Al Qadim - Arabian Adventures (D&D 3E, PF or maybe AD&D 2)

[Cassandra LeMay]

I'd love to play in the Al Qadim setting. Been there, done it, got the sand in my shoes to prove it - and I'd like to go there again.  ;D

But, there are some caveats (you didn't think there'd be none, did you?):

(1) D&D 3.x Edition rules (maybe AD&D 2nd Ed.). I do like the 3.0 rules, but I could agree on the original AD&D rules the setting was originally written for. The game I played in ages ago started as AD&D 2, then converted to 3E and it worked pretty well. I'd be happy to offer a bunch of conversion rules and whatnot to run an Al Qadim game with 3E rules, but 4E, 5E, or Pathfinder are out. Don't have any of the rulebooks and I'd rather not get into a new set of rules I am unfamiliar with for this.
Edit: After having a look through the 2nd Ed AD&D rulebook after many a year I would even more strongly prefer a 3.0 or 3.5 game for this. But I have read up a bit on Pathfinder as well, and while I haven't read the actual rules yet I am more willing now to give PF a try, provided I won't need more than the Core Rules PRD.

(2) Group game or a Solo game with a GM could both work for me: I'd love to keep playing my old pen-and-paper character (Hakima, level 13) and I could imagine her in a solo game with just me and a GM exploring the Land of Fate, but right now my itch for an AQ game is strong enough that I would just as well like to play in a completely new group, be it in a group that can fit in said hakima, or something new with a new character.

(3) I could Co-GM. I just don't want to be in the driver's seat. Running some encounters, detailing a few bits and pieces of the setting, playing some NPCs would all be fine by me. I just don't want to be the "main GM".

I know this is kinda sorta specific, but there's not much to lose if I give this request a try. I guess now it is in the hands of Fate, for we have no fate but the fate we are given.  :-)

[Muse]

  Oh, wow!  *Grins* 

  I read this setting long ago, back when second editon was still going strong.  I'd love to play or run.  Hopefully someone will show up who can run soon.  If no one has in a few weeks, I'll see how open my schedual is. 

[Cassandra LeMay]

Edited the opening post to include a willingness to give Pathfinder a try for this. My preference would still be 3.0, but what I read about PF just now doesn't sound like it would be all that big a change. If that makes the difference in finding a GM I won't rule it out.

  Oh, wow!  *Grins* 

  I read this setting long ago, back when second editon was still going strong.  I'd love to play or run.  Hopefully someone will show up who can run soon.  If no one has in a few weeks, I'll see how open my schedual is.

I'll hold you to it in a few weeks, should no one else volunteer.  :-)

[VonDoom]

If it's Pathfinder and the potential GM/group are more on the descriptive side of things, I'm potentially interested, pending further details.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I'm not familiar with the setting, and while I vastly prefer PF over D&D 3.x, I could be interested in playing.

The differences between PF and 3.5 are relatively minor. PF streamlined some of the flaws of 3.0 and 3.5 and fixed a few of the issues... while creating some of their own. But at it's core, it's little different than 3.0 or 3.5... Pathfinder was originally, i think, something like what 4.0 should of been... maybe 3.75?

Yes, my impression from reading through some PF rules is similar. It certainly has some good ideas (like combat maneuvers and some changes to the skill system, for example) and feels, in general, not really like a different system and more like a natural growth from 3.0.

If it's Pathfinder and the potential GM/group are more on the descriptive side of things, I'm potentially interested, pending further details.

I'll probably find some details in those rules that will throw me a curveball when I least expect it, but I am more and more inclined to accept Pathfinder as a potential ruleset for this game (should this game ever happen). Anything that is not AD&D 2nd Edition will require some conversion work anyway and discussing such a conversion should be a good opportunity for me to get to know the PF rules a little better.

As for it being "descriptive" - I very much hope it will be. Al Qadim has its own customs and traditions, its own society, and I consider that an important part of the setting. That's something that can't be explored with dice-rolling alone.

Now the question becomes, does your mention of a "potential GM/group" indicate that you, my dear VonDoom - may Fate bless your path - would be willing to entertain the idea of your honorable self perhaps standing outside such a possible group, act as the Rawun who spins a tale for the delight of his audience?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Let#s wait and see what VonDoom has to say (especially since the term "descriptive" was his).

[VonDoom]

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I'm looking to play, not GM. I'm only familiar with Al Qadim in so far as to know that it's a vaguely arabic D&D setting and reading properly into it to the point that I could feasibly GM such a game is something I currently simply don't have the time for.

[CarnivalOfTheGoat]

Posting definite interest. I lean more towards PF, as I tend to feel (YMMV) that it handles both melee and caster types in a more equitable fashion (3.x was somewhat notorious in some circles for spellcasters being the be-all-do-all at higher levels, with melee types losing pace rather rapidly) and has a much more flexible skill and levelling system.

If whoever GMs does decide to go with 3.x I'll have to dig out my old dusty books, as it has been quite a few years, and I'd be worried about getting my PF mixed up with my 3.x if I just tried to go from memory...The rules are similar in all but the finer points, but it's the finer points that'll get ya every time...

I assume you're looking for this to take off post-holidays? This is the deadest time of year...Hallowe'en's got nothing on it!

[Thorne]

Well, you have my attention - as a player, at least.

It's been a while since I played 3/3.5e, or even the original 2e, for that matter, but I would prefer PF - I might be less likely to banjax something on account of math. ^^;

[Andi]

Logging careful interest here. I rather enjoyed my past encounters with the setting. I'm open to any AD&D/d20 ruleset, but have a strong preference towards PF (with all its warts and problems).

[Cassandra LeMay]

Posting definite interest. I lean more towards PF, as I tend to feel (YMMV) that it handles both melee and caster types in a more equitable fashion (3.x was somewhat notorious in some circles for spellcasters being the be-all-do-all at higher levels, with melee types losing pace rather rapidly) and has a much more flexible skill and levelling system.

If whoever GMs does decide to go with 3.x I'll have to dig out my old dusty books, as it has been quite a few years, and I'd be worried about getting my PF mixed up with my 3.x if I just tried to go from memory...The rules are similar in all but the finer points, but it's the finer points that'll get ya every time...

I assume you're looking for this to take off post-holidays? This is the deadest time of year...Hallowe'en's got nothing on it!

I don't mind starting of before, or during, the holidays, if a GM can be found before Christmas. But even in that case I doubt the actual game start would happen before January. If we use anything else than 2nd Ed rules some of the kits/spells/etc. will have to be converted to PF or 3E, and that might take a little while. As I said, I have some conversion rules at hand (in part found on the internet, in part done myself) and I have time during the holidays to discuss those rules aspects with a prospective GM who hasn't done their own conversion.

The main problem will be finding a GM who is familiar with the setting, I think. Al Qadim is a bit more than just a "standard" fantasy setting with flying carpets thrown into the mix. The setting has its own customs and social/cultural traditions that I consider an important part of the "Al Qadim experience". There should (IMO) be more to a game set in Zakhara than just new kits, spells, or monsters. A GM should have some knowledge of the core setting book at the very least, but also having read the 'Land of Fate' box couldn't hurt.

Logging careful interest here. I rather enjoyed my past encounters with the setting. I'm open to any AD&D/d20 ruleset, but have a strong preference towards PF (with all its warts and problems).

Interest in being a player, I assume? Or should I dare hope for something more?

[Andi]

Player. I do not feel like I have the time to re-read all sixteen volumes of 1001 nights, even if I can find them on project Gutenberg. Which version of Zakhara are you thinking, anyway? The standalone, or the one located on Toril?

[Cassandra LeMay]

Player. I do not feel like I have the time to re-read all sixteen volumes of 1001 nights, even if I can find them on project Gutenberg. Which version of Zakhara are you thinking, anyway? The standalone, or the one located on Toril?

Hey, I doubt many a GM (if any) has read all the 1001 Nights tales.  ;D Just a handful should be enough, and just reading through the players' guide and GM guide from the Land of Fate box might well be sufficient to get a GM in the right mindset.

That aside, I am not aware that there ever were two different versions of Al Qadim. It's a stand-alone setting that has its 'default location' on Toril, but never was really marketed as a "Forgotten Realms" product. In so far my understanding of Zakhara's location is that it could be anywhere, without it being a copmletely 'stand-alone' setting by default, somewhat akin to Kara-Tur. Not that it matters much, unless someone wants to play an outsider. For that I would leave it open to any prospective GM if he wants to place Zakhara on Toril or another world.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I think that I'm going to withdraw my interest. There's several interested players and I get the idea that knowing the setting is a required element; I don't know it and I'm unlikely to absorb it or get a generic character class into a game with specific types saught out.

I wish ya'll a good game though.

Let's see what the GM says - if and when we find someone to run this game. There might still be room for a character who is as much a stranger to the setting as his/her player might be. If only the GM and myself will be familiar with the setting there might still be the option of my character acting as "tourist guide" for a group of foreigners. It's not exactly what I had in mind, but the idea might well grow on me.  :-)

[Muse]

  I'm starting to research this.  :)  Will people play if I run the original 2nd edition version? 

[Cassandra LeMay]

  I'm starting to research this.  :)  Will people play if I run the original 2nd edition version?

I guess I will, even if I would prefer a system that doesn't start with an individual table for each attribute and then proceeds to complicate things even more from there on.  :D

That would depend on what resources will be allowed as I don't have access to the box set or setting guide, so no idea how those kits and such would work.

For pretty much all the Warrior and Rogue kits the changes to the basic 2E rules are small. There are also some Wizard and Cleric kits that don't change the rules all that much. As for the background... I suppose I could share a few excerpts from the setting book with interested players. As long as we are talking about a few pages shared only for the explicit purpose of facilitating this one single game I suppose that would qualify as fair use.

[CarnivalOfTheGoat]

I'd need to find my 2e set. It's been a very long time since I've seen it and it might be in storage.

Storage is about two-hundred miles away.

[Thorne]

What Blinkin said, more or less.

For me, that is because I may have started with 2e, but there are aspects of the system that made me deeply loathe character creation if I didn't have a /lot/ of help. I'm not a fan of complicated under those circumstances, it's frustrating, and frustration is not my idea of fun.

That having been said, I'm still interested, if now a tad wary. ^^;

[Muse]

  Well, I'm happy to help wtih character creation, and I don't use a lot of the optional rules that make things needlessly complciated.  Individual inative, with weapon speeds and spell speeds?  ick!  Doubly so on play by post! 

[RubySlippers]

  I'm starting to research this.  :)  Will people play if I run the original 2nd edition version?

I would I have the rules and setting information, so will submit a character if you run this.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I guess for now we should just wait and see what Muse thinks after researching the background/setting a bit. While I would much prefer 3E or PF over 2E for this, debating this question solely on the basis of rules - without knowing what sort of game/campaign the rules will be actually used for - might be somewhat premature.

And who knows, maybe Muse will offer to run this with 3E or PF rules after all. It shouldn't be too difficult, from my experience, to preserve the elements tjat make the setting unique and interesting, even without converting each and every little thing from the 2E version. Aside from the Wizard kits (which might require a bit of work), most everything else is at least as much a matter of flair and style as it is of special rules. That can be potet from one rule set to another in the hands of an experienced storyteller, especially since not many interested players are all that familiar with the setting - they'll hardly notice if something has been changed only a little or a whole lot to make the rules work.

[Thorne]

And, IIRC, there are a couple of options in 3.5e/Pathfinder for Sha'ir, if that came up.

Not on my account, mind. I was thinking something a little different. Still haven't quite nailed down what, but I don't have the headspace to write a Sha'ir without my brain exploding. ;p

[Chulanowa]

I'd be interested if 3.5 / PF, or even 5E. 2nd edition vexes me (Even if I have all the stuff for it...  ::) )

[Muse]

  I aprecite how much these people love their coffee.  :) 

[RubySlippers]

I guess for now we should just wait and see what Muse thinks after researching the background/setting a bit. While I would much prefer 3E or PF over 2E for this, debating this question solely on the basis of rules - without knowing what sort of game/campaign the rules will be actually used for - might be somewhat premature.

And who knows, maybe Muse will offer to run this with 3E or PF rules after all. It shouldn't be too difficult, from my experience, to preserve the elements tjat make the setting unique and interesting, even without converting each and every little thing from the 2E version. Aside from the Wizard kits (which might require a bit of work), most everything else is at least as much a matter of flair and style as it is of special rules. That can be potet from one rule set to another in the hands of an experienced storyteller, especially since not many interested players are all that familiar with the setting - they'll hardly notice if something has been changed only a little or a whole lot to make the rules work.

Really the big things are background and setting details like their society, Fate and stations all that can be converted over easily I would think. Without kits you might want to base the stations on PF Archetyes if used or on just basic class if 3.5.