Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Am I right to feel slightly disappointed?


D&D 3.5/d20/OGL

1 to 50 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Long story short. I have always run the original edition (little booklets) D&D. I am retiring my campaign of many years and have decided to move on to Pathfinder but wanted to learn the "streamlined 3.5" rules. To that end a friend offered to run me through a "3.5" game.

I prepared a dwarven cleric of Moradin and perused the Player's guide. But when we played my friend didn't use any of the book's rules. He "winged it" and made declarations without any dice rolls. When I asked about spot checks and such, he chided that he would tell me if I needed to roll dice.

After two hours we stopped the game. He asked how I had liked it and I told him I felt disappointed because he hadn't introduced me to the mechanics of the game as I had been hoping. He grinned and said he had done that on purpose to show me that mechanics aren't important and that the 3.5 DM's guide even supported the idea of discarding rules you don't want to use. I asked how do you know which edition you are running then? He said it didn't matter, that was his point.

We discussed it for another hour and again today at lunch. He's insists that I just don't get the "modern" way of thinking and I'm just confused. Does anyone here know what he means? I just wanted to experience 3.5 rules in action but he insists that I'm not seeing the forest for the trees.

Am I right or wrong to feel slightly disappointed?

- Senator

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

You are both right.

He wanted to show you, that DM'ing is more role playing than roll playing, und you wanted to know what makes 3.5 rules tick under the hood.

What he wanted to show you is important, but not what you wanted.

Osirion

He offered to show you a 3.5 game and then told you a story to prove some point about rules not being all to a game, which was like someone walking into D'Angelos and asking for a sub, and instead being sat down to watch a documentary about starving children in Calcutta to 'raise their social consciousness.'

Anytime a GM wants to 'prove something' or 'instruct' a player, it's pretty dubious. (Condescending, blah-blah. Barring the use of role-playing as part of psychological therapy, but I'm thinking this was not that...)

Holler up to him on that high horse and tell him that you didn't ask for direction on 'how to play the game right, according to Jim' just some pointers on the rules.


I agree with these two. He was being a d*ck.

Discarding the rules that don't work and making house rules for the ones that do has been around probably longer then he has been gaming. I'd bet money there are rules that you didn't use in your old campaign and house rules that you did. I've yet to see a game without at least the mention of such. Not a damn thing "modern" about it.

Hell go look at Palladium books. They've been printing for a long time, certainly a LOT longer than 3.5 or even 3.0. They claim to purposefully make the rules vague so that the GM can run them how they want. (I think it has more to due with laziness and bad editing.)

Your "friend" has an idea in his head about what "modern" and "obsolete" gaming is. While it is true that people have come up with new ideas as time has gone on, I don't see how that makes it "better". From the sound of it he is a poor GM who had no real understanding of 1) how you probably run a game or 2) what you were asking him for help with.

My recommendation is to go to your local gaming store and talk with a few people currently running a 3.5 game. Then maybe sit in on one or two. They will probably understand what you are trying to find out much better. Or you can always ask questions around here. We're happy to answer and most of the people here are polite, friendly and knowledgeable.


That guy should learn teaching ain't preaching.


CunningMongoose wrote:
That guy should learn teaching ain't preaching.

Perfectly said. I need to remember that one.


Senator wrote:

Long story short. I have always run the original edition (little booklets) D&D. I am retiring my campaign of many years and have decided to move on to Pathfinder but wanted to learn the "streamlined 3.5" rules. To that end a friend offered to run me through a "3.5" game.

I prepared a dwarven cleric of Moradin and perused the Player's guide. But when we played my friend didn't use any of the book's rules. He "winged it" and made declarations without any dice rolls. When I asked about spot checks and such, he chided that he would tell me if I needed to roll dice.

After two hours we stopped the game. He asked how I had liked it and I told him I felt disappointed because he hadn't introduced me to the mechanics of the game as I had been hoping. He grinned and said he had done that on purpose to show me that mechanics aren't important and that the 3.5 DM's guide even supported the idea of discarding rules you don't want to use. I asked how do you know which edition you are running then? He said it didn't matter, that was his point.

We discussed it for another hour and again today at lunch. He's insists that I just don't get the "modern" way of thinking and I'm just confused. Does anyone here know what he means? I just wanted to experience 3.5 rules in action but he insists that I'm not seeing the forest for the trees.

Am I right or wrong to feel slightly disappointed?

- Senator

Your friend certainly did not do you any favors and it sounds like he is not quite the right type to DM a 3.5 game for you. Coming from the LBB version of the game to 3.5 is quite a leap in RULES but not much different in SPIRIT. Yes your friend was correct that the SPIRIT of the game has not changed much from the original but unfortunately what he did not present to you was how the GAME itself has changed.

3.5 and PF are games built around a rule framework that is expandable but rigid at the same time. What is crucial (especially for a DM) to know about the 3.5 game is that the rules do matter and winging things or ignoring rules can drastically effect the game.

In the very example you give above with your DM not utilizing the d20 mechanic to make Spot checks you can see an example of your building choices being made irrelevant because the DM decided not to use the skill rules. You built your character to do something specific (spot things) you did this using skill points and as result probably can't do other things as well (like Heal checks). By the DM ignoring the D20 mechanic he has made your strategic character building decisions irrelevant.

3.5/PF is a game of strategic sacrifice, you give something up to gain something else, this happens with character build choices, combat actions, spell selection, heal now and keep going or rest for the night, the list is endless. If you don't play by the rules these choices are irrelevant and ignoring the system makes playing the GAME of 3.5 almost irrelevant. Why change to 3.5/PF at all if this is the case?

Now you and your DM might want to consider 4E if this does not suit you. One major change 4E has made to the mechanics of the game is the designers severely reduced the strategic sacrifice requirements. In 4E you can do more and your characters have more powers without sacrificing as much (or anything). This gives players more options during the game and eliminates a lot of the strategic planning necessary in 3.5. This change makes the actual rules a lot less important to the game as well. You can wing things in 4E easily because you don't really need to have a long term plan either in character builds or actual game play. You have so many options there is no need to sacrifice something now for something better later. Every encounter can be treated like the only encounter. Every adventure can be treated like a one shot. Coming from the LBB world to 4E would be quite a cultural shock to you since the SPIRIT of the game was changed drastically as well but this is for another topic.

IMHO, if you like to wing things, have a loose framework of rules, do what you want when you want to, and won't miss the spirit of old D&D, try 4E. If you prefer strict rulings, strategic sacrifice, long term planning, and still want the spirit of the LBB try 3.5/PF with a DM that understand this.

Good luck and have fun!

Qadira

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Senator wrote:


... Am I right or wrong to feel slightly disappointed?

Right.

Try posting in gamer connections to see if you have a local Paizonite who could do you a run-through of the rules.


Thank you all for taking the time to help me out! I honestly wondered if I was getting senile.

Oliver von Sprekelsen: I think you're right there. It certainly was important to him and he even used that term, "role playing vs. roll playing."

Set: Yes! I wanted a sub! High horse unfortunately is accurate. He refused to see my point as valid though I acknowledged the intent of his point.

Admiral Jose Monkamuck: Yes, there were rules I didn't use (the hit location from Blackmoor), so I didn't understand his terminology. I think you're right, that maybe I chose the wrong GM. I asked if I could see his adventure notes to see how he wrote things like stats, etc. He said he didn't need notes, it was all up there in his head. A little vague for me.

CunningMongoose: Amen! I have to remind myself of that one! ;D

cibet44: Wonderful! Exactly! I had understood that "3.5" was a tactical style with limited resources. I wanted to test my mettle in that regard. I said so, frequently. He felt that me wanting that was bad. That I was "metagaming". I responded that he had neutered our character sheets and made them of no consequence. We lived and died not by rules but by his whim, GM fiat. He told me to stop looking at the sheet and just tell him what I wanted to do. I scratched my head and said I wanted to do what was on my sheet!

Regarding 4e: I had purchased doubles of everything that has come out so far, but the enjoyment of the game escapes me. I turned in my extra copies for credit and delved into Pathfinder. My reasoning was that everyone else had done "3.5" first, then "4e" so I should follow the same path and maybe I would understand it better. After all, I was told that 4e was in reaction to some design styles in 3.5, so if I understand 3.5 I'll understand they why's and wherefore's of 4e, no?

My FLGS also told me that there is a simpler line coming out in the fall called the "Essentials". Maybe I will have success there?

brock: That is a wonderful tip! Thanks, I'll do that.

-Senator

Taldor

To be honest if you want to understand 4E just hop right in. While my preference is Pathfinder, if I was a brand new player to therecent editions i'd get 4E a lot faster.

^^ Agree with many of the previous posters. That DM sounds like a douche.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Senator wrote:


Admiral Jose Monkamuck: Yes, there were rules I didn't use (the hit location from Blackmoor), so I didn't understand his terminology. I think you're right, that maybe I chose the wrong GM. I asked if I could see his adventure notes to see how he wrote things like stats, etc. He said he didn't need notes, it was all up there in his head. A little vague for me.

I don't really understand why he thinks that the style of play he's promoting is some kind of "modern" think with RPGs. This sort of GM's been around since the 1970s too.

Really, I think you've just got a "wing it" sort of GM a bit full of himself and his play style.

Senator wrote:

cibet44: Wonderful! Exactly! I had understood that "3.5" was a tactical style with limited resources. I wanted to test my mettle in that regard. I said so, frequently. He felt that me wanting that was bad. That I was "metagaming". I responded that he had neutered our character sheets and made them of no consequence. We lived and died not by rules but by his whim, GM fiat. He told me to stop looking at the sheet and just tell him what I wanted to do. I scratched my head and said I wanted to do what was on my sheet!

3.5 is really whatever you want it to be - tactical, non-tactical, closely following the mechanics, not so closely following the mechanics. But what you wanted was an experience with the mechanics and the GM didn't produce that experience. He really did misunderstand your point.

Though really, I can't argue with his metagaming comment too much. I really do see too many players looking at their sheet trying to decide what to do. I'd rather they told me what they wanted to do and then use their sheet to assess how likely their plans are to succeed and refine plans from there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Fourth Edition does not require previous experience in 3.0.

In fact those who did not go through the previous editions of the game probably have an easier time learning it. Kind of like how Mac OS X was an easier learn for people who'd never used Macs before. They had a lot less to unlearn.


4e is a VASTLY different game from 3.0, 3.5 or PF. While I do acknowledge it as a good system in it's own right I will never acknowledge it as D&D.

3.x is more similar to 2e then 4e, in all the ways that can be taken, but that doesn't mean it is the same as 2e. If you couldn't get into 4e before trying 3.x, you probably won't be able to after. If you really want to try something similar to 4e I'd recommend picking up a copy of WoW for your computer.

Just try different systems and see what you like. There are many ways of handling things and a lot of ways to have fun.

I admit that my game notes tend to be VERY minimal. Some people can run a good game making things up on the fly. Others cannot. Nothing wrong with either kind.


I agree with what's been said, but would add what has already been implied: trying again with this same DM is likely to yield the same result, no matter how much you try to speak with him about the issue. It would probably be more expedient to find another DM/group.

As an afterthought/aside, I think 3.x is easier to learn than Pathfinder for a beginner (and the streamlined 3.5 easier than 3.0). Like 4e, the mechanics of Pathfinder are a response to 3.5 and (unlike 4e) extremely similar. I think your logic of trying to understand 3.5 as a way to more easily access later systems will prove entirely founded when moving from 3e to Pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

SAERN!!!

Welcome back to the Boards!


SAERN HAS RETURNED?!?! o_o


Admiral Jose Monkamuck wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:
That guy should learn teaching ain't preaching.
Perfectly said. I need to remember that one.

Yes, I must say, as a college teacher, that this is one of the few attitudes I really can't stomach.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Welcome back, Saern!

Contributor

Senator: I want to learn how to drive a manual transmission!
Dude: Hop in, I'm gonna take you on a cool, scenic route around town. Isn't this awesome?
Senator: Dude, this isn't what I asked for.
Dude: You're confused, man. Stickshifts don't matter, you can ride a bike, or take a taxi, or whatever! It's about the *scenery*, not the *driving.*
Internet: DUDEFAIL!

Shadow Lodge

SKR for epic hilarity. :D


Senator wrote:
He's insists that I just don't get the "modern" way of thinking and I'm just confused.

I don't even know WTF this means.

Shadow Lodge

Arnwyn wrote:
Senator wrote:
He's insists that I just don't get the "modern" way of thinking and I'm just confused.
I don't even know WTF this means.

What I find most ironic about this is that old school gaming had looser rules, and thus HAD to do this type of thing, whereas more modern games have been really extremely codified.


RPGs are largely reward mechanisms for specific play styles.

D&D 3.5/Pathfinder have lots of rules that reward a specific play style.

Asking someone to show you the mechanics of Pathfinder, and being told, in effect, "Use a different play style" is bad etiquette.

When someone wants to change the rules of the game because they want a different play style rewarded, then it's appropriate to say "Let's try something else..."

Cheliax

Kthulhu wrote:
What I find most ironic about this is that old school gaming had looser rules, and thus HAD to do this type of thing, whereas more modern games have been really extremely codified.

Either that or the OPs friend was second guessing, assuming the OP would rail against the more restrictive rules and wanted to "prove" that the OPs concerns weren't justified before they got going. Perhaps he plans to do a proper rules introduction later?

Or maybe I've been reading PFS scenarios too closely and I'm not covered in mechanations.


Whether you play 3.5, pathfinder, or 4E, you defintely have to find someone better, or more in tune with your objectives, to actually learn the system. And more importantly find a group of people you enjoy playing with (actually the hardest part).

Your best bet is to look at the pathfinder SRD:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

Take a look at getting started, races, classes, skill, feats, combat and spells.


W E Ray wrote:

SAERN!!!

Welcome back to the Boards!

Thanks, guys. Good to be back.

Spoiler:
So, I've learned a lot about my gaming preferences, by which I mean the gaming experiences I'll put up with. A lack of (tolerable) players and the intrusions of life lead to a near-total collapse of my playing group, below the threshold I now realize is necessary to run a game I am capable of maintaining interest in (although I've learned to my minor frustration, two weeks before I leave town more or less for good, a recently-made friend to whom I never even thought of mentioning D&D has actually been happily playing our favorite game all this time). Combined with the demands of finishing my BA, gaming slipped out of the picture and Paizo, unfortunately with it. I'm hoping the situation will improve soon; I'm moving to Knoxville, TN, for graduate school. I'm not sure what my class load will be, though, so it's up in the air as to whether I'll have the time for gaming and, therefore, how much of a "return" this is. It's good to get back into the discussions here on Paizo, however!


DUDEFAIL! That is going to get me through the rest of the day! XD Thanks SKR!

So many insights. Thanks again. I'm going to find another GM and see if I have better luck learning the rules. I'm confident now that I wasn't being obtuse. You all understood me. And I don't feel confused. I may be old but I'm sharp.

I've only played the original books from the time I started in '75. I just never thought about the other versions. I thought that AD&D was for tournament play (which I never did) so I never bought it. Just kept on playing.

My campaign has been going off and on for 30 odd years now and I'm bringing it to a close. I want to learn new things and I like Pathfinder's evocative atmosphere.

In the meantime I'm going to read the rules over again this weekend and do some tinkering. I love to tinker!

Oh, and Saern...welcome back! I don't know you but I love a reunion! *wipes eyes and blows nose* sniff.

- Senator


Senator wrote:

I've only played the original books from the time I started in '75.

You started in 1975? Nice. I started in 1980. Welcome home.

Shadow Lodge

Because I was distracted by SKR's epic summary of the thread, I failed to deliver proper welcomes to Senator and WB to Saern. So hello and pleasure to meet both of you, welcome to the boards. I'm sure Lilith will be by shortly with cookies once she sees this is a new person's thread :)


Hi cibet44! 1980? Awesome! Did you start with the little books too? It's good to be home.

Thanks for the welcome Orthos. Lilith? What a beautiful name. Cookies?
Mmmmmmm, cooookies.....arglegargle...

I read your spoiler Saern. I hope you're able to stay, I just met you and I hate goodbyes.

- Senator


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

So Senator, you are just wrapping up a 35 year campaign?

seriously?

Please excuse my geek but could you give some details?

same players?
Characters?
was it greyhawk?
did you use much published material?
what were the highlights?
what levels did it cover?
what brought it to an end?

etc


cibet44 wrote:
Senator wrote:

I've only played the original books from the time I started in '75.

You started in 1975? Nice. I started in 1980. Welcome home.

Good grief, I was only BORN in 1980.....


Admiral Jose Monkamuck wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
Senator wrote:

I've only played the original books from the time I started in '75.

You started in 1975? Nice. I started in 1980. Welcome home.
Good grief, I was only BORN in 1980.....

I started in '78! I didn't get out of the incubator until '79, but that was the year I *started*....

Andoran

Senator, I'm another one that started playing D&D back in the mid '70's - although I was only like 8 or 9 at the time (check out my profile if you are really bored and want more details :)

I agree with what others have said ... he did you no favors and was in fact being a little self righteous. A big part of D&D is, and always will be, rolling those dice!

Oh, and this is just my opinion (put away the flame throwers) but I would stick with Pathfinder and avoid 4E, for now at least. As a D&D player from way back, I think you will find Pathfinder more in keeping with the spirit of the game (as you have read, most of the Big Wigs at Paizo also loved D&D from the beginning and have a huge amount of respect for the traditions of the game). 4E might be a fine game, but it is very different from what most of us would call traditional D&D.

My advice? Once you have fully played Pathfinder for a while and feel comfortable enough to form your own informed opinion, maybe go ahead and give 4E a shot, if you still want to, and see what it has to offer.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Senator, the correct retort to your friend is: "I need to know what the rules are if I'm going to know which ones work for me, and which ones don't"

Cheliax

Senator, tell us what city or town you live in. Perhaps one of us is nearby and has a game you can join up with and learn the Pathfinder ropes. I think we all would like to help make a happy ending to your tale.


Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Saern wrote:
W E Ray wrote:

SAERN!!!

Welcome back to the Boards!

Thanks, guys. Good to be back.

** spoiler omitted **

I remember Saern...


Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Welcome aboard, Senator!
This DM's feelings are getting in the way. Assure him that after many years of playing, you know how to run stories. Tell him you love stories and promise to run intensive stories, once you have the mechanics in hand. Then, when he's feeling all assured, tell him he better give you things to kill, pronto. If he won't show you the ropes on the mechanics, start looking for someone else who will.

On the other hand, you don't need to learn 3.5 to start playing Pathfinder, so if you have an easier time finding Pathfinder players in your area, I'd say just jump right in. It's a great way to support those who are keeping the traditions of the game alive.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Saern wrote:
W E Ray wrote:

SAERN!!!

Welcome back to the Boards!

Thanks, guys. Good to be back.

** spoiler omitted **

I remember Saern...

Me too. I wonder if he still keeps his hoard in the same place? ~heads off to raid Saern's hoard~


Werecorpse wrote:

So Senator, you are just wrapping up a 35 year campaign?

seriously?

Please excuse my geek but could you give some details?

same players?
Characters?
was it greyhawk?
did you use much published material?
what were the highlights?
what levels did it cover?
what brought it to an end?

etc

I was going to post a long response but thought better of it. So, simple answers.

Same players: For the most part. The group has had as many as 20 and as few as 3 over the years. People return and pick up where they left off, others not so much. Right now its at a comfortable 6.

Characters: Literally everything in the little books.

Greyhawk?: A curious blend of Greyhawk, Blackmoor (The First Fantasy Campaign) and our own wild imaginings. There was even a little Arduin in there.

Published Material?: Mediocre so. Some of the early stuff was pretty wild, (Of Skulls and Scrapfaggot Green) but a lot of fun. Mostly for jumping off points for our own spin on things. Imagination fuel mostly.

Highlights?: Like everyone else I could fill a thread. Funny tales, stuff that broke our hearts, furious vengeance, high adventure. If you're really interested I could start a thread sometime, but you have to be honest about if I'm boring you.

What levels?: Surprisingly over the years only 3 reached level 10. The rest have always hovered around level 5 - 8.

The end?: Way back in 1978 I began my world with the erupting of the "Phoenix Stone". It was my macguffin to explain how things came to be. The birth of the gods, etc. Well, at one time or another my players have quested for it but never found it. We were sitting around after a game recently talking about times changed and people gone and seriously discussed a reboot with more modern rules and new concepts and ideas. I said, "Maybe it's time to find the Phoenix Stone." And they went crazy!

What better way to end it than the way I began it. So we had our "Apocalyptic Adventure", they've found the stone. All is in ruins. Most lie dead. The Gods have burned out. Ultimate evil defeated. Time to bring new life, new legends, new heroes and start again.

It's kind of like the new BSG, "This has all happened before and it will all happen again."

Too melodramatic?

- Senator


Freehold DM wrote:
Admiral Jose Monkamuck wrote:
cibet44 wrote:
Senator wrote:

I've only played the original books from the time I started in '75.

You started in 1975? Nice. I started in 1980. Welcome home.
Good grief, I was only BORN in 1980.....
I started in '78! I didn't get out of the incubator until '79, but that was the year I *started*....

XD

I saw what you did there!

- Senator


Marc Radle wrote:

Senator, I'm another one that started playing D&D back in the mid '70's - although I was only like 8 or 9 at the time (check out my profile if you are really bored and want more details :)

I agree with what others have said ... he did you no favors and was in fact being a little self righteous. A big part of D&D is, and always will be, rolling those dice!

Oh, and this is just my opinion (put away the flame throwers) but I would stick with Pathfinder and avoid 4E, for now at least. As a D&D player from way back, I think you will find Pathfinder more in keeping with the spirit of the game (as you have read, most of the Big Wigs at Paizo also loved D&D from the beginning and have a huge amount of respect for the traditions of the game). 4E might be a fine game, but it is very different from what most of us would call traditional D&D.

My advice? Once you have fully played Pathfinder for a while and feel comfortable enough to form your own informed opinion, maybe go ahead and give 4E a shot, if you still want to, and see what it has to offer.

I'm definitely not feeling so old and alone around here! Like Lisa said, alot of old-timers, eh?

Yes, I understand that there is a major bone of contention here, but we're really all better than to be too petty about it. People used to get mad at me because I didn't run AD&D. When I said, "Why would I want tournament rules, I'm not running a tournament?", the fur would fly.

I agree with your advice though. I have come to the same conclusion about 4E. The fun of it has escaped me, but that doesn't mean that it's escaped others. So I am content to leave it on the shelf for now and explore this thing that HAS captured me. Pathfinder. I'm not going to be dogmatic about it though. I just love gaming. Go 4E! Go Pathfinder! Go Arduin!

- Senator


Enlight_Bystand wrote:
Senator, the correct retort to your friend is: "I need to know what the rules are if I'm going to know which ones work for me, and which ones don't"

I wish you guys had been there at lunch the other day lol. You are saying it so much better than me. I have a second GM lined up. He's 1/3 my age and his players are all 16. I'm going to be self conscious not help for it.

- Senator


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Senator wrote:
Werecorpse wrote:

So Senator, you are just wrapping up a 35 year campaign?

seriously?

Please excuse my geek but could you give some details?

same players?
Characters?
was it greyhawk?
did you use much published material?
what were the highlights?
what levels did it cover?
what brought it to an end?

etc

I was going to post a long response but thought better of it. So, simple answers.

Same players: For the most part. The group has had as many as 20 and as few as 3 over the years. People return and pick up where they left off, others not so much. Right now its at a comfortable 6.

Characters: Literally everything in the little books.

Greyhawk?: A curious blend of Greyhawk, Blackmoor (The First Fantasy Campaign) and our own wild imaginings. There was even a little Arduin in there.

Published Material?: Mediocre so. Some of the early stuff was pretty wild, (Of Skulls and Scrapfaggot Green) but a lot of fun. Mostly for jumping off points for our own spin on things. Imagination fuel mostly.

Highlights?: Like everyone else I could fill a thread. Funny tales, stuff that broke our hearts, furious vengeance, high adventure. If you're really interested I could start a thread sometime, but you have to be honest about if I'm boring you.

What levels?: Surprisingly over the years only 3 reached level 10. The rest have always hovered around level 5 - 8.

The end?: Way back in 1978 I began my world with the erupting of the "Phoenix Stone". It was my macguffin to explain how things came to be. The birth of the gods, etc. Well, at one time or another my players have quested for it but never found it. We were sitting around after a game recently talking about times changed and people gone and seriously discussed a reboot with more modern rules and new concepts and ideas. I said, "Maybe it's time to find the Phoenix Stone." And they went crazy!

What better way to end it than the way I began it. So we had our "Apocalyptic Adventure", they've found the stone. All is in ruins....

Boring?!? Not at all Senator. Sounds pretty AWESOME to me. Oh, and belated Welcome Aboard.

And a belated Welcome Back @ Saern.

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm


James Thomas wrote:
Senator, tell us what city or town you live in. Perhaps one of us is nearby and has a game you can join up with and learn the Pathfinder ropes. I think we all would like to help make a happy ending to your tale.

James that is very, very kind of you. I fear though that not many of you may live near to me.

I live in the bustling city of Red Deer, nestled along the Red Deer River, just west of the Rockies, directly twixt the shining metropolis' of Edmonton and Calgary. Canada. Land of the Free(ze), Home of the Tim Hortons donut.

Anybody?....Hello.....*crickets chirping*, *baby crying*, *dog barking*.

- Senator


Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

I've been to Canada...once. :3


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Welcome aboard, Senator!

This DM's feelings are getting in the way. Assure him that after many years of playing, you know how to run stories. Tell him you love stories and promise to run intensive stories, once you have the mechanics in hand. Then, when he's feeling all assured, tell him he better give you things to kill, pronto. If he won't show you the ropes on the mechanics, start looking for someone else who will.

On the other hand, you don't need to learn 3.5 to start playing Pathfinder, so if you have an easier time finding Pathfinder players in your area, I'd say just jump right in. It's a great way to support those who are keeping the traditions of the game alive.

Well, I don't understand the disconnect we had myself, but you may be right there. He was getting pretty excited so I had to back right off and just agree that he had a valid point. I value his friendship.

I do have another young DM lined up for this weekend. I also go to Calgary to a store called "The Sentry Box". I'm friends with the owner and there are always groups playing. Maybe I'll sign up for a Saturday game. I try to get down there as often as I can.

- Senator


Sharoth wrote:
Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Saern wrote:
W E Ray wrote:

SAERN!!!

Welcome back to the Boards!

Thanks, guys. Good to be back.

** spoiler omitted **

I remember Saern...
Me too. I wonder if he still keeps his hoard in the same place? ~heads off to raid Saern's hoard~

Pssst....someone get Saern.....

*whistles innocently*

- Senator


Ack! Double post...


Thank you Dean, O great Minstrel Wyrm for your kind welcom. Perhaps I will be bold enough to make good on my threat and tell you my tales.

Have you ever seen a DM who wasn't busting at the seams to tell stories? ;)

- Senator

1 to 50 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 3.5/d20/OGL / Am I right to feel slightly disappointed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.