How many of you are actually playing this game?

[Dread]

I DM a gaming group that meets roughly twice a month, but at times 3 times. we are half way through RotRL and have plans for starting CotV when thats finished. Pathfinder All the Way. Won't DM 4e. Only reccomend Pathfinder. Have nothing against 4e, but prefer the familiar, and I think, better game system.

and yes I have played 4e. Its fun. Just not what I want to DM

[Seldriss]

I am not playing Pathfinder, as a player or as a GM.

I am running two campaigns, both D&D 3.5 with a bunch of house rules, on a homebrew world, one around a regular table, the other online.

But I buy Pathfinder products, for two major reasons:

One because the stuff is compatible to D&D, whatever version, so I can use it in my games.

And two because I fully support Paizo, that I respect and applaud for their great job at keeping D&D 3rd edition alive.
Thanks to them all the related products as still relevant and useful.

[Stickman]

Two years ago when I started running this game, it was very house rules heavy D&D 3.5
We switched to PF after about 8 months.
Running full PF core with PF advanced players guide.
Run once a month.
Five players.

[Andrew Burton]

cibet44 wrote:

I play 3.5 Forgotten realms and starting pathfinder I would love to play
as a player but just DM at this time I recruited 4 new players and one
who has played a few games in the past. I am looking for others who are playing pathfinder or 3.5 4.0? tried it, it just didn't take... after rehab I found pathfinder. I am looking for others in my area to play.

Liz Courts!! ever been in Chicksands? a little (HAND)... tells me you have.

[Xaaon of Korvosa]

Up until our game group split due to people moving, we played at least monthly 5-6 players Pathfinder.

Now due to working 40 hour day job, having a regular freelance gig and working on art for an upcoming PF Paper Minis set, I don't have time for a Face-to-face game; I do however still run 2 PbP games, and play in another PF PbP

I think your survey is a bit biased if you exclude online play since we're still PLAYING!

[dmchucky69]

I DM 3 once a month groups.

1 is a 3.5 VTT group going through AoW.

1 is a 3.5 VTT group going through ST.

1 is a PF Real Tabletop group going through CoCT.

[Xaaon of Korvosa]

Digitalelf wrote:

Here's a question; does the Original Poster even care??

I mean this thread is 21 days old, has 128 posts (not including this one), and the OP has been asked several times by many of those posters as to why the limitations (such as not including online games), but as yet, the ONLY post by the thread's creator is that single original post...

Just an observation...

Not that it really matters, as it's always nice to see what other gamers are doing...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

So we all got trolled!

[loaba]

cibet44 wrote:

I see many posts from people that are actually playing 3.5/PF and many posts from those who are not. I also see many posts from those who obviously played D&D (1E/2E/3E) in the past but no longer play.

So my question is: Are you actively playing 3.5/PF on a regular basis?

For purposes of this survey actively playing means you meet ALL of the following criteria:
- Sessions at least once a month
- Sessions in person (no play-by-post or online only)
- Sessions with a group of at least 2 players and a DM (no solo or one-on-one groups)

I play every other week, in person, with a total of five participants.

[deinol]

By the OP's criteria then no, I'm not.

I run a weekly pathfinder game that still uses a lot of 3.5 material (our group has an Archivist and a Pact Binder.)

We ran a one-shot Friday night that was straight 3.5. Mostly core + spell compendium. We had a lot of fun. Finished the first level of Castle Whiterock. Too bad our groups fighter was insta-killed by an orc who got a lucky critical hit with a glaive after descending the stairs to the second level. Now we have a new reason to kill all the orcs, besides my general dwarven dislike for them.

PS: I don't think it matters if the OP ever comes back if his thread remains an interesting topic of discussion.

[F. Castor]

Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:

Digitalelf wrote:

Here's a question; does the Original Poster even care??

I mean this thread is 21 days old, has 128 posts (not including this one), and the OP has been asked several times by many of those posters as to why the limitations (such as not including online games), but as yet, the ONLY post by the thread's creator is that single original post...

Just an observation...

Not that it really matters, as it's always nice to see what other gamers are doing...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

So we all got trolled!

Actually, the OP did answer as to why he uses that criteria (Link). I do not necessarily agree with them, but he did come back and post in the thread. Here is the relevant post.

cibet44 wrote:

Digitalelf wrote:

Here's a question; does the Original Poster even care??

I mean this thread is 21 days old, has 128 posts (not including this one), and the OP has been asked several times by many of those posters as to why the limitations (such as not including online games), but as yet, the ONLY post by the thread's creator is that single original post...

Just an observation...

Not that it really matters, as it's always nice to see what other gamers are doing...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Of course I care :) I have read every post in the thread to date. I have not answered questions about the criteria because I feel as soon as I do that the thread will permanently detour into a discussion about the criteria. But here goes anyway:

- Sessions at least once a month
Why: I feel if you are playing less then once a month that does not qualify as ongoing campaigning to me. Its more like one off sessions.

- Sessions in person (no play-by-post or online only)
Why: I feel the game was meant to be played face to face at a table. The online and PBP aspect to the game has grown out of a lack of face to face players. I don't think ANYONE would choose to play online or PBP if face to face was an option. The very premise of the game expects the players and DM to be in the same room.

- Sessions with a group of at least 2 players and a DM (no solo or one-on-one groups)
Why: Again the premise of the game is multiple players (controlling single PCs) and a DM. One on one games are an aberration that deviates from the core play style and design of the game done out of necessity.

[cibet44]

F. Castor wrote:

...

Some observations:

1. I'm surprised how many people are playing/DMing in multiple simultaneous games. I've never been able to do this, we just have our one group of long timers.

2. Although I probably should have expected it, I'm surprised at how many (non-PFRPG) 3.5 games are going on. It shows (to me at least) Paizo was right on the money with the decision to support 3.5.

[terok]

Play PF rules once per week.
We alternate GM's between Legacy of Fire and Second Darkness. We finish one chapter with one GM and then move to the other game until we finish the chapter in that AP. It works out well as no one gets burned out GM'ing.
I am also in the GM rotation, there are 3 of us, but I finished my campaign about 2 months ago.

[Valegrim]

not me; am just playing plain old 3.5; but my players keep trying to interject all this PF stuff which is a no no.

[Elthbert]

I am currently playing a 3.X game.... I would say it was 3.25, except that I have taken the PF fighter becuase i think the 3.5 fighter was rediculously weak comparied to the other classes.

[gran rey de los mono]

I DM a Pathfinder game every Wednesday, and play in a 3.5 game that is supposed to meet every other Saturday but has only met three or four times in the last 5 months for various reasons.

[Elthbert]

Sorry was in a rush last night... we play every other saturday and occasionally we miss one but not often and we ussually try and make it up. I am the only DM and we just started our 4th campaign since 3rd edition came out (one had an abrupt and unfortuante TPK), back in the old days we played every Saturday, but now due to families we can't do it as much.

[koridur_kingslayer]

Currently, I GM a weekly game with 3 players. Using a home-brewed campaign that's planned to get them from levels 1 to 10. We really enjoy PF.

[Eric The Pipe]

I play in a weekly PF campaign, Kingmaker. I run a weekly shadowrun campaign. and i'm about to start a weekly 2nd ed campaign, for the fish

[GregH]

I'm DM'ing Age of Worms (2 whole sessions under our belt!) once a week with 6 regulars. It's 3.5.

Greg

[Zerumm]

cibet44 wrote:

I see many posts from people that are actually playing 3.5/PF and many posts from those who are not. I also see many posts from those who obviously played D&D (1E/2E/3E) in the past but no longer play.

So my question is: Are you actively playing 3.5/PF on a regular basis?

For purposes of this survey actively playing means you meet ALL of the following criteria:
- Sessions at least once a month
- Sessions in person (no play-by-post or online only)
- Sessions with a group of at least 2 players and a DM (no solo or one-on-one groups)

Well umm I meet with two groups a week. About 5-7 in each group 3.5 though have done PF afew times. we meet on a weekly basis