Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG)

Dragon78 wrote:

If they were going to make an experiment with the RPG line with adding Golarion specific stuff, then instead of organizations being the focus/theme for class abilities how about regions and cultures like Arcadia, Hermia, Tian Xia, Land of the Linnorm Kings, etc.

I suppose, if the experiment is deemed successful, that something like this would not be out of the question. Back in the very early days of the Pathfinder RPG, when we were discussing what sorts of directions we could take the rules--and perhaps specifically the rules _line_--we often discussed a book that would take you through various "themes" of play derived from Greek, Norse, Indian, etc. legends. We ultimately decided not to play so close to Earth analogues, but the campaign setting has enough stand-ins that I suppose we could legitimately do such a book with analogues, rather than the real thing. I don't think people would buy "Ancient Adventures" that statted up stuff based specifically on ancient Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, for example, but a pure-fantasy book that played with those themes--and that supported them with concrete, interesting rules content--would probably do a lot better.

So we'll see.

It's an experiment.

I personally would love a Line of books focusing on different ancient civilizations. I would probably pick up every single one. I can't even say how many times my players have said to me I wanna play a character like X from history. A book that gave Gods, Domains, Arch-types etc. for ancient civilizations would be amazing.

Just another customer not liking the title. Plenty of Golarionistas or Paizo-fans won't seem to see that various folk of various loyalties (other Golarionistas/Paizo-fans, and obviously those who aren't wedded to the Golarion setting/Paizo-cause) finding the title basically ill-suited.

James Jacob's post regarding the multiple uses of titles, and the users of content is useful for understanding distribution, but says much more about marketing and partisan approaches to dissatisfaction. That this is not a democracy is the telling point.

I find myself once again disappointed by partisan support and myopic assertion along fan-based lines, and derisive one-liners from other forumites as replies to well-meant customer feedback.

I'm often critical of Paizo (and other organisations and companies) for their approach to marketing - and I applaud them when I feel they deserve it. I make no bones about my disinterest in Golarion - I do hope this book has innovative mechanics and interesting options for players as well as tools for GMs.

As for Erik's note about the school of thought (within Paizo) that the separation between Core-rules and supported Campaign Setting is more trouble than it is worth - I can fully see that. There often seems to be an incredible tension between the two, and it appears sometimes that the lack of applied Golarion flavor is a fetter to unbridled creativity fir designers/freelancers. Which, if folk not into Golarion are going to scrub anyway...

Still, given my supreme adverse reaction to the inbuilt flavor for Starfinder, and Erik saying the experiment is continuing - mark me down as one not interested in seeing the experiment continue. Regardless of G.o.l.a.r.i.o.n being almost all the letters of o.r.i.g.i.n.a.l I don't find it so. I like the ruleset, and the innovations you have wrought. Don't tie us further (scrubbing brush or no) to your setting.

Given I'm most likely a foil, I guess this post is as good as "OSW doesn't like it? We must be doing something right, full steam ahead!"

Hmm. As previously requested, could you be more specific about how the content in this book fails to match the title? I'm curious about which elements or methods of presentation are least to your liking. Please include page numbers for ease of reference, or at least specific names or descriptions of content elements.

What part of each section did you like most? What did you like least?

Just another customer not liking the title. Plenty of Golarionistas or Paizo-fans won't seem to see that various folk of various loyalties (other Golarionistas/Paizo-fans, and obviously those who aren't wedded to the Golarion setting/Paizo-cause) finding the title basically ill-suited.

I find myself once again disappointed by partisan support and myopic assertion along fan-based lines, and derisive one-liners from other forumites as replies to well-meant customer feedback.

Additionally, if your post is intended to persuade others to share your viewpoint, insults towards those who hold differing opinions are unlikely to improve your argument's persuasiveness. ^_^

I feel like maybe Golarion's adventurer's Guide might be a bit clearer but as I said on a earlier post if the content is going to be a lot of stuff that can be used in non-golarion settings then eh no biggie. Although Ultimate Adventurer's guide kind of makes me tingle.

Hmm. As previously requested, could you be more specific about how the content in this book fails to match the title? I'm curious about which elements or methods of presentation are least to your liking. Please include page numbers for ease of reference, or at least specific names or descriptions of content elements.

The content of the book is described in the description of the product. Said description seems to have nothing to do with the title of the book in the eyes of many.

Who knows, maybe the book's content does make sense for the title? But for that to be true for many, the description would need to be incorrect.

My post was most definitely not intended to persuade anyone to do anything. It's fairly clear folks either like the title or they don't. And given that there is a current product description, it either fits that title to you or not.

Can you describe which part of my post was insulting? I find "myopic" perhaps objectionable. Moreover, given I see your emoticon in your every post I'm not sure it is meant here, or a requirement.

I'm not trying to be insulting or objectionable, but I apologise if I am coming across that way Isabelle.

Can you describe which part of my post was insulting?

Plenty of Golarionistas or Paizo-fans won't seem to see that various folk of various loyalties (other Golarionistas/Paizo-fans, and obviously those who aren't wedded to the Golarion setting/Paizo-cause) finding the title basically ill-suited.

It's definitely a broken sentence.

Quiet you.

@Rysky - I'm trying to point out that there are those uber-fans taking umbrage at other folks (of a spectrum of fan-bases) taking umbrage at a perceived title/content disconnect. I'm sorry if Golarionista or Paizo-fan is insulting. I guess the tone is disparaging given the tone I'm disappointed by but it was not meant as an insult.

Quiet you.

@Rysky - I'm trying to point out that there are those uber-fans taking umbrage at other folks (of a spectrum of fan-bases) taking umbrage at a perceived title/content disconnect. I'm sorry if Golarionista or Paizo-fan is insulting. I guess the tone is disparaging given the tone I'm disappointed by but it was not meant as an insult.

But painting all the people who don't have a problem with the name with a brush like that is insulting.

I think it's sometimes hard to see who's the adressee and who's not. For example, I could certainly be called a Paizo-fan, maybe even a Golarionista, but I'm hopefully not prone to derisive one-liners, partisan support and myopic assertion (too much, that is, I'm not without fault).

One the other hand, I also tend to have some reflexes (which might result in derisive onliners) if for example I read through page one to find phrases that basically say that Paizo is lying about their product, which certainly doesn't qualify as "well-meant customer feedback". I don't know what post Sara Marie had to remove, but I consider it a very bad sign if Erik has to chime in in defense of his people.

The thing (and my advice, even if I find it hard to keep myself sometimes) is, that the best thing you can do yourself is to simply ignore such statements (that might not even be meant in the way you understand them) and just express your own preferences and the reasoning behind it. Count to ten before, if you must.

What did you like least?

I especially dislike the "... and much, much more!" section. That is way to unspecific, so please insert the lacking 192 pages into the blurb as soon as possible.

Ok, on a more serious note, my own disconnect with the title stems from the fact that for nearly 30 years now, around 99% of my characters, while certainly being adventurers, never belonged to any organization. My gut reaction was that this book must be something like WotC's Dungeon Delver's guide, which I probably wouldn't find particularly interesting. So as said before, I was very pleasantly surprised to see what the book is actually about, but I can equally understand how that may lead to disappointment if you're coming at it from another angle.

So my title suggestion would be something like "Eando's Guide to Golarian Organizations" or something like that. That would have made me throw my money at you without even looking at the product's blurb. ^^

When it comes to the organisations in this book, are any of them really generic? Like are the Red Mantis Assassins just "Generic assassins guild 3 with a coat of paint"?

Generic enough to be used as statblocks for any other assasins. If the PDF for this book will be 10 USD, it will be well worth the price for statblocks and feats/spells/items alone.

Kalindlara wrote:

Hmm. As previously requested, could you be more specific about how the content in this book fails to match the title? I'm curious about which elements or methods of presentation are least to your liking. Please include page numbers for ease of reference, or at least specific names or descriptions of content elements.

The content of the book is described in the description of the product. Said description seems to have nothing to do with the title of the book in the eyes of many.

Who knows, maybe the book's content does make sense for the title? But for that to be true for many, the description would need to be incorrect.

I was really hoping for something more specific. Is there anything you could reference in the Lantern Bearers section, perhaps?

Kalindlara wrote:

What did you like least?

I especially dislike the "... and much, much more!" section. That is way to unspecific, so please insert the lacking 192 pages into the blurb as soon as possible.

I can respect that. ^_^

Ok, on a more serious note, my own disconnect with the title stems from the fact that for nearly 30 years now, around 99% of my characters, while certainly being adventurers, never belonged to any organization. My gut reaction was that this book must be something like WotC's Dungeon Delver's guide, which I probably wouldn't find particularly interesting. So as said before, I was very pleasantly surprised to see what the book is actually about, but I can equally understand how that may lead to disappointment if you're coming at it from another angle.

While the degree to which the organizations interact with the content is not yet confirmed, I refer you to Mr. Jacobs' earlier post on the matter of "joining an organization". I look forward to hearing your thoughts on those missing 192 pages. ^_^

However after reading Various posts about How a lot of the content will Not be as exclusive as the description had me believe It will probably be one I pick up as long as the options in the book are rumored as quality. I will say a line about how the options could be usable for people not of a faction could help people that don't read through the thread.

Kudos to Erik's posts that changed my mind about the book!

You can bet this will be a quality product, like anything that's come out by Paizo so far. Also, the 3.5 wording 'Slayer of Domiel' never stopped anyone from using that class in the Forgotten Realms or what have you, back then. This is exactly the same.

I would really recommend you look at the Prestige Classes found in the recent book, "Pathfinder Player Companion: Paths of the Righteous (PFRPG)" These will blow your mind and greatly enhance your options if you play with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game system. Flavor text will in no way hinder the enjoyment and pure genius of the game mechanics presented!

We robbed the Forgotten Realms and Eberron alike of content back in my day. Because it was excellent content and/or filled a niche and/or looked fun to play or fight. Sometimes we discarded the flavor... and sometimes we wove it in.

Maybe you're from Faerun and got here through strange magic. Perhaps the warforged exist in some distant corner of the setting, largely unexplored in the local setting. How many people used the Greyhawk deities without any knowledge of Greyhawk, or use Pathfinder's deities in their own settings?

Heck, I put the Hellknights in my own setting, 100% detached from Cheliax. And it was excellent. ^_^

I had a GM run Curse of the Crimson Throne in his own campaign world. While we had our share of philosophical differences, it was interesting to see the familiar Path in an explicitly Victorian setting. ^_^

I was really hoping for something more specific. Is there anything you could reference in the Lantern Bearers section, perhaps?

This is very passive aggressive. Yes, we know that we haven't seen the book yet. I acknowledged that in the post you are quoting, but that doesn't change that the title does not fit the description in the eyes of some individuals, so either "the title does not fit for those individuals" or "the description is incorrect".

Kalindlara wrote:

I was really hoping for something more specific. Is there anything you could reference in the Lantern Bearers section, perhaps?

This is very passive aggressive. Yes, we know that we haven't seen the book yet. I acknowledged that in the post you are quoting, but that doesn't change that the title does not fit the description in the eyes of some individuals, so either "the title does not fit for those individuals" or "the description is incorrect".

I apologize for any perceived passive-aggression; not my intention at all. Tone, the Internet, etc.

I just thought it was a more interesting way of making the point than posting "Wait until the book is out before claiming that the title/description/content don't match" every third post. I thought that might get tiresome. ^_^

I generally find it amusing that people would decline to buy this book on the basis that they don't like the title, or that it doesn't fit the content. The real question, whatever the title, is "would the information in this book be useful?" Not having seen the actual book yet, that's hard to say, but it seems to me no GM worth his salt would say "it's too Golarion-specific, I can't be bothered". The essence of GMing is creating stories. If this book contains tools to do that, even if you have to file off the names and back stories and come up with your own, then you the GM should welcome it. Players too, though I think to a lesser extent.

I love Paizo. I like most of it´s employees and how they respond to me when i have a question.

That said, i hate the title of this book.

I get that a super generic title may sell better.
But we never had such a generic title before that seems to tell so little about it´s content (not that i can remember anyway) and the other books like "Ultimate Magic" seemed to sell too.

That said, i will buy this book and most probably enjoy most of it´s content.

I have no problem with the experiment of including Golarion specific lore in a line that was setting-neutral before - it is an experiment after all and sales and feedback will decide if it will stay a one time only thing or not.

"Ultimate Organisations" would be a better title, even though a lot of other stuff like spells, feats etc are included.

On the other hand, we could just label it "Pathfinder Rules Book #25" as it is the 25th hardcover coming out - congratulations by the way! :-)

I apologize for any perceived passive-aggression; not my intention at all. Tone, the Internet, etc.

Fair enough, I misjudged the situation.

The real question, whatever the title, is "would the information in this book be useful?" Not having seen the actual book yet, that's hard to say, but it seems to me no GM worth his salt would say "it's too Golarion-specific, I can't be bothered". The essence of GMing is creating stories.

For me, it's actually because I create stories that the golarion-specific stuff is a deterrent for me + I have very little money so even 10 USD for a non-essential like a rulebook is a purchase I have to weigh the pros and cons of.

If a book ends up being campaign stuff, stuff I know I'm not going to use because I can just make my own stuff for free super easy + running really really really sandbox campaigns means there are large portions of the book that are effectively worthless to me, so it becomes harder to justify the purchase.

But, I'm hopeful that despite the description it will have the focus on the character options as the devs have clarified. So, while I'm sure I'm in a very small minority, I do believe there are valid reasons for golarion content to be considered an issue for some.

That said, I am endeavouring to not complain about it being golarion-tied because of how much whining I did already in this thread, but hopefully this is more of a "It's not related to being bad GM's" than just whining.

Are we still complaining about the name.

It's like the book was entirely about Paladins falling, and all the ways they fall.

"Poor Sir Ignatius, if only his horse spur hadn't caught on the top step..."

I don't think it's so much 'still', which implies it's the same people, as it is new people noticing the new book and its title, then actually reading the description and posting their reaction.

I can't really blame them, I mean, that was my reaction too, even though I still fully intend to snag this one.

I had a GM run Curse of the Crimson Throne in his own campaign world. While we had our share of philosophical differences, it was interesting to see the familiar Path in an explicitly Victorian setting. ^_^

Well, I once had this vision of running as much APs in the Realms as anyhow possible. Rise of the Runelords in Tethyr (Shoon Imperium anyone?; i also had ideas for running it in the Silver Marches) as well as CotCT, SD and LoF (Calimshan is not so far away). I even had thought about the Twisted Rune being the driving force behind all those events, and having in the end an epic conclusion, where the different groups whop played through those APs would have to work together to stop their evil plans.

Stealing parts of the Campaign is in my DNA, though in the meantime I find more fun in making it my own and interpreting it in a different way then doing the same by simple Plug and Play.

Problem is that the Paizo Stuff is generally so good that I don't want to change it most of the time.

So far as I can tell, the underlying issue is that there seem to be a bunch of people who are not interested in 'Golarion specific organizations'... complaints about the name seem to just be that it isn't specific enough to identify this content in advance.

Personally, I don't get it.

As others have said, the ability to re-skin and re-use materials outside their original setting is pretty much GMing 101. At which point... this is a book of archetypes, prestige classes, spells, feats, magic items, and other options... along with various design/story ideas for potentially allied and enemy organizations. How useful that will be then depends on the actual quality of the content... which, of course, we haven't seen yet.

Put another way... imagine if the best options from Weapons Master's Handbook, Blood of the Beasts, Ultimate Equipment, and other 'favorites' were held until now and released in THIS book. It is going to have all the same kinds of content after all. So how do you know you won't want to use the options in this book when it isn't out yet?

Even if you somehow CAN'T work out how to modify organizations for other settings... most people shouldn't have much trouble using new feats, spells, magic items, et cetera.

Based on its description that clearly states it describes specific benefits for adventurers that ally, even sporadically I guess, with one of the organizations in the book, I would call this book Ultimate Adventurers or Ultimate Allies ;-)

Being based on organizations rather than the usual classes, races, religions or even natural environments, it is a different way to bring new crunch for players and GMs to the table and the experiment of tying this approach to the Golarion setting to make it immediately usable there is worthwile to explore.

I like ultimate allies.

That would be misleading as well, since Gray Maidens, Aspis Consortium, Red Mantises and Hellknights are usually antagonists.

So far as I can tell, the underlying issue is that there seem to be a bunch of people who are not interested in 'Golarion specific organizations'... complaints about the name seem to just be that it isn't specific enough to identify this content in advance.

Personally, I don't get it.

As others have said, the ability to re-skin and re-use materials outside their original setting is pretty much GMing 101. At which point... this is a book of archetypes, prestige classes, spells, feats, magic items, and other options... along with various design/story ideas for potentially allied and enemy organizations. How useful that will be then depends on the actual quality of the content... which, of course, we haven't seen yet.

Put another way... imagine if the best options from Weapons Master's Handbook, Blood of the Beasts, Ultimate Equipment, and other 'favorites' were held until now and released in THIS book. It is going to have all the same kinds of content after all. So how do you know you won't want to use the options in this book when it isn't out yet?

Even if you somehow CAN'T work out how to modify organizations for other settings... most people shouldn't have much trouble using new feats, spells, magic items, et cetera.

Okay, I for one do not fit your description. I like the description of the book. I simply don't think the title fits the description. It is no more complicated than that. I read the title and it does not evoke the description we are given. That is all.

That said, I am endeavouring to not complain about it being golarion-tied because of how much whining I did already in this thread, but hopefully this is more of a "It's not related to being bad GM's" than just whining.

Fair enough, Milo. ;-)

Problem is that the Paizo Stuff is generally so good that I don't want to change it most of the time.

I can relate to that. :-)

Milo v3 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I was really hoping for something more specific. Is there anything you could reference in the Lantern Bearers section, perhaps?

This is very passive aggressive. Yes, we know that we haven't seen the book yet. I acknowledged that in the post you are quoting, but that doesn't change that the title does not fit the description in the eyes of some individuals, so either "the title does not fit for those individuals" or "the description is incorrect".

I apologize for any perceived passive-aggression; not my intention at all. Tone, the Internet, etc.

I just thought it was a more interesting way of making the point than posting "Wait until the book is out before claiming that the title/description/content don't match" every third post. I thought that might get tiresome. ^_^

I appreciate that you have explained that you did not intend to be passive-aggressive as it was very much how I was reading it as well.

I for one have never said, or at least never meant to say, that the content of the book won't match the title. I have said and continue to say that the description we have been provided does not match the title we have been given. There is nothing to wait for to make that judgement all of the information is there, the description and the title. I don't need to see the content to judge how well those two items match.

I fully expect that regardless of the title that this book will have plenty of appeal for me and others. Paizo consistently puts out product that I enjoy.

Hopefully in the near future we will start get previews that will let us better know what to expect from this product.

In all honesty, the Oracle name stuck and is now used widely despite how many people thought it did not describe the class adequately :-)

Well, they couldn't just outright call the oracle the "favored soul", now could they. ;)

My interest in this product really depends on if these Prestige Classes are re-prints or not. I really like the more recent Prestige Classes a lot more than 99% of the older, because they actually seem viable (as in "I can survive an AP with this without pissing the other players off").

My guess: there will be no 'as is' reprints but some of the old ones may be revised to keep up and integrate with the newer books.

I'd actually love this.

I just want a viable Red Mantis Assassin that can utilize dual sawtooth sabres without jumping through a ton of hoops. Please Paizo?

If people can continue to harp on the title, then I'll continue the refrain about how I am SO looking forward to this! Love the Lantern Bearers, Eagle Knights (please have Twilight Talons in here--yes, for the umpteen-billionth time), Pathfinders, Mammoth Lords...will be nice to have items/spells/feats/etc to tailor our characters to fit these and other organizations! Oh, wait..that has EVERYTHING to do with the current title. Huh. Imagine that.

<channeling Maui> "You're Welcome!" </channeling Dwayne "Maui" Johnson>

Meh, not a fan of most of these organizations. Also I prefer my RPG line to be campaign neutral.

This. It's a lot more work to remove fluff than to sprinkle it on - especially when it's baked so deeply in you have to rewrite the material completely to make it work.

Really wish this more neutral; campaign themed prestige classes are terrible for my games because I do not run Golarion.

I also don't care to hear "Tailor the PrC to your world" because that simply doesn't work for me. Golarion PrC have features very, very specific and niche features to their setting. Many of their PrC aren't designed to easily make more generic.

I really wish we had a plethora of new PrC like in Advanced Player's Guide. Maybe one day...

This. I am totally into new archetypes and PrCs... unless I need to rewrite them completely... in which case there isn't a lot of point to paying $60-$70 on a hardcover. If I'm going to write the book myself it's not worth the money.

And Inner Sea Races was the most disappointing book I ever bought from Paizo. It had essentially zero new content in it for non-Golarian GMs. But it was setting line, so I got what I deserved for buying it.

Still - this is why I, for one, am really not excited about the RPG line getting taken over by the inner sea line. I've enjoyed most of the RPG line books I've bought - but if it turns into 60% completely useless golarian fluff 30% golarian larded mechanics and 10% semi-usable mechanical stuff that I can "file the serial numbers off" of - it's simply not going to be worth my money.

And forgive me but I simply don't believe assurances that this content is going to be useable outside of Golarian without heavy reworking. 10 new spells and 12 new feats isn't worth $65 or so, which is what HCs sell for here in Canada.

My biggest issue with Golarian themed books is they are so larded with fluff that there isn't actually a lot in them to make them worthwhile to a GM running another setting. I'd rather the 20 pages of actual rules content just get released in the paperback line so it doesn't cost me a fortune.

If people can continue to harp on the title, then I'll continue the refrain about how I am SO looking forward to this! Love the Lantern Bearers, Eagle Knights (please have Twilight Talons in here--yes, for the umpteen-billionth time), Pathfinders, Mammoth Lords...will be nice to have items/spells/feats/etc to tailor our characters to fit these and other organizations! Oh, wait..that has EVERYTHING to do with the current title. Huh. Imagine that.

<channeling Maui> "You're Welcome!" </channeling Dwayne "Maui" Johnson>

Yes heaven forbid we give feedback that is not the point of these forums at all...

Dragon78 wrote:

Meh, not a fan of most of these organizations. Also I prefer my RPG line to be campaign neutral.

This. It's a lot more work to remove fluff than to sprinkle it on - especially when it's baked so deeply in you have to rewrite the material completely to make it work.

Geramies wrote:

Really wish this more neutral; campaign themed prestige classes are terrible for my games because I do not run Golarion.

I also don't care to hear "Tailor the PrC to your world" because that simply doesn't work for me. Golarion PrC have features very, very specific and niche features to their setting. Many of their PrC aren't designed to easily make more generic.

I really wish we had a plethora of new PrC like in Advanced Player's Guide. Maybe one day...

This. I am totally into new archetypes and PrCs... unless I need to rewrite them completely... in which case there isn't a lot of point to paying $60-$70 on a hardcover. If I'm going to write the book myself it's not worth the money.

And Inner Sea Races was the most disappointing book I ever bought from Paizo. It had essentially zero new content in it for non-Golarian GMs. But it was setting line, so I got what I deserved for buying it.

Still - this is why I, for one, am really not excited about the RPG line getting taken over by the inner sea line. I've enjoyed most of the RPG line books I've bought - but if it turns into 60% completely useless golarian fluff 30% golarian larded mechanics and 10% semi-usable mechanical stuff that I can "file the serial numbers off" of - it's simply not going to be worth my money.

And forgive me but I simply don't believe assurances that this content is going to be useable outside of Golarian without heavy reworking. 10 new spells and 12 new feats isn't worth $65 or so, which is what HCs sell for here in Canada.

My biggest issue with Golarian themed books is they are so larded with fluff that there isn't actually a lot in them to make them worthwhile to a GM running another setting. I'd rather the 20 pages of actual rules content just get released in the paperback line so it doesn't cost me a fortune.

I'd disagree strongly on most of these points. Flavor text for another game isn't useless, unusable or "lard." In the time it took you to make your post I wager you could have converted some part of the material to your own world.

I hope, frankly, that this is the beginning of more books like this. If people are concerned about the flavor text or just want the mechanics, isn't that what the various online repositories are for?

Dragon78 wrote:

Meh, not a fan of most of these organizations. Also I prefer my RPG line to be campaign neutral.

This. It's a lot more work to remove fluff than to sprinkle it on - especially when it's baked so deeply in you have to rewrite the material completely to make it work.

Geramies wrote:

Really wish this more neutral; campaign themed prestige classes are terrible for my games because I do not run Golarion.

I also don't care to hear "Tailor the PrC to your world" because that simply doesn't work for me. Golarion PrC have features very, very specific and niche features to their setting. Many of their PrC aren't designed to easily make more generic.

I really wish we had a plethora of new PrC like in Advanced Player's Guide. Maybe one day...

This. I am totally into new archetypes and PrCs... unless I need to rewrite them completely... in which case there isn't a lot of point to paying $60-$70 on a hardcover. If I'm going to write the book myself it's not worth the money.

And Inner Sea Races was the most disappointing book I ever bought from Paizo. It had essentially zero new content in it for non-Golarian GMs. But it was setting line, so I got what I deserved for buying it.

Still - this is why I, for one, am really not excited about the RPG line getting taken over by the inner sea line. I've enjoyed most of the RPG line books I've bought - but if it turns into 60% completely useless golarian fluff 30% golarian larded mechanics and 10% semi-usable mechanical stuff that I can "file the serial numbers off" of - it's simply not going to be worth my money.

And forgive me but I simply don't believe assurances that this content is going to be useable outside of Golarian without heavy reworking. 10 new spells and 12 new feats isn't worth $65 or so, which is what HCs sell for here in Canada.

My biggest issue with Golarian themed books is they are so larded with fluff that there isn't actually a lot in them to make them worthwhile to a GM running another setting....

Maybe just get the PDF? That's how I prefer my books, anyway.

If people are concerned about the flavor text or just want the mechanics, isn't that what the various online repositories are for?

I guess, those people want to have it in book form as much as we do, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Apart from that, I mostly agree with you. Flavor text is what I get my ideas from, if it's only mechanics I can't bring myself to even read the stuff most of the time. And even when working on my homebrew I generally find it easier to modify fluff-heavy rule choices than to integrate generic rules options (meaning to add fluff to them). Reason probably being that having fluff gives my thought process something to start with and is necessary to make me anyhow interested about the mechanics in the first place. Maybe a thing of the presentation that comes with the flavor added.

Flavor text is vital for GMs to run a great game. By the nature of the game, the majority of customers are players though, which is why we get so many people whining on flavor text and why people want more crunch.

Sorry guys: if you want your GM to not suck, you'll have to put up with flavor. Please stop discouraging RPG professionals to come up with a vibrant, interesting world for us to play in and set our characters into. If you have the kind of time to put forward to create your own world, great, but stop b!~~~ing and moaning about Paizo writing about Golarion. I don't buy the BS that 'it's hard to remove the fluff.' That's the lamest thing I've ever heard.

This. It's a lot more work to remove fluff than to sprinkle it on - especially when it's baked so deeply in you have to rewrite the material completely to make it work.

I would like to understand how you come to this conclusion. How is it "a lot more" work to remove the fluff and just use the mechanics (and add your own fluff to it) than just having the mechanics (and again, adding your own ideas to it). I mean, obviously it is a step more than just having the mechanics without having to remove everything, I get that. But how is just ignoring things work?

Let's for example, take a look at that feat we just had this great discussion about, "Bladed Brush" from Path of the Righteous. To make this feat into something generic you just need to ignore the "must be a worshipper of Shelyn" part from the requirement line.

And even if we consider one of the PrCs from this book (let's take Shelyn's Devoted Muse, while we're at it), there's basically not much more to it. You might need to rewrite the introductory section, if you're playing in another setting, which you would have to do anyways. Or simply remove it and let the player come up with his own ideas, which would mean no work at all.

Apart from that, it's removing the deity requirement again, and maybe changing the name into something more fitting for your campaign.

So where is the part where you have to rewrite the whole PrC (if you don't want to change the mechanics as well)?