In the thread on new races, I found out why adding new races isn't a popular design choice for Paizo (and if you want Comeliness to make a comeback, good luck:)).
Which lead me to this question, is the APG fairly Golarion specific? When I read the core rules and bestiary I got the impression that the rules were for home brews and that Golarion was one option.
If, however, things that don't fit well in Golarion won't be created in the rules area of Pathfinder (which the race discussion seems to point out) then I'm a little bummed. Because that will somewhat limit the options for future rule expansions (for the core rules not the other lines which all are part of Golarion).
I'm wondering how tied I'm going to be to Golarion for my fix of Pathfinder rules. In other words, are the Pathfinder rules just be another support line for the Golarion world or will we possibly see rules for things that exist outside of Golarion? Not right away, of course, but maybe in the future?
Creative Director
|
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.
Okay, that makes sense. Just want to know what to expect. Thanks for the very quick response.
And you can still put me down for a map tile of the tarrasque's stomach.
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.
Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.
So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.
Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.
So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).
Right, I believe that is what he is saying. We'll see an occasional race like the suli but not many and only if it fits Golarion. Which may bum me out a little, but at least we know the current plan Paizo is using. And many third party publishers are making new races (and for very low cost).
Right, I believe that is what he is saying. We'll see an occasional race like the suli but not many and only if it fits Golarion. Which may bum me out a little, but at least we know the current plan Paizo is using. And many third party publishers are making new races (and for very low cost).
Yes, but one of the reasons I got TO'd at WoTC was all the material they made and then didn't support going forward. I'm not interested in buying a bunch of races from 3PP's and getting more stuff that's not supported.
I'd rather pay my duckages to the main company and have the race supported going forward (racial feats, equipment, etc).
|
Creative Director
|
Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.
So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).
Eventually we'll branch out into other types of campaign settings, I suspect.
But Golarion is doing VERY well for us. And also, we like it. We're proud of it. We're not in this industry to get rich, but because we love what we do. And right now, Golarion is what we love.
Three years from now, that might be different. And that might mean that'd be a great time to release a big book of new races. Or a book about psionic aliens. Or a book about gunslingers and gun magic. Or whatever.
And if in three years it turns out that Golarion is more popular than ever, then that's cool too.
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.
I want to make sure that I'm not coming across as trying to be smart here. But the core rulebook does contain some Golarion elements (pathfinder chronicler prestige class and the gods). I'm not saying that to smart off, but I know in my home brew I made several gods and of course the player of the cleric picked which one of them?
None. He went with a Golarion one out of the core rulebook.
So, as a GM, I do face the occasional "why am I even making a home brew with all the work when Golarion is out there?"
To which I was hoping Paizo would say, "'Cause we're throwing you a bone with some rules that might fit a home brew."
But I can understand that supporting Golarion, which makes them money, and not supporting Dusk, which doesn't make either one of us money, makes more sense to them.
And I appreciate both the honesty and quick response.
Even if I'd have been much happier with no Golarion gods in my core rules!:) And a dwarven defender instead of a pathfinder chronicler.:)
Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.
So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).
Eventually we'll branch out into other types of campaign settings, I suspect.
But Golarion is doing VERY well for us. And also, we like it. We're proud of it. We're not in this industry to get rich, but because we love what we do. And right now, Golarion is what we love.
Three years from now, that might be different. And that might mean that'd be a great time to release a big book of new races. Or a book about psionic aliens. Or a book about gunslingers and gun magic. Or whatever.
And if in three years it turns out that Golarion is more popular than ever, then that's cool too.
Scooped by Mr. James Jacobs. I wrote my previous post before I read his new post. Sounds fair to me. I'd love to see some new campaign settings and rule supplements. As long as Pathfinder and Paizo isn't going anywhere, count me in for the long haul.
And sign me up for the psionic aliens. Can I preorder yet?
|
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
But EVERYTHING in the Advanced Player's Guide will be IN Golarion, just as is the case with the Core rules and the Bestiary. All of the books in our rulebook line will, in theory, follow this philosophy.
I want to make sure that I'm not coming across as trying to be smart here. But the core rulebook does contain some Golarion elements (pathfinder chronicler prestige class and the gods). I'm not saying that to smart off, but I know in my home brew I made several gods and of course the player of the cleric picked which one of them?
None. He went with a Golarion one out of the core rulebook.
So, as a GM, I do face the occasional "why am I even making a home brew with all the work when Golarion is out there?"
To which I was hoping Paizo would say, "'Cause we're throwing you a bone with some rules that might fit a home brew."
But I can understand that supporting Golarion, which makes them money, and not supporting Dusk, which doesn't make either one of us money, makes more sense to them.
And I appreciate both the honesty and quick response.
Even if I'd have been much happier with no Golarion gods in my core rules!:) And a dwarven defender instead of a pathfinder chronicler.:)
The gods are in there because they have to be, you have to have example gods. Was this an issue in 3.5? I mean your homebrew gods apparently didn't compete with the greyhawk gods, so why are the golarion gods an issue. And the Red Wizard of Thay was replaced with the Pathfinder chronicler, since PrCs are optional and the ones included are used to exemplify how PrCs work and can fit a home brew. Basically the arguement that golarion stuff is in the Core rules is no different than 3.5
I do admit disappointment to hear that they aren't going to be making anything for the core rules that wouldn't fit into golarion, that's a bit disenheartening. but it's their product, I'll just have to live with the disappointment.
|
Creative Director
|
I do admit disappointment to hear that they aren't going to be making anything for the core rules that wouldn't fit into golarion, that's a bit disenheartening. but it's their product, I'll just have to live with the disappointment.
A more accurate way of saying that is that there's not anything on our 2010 schedule of rulebooks that wouldn't fit well into Golarion. In 2011, who can say? I firmly believe that if the Pathfinder rules continue to exceed our expectations we'll very swiftly be branching out into new content that's not necessarily going to be officially supported by Golarion stuff (but that COULD go in there since it'll use the same basic rules).
The thing to remember is this: We're only a couple months into the new game's life cycle. As recently as the start of August we were still unsure if the game was going to be a success. It could have totally bombed, at which point we would be disappointed but would still have the Golarion stuff to support the company. In other words, Golarion is a proven success already and it's something we can trust to support us because it's got a lot of fans already.
Now, the GOOD news is that the Pathfinder RPG is VASTLY exceeding our expectations. To the point where it's very difficult to keep the book on store shelves, and we're scrambling to reprint as fast as possible (it was really scary, in fact, ordering a reprint of a book that hadn't actually sold to any customers yet back in early August!). Now that we're pretty convinced that the game's a success, and that it'll be able to support itself, we can start to think about doing stuff that's more fringe... like psionics rules, or a Savage Species book, or whatever. But at the same time we've already got our entire schedule for 2010 locked down with folks writing stuff already. The biz moves slowly.
Now, the GOOD news is that the Pathfinder RPG is VASTLY exceeding our expectations. To the point where it's very difficult to keep the book on store shelves, and we're scrambling to reprint as fast as possible (it was really scary, in fact, ordering a reprint of a book that hadn't actually sold to any customers yet back in early August!). Now that we're pretty convinced that the game's a success, and that it'll be able to support itself, we can start to think about doing stuff that's more fringe... like psionics rules, or a Savage Species book, or whatever. But at the same time we've already got our entire schedule for 2010 locked down with folks writing stuff already. The biz moves slowly.
See, that's what you get for a lack of self confidence. ;)
|
Creative Director
|
See, that's what you get for a lack of self confidence. ;)
Now, the GOOD news is that the Pathfinder RPG is VASTLY exceeding our expectations. To the point where it's very difficult to keep the book on store shelves, and we're scrambling to reprint as fast as possible (it was really scary, in fact, ordering a reprint of a book that hadn't actually sold to any customers yet back in early August!). Now that we're pretty convinced that the game's a success, and that it'll be able to support itself, we can start to think about doing stuff that's more fringe... like psionics rules, or a Savage Species book, or whatever. But at the same time we've already got our entire schedule for 2010 locked down with folks writing stuff already. The biz moves slowly.
Turns out that working on a magazine that is more or less universally acclaimed to be at the height of its level of quality, seeing subscription numbers climb steadily, and winning awards for it only to have said magazine taken away from you by the license holder for vague and not-fully explained reasons (that, in hindsight, make perfect sense) does wonders for destroying self confidence.
Turns out that working on a magazine that is more or less universally acclaimed to be at the height of its level of quality, seeing subscription numbers climb steadily, and winning awards for it only to have said magazine taken away from you by the license holder for vague and not-fully explained reasons (that, in hindsight, make perfect sense) does wonders for destroying self confidence.
Well, hopefully an unprecedented initial success with your first RPG game system offering will help buttress that self confidence again. Or at least get you big nasty orc thugs to stand around and glare at anyone that tries to kick the scaffolding out of the way while you rebuild. ;)
|
|
I do admit disappointment to hear that they aren't going to be making anything for the core rules that wouldn't fit into golarion, that's a bit disenheartening. but it's their product, I'll just have to live with the disappointment.A more accurate way of saying that is that there's not anything on our 2010 schedule of rulebooks that wouldn't fit well into Golarion. In 2011, who can say? I firmly believe that if the Pathfinder rules continue to exceed our expectations we'll very swiftly be branching out into new content that's not necessarily going to be officially supported by Golarion stuff (but that COULD go in there since it'll use the same basic rules).
The thing to remember is this: We're only a couple months into the new game's life cycle. As recently as the start of August we were still unsure if the game was going to be a success. It could have totally bombed, at which point we would be disappointed but would still have the Golarion stuff to support the company. In other words, Golarion is a proven success already and it's something we can trust to support us because it's got a lot of fans already.
Now, the GOOD news is that the Pathfinder RPG is VASTLY exceeding our expectations. To the point where it's very difficult to keep the book on store shelves, and we're scrambling to reprint as fast as possible (it was really scary, in fact, ordering a reprint of a book that hadn't actually sold to any customers yet back in early August!). Now that we're pretty convinced that the game's a success, and that it'll be able to support itself, we can start to think about doing stuff that's more fringe... like psionics rules, or a Savage Species book, or whatever. But at the same time we've already got our entire schedule for 2010 locked down with folks writing stuff already. The biz moves slowly.
Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't expecting anything before 2010 already knowing your release schedule, so this whole time I was speaking of the vague future of 2012 and later :)
I do admit disappointment to hear that they aren't going to be making anything for the core rules that wouldn't fit into Golarion
I'm curious what you think you will be missing? Golarion has pretty much all of the common staples of D&D. The only things I can see being excluded are additional races and perhaps some Eberron style technology.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Keep in mind that other publishers can use the OGL and Pathfinder Compatibility license to create new races for the Pathfinder RPG...
Alluria Publishing has already published 15 new races.
Keep in mind that other publishers can use the OGL and Pathfinder Compatibility license to create new races for the Pathfinder RPG...
Alluria Publishing has already published 15 new races.
And if you'd like to check them out, working in conjunction with Alluria I've got the OGC for 11 of them in my Pathfinder Character Excelerator character sheet (you can find it at the Pathfinder Database). So, you can "try before you buy" one these, but I will say the other material in their products is generally worth the price...
|
Sidenote: Golarion/PFRPG is the only setting and system to ever make me want to play a gnome. I hate the illegtimate children of dwarves and halflings as i see them in most settings.
I've always hated RPG versions of Gnomes and banned them from my games for years. The only exceptions to my no gnomes rule have been if the players made them reeeeaaally interesting, and they had to look like garden gnomes. They also could not be tinkerers or inventors. I hated that.
The gnome ban was lifted when PfRPG was released, they still aren't my favorite race, but I like them much better than before. Though I do admit they seem a little like more colorful Kender to me now, but still more likable than other versions of the race.
Off topic: Somewhere on this site there was a schedule for the playtest. I cant seem to locate it. Can someone provide a link.
Off topic: Somewhere on this site there was a schedule for the playtest. I cant seem to locate it. Can someone provide a link.
Off topic: Somewhere on this site there was a schedule for the playtest. I cant seem to locate it. Can someone provide a link.Here
Thanks
|
|
Kender were and are vermin to me ;)
Too many players I knew took them as an excuse to be monumentally annoying. Same with Krynn Gnomes.
-Weylin
I'm not fond of Kender myself and you are correct no one ever played them as anything other than extremely annoying characters.
Like I said the PfRPG gnomes are not my favorite, because they remind of the Kender, but I still like them better than the older version of gnomes. Which is why I lifted the ban... for now.Fortunately no one in my current group ever wants to play a gnome. They all tend to play more exotic races, which is ok with me.
|
|
Kender were and are vermin to me ;)
Too many players I knew took them as an excuse to be monumentally annoying. Same with Krynn Gnomes.
-Weylin
I'm not fond of Kender myself and you are correct no one ever played them as anything other than extremely annoying characters.
Like I said the PfRPG gnomes are not my favorite, because they remind of the Kender, but I still like them better than the older version of gnomes. Which is why I lifted the ban... for now.
Fortunately no one in my current group ever wants to play a gnome. They all tend to play more exotic races, which is ok with me.
So basically my gnome alchemist character would have been out (tinker)
My gnome sorcerer would be out (tinker), and my gnome bard would be out (tinker) remind me not to join your table. I love tinker gnomes, I spend hours coming up with inventions for them, drawing (pseudo-b.s.) schematics and maxing crafts to create them. The gnome inventor is one of my favorite archtypes to play always with new inventions each time, my bard was gonna have a dart launching flute, my alchemist had all sorts of slings and crossbows designed around delivering alchemical death (way before I found 3.5 equivalents of my inventions) and my battle socerer had steam powered weaponry. I actually find golarion gnomes somewhat bland, I loved dragonlance gnomes luckily the obsessive trait usually allows me to talk my DM into letting my gnomes obsess over gadgetry, but apparently I'd be banned at your table.
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.
The deities in the PHB aren't Golarion specific?
Looks like they are.
|
Creative Director
|
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.The deities in the PHB aren't Golarion specific?
Looks like they are.
If we keep the names of the deities in the final book, then those'll probably be the only Golarion-specific elements. That, and the little opening vignettes for the chapter breaks. Just like the Core RPG.
So I guess that there IS Golarion material in the rulebooks, but less than there was Greyhawk material in 3.5's PHB.
This hardly makes the core RPG or the APG Golarion specific, though.
The Advanced Player's Guide will not contain any Golarion material in it, just as the Core rules and the Bestiary do not contain any Golarion material.The deities in the PHB aren't Golarion specific?
Looks like they are.
You do kinda need a list of gods in there. But that does not mean you have to allow them in your game, they are just there to show of the cleric class features
You do kinda need a list of gods in there. But that does not mean you have to allow them in your game, they are just there to show of the cleric class features
Agreed, sort of. However, and this is a huge pet peeve of mine, if you are going to list the Galorian gods in the PF Core...
Sorry, that is probably the biggest pet peeve I have on PF Core. It annoys me to no end to see the gods listed in a table and have no reference stats for them. No god block, symbol, porfolio, worshipers, dogma. I'd have rather that table be left out because it's USELESS unless I go buy the Galorian Deities book. I'd rather have had no god listing at all than a one line god with no fluff. That way at least I wouldn't have players asking me about the gods in the core book and be forced to make up something for them.
|
|
So basically my gnome alchemist character would have been out (tinker)
My gnome sorcerer would be out (tinker), and my gnome bard would be out (tinker) remind me not to join your table. I love tinker gnomes, I spend hours coming up with inventions for them, drawing (pseudo-b.s.) schematics and maxing crafts to create them. The gnome inventor is one of my favorite archtypes to play always with new inventions each time, my bard was gonna have a dart launching flute, my alchemist had all sorts of slings and crossbows designed around delivering alchemical death (way before I found 3.5 equivalents of my inventions) and my battle socerer had steam powered weaponry. I actually find golarion gnomes somewhat bland, I loved dragonlance gnomes luckily the obsessive trait usually allows me to talk my DM into letting my gnomes obsess over gadgetry, but apparently I'd be banned at your table.Most likely would be out in any of my group's games, Last. We'd probably let an Iron Kingdoms Goblin into a game long before we did a Krynn Gnome. Partially because the Goblin Bodgers come across as far far more competent to us and the usual image of Krynn Gnomes is a well-meaning but often largely incompetent inventor who is more a threat to himself and those around him than the enemy.
-Weylin
So do you not allow drow because they come across as evil demon worshiping bastards? I'm just trying to get the line that's drawn that says okay so the impression I get from the general race means your character has to be that way. And the idea that I can be a goblin inventor but not a gnome inventor, makes sense?
You do kinda need a list of gods in there. But that does not mean you have to allow them in your game, they are just there to show of the cleric class featuresAgreed, sort of. However, and this is a huge pet peeve of mine, if you are going to list the Galorian gods in the PF Core...
Sorry, that is probably the biggest pet peeve I have on PF Core. It annoys me to no end to see the gods listed in a table and have no reference stats for them. No god block, symbol, porfolio, worshipers, dogma. I'd have rather that table be left out because it's USELESS unless I go buy the Galorian Deities book. I'd rather have had no god listing at all than a one line god with no fluff. That way at least I wouldn't have players asking me about the gods in the core book and be forced to make up something for them.
I have to disagree on this. I think bare bones deity write-ups should be in a core book. That book is also for beginners and having those basic domain and alignment divisions gives them a basis for gods in general. I would rather they be deities from a setting (any setting) than just a name-domain-alignment line created solely for the core book.
-Weylin
Ok,
I'm confused. It sounds like we agree, there should be a writeup on them and not just a single line. Which was my rant. But.. you disagree and then post the same thing?|
|
So do you not allow drow because they come across as evil demon worshiping bastards? I'm just trying to get the line that's drawn that says okay so the impression I get from the general race means your character has to be that way. And the idea that I can be a goblin inventor but not a gnome inventor, makes sense?actually in various games i have played in yes. Drow have been banned from the campaign as pcs. in others, it was dwarves or elves. In another it was humans. All depends on the campaign, players and GM. I dont have a problem with a player or GM saying "I dont like such and such race/class/nationality/religion...can we not have those in the game?" As long as everyone agrees, i dont see an issue.
I don't have a problem with it when it's part of the world, gnomes don't exist in this setting or they have a different flavor in the setting say in this world they are a slave race and therefor meek and subservient and have a cultural stigma against owning technology or are to visciously evil to be a PC race, but it does bother me if a DM says they don't exist because I don't like them. Especially if they'll let me play the exact same character and concept but it has to be a goblin or a human, if it can be the same concept and character and there's no real setting reason the race doesn't exist then I don't like it just seems an unfair concept. I mean what don't you like about it, was that a player issue that you're imparting to the race? etc. etc. and so forth.
.......lots of talk......
Whether you allow gnomes or not or drow or not, to me it really comes down to whether you as the DM are enjoying running the game. If there is something or someone that is so annoying that you cannot have fun or achieve satisfaction from your work, then eventually your players will not have fun either and the game will fall apart because you just are not able to put in the effort needed because of whatever it is that is ruining the experience for you.
I want to make sure that I'm not coming across as trying to be smart here. But the core rulebook does contain some Golarion elements (pathfinder chronicler prestige class and the gods). I'm not saying that to smart off, but I know in my home brew I made several gods and of course the player of the cleric picked which one of them?None. He went with a Golarion one out of the core rulebook.
You made up a bunch of gods and forgot to tell your players about them. And you're afraid we think of you as smart? ;-P
The core rules have very, very, very little setting material. So much less than the 3e core books had.
We have the names of the gods (to have something there, and it doesn't take up a lot of space) and one prestige class (which is as much a showcase of "look what you can do with those PrC thingies to make them tools for developing a world" as anything else)
So, as a GM, I do face the occasional "why am I even making a home brew with all the work when Golarion is out there?"
If you have to ask, you might actually be better off with Golarion or another published setting. Creating your own world (and maybe liberally borrowing from all sorts of inspirations) is the main reason to do this. And maybe being to cheap to buy a campaign setting ;-).
To which I was hoping Paizo would say, "'Cause we're throwing you a bone with some rules that might fit a home brew."
Well, what kind of bone? A Space Marine PrC? An Illithid Slayer? A Defender of The Eredane?
Why should they do something like that? They'd need to get to know another setting (to do it properly. I mean, I could make a "Knight of The Rose" PrC, but it would probably suck because I know virtually nothing about Dragonlance), introduce extra rules they haven't talked about at all yet (so we need 30 pages of extra material for this little bone) and/or break some law (as a lot of stuff is closed content). And for what?
Better they create stuff that is usable in most games that use the PF core rules, and at the same time work in the campaign world they put most of their effort into.
That's breaking two laws with one action, as we say in the Cerulean Void.
Even if I'd have been much happier with no Golarion gods in my core rules!:) And a dwarven defender instead of a pathfinder chronicler.:)
Then you'd have no gods in there. Might be good for you, because you know more about this stuff, but a lot of people would have no idea how to go about creating gods and/or a pantheon. Having half a page with a sample pantheon listing portfolios and domains will be helpful to those people.
But dwarven defender? Nah! :P
|
Wow, this thread has wandered since I last checked in.
Hmm, well my 2cp on the matter is that 'Core books = Not deviating from the Golarion model for business reasons' makes perfect sense. This is, afterall, a business.
Business is a true form of democracy in my estimation. You vote with your money and they either produce what satisfies demand, or they fail.
I want Paizo to thrive, and I love Golarion. So, ... who's got two thumbs and a Superscriber tag? THIS GAL!
Long live Paizo and bring on all the glory of the Core game with whatever business decisions must be made. I will vote with my money for as long as I can and there are no massive sweeping campaigns of stupidity.
|
|
So basically my gnome alchemist character would have been out (tinker)
My gnome sorcerer would be out (tinker), and my gnome bard would be out (tinker) remind me not to join your table. I love tinker gnomes, I spend hours coming up with inventions for them, drawing (pseudo-b.s.) schematics and maxing crafts to create them. The gnome inventor is one of my favorite archetypes to play always with new inventions each time, my bard was gonna have a dart launching flute, my alchemist had all sorts of slings and crossbows designed around delivering alchemical death (way before I found 3.5 equivalents of my inventions) and my battle socerer had steam powered weaponry. I actually find golarion gnomes somewhat bland, I loved dragonlance gnomes luckily the obsessive trait usually allows me to talk my DM into letting my gnomes obsess over gadgetry, but apparently I'd be banned at your table.
You personally would not be banned, but the gnomes likely would. To be fair if you came to me with an intriguing character concept and that PC happened to be gnome I would more than likely let it go.
My problem is that most people seem to play tinker gnomes as "absent minded professor" type of characters, or they played a character that was much more suited for a steam-punk campaign than D&D. The race got stuck in a stereotype, much like Kender, and I just couldn't stand it, so I banned them. The ban was more to keep ridiculous stereotypes out of my games, not to punish creative or good players.Currently my group is on notice to quit playing dumb brute half-orcs, or they will get banned. If I have to create each and every campaign with new characters every game, the least they can do is not play the exact same type of characters over and over. If someone wants to always play half-orc fighters thats cool with me, though I would prefer some diversity. What I can't stand is every single one of them being an idiot.
I'm not trying to be mean to the players, but they would complain if all of my NPCs were cookie cutter stereotypes. I figure they shouldn't get a way with boring, "safe" characters.
Ah, but you see James, that's a catch 22. If everything in the rule books is in Golarion, then you will not put anything in the rule books you can't put in Golarion.
So, you see, we are back at the logic of if it won't fit in Golarion, you can forget us ever doing a book on it. Which again means, no new races, no monstrous PC books (since Golarion is fairly hard-lined that monstrous races are evil to be killed on sight only).
Eventually we'll branch out into other types of campaign settings, I suspect.
But Golarion is doing VERY well for us. And also, we like it. We're proud of it. We're not in this industry to get rich, but because we love what we do. And right now, Golarion is what we love.
Three years from now, that might be different. And that might mean that'd be a great time to release a big book of new races. Or a book about psionic aliens. Or a book about gunslingers and gun magic. Or whatever.
And if in three years it turns out that Golarion is more popular than ever, then that's cool too.
+1 for psionic aliens, gunslingers and new races... Preferably with a campaign setting attatched. Psychic gunslingers of Akiton. Many many kinds of awesome.