Hello. I'm an expert at D&D 3.5 and I prefer using Discord or Skype.
I like to make very atypical non-optimized character types that push the bounds of the conventional party contents. For example, I last played a Thri-Kreen Divine/Arcane Spellcaster (the "generic class", not the style) Mystic Theurge, before that a Synad Erudite modeled off of Dr. Who, and before that a Kobold Sha'ir Diplomancer.
Please let me know if you're interested in me joining your game. I'd like the answers to some things though, Specifically:
- What ECL should I start at? If the party is starting out as something higher than Level 1 then I'll need a little time to chart it out.
- What house rules are in effect? I personally utilize the massive and searchable House Rules by Maginomicon. I won't ask that we use it, but I would highly recommend that you take a really good look at it as it's an exceedingly helpful resource for GMs that don't have time to go look up everything. It even fixes some of the more basic problems in 3.5 itself (such as clarifying what a "full-attack routine" actually is and fixing the nature of things like the Leadership feat).
- What books are allowed? I personally allow all 3.5 books, 3.0-revised books, and all 3.0-onward Dragon Magazines (with reasonable house rules rewriting material that needs to be revised or seems a little oddly written).
- What style of play do you prefer regarding...
- Campaign world humor level? Personally I prefer that a game where "funny stuff could technically happen, but funny stuff isn't the point of the game and the rule of funny should be avoided". For example, if a player could chuck the final dungeon castle into the sun, you don't let them even though it'd be hilarious.
- Irrelevant talk at the table? Personally, I'm okay with a little chit-chat but only when someone has to briefly leave the table for some reason.
- Out-of-character discussion about in-game tactics? In order to prevent a "hive mind", I personally don't allow player to discuss tactics once a battle starts, but I highly encourage the players to come up with a plan before battle.
- Metagaming? What do you personally define as metagaming (sounds silly, but some GMs are ridiculous about it), so I can know to avoid it.
- Player Rebooting? That is, if the player does something mind-bogglingly stupid that gets them instantly killed, it's not actually final upon being said. I'm okay with not allowing this so long as the GM (upon hearing that the player wants to do something they consider mind-bogglingly stupid) says "are you sure that you want to do that"? Personally I bypass this by having "passive wisdom", a stat that equates to in-universe common sense.
- GM Rebooting? That is, where the GM gets caught in a plothole or logical error, admits it, and asks to back up a bit and redo it (if plausible). For example, a creature without darkvision somehow outpacing the party that does have darkvision in a pitch black maze. Personally, I take the Counter Monkey approach of "Yeah, that is odd. Weird." and then slyly make it work out because of a secret you make up on the fly.
- Rules-As-Written vs Rules-As-Intended? There are two schools of thought for interpreting rules in a tabletop RPG: Rules-As-Written ("RAW", interpreting a rule as a literal expression of the stated words in the rule) and Rules-As-Intended ("RAI", trying to imagine how the game designer probably intended the rule to mean and then just using that deduction as the rule). I can't play with a GM that operates in the RAW school of thought. I have years of experience as a Game Designer, so admittedly I have a better intuition than most about what a rule was intended to do, but not everyone has that and so they make up for it by making a hardline "Rules-As-Written-Only" ruling that makes no real-world logical sense. For example, despite what the description of the spell might explicitly give, the darkness spell creates a zone of complete darkness... because duh.
- Are Action Points allowed? Eberron introduced them, but Action Points are in the SRD as well. I find that they find a great cinematic feel to an otherwise dry game. Here's how I implemented them for my game.
- How is Player Power Creep handled? D&D 3.5 did in-fact set a power curve in place so that GM's could have a rules reason to say "no" to a player regarding what equipment they could have (even if they have the money for it). Essentially, a player is not allowed to physically own any one thing more valuable than a certain amount of GP, based on their character level (including things like a wizard PC's spellbook). I extrapolated from that system a complete Item Rarity method for keeping player wealth on-track but in-check, which might be worth a look.
- How is Encounter Level Power Creep handled? D&D 3.5 provided guidelines for setting a Challenge Rating for a creature or event, but then mucked it up by trying to ball it up into an "Encounter Level" with really silly math. They then later introduced a "Level-Independent XP Awards" method which is almost identical to how Pathfinder handles XP, in that it does away with the Encounter Level calculation.