Tiger Tim's page

Hey, can I put in a counter offer?
I have most of the 3.0/3.5 books I want BUT here is my list of outstanding items:

Expanded Psionics Handbook
Planar handbook
Tone and Blood
Defenders of Faith
Sword and Fist
Song and Silence
Masters of the Wild
Strong hold Builders Guide
Book of Challenges

I will pay 20 cents on the dollar for any of these and the usual (for stuff I get on amazon) $4 shipping.

Same conditions rules as Goodman has, I ONLY need 1 copy. I will also have to work out how we do the transfer cuz I have never done something like this with an individual before.

So, if you got one of these and want to get rid of it, please drop me a line. Fair warning is that some of these books are very $$$ on amazon, some might be a good deal.

Thanks.

Just got on X-Box live last night and had a blast (All night spent playing left 4 dead). My gamer tag is TigerTimGamer.

At this point, I am still trying to figure it all out (so, you can have a friends list? - cool!).

I love playing games where you work with others as a team, so at some point, if I can find a regular group of friends to game with that would be cool.

Cheers

I don’t know you so, I am making some assumptions that you have run into the same things that I have. If this is not the case, all I can say is that I am not a therapist nor do I play on in TV :)

When I got into gaming, I fell in with a great group of friends and we played every weekend. After a few years I moved away, got married and had a family. After all that, gaming just was not the same. I thought that I had ‘outgrown’ it. As fate would have it, an old friend talked me into going to a local convention and we blundered into the best group of people that I have had the privilege of playing with. It made me realize that I loved gaming. But, a key ingredient is the people that you play with. Playing a pick up game of D&D at a local game store that you just stumbled into is not the same as playing a game with good friends that you really click with.

If you are like me, gaming is part of you. I can stop playing but, I will always be a gamer. Gaming and family life don’t always mix. You can find a balance where you are able to enjoy both but it is not easy. Finding a group that you enjoy playing with is very hard work especially when you have to balance that with a nongaming family, but it can be done.

If you find a group that you really feel comfortable with, I think you will find that your interest in gaming never stopped, just all the changes in your life made it a lot harder to enjoy.

Good luck to you.

Thanks pres man, I will see you there. And did you notice? My post got eaten. I saw it, but now it’s gone. It’s too bad really; it’s a rare time that I can write something, re-read it and it still makes sense. Oh well.
I wonder if Paizo can get us a ‘3.5 grognard’ to add to our tagline?

P.S. my post is back....ummm It was gone, now its... well, I tell you I only had 1 drink.

Well, to give my answer on the original poster’s question, for me, 3.5 is already dead. Not in the sense that I can’t play it (because I still do), but in the sense that I can’t get the level of support for it that I once got. For example, no forum I go to seems to care much for 3.5 (they either went 4.0 or Pathfinder).

Even on this thread, as I read it, both posters who had tool sites devoted to 3.5 are turning to Pathfinder. I expect this trend to continue.

While I would love it if 3.5 were still king of the block, the truth is that it has never been the key to me getting a game in. That has always been about finding a group that I enjoy spending time with. A system’s popularity, does play into how easy it is to find a group, but it’s not the key factor (for me play-style and the ability to click with the group – actually become friends is the most important factor).

So, for me, short of finding some fatal flaw in 3.5 that I have failed to find so far, I plan to stick with 3.5, probably till death. So, if you decide to leave Golarion and drift back into the Inn of the Welcome Wench, look me up, I will be there with my 3.5 Player’s handbook and dice at the ready.

Cheers

I have not been to the Complete Strategist in years. I had a chance a few weeks ago and after reading this thread, I am glad I did not end up going there. Ironically that same day I did end up going to Cyborg1 and I thought the place had wonderful service and a very friendly attitude.

When I first got into gaming (back in the 80’s), about my favorite thing to do was to go to the gaming store. I just could not wait to see the new issue of dragon magazine or what new things had come out. It’s a little sad but I don’t feel that way anymore. Maybe it’s me (I am old and cynical now), or maybe it’s that it just does not feel worth it to drive 2 hours 1 way to be told ‘grab a D20 and hope you get lucky’.

During my time here I have tried to be respectful in all my posts, and while I read the boards a lot more than I post to them, I have spent a lot of time here. The fact is this poster is a little bit of a slap in the face to me (I don’t plan to go Pathfinder but stay standard 3.5).

Sure I can see that most people especially on these boards don’t see it that way and who am I to argue. My bigger concern is staff posts* to this thread. To my eye it looks like my view is ‘not allowed’. Sure, these are your boards and you can do what you will with them. But one of the reasons that I no longer bother with Wizards of the Coast is how they treat differences of opinion. They seem to have no problem with the love it or leave it approach. Are things different here or not?

* except Lisa, who just wants to make sure that anyone who does like and wants the poster has a chance to get one :)

Majuba, it would depend upon what it was that drew me to that game. If I was playing because I met and really liked the players and GM, then sure, I would be willing to try a 3.5 character in a Pathfinder game or even just give Pathfinder a go.

For example, right now I am in 2 games, 1 is 3.5 and one is 3.0. Given my drathers, I would rather 3.5 then 3.0, but there are things that I like about the 3.0 game so that I don't mind (too much anyway) that the game is using 3.0 rules.

I think that is pretty unlikely

Darkwolf, for me this already happens. As a 3.5 fan, I look for 3.5 posts here. I have seen a fair number of Posts marked ‘Pathfinder/3.5’, 90% of the time a post says this, it means Pathfinder. For another example, there was a game posted as Pathfinder/3.5 in my area. I figured it meant Pathfinder but as it was listed with 3.5, I asked what game system was to be used (it was a new campaign, so I thought he may have been willing to go with either rules set based on the players that replied). It was for Pathfinder.

Now I know as a 3.5 player who is not a Pathfinder player, that makes me a fish out of water on this forum and things like the confusion above should be expected and I am OK with that, but with plans to market the Pathfinder as ‘3.5 thrives’ I expect Pathfinder = 3.5 to be more common.

Call it nitpicking if you want, but the sooner Pathfinder gets its own identity separate from 3.5 the better as far as I am concerned.

I already can’t say I play ‘D&D’ because that means 4th edition to most people. I thought I was safe when I said I play ‘3.5’, now I can’t even do that because people say 3.5 when they mean Pathfinder.

To be clear, I wish no ill will on Pathfinder, If Pathfinder is your game and it you enjoy it, I am happy for you. That said, if someone says they are playing ‘3.5’ I want to be able to show up with my 3.5 players handbook and play, not get weird looks and have people point to their Pathfinder books and say ‘oh, no we meant the *new* 3.5’.

Take heart Scott, while I don’t agree with all you points, I do agree with many of them, but more than that I respect how you continue to state your case calmly, all while under constant fire. This is a lot more that I would ever be able to manage to do.

Things have changed since the seventies. But like they say, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

For example: just like back then, people who don’t like the way you play will tell you ‘your not doing it right’. And just like back then, as long as you can find a group that is willing, you can play any way you like. If random dungeons are your thing, find some players that like them as much as you do and get a game going.

The system you use is of course up to you. If you like 3.5, I recommend a product called Dungeon Bash. I have tried it and I really like it, but that’s just me.

justanartist, don't be too hard on yourself. You are concerned about your player's fun and are trying to learn to be a good GM. This to me is the sign of a good GM.

If you think railroading is a problem in your game, use this thread to hammer things out. It might be a good idea to try to get your players to post here too. That makes it easier to get to the problem because you get the information first hand.

Sigh... I'm disappointed ....

Don't be. If your players are having fun, then you are doing the GM's job correctly.

I would agree with hogarth as to why flavor wise, I don't like the fumbles, but I would also add that I like the tactical feel of a D&D battle (at least in the games that I have played).

There is already a large element of luck in these battles as is. I just don't want or need another element of luck added by putting fumbles in. I don't have any problem with a player who likes them (unless they start trying to tell me that it's the 'right' way to play or that I must be a bad player somehow for not wanting to use them), they are just not something that adds fun to the game for me.

I hate fumbles. I read the posts in this topic because just like the OP, I really don't understand why people love them so much. I suspect why I don't is that in most games combat is intense. A critical hit can change the tide of the battle so the last thing I want is something else that can go wrong. I guess like so many other things, it's a style issue.

Your point is well taken…

Wow, after reading your posts and the responses, I really thought that you were missing the real issue, now I see that it was not you that was missing the issue but me. I am old school and not much of a powergamer so there is not a lot of advice that I could give you to help.

While I can’t help, I would be curious with what you end up doing to solve the problem and also how well it works. At some point after this issue is dealt with can you post that here?

After reading through this thread, I really think that you want to sit down and talk with your player about the kind of game that you run and the kind of game that he wants to play.

The issue of should a favored soul be able get powers from a god and yet not follow the god is not the real issue. The issue is do you have a player who is a power gamer in your game when you are looking for someone who is more into the role-playing aspect.
While power gaming is not the style of play that I prefer, it is just as valid as the deeper role-play style that you and I prefer. The point is that by trying to shepherd a power gamer player into your style may not be the answer. If a power game style is what he wants and is looking for your efforts can cause friction and even one of you leaving the game.

What I really think you should do is talk to the player and see what kind of game he is looking for. If he is looking for a power gamer style game and your game is not that, be honest and tell him upfront. Be very open about what your style is and what you expect from your players. You may even be able to convince him to give your style a try. But the sooner you do this the better. If your styles truly are different, this problem is just the beginning. Better to find out now that your styles are incompatible than half way through an adventure path (because this can bring down not just you and this player but your group as well).

I stumbled across this book in a Barnes and Nobles and bought it as a curiosity. It was infamous to me because of the number of times that I had seen it mentioned in various forums. I had assumed that it was trash and was very surprised to find out it was not (I mean how far wrong can you go when you include a Phil and Dixie comic :) ).

I have been very impressed with the content of the book so far. And while I don’t see this book working in any of my current games, with the right group, this book could add a lot of fun to your game.

Thanks Joela. I still love my 3.5 and I did not know about this site until I saw your post. Looks like a good find.

Cheers

The weekend of March 13-15, PrinceCon 34 will be held at Princeton University. The convention is a shared world campaign. This year the players will be members of barbarian tribes struggling to survive against an oppressive kingdom that seeks to destroy them.

As a shared world, the things that you do in your game echo to other games (for example, there have been cases where one group of players does something that saves the lives of players in another game with another GM).

To find out more, check out our website: www.princecon.org
Or, just go to google and type in PrinceCon (we will be the 1st site on the list).

I hang out here a lot, so, if you have questions, just post them and I will see them and answer them sooner or later.

Cheers.

Yeah for every good game I found, I found at least 10 that were like case 3 or 4 that you describe. Here is a real example of a game I was in.

GM: as you head to the door, a pack of wild dogs charges out at your party.

Tiger Tim (assuming that we need to fight, cuz we can't out run them), I pull my sword and engage the first dog.

Party Leader (to the rest of the PCs): Quick while the dogs tear his character apart, get to the door and get in.

GM: (to Tiger Tim) The dogs overwhelm you and kill you.

This was all in the first 10 minutes of the game. Games like this are why I was thinking about giving it all up. But looking back I know now that this was just a bad game. I still love the hobby, I just know that finding a good game is like finding gold - you have to get through a lot of dirt before you find it.

Pres man and Saern, my examples were not intended to be exhaustive, but a good example of opposite ends of the scale. While I agree with press man that there are problems with case 2, from play with both, I can say that I have problems with case one as well (but that’s a subject for a whole other thread).

Saern in his last paragraph summed up the problem very well. But I think the deeper and more important issue is the game made CourtFool really felt like an outsider. Enough so that he is wondering if he should get out of the hobby altogether.

I have been there and my hope is by illustrating the vast difference in games that he would see what I had to learn the hard way. That each game of D&D is different. You can’t really judge the hobby by one game or even 12, because that next game can be the one that you will never forget.

In short don’t mistake not liking a game for not liking the hobby.

Well, maybe it’s time to define role-playing. Here is a test, which one of these is role-playing?

Case 1
Player: Can I convince the king to let me go? I got 10 ranks in diplomacy.
GM: Sure, roll it.
Player: Natural 20! Yeah!
GM: The king instructs the guards to release you.

Case 2
Player: (in the voice of his character): Lord, after all that I have done for you, I demand at least a minute of your time:

GM: (getting into the role of the king by looking down his nose at the player): Fine, you have 1 minute, but I promise that if your words do not move me you will die very painfully.

Player: (gets ready to make one heck of a speech as his character) …..

So, which case is role-playing? Well, it’s a trick question. Both are depending upon what players you talk to. I can tell you that I have played in both kinds of games and as far as the players of those games were concerned how they played it was ‘role-playing’.

I can play in either game (and with the right players) have a lot of fun (but I still like case 2 better than case 1).

By the way Tim, are we related??

I don't know if we are related but, I took a look at your profile and we both have a lot in common - both like fighters, both are good aligned, both about the same age...

of course anyone who likes tigers is OK in my book :)

Look, I have read a lot of the posts here and some of them sound more like therapy than advice. Let me tell you a secrete: you don’t need to take a communications class to learn how to talk to people. Why? Because how you know that you have found a good gaming group is that you really feel comfortable in your own skin. When you find the group you seek, you can be yourself because you are (or soon will be) among friends.

In addition, the reason that you feel like an elitist gamer is because, you are. So am I. I used to cringe at the term. That was until I figured out that just by walking away from a game that I really did not like (the one in your example comes to mind) got me tagged as ‘elitist’. So be it. The fact is that if gaming is in your blood (like it is for me) after you have played in a good game, a sub par game feels very empty.

If it makes you feel any better, many years ago I was like you and thinking of getting out of gaming. I had been in a handful of good games and a lot of bad games. A friend of mine ask me if I wanted to go with him to a local convention. My first response was ‘I don’t play D&D anymore’. He persisted and we went. At that convention, I met the best players that I have ever had the pleasure to game with. It made me realize that it was not the game that I did not like anymore it was the typical game I saw played (ones like you describe).

So take heart. You need to know that out there somewhere are players who tastes are very close to your own. Finding them is not going to be easy. But once you find that game, you will know that it was all worth it.

Good luck to you - and stop chasing my cats! :)

I understand your pain. Just after high school (which is a lot of years ago for me), I moved around a lot. That meant being the new member to a lot of gaming groups. Judging by some of these games, your experience could have been a lot more painful. Finding a good gaming group is a lot like dating, it is very hard to find people that you really enjoy spending time with (in some ways it’s harder as you only have to find ‘one’ girlfriend).

As bad as some of the games that I have been in have been, I still feel lucky because, I have also been in some very good groups. Take heart, you need to be willing to put up with some pain like this if you want to find a group that you really enjoy gaming with. The good news is that in many ways things have gotten easier. Just being on this forum gets your name out there. People read your posts, and they get a chance to know who you are before they even meet you. That is not to say that it’s easy to find a good group. Because I really don’t think it is. But I can say that there is a lot more out there to help you then there used to be (I used to just put my name up in a gaming store and hope someone saw it).

Keep looking and you will find what you seek.

Cheers

I don't even know where to start. I am not even sure which would be the longer list, the one here (games I would have liked to try, but never got a chance to) or games the I tried and loved, but did not get enough of.

I guess if I had to put something down '5th Frontier War' comes to mind, but the truth is with as long as I have been gaming, and how bad my memory is, I am sure there are a lot more that should go on the list.

I hope that you can find what you seek. I loved Mass Effect and thought that it would be a good setting for a tabletop RPG.

When I was playing, I had the same thought as you did (did someone do any RPG write-ups for this?) It would be cool to see people's thoughts on how to convert the races - I was thinking D20 rather the saga - but hey, it would be cool to see that as well.

Wait, this player wants to get a free shot ** and then ** start a surprise round!? I missed that part. In games that I GM, I would just tell the player that he could not do that. In games that I have played, some GM's would just say no, others would say sure, as a very evil look and smile came to their face (at this point my character would make sure not to be standing next to this player's character) :)

There are times when the rules must be taken at face value, and then there are times when you have to look more at the spirit of the rules and less as legal strictures

Well said. I think this is the core of what makes a good group. Where GM and players are on the same page about when and how to draw this line, makes for a heck of a gaming group.

DMFTodd, well I am sure not all DM's would use a spot roll here, I don't find it ridiculous.

So, I stand behind my 'I would give him feedback and let him decide if he wanted to fire or not. How tough that call is would be based on how obvious the situation is.' in my original post.

In my ideal game (because how I play/run is based on the GM/group i'm with) what I told the player would be based on what he could see. Often, to pull this off, the rogue is going ahead without a light source. If he could not see very well into the room, yeah, I would require a spot roll as to just what he could make out. But, I really don't think there is a right answer here. What I find as flavor, you find ridiculous. Some groups would enjoy having a spot check, as it would add to the impersion (this is what you see in the split second before you shoot), others not so much. As they say YMMV.

If the player doesn't make a Spot check he fires at anything that could in a couple of seconds be preceived as a threat. Actual creature, statues, furniture

A spot check to see what you are shooting at is certainly fair. With spot as (usually) a strong skill for rogues, this may give the player an even richer feeling of how only a rogue could pull off a sneaky attack like this. Of course the way I roll, I would probably roll a 1, bounce a shot of a statue, just as I caught the eye of the real monster – a medusa :)

Saern, Thanks for the kind words.

DMFToad (and all the other posters who realized that strictly following the rules made this tactic hard or impossible to pull off). Yeah, I like to run and play by the RAW, so at first, I had a lot of problem with this tactic. But I really feel that the spirit of the rules is that a rogue should be able to do this. I think if you start the combat after the door opens (with the sound of the door opening starting the combat), then you can still go RAW and it all works. If you have a hard time with this, think of AD&D. a creature could get multiple segments of surprise and tear you apart before you could even react (heck the real reason we liked the ranger was because he cut the number of segments of surprise down by one). I don't see giving a player a single surprise shot all that much of an edge.

I have seen this issue from both sides of the screen.
As a GM, I know it can get on your nerves when a player uses a smart but obvious tactic over and over. When I first started GM’ing, my inclination was to (as many here have suggested) engineer an encounter where the tactic blew up in the player’s face. This is a mistake. Think about it, what you are doing is both meta-game and arbitrary to penalize a player for using a good tactic. Smart players will know exactly what you are doing (how many random encounter charts include the little orphan Annie they just shot) and lose some respect for you because of it.

But, let’s go further, what function do you see the rogue filling in a group? If what your player described is not spot on with what it is that I think a rogue does in a dungeon, then I would be hard pressed to tell you what I did expect a rogue to do. If this tactic does not work, or only works rarely, why play a rogue at all?

In games that I run, I would not have a problem with letting the player (if he made the rolls) do as he asks, with one exception. He would not have to state that he shoots the first thing that he saw, instead I would give him feedback and let him decide if he wanted to fire or not. How tough that call is would be based on how obvious the situation is. In some cases a spot roll would be needed, and if he did not roll well enough, the decision to shot or hold could be very hard (you just see a shadowy shape, could be a kobold or a gnome, you can’t tell, do you want to shoot?).

As a player, I think being the rouge is the most dangerous job there is. Scouting ahead of the party (far enough that they don’t blow your cover with their plate armor) and being the first to open a door is very dangerous. It’s nice to know that if it all works out you may get in a critical shot (or two). It makes up for the times that you open the door and fail to spot a gelatinous cube.

Lastly, as many have said, there are times that this tactic will not work. As soon as the alarm goes out, this tactic becomes worthless. But there still should be a lot of times that it does work. I feel your real skill as a GM is to find the right mix of situations for when this tactic works, and when to mix things up.

I think the best advice that I can give you is to remember that it’s your game (you and your players) and that you need to be ready and able to take charge (while it is everyone’s game, you as the GM need to be willing to lead the group).

With that in mind, read your GM’s guide and all the advice here, but go with your gut as to whether or not you want to follow it. I have been in a lot of games and they have all been different. What works in one game may be harmful to another. In some ways I envy you, call it nostalgia but I really enjoyed my first games as GM. I laugh a little at some of the rookie mistakes that I made, but there were a lot of really good times. This is what I think you have to look forward to in your games.

Just from reading your post, you already have a good start, players who want you to GM (this means that they already feel they can trust you to lead the game) and experience as a player in a game that you enjoyed. I am betting that you are already ready for this (yeah, the first time is scary, but the fear goes away quickly when everyone is having fun).

Cheers

! start thread jack !
ithuriel thanks much for the link. I really needed a good document to show the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. I guess I should have done a google search myself, but I did not expect to find anything like this.
thanks again.
! end thread jack !

A few years ago when we were kicking around theme ideas for a convention, I really wanted to do a parallel of Order 66 from Star Wars. At the convention, the theme is usually some form of save the world. I thought it would be a good change of pace to change the player goal from that to simple survival (and if they did well, find ways to preserve their order like was done in Star Wars).

My setting was going to be Greyhawk, the Great Kingdom. In Greyhawk’s history, the Great Kingdom was once the largest and most powerful kingdom and force for good. Eventually the wise ruling house was replaced (through assassination) by a demon worshiping house (note that the time setting of this campaign would be in Greyhawk’s distant past, when this change took place).

I wanted to have the players be members of the Great Kingdom's elite order of knights. When the new power took over these knights would need to be converted or eliminated. As a fill in for the clone troopers, I planned on using a form of Eberron’s Warforged. The plan was to have 1st runs for the convention, be where the Warforged turned on the player groups (the execution of order 66). Note that this would have been a harsh theme and hard on players, but the con tends to get very good players and my hope was to push them to the best play they were capable of (with the hope that it would be like other popular themes that are talked about with fond memories years later).

But alas, this idea was just one of many that we had and never got selected.

DMcCoy1693, I am hoping that game works out (of course I have a vested interest :) )

I was able to get in some 3.5 play in 2008 and hope for more in 2009.

DMcCoy1693,
E-mail sent so you should be good to go. If it does not show up, just let me know.

Cheers

DMcCoy1693,
Sure, I would be interested in doing some gaming. What info do you need so that we can set something up?

Too bad, I promise the campaign will be memorable if you're willing to make the drive.

I have little doubt that it would be a good game, but in a few months, I will be GMing at a local convention which uses its own rules set. To get ready for that means a lot of rule reading and play testing. Because of this, when I play D&D, I just want to be able to relax and play and not have to worry about learning new rules. I can do that with 3.5. Any other rules set would mean having to ‘pull out the books’ and for the next 3 months I am going to have more than enough of that.

Good gaming to you :)

I was hoping for 3.5. Oh well, probably just as well, West Chester would be about an hour drive (from Bensalem PA) for me.

Cheers

Is it 3.5 or Pathfinder?

I don’t see this as a ‘hate’ thing, just a different point of view (both of which are valid).

That said, I don’t see the need for the sinister force behind the Ogre’s decision to kill the child. For me this could be just the cruelty and malice of the Ogre. If he felt he was going to die, then the murder of the child may have just been a result of his rage and a final act of evil defiance.

Well Living Triskele you have a lot of good info here. What I think you most need to do is figure out what kind of game you and your players want. How big an issue alignment is centers around this.

For example, the players that I have gamed with would not feel that this was an ‘alignment trap’. Far from it, we would have seen it as both a chance to role-play our alignments and as a tactical challenge.

But that’s the way we play. There are a lot of players out there (Set for example) who would not like it and hate you for putting them in a no-win trap situation.

Take a good look at your players, and that should lead you to your answer about how best to deal with the alignment issue.

Well I am a cat lover. We have 3, 2 older cats and a new Kitten (for my son, who wanted his own pet).

The thing about cats is that you have to let them know who is in charge. Once they understand that ** they ** are masters of the house, all is well. Our cats want a lot of attention. Yes, they do sleep a lot, but this is not that bad as they do this during the day when we are at work anyway. At night they are as much a part of what is going on as any other member of the family.

I think the first thing is to make sure that it is favoritism. It may not be. When I GM, my answer to a player (even to the same question) may be based on how well I know the player. For example, if a player asked to play a class that I knew had potential to be abused and cause problems in the group, I would not allow it for a player I just met. I might for one who I knew well, and felt that I could trust not to cause problems or overshadow other players.

If your GM is giving these things to other players because he feels they earned them, that a little different then favoritism. A choice GM’s have to decide is how to treat new players. Give them the same things that other players had to work for (free levels for example), and you favor new players. Go to far to the other side (force a new players to start at first level when the long time players are 5th level for example) and you favor long term players over new players. Finding a balance that keeps both new and old players happy is a GM’s job.

Talk to your GM, see why he is allowing the other players more choice. If these choices are things that need to be earned, find out what it takes to earn them. If he is a good GM, he will be sensitive to the balance between new players and old. Have this conversation away from the game. Our group used to meet after games to discuss issues like this at dinner. This both keeps the game fun and does not cause friction by questioning the GM about his ruling during the game.

Even if the GM is fair-minded, you still need to decide if you feel his decisions are fair. If not, talk about what you feel is fair. Decide what you can or cannot live with and be polite and firm about it. If you can’t come to agreement, your best bet is to find another group. My hope is that it does not come to that.

Cheers

What do I think? I think that only you can make that call.

That said, some advice I would offer: decide what it is that you enjoy about and look for in the game. When I was younger, I just wanted to play. Gaming was my addition and I played/GM’ed a lot of styles that were not really what I was looking for. Nevertheless, I did it anyway. Why? Because I enjoyed being able to play and (in most cases) I really liked the people that I gamed with. So while the game was not really the way I would have liked to play or run it, I went with it anyway.

Today I pass on a lot more games because the style is just not what I want or I don’t feel close enough to the group of players. This is because I have had the chance to play in some really fantastic games, so, over the years, my standards have gotten higher. When I was younger, I was also more open to experimenting in the different styles of play. I was more willing to give other styles a try.

Think hard about what you really love in a game. Think hard how much fun you have with the group that you currently game with. Be honest about how happy you are with what you have and what your chances are for getting what you really want. If you do that I think you will be able to decide what your best course of action is.

Good luck to you whatever you decide

As a serf of the boards, I would prefer one site to ‘hang’ at. For a longtime that site was the WOTC site, later with the edition change I came here, but still don’t feel like I fit in. I have looked at the OOTS site, but tend to just read the comic rather then the forums. I have started to spend time at Kobold Quarterly and the RPG tools forums, but have not really become a regular at either.

While at the WOTC site, I saw that another poster was from my area, so I sent him a personal message to see if he wanted to meet up. All went very well and I now play in his D&D 3.5 game.

In theory, I am in charge of organizing a yearly convention. But, attendance was light when I started and all my efforts to increase it have not gone very far. Let’s just say that I have concluded that organization of an event is a cross-class skill for me.

Hope this helps.

This is something that I have tried many times in the past. The key problem is that as the scale of the battle increases the abilities and skills of individuals becomes more abstract. My biggest success was in trying to (for a Star Wars game) recreate a battle similar to the battle of Britain. The players were pilots and commanders for a single squadron.

My solution was to use a game that worked for the large scale battle as my ruleset for the overall battle and to use the role-playing rules for battles the players got into. For the overall battle, I used a game called RAF (an old west end games title). In that game, each squadron is a single counter (so the players and their squadron represented a single counter in the game). I started the players counter with the base value of a squadron of their type, but modified it based on role-playing challenges that players resolved in game (new NPC pilots that needed to be trained, aggressive NPC pilots who needed to be controlled or they would get them selves killed doing something foolish).

I had a friend (who was not part of the player group) play the RAF game. To him the players were just a single counter of dozens. He wanted to win the battle and saw the players and their counter as an expendable resource. This was ideal, as part of the role-play situation that I wanted the players to feel was that they were part of a large battle with commanders indifferent to the soldiers who fought and died for them.

The results of any battle in the RAF game were used to determine what kind of battle the players had to fight. For example, if in the RAF game the players were part of a battle where their squadron was eliminated, then I would set up a battle where they would be fighting just to survive, If in the RAF game they soundly beat their opponents, then their (RPG) battle was a turkey shoot. In a lot of ways this was one of my best series of games I ever ran. The players really felt like they had been through the battle of Britain when they finished.

While I don’t see an air battle setup working for you, the general idea is still sound. In that, you find a game that works well for overall battle (I have some suggestions here, but to be honest there are so many that I can think of, and for the most part, it comes down to what gives you the correct feel that you are looking for). Once you have the system, assign your players as units in that game system (and the group of them could just be one unit). If the commander of the battle is an NPC, you may want to have a friend who is not in your game represent this commander and ‘play’ the overall battle. Setup standard D&D battles based on what happens to the players in the bigger game. If you want the players to be a part of a large battle that they are not important enough to change the outcome, roll the out come using your large battle rules and set up a battle appropriate to that result. If you want the players to affect the battle in a large way, set up the battle encounter using the odds that are in play at the start of the fight of the big battle. Based on the success of the players, determine the outcome to apply in the overall battle system.

This probably all sounds a little vague and I admit it is. Like I said at the start of my post, I have tried this many times, using my different rules as the base. Usually, it gets bogged down somewhere. Even if the rules you use to run the system work flawlessly, if the battle ends up with the players being bashed, they will be let down. At the same time, if the enemy is easily crushed, the victory feels hollow to the players.

At any rate, I wish you luck; pull this off and the game will be talked about for years to come. :)

This is indeed a frisky hyperactive hive of wonderment!

I agree. I like an active forum that I can browse and see what discussions are interesting. At WOTC and Here, there were more than I could keep up with - which is good.

To be fair, on some sites it’s not the amount of activity, it’s the focus. For example, I checked out the RPTools forum because I really like their tools. There are good people there, but to my eye most of the posting related to their tools and technology (which makes sense). I was looking for more general D&D discussions.

While I would agree with varianor that the more activity, the more ‘garbage’ that you have to pick through, for me there is not enough 3.5 related activity here. I would like to see a lot more then we currently have here in the 3.5 forum (indeed if there were more, I doubt that I would look to other sites).

Speaking for myself, I don't have any need for more modules, and I don't want any more supplements. I've got tons and tons of adventure material I still haven't used yet, so I'm not looking for any support sites like you're talking about.

Like you I have more books and adventures than I think I can use in a lifetime. That said, what I would like from a support site is a forum where I can talk to a large group of other people to trade posts with. The edition wars have made this harder. I would have stayed at the WOTC site, but I did not feel welcome. I have always felt that D&D was more about who you played with and how you played (style) rather than the rules, but it is clear to me that what edition you play has to many players become what flag you sail under and you are marked as friend or foe based on that. I want to find a place where I can share my love for 3.5 without coming under fire from other posters just because I did not choose as they did.