The purpose of this forum

[Kerrick]

What this forum is not: This forum is not dedicated to any singular project. It is not for Project Phoenix, it is not for JoeBob's House Rules, it is not for Pathfinder.

What this forum is: This forum is to be a place where folks can talk about their homebrew/variant system/house rules and get feedback, exchange ideas, and generally improve their games. Anyone who is interested in revising, tweaking, or fixing any part of the 3.5 system, from a couple rules for their group to a complete overhaul of the system, is welcome to come and discuss their work.

Discussion of individual projects and rulesets is encouraged, but let's keep in mind that everyone has their own idea of how 3.5 "should be". That's fine - d20 is big enough that it can accommodate a wide variety of views. Everyone's opinion is valid; if you don't agree, be civil about it, or find another thread to post in.

Someone suggested organizing rules into groups - classes, PrCs, miscellaneous rules, etc., with a master list to reference them once they're done. I'm not exactly sure how to group things, but the master list is a really good idea - they have one in the House Rules forum, and it's very handy.

So. I've said my piece. If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, feel free to voice them here.

 

[Hawken]

It seems like this forum is kind of organized. You've got a thread for HP, one for LA, one for a wizard, one for a cleric, etc.

You could have one for ability scores. In that thread, you could discuss stat generation methods, you could discuss alternate uses of stats (Dex for attack rolls, etc.), and maybe even cross-over into a Race thread by discussing stat adjustments for races.

For threads like Races and Classes, if its possible you could make sub-forums for each of those topics about specific races or classes.

Since this group is for 3.5 revising, I'd like to suggest it just be about that, not revising pet projects or house rules. And tie it in to 3.5. If you've got a house rule on grappling, tie it in. Present it like, "here is my house rule on grappling, what do you guys think?" And keep it based off of 3.5, not here's a house rule about a Pathfinder rule or a house rule on one of my other house rules, or no that rule can't work this way because of Pathfinder this or that.

You do need to take some ownership here--Jeez I hate 'corporate speak'! This forum was created by you and you need to take the responsibility of keeping it on track (revising 3.5 stuff). If two posters have a dispute, you will need to step in and resolve it since this place is your creation and none of us would be here if it weren't for your time and effort. And, I'm assuming you'd like there to be more activity and more people here--that won't happen if this forum goes all over the place.

You're basically the DM here and we're all players but instead of adventuring, we're talking. You still have to moderate when things get out of hand or pull it in when things go way out into deep left field.

 

[Sylrae]

I personally like the idea of using sub-forums to keep things a tad more organized by category.

Since this group is for 3.5 revising, I'd like to suggest it just be about that, not revising pet projects or house rules. And tie it in to 3.5. If you've got a house rule on grappling, tie it in. Present it like, "here is my house rule on grappling, what do you guys think?" And keep it based off of 3.5, not here's a house rule about a Pathfinder rule or a house rule on one of my other house rules, or no that rule can't work this way because of Pathfinder this or that.

Then this would be the same as the 3.5e house-rules forum would it not? I thought the point of this forum was to come up with a completely revised edition, not just a handful of different mechanics, designed to work with the regular edition. I mean, otherwise, why make a new forum, right?

Of course, people aren't going to all agree on ONE revision: (IE, there are some changes I might include that Kerrick wouldn't and vice versa) He said the forum isn't all about project phoenix, which means that he doesnt it to be a system where hes in charge and we make what he wants us to. This approach, will result in (theoretically) multiple 3.75e type systems, which may be closely related, but will have distinctions. (such as how I want to revise clerics, vs. how he wants to do it) granted, a large portion of the modifications ill be using are his creations, either as is, with some adjustment to make it fit my varient, or something we both worked on, but thats why he mentions pathfinder systems and such. It's not so much a forum for a pile of variant rules, we have one of those. It's a forum to come up with a finished 3.75e of some sort(maybe more than one), which, I presume will be available as a pdf. I'm working on one as well, and throwign it into pretty pdf form. It's mostly going to be for private use though, cause a bunch of things im including are not OGL, and I dont own most of the art. Of course, when its done, i'll definitely make a slim version with only stuff i can actually release, but that will be after. Maybe I misunderstood. it's my goal for the time june gets here.

-----------The idea of you keeping things on track is a good one. You're definitely qualified for the job.

 

[Hawken]

Then this would be the same as the 3.5e house-rules forum would it not? I thought the point of this forum was to come up with a completely revised edition, not just a handful of different mechanics, designed to work with the regular edition. I mean, otherwise, why make a new forum, right?

There is no 3.5 house rules forum as far as I know. Its 3rd edition. This is a bit more specific. As for the point of this forum, I don't think that was established when this started or at least before Kerrick started this discussion thread. And there are plenty of reasons to have a forum more than just "help Sylrae write a book".

While Kerrick did state in the OP that the idea of using this forum for personal projects wasn't quite what he had in mind, its definitely the last thing on my mind. I'm not going to work my ideas out here just to have them 'borrowed' in some form or fashion to be used for someone else's game. Open exchange of ideas sounds good to me and that's what I thought this forum would be about and what would be happening here. I don't mind helping fellow DMs out but if I want people using my rules, I'll write my own book.

I've already told Kerrick, I'm not going to stay here if this place is about helping him with his project and now that you're turning this into your project also, Sylrae, I'm not sure that this is a forum I want to continue associating with. I dislike sounding so mercenary, but if I'm not getting paid, I don't see why I should be spending my time helping to build a website or write a book for someone else.

And one obvious point about this forum is that it is for revising 3.5. Not revising Pathfinder. Not revising Project Phoenix. Not revising Sylrae's books/ideas. Its revising 3.5 rules, hopefully more along the lines of revising the bad/clunky stuff and not messing so much with what works.

 

[Kerrick]

I personally like the idea of using sub-forums to keep things a tad more organized by category.

I don't know if I can do sub-forums, but threads could work.

Of course, people aren't going to all agree on ONE revision: (IE, there are some changes I might include that Kerrick wouldn't and vice versa) He said the forum isn't all about project phoenix, which means that he doesnt it to be a system where hes in charge and we make what he wants us to.

Exactly. I went about this the wrong way, and apparently people have gotten the wrong impressions. That's mostly my fault. I just want a place where people can discuss their house rules, revisions, and whatnot relating to 3.5. Pathfinder is a revision of the 3.5 system, so mentioning how they do things is a valid approach - say, someone posts a rule for grappling, and I mention that I use the PF grappling system with some modifications and tell them how it might improve their game. I think that's valid discussion. Discussing Pathfinder in general, though, is a bit off-topic - this isn't a Pathfinder forum.

This approach, will result in (theoretically) multiple 3.75e type systems, which may be closely related, but will have distinctions. (such as how I want to revise clerics, vs. how he wants to do it) granted, a large portion of the modifications ill be using are his creations, either as is, with some adjustment to make it fit my varient, or something we both worked on, but thats why he mentions pathfinder systems and such.

It's not so much a forum for a pile of variant rules, we have one of those. It's a forum to come up with a finished 3.75e of some sort(maybe more than one), which, I presume will be available as a pdf.

Well.... again, you've got the wrong impression. I don't want everyone to work toward a common goal. I noted that a lot of people had mentioned they were working on some version of a 3.75 ruleset, and I thought it'd be a good idea to get them all together, instead of posting bits and pieces on various forums. Maybe someone's looking for a good cleric variant - he can ask here. Someone else wants to share his new armor rules - again, post them here.

I'm working on one as well, and throwign it into pretty pdf form. It's mostly going to be for private use though, cause a bunch of things im including are not OGL, and I dont own most of the art. Of course, when its done, i'll definitely make a slim version with only stuff i can actually release, but that will be after. Maybe I misunderstood. it's my goal for the time june gets here.

That's cool, and that's what I'm encouraging - everyone having the ability to work on their own stuff, without any pressure. From what I gather, most folks are doing this for their own groups/homebrew campaign worlds, not to put into publication. Pathfinder, AFAIK, is the only 3.75 ruleset being published.

There is no 3.5 house rules forum as far as I know. Its 3rd edition.

It says "for 3rd edition and older", but it actually does include 3.5. Considering 3.5 and 3E are nearly interchangeable, I see little distinction.

And there are plenty of reasons to have a forum more than just "help Sylrae write a book".

Be nice, please.

While Kerrick did state in the OP that the idea of using this forum for personal projects wasn't quite what he had in mind, its definitely the last thing on my mind. I'm not going to work my ideas out here just to have them 'borrowed' in some form or fashion to be used for someone else's game. Open exchange of ideas sounds good to me and that's what I thought this forum would be about and what would be happening here. I don't mind helping fellow DMs out but if I want people using my rules, I'll write my own book.

Isn't that what "open exchange of ideas" means? Open Game Content is just that - open. It means that you expect and encourage others to use your material (with proper citation, of course). That's why everything I do is OGC.

I've already told Kerrick, I'm not going to stay here if this place is about helping him with his project and now that you're turning this into your project also, Sylrae, I'm not sure that this is a forum I want to continue associating with. I dislike sounding so mercenary, but if I'm not getting paid, I don't see why I should be spending my time helping to build a website or write a book for someone else.

That's your choice. I'm sorry you feel that way, but some folks care less about getting paid and more about just creating stuff. *shrug* I'm doing this all for free, in my spare time. I could care less about getting paid for it - I do it because it's fun, and it keeps me busy and sane.

 

[Sylrae]

I'm not saying everyone is working to put together a single 3.75 ruleset, in fact I mentioned there could theoretically be multiple full rulesets that could be presented.

and i wasn't looking for someone to 'help write my book' or whatever you seem to be thinking. hell. the 'book' that I would be writing would be for usage in my own group. it it went online, it would give people credit, only include ogc, and it woulf be free.

pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5. there are some thing i think could be done better than how pathfinder is doing them. thus me going off and doing my own thing.

I dont know why youre so high strung hawken. you shouldnt be that bothered by me. if you cant help it, you can feel free to ignore me if you like.

 

[Kerrick]

I've revised the first post to be a bit clearer. Hopefully this should clear up any misunderstandings. Clearly.

 

[Hawken]

I'm not high strung about anything. Emphatic, passionate, sure. High strung, no.

I've discussed my points with Kerrick and he's clarified a lot and I'm happy enough after talking things over with him to stay around.

In the early days of this forum, there was no such clarity and both he and you, Sylrae, were acting as if this forum was a medium primarily for your pet projects and everyone else was either helping you out or disregarded or at least that was a feeling that could be inferred based on the way you were posting.

Also, Pathfinder may or may not be an improvement over 3.5 rules. Depends on who you ask. Since this forum is a 3.5 forum and not a Pathfinder one, rules or revisions that rely on Pathfinder are about as relevant as something from the D20 rules or other systems.

 

[Sylrae]

well, pathfinder is a 3.5 revision. some of the people here are making their own 3.5 revision{society of 3.5 revisionists, anyone?}. If pathfinder deals with a particular issue(something in 3.5 you dont like for whatever reason) in a way that you like, why bother reinventing the wheel?

I can understand the PoV of liking standalone houserules, that dont rely on other rules modifications, and require nothing but the standard 3.5 books. That works great if you only want to houserule a few things. (in which case I would probably post it under the 3e house rules forum and wouldnt bother putting it here)

If you want a system overhaul, however, you're going to want your rules to work together, and to take eachother into account, or youll have all sorts of new problems that exist because you ignored how your other rules modifications would affect things.

Therefore, it seems the logical approach would be to list what your system is going to assume, and that way, if someone wants to use it without those assumptions, they can rework the system/rule to not use them.

I guess I'm saying that if someone's goal is a comprehensive revision, standalone mechanics are in some cases going to be counterproductive (while in others it may not matter).

I agree with you about pathfinder not being flawless, thats why I'm doing my own 3.5 revision, and drawing from various sources, including pathfinder, 3.5, 3rd party 3.0 and 3.5 books, and online resources, in addition to my own work. When its finished, I'll go through the whole thing and figure out what can be reprinted (IE, put online for free download) and what is a copyright violation of some sort. Then I'll put a slimmed copy without those things up for anyone who wants to use it. Since my main goal is for my own games (and the games of personal friends), I'll naturally include references to the other mechanics I'll be using, including any changes to said mechanics in my rough work...

 

[Hawken]

Did I just log in and post on a dead forum?

There hasn't been much activity here in about two weeks or so. For my part, I haven't had internet access until recently, but I don't think a sudden internet outage has hit everyone else--that would be weird. Or maybe everyone else but me has already revised 3.5 to their liking?

Kerrick, have you figured out how to do sub-forums yet? Or maybe how to "move" the topics around and somehow group or categorize them?