I'm working on a few spare-time projects right now, but in a few weeks I'd be open to starting and running a community project to build a print-and-play Sandpoint Box aimed at Beginner Box players.
There's some forum interest in having Paizo make such a box, and Erik Mona mentioned it about a year ago as "something I've been thinking about doing since we decided to put Sandpoint in the Beginner Box in the first place", so I'm wondering:
1. Would this be a bad idea to take up as a Community Use Policy project? Would I be stepping on some toes that I can't see yet? I don't see anything BB-related on the public editorial schedule, and it's been at least a year since we've seen any new official Paizo BB content--even free stuff.
2. Would anyone be interested in contributing to it?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Since it first appeared on the boards, I've considered this idea as well, but I was concerned about actually using Sandpoint as it might be be pushing OGL/CUP usage.
In the past I know that specific questions could be sent to Vic Wertz for this kind of thing.
Anyhow, if it didn't run afoul of Community Use, I'd certainly be interested in contributing.
PFBeginner wrote: Since it first appeared on the boards, I've considered this idea as well, but I was concerned about actually using Sandpoint as it might be be pushing OGL/CUP usage. If it's possible, I'd like to build directly on top of what's in the Box.
I think the CUP is pretty clear that locations and characters can be "descriptively referenced," but not necessarily "dialogue, plots, storylines, language, and incidents" of products on the CUP list.
That's fine by me, as the goal would be to expand on Sandpoint in ways that are directly compatible with the BB's limitations and create adventures, NPCs, creatures, and adventure hooks on that expanded base--but not replicate or convert existing APs, modules, or plotlines set there.
I'm looking at PFWiki and Wayfinder's gazetteer entries and adventures as examples of acceptable levels of detail under the CUP; if those are special cases, then I may need to rethink Sandpoint as a setting, but it looks like there's quite a bit of room to work.
PFBeginner wrote: In the past I know that specific questions could be sent to Vic Wertz for this kind of thing. Thanks! I'll send him a note.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As i said in another thread, the folks from Wayfinder already did some support material for the BB and they also use Golarion specific stuff all the time. Maybe getting them on board would be good or you can at least ping them for advice. And you can cross promote if they do a Sandpoint and/or BB issue.
Thanael wrote: As i said in another thread, the folks from Wayfinder already did some support material for the BB and they also use Golarion specific stuff all the time. Maybe getting them on board would be good or you can at least ping them for advice. And you can cross promote if they do a Sandpoint and/or BB issue. Totally! I've worked on the last few issues of Wayfinder (and Wayfinder #11 is one of those projects I'm on at the moment) and would love to invite Wayfinder contributors on board.
The scope of this would be a little outside what Wayfinder usually does, but yeah, I love Wayfinder and this CUP Sandpoint Box idea is directly inspired by the BB work from the last few issues.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I could be very interested in trying to contribute to such an endeavor.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My advice would be to set it within walking (okay, maybe riding) distance of Sandpoint - close enough that it can be an "add on", and just far enough off-map to not conflict with published (or to-be-published) material. At first glance, along the Lost Coast Road either to the east (in or past Nettlewood or Mosswood), or off to the south look like good areas to place things.
A small neighboring village or hamlet, for example - what about a castle or manor owned by a minor local lord, and the row of cottages used by their estate workers? Having a brand new, but nearby, area gives you a lot more freedom to work with while being able to maintain in-game world continuity - consider using existing Sandpoint NPCs as adventure hooks, or even just occasionally dropping some of their names as vague references to tie the material in.
Alternatively, simply focus on places to adventure in that are near enough to use Sandpoint as a base. Make that castle or manor house an abandoned/ruined one, place a set of hills riddled with tunnels, and so on.
The important thing for most players, I'd imagine, is giving them more adventure and RP material that can be played out using the contents of the BB (plus whatever gets included in the CUP expansion)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Matt Thomason wrote: My advice would be to set it within walking (okay, maybe riding) distance of Sandpoint - close enough that it can be an "add on", and just far enough off-map to not conflict with published (or to-be-published) material. Yeah, I've been looking at the Hinterlands in particular, especially since it's already mapped in the GM Guide. And I apparently need to pick up the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition, as PFWiki entries on Hinterlands locations suggest one of the appendices is a gazetteer.
Matt Thomason wrote: Alternatively, simply focus on places to adventure in that are near enough to use Sandpoint as a base. Make that castle or manor house an abandoned/ruined one, place a set of hills riddled with tunnels, and so on.
The important thing for most players, I'd imagine, is giving them more adventure and RP material that can be played out using the contents of the BB (plus whatever gets included in the CUP expansion)
Agreed, particularly for the adventure content ideas, big new NPCs, plots, etc. Considering how many official plots already use Sandpoint and its NPCs, and the CUP's prohibition on referring to specific plotlines, I don't think much would be possible inside the city anyway.
I'd still like to flesh Sandpoint out a little more, though, while incorporating the BB content, giving BB GMs more roleplaying options, and easing some of the lore transition to running Core modules or APs set in Sandpoint.
For instance, the GM Guide has a list of mundane gear PCs can buy, but doesn't bring up Ven Vinder or his shop and only mentions Savah's and the Feathered Serpent in passing. I think specific canon shops and shopkeepers like that are OK to "descriptively reference" via the CUP.
Garrett, you really need to look at the Sandpoint appendix. Many of the details I used in The Gateway to Nar-Voth came out of there (and also for the level 3 Gen Con demos). It's already fleshed out in a pretty detailed way. Exploring the Hinterlands while reconstituting some of that appendix for a CUP might work well though. Come to think of it the first volume of Jade Regent, The Brinewall Legacy also has some good detail on the Hinterlands.
Sounds great if you manage to do one!
Mark Garringer wrote: Garrett, you really need to look at the Sandpoint appendix. Many of the details I used in The Gateway to Nar-Voth came out of there (and also for the level 3 Gen Con demos). It's already fleshed out in a pretty detailed way. Exploring the Hinterlands while reconstituting some of that appendix for a CUP might work well though. Come to think of it the first volume of Jade Regent, The Brinewall Legacy also has some good detail on the Hinterlands. Looks like the comics cover Sandpoint and the hinterlands as well, especially the encounters included in 1-7 that detail and/or map specific hinterlands locations.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I've been working on a campaign designed to bring a group from level 1 to 5. I was thinking of making a series of these as a CUP venture. This sounds like something I'd be interested in contributing to.
I'm about to hit that break where I can work on this, and I'm quite excited about what we could potentially put together.
Despite all that's taken place in and around Sandpoint, there's still a lot of room for new content. I think a campaign set-style "box" of content, art, pawns, and maps centered on the Hinterlands would give GMs plenty to work with.
I've narrowed ideas down to three broad priorities:
- High: Create adventures, NPCs, creatures, and adventure hooks appropriate for all BB levels in the Sandpoint/Hinterlands areas. Statted non-monster NPC antagonists would be especially useful, as there's very few in the official BB content.
- Medium: Expand on the Sandpoint area in ways that are directly compatible with the Community Use Policy and existing BB contents. Create or flesh out settlements, landmarks, and other locations.
- Low: Backport a race, class, and/or optional system from Pathfinder OGL content.
The challenges include:
- A lack of existing CUP art for Sandpoint. We'd need quite a bit of art and cartography.
- Sandpoint has many plot threads that the CUP prohibits referencing. Chopper, Black Fang/Scarhorn, goblin raids, anything in RotR, etc. All plot content will have to be new to the Sandpoint Box.
- Sandpoint’s hinterlands are broadly but shallowly covered across multiple products. Gazetters with unique information are in four or five different products, including the RotR Anniversary Edition and the comic books, making referencing existing Sandpoint material a hassle. We'd be pointing BB players to a $120 outlay just for a complete Sandpoint gazetteer unless we find a CUP-compatible way to make our own.
- Working with or including iconics--say, for a backported class--is shaky CUP/OGL ground. Adding a class to the BB would mean either finding a CUP-compatible way to include its iconic (whose backstory we can't reference under the CUP), or creating a new iconic character to suit it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Would it be easier to make a CUP for a new campaign setting? It would reduce the challenges involved and provide a CU environment for more people to contribute without worrying about shaky CUP/OGL legalities. The problem is trying to include Paizo-owned concepts or avoid contradicting anything out there.
ShallowHammer wrote: Would it be easier to make a CUP for a new campaign setting? It would reduce the challenges involved and provide a CU environment for more people to contribute without worrying about shaky CUP/OGL legalities. The problem is trying to include Paizo-owned concepts or avoid contradicting anything out there. If I'm not using Golarion, I don't need to use the CUP. I'd just use the OGL, and at most the (oddly more restrictive w/r/t the Beginner Box) PFRPG Compatibility License, to cover the mechanics.
I want something to help GMs bridge the Golarion content gap between finishing the bundled Black Fang adventure and the GM Kit mine quest, and moving on to Golarion-set modules and APs.
The CUP can accommodate this as long as the limitations are clearly understood from the start. Wayfinder does awesome stuff under the CUP every issue.
The shakiest CUP ideas I have involve incorporating a new class, and only if it uses that class's iconic hero, which isn't really necessary; or referencing specific plots from other products, which honestly I'm trying to avoid doing anyway.
Garrett Guillotte wrote: ShallowHammer wrote: Would it be easier to make a CUP for a new campaign setting? It would reduce the challenges involved and provide a CU environment for more people to contribute without worrying about shaky CUP/OGL legalities. The problem is trying to include Paizo-owned concepts or avoid contradicting anything out there. If I'm not using Golarion, I don't need to use the CUP. I'd just use the OGL, and at most the (oddly more restrictive w/r/t the Beginner Box) PFRPG Compatibility License, to cover the mechanics.
I want something to help GMs bridge the Golarion content gap between finishing the bundled Black Fang adventure and the GM Kit mine quest, and moving on to Golarion-set modules and APs.
The CUP can accommodate this as long as the limitations are clearly understood from the start. Wayfinder does awesome stuff under the CUP every issue.
The shakiest CUP ideas I have involve incorporating a new class, and only if it uses that class's iconic hero, which isn't really necessary; or referencing specific plots from other products, which honestly I'm trying to avoid doing anyway. Sounds awesome. You're obviously more familiary with those policies than I am, which is awesome. Anything I can contribute with to help?
Recent threads in Beginner Box
|
