Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Adventurer's Guide (PFRPG)

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.

Please, enough with this "if you don't like fluff which doesn't work for your world you are a bad GM" or "if you prefer to have non fluffed materials for ease of use you are a bad GM" nonsense. It adds nothing to the discussion.

If you like removing fluff - go ahead and do it. I'm not buying a book of NPCs that I need to rewrite from the ground up.

I am the GM. I am not GMing in Golarian. Two pages about an organization that would absolutely not fit in the world I run is completely useless to me. It's a waste of my money to pay for those two pages instead of 2 pages of material that is useful.

It is reasonable for me to prefer to be able to buy mechanics books that aren't filled with stuff I don't need - and worse, stuff that creates work for me. It's a value for money issue.

I am fine with Golarian flavour in existing in the setting books - because that's what those books are for. But the RPG line was never about shoving Golarian down GM's throats, and if it becomes that I will stop buying it.

Not every pathfinder game is set in Golarian. Setting material should be in setting books. Forcing everyone to buy Golarian to get mechanics is a really crummy way of trying to squeeze customers who don't like the setting to buy it anyway.

And as for "just read it online" - as has been noted by multiple posters - if it is setting material it isn't available on the PRD because it's IP and excluded from the PRD. So it removes it completely from being used by GMs who don't want to pay for Golarian specific material. Basically, this looks like Paizo turning into Hasbro - trying to force people to buy books by making everything IP. This also hurts 3PP - because none of those new mechanics can turn up in 3PP adventures.

They know the RPG line sells more than the Setting line - or they wouldn't be putting this with a generic title (no Golarian or Inner Sea) and they would be dropping an RPG line book not a setting line book. This is their sneaky way of trying to force GMs to buy setting line to get new rules.

The RPG line has always been seperate from the setting line. It's not unreasonable to be annoyed if that suddenly changes.

I ceetainly won't be buying any more Paizo books if they start putting heavy Golarian fluff in everything.

I currently own every hardback but Mythic, strategy guide, Curse of the Crimson Throne, and ultimate intrigue. So I have been a good customer. But I no longer GM in Golarian, and Inner Sea Races was a complete disappointment, so I had no plans to buy any more setting line material.

This book will mark the end of me buying RPG line as well if it signals a new trend.

Please, enough with this "if you don't like fluff which doesn't work for your world you are a bad GM" or "if you prefer to have non fluffed materials for ease of use you are a bad GM" nonsense. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Hear hear. People's preferences are just what they like. There isn't anything wrong, bad or selfish about liking something other people don't.

I wish these discussions would remain focussed on "here's what I like and why" rather than "here's what I don't like and why you shouldn't like it either".

Please, enough with this "if you don't like fluff which doesn't work for your world you are a bad GM" or "if you prefer to have non fluffed materials for ease of use you are a bad GM" nonsense. It adds nothing to the discussion.

If you like removing fluff - go ahead and do it. I'm not buying a book of NPCs that I need to rewrite from the ground up.

I am the GM. I am not GMing in Golarian. Two pages about an organization that would absolutely not fit in the world I run is completely useless to me. It's a waste of my money to pay for those two pages instead of 2 pages of material that is useful.

It is reasonable for me to prefer to be able to buy mechanics books that aren't filled with stuff I don't need - and worse, stuff that creates work for me. It's a value for money issue.

I am fine with Golarian flavour in existing in the setting books - because that's what those books are for. But the RPG line was never about shoving Golarian down GM's throats, and if it becomes that I will stop buying it.

Not every pathfinder game is set in Golarian. Setting material should be in setting books. Forcing everyone to buy Golarian to get mechanics is a really crummy way of trying to squeeze customers who don't like the setting to buy it anyway.

And as for "just read it online" - as has been noted by multiple posters - if it is setting material it isn't available on the PRD because it's IP and excluded from the PRD. So it removes it completely from being used by GMs who don't want to pay for Golarian specific material. Basically, this looks like Paizo turning into Hasbro - trying to force people to buy books by making everything IP. This also hurts 3PP - because none of those new mechanics can turn up in 3PP adventures.

They know the RPG line sells more than the Setting line - or they wouldn't be putting this with a generic title (no Golarian or Inner Sea) and they would be dropping an RPG line book not a setting line book. This is their sneaky way of trying to force GMs to buy setting line to get new rules.

The RPG line has always been seperate from the setting line. It's not unreasonable to be annoyed if that suddenly changes.

I ceetainly won't be buying any more Paizo books if they start putting heavy Golarian fluff in everything.

I currently own every hardback but Mythic, strategy guide, Curse of the Crimson Throne, and ultimate intrigue. So I have been a good customer. But I no longer GM in Golarian, and Inner Sea Races was a complete disappointment, so I had no plans to buy any more setting line material.

This book will mark the end of me buying RPG line as well if it signals a new trend.

I would not consider you -- or anyone else -- a bad GM or person for not liking or using the Golarion fluff, not wanting to buy books that are primarily Golarion if you feel the amount of work you'd have to put in is not worth the expenditure and so on.

That said, I would however take offense at calling the information useless, lard, and so on. It isn't, it just isn't something that you prefer. Just because you (the universal you) don't use the material or think that it doesn't fit your world doesn't make it somehow inferior or worthy of derision.

The writers and folks at Paizo work hard on the material they put it out, no matter what you may hear on the boards. People are free not to like it, but let's not trash talk it. Vote with your money and don't buy it if it isn't for you, just like you'd do with any product, song, movie or whatever.

I am definitely didn't say and would not say they don't work hard etc. I know they do. But as a customer, I want them to know ahead of time that this direction is likely to alienate me and customers like me. If I didn't care about the health of the game I wouldn't say anything.

And calling it "lard" is not trash talking it - it's using the dictionary definition of it which is "to augment or intersperse especially with something superfluous or excessive." Setting material in a non-setting rules splat fits the bill for me. It's superfluous.

Of course folks who would buy the setting material in a campaign setting splat like this change - they get to spend less money and get more of what they want.

But for those of us not interested in such material, we're being asked to pay the same amount to get less of what we want. And it's reasonable for us to be disappointed in that.

This book will mark the end of me buying RPG line as well if it signals a new trend.

That's your loss. I'm sure there are many, many, many other roleplaying systems out there that will be generic enough for you.

That's your loss. I'm sure there are many, many, many other roleplaying systems out there that will be generic enough for you.

... because people who play Pathfinder for the mechanics should just jump ship and play with a completely different set of mechanics (which they obviously don't prefer because otherwise they'd be using them to begin with)....

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

That's your loss. I'm sure there are many, many, many other roleplaying systems out there that will be generic enough for you.

... because people who play Pathfinder for the mechanics should just jump ship and play with a completely different set of mechanics (which they obviously don't prefer because otherwise they'd be using them to begin with)....

Milo, stop with the dot dot dot add-ons to my comments. If you have something to say, say it.

I'm done apologizing for what I think. I think Golarion lore is good. No one is asking 'Lovers Of The Generic' (LOTG) to throw the baby with the bath water. If they do so, it's their choice, and I think they are babies for doing it.

@PDK: I think the point you are missing is that we really like the system, and we want system books, not Golarion-books where they needn't exist. There are already Golarion books and customers for them.

Personally, as I said upthread, I think the tension whether to design with or without flavor creates some unnecessary blockages. And I'm ok with setting flavor that doesn't prescribe mechanics. In my system books. But I'd be happier without it. I like Pathfinder, and I buy physical PF system hardbacks. I'd like them to have no Golarion flavor so they can have more of what I do want. As a customer, I think that is ok to ask for.

And as a customer, I appreciate that Paizo is/has embarking/embarked on an experiment, and that they will run it how and for as long as they like. I'm offering feedback on that experiment. I don't want a mix of Golarion in my system any more than I got with the deities in the Core Rulebook.

@PDK: I think the point you are missing is that we really like the system, and we want system books, not Golarion-books where they needn't exist. There are already Golarion books and customers for them.

Personally, as I said upthread, I think the tension whether to design with or without flavor creates some unnecessary blockages. And I'm ok with setting flavor that doesn't prescribe mechanics. In my system books. But I'd be happier without it. I like Pathfinder, and I buy physical PF system hardbacks. I'd like them to have no Golarion flavor so they can have more of what I do want. As a customer, I think that is ok to ask for.

And as a customer, I appreciate that Paizo is/has embarking/embarked on an experiment, and that they will run it how and for as long as they like. I'm offering feedback on that experiment. I don't want a mix of Golarion in my system any more than I got with the deities in the Core Rulebook.

I wonder if it's also a function of Pathfinder's maturing. Early on, there was a clearly defined set of "things we need to make" and then a relatively uncluttered design space to be filled. I've never been a designer, but it wouldn't surprise me if coming up with new rules is easier when spurred on by motivating flavor (now they've made such headway in the mechanically-motivated area).

There's also all the market forces arguments. Maybe golarion has the pulling power to compensate for the loss of those who want a setting-neutral system.

Irrespective, it's clearly in paizo's interests to hear a wide range of feedback. Our job is just to tell them what we like. They have the difficult job of doing all the rest. :)

From a resource management perspective: Starfinder is now in the equation. Are you also going to request a setting-neutral Starfinder?

This train of thought leads to much hate, which leads to suffering.

RIP Al-Qadim, Spelljammer, Maztica, Shou-Lung... multiple product lines leads to dilution of talent leads to death of main Forgotten Realms line down the road.

From a resource management perspective: Starfinder is now in the equation. Are you also going to request a setting-neutral Starfinder?

If they want it, they should ask for it. Of course.

It's not the customer's job to make strategic business decisions. We have to tell paizo what our little bit of the market wants. They have to do the rest.

Really, come on now with the slippery slope arguments. None of us are arguing anything about Starfinder. Please feel free to go start arguments with people who are. I have zero interest in Starfinder so I won't be buying it.

I like pathfinder mechanics, I am running a game using 3rd party books using pathfinder mechanics. I am not going to cancel my game, burn my books and switch systems because I don't like Golarian. Pathfinder was never advertised as GOLARIAN EVERYTHING - THE RPG. If it had been, I would have never bought into it.

I bought the system (around the same time that D&D 5th came out) because:

1) Strong 3rd party support (which will be eroded by these changes)

2) Access to the rules online (which will also be eroded by merging setting with rules books).

I'm a big fan of the rules system, I've bought almost all of the hardbacks, tonnes of the player companions and even a bunch of the setting material from before I abandoned Golarian.

If you like setting - GREAT - I hope Paizo makes setting books for you. But those of us who don't want setting are customers too. Or we are currently. Whether that continues if setting infects other rule books is up in the air.

Well. Four product lines is madness. I wish a long life for Paizo and I hope they don't set out on a scheme no one will be able to afford. Splitting the customer base is never a good idea as proven by the two camps forming here. Reminds me of the old sub-setting flame wars of 2nd edition with the old grandpapas coming to the email lists to calm the nerds with their "it's all parts of the Realms" calm emotion talks.

1) Strong 3rd party support (which will be eroded by these changes)

I'm not sure if that follows. It should mean a space for 3PPs to release the "generic" version of any mechanics (presuming paizo continue using the OGL, which seems certain). Or, more probably, an expanded generic option of which the golarion version is a special case.

You guys are getting way to into this. Using the forum for feedback is the purpose. some people like campaign specific options some do not. The final decision if the choice was wise will be when the book is released based on sales not who argued the best on the forums. However if enough people go hmm The title doesn't grab me. maybe they might decide to try to rename it before it goes up and maybe get a few more sales. Maybe the feel confident that the minority will mind the title and it won't make a effect in sales. Hard to say. Giving feedback is not a bad thing. Even if its not agreed upon.

Additionally I would be OK with a setting neutral star finder yes. Or different setting options. What if I end up playing star finder love the rules but hate the setting. It could happen.

Hedging their bets between setting neutral and setting has worked so far one would assume. Maybe this will work better or maybe it will be the same.

No I am not going to waste all the time to post every example of a PRC or Archetype That I would need to alter to make it fit the way I want. If I don't use the setting why would I even look into the setting specific stuff let alone purchase it.

(as a note I do actually own the setting and campaign stuff and have played in the setting and like it. Just trying to show the other side here.)

cycnet wrote:

1) Strong 3rd party support (which will be eroded by these changes)

I'm not sure if that follows. It should mean a space for 3PPs to release the "generic" version of any mechanics (presuming paizo continue using the OGL, which seems certain). Or, more probably, an expanded generic option of which the golarion version is a special case.

My understanding is that anything loaded with product identity isn't going to be available to use in other books.

The 3PP adventures I run regularly reference NPCs from the NPC Codex and use archetypes from different books. That doesn't work for archetypes and NPCs referencing Paizo IP. And even if they relaxed those rules - those things won't fit in other settings anyway.

And I don't think that 3PPs can (or would want to) just rerelease Paizo's work with the fluff taken out. That would be plagiarism at best - and it would absolutely be copyright infringement.

So it's a lose lose lose for folks who don't like Golarian. They don't get books to buy that are useable off the shelf, the 3PP they like can't use the new mechanics in their books, and they can't even get the rules they might be willing to make workable off the internet.

Just a note: to the best of my knowledge, third-party publishers can reference or use Golarion material, so long as they remove the setting-specific aspects. I believe that some of the Legendary Games material I own does so.

If I recall, this is the same process that permits d20pfsrd to host content like the Hell Knight Commander or Crimson Assassin. "Rerelease Paizo's work with the fluff taken out" is more-or-less that site's core activity. ^_^

Steve Geddes wrote:

cycnet wrote:

1) Strong 3rd party support (which will be eroded by these changes)

I'm not sure if that follows. It should mean a space for 3PPs to release the "generic" version of any mechanics (presuming paizo continue using the OGL, which seems certain). Or, more probably, an expanded generic option of which the golarion version is a special case.

My understanding is that anything loaded with product identity isn't going to be available to use in other books.

The 3PP adventures I run regularly reference NPCs from the NPC Codex and use archetypes from different books. That doesn't work for archetypes and NPCs referencing Paizo IP. And even if they relaxed those rules - those things won't fit in other settings anyway.

And I don't think that 3PPs can (or would want to) just rerelease Paizo's work with the fluff taken out. That would be plagiarism at best - and it would absolutely be copyright infringement.

So it's a lose lose lose for folks who don't like Golarian. They don't get books to buy that are useable off the shelf, the 3PP they like can't use the new mechanics in their books, and they can't even get the rules they might be willing to make workable off the internet.

We're getting beyond a product thread, so I won't follow the tangent any further, but just to be clear the bolded isn't what I meant.

What I envisioned was paizo releasing a feat "allowing followers of a particular God to do X" and a 3PP releasing a set of generic feats tied to an unspecified deity "allowing X, Y or Z". This sort of thing happens now without being an issue copyright wise and is entirely within the spirit of the OGL.

People use Golarion-specific open content uploaded with serial numbers filed off at d20pfsrd all the time. And some of the optimisation staples such as Lore Warden or Dawnflower Dervish are used by everybody without even noticing that they were initially printed as setting-specific.

I'm part of the mob that thinks the title is just too generic. Really anything could be in that book, and I can't believe the imaginative folks at Paizo couldn't come up with something equally interesting but more descriptive.

That being said, I'm also in the camp that fully embraces Golarion and has no qualms whatsoever about the division being collapsed. There's some irony here since the weekly game I play in uses a homebrew setting, and everyone I know just relies on the PFSRD. In a different campaign (an adventure path that I run), I insist on using all of the Golarion flavour, and sometimes it's hard for people to make the transition.

If you like setting - GREAT - I hope Paizo makes setting books for you. But those of us who don't want setting are customers too. Or we are currently. Whether that continues if setting infects other rule books is up in the air.

So... uh, maybe wait until after the book exists to decide whether it is useful or not?

So... uh, maybe wait until after the book exists to decide whether it is useful or not?

This is about the most sensible post I've seen in this thread.

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.

cycnet wrote:

If you like setting - GREAT - I hope Paizo makes setting books for you. But those of us who don't want setting are customers too. Or we are currently. Whether that continues if setting infects other rule books is up in the air.

So... uh, maybe wait until after the book exists to decide whether it is useful or not?

Okay, I'll bite: which is it? In the first post I quoted, you seem to have already made up your mind that this book is obviously useful, and if I don't find it useful I'm a bad GM. In the second post, you implore us not to make up our minds until after the book is released. How can you expect me or cycnet to delay judgement until the book is released when you haven't taken your own advice?

I will repeat myself.

This is an EXPERIMENT. It's certainly ok to stand back and to say stuff like "I am concerned about the way this looks to be going" or "based on what I've heard, I'd prefer that there was 'generic' or 'no' setting material in the books," but some of the doom and gloom here strikes me as over the top and waaaaay premature.

If we don't experiment with format, the line stagnates and everyone gets bored (and stops buying our books). Is _this_ experiment a good idea? Can Paizo pull off what is admittedly a relatively difficult task?

I think we can. I'd love to hear whether YOU think we can, but personally I'm going to pay a lot more attention to comments based on the book itself than I am to pessimistic snark on this thread several months before the book comes out.

The experiment is to see what people think of the book and the way we handled the design decisions in the book. How people react months before the book is certainly a PART of the experiment, but I don't want to give people the impression that what we're seeing right now IS the experiment, full stop.

By all means, don't let me get in the way of the darkness, but we're going to do the very best job that we can with this book, and we hope you think it is cool and worth your money.

That's it, really.

Right, just like I always wait until after a candidate is elected to decide if I want to vote for them.

Candidates usually exist before the election.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

Right, just like I always wait until after a candidate is elected to decide if I want to vote for them.

Candidates usually exist before the election.

If you say so.

I'm not one for a lot of negativity, but I do think that some healthy skepticism is a good thing. Let's try not to get too snippy with each other in here.

Oh, I'm trying. It's hard going against your nature.

I will repeat myself.

This is an EXPERIMENT. It's certainly ok to stand back and to say stuff like "I am concerned about the way this looks to be going" or "based on what I've heard, I'd prefer that there was 'generic' or 'no' setting material in the books," but some of the doom and gloom here strikes me as over the top and waaaaay premature.

If we don't experiment with format, the line stagnates and everyone gets bored (and stops buying our books). Is _this_ experiment a good idea? Can Paizo pull off what is admittedly a relatively difficult task?

I think we can. I'd love to hear whether YOU think we can, but personally I'm going to pay a lot more attention to comments based on the book itself than I am to pessimistic snark on this thread several months before the book comes out.

The experiment is to see what people think of the book and the way we handled the design decisions in the book. How people react months before the book is certainly a PART of the experiment, but I don't want to give people the impression that what we're seeing right now IS the experiment, full stop.

By all means, don't let me get in the way of the darkness, but we're going to do the very best job that we can with this book, and we hope you think it is cool and worth your money.

That's it, really.

thanks, Erik. Paizo's perspective is invariably illuminating when debates like this go...like this.

Anyone have any guess on how the PRD will work with this book? Some people have said it'll probably have the flavour removed from it, but Paizo has kept the Golarion flavour on the PRD in the past on the rare occasions it appeared (like in Occult Adventures with the pharasma and boneyard stuff).

Anyone have any guess on how the PRD will work with this book? Some people have said it'll probably have the flavour removed from it, but Paizo has kept the Golarion flavour on the PRD in the past on the rare occasions it appeared (like in Occult Adventures with the pharasma and boneyard stuff).

Since the PRD is run by them I'm assuming it will keep the flavor.

World flavor also appears here-and-there in the PRD entries for the Technology Guide. ^_^

Okay, I'll bite: which is it? In the first post I quoted, you seem to have already made up your mind that this book is obviously useful, and if I don't find it useful I'm a bad GM. In the second post, you implore us not to make up our minds until after the book is released. How can you expect me or cycnet to delay judgement until the book is released when you haven't taken your own advice?

So... you read;

"How useful that will be then depends on the actual quality of the content... which, of course, we haven't seen yet."

...and come away with, "...you seem to have already made up your mind that this book is obviously useful"?

In that case, I'd suggest you concentrate less on what you imagine people to mean and more on the actual words they have written.

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>

I will stop "harping" on the title when people stop telling me I am wrong for having and voicing my opinion.

You apparently feel that the title matches, you opinion is equally valid to my own.

However your passive/aggressive play at the end there adds nothing to the conversation and only prompts to pop back in and defend my position.

Lastly, I am also looking forward to more information on the various organizations listed and whatever organization we have not been told about. I love the Golarion lore and am looking forward to receiving more of it.

I'd love to hear whether YOU think we can, [...]

By all means, don't let me get in the way of the darkness, [...]

I think you guys can, and will.

I attack the darkness [rolls d20...]

I have been waiting a LOOOonnnggggg time for more information on the Cypher Mages.....I wonder if they are revising the PrC ???

I will stop "harping" on the title when people stop telling me I am wrong for having and voicing my opinion.

Or you can ignore those people and not give them anything to respond to.

I have been waiting a LOOOonnnggggg time for more information on the Cypher Mages.....I wonder if they are revising the PrC ???

Well, each organization is getting "at least one prestige class". So... either revising the old one from Second Darkness, getting a brand new one, or maybe both.

To be honest, what they call the book doesn't matter to me. It can be Adventurer's Guide, it can be "Book 4", it can be "Stuff to Help Your Campaign", or even "XTREME ADVYNTURINGY!!1".

I read the synopsis on the site as well as any reviews in advance of when I get the book as well as the general discussion. The name is inconsequential. It's the material that matters. YMMV, not valid in all markets.

One of my goals for this book is to try to provide world-neutral names, where appropriate, for all the feats and spells and items and archetypes and prestige classes and so on presented in the book—if my plan goes according to said plan, these world-neutral names will appear in the book's compiled indexes of feats and spells and items and archetypes and prestige classes and so on.

But yeah... the fact that there's world content in this book does NOT mean it's closed content to 3rd party publishers. That's very much not the case in all the books we publish, regardless of whether or not we actually put the content on the PRD. The only tricky part, as folks have noted, is that if you're a 3rd party publisher, you can't use world lore as part of your publication.

If you're just running a game for your friends, which is what most of the folks who use RPG books use them for (not to run their own publishing biz), then the fact that this book has world lore in it won't impact how you use that lore in your game. Incorporate it, change it, or ignore it as you will, in the same way you would do so with world-neutral lore that appears in previous RPG books. But in this book's case, if you happen to play in the official Pathfinder setting, you won't need to adapt or change or re-interpret the world lore, because it's already there for you.

And frankly, it'll already be there for us as well, which will make it easier for us at Paizo to use our own books for future publications, something that hasn't always been the case with previous RPG hardcovers where the world-neutral approach has caused some weirdness now and then...

Just a note: to the best of my knowledge, third-party publishers can reference or use Golarion material, so long as they remove the setting-specific aspects. I believe that some of the Legendary Games material I own does so.

If I recall, this is the same process that permits d20pfsrd to host content like the Hell Knight Commander or Crimson Assassin. "Rerelease Paizo's work with the fluff taken out" is more-or-less that site's core activity. ^_^

Third Party Publisher Hat

You're partially correct. We can reprint anything OGL as long as we list the source product in our 3PP's Section 15. However, the Pathfinder Compatibility License only allows us to cite (example: pup shapeUC) or reference (example: see the kitsune section in Chapter 3 of Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide) if our 3PP complies with the Pathfinder Compatibility License, and then only if the product being referenced is listed in Exhibit B under the Pathfinder Compatibility License.

For instance, I couldn't do a citation like this in a 3PP: "see the Occult Rules section in Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Occult Realms." The reason being that Occult Realms isn't included in Exhibit B of the Pathfinder Compatibility License.

What the d20pfsrd (and many other 3PP do) is use the first example when we want to be able to use a mechanic (aka strip the setting IP and republish it directly in one of our own products). We can even then cite our own version of the reprinted material if we want, provided that we include the original Paizo Product's Section 15 information in the product's copy of the OGL.

In short, it is 100% incorrect to say that putting more Golarion content in the Core Rules line will meaningfully hinder 3PPs in any way. (Which is what I think you were getting at, K.) It requires a little more work and ample pages to tweak and reprint what we want to use, but that's pretty standard for many 3PP already. (Example, Legendary Games' "AP Supplement" product line, or Everyman Gaming's Unchained Fighter.)

In short, it is 100% incorrect to say that putting more Golarion content in the Core Rules line will meaningfully hinder 3PPs in any way. (Which is what I think you were getting at, K.) It requires a little more work and ample pages to tweak and reprint what we want to use, but that's pretty standard for many 3PP already.

Exactly correct.

OGL Game products are best when they build upon what comes before, rather than merely reprint previous material, after all.

The way in which a 3PP utilizes rules we create in their publications is in a lot of ways the same thing that happens when we utilize rules created by 3PP in our products. For example, when we decided to put monsters from the Tome of Horrors or Book of Fiends into an adventure we publish, we generally don't simply copy/paste those stats from one book into ours. We adapt and adjust, changing things in the monster to more closely match our own design philosophy as well as to mesh better with Golarion.

For example, that's why when you see us pick up a demon from the Book of Fiends and put it in an adventure we create flavor text for that demon to tie it in to the fact that our demons are associated with sins. In the source material from Book of Fiends, it's daemons, not demons, who are associated with sins, and that requires a certain amount of finesse and adjustment.

This allows all game companies, be they 1st party or 3rd party or in between, the opportunity to help other companies create products while simultaneously giving them the opportunity and encouragement to put their own mark on the content and expand the rules in new ways.

It creates a healthier industry overall.

"Stifling" 3rd party publishers is not and never will be something we're seeking to do at Paizo. But producing content for 3rd party publishers to use is also not our primary goal or desire or purpose. The fact that our primary purpose is to produce game product to support our own game, though, is not something that makes it impossible to support and encourage 3PPs... done right, one can have your proverbial cake and eat it too if that makes sense.

done right, one can have your proverbial cake and eat it too if that makes sense.

Actually, the phrase should be "one can eat your proverbial cake and have it, too". The order is important because it implies the cake going through the process of being eaten first (and no longer existing) and then existing again. The way you phrased it (which, yes, is the way it's usually used) implies the cake first existing (being "haved") and then being eaten. That's a perfectly logical sequence of events while "having one's cake and eating it" is meant to convey desiring something that CANNOT happen.

"Eating one's cake and having it", instead, DOES convey something that cannot happen.

I just want to reiterate, as a subscriber who has no problems with a set in stone name and is unconcerned about 3PP what-have-yous, please please put out substantive previews of the content in late-March or April, PRIOR to the authorization date of likely mother's day-ish. I understand you don't always have your content 100% finalized 45 days out from street, but I don't think I will have enough data to make the subscriber purchase with only one, maybe two previews before my pre-order gets in the queue.

Paizo has earned a lot of good faith in the 7+ years of my RPG subscription, and yes, while I've bought *PDFs* of a couple of the Golarion hardcovers (ISWG, IS Gods) and a number of CS books (11 others), I have 0 player companions (counting the old Qadira book in the CS line because thats where the new one is going). I don't use the setting enough to drop the $60+ after shipping for a physical Golarion tome. I know you guys are trying hard to both achieve your vision for the book and appease the customer base, but my undecided wallet wants to see a few previews in time to make a proper purchase decision.

James Jacobs wrote:

done right, one can have your proverbial cake and eat it too if that makes sense.

Actually, the phrase should be "one can eat your proverbial cake and have it, too". The order is important because it implies the cake going through the process of being eaten first (and no longer existing) and then existing again. The way you phrased it (which, yes, is the way it's usually used) implies the cake first existing (being "haved") and then being eaten. That's a perfectly logical sequence of events while "having one's cake and eating it" is meant to convey desiring something that CANNOT happen.

"Eating one's cake and having it", instead, DOES convey something that cannot happen.

Really? An "actually"?

o_o

Do we know yet if the PRC's in this are going to be reprints or brand new?

Do we know yet if the PRC's in this are going to be reprints or brand new?

No confirmation yet. ^_^

Ooh... the setting neutral names thing is really nice! It'll make it easier to cross-reference between those using the book/PDF and those using PFSRD or Archives. (And for setting neutral games, it's less GM-convincing to do.) Just gotta wait for May.