Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balrog" data-source="post: 1414417" data-attributes="member: 3543">Thank you all again for your replies.&nbsp; I cannot say at this time that I have made a decision one way or the other yet.&nbsp; As Sir Whiskers and Elder-Basilisk said, there are advantages to sticking with 3.0 and house ruling certain aspects from 3.5.&nbsp; The bottom line is that we decide as a group what we want to do, and then do it.&nbsp; It seems to make everyone happy with our efforts.&nbsp; If we discuss the pros and cons of a switch, and we get some disagreement, we can always run a separate campaign, either solely 3.0 or solely 3.5, to see where that leads.&nbsp; But if after we discuss it, the majority would prefer to go one way or the other with my campaign, I am going to go with the flow.&nbsp; It is my campaign, and I have poured alot of work and time into making my homebrew breath.&nbsp; It is not the rules though, that rule my campaign.&nbsp; The characters, their motivations, and the plots of both them and the NPCs make this work.&nbsp; The rules are just a tool, and as long as we all agree on them, its all good.&nbsp; Having said that, what I foresee happening is that for the sake of continuity, we will probably end up keeping this campaign 3.0, with maybe a couple of individual house rules related to 3.5.&nbsp; Then one of the players will probably end up starting an alternate campaign that is solely 3.5.&nbsp; When 3.0 first came out, our group went through the same transition.&nbsp; We were firmly ensconced in a lengthy 2nd Ed campaign based on the Rod of Seven Parts.&nbsp; We never switched that campaign over to 3.0, even though 3rd Ed had been out for 6 months.&nbsp; but what we did do was start an alternate campaign with another DM from the group running 3.0.&nbsp; It was a learning process.&nbsp; This seems somewhat similar to that time.Again, thank you all for your replies. Hopefully after a little more discussion before our next session, we will work out this dilemna.&nbsp; Either way, we will game on and have fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balrog, post: 1414417, member: 3543"] Thank you all again for your replies. I cannot say at this time that I have made a decision one way or the other yet. As Sir Whiskers and Elder-Basilisk said, there are advantages to sticking with 3.0 and house ruling certain aspects from 3.5. The bottom line is that we decide as a group what we want to do, and then do it. It seems to make everyone happy with our efforts. If we discuss the pros and cons of a switch, and we get some disagreement, we can always run a separate campaign, either solely 3.0 or solely 3.5, to see where that leads. But if after we discuss it, the majority would prefer to go one way or the other with my campaign, I am going to go with the flow. It is my campaign, and I have poured alot of work and time into making my homebrew breath. It is not the rules though, that rule my campaign. The characters, their motivations, and the plots of both them and the NPCs make this work. The rules are just a tool, and as long as we all agree on them, its all good. Having said that, what I foresee happening is that for the sake of continuity, we will probably end up keeping this campaign 3.0, with maybe a couple of individual house rules related to 3.5. Then one of the players will probably end up starting an alternate campaign that is solely 3.5. When 3.0 first came out, our group went through the same transition. We were firmly ensconced in a lengthy 2nd Ed campaign based on the Rod of Seven Parts. We never switched that campaign over to 3.0, even though 3rd Ed had been out for 6 months. but what we did do was start an alternate campaign with another DM from the group running 3.0. It was a learning process. This seems somewhat similar to that time. Again, thank you all for your replies. Hopefully after a little more discussion before our next session, we will work out this dilemna. Either way, we will game on and have fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification