Is it even possible to introduce new people to 3.x anymore?
>Only edition that sates my autism
>Literally hundreds of characters statted and planned out from 1-20 (don't do epic levels).
>No 3.X scene whatsoever in my town, only 5e and Shadowrun
>Offer to teach friends through play with pregens.
>Constantly rejected because "it's unbalanced, rules heavy, etc."
>Have insisted multiple times that it's not that bad and I can literally just teach during play.
>"Yeah but it's unbalanced and rules heavy"
Have you guys had any success in getting newcomers?
Tell them you're playing Pathfinder and Pathfinder fixed the balance issues.
Lie to them and then just run 3.5.
Alternatively to , tell them its homebrewed 5e. 80% of 3e is more or less straight portable because 5e in the next days had at least one bright person that said "lets remove the 4etardism and just simplify 3e, take the staple caster feats and cram them in as rules or basic class features, at wills already were reserve feats simplified, dungeoncrasher scale can be the martial baseline, etc".
You will have to cut down modifier types down to 4-5 at most to make it less notable (e.g. size, racial, profane, divine just down to working off ability mod; deflect, nat, chem, rez, dodge, etc down just to armor, etc.), but if its people that think 3e is "unbalanced and too rules heavy" it are people too stupid to understand modifier stacking in the first place.
Lol i often do an opposite thing. I tel people that we're going to play DnD, when they're already involved, added to chat, get to know each other, etc. I send them links to Pathfinder rules and say, that actually we're playing Pathfinder, but that's basically DnD but improved. It works with no exceptions for 10 years already.
>Brain is so thoroughly poisoned you try and recruit people into becoming 3aboos in the year of out lord 2023.
I'll keep you in my thoughts and prayers Anon.
It's genuinely sad that we have trolls like you who were so damaged by the Edition Wars that you're trapped here, still shitposting and raging at the world, despite everyone else having moved on.
You're screaming at ghosts. Let people play what they want to play, and find a game you actually play and go and have a discussion about that.
Clearly he has a point when OP is getting rejected for the exact reasons a lot of people hated 3E when it was current.
>Let people play what they want to play
Tell that to OP, he's the one forcing 3.5 on people.
No. Your preferences are wrong and you will be made to correct them.
It's possible to introduce anyone to anything.
Whether or not they are interested or stick with it is another matter entirely.
recruit people who haven't been correctly informed
>Is it even possible to introduce new people to 3.x anymore?
I just did, start the game from 1st level (using the character templates in the PHB) OP, it's the perfect way to introduce players without overwhelming them with choice paralysis.
>Inb4 you monster! Why did you resurrected that shit system?
Was out of a request from one of these younglings. Not to worry, i already initiated them in the hobby with brp, gurps and wfrp, two of them are already gming their games using 7th sea and CoC.
>Not to worry, i already initiated them in the hobby with brp, gurps and wfrp, two of them are already gming their games using 7th sea and CoC.
Fake and gay.
It's true. They were part of a local club, they knew ttrpgs because the owner run one (but was an horrible fantasy homebrew) so i stepped in proposing a non-fanyasy game (a wild west one on gurps 3e) and got dog piled with applicants. This happened in 2014, 5e was been released but not yet with the localisation for my home country.
Yeah, just recruit people who aren't terminally online.
I'm in two gaming groups and both run 3.5e whenever we're in the mood for a generic fantasy-type campaign; one chooses 3.5 because that's what they've always played, the other because 4/6 players were all completely new to rpgs so when I said I'd be running 3.5e they were all happy to follow my lead.
>rules heavy, etc."
>and rules heavy"
this is its main problem. Its fun to tinker with stats and things like that but it gets tiresome, tedious and boring extremely fast. Or past a point.
We played from basic dnd to 2e for years and then 3/3.5 came out. We were excited since we wanted something new and the 2.5 powers and options was very bad and for a time 3.5 was fun but it became a bunch of rules and repeating and losing time for rules and book searching....
It was not fun anymore.
Its complex and rules heavy in a good way for a computer game, but not for a tabletop game. Same goes for Pathfinder and some other systems.
You don't want to play mechanics, or most don't, you want to have fun.
All systems, simple and complex, can become tiresome due to their mechanics or some sort saturation fatigue but 3.5 and its adjacent systems accomplish this much faster.
They should have delayed it and published it as AD&D 3e, skipping 3e of 2000, after 2003 that it came out as 3.5. 2005 or sometime after thinking, testing, play-testing and repeating it till it had no bugs and was not what it ended up being.
We got 2000 3e, then 2003 3.5 and it was not even remotely ready.
I like the system because of its tinkering and many stats to mess with but it is incomplete. Classes a mess, this and that a mess.
Warriors became weaker, everyone became good at more things but this made this flat yet complex.
What's so unbalanced with 3.5 compared to 5e? Haven't played the former in 10+ years
>pick cleric
>cast several buffs on yourself
>now a better fighter than the fighter could ever wish to be
this is the most basic bitch example I can think of
I don't have a bone to pick in this argument but he specifically asked "compared to 5e". Don't 5e casters shit on martials roughly the same way?
no, casters are still better but they can't walk into the fighters niche and take it over anymore
Lies anon lies, I am tierd of getting my shit knocked by cleric, wizard on spars daily.
No, 5e casters do not have the ability to out fighter a fighter, they just have spells that give them access to abilities a fighter doesn't. 5e martials aren't a net drain on a party they're just effective if linear combat classes.
>5e?
5e is not an improvement, nor was 4e. It has many flaws despite one thinking they would have learned from the previous editions. Its a badly made mess that should never have been published. Its worse than 3.5.
You know how, in 5e, some spells require you to maintain concentration, and you can only concentrate on one at a time?
3.5 doesn't have that limitation. The closest it gets is that you have to make a Concentration check if you take damage while casting the spell. As in, during that action.
That's just off the top of my head.
No, there actually are Concentration spells, and IIRC they're action-constrained. The thing is that VERY few spells work that way, they usually last as long as you manage to Concentrate, and you can get extra actions to manage several.
I did say it was off the top of my head. I honestly can't remember any concentration spells from 3.5, though--certainly nothing as gamechanging as Spirit Guardians.
Implosion
Telekinesis
Detect Magic
Oh, fuck me, it's mostly divination and other non-combat stuff, isn't it? That's why I didn't remember, since there was generally less push to optimize in those scenarios.
3.shit isn't worth playing anymore.
If you're in it for Nostaliga, BX and 1E are better.
If you're in it for the illusion of balance with a lot of player options, 4E is better.
If you're in it for a braindead simple game to slap minis at eachother, 5E is better.
If you want an actually good game, then you wouldn't be playing D&D.
You do realize that you didn't demonstrate that it's not possible to introduce people to 3.x, but that your friends just aren't willing to give it a try.
I started playing 3.x in 2021 after having been introduced to ttrpgs with 5e, and I've been having a blast.
Seems to me like you just need to find a different group of people who are willing to try.
I love the system. It's basically a messy box of legos, it's so fun dealing with all the options at hand, even with all the clunkyness of things like combat maneuvers.
I sure have. But I don't bother recruiting rpg folks anymore. I recruit people I like IRL.
Because we are a bunch of nerds, they are usually at least nerd-adjacent, but not all.
In the last 4 years I've played with 30+ people. We mostly played PF1e. Only half of them had previous ttrpg experience, and I initiated half of those to the hobby. Among those, 20 of those still play ttrpg (with me or on their own).
Just play with people you like. Politely tell those you don't to fuck off.
I live in a 400K population city for scale.
I mean we played 3.5 before but then we tried 5e, hated it and moved on to PF.
I see no reason why you can't just play that. It's the same thing.
>It's the same thing.
with a lot of the fun options absent or nerfed
cleave line? nerfed to the point it's rare to even see it
dragonfire adept? you can sort of emulate it with alchemist but you get one fire breath weapon instead of the oodles you get in 3.5
prestige classes? absolute dogshit unless the guy running lets you do some early entry shit with racials
if you're playing with newfags though the floor on base classes has been risen to the point everything is at least sort of useable outside of player error, and stuff like Paladin isn't literal dogshit
>Is it even possible to introduce new people to 3.x anymore?
yes, if they can read a lot of rules and are the type that does not tire easily due to enjoying excessively messing with mechanics and their record sheets.
if not, then 1 or 2 would know the rules and the rest would vaguely roll dice and participate. Eventually it would fall apart. Maybe you will get lucky, but most likely not.
basic D&D, RC and the rest for simplicity
1e and 2e for intermediate state, or 1e goes above for some
Castles and Crusades is a light 3.5 with some 1e and 2e elements, something like that
2.5 powers and options no way,
3e no way
3.5 and Pathfinder 1e (its D&D 3.75e) for complex rules if you are for it
4e no way
5e no way
Other systems exist and can be used but they too can be too complex, too inappropriate due to some peculiar structure and so on. Some are good, some bad, some average. This would take some effort and could be worth it eventually if you have the time and energy.
I wanted to start a long campaign a few years back, not just oneshots once a month which is fun, but i wanted something more for the team, and told the guys we can start a Rules Cyclopedia campaign. Simple rules, fast and we would waste a fraction of the time looking up in books than in 3.5 or Pathfinder.
They all said oh dude no, and complained and wanted to play 3.5 or Pathfinder or 5e because they have gotten used to the computer game mentality of having mechanics and tons of stats to tinker that are lot and some jumped into buying 5e phbs blindly and did not want to "waste their purchase"...
We have not time and are tired but still wanted to do 3.5 and not RC.
>unbalanced and rules heavy"
one of the many problems with such systems is that for some people the mechanics and their semantics become the game, the gameplay itself.
example;
When brigadier Dorian discovers a burglar ransacking his home, he is shocked to find out that the thief is a former soldier of his. When the thief escapes, Dorian tries to contact former members of the brigade...
ok, what is the strange thing about this?
The players thought the burglar had the thief class with no doubt since he broke into a home had a hard time accepting that he was a fighter that just turned to burglary for a living.
Terminology overruled the description of what was happening in players heads. This became frequent throughout the game as the players could not accept or adjust their minds to the fact that anything could happen and they could only function within the game mechanics.
Something would happen in an adventure, like in Curse of Xanathon (1982), and they just went off-game off-character and had a blue screen or divide overflow. This became so prominent that instead of assuming that an illusion was interacting with them they would go off like, hey that is not in the rules that is a creature 1 and not a creature 2.
Their system crashed.
>The players thought the burglar had the thief class with no doubt since he broke into a home had a hard time accepting that he was a fighter that just turned to burglary for a living.
As the anon that started playing not long ago, I haven't seen that happen yet.
The guys in my group, at least, don't stop to analyze the world in mechanical terms outside of the mechanics of the game itself, ie making a skill check to identify a spell or some other mechanical characteristic.
Maybe it's because there are so many different ways to mechanically achieve whatever, or it's because we are engrossed in the world and the adventure.
At most we exclaimed "holy shit, a tob npc" once when the DM pulled a ToB maneuver during a duel or something like that.
Isn't the problem you described more a question of mindset than anything?
Also, if a group wants to play the game with a focus on the mechanic with the narrative as a backdrop o set dressing, is that a problem? I get that that's not what most people think of when ttrpgs are brought up, but D&D is still a game, some people might just have more fun engaging with the game part of the game, I suppose.
As somebody who currently has both ttrpgs and tabletop gaming as hobbies, I can get why somebody would want to play a ttrpg more like an ultra flexible tabletop game a la gloomhaven.
>analyze the world in mechanical terms outside of the mechanics of the game itself
this happened after several years. When we began it was fine, but after years and 3.5 it collapsed into a "mechanized division"|.
New players with no experience of any kind were the best as they reacted in a fun and proper manner. These players became clinicians of mechanics and trapped in that mindset. Due to this they sucked in all aspects. Even in game combat tactics and ended up unable to finish some adventures. They to put it simply buffed up the numbers but did stupid very limited things and could not adapt or solve any complexity.
City of Skulls (1993)? And many other adventures became impossible for them.
They became worse in everything due to becoming, mentally game-mechanized fully.
>This.
3.5, Path, 5e, players contribute little and their build is everything. OP enjoys that. I enjoy giving those players a hard time with problems their numbers can't fix. They fumble with their sheets looking it over, again and again for something to roll, some spell to cast.
It's fun.
>I enjoy giving those players a hard time with problems their numbers can't fix. They fumble with their sheets looking it over, again and again for something to roll, some spell to cast.
this was done by the mechanized players indeed.
And something else happened to them when they became mechanized.
It was clear that they imagined the world, their character from above as in looking at their miniatures or a top-down rts hack and slash and not as in the point of view of their character.
Play another game. People do the same shit in WoD and Cyberpunk
>play another game
I do, but D&D dominates because it's the default. New players recognize it and might already know some of the terms. It's an easy sell. I could wait an unknown amount of time that might be a few months or years to get a niche non-D&D game going on a IRL table, or I can form a D&D group in the next couple weeks.
I'll run 3.5, I've got my old notes and I can re-run adventures with a new group. Almost had a group for that about a year ago but didn't find a 4th and I wasn't going to adjust for 3. I put the bounty down, who so ever finds us a 4th or even 5th member starts a half level ahead of everyone else and your character starts the game knowing everyone, as in you are the de facto organizer/ leader of the party of this 3.5 game.
The party's quest to form a party failed.
You think you're capable of doing that but you're not.
>doesn't understand how problems without solutions that are skill checks work
Information games. Decisions based on discerning the character of an NPC or the best outcome for a problem. Situations which require players to come up with their own solution, such as forming a plan.
Back it up with nearly unkillable foes. The only way to get players to regularly seek non-combat solutions is to have them outmatched every now and then. If combat works every time they'll just choose combat.
Session 1 we have The Deadly Encounter. It's optional, it's clear it's optional, it's not deadly in one round but is clearly deadly. Sometimes groups will creatively win. No one has died yet to these encounters yet, despite me rolling in front of the screen. Many groups learn fleeing and planning are options.
Players who are not tied hard to mechanics are quick to recognize common sense solutions. I'd test you with some my parties have had before, but you'll only have trouble with it if you're a bottom of the barrel player with no common sense.
There's no need to roll, we can do it on this board, but you'll have to let me know if you're an idiot with no common sense but a good idea of how numbers work/how to look things up online.
Here's a good way to figure out if that is the case:
If your first thought on "decisions based on determining the character of an NPC" was "I can roll Gather Info or Sense Motive. My Diplo Half-Elf would plow through that." Both have told you the truth leading up to this point, as your Sense Motive rolls have shown you. Neither one is present when you make the decision. Choosing between the two wasn't made clear it was going to be forced on you til this point. Choosing wrong will result in possible death.
Have fun fucker, only players who were paying attention to details will have an easy time otherwise it's a coin flip.
(Note: Not everything is life and death, easy encounters and hard encounters are mixed with equalizer no-stat problems)
>Also, if a group wants to play the game with a focus on the mechanic with the narrative as a backdrop o set dressing, is that a problem?
that is not a problem, when its clear that you are all playing the game as more a hero quest board game or a miniatures skirmish game and not a role playing game.
People don't like the ivory tower and don't like multiple floating modifiers.
Maybe you should look at their concerns and write a heartbreaker to get them into it.
>ivory tower
what is this exactly?
Read nigga
>player is expected to think about the rules
>people don't like this
D&Drones are confirmed brainlets
>Bad game design is good because it rewards the people who don't have lives outside of gaming.
You are the cancer killing D&D.
>low iq retard lacks critical thinking skills
>lashes out when this is pointed out
many such cases
>Throws the brainlet insult.
>Gets butthurt when called a cancer.
Your lack of self-awareness is staggering.
>everyone who shit talks me is the same person
>everyone who shit talks me is booty bothered
ok retard
Thank you for proving me right.
>People don't like the ivory tower and don't like multiple floating modifiers.
This is bullshit. 3.PF was a top seller for 17 years. Minmaxxing and charop is also enjoyed by 5e players. People absolutely enjoy powergaming and character optimization.
What people don't like is keeping track of bonuses and status effects that all work slightly differently, and the time it takes to make a character, and prep for games.
>Only edition that sates my autism
>Constantly rejected
Since these two are the constant then you have to reconsider and readjust your approach.
I had a session with 2 kids both boys, the parents just watched and helped a bit only in pointing at what to roll, and they reacted great since it was all original for them.
They went up against malfunctioning autognomes in a mine that some evil dwarf was messing with in order to create havoc in the region. Some detective work, saving some dwarves and gnomes, some combat and it was fun. They saved the people and were rewarded with a heroe's feast.
>introduce new people to 3.x
find new players that have not played any tabletop
make usre they are young and are not fully into computer game rpgs, mmos 24/7
try telling them to play a single adventure as a skirmish combat type game with a thin veil of a story. Just 3-4 gladiatorial fights of the party vs other parties or monster or monsters. As a test. 3-5th level or something.
>introduce new people to 3.x a
literally do a gladiatorial combat only campaign with enough fights to get them to level 20, as i said thin veil of a story like rpg parts are a game video sequence. They get out if they get to level 20.
The war god has taken them to his arena and they have to fight and win or die. This very simple, pretty stupid "plot". Hercules the legendary journeyes and Xena the warrior princess vibe.
Since you are good with the game as mechanics and enjoy it autistically, then they can start at level 1 and you can calculate 1 to 5 fights per level up.
Once finished you will have a party of players that know the mechanics fully and have enjoyed the, yes again, mechanics part of it. They have mastered it as well. The will have butchered their path to freedom.
Now you can start an rpg campaign and enjoy both the mechanics and the role-playing part of it.
>It is almost 2024
>Retard is still trying to get people into 3.X
... why?
Like seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
If a friend offered me some nice game using Pierdycja, sure, I'd go for that. But neither me, nor him are trying to get new people to it, for obvious reasons - it is Pierdycja after all.
If people aren't interested in something they are doing for their fucking leisure in the first place, you aren't going to force or trick them into it. In fact, the end result will be completely counter-productive, as they will just resent it instead.
>People literally tell the retard in his face why they aren't interested and why his game is bad
>The same reason why people hate 3e when it came out
>w-why are they like this?
No idea anon, must be cause of [inster your bogeyman here]. But it's fucking depressing to see 3.x brain-damage being permament, rather than something people can grow out of.
Anon, if anyone came up to me and said they wanted to play 3.5 I would be so fucking down. 3.5 is still a big game, bigger than 4e. You're going to struggle to find people in person because LGS are full of cringe homosexuals. Go online to real social media and you'll have a much better chance of finding a game.
Prowlers and Paragons has better customization, better balance, and is easier to run, play, and teach.
If "it's not that bad" is your best pitch, why the fuck would I play when so many good systems exist?
what good systems?
GM, retard. You'll have dozens of playpigs lined up before the hour is out.
3.5's greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness: unparalleled mechanical customization
GURPS blows it out of the water on this matter, but is too much more autistic and GM-filter-dependent about it for any chance at market prominence.
GURPS isn't meant for regular people.
No class based system has good customization. Imagine having stockholm syndrome this bad lol
>Have you guys had any success in getting newcomers?
My group is usually pretty willing to try most things. We like to rotate between games in general so it really boils down to whose turn it is to DM. DM picks the game has always been our one major rule which I feel encourages people to want to do it more.
>Constantly rejected because "it's unbalanced, rules heavy, etc."
I sympathize with you because I have guilty pleasure games myself but I'm lolling because your friends are 100% correct. I say this as somebody who was introduced to TTRPGs with 3.5 and played it, then PF1e for over ten years. You've got your work cut out for you finding players who are willing to dive into 3.5 nowadays. I get the feeling that most 3.5 groups are grogs who began playing it when it was the most prevalent edition and have successfully weathered the storm of new editions and systems over the last decade or so, not new groups learning it for the first time.
Reading through this thread it seems like some Anons have managed it though, so there's hope. Good luck Anon.
Yeah, I was reminded of some of the pain when I made a bunch of 2nd level pregens for a oneshot. It considerably more time than 5e which takes considerably more time than an OSR retroclone.
The customization is pretty awesome, but getting the crunch onto the page is such a pain in the ass. I still have this idea of running one last kickass 3.5 game, but my current players who started with 5e realistically aren't doing it because they love what you can do 3.5, but because I'm running it. That the SRD is considerably more limited than the PFSRD also hurts.
just play pathfinder and port feats spells and magic items you like from 3.5. it's even got psionics and martial adepts in some 3rd party books that are actually designed better than all the 1st party classes
now I, as a 4e guy, REALLY have it bad. its reputation has been completely poisoned by smoothbrains that complain about the game being too gamey or about other shit that other editions are just as bad if not worse about, or the lack of "role-playing support" whatever the blue fuck that could possibly even mean
>Have insisted multiple times that it's not that bad and I can literally just teach during play.
Bro here is your mistake
Do not sell what is bad about your game
Sell what is good about it
Tell them the cool shit they can do that they can't do elsewhere
Get the most interested person on your side and help them build a character so they want to play and will help convince others
Do not get bogged down in "it is better than X system" just tell them why you think they'll have fun
What said.
You start by asking what kinds of things they'd like to have, do, or experience that they can't well or at all under [current system] then explain and provide awesome examples how [system you want] can do that, how it's fucking awesome, and other cool things you can do.
Then you hear their misgivings and give actual examples, maybe by simulating a brief encounter, to show that whatever it is they think is greatly exaggerated in their minds. If possible show how [current system] isn't much better in that given aspect, or the tradeoffs [current system] has to be able to do X thing better/simpler/quicker.