Sup, /tg/
I'm wanting to start a campaign in my homebrew world with a small group of new to medium experience players.
Can't decide if I should use Pathfinder or 5e for my ruleset, or if there's any other ruleset I should consider.
Inb4 FATAL
>>48120247
>new to medium experience players
In that case, between Pathfinder and 5e I'd go 5e.
>other rulesets
Well, there's a lot of variables there, and I'm not really sure about your tastes, the expectations of the players, or the tone of the campaign so there's not a lot to gain from me throwing any names around.
>>48120642
>there's not a lot to gain from me throwing any names around.
Honestly, it was more a question of personal favorites, trying to leave room for some open-ended discussion.
>>48120247
D&D is a rather narrowly-targeted game, and isn't ideal for much other than dungeon crawling, or something very similar. It's about exploring and looting a dangerous area, with an emphasis on combat (even earlier editions, where it paid to avoid combat whenever possible, saw plenty of battle and were mechanically built around it). There's a strong to extremely strong power progression (depending on the edition), and the world is high magic. If all of that is what you want, that's great. But if you're doing something different, then D&D probably isn't the best system.
So what is it you're trying to do? What do you want to run? What do you want the game to focus on? What kind of setting do you want (swords & sorcery? gonzo magic?)?
>>48120989
Oh, and how complicated and involved do you want the rules to be? Are you okay with very light, streamlined rules? Do you want character creation to be very tactical and involved? (As a note here: I find that that sort of thing tends to detract from the campaign, because it defines too much of the campaign by the choices you make at character creation, trapping you in the choices you made, and penalizing poor or inappropriate ones over and over again.)
>>48120989
My homebrew world is definitely high fantasy. The Dwarves have invented Steamtech that has been incorporated into some of the larger cities to a certain extent, but nothing Victorian. Other than that, the races and cultures are pretty much Tolkien-esque, more or less.
The campaign we're wanting to run should focus on roleplaying, puzzle solving, and combat, in that order.
Since this is some of the players first time, I wanted to give them as close to a base D&D experience as possible, something we can build on later.
>>48121116
>I wanted to give them as close to a base D&D experience as possible
Then my vote is 5e. Pathfinder is an overly-complicated, poorly-balanced clusterfuck that often promotes bad habits. If it sounded like your setting was a bit less "Tolkien/D&D standard fantasy" (albeit with steamtech thrown in), then I might suggest looking at something else, like Savage Worlds or something in the RuneQuest family.
>The campaign we're wanting to run should focus on roleplaying, puzzle solving, and combat, in that order.
Then I'd definitely recommend 5e over Pathfinder. The first two things don't need or want a lot of rules (the last can work either way, depending on whether you want wargamey tactical combat or more cinematic, improvisational combat), so you might as well use a lighter set of rules that won't interfere or slow things down.
>>48121194
I'll look into Savage Worlds and RuneQuest. Never came across them in the wild before. Honestly, the only thing I've played under outside of pathfinder/D&D is Iron Kingdoms, which was actually a lot of fun.
I'll be honest, I've had hard leanings toward 5e from the beginning. It just feels better hearing someone besides myself saying it. The main reason I was even considering Pathfinder was my more experienced friends and old DM said it's what I should be running to get the best experience. They have be older and wiser, true enough, but they're also rule lawyers and minmaxers, looking back on it.
>>48121304
Here's a quick start thing for Savage Worlds, so you can get an idea of what it's about. If you were wanting to keep things simple, you could easily enough use it as your base set of rules, and selectively import stuff from the core rules (Deluxe or Deluxe Explorers--two different formats for the current set of rules) as desired.
As far as RuneQuest goes, it has a good many editions, but tends to be on the heavier, crunchier end of the sizable family of games it inspired (everything from the genericized Basic Roleplaying, to Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer). You might want to check out OpenQuest, as that lies on the more streamlined end of things (which makes it a good place to start). Magic World is Stormbringer without the Elric setting, which sounds promising to me as I liked the simpler approach it took compared to RQ (while obviously still being solely fantasy-based), but I've never actually looked it over, so I can't speak to its quality.
Obligatory RuneQuest 6/Mythras/BRP post.
>inb4 GURPS.
>>48121304
>The main reason I was even considering Pathfinder was my more experienced friends and old DM said it's what I should be running to get the best experience.
What sort of experience do you have with Pathfinder? Because if you've had little experience with it as a player and no experience with it as a GM, you definitely, positively, absolutely, should NOT use it as the basis for your game. It has a definite learning curve and you really need to know what you're doing not to fuck up everything when homebrewing. In general, it's one of the trickier, more taxing games to GM, and that's if you're playing by the book.
>>48121565
OpenQuest
>>48120247
Reading your comments OP, 5e sounds a bit low fantasy on the martial side for your homebrew world. At least, it definitely reminds me more of Eberron than FR,
I'd recommend 4e because of that, but 5e is also a good choice, especially if the players really are absolute beginners.
>>48121194
5e is good if campaign focus on board game style dungeon exploration.
If campaign in more about thinking, planning and roleplaying D20 systems are just bad.
First of all HP system is utterly unrealistic and can fuck up non standard encounters. And magic users are crazy versatile and can solve pretty much any out of combat situation.
Savage Worlds and Rune Quest are much better for those types of games. GURPS too, but it requires shitloads of work from the GM.
>>48121788
>I'd recommend 4e because of that
If combat is the third priority of three, I don't see the point in having something as tactically-based as 4e.
>>48122106
Well, it's not like it loses anything in 'Roleplaying' that the others have. 4e's trap designs were also a damn sight better than 3e/5e 'Spot/Save or have a bit of pain'
>>48122116
>Well, it's not like it loses anything in 'Roleplaying' that the others have
I'm not saying it loses anything. I'm saying the focus on "tacticality" is unnecessary. Its main strength as a system is something that doesn't sound like it would be very important in OP's game.
>>48122151
As said, it's also better with traps/exploration and gives more non-combat options to the non-casters (while curbing the caster options, stopping them from breaking campaigns).
Either could work, and 5e's simplicity is a definite advantage.
