Why is there so much hate for 3PP, and what can I, no, we, do to change that?


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Maybe I'm alone here, but I can't get any DM other than my own wife to allow Third Party materials into their games. And I can't get players to use 3rd party materials either.

I've never understood the mad hate-on some people get for third party publishers. Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...but many Third Party publishers for Pathfinder aren't just good now (most of the time), they are amazing!

And it isn't so hard to look something over as a GM and give it a thumbs up or down. The blanket "NO" I run into all the time is infuriating! "Can't you just look at it?" "NO" "Why not?" "NO" "It will take two minutes" "NO". And players glance at them and play something core, or, if it happens to be a GM for another game playing in mine..."NO"

I actually think this is why I still encounter people who won't support, play, or even look at, Pathfinder. They view it as some third party system for a game that is no longer published, not a whole new system that can also support the old one!

What can the gamer community at large do to encourage the acceptance of third party materials? I love these things, and spend lots of money on them, but since I can't use any of them, I run into the problem that I spent all of this cash for no reason than fantasizing about how I could use them...while fantasizing! At a smaller level, what do you think I, and of course, someone else in my situation, could do to resolve the "NO"? And why do DMs always say "NO", and why do players never care to look them over?


Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
I've never understood the mad hate-on some people get for third party publishers. Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...

Thinking you've probably answered your own question here.


Some of it certainly comes from the fact that there has been a lot of really crappy stuff from some 3PP.

Of course, some of the worst material came from wotc itself.

Most 3PP material seen made for PFRPG is actually quite reasonable. There's also bad material here, but on the other hand, also some really awesome stuff.

As for getting them to look at stuff instead of covering their ears and going "NO NO I DON'T WANNA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LALALALALALA!", I guess telling them to grow up, or a well-planned and executed Code Red will help.

I personally don't have this problem, at least not this extremely. There is still some tendency to shy away from 3PP, or to have biased opinions when looking at it (I noticed those things on myself), but in the end, if something is generally lauded, it will be allowed in and used by myself and other GMs and players.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The best thing you can do yourself is run a game that uses 3rd party material. Nothing grabs people's attention like seeing it in action.

Liberty's Edge

Chris Kenney wrote:
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
I've never understood the mad hate-on some people get for third party publishers. Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...
Thinking you've probably answered your own question here.

It takes a lot to get me to trust a 3pp for anything outside of their personal game system.

That being said, some of the pathfinder compatible ones seem to do a pretty good job of avoiding the creep.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What he said and as a DM taking the time to look over a 3rd PP is never a 2 minute deal....you have to figure out how that interacts with everything in the game. Usually because the person asking about it is looking to do something in particular that they think is fine but ends up being overpowered. I have been tricked many times by PCs asking for something in different products and becoming vastly superior to the regular PCs, some not even 3PPs but add-ons from WOTC---Book of 9 swords and Psionics, I am looking at you.
As a DM I try to always say yes but when the faceslaps start raining down my other cheek gets sore too, and when 1 PC can swift action summon a beastie that outfights the party fighter, or can tunnel through rock with his bare hands at 5th level, or is rolling around in a mid-40s AC at 9-10th level, it gets old fast.
Then the DM has to spend more time building up the encounters to challenge the party and not kill the un-broken guys. It's an arms race at that point.

Silver Crusade

Fake Healer wrote:
...or is rolling around in a mid-40s AC at 9-10th level, it gets old fast.

This part is already doable with only Paizo rules.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
The best thing you can do yourself is run a game that uses 3rd party material. Nothing grabs people's attention like seeing it in action.

Bingo.

If you're not the DM, you may have some trouble with it. But running it yourself can show if it is good or not. You may lose a player or two because of it, but if they're that fanatical about what is in the game, they probably aren't worth your time.

Being the group that publishes the game does not determine the balance of your material. There are plenty of imbalances in both WotC and Paizo material. And there are plenty of balanced third party offerings.


I allow some 3rd party bits in my game and indeed I use some of 3pp 3.5 bits to help bolster the adventure im running but I think a lot of it has to do with the dm having to scrutinise everything in case there is a feat/spell/power etc that might over balance things without noticing it. Some of us DM's have a lot to do without having to veto extra goodies from other sources lol
For instance, I have a witch PC in my game and he has chosen the prehensile hair hex from UC I think and another one, I forget which, from the super genius hex guide where you can use the hair as a melee weapon (witch can grasp with hair and use it to climb for instance and grapple, with the other hex she can hit a taget at 10ft away and do dam with int mod insated of str so combine them and you have problems). With the 2 combined it makes for a really weird combination which can become overpowered and silly to be honest, It has produced countless confusion with the party as the 2 just dont make sense. Not saying the same can be said for normal PF stuff but at least it should be balanced a tad (although sometimes this is not the case).
The next game I run I probably wont use 3rd party stuff without thouroughly scrutinising it first, (a cursercy 2 min glance is sometimes not sufficent as you could miss a glaring expolit).
Trouble is if you say yes and then say but only this or this feat/spell/power some players will probably still moan as no doubt they know the expolits in the first palce, hence why they so desperatley want to use it.
But then hey, there is some damn good stuff out there so its a gamble I guess..


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Every addition to the game adds more and more options to power game with whether they are 3rd party or core. So why open the flood gates, the other option is going through book by book and see badly it interacts with everything else.

Also some 3pp do dumb things like give races odd number bonuses to ability scores or use different saving throw bonuses then the core two good/bad.

Plus most of the stuff is just the ideas of one guy with little play testing done to it, I am one guy and can do my own play testing with my group so why not just come up with my own custom under play tested unbalanced stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
The best thing you can do yourself is run a game that uses 3rd party material. Nothing grabs people's attention like seeing it in action.

What dale said, want to convince people to do it? GM a game that only uses 3rd party content.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
The best thing you can do yourself is run a game that uses 3rd party material. Nothing grabs people's attention like seeing it in action.

As a DM I ONLY allow the players to use material from the "Core" ruleset at the start. Once I find a piece of 3pp material I run it in the game to see how the rules work, see how the PC class plays out, if the monsters are too weak or too powerful, do the spells need tweaking. Once they are run AGAINST the PCs I then approve or deny them access to the material.

Take SGG's Armiger class book which I love with all the blackness in my widdle heart. I used one at each tier of difficulty (3/7/12) and found that it was a completely doable class for a PC if the person understood the limitations of the class. The player did and chose one for his cohort, I've had more frustrating fun trying to find ways around it based on how I used it and seeing the class run in their hands.

Bottom line: DM's approval is key, never let your Players run the material first.

I'm very interested in a game ONLY with 3pp rules. That'd be terrifyingly awesome.

Dreamscarred Press

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leopold wrote:
Bottom line: DM's approval is key, never let your Players run the material first.

I disagree with this.

My DM lets me use 3PP material that he's never run all the time. I let him know ahead of time what I want to use so he has time to check it out. But, he also trusts me to not break his games or use unbalanced content, so I've got that going for me.

If you have a regular group of people that you trust to not try to break the game, I don't see any reason to disallow 3PP material. Although, just like ANY material - Paizo, WotC, 3PP, or custom - it's a good idea to review it first before use.

If you're playing with people you don't really know, then yeah, that might be a different story.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

DM's approval is always key, but letting players testdrive things for you is no problem. As long as you're clear that the 30-day trial may expire without license purchase. :)


Leopold wrote:

Bottom line: DM's approval is key, never let your Players run the material first.

I dont know that I agree with all of this statement. I agree DM approval is key, and if you are concerned some playtesting is required. But there are plenty of things my players want that I dont have interest in, or that dont fit my villains. I wont make them wait for me to find an enemy to attach it to before I let them use it. I review and if needed playtest the material and provide approval or deny it.


I'll use 3rd party products all the time. I did have a player complain about it once but I pointed out that technically the Pathfinder game he loves is simply 3pp as well. He should be grateful I'm allowing it at my table! ;)

Overall you should find a couple good companies you like and trust and stick with their products. People tend to be more accepting of companies whose stuff they have experienced before. Still need to be careful of course...I usually like Necromancers of the Northwest products but their online articles like Races With Class are pretty terrible, for example.

If you have a problem player just point out that nobody is forcing him to play the product, or that everyone agrees with him that its a terrible product when he hasn't even looked at it.

DMs are a harder nut to crack. At the end of the day its their game and they have final say. Ask politely, maybe try to show him in a private moment and give him a chance to look it over away from the table.

Dark Archive

To truly get support for 3rd party publishers, you'd need Paizo to make an "adapted games" policy. This would get 3rd party rules enabled in PFS, and verify the rules have been well-playtested etc.

As it stands it's difficult tO say "Standard Pathfinder but X rulesets are allowed", where X is something most people have probably not heard of and would be buying just for one game. 3rd parties are much better off making modules and campaign settings, generally speaking, at least in theory (3rd parties may be able to show sales figures to prove otherwise?)


R.A.Boettcher wrote:

I'll use 3rd party products all the time. I did have a player complain about it once but I pointed out that technically the Pathfinder game he loves is simply 3pp as well. He should be grateful I'm allowing it at my table! ;)

Overall you should find a couple good companies you like and trust and stick with their products. People tend to be more accepting of companies whose stuff they have experienced before. Still need to be careful of course...I usually like Necromancers of the Northwest products but their online articles like Races With Class are pretty terrible, for example.

I agree with this. I think at this point so many 3rd party developers have done first party work that there is far less distinction in terms of the quality of material. I have found alot of success with several 3rd party companies, and now people in my group see those companies in a similar light to paizo in terms of choosing and allowing options.
Quote:

If you have a problem player just point out that nobody is forcing him to play the product, or that everyone agrees with him that its a terrible product when he hasn't even looked at it.

Indeed, I have members in my group using dozens of sources including 3pp, and one player who is usually going core only. If the 3rd party material is good, you should hardly know a different besides the variety of options. And there are lots of publishers where that is in fact the case.

Quote:

DMs are a harder nut to crack. At the end of the day its their game and they have final say. Ask politely, maybe try to show him in a private moment and give him a chance to look it over away from the table.

Definately dont bring this up right before or during a game, your dm has enough to worry about. Explain the rule as you understand it and how you plan to use it for your character.

But also I think the best way to get other dms to allow 3rd party material is to run your own game and allow it/use it. I know several dms in my group that will allow 3rd party material because they got a taste for it as players. If they had fun with it as a player they are far more likely to accept it as a dm.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Thalin wrote:
3rd parties are much better off making modules and campaign settings, generally speaking, at least in theory (3rd parties may be able to show sales figures to prove otherwise?)

Campaign settings are tricky. Very tricky. They can either be a smash hit or a complete flop. More often than not, they flop. You have to show why X campaign setting is better than Golarion (or FR or whatever). Pathfinder campaign setting is general enough that you can put whatever you want in there. Some things are less optimal there but generally, if you want a certain kind of feel, you can find it there. Which would beg the player's question of why do they have to learn a whole new campaign setting if it is just a general environment. So a 3rd party campaign setting works best as a niche that is underdeveloped (like the Plane of Shadows, shameless plug) or just not something a general campaign setting can do well. Ravenloft is an excellent example. Ustalav can handle most of what Ravenloft throws at you but you can always walk out of Ustalav. You can't do that with Ravenloft. So if you want to make sure the game is all dread all the time, Ravenloft can do that. But if your players aren't prone to walking away, Ustalav you can port over the Ravenloft adventures with not much problems.

Dreamscarred Press

Thalin wrote:
3rd parties are much better off making modules and campaign settings, generally speaking, at least in theory (3rd parties may be able to show sales figures to prove otherwise?)

Our campaign setting has been successful enough for us to continue its support (and to learn from our initial mistakes for a 2.0), but from my experience, rules / character supplements sell significantly better... unless you're a company known specifically for modules / a specific campaign and it's your focus.

Also, what Dale said.


Quality pure and simple.

You have a monumental hole to dig out of due to a lot of 3rd ed 3PP's. There is also the real issue of for some folks they cannot take the time really need to play-test/ trouble shoot/ look at interactions with Paizo's printed material let alone all the other 3rd party guys makes it difficult. If your mortgage payment depends on getting the product out the door... quality controls often suffer.

The guys I playtest/develop with, if they had to depend on the product's sales to make their living couldn't do the 8 revisions of the rules for their upcoming cyber-noir game.

The advantage 3PP has right now is Paizo is slipping when it comes to quality, for me at least, on the rules/mechanics side. I don't play their setting or anyone's pre-published adventures, so I cannot speak with any real confidence to those aspects of the business. If, as a 3PP, that is what you are doing chances are I am not part of your customer base anyway. This works for 3PP because if your version of a feat, spell, or a class/ archetype actually is better (to clarify, better could mean more flavorful, less contentious wording, or any number of things, but does not mean "Broken" whatever that moving goalpost means) than the one developed in house the 3rd party has a chance to really impact both their bottom line and the way the d20 system develops.

Sovereign Court Raging Swan Press

Personally, I'm normally happy to let a player try something new either from a non-core Pathfinder book or from a 3PP (what a shock) unless on my first read through a warning siren goes off. I do however, make it very clear that I reserve the right to ask the player to remove the option from his character if it becomes clear that it is unbalanced in some way. I find this a much better solution than just saying no all the time.

At the end of the day, people love options. If they didn't, none of us 3PPs would ever sell anything! Several of my group have been playing for 20+ years and they need access to the latest options to keep the game fresh. I enjoy gaming with them and so of course I'm going to try and let them play the characters they want to play (as long as it is not to the detriment of other players' enjoyment).

GMs should remember that although they are the person who puts the most effort in to make a game session happen that everyone at the table should get an equal say in the rule system/options used in-game. I've played under GMs who just arbitarily say no without actually reading the rules in question (in some cases to things like Leadership)and I find it incredibly frustrating because gaming is a participative experience.

Zombie Sky Press

You are the most important thing to a 3pp as a fan. Buy the product, play the product, talk about the product. If people see you're having fun, they'll want to join in.

If you're having trouble convincing your own DM to let you use 3pp products, consider starting your own game (not in place of the other DM's game but in addition to) and allowing 3pp material. Invite that DM to play and check it out.

Our group rotates DM duties, and we all trust each other, so 3pp stuff is never an issue--even if the current DM isn't familiar with it.

Frog God Games

So why does being "3PP rules-shy" bleed over into not buying adventures and monster books?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chuck Wright wrote:
So why does being "3PP rules-shy" bleed over into not buying adventures and monster books?

I would imagine for the exact same reasons. You are worried about the quality, or you had a bad experience in the past and its still in your head. You dont expect the monsters to be balanced or the adventures to be well written.

Mind you this is all speculation on my part as I most assuredly dont fall into either 3pp rules shy or adventer/monster book shy. *goes home to look through his now 3 3inch binders of super genius material, his copy of tome of horror, and order his copy of slumbering tsar*

Edit:
On second thought there is one serious concern with 3rd party adventures. And that is resources. First party Adventures and Campaigns have tons of resources, an undoubtable part of paizo's AP success is the support for them with all sorts of side products. It allows dms and players to flesh out their campaigns with printed material. In addition there are tons of user created resources (pathfinder wiki for instance is a great example). But not just golarion, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, even grewhawk have lots of easily referenced or purchased material to help out with a campaign/adventure.

Where as with a 3rd party product, the company is obviously smaller and is producing less material. So there is less likely to be as much information available. For instance, I had a character creation session for my upcomming slumbering Tsar campaign on sunday, and I realized I actually had relatively little information on the setting it occurs in, and just making stuff up about the things briefly mentioned in the adventure background could easily lead to inconsistencies later on when details do pop up. And afterwards I am not completely sure where to look for such details short of scouring through the adventures as I get them for any details on the surrounding area or the gods of the setting. I wouldnt have that issue if I was running a 3.5 ravenloft or forgotten realms campaign, or a pathfinder golarion campaign. The awareness of where to look for supporting material for first party adventures is much higher.

Sovereign Court Raging Swan Press

Dragonsong wrote:

Quality pure and simple.

You have a monumental hole to dig out of due to a lot of 3rd ed 3PP's.

Hi Dragonsong. Obviously I'm a tad biaed but I believe that 3PPs can and do create great products. I'd be happy to prove that to you by sending you a free sample of one of Raging Swan's products. If you fancy taking a look at what we have to offer head over to ragingswan.com and take a look around. Find something you want and I'll send you a PDF for nothing! (Personally, I suggest one of our modules - Retribuion, Road of the Dead or Dark Oak). I can be contacted at creighton [at] ragingswan [dot] com. I hope to hear from you!


Chuck Wright wrote:
So why does being "3PP rules-shy" bleed over into not buying adventures and monster books?

Well as an avid home brew setting guy for 30 years nobody is gonna get my money often on modules (the last 3 i bought were Harbinger House, Egg of the Phoenix, and Lich Lords, yup that was a LONG time ago). The most concise answers are:

1) Ignorance of such options existing

2) Fear that they are as borked as the bad egg 3PP from the bad old days

3) How much of your own material do you reference? Does the monster or encounter stat blocks make use of a bunch of feats or options that you published in another supplement. If so see #2.

4) Remember those aren't character options books so you are targeting DM's which limits the total population of customers to a subset.


Creighton Broadhurst wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:

Quality pure and simple.

You have a monumental hole to dig out of due to a lot of 3rd ed 3PP's.

Hi Dragonsong. Obviously I'm a tad biaed but I believe that 3PPs can and do create great products. I'd be happy to prove that to you by sending you a free sample of one of Raging Swan's products. If you fancy taking a look at what we have to offer head over to ragingswan.com and take a look around. Find something you want and I'll send you a PDF for nothing! (Personally, I suggest one of our modules - Retribuion, Road of the Dead or Dark Oak). I can be contacted at creighton [at] ragingswan [dot] com. I hope to hear from you!

To be clear I do agree that there is some quality 3PP out there; sometimes it is a bit like panning for gold. As someone who increasingly is involved with "indie-gaming" I will gladly take a look. I love to see quality, it inspires me to be a better wannabe game developer. Let me window shop a bit and I will be in touch.


I wrote a rant about this topic. Or rather, about the idea that 3rd party stuff is unbalanced.

No, it's not. You need to take it with as much salt as you do with Paizo stuff. I list quite a few things that are hugely more powerful than Core options, just from Paizo material.

I really do think a lot of the hate is from 3rd edition stuff.

One thing that I, as a fan and part-time developer, am grateful for is d20pfsrd having some 3rd party content up. It lets you show people 3rd party products without them having to spend money. Or doing copyright infringement.

I know there are some muted grumblings by developers about this, but I do think it's for the best.

Now if I could change the selection of 3rd party classes they have, I would in a heartbeat, but that's a different bag of worms.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
The best thing you can do yourself is run a game that uses 3rd party material. Nothing grabs people's attention like seeing it in action.

I agree. GM a game and add some 3rd Party Material right from the get-go to expose your players to the concept.

I personally have the following stance on 3PP; "IF you give me a printed copy of whatever it is you want to use, I'll review the content and allow it if it's not broken." First, having a copy of the material on my bookshelf (even if it's just a little booklet that I've printed at Staples, which I do have one of right now) makes it easier to keep track of the new rules during the game, and if you have your players spending the money on it, it assures that they're gonna think long and hard about asking for something, since if you say now, they've already spend the money on it. I've never had a player give me anything I've flat-out denied yet!


Leopold wrote:
I'm very interested in a game ONLY with 3pp rules. That'd be terrifyingly awesome.

Testify, brother!

I allow 3pp material from only a select few publishers. In fact, I encourage it. It's my players who don't use it.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Leopold wrote:
I'm very interested in a game ONLY with 3pp rules. That'd be terrifyingly awesome.

Testify, brother!

I allow 3pp material from only a select few publishers. In fact, I encourage it. It's my players who don't use it.

Yeah...this can be a problem in my games too. I've gotten a fair amount of success using Dreamscarred Press stuff in my game, mostly because its psionics revised, and players are already familiar with it somewhat.

But stray too far beyond the fold and the players become hesitant even with my encouragement.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

Maybe I'm alone here, but I can't get any DM other than my own wife to allow Third Party materials into their games. And I can't get players to use 3rd party materials either.

I've never understood the mad hate-on some people get for third party publishers. Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...but many Third Party publishers for Pathfinder aren't just good now (most of the time), they are amazing!

And it isn't so hard to look something over as a GM and give it a thumbs up or down.

1. It becomes far more painful to take back a yes. It's one thing to give a onceover but that can frequently be problematic in spotting the more subtler traps later on. There's bad stuff out there, maybe not intentionally bad but certainly exploitable like the Artificer from Tome of Secrets.

2. My general rule, is that I won't run 3PP material unless I've bought it myself. And if I feel that it is material that will aesthetically add to my campaign. That means no Jester class no matter who coughs one up.

3. If you want to do a 3PP class in my game, get me the material at least a day or so in advance so I can give it a through lookover, otherwise it has to be something I've gotten already.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Leopold wrote:
I'm very interested in a game ONLY with 3pp rules. That'd be terrifyingly awesome.

Testify, brother!

I allow 3pp material from only a select few publishers. In fact, I encourage it. It's my players who don't use it.

Do you beat them badly with said material through NPC's? Nothing like showing off the new boat to make people want to keep up with the Jonses.


LazarX wrote:


2. My general rule, is that I won't run 3PP material unless I've bought it myself. And if I feel that it is material that will aesthetically add to my campaign. That means no Jester class no matter who coughs one up.

What about the one Paizo made itself in the Dragon Compendium? Can't really say its 3PP. ;)


Cheapy wrote:

I wrote a rant about this topic. Or rather, about the idea that 3rd party stuff is unbalanced.

No, it's not. You need to take it with as much salt as you do with Paizo stuff. I list quite a few things that are hugely more powerful than Core options, just from Paizo material.

I really do think a lot of the hate is from 3rd edition stuff.

One thing that I, as a fan and part-time developer, am grateful for is d20pfsrd having some 3rd party content up. It lets you show people 3rd party products without them having to spend money. Or doing copyright infringement.

I know there are some muted grumblings by developers about this, but I do think it's for the best.

Now if I could change the selection of 3rd party classes they have, I would in a heartbeat, but that's a different bag of worms.

Speaking as the person who is responsible for a fair whack of the non-bestiary 3pp content on d20pfsrd.com, I was at first hesitant to look at 3pp material because of the previously stated concerns about quality/balance. Then, after finally taking a look at some of the material, I realized that for many of the 3pp the material they were putting out was as good or better than some of the Paizo material, and when of lower quality, no worse than what Paizo was putting out. Paizo does a great job on the flavour portion of their material, but they don't tend to produce rules content that is really any better than what 3pp are producing. Obviously, some publishers are better than others, but the best of the publishers are producing material every bit as good as Paizo.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

One of the best deterrents to overpowered material is the fair play policy.

As in 'yes you can use it, but anything you use my NPCs can use'. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragonsong wrote:
LazarX wrote:


2. My general rule, is that I won't run 3PP material unless I've bought it myself. And if I feel that it is material that will aesthetically add to my campaign. That means no Jester class no matter who coughs one up.
What about the one Paizo made itself in the Dragon Compendium? Can't really say its 3PP. ;)

If they made it for 3.5, it essentially is as far as Pathfinder is concerned.


LazarX wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
LazarX wrote:


2. My general rule, is that I won't run 3PP material unless I've bought it myself. And if I feel that it is material that will aesthetically add to my campaign. That means no Jester class no matter who coughs one up.
What about the one Paizo made itself in the Dragon Compendium? Can't really say its 3PP. ;)
If they made it for 3.5, it essentially is as far as Pathfinder is concerned.

As its the 3.5 compatable game, how exactly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Creighton Broadhurst wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:

Quality pure and simple.

You have a monumental hole to dig out of due to a lot of 3rd ed 3PP's.

Hi Dragonsong. Obviously I'm a tad biaed but I believe that 3PPs can and do create great products. I'd be happy to prove that to you by sending you a free sample of one of Raging Swan's products. If you fancy taking a look at what we have to offer head over to ragingswan.com and take a look around. Find something you want and I'll send you a PDF for nothing! (Personally, I suggest one of our modules - Retribuion, Road of the Dead or Dark Oak). I can be contacted at creighton [at] ragingswan [dot] com. I hope to hear from you!

This changes things. I now also think that ALL 3PP quality sucks. Without exception. Yes, even Paizo.

Waiting for my free products ;-P

Bad-mouthing leads to free samples? I have to field test this. Well, I'm off writing to Asus that their Eee Pad Transformer sucks! :D

But what I think Dragonsong was saying that 3PP reputation is so low because a lot of them put out tons of crappy stuff, especially in the early 3e days. I guess things are a lot better now, but bad reputations have a way of sticking around. Especially since a lot of people won't bother to get new data and see if their old opinions are still valid.

Ignorance is the enemy.


Chuck Wright wrote:
So why does being "3PP rules-shy" bleed over into not buying adventures and monster books?

I buy 3pp monster books because those are the cutting edge of rules and ideas. Templates, races, critters all take some sort of rules knowledge to use and build. These are by far the hardest to make and need someone who knows the rules inside and out to do WELL. Even if done poorly a good DM can take the guts of the creation and do something with it. I'm looking at you FastForwardEntertainment and you deliciously awesome hot mess of Encyclopedia of Demons and Devils.

It's easiest for me as the DM to use those monsters as I get the most bang for the buck and can adapt quickly on the ideas and fundamentals. Adventures the same way. I've run nothing but old Dungeon and 1E modules converted to Pathfinder and my players had no idea because the background information was good enough for me to get the feel and spirit of the module and all I had to do was add rules.

Give us quality framework and you have our money.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragonsong wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
LazarX wrote:


2. My general rule, is that I won't run 3PP material unless I've bought it myself. And if I feel that it is material that will aesthetically add to my campaign. That means no Jester class no matter who coughs one up.
What about the one Paizo made itself in the Dragon Compendium? Can't really say its 3PP. ;)
If they made it for 3.5, it essentially is as far as Pathfinder is concerned.
As its the 3.5 compatable game, how exactly?

The 3.5 compatibility thing gets tossed around a lot... but Pathfinder is NOT 3.5. It has different assumptions built into it. Again also, I've never seen the Compendium, didn't even know about it, so I won't comment on it. I would imagine that it would need to be modified to bring it to Pathfinder specs.

And quite possibly I might have aesthetic issues if I'm not running a dragon-centric campaign, or if I'm running a campaign where dragons don't interact with mortals in that way.

Sovereign Court Raging Swan Press

KaeYoss wrote:
Creighton Broadhurst wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:

Quality pure and simple.

You have a monumental hole to dig out of due to a lot of 3rd ed 3PP's.

Hi Dragonsong. Obviously I'm a tad biaed but I believe that 3PPs can and do create great products. I'd be happy to prove that to you by sending you a free sample of one of Raging Swan's products. If you fancy taking a look at what we have to offer head over to ragingswan.com and take a look around. Find something you want and I'll send you a PDF for nothing! (Personally, I suggest one of our modules - Retribuion, Road of the Dead or Dark Oak). I can be contacted at creighton [at] ragingswan [dot] com. I hope to hear from you!

This changes things. I now also think that ALL 3PP quality sucks. Without exception. Yes, even Paizo.

Waiting for my free products ;-P

I'm game. Same offer to you! I'm not going to change anyone's mind by saying "3PP stuff is good - I promise!" Take a look at my stuff. I'll send you a free PDF if you want to roadtest Raging Swan. If you are a player I'd suggest Dhampir: Scions of the Night if you are a GM I'd go for one of our modules! Reibution is my favourite.


Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...but many Third Party publishers for Pathfinder aren't just good now (most of the time), they are amazing!

I would like to direct your attention to this thread as just one example that happened to be up right next to yours while I was browsing.

While the Paizo stuff does have balance issues, admittedly, it's pretty rigorously playtested and then errata'd. The 3PP stuff is...not, in my experience.


AionicElf wrote:
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
Yes, I can recall the early days of 3.0, and I can remember the either underpowered or overpowered material...but many Third Party publishers for Pathfinder aren't just good now (most of the time), they are amazing!

I would like to direct your attention to this thread as just one example that happened to be up right next to yours while I was browsing.

While the Paizo stuff does have balance issues, admittedly, it's pretty rigorously playtested and then errata'd. The 3PP stuff is...not, in my experience.

That thread was bumped up because I linked to it in this discussion.

If you read the rest of the post, you'll see some of the reasoning, and also that it'll be fixed shortly.


While I admit some bias, I have to agree the Raging Swan stuff is excellent. Many of (my favorite of their) products are "plug and play" adaptations for GM's use; monsters with class levels or templates, neat ideas for characters or backgrounds, or groups that you can plonk down in your campaign to see how the PCs interact with them (probably violently, admittedly).

3PP is exactly the same as 1PP - read it, and decide if it's good. Nowadays, 75% or more of 3PP stuff is "solid" or better - which is about the same ratio as 1PP stuff, really.

(To Chuck - 3PP hate doesn't bleed over to "adventures" because even if the module totally sucks, you still get a plot, some maps, and some monsters, and maybe a reusable encounter or two. And it doesn't bleed over to monsters because they only have to impress one person (the DM), they're on-scene only briefly, and if one is disbalanced, the person using them (the DM) can often 'tweak to fit' easily.)

Liberty's Edge

AionicElf wrote:
While the Paizo stuff does have balance issues, admittedly, it's pretty rigorously playtested and then errata'd. The 3PP stuff is...not, in my experience.

I think that might be true in some cases but certainly not in ALL cases. As others have said, I think the key is to read the reviews and then try out a few - decide for yourself. You can pretty quickly get a feel for who the main, top Pathfinder 3PP companies are and who of those have a good rep for doing balanced, well playtested stuff. I can say that, for example, pretty much anything I write I playtest quite vigorously, both myself and then I have others locally playtest as well. Once the 3PP companies get the final manuscript turnover, there tends to be yet more playtesting and developing. So, at least in the case of the good 3PP companies, there is actually more playtesting and developing than you may think.

If you pick a few 3PP companies that are known for good, fun and balanced stuff, I think you will only find your game to be better and richer by using some of their stuff!

Also, if a player really is excited about playing a new 3PP class, feat or whatever, I think the GM really should try to always say yes (as long as he feels the new class, ortion etc is balanced). The GM's job is to provide a fun game for everyone afterall and trying to say YES more often than NO is one part of that :)


AionicElf wrote:


While the Paizo stuff does have balance issues, admittedly, it's pretty rigorously playtested and then errata'd. The 3PP stuff is...not, in my experience.

You should check out super genius games, Owen (lead designer for SGG) has personally responded to every question I have had about one of his products, and in general they have been very prompt when updating errata into pdfs.

Like anything else it depends on the company. Find one you like and you will get alot of out of it. I know I have.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

The easiest way I introduce my players to new 3PP material is to reward them with exotic scrolls that include new spells. Then they want to learn them. New magic items or monsters are also easy to throw into a game.

The hardest material to get them to incorporate are things like feats and character creation options. Although when I started my game I created a master feat list that included everything I wanted in the game from various sources. That was a bit of an undertaking though, so it isn't for the faint of heart.

The biggest barrier for the players is not wanting to comb through 2 dozen books for that new feat.

On the other hand, as the GM I have no problem throwing all sorts of strange variants at them.

But the best ways you can get people to use 3PP material is to use it in your games, talk it up to your friends, and buy them a few choice gifts to pique their interest.


The more 3PP material is used, the greater the chances of something accidentally breaking. Mechanic A from core rules may work fine, and Mechanic B from a 3PP modifies Mechanic A a little, but is still fine. Then another 3PP makes Mechanic C, which is also fine when compared to Mechanic A, but combine A, B, and C together it totally screws everything up and breaks the game. No one intends for that to happen, but it does. So 3PP materials should all be carefully examined before use to avoid accidental brokenness.

That being said, I still never use 3PP. Then again, I ignore most 1PP as well. I prety much stick to the core rules with houserules. At least then I know how everything is supposed to work together.

1 to 50 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Why is there so much hate for 3PP, and what can I, no, we, do to change that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.