and talk to them afterwards; or just be the type of superhero who leaves all the bad guys aching, sore, and in prison.

This one simple rule makes it very easy to run a game wherein the characters do not have to kill everything, and I find it amazing.

Oh, and here's a couple of hints:

1. Avoid Keep on the Shadowfell. It is a terrible first adventure. *TERRIBLE*. IT IS SOOO SOOO BAD for reasons you probably will not understand. If you want a good level 1 adventure, go pick up The Slaying Stone instead. Alternatively, pirate some recent (#181 onwards) adventures from Dungeon Magazine.

2. Avoid the Monster Manual 1 *****AT ALL COSTS******. The monsters there are unfun and terribly balanced. Instead, get the Monster Manual 3 and the Monster Vault to start you off. From there, you can pick up the Monster Vault: Threats to the Nentir Vale, the Dark Sun Creature Catalog, the Demonomicon, and other recent sources of fun and exciting monsters. Another good adventure to start off with is Reavers of Harkenwold, from the Dungeon Master's Kit (which should give you everything you need to start DMing, but not start playing).

(So if you are going to do 4e, get your hands on the some (or all) of the following to get you started:

Heroes of the Fallen Lands
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms
Heroes of the Feywild
Adventurer's Vault
Adventurer's Vault 2
The Slaying Stone
Dungeon Master's Kit
As many Dungeon Magazines from #181 onwards as you can find. You can either buy them or you can illegally pirate them and download them as PDF files and use a computer to read them.)


Reavers of Harkenwold is a surprisingly good premade adventure. The characters get to storm a castle and be epic heroes in a small-scale war right at levels 2-4.
The class role system in 4e ensures that, for example, a fighter plays *dramatically* differently from a cleric, who plays dramatically different a wizard.
Classes in 4e may look the same due to uniform formatting, but they are incredibly distinct in combat, and differing ability scores lead to different out-of-combat specialties as well.


Oh, and one last thing: The Essentials martial classes (fighter, ranger, rogue) are very much unlike any other 4e classes. They lack daily powers, and they rely mostly on at-will attacks. So, if you come in with one of those classes expecting cool super attacks, you might be let down.

Also, if you want to get into the basic framework of Dnd:

Aside from D&D proper there are other derivatives worth looking at.

Microlite d20, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, etc can be good intros to the basic framework.

As 4e was my starter I'll agree with most everything Neane said except one. Essentials is dreadfully boring. Some of the options are cool but the books are boring and the game is simplified beyond even what 4th edition does, and takes the 'MMOification' to the logical conclusion unless the DM is very skilled at instigating roleplaying.

Another book to consider getting would be (if you can find it) Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium, which includes things like the ability to buy property and hire grunts to work for you, things which are somewhat inevitable to come up in a game eventually.

I also have and addendum tor Neane's 5 on the 4th ed positives. Combat at higher levels can really begin to drag... and I mean REALLLLY begin to drag as damage output from both sides can become woefully low compared to the HP of some enemies (and players). There is a morale system out there that I'd HIGHLY suggest tracking down to make fights move faster, since otherwise a fight can last much longer than it ever ought to. This IS being fixed in 5th edition, but thats currently in beta and not due out for a year or two. (4th edition human rogue starting HP is around 22, 5th is looking to be around 9, and weapons seem a bit more dangerous as well.)


For the record I didn't start out with 3.5 for two reasons. First, 4th was still developing at the time and it wasn't clear that it was going to be as limited as it ended up being. Second was that we wanted a game running. Fast. 3.5 is so dense and text heavy, that even after reading a number of the books, I'm STILL not sure how you put an encounter together in the system, and I know I've barely scratched the surface of the content of the edition. I also had the concern that since I was less well read on 3.5 than some of the players (especially a few like an ex roomate of mine) that they would pull things that I wasn't aware of. 3.5 is eminantly breakable, with some items capable of vaporizing cities if applied properly and some classes easily capable of soloing major villians, so you either have to know the game well enough to houserule those items/classes/powers or eliminate them altogether, but this is only possible if you're aware of them, which involves a TON of reading.

Cool! Thanks for the feedback on four. I'm still considering it as an option, it definitely seems to have its upsides. So, I I were to play 3.5 what materials would I need to play a good game? Also, I've heard 2 does a cool job of allowing a lot more dm decisions and story focus while including lots of cool items and good ability ideas and whatnot with the powers and abilities options. I here as well that 3.5 can get really bogged down in the upper levels because of excessive math and stat tracking and what not. Pleas let me know if I'm wrong. I was wondering if the rule/math heavy build of 3.5 could be an issue. Could you give an opinion on that too? Thanks Again!

tronethiel7 wrote:Cool! Thanks for the feedback on four. I'm still considering it as an option, it definitely seems to have its upsides. So, I I were to play 3.5 what materials would I need to play a good game? Also, I've heard 2 does a cool job of allowing a lot more dm decisions and story focus while including lots of cool items and good ability ideas and whatnot with the powers and abilities options. I here as well that 3.5 can get really bogged down in the upper levels because of excessive math and stat tracking and what not. Pleas let me know if I'm wrong. I was wondering if the rule/math heavy build of 3.5 could be an issue. Could you give an opinion on that too? Thanks Again!

A very daunting set of questions, I will answer them one by one:

So, I I were to play 3.5 what materials would I need to play a good game?

Regardless of the edition, the only thing you really need as a player is the player's handbook (or PHB). I believe the D&D for Dummies book really only covered 3rd edition classes - 3.5 added quite a few more in the core books and more still in the various expansion books. The first 4E core book pared it back down to about 8 or 9, but there will be additional PHBs coming out (at least one a year) which will expand things out again.

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Masters Guide
Monster Manual
some dice (not just six-sided but 4- 8- 10- and 20-sided)
pen & paper
some like-minded friends

I never recommend trying to learn to play from scratch. Those three books have a lot of rules to learn and trying to read an play is often confusing and might spoil the game for you.


Now to get started on 3.5e:

Step One:
Unless you want to create everyone's characters for them (which is actually okay, but it isn't ideal) they all need to read through the Player's Handbook. They don't need to understand everything, but they need to have a basic idea of what to do with their characters and how to build them.

Step Two:
Create your characters! There is a very thorough walk through at the beginning of the Player's Handbook on how to do this. Give everyone a character sheet and get one for yourself (even though you're the DM, you still need to know how to make a character). Begin creating your characters step by step as you read through the first chapter together. Fill in the information after it is rolled and chosen on your sheets.

ALTERNATE TO TWO PREVIOUS STEPS:
If you don't believe the other players would be willing to read through the whole book first, then you could actually skip step one and dive right into step two. During character creation, the handbook actually has you jumping all over the book to other chapters to retrieve information and choose skills, etc. Its necessary to read each section to choose what you want to create, so you could use this as a way to get them to read the book without actually sitting down to read the book. Keep in mind this will take a long time the first time, though.

Step Three:
Have a published 3.5e compatible adventure map that is made for level 1 characters. If you're the DM, read through it, as this is for your eyes only. You can all play on a board with miniatures or you can play using only your imagination and words, whichever you're most comfortable with to start.
Step Four:
PLAY!

Also, here is a good article to explain how player interaction works:

http://dndnerd.com/dd-for-beginners-roleplaying-101

Also, I've heard 2 does a cool job of allowing a lot more dm decisions and story focus while including lots of cool items and good ability ideas and whatnot with the powers and abilities options. I here as well that 3.5 can get really bogged down in the upper levels because of excessive math and stat tracking and what not. Pleas let me know if I'm wrong.

OKAY, 2e:

Second edition rules have WAY too many loopholes in them. THAC0 was a pain in the buttocks. I mean why should you be thinking how to hit a zero when that's not the AC in most cases... too much confusion. 3rd ed rule clarified it significantly by making you just aim for a number and that's it. No silly negative modifiers. % chance for thieves was pretty much complete horse dung. It just didn't work. Having a DC for the locks and traps is much better with the skill modifiers. In second edition wizards were honestly underpowered, 3rd ed gave them an upgrade but turned out unbalanced in higher levels, 3.5 corrected it so that a 10th level wizard will be equal in power to a 10th level fighter. STR limits on armor was silly in 2nd edition... If you can carry it, you can wear it. Of course it will be silly for a str 10 char to be wearing a full plate mail... that would already be enough to pretty much put him down. Also paladins require a lawful good alignment. This already sets significant restrions. So far I have not allowed a single drow character in my campaigns because of the level adjustment and the simple fact that good aligned drow are still rare as a sunshine on a rainy day. Secondly elves, including drow (especially drow) are very chaotic bent. This would mean that unless you have a very good reason (not being raised among drow/elf) I tend to encourage having the alignment start as chaotic something.

2nd ed was ok as long as it lasted but 3.5 is much improved.

As for 3.5e:


I think that is one thing that many D&D players forget -- that 90% of the world are level 0 commoners, and so you're pretty bad **** with your STR 15 at level 2. You could kill like five able-bodied men in a village with not much difficulty. When Jackie Chan does that on TV, we think it's awesome. Not so much when it's us and D&D.



D&D is about being heroic. But being heroic doesn't mean that you're high level.

However, I don't think that the "best in the world" person would be around level 5. I think that'd be good for "best in the nation" or something -- the best archer in Amn or something. After all, if 90% of the people are 0-level, then a level 5 archer specialist is going to kick SERIOUS ****.

Old school D&D had what they called "name level" -- it was level 9. That was the point where you'd really become somewhat of a celebrity. Now I think that level 9 is a bit high for 3.5 D&D, but level five or six would be good. You're a local legend. Once you start getting up to international levels (lets say, the Olympics), I think you're going to need a bit of a higher level. There, I'd put level 9 or so. So, to put that in perspective: your level 10 warrior is known *through the entire world* as a bada**.

Now, okay, he's not a demigod -- that's level 20. But most people don't even get to level 2, and those who do rarely live to reach level 10. You're the best of the best of the best. You can do things that most people think are utterly impossible. You ARE Jackie Chan (or James Bond, or insert-your-action-hero-here) -- and then some. You are just freakin' awesome.

And really, that's about where I think realism ends. D&D doesn't, of course -- level 11 is just around the corner. Level 15. Level 18. But these are things that in real life never happen. If you've above level 9-10, you're not just awesome, you're practically super-human. At levels 12-15, you ARE superhuman. You're the local equivalent of Superman. And yeah, when you go a bit higher.... you're a demi-god.

Think about that. Demi-god. People worship you and start cults in your name, because you are THAT bad-a**. The Earth equivalent would be people like King Arthur, Buddha -- names that *change history* and are remembered for thousands of years. That's you at level 17-20. I remember in 2nd ed D&D's "Faiths and Pantheons" (I think that was it, at least), that many of the gods' avatars were between levels 20 and 30. Or maybe it was just when they were multiclassed (like "level 18 thief / level 30 cleric").


Now with that in mind, I ran a 3.5 game to 27th level and it was still fun.

However (you knew it was coming), from 16th-18th level I found myself having to tweak and change creatures to keep things working. I had to be very imaginative to challenge the group.
By level 20 I pretty much had to develop my own creatures, HP's, attack bonuses to challenge the group and not to kill them. This continued to level 27 where I found the overhead so ridiculously high that I brought the campaign to a conclusion.
You pretty much need a computer in order to do anything beyond level 27...but by then you will be as powerful as The Greek Titans.

The closet I ever got to level 50 was when I played the computer Baldur's Gate: Throne of Bhaal that's based upon the 3.5e game-set. I had a mod that allowed me to get to level 45 (Think: More powerful than the Gods of Olympus) and I battle beings with levels of 50 (Think: More powerful than pretty much every Roman and Greek God ). The final battle kept freezing my Computer.


Anymore questions?

Neane wrote:...
http://dndnerd.com/dd-for-beginners-roleplaying-101
...

That link doesn't seem to work.

I have to say that I'm happy to see this thread, it's a subject I've been meaning to get into for sometime. Though I've never quite gotten around to it, and haven't been able to find much materiel on how to get a group started, most of what's out there is what to do after you've got a group. *marks thread*

Anyway I've been looking at the Pathfinder beginner box as a good starting point, from what I've heard it's a good system, it includes all of the basic brick-a-brac that I'll need to get started (though from the description on the box the books included have been severely abridged, something to be remedied later), and one of the shops in the area stocks it and some of the books. I figure it's enough to test the waters, worst case I'm not out too much, best case I already have a bunch of kit and a snazzy box to keep it in.

Thanks Neane! To elaborate, I've heard that 3.5 can be very technicality and combat heavy, and that the math relating to all this can be overwhelming. Have you seen this to be much of a problem? Also, many say that this hinders the story and role playing involvement which are sacrificed for drawn out combats and restricted game play. Can 3.5 be played without grids and miniatures and returned to a more ad&d imaginative mapless battle style? I feel like the combo of those two ideas sounds ideal for the group I've got. The definitive system and customization of 3.5 with the more free dm control and story drive of 2. Is that feasible. It seems to be, thought I'm not entirely sure how. I could just be making bad stereotypes and none of this is an issue, if so please enlighten me. Thanks for helping me flesh it all out.

I guess after some reading and thinking it seems to be all about player agreement and dm house ruling no matter what you are playing...if the group can be creative in working the system to be what they want it to be it seems that it has every opportunity to satisfy. Rather than looking for the perfect prebuilt system, just work what you have into one. I was just looking for which edition would be a best base for creating that "right game."

Okay, Personal Stuff:

I have played all editions, and each has its ups and downs. Each can be made more fun with an appropriate collection of house rules. We did do a conversion from 2e to 3.5e, and it was pretty smooth, because 3.5e is just 2e plus all the splatbooks with a little bit of balancing and consolidation of mechanics. The conversion from 3.5e to 4e was deemed impossible by our group.

Vanilla 2e, with no supplement books except the point-buy system from Skills & Powers, is my favourite from a DM perspective, because it's simple enough to keep in my head but it does have minor gaming problems (What I already listed). 3.5e is fun from a playing perspective because there are a few more options and the levelling system is more lenient.

I'll never go back to AD&D 1e or original D&D, except maybe for nostalgia. I've found that 4e is too miniature-oriented for my taste; I'd rather just play Warhammer 40k (BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD. SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE. KHORNE CARES NOT FROM WHERE THE BLOOD FLOWS SO LONG AS IT FLOWS!
KILL! MAIM! BURN! KILL! MAIM! BURN! KILL! MAIM! BURN! KILL! MAIM! BURN! KKKKKKKIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLL! BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! LET THE UNIVERSE DROWN IN IT! MMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEE BBBBBBBBLLLLLOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDD FFFFFFFFFOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRR THE BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD GGGGGGGGOOOOOOODDDDDDDD!!) or Battletech (Realistic mecha is realistic.)

And besides, Finding people who play D&D is like finding people who follow an Abrahamic religion. They're everywhere, but some may follow different denominations and have irreconcilable setting/fluff/ability differences and interpretations.

You won't find any to take you under their wing unless you pretty much cast out any love of other game systems you have, from WoD to Mutants and Masterminds. If you want to translate something from one game to another, you'd best be prepared to use D&Ds definitions and predeterminations for everything about the character at the expense of fluff or capabilities, based on Character Level, Class Level, Multiclass Status, or Racial Limitations.

It's a solid battle system but unless you find liberal players and adherents, it's very dogmatic. There are hundreds and hundreds of homebrews but always keep in mind you don't play by your own rules. That Bender you want to play from Avatar? It's now a wizard. No buts, no ifs, no modifications. Enjoy your new class and limitations.
If you try and make up your own class with abilities, feats and balance, be ready to have it disregarded as trash. Even if one or two printed on the books are already rather trashy, it still has more clout and legitimacy because they're published.

But Every edition has had it's pros can cons (as well as edition wars between those who embrace a newer edition vs. those convinced it's totally ruined the game.) The short answer to "What version should I play?" is "Whichever one the other people playing use." Unless you're starting a whole new group from scratch, you gotta play what the others are.

If the latter happens to be the case, I'd suggest if you have some previous RPG experience or are money-tight the 3.5 (or better still, Pathfinder which plugs a number of annoying holes in the rules), a lot of 3.5 stuff is available in game store secondhand bins or on eBay...additionally, an electronic version of the combined Players and GM's guide for Pathfinder is only $10.)


If you're a complete newcomer to RPGs or want to play the most current edition, go 4E. It's somewhat streamlined (some say too much...YMMV) so it's a bit easier to get the hang of things faster. I personally also feel WotC did a nice job in equalizing class power, especially after a couple of years of tinkering.

Can 3.5 be played without grids and miniatures and returned to a more ad&d imaginative mapless battle style?

You can do it in 3.5, but it will require you to be skilled at painting a good verbal picture. You'll have to be able to describe to your players the distances involved, keep track of where each of them is (at least in relation to each other & your antagonists), and mentally model the actions your players describe.

You'll need to use rule 0. The players will have to ask you 'can I get into a flanking position on a thug?' and things of that sort.

Frankly, this would likely be best done in an Oriental Adventures type setting, or something martial-arts-heavy, as those styles tend to lend themselves to high-energy, cinematic combats (along the lines of games such as Exalted).

In short: yes, but you won't be able to do it with rules lawyers at your table, because you'll have to play fast & dirty with the tactical movement.

, I've heard that 3.5 can be very technicality and combat heavy, and that the math relating to all this can be overwhelming. Have you seen this to be much of a problem?

I would say that my sessions of playing 4e gave me the impression that 4e is more combat-heavy. As for rules, 3.5e does have over-complicated, rules heavy system where wizards kick the butts of anyone who isn't playing a wizard. Melee classes basically have the option to attack, or not attack. It's often credited as the most definitive and 'realistic' of the editions. But 3.5 is actually really good for making combat monsters. You have to juggle abilities well, and plan out progression, but you can make retardedly powerful fighters with the right splats.

As for the math: I promise you that unless you decide to get crazy there will be no calculus or trigonometry.


As for the 3e and 2e combination, it is perfectly possible...but I've yet to do that.

Well, I know that it's not good to start from scratch, but I literally have a perfect sized group of people from my church, all whom are among my closest friends who want to get into dnd. Only 2 have played before and very briefly and have little expectations and demands as they were not regulars but one time attenders. So, I don't think I'd have a huge issue with major playstyle disagreement as most are relatively unbiased at this point. So, you can have a story/ role play driven 3.5 that isn't controlled by all the rules? We kind of want to mimic that classic paperless mentally focused feel but gain the benefits of the cleaned up system of 3.5, it seems to have an optimal sound to it.

Just go eBay and purchase Hero Quest or Advanced Hero Quest... 10x more fun than any DnD session I've played. If you want something cooler and more complex, Descent: journey into darkness will fill that void. I do not like how complex Descent cause there's too much downtime figuring out character stats etc. so what I like to do is play descent but adapt the hero quest rules... Much more fun All these games are basically D&D with a board and cool plastic pieces and a lot more simple to learn.

DnD I hear is only fun I hear if you have the right group. A bunch of newbs and no one ever playing before, you are bound to have a boring session so bad and monotonous I doubt any of them will wanna touch the game again. I've tried paying DnD 3 times. I guess it was just my group but I won't touch DnD again. From my expirience the game is terrible and I've been ever since baffled as how this game is still popular.

Hero quest though is an awesome board game. Descent is easier to find and has nicer pieces but the rule book is like a bible so I just adapt the hero quest rules so its more fast paced, easier to get new players to play and has really cool monster pieces.

tronethiel7 wrote:Well, I know that it's not good to start from scratch, but I literally have a perfect sized group of people from my church, all whom are among my closest friends who want to get into dnd. Only 2 have played before and very briefly and have little expectations and demands as they were not regulars but one time attenders. So, I don't think I'd have a huge issue with major playstyle disagreement as most are relatively unbiased at this point. So, you can have a story/ role play driven 3.5 that isn't controlled by all the rules? We kind of want to mimic that classic paperless mentally focused feel but gain the benefits of the cleaned up system of 3.5, it seems to have an optimal sound to it.

In regards to diceless or even completely ruleless roleplaying... I think it can be a lot of fun with the right group. However, if you have pure "gamers" as opposed to story/character focused actor types you're going to run into problems as both types try to get something different out of the experience. After all, there's a difference between Role-playing with a Role-playing game. They're two completely different events. Roleplaying is play-acting in a ruleless system. A Role-playing game is a game in which you act out a character based on pre-established rules that define the character.
My first impression of ruleless playing that rules-less system are just for vetrans of other systems who kind of know how things run anyway and it's just dumping everything on the DM - she/he has to create the whole system on the fly and quickly resorts to whatever system she knows best. That said, rules-less gameplaying seems really appealing. My players have reached the point where a character isn't "properly" min-maxed, the character is criticised. Players get stuck on game terms "I make a skill check" or "I have X ranks in knowledge - tell me what the answer is". They lose the roleplaying aspect.

4e does have ruleless RPGing IIRC...that means that there are rules for combat and stuff but you're free to RPG as you seem fit. 3.5e has a rule for everything, even RPGing. Which lead to some funny situations. As Scarecrow said, the most important part of the game are the other players. My current group is made of veteran players and they are mostly role-players and not fighters.

The only problem with the games Scarecrow mentioned is that they're board games, not Role Playing Games, which means if you want to create your own stories and have your friends engage with said story in depth, they won't cut it and any DM with a serious mind for storytelling, overarching plot and long term games will quickly become bored with them.

Neane wrote:

tronethiel7 wrote:Well, I know that it's not good to start from scratch, but I literally have a perfect sized group of people from my church, all whom are among my closest friends who want to get into dnd. Only 2 have played before and very briefly and have little expectations and demands as they were not regulars but one time attenders. So, I don't think I'd have a huge issue with major playstyle disagreement as most are relatively unbiased at this point. So, you can have a story/ role play driven 3.5 that isn't controlled by all the rules? We kind of want to mimic that classic paperless mentally focused feel but gain the benefits of the cleaned up system of 3.5, it seems to have an optimal sound to it.

In regards to diceless or even completely ruleless roleplaying... I think it can be a lot of fun with the right group. However, if you have pure "gamers" as opposed to story/character focused actor types you're going to run into problems as both types try to get something different out of the experience. After all, there's a difference between Role-playing with a Role-playing game. They're two completely different events. Roleplaying is play-acting in a ruleless system. A Role-playing game is a game in which you act out a character based on pre-established rules that define the character.
My first impression of ruleless playing that rules-less system are just for vetrans of other systems who kind of know how things run anyway and it's just dumping everything on the DM - she/he has to create the whole system on the fly and quickly resorts to whatever system she knows best. That said, rules-less gameplaying seems really appealing. My players have reached the point where a character isn't "properly" min-maxed, the character is criticised. Players get stuck on game terms "I make a skill check" or "I have X ranks in knowledge - tell me what the answer is". They lose the roleplaying aspect.

4e does have ruleless RPGing IIRC...that means that there are rules for combat and stuff but you're free to RPG as you seem fit. 3.5e has a rule for everything, even RPGing. Which lead to some funny situations. As Scarecrow said, the most important part of the game are the other players. My current group is made of veteran players and they are mostly role-players and not fighters.

And you're effectively running a role-playing focused game on 3.5? That's pretty much my goal.

Yes, you can run a role-playing focused game.
Don't know much about it because I've haven't really tried something like that before.

Ah, anymore questions you would like to ask?

mechana2015 wrote:The only problem with the games Scarecrow mentioned is that they're board games, not Role Playing Games

No, there's a second problem, in that HeroQuest is notoriously difficult to find for sale, and the ones that are for sale are insanely expensive (we're talking around 300 bucks new) or in very used condition (meaning probably missing pieces). It's ridiculously popular and I guess not many sets were produced, making it really rare...that and the fact that it is really really good, so it's in fairly high demand I guess.

Yes I don't know why Milton Bradley doesn't rerelease it. The price today is ridiculous even for a used one.

Well, I guess the only thing would be any tips that come to mind for myself starting this group. Things to consider, Things from your experience, etc. Other than that I am satisfied for the moment.

Keep the group small. No more than 5 players, tops.

Also... why would you recommend a game system that's impossible to find?

tronethiel7 wrote:Well, I guess the only thing would be any tips that come to mind for myself starting this group. Things to consider, Things from your experience, etc. Other than that I am satisfied for the moment.

What edition are you going to use?

Neane wrote:

tronethiel7 wrote:Well, I guess the only thing would be any tips that come to mind for myself starting this group. Things to consider, Things from your experience, etc. Other than that I am satisfied for the moment.

What edition are you going to use?

Probably 3.5!

I think it would wise for me to remind you that playing the 3.5e as a newcomer will be somewhat more harder than playing the 4e as a newcomer.

And for no matter what Edition you do choose:

As the game is beginning, what you want to do is this.
Tell the players to describe their characters to the other players.
Backgrounds and appearances, mainly.
It is a good idea to do this to get the players in a roleplaying mood, and to let the players know a little more about the others' characters.
So Basically, as the game is starting, you go around the table and go, "Tell us about your character. What is their name, what is their background, what do they look like."
Only after all of this do you actually start the game.
The character backstory is not going to matter so much initially, because the DM is just running a premade adventure for the first mission, but when he continues past it, then the character's backstory is going to start to be important.