Making it official? How to make fan-material official content?

Very often games are based upon the limitations of “official content” only, other games are Pathfinder Society that have similar restrictions. Is anyone at Paizo at liberty to make something posted here “official” by simply stating it in a thread?

Same goes for things that show up in Wayfinder. I would love to see someone at Paizo stamp some content official or approved for play or something.

Only content created by Paizo is "official". Even the vast majority of Third Party content, even if produced by industry heavy wieghts and Paizo freelancers, is not "official"

That's not to say that content isn't fantastic (much of it is!) but it will never have the "Officially Approved by Paizo" stamp on it

The only way I am aware of to make fan material official is to get hired by Paizo, be around when Paizo is creating a new campaign world, have them use pieces of yours.
At least that's how James Jacobs did it. :)

In all seriousness, there's no mechanism in place to make non-Paizo material official,, and I doubt such a mechanism will ever be created. Paizo does sometimes pick up 3pp (almost exclusively monsters) and release them in Pathfinderized forms, so that might count.

This is an interesting topic. Marc and Owen covered it well, but I wanted to explore the terminology for a moment.

See, what does "official" mean?

Sometimes it means "permissible for play in PFS". Paizo is not in the habit of permitting 3rd party material to be used with PFS, so the simple answer there is "no".

Otherwise, the only real meaning the word has is "published by Paizo". So here too, the answer remains "no".

you have to either get hired by paizo or invest in a 1000.00 bribe to the ceo to have the paizo team look at it. they might go yay or nay....

nah I'm just bsing. You ha ve to get employed by them that is the only way

Win RPG Superstar.

nah I'm just bsing. You ha ve to get employed by them that is the only way

See, that's what I though. But now that I've been hired, it turns out, not so much...

Very often games are based upon the limitations of “official content” only, other games are Pathfinder Society that have similar restrictions. Is anyone at Paizo at liberty to make something posted here “official” by simply stating it in a thread?

As a player/GM, aside from official PFS games, I never restrict my table to "official content only", as there's too much non-official material from 3PP that is great to include in a game. I don't see a particular value in "offical content only", so why a non-PFS GM would make their game so, in my mind only restricts the "fun".

From a 3PP point of view, while getting recognition from the developers that material created should be accepted as "official" makes a nice "at-a-boy", I don't really want to lose control of something I created. I don't really want Paizo's stamp of approval. Just being compatible is enough. I have no problems making most what I create as OGC and will willingly share it on sites like d20pfsrd.com, still I would prefer to maintain ownership myself, and not share that ownership with Paizo.

I don't need nor want Paizo's official stamp of approval.

KenderKin wrote:

Very often games are based upon the limitations of “official content” only, other games are Pathfinder Society that have similar restrictions. Is anyone at Paizo at liberty to make something posted here “official” by simply stating it in a thread?

As a player/GM, aside from official PFS games, I never restrict my table to "official content only", as there's too much non-official material from 3PP that is great to include in a game. I don't see a particular value in "offical content only", so why a non-PFS GM would make their game so, in my mind only restricts the "fun".

From a 3PP point of view, while getting recognition from the developers that material created should be accepted as "official" makes a nice "at-a-boy", I don't really want to lose control of something I created. I don't really want Paizo's stamp of approval. Just being compatible is enough. I have no problems making most what I create as OGC and will willingly share it on sites like d20pfsrd.com, still I would prefer to maintain ownership myself, and not share that ownership with Paizo.

I don't need nor want Paizo's official stamp of approval.

It would seem to me that the real question in play here is "how do I get my DM to allow the content I want to use into her game?"

While the OP is likely swayed by the arguments for original/third party product in a game, they are having difficulties convincing their GM. So let's turn this a bit. Owen and Mike, if you guys were talking one on one with a GM who was hesitant to purchase your products because they were tepid about the use of "unofficial" content, what would you say to them to change their minds?

I would say many Pathfinder third party publishers are also Paizo freelancers, so some of the "official content" allowed by these GMs has been created by the same people.

On average the content being released by third party publishers for Pathfinder game is much more balanced, than 3PP material produced during 3x days. Many companies from then that produce PF material now, have matured and are producing better material they've learned from experience.

There are many options and sub-genres that Paizo will never pursue, those niches are best handled by smaller publishers and indeed many niche settings and concepts are being created by PF 3PP.

There are some GMs that will never be convinced to allow 3PP, and that's OK, but look at possibilities with a careful eye and keep an open mind. There probably is some great 3PP material they'd allow if they only took the time to look.

Look to RPG reviewers like Endzeitgeist who gives honest reviews for many 3PP products, and who is not afraid to give one star, if he thinks a product deserves. Look to his Seal of Approval list products which he gives his highest praise. These reviews can give someone great insight into what a given product is worth to bring into your game, before spending any money.

Owen and Mike, if you guys were talking one on one with a GM who was hesitant to purchase your products because they were tepid about the use of "unofficial" content, what would you say to them to change their minds?

I am neither of them, but I'm a narcissist so wish to share my response. <Grin>

Really, the biggest, most powerful weapon in a player's arsenal for this battle is the answer to "why". Why do you want to use this material?

GMs forbid material for two reasons, both of which may be unfounded or inaccurate. First is that they believe the material to be overpowered. Second is that the do not like the flavor of the material.

The arguments a player can use involve explaining why it is important to the player to use the material. Explaining what mechanical elements they plan to use, and how, and what they actually DO is useful as it may relax the "it's overpowered" response. Explaining what it is about the fluff of some material and why that is attractive to the player may relax the "I don't like that kind of stuff" response.

So hey, speak to the question "why" and you've got a chance. "I want to use this book on PC lycanthropes because I have always really wanted to play a character who has this built-in weakness, a bestial nature that he's got to struggle to keep in check. I don't want to lose control and end up fighting PCs and NPCs... I just want this to be part of his background and personality. Kind of... Wolverine, maybe. This book has rules for toning down lycanthropy so it's appropriate for a PC, and if I pick the right options I can make sure my character isn't disruptive at the table. Here's a cupcake. Please can I have a weredude?"

Or, "I'm intrigued by the power point system in psionics. I don't feel like playing another barbarian where my decisions are 'do I Power Attack' and 'do I rage'. I'd like to play something with more fiddly bits, and the accounting and math that things like augmenting powers allows appeals to me right now. I'm not too worried about if the flavor gets refluffed because you don't like crystals and the like, but I love the idea of a sort of sorcerer guy who is his own source of power. I get it that you can't blow more points on a power than you have manifester levels, and I get it that if I treat every encounter like there's only one a day things could be rough, so I promise to not abuse the system. Going all-out is for boss fights, just like anyone else. Normal encounters I'll be conservative like any other caster would be, not knowing what's coming next."

Shrug. WHY do you want such-and-such material included?

In my experience 3pp stuff most frequently gets banned because Nobody wants to have to go through it and think about the way it affects the game. Or, because MOST (but not all) 3pp stuff from the 3.0 and 3.5 days was terrible and people have long memories. Paizo products only may not be the best rule or the most fair rule but it is an an easy to make and easily to adjudicate rule.

In my experience 3pp stuff most frequently gets banned because Nobody wants to have to go through it and think about the way it affects the game. Or, because MOST (but not all) 3pp stuff from the 3.0 and 3.5 days was terrible and people have long memories. Paizo products only may not be the best rule or the most fair rule but it is an an easy to make and easily to adjudicate rule.

Consider that most (not all) Pathfinder 3PP content is balanced and pretty cool additions to the game, very much unlike the days of 3x.

And there are low cost products, some freely available to download, which makes it worth checking out those products to get an idea of all products of a given 3PP. For my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), for example, there is a free one-shot module called Frozen Wind - so nothing is stopping you from looking, except yourselves and outdated prejudices.

it's not an all or nothing option either. A GM could also rule that Paizo + X publisher options are legal, or some derivation of that rule. I understand there is a lot of 3pp product out there, and some may not gel together with a campaign for various reasons, but that doesn't mean none of it will.

it's not an all or nothing option either. A GM could also rule that Paizo + X publisher options are legal, or some derivation of that rule. I understand there is a lot of 3pp product out there, and some may not gel together with a campaign for various reasons, but that doesn't mean none of it will.

Indeed, even though I allow many 3PP products in my games, I never allow all of them in the same game. It usually is Paizo + X publisher options are legal, even if in another game its Paizo + Y publisher options. I almost never allow both X and Y in the same game. I may even disallow some of Paizo books, perhaps its Paizo - UC + X publisher, or other option.

It would seem to me that the real question in play here is "how do I get my DM to allow the content I want to use into her game?"

While the OP is likely swayed by the arguments for original/third party product in a game, they are having difficulties convincing their GM. So let's turn this a bit. Owen and Mike, if you guys were talking one on one with a GM who was hesitant to purchase your products because they were tepid about the use of "unofficial" content, what would you say to them to change their minds?

I'm not either but here are some guidelines that I might suggest.

1. Don't ask for the moon. Smaller things that require the less time spent learning are the key. Remember that to adjudicate, the GM has to learn your content as well. Asking for one thing is better than five.

2. Offer to buy a copy for your GM. Your GM may not want to work with material that he or she does not own, and may not want to pirate.

3. Ask what the GM's concerns are. And remember that third party product does not pass through the same rigorous review criteria that Paizo products do. Much of it I quite frankly ISN'T that well balanced.

4. Keep in mind that for some GM's (like me) the Paizo stamp in and of itself does not guarantee automatic acceptance.

BigDTBone wrote:

It would seem to me that the real question in play here is "how do I get my DM to allow the content I want to use into her game?"

While the OP is likely swayed by the arguments for original/third party product in a game, they are having difficulties convincing their GM. So let's turn this a bit. Owen and Mike, if you guys were talking one on one with a GM who was hesitant to purchase your products because they were tepid about the use of "unofficial" content, what would you say to them to change their minds?

I'm not either but here are some guidelines that I might suggest.

1. Don't ask for the moon. Smaller things that require the less time spent learning are the key. Remember that to adjudicate, the GM has to learn your content as well. Asking for one thing is better than five.

2. Offer to buy a copy for your GM. Your GM may not want to work with material that he or she does not own, and may not want to pirate.

3. Ask what the GM's concerns are. And remember that third party product does not pass through the same rigorous review criteria that Paizo products do. Much of it I quite frankly ISN'T that well balanced.

4. Keep in mind that for some GM's (like me) the Paizo stamp in and of itself does not guarantee automatic acceptance.

I think people really tend to overestimate how balanced Paizo product is. Let's be honest, if we are going to compare balance curves then about 95% of 3pp will be balanced somewhere between the rogue and the wizard, between quicken spell and run, and between sepia snake sigil and haste.

So, also Paizo has a dubious track record on product editing (buttery knife?) and I would be flat shocked to know that every game option got playtest vetting from Paizo staff before press. (Read: in order to convince me you would have to show me the 20,000 hours of video that shows them doing it.) Meanwhile, several 3pp's do take the time to fully playtest every option they publish.

TLDR; 3pp products are often MORE vetted and balanced than official PFRPG material.

I'm one of those "paizo only" DMs when i run pathfinder and, although I may not be representative, I figured it might be useful to hear another perspective.

I don't ban it based on some perception of quality, so much as potential for future inconsistency and/or work on integrating paizo rules with non-paizo rules. Mechanical stuff is what I dread about RPGs and the thought of incorporating a 3PP subsystem now only to have paizo release a similarly themed one later seems like a problem I don't want to have to deal with and can easily avoid.

I think dreamscarred press psionics is very high quality work (for example) but I won't incorporate it into my pathfinder games in case paizo's long mooted psychic magic comes along, since I don't want to deal with reconciling what's been before with what's just arrived.

If your DM shared my views (probably unlikely, but still...) it would be useful to broach the issue of potential issues like this down the track, if you we're pushing to have a 3PP product included in a game I was running. (Whether that be "I'll rework my character once paizo put out official psionics rules" or "if a double up happens down the track, I'll go through the two systems on your behalf and work out any clashes between them plus find some suggested solutions for you").

I'm one of those "paizo only" DMs when i run pathfinder and, although I may not be representative, I figured it might be useful to hear another perspective.

I don't ban it based on some perception of quality, so much as potential for future inconsistency and/or work on integrating paizo rules with non-paizo rules. Mechanical stuff is what I dread about RPGs and the thought of incorporating a 3PP subsystem now only to have paizo release a similarly themed one later seems like a problem I don't want to have to deal with and can easily avoid.

I think dreamscarred press psionics is very high quality work (for example) but I won't incorporate it into my pathfinder games in case paizo's long mooted psychic magic comes along, since I don't want to deal with reconciling what's been before with what's just arrived.

If your DM shared my views (probably unlikely, but still...) it would be useful to broach the issue of potential issues like this down the track, if you we're pushing to have a 3PP product included in a game I was running. (Whether that be "I'll rework my character once paizo put out official psionics rules" or "if a double up happens down the track, I'll go through the two systems on your behalf and work out any clashes between them plus find some suggested solutions for you").

Why does the Paizo rule have to supercede the existing, working rule in your current game? If a player starts a campaign with a character using DSP psionics and then Paizo releases a psi sub-system, which one of Paizo's employees comes to your game and holds you at gun point and makes you switch?

Basically, why not finish your game and then look at the new Paizo thing? You may may decide that the 3pp is BETTER, than the system Paizo created. Would you really take a 100% compatible product that you knew to be better and shelve it because the competing product says "Paizo" on the cover?

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm one of those "paizo only" DMs when i run pathfinder and, although I may not be representative, I figured it might be useful to hear another perspective.

I don't ban it based on some perception of quality, so much as potential for future inconsistency and/or work on integrating paizo rules with non-paizo rules. Mechanical stuff is what I dread about RPGs and the thought of incorporating a 3PP subsystem now only to have paizo release a similarly themed one later seems like a problem I don't want to have to deal with and can easily avoid.

I think dreamscarred press psionics is very high quality work (for example) but I won't incorporate it into my pathfinder games in case paizo's long mooted psychic magic comes along, since I don't want to deal with reconciling what's been before with what's just arrived.

If your DM shared my views (probably unlikely, but still...) it would be useful to broach the issue of potential issues like this down the track, if you we're pushing to have a 3PP product included in a game I was running. (Whether that be "I'll rework my character once paizo put out official psionics rules" or "if a double up happens down the track, I'll go through the two systems on your behalf and work out any clashes between them plus find some suggested solutions for you").

Why does the Paizo rule have to supercede the existing, working rule in your current game? If a player starts a campaign with a character using DSP psionics and then Paizo releases a psi sub-system, which one of Paizo's employees comes to your game and holds you at gun point and makes you switch?

Nobody, obviously.

I don't have to allow everything paizo puts out, but I do. I don't like everything in golarion, but its all there in my game. I've outsourced the decision making in my campaign world and my rule set (when i choose a complicated system) to paizo, not because that will result in a higher quality game but because it's easier to draw that line.

Basically, why not finish your game and then look at the new Paizo thing?

That may well be the solution the player I mentioned comes up with, I don't know. If I'm running an AP though, it's going to cause work if the paizo psychic-magic monster doesn't interact cleanly with he DSP psionics rules.

You may may decide that the 3pp is BETTER, than the system Paizo created. Would you really take a 100% compatible product that you knew to be better and shelve it because the competing product says "Paizo" on the cover?

I don't consider one rule set "better" than another (or don't feel qualified to judge, anyhow), that was kind of my point.

It's not about quality. If I stick with paizo products I don't have to worry about making the various bits fit together, because paizo are doing it for me. (FWIW, In the hypothetical I'm considering, compatibility is no longer 100%).

BigDTBone wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I'm one of those "paizo only" DMs when i run pathfinder and, although I may not be representative, I figured it might be useful to hear another perspective.

I don't ban it based on some perception of quality, so much as potential for future inconsistency and/or work on integrating paizo rules with non-paizo rules. Mechanical stuff is what I dread about RPGs and the thought of incorporating a 3PP subsystem now only to have paizo release a similarly themed one later seems like a problem I don't want to have to deal with and can easily avoid.

I think dreamscarred press psionics is very high quality work (for example) but I won't incorporate it into my pathfinder games in case paizo's long mooted psychic magic comes along, since I don't want to deal with reconciling what's been before with what's just arrived.

If your DM shared my views (probably unlikely, but still...) it would be useful to broach the issue of potential issues like this down the track, if you we're pushing to have a 3PP product included in a game I was running. (Whether that be "I'll rework my character once paizo put out official psionics rules" or "if a double up happens down the track, I'll go through the two systems on your behalf and work out any clashes between them plus find some suggested solutions for you").

Why does the Paizo rule have to supercede the existing, working rule in your current game? If a player starts a campaign with a character using DSP psionics and then Paizo releases a psi sub-system, which one of Paizo's employees comes to your game and holds you at gun point and makes you switch?

Nobody, obviously.

I don't have to allow everything paizo puts out, but I do. I don't like everything in golarion, but its all there in my game. I've outsourced the decision making in my campaign world and my rule set (when i choose a complicated system) to paizo, not because that will result in a higher quality game but because it's easier to draw that line....

I think you could very easily paint with a slightly finer brush. If the AP your are running is "the new deal with that new thing! TM" then maybe you don't use a 3pp source for that mechanic. However, that strongly implies that the desired mechanic is *eminent* which is a far cry from "that system that Paizo probably won't ever do but just in case they do I'll say no because I'm scared that Paizo will retcon my RotRL AP to have that new thing in the middle of my game and James Jacobs is gonna come rough up my family if I don't immediately switch to the new thing, oh and they totally didn't announce it over a year in advance or have a playtest or anything..."

One of those seems like a reasonable reason to say no to something, the other is complete paranoia.

I think you could very easily paint with a slightly finer brush.

Maybe I could, but I don't want to. Rules are the boring, unimportant part of RPGs, in my opinion, so I'm very happy with a quick and easy methodology for selecting what's in and what's out.

If the AP your are running is "the new deal with that new thing! TM" then maybe you don't use a 3pp source for that mechanic. However, that strongly implies that the desired mechanic is *eminent* which is a far cry from "that system that Paizo probably won't ever do but just in case they do I'll say no because I'm scared that Paizo will retcon my RotRL AP to have that new thing in the middle of my game and James Jacobs is gonna come rough up my family if I don't immediately switch to the new thing, oh and they totally didn't announce it over a year in advance or have a playtest or anything..."

One of those seems like a reasonable reason to say no to something, the other is complete paranoia.

Well given you just asked me who was going to come around and make me play the game using official paizo material, to which I replied nobody - it's hard to take this kind of hyperbole as constructive. I'm not asking you to critique the way I play. You do your thing and I'll do mine. (Neither of your paraphrasings encapsulate my position).

I was taking your advice (to direct the conversation towards "how to persuade a DM to include 3PP"). If the DM in question is like me, the 3PP ban isn't based on quality - so arguing the merits or otherwise of the rules element isn't going to be fruitful. It would be more useful to address the issue of potential future inconsistencies with paizo material (included by default) and resultant work required.

The hyperbole was intended to draw attention to the disparity of claims that you (and, really, this is more a generic "you" because I do see and speak with many who share this view) make. If you are planning to run the "new AP with new mechanic x" and a player comes to you and says "I want to play a character with 3ppABC's take on mechanic x" then it would be perfectly understandable to say "let's try out the new Paizo material for that instead, it's actually baked right in to the AP I intend to run."

That is the scenario you offered a rebuttal to. I can't think of anyone who would object to a DM with this stance.

However, the question was posed in a far more generic in that a player is looking to play a concept that is in a well-read, well-respected, well- reviewed, 3pp option which does not have a Paizo equivalent on the horizon. I feel like your reasoning of, "but what if Paizo makes one?" falls short of addressing that point. I tried to make that using hyperbole but apparently I pushed too hard. My apologies.

I think the discussion, especially from BigDTBOne's POV, is how would one approach their GM about including 3PP content in a game isn't currently using 3PP content. No is trying to convince "Steve Geddes" that you should do this - its just hypothetical. I don't think there anyone personally trying to convince you to change your behavior nor preference.

It would be more useful to address the issue of potential future inconsistencies with paizo material (included by default) and resultant work required.

In a discussion regarding about "how to make fan-created material into official content", how is dealing with future Paizo inconsistences have anything to do with this discussion? I don't find that helpful at all. (Its worthy of its own discussion, but not for this thread.)

I think the discussion, especially from BigDTBOne's POV, is how would one approach their GM about including 3PP content in a game isn't currently using 3PP content. No is trying to convince "Steve Geddes" that you should do this - its just hypothetical. I don't think there anyone personally trying to convince you to change your behavior nor preference.

Steve Geddes wrote:

It would be more useful to address the issue of potential future inconsistencies with paizo material (included by default) and resultant work required.

In a discussion regarding about "how to make fan-created material into official content", how is dealing with future Paizo inconsistences have anything to do with this discussion?I don't find that helpful at all. (Its worthy of its own discussion, but not for this thread.)

I was responding to BigDTBone. I agree with him that its a related and likely more productive point. The answer to the OP is a simple "you can't".

Coming to me (as one example of the kind of people who would need to be convinced) with discussions centred on quality of 3PP isn't useful. Addressing the actual source of my reservations is.

However, the question was posed in a far more generic in that a player is looking to play a concept that is in a well-read, well-respected, well- reviewed, 3pp option which does not have a Paizo equivalent on the horizon. I feel like your reasoning of, "but what if Paizo makes one?" falls short of addressing that point.

That's not terribly important though, is it? I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm right, I'm explaining a point of view in order to help the OP or similar in their approach to a DM who bans 3PP. You think it's unlikely to be a problem, but that doesn't mean there aren't other DMs banning material on a similar basis to me - its easy, quick and requires no current or future effort to just allow paizo stuff.

If someone comes to me with analysis/arguments as to why some 3PP material is good, balanced or whatever (which is the usual approach, it seems to me) that's not actually going to help them. Far better, in my case, to address the actual concern - what to do if there is some future issue which will need to be addressed.

I don't know how common my position is, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having the perspective in the back of your mind when approaching a DM with such limits, just in case.

BigDTBone wrote:

However, the question was posed in a far more generic in that a player is looking to play a concept that is in a well-read, well-respected, well- reviewed, 3pp option which does not have a Paizo equivalent on the horizon. I feel like your reasoning of, "but what if Paizo makes one?" falls short of addressing that point.

That's not terribly important though, is it? I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm right, I'm explaining a point of view in order to help the OP or similar in their approach to a DM who bans 3PP. You think it's unlikely to be a problem, but that doesn't mean there aren't other DMs banning material on a similar basis to me - its easy, quick and requires no current or future effort to just allow paizo stuff.

If someone comes to me with analysis/arguments as to why some 3PP material is good, balanced or whatever (which is the usual approach, it seems to me) that's not actually going to help them. Far better, in my case, to address the actual concern - what to do if there is some future issue which will need to be addressed.

I don't know how common my position is, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having the perspective in the back of your mind when approaching a DM with such limits, just in case.

I suppose it isn't terribly important, I'm just trying to actually grasp at what you are saying.

I suppose I am just accustomed to dealing with folks who are willing to address pitfalls in the logic of their statements. I think if I was playing with a DM that would say, "non sequitur statement A," and then when someone points it out would reply "it doesn't matter that it is a non sequitur, that is how I feel about it." Then I would have to find a new DM before the subject of 3pp material was ever breeched. I simply couldn't handle it.

I could make more of a complete explanation (I dont agree it's an argument, since it's my preference, not a rationally derived conclusion) but I dont see it as terribly germane.

There's not a "pitfall in the logic of my statement", there's a whole bunch of unstated premises as to what traits are desirable in deciding on what rules are included in a game I'm running (balance isnt one of them, for example but ease of decision making is).

MMCJawa wrote:

it's not an all or nothing option either. A GM could also rule that Paizo + X publisher options are legal, or some derivation of that rule. I understand there is a lot of 3pp product out there, and some may not gel together with a campaign for various reasons, but that doesn't mean none of it will.

Indeed, even though I allow many 3PP products in my games, I never allow all of them in the same game. It usually is Paizo + X publisher options are legal, even if in another game its Paizo + Y publisher options. I almost never allow both X and Y in the same game. I may even disallow some of Paizo books, perhaps its Paizo - UC + X publisher, or other option.

I'm admittedly eager for pretty much anything in my games. Anything on PFSRD is automatically fair game, and most if not all 3pp stuff is allowed if I have a copy of it, as is most 3.5 stuff, though it might need some converting up to meet PF standards. Homebrew allowed on approval, though I'll try to find some first- or third-party stuff already implemented that gives them what they want before just homebrewing something up, but sometimes that just doesn't work. My games are pretty liberal as to what is allowed - I'm a sucker for more options. The only limiting rule is that whatever the players have access to, so does the GM.

And there are low cost products, some freely available to download, which makes it worth checking out those products to get an idea of all products of a given 3PP. For my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), for example, there is a free one-shot module called Frozen Wind - so nothing is stopping you from looking, except yourselves and outdated prejudices.

And, you know, time, as well as the 'prejudice'. Even free, I as the DM still have to take the time to read it, and understand it. Even assuming there's no problem with balance or flavour at all, I still need to understand what the material does and how it fits in. If a player is playing a 3PP ghost hunting class, I need to read it and understand how the mechanics work, then put some ghosts in the campaign to be hunted.

That's all prep time that's coming out of a limited window, whereas if the player simply picks options I'm already familiar with, there's less work involved in background and more time for me to create the story and other work for the game.

And, you know, time, as well as the 'prejudice'. Even free, I as the DM still have to take the time to read it, and understand it. Even assuming there's no problem with balance or flavour at all, I still need to understand what the material does and how it fits in. If a player is playing a 3PP ghost hunting class, I need to read it and understand how the mechanics work, then put some ghosts in the campaign to be hunted.

That's all prep time that's coming out of a limited window, whereas if the player simply picks options I'm already familiar with, there's less work involved in background and more time for me to create the story and other work for the game.

Frozen Wind does include pregens and one of the pregens is a custom archetype for ranger, however, beyond that, all the other pregen characters are standard paladin, fighter, sorcerer - all normal PF classes. The monsters included are unique, but they're just monsters - varying kinds of oni and some cold-based frozen zombies. New monsters without really weird abilities should be nothing to most GMs. Really aside from one custom archetype and several new monsters, there is nothing in the module that isn't purely Pathfinder standard rules. (And to repeat myself, this module is free.)

Our larger trilogy of full modules definitely includes new stuff, as well as all of our supplements. But of our one-shots, again aside from some new monsters, in most cases there isn't anything a GM needs to adjudicate, it just uses standard Core rules.

Haiku of Horror: Autumn Moon Bath House - another partial one-shot that is really a map product and adventure site, only has a custom ghost (in multiple CRs 4, 8, 12, 16, 22), a new curse and a few custom haunts. Of the other NPC clients, some are new archetype and one with a new prestige class. Aside from that, there is nothing that is not simply Core.

Your assumption that if its 3PP, it's going to require careful study and adjudication, is just not the case - at least not for every product.

Now if one of your PCs wants to use any of the archetypes for fighter, ranger, paladin, samurai, rogue, wizard; new feats, and new spells from the Kaidan supplements, these indeed, need some GM study time whether to allow or not. Everything has been thoroughly playtested, and is balanced to Core.