MM1 is the only recurring monster book I use in my campaigns. However, when I run prewritten modules (be they from Paizo, or from other publishers) they often contain a number of unique monsters that are specific to that module, printed either in the back or in-line with the adventure. I also tend to carry a setting book with me (be it Ravenloft or Margreve or whateverelse) that is thematically similar to what I'm running at the time: I use the monsters from that particular book. I have little need for the random grab-bag of monsters that come in normal Monster Manuals. If I'm running Kingmaker, for example, I only want books of evil fae and bandit NPCs - I don't need lots of extraplanar creatures (which is what the Bestiary 2 seems to have more than its fair share of).
In most games I run & buy, a great many encounters are against NPCs (ie things you could build with the PHB and aren't in the MM) anyways. Between NPCs and module or setting-specific monsters, that's enough variety to keep me happy. I tend not to play above level 10 or so (and from what I gather that's reasonably common), and there's definately a lot of low-CR monsters floating around (though I've heard that things do get thin at the higher CRs - but that's not really an issue for me).
I'd like to think I'm not that uncommon of a GM. Maybe I am. *shrug*
It's comments like this that I'm keeping an eye out for. If it's a commonly held opinion, we'll switch back.
But being able to use short stat blocks for Bestiary 2 monsters is a huge advantage. That'll let us fit PAGES more of content into each adventure, which becomes even more important at higher levels.
And one thing to remember about PFRPG as opposed to D&D... we made our supplementary monster books both very affordable to buy as PDFs (10 bucks!), and on top of that, made all the monsters open content, so they're free to find on the internet.
APs were already not self contained; they assumed the use of the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary.
Adding Bestiary 2 to that list is unfortunate for the fact that you'll need one more book... but in my opinion, the advantages gained are worth it.
Well, please add me as another data point amongst those who find any inclusion of material (without the salient information printed in the adventure itself) beyond that of the core books to be a troublesome trend.
I groaned inwardly when I saw creatures from the second Bestiary with nothing more than a page number, and I own the bloody thing :) .
I've also noticed the inclusion of some APG material, which again would be fine (I'm all for including options from all your material, hell, people bought it, and have every right to expect to see material used in Paizo products rather than forgotten on a figurative shelf) provided the appropriate information is included for those without the handbooks.
Yeah, I know that the material is available online, but the principal of the thing is that I really do feel quite strongly that if it's not in the core books, it should get a full description for those that don't have the new material. As a consumer of Paizo products, I don't think I should have to go to the trouble {not much trouble mind you, I'm not being asked to decipher some platyhelminth's genome ;-) } of logging on to the internet, tracking down the appropriate webpage, copying the info to a word processing document and then printing out the bloody thing. And as for buying just a PDF.......well, consider me one of those archaic dinosaurs who finds the idea of reading anything more than a few paragraphs at the computer (web fora excluded) to be something markedly less than enjoyable.
I do understand the space that gets saved when you can reference all these products with just a page number, but as I previously stated, count me as one consumer (with you guys from the beginning), who really does not like this trend at all and feels the word count trade-off is not worth the hassle to me the end-user.
Food for thought I hope...
Cheers,
Colin
P.S. Totally off topic, but while I'm {hopefully} bending the ears of the powers that be ;-), where is the chart for the Construction Points based on size for the Animated Objects entry? Am I going completely blind, or is it not in the AP?
|
P.S. Totally off topic, but while I'm {hopefully} bending the ears of the powers that be ;-), where is the chart for the Construction Points based on size for the Animated Objects entry? Am I going completely blind, or is it not in the AP?
See the Animated Object listing in the Bestiary. Wes mentioned it ended up getting cut for space and they forgot to put the reference in.
I really don't think that we should be wasting AP word count just because somebody is lazy/digitally challenged.
I have a problem enough with fiction and ads, reprints of material freely available online is a bit too much.
Given the amount of time and effort I put into prepping my sessions, I would scarcely call myself lazy, nor am I at all digitally challenged...what I can do with electronic tools, and what I enjoy doing are two completely different things.
Suffice it to say that we simply share different perspectives on what the philosophy of the publishers should be in regards to inclusion of full information versus page citations and assumptions of book ownership/online access.
Additionally, while I'm sure you don't give a fiddler's flying you-know-what at a flying doughnut (Tim Horton's naturally....anything else wouldn't be high enough quality), your tone is needlessly obnoxious/abrasive, especially in regards to making presumptions about my activity levels as a DM and my ability to surf the web successfully......
Cheers,
Colin
I understand the perspective of those who don't wish to use the newer books. To me it is just a negative on the AP's to have to reprint more things that have been put out their, especially when it's something included in only one or 2 books.
I honestly can't imagine many groups not having a APG, in fact we have 3 amongst my group.
While not as many have the B2, I can tell you one does have it, and I will also be purchasing it.
Now if everything is going to be reprinted in the AP's I would be less likely to buy a B2, as it would be useless during the running of one.
So to me APG should for sure be included, I could maybe see not including the B2, but in 6 months-1 years time it should because most groups will have 2-3 copies.
But as you said, maybe I am in the minority in having a group with 3+ sets of most books. I think my set (gameday carry) will be Core, APG, B1, GMG, B2, Inner Sea World Guide (Possibly adding UM, and UC later). Now I have a number of other books in PDF format though none others in physical format (accept Carrion #1).
Of course I also had a 400 page homemade GMG back in the day with more charts than you can shake a stick at, and a duffel back with about 100 lbs of 2nd edition books (about 3-1/2 feet tall stack), so carrying 5-7 books to the game (even with a laptop, tablet, notebook, etc) isn't a issue.
Heh. Believe it....there are two (count 'em, two) copies of the core rule book from a pool of six players plus me (the DM/GM) and only one Bestiary, and then two Bestiary 2 copies (myself plus another player). Now, maybe this same player who also has the Bestiary 2, and the core rulebook also has the APG (I haven't asked him), but it's a moot point, as it doesn't come up in the games I run.
Now, I sure don't know if I'm in the minority, or you are in terms of numbers of books floating around gaming tables....that is indeed an interesting question.
And where we differ is just my basic philosophy that ONLY the core rulebook and the initial Bestiary should be assumed as being present in terms of the reading/purchasing audience for the Adventure Paths.
Cheers,
Colin
P.S. Thank you for framing your thoughts/counter-points in a cogent and polilte fashion; even if I disagree, it is still pleasant to have an exchange of viewpoints without being snarky and dismissive.
P.S. Totally off topic, but while I'm {hopefully} bending the ears of the powers that be ;-), where is the chart for the Construction Points based on size for the Animated Objects entry? Am I going completely blind, or is it not in the AP?See the Animated Object listing in the Bestiary. Wes mentioned it ended up getting cut for space and they forgot to put the reference in.
Doh....I wondered if it was the same table or not...guess that answers my question.
Thanks for the clarification, eh.
Cheers,
Colin
Edit: I guess you, and your players are not very interested in the options the APG provides? I know I couldn't imagine my players not wanting to play those options so maybe thats the difference in our groups?
If a player wants to love and invest and dig deep into a character to figure out how all those extra options interact on his sheet, then power to him. I've found it actually takes a player a few sessions to figure out how to get a character to "work right."
But as a GM, I don't need or want those extra options in my one-battle-then-they-die NPCs. I'll end up just ignoring all those extra options and just charging into the combat (leading to a very unsatisfying encounter), because I really wasn't expecting the PCs to attack that NPC this session, so I didn't spend the 20 minutes nessecary to figure out a good battle plan for him to use (I spent those 20 minutes elsewhere during my 3 hour prep time).
Again: today it's just PHB+APG. By year's end we'll also have Ulimate Magic and Ultimate Combat (and all the guns rules!). By next year? Or the year after?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Hopefully in a few years we'll have several more rulebooks. And hopefully, those books will be referenced in APs if they fit the theme.
If Paizo reprints rules in the AP then they have to pull content that I could use. I realize that some readers could save a few minutes of not looking things up on the internet but it would cost me money, money which would be spent on rules taking up space that could include content I haven't paid for yet. It would be like including skeleton or zombie stats so a GM doesn't have to buy the Bestiary.
Why should I be penalized for buying Paizo rulebooks? Either by having to pay for the rules again or by not getting to see those rules used? I honestly don't understand how that seems equitable to anyone. That rule content is available (and in many cases paid for by many of us customers) outside the AP and should be used and not reprinted.
Heh. Believe it....there are two (count 'em, two) copies of the core rule book from a pool of six players plus me (the DM/GM) and only one Bestiary, and then two Bestiary 2 copies (myself plus another player). Now, maybe this same player who also has the Bestiary 2, and the core rulebook also has the APG (I haven't asked him), but it's a moot point, as it doesn't come up in the games I run
IMO if s player wants to use something from a book they should own the book and bring it to the game with them. I've seen nothing but trouble when this policy is ignored. From people not having read the rules, to not remembering the rules correctly, to using some obscure broken item from a module that no-one has ever even played. This isn't 4th Ed where all the classes utilize the same rules and deviate very little from each other (even then I'm used as a walking rules encyclopedia despite my god awful memory. There's something wrong when people rely on me to remember stuff).
Hopefully whatever Paizo does will find a way to keep as many of us happy as possible. Thank you as well for you constructive comments :)
Edit: I guess you, and your players are not very interested in the options the APG provides? I know I couldn't imagine my players not wanting to play those options so maybe thats the difference in our groups?
I also hope that they find a way to make us both happy :)
As for your guess, you would be 100% correct...the only person who owns the APG is the resident min-maxer, and all the rest aren't completists and quite frankly just rob old 3.5 books of ideas if they want options (which being casual players, most don't bother with). And as the DM, I quite frankly could not care less about splat books (I owned zero of the "Complete" books from 3.5).
Cheers,
Colin
IMO if s player wants to use something from a book they should own the book and bring it to the game with them. I've seen nothing but trouble when this policy is ignored. From people not having read the rules, to not remembering the rules correctly, to using some obscure broken item from a module that no-one has ever even played. This isn't 4th Ed where all the classes utilize the same rules and deviate very little from each other (even then I'm used as a walking rules encyclopedia despite my god awful memory. There's something wrong when people rely on me to remember stuff).
Well, one, as I stated above, the vast majority of my players can't be arsed to use splat books (which brings me no end of relief).
And second, I trust my players, and even if someone brings in something that is hideously broken...well, let's just say that the odds are stacked in my favour in terms of rectifying the imbalance ;-) Part of that trust thing is that my players in fact ask me what they can and can't bring in, and even if I'm not truly familiar with it, there has been nothing (in my experience) that was so broken I couldn't just ban it after some at-the-table discussion.
Cheers,
Colin
If a player wants to love and invest and dig deep into a character to figure out how all those extra options interact on his sheet, then power to him. I've found it actually takes a player a few sessions to figure out how to get a character to "work right."
But as a GM, I don't need or want those extra options in my one-battle-then-they-die NPCs. I'll end up just ignoring all those extra options and just charging into the combat (leading to a very unsatisfying encounter), because I really wasn't expecting the PCs to attack that NPC this session, so I didn't spend the 20 minutes nessecary to figure out a good battle plan for him to use (I spent those 20 minutes elsewhere during my 3 hour prep time).
Again: today it's just PHB+APG. By year's end we'll also have Ulimate Magic and Ultimate Combat (and all the guns rules!). By next year? Or the year after?
Exactly, I agree 100%. I don't need any extra options from some rule book to spice up my NPCs and monsters.....if I want to give some special ability, I just make up a feat or give 'em a supernatural ability or something.
As you asked, what follows down the road, eh? I mean, I do recall when it was (happily embraced by me) official policy that the only things that would be referenced by page number were the core two books and everything else would be written up....and that changed, right? So who knows what the future will hold.....seems safer to print the extra material (and again, yes, I know it cuts into word counts, and that does suck {I understand completely!} but maybe that means the authors will have to be selective in what they include as "extra" goodies in the APs....so maybe only five critters from the ToH Revised instead of six, you know?).
Cheers,
Colin
If Paizo reprints rules in the AP then they have to pull content that I could use. I realize that some readers could save a few minutes of not looking things up on the internet but it would cost me money, money which would be spent on rules taking up space that could include content I haven't paid for yet. It would be like including skeleton or zombie stats so a GM doesn't have to buy the Bestiary.
Really, dude? Skeletons and zombies? I thought it was a given that the core rulebooks included the bestiary....I mean, I'm not one to call out reductio ad absurdum (or however the heck it's spelt) at the drop of a hat, but it does seem to me that you are raising a spectre of something that nobody has asked for at all. Have you seriously heard anyone asking for stats for everything?
Why should I be penalized for buying Paizo rulebooks? Either by having to pay for the rules again or by not getting to see those rules used? I honestly don't understand how that seems equitable to anyone. That rule content is available (and in many cases paid for by many of us customers) outside the AP and should be used and not reprinted.
How on earth are you being penalized for buying the rulebooks if the info is repeated in an adventure? You don't use your rulebooks independently of the APs with your own adventures, or just to spice up old APs and modules that you think could use a little dose of Something New (trademark pending)? The only way they see use is if something official by Paizo includes said material? I'm not trying to be snarky, man, I'm just not sure I see the logic in your stance.
Cheers,
Colin
Hi Colin:
I agree with you on bloat -- I'd rather see the APs limited to the core rules. I can see an argument for making the APG "core," but that's another story. The current situation is inconsistent and really makes me question what "core" means to Paizo. However, as of yet it hasn't affected my choice to continue buying the APs. If "ultimate" stuff starts popping up, however, I will revisit my decision.
Nor does this position have anything to do with owning the books (I do), or being "digitally challenged" (I'm not).
But yeah, this debate has pretty been done to death. So I'm chiming in to be counted as a "worried about bloat" vote, and driving through. :)
Cheers yourself,
Aaron
I always wanted to see an incarnum played. Wizards 3.5 Magic of the Incarnum. I never saw one played. Wizards didn't publish many general adventures and it wasn't OGL so no publisher could use it on a 3rd party basis. So now it just sits on my shelf, opened once or twice and probably never again. Total useless waste of money. I bet if it were in an adventure or two, it would have seen more use.
I'm all for AGP and future system books making their way into adventures on an infrequent basis as long as it us themeatically appropriate. I.e. I would be rather disappointed if carrion crown did not have an alchemist somewhere. But we don't need ninjas in non-asian theme adventures or gunslingers in world wound adventures. The theme is not right. When it is appropriate, they should appear.
Just my opinion. YMMV
I always wanted to see an incarnum played. Wizards 3.5 Magic of the Incarnum. I never saw one played. Wizards didn't publish many general adventures and it wasn't OGL so no publisher could use it on a 3rd party basis. So now it just sits on my shelf, opened once or twice and probably never again. Total useless waste of money. I bet if it were in an adventure or two, it would have seen more use.
I'm all for AGP and future system books making their way into adventures on an infrequent basis as long as it us themeatically appropriate. I.e. I would be rather disappointed if carrion crown did not have an alchemist somewhere. But we don't need ninjas in non-asian theme adventures or gunslingers in world wound adventures. The theme is not right. When it is appropriate, they should appear.
Just my opinion. YMMV
+1, basically to all.
as a side note, i have homebrewed an overhaul of Incarnum and have been using it in my PF version of Savage Tide. Working well so far.
I always wanted to see an incarnum played. Wizards 3.5 Magic of the Incarnum. I never saw one played. Wizards didn't publish many general adventures and it wasn't OGL so no publisher could use it on a 3rd party basis. So now it just sits on my shelf, opened once or twice and probably never again. Total useless waste of money. I bet if it were in an adventure or two, it would have seen more use.
I'm all for AGP and future system books making their way into adventures on an infrequent basis as long as it us themeatically appropriate. I.e. I would be rather disappointed if carrion crown did not have an alchemist somewhere. But we don't need ninjas in non-asian theme adventures or gunslingers in world wound adventures. The theme is not right. When it is appropriate, they should appear.
Just my opinion. YMMV
I'll add + 1 to that.
Edit: I see Rathendar beat me to it... so I guess that's a + 2. :)
I always wanted to see an incarnum played. Wizards 3.5 Magic of the Incarnum. I never saw one played. Wizards didn't publish many general adventures and it wasn't OGL so no publisher could use it on a 3rd party basis. So now it just sits on my shelf, opened once or twice and probably never again. Total useless waste of money. I bet if it were in an adventure or two, it would have seen more use.
I'm all for AGP and future system books making their way into adventures on an infrequent basis as long as it us themeatically appropriate. I.e. I would be rather disappointed if carrion crown did not have an alchemist somewhere. But we don't need ninjas in non-asian theme adventures or gunslingers in world wound adventures. The theme is not right. When it is appropriate, they should appear.
Just my opinion. YMMV
+1, basically to all.
as a side note, i have homebrewed an overhaul of Incarnum and have been using it in my PF version of Savage Tide. Working well so far.
Hi Rathendar,
This post of yours piqued my curiosity... I too liked Incarnum and wished it would have seen more use (I used it a couple times in my 3.5 Eberron game... back it the day).
~Dean
It's nice to see i wasn't the only one who enjoyed the conceptuals of this book.
It's nice to see i wasn't the only one who enjoyed the conceptuals of this book.
It was an interesting concept, but I think that the Legacy items were a bit more useful. I wish they had been fleshed out enough to be useful... but sadly no.
It's nice to see i wasn't the only one who enjoyed the conceptuals of this book.It was an interesting concept, but I think that the Legacy items were a bit more useful. I wish they had been fleshed out enough to be useful... but sadly no.
I also liked the Legacy items. (very similar to earthdawn's thread items)I didn't like the ginormous ton of penalties you stacked up using them though. Feat-deeds would have covered it better all by itself i think. (and tbh is partly how i reworked those for my own use)
The problem with the Legacy Items was that actually completing some of the requirements to activate the legacies was nigh on impossible..The concept was good but I for one would have liked more on creating your own items.
|
How on earth are you being penalized for buying the rulebooks if the info is repeated in an adventure? You don't use your rulebooks independently of the APs with your own adventures, or just to spice up old APs and modules that you think could use a little dose of Something New (trademark pending)? The only way they see use is if something official by Paizo includes said material? I'm not trying to be snarky, man, I'm just not sure I see the logic in your stance.Cheers,
Colin
Because reprinting rules/statblocks that are avilable FREELY online is taking up space that could be used to make the adventure more awesome.
You don't use your rulebooks independently of the APs with your own adventures, or just to spice up old APs and modules that you think could use a little dose of Something New (trademark pending)?
A big part of the appeal for me is not needing to write my own adventures. And if the players haven't played that AP before, then you don't need to "spice it up with something new" as it will be new to them. In all honesty if the APs don't assume Bestiary 3, I won't buy Bestiary 3 (unless there's no fluff presented whatsoever and we must own Bestiary 3 in order to get the fluff, but that defeats the point of reprinting the statblock).
Not that I'm demanding Bestiary 3 be assumed. One less book to buy is a bit more money in pocket to spend on other stuff from Paizo.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Because reprinting rules/statblocks that are avilable FREELY online is taking up space that could be used to make the adventure more awesome.
How on earth are you being penalized for buying the rulebooks if the info is repeated in an adventure? You don't use your rulebooks independently of the APs with your own adventures, or just to spice up old APs and modules that you think could use a little dose of Something New (trademark pending)? The only way they see use is if something official by Paizo includes said material? I'm not trying to be snarky, man, I'm just not sure I see the logic in your stance.Cheers,
Colin
+1
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Really, dude? Skeletons and zombies? I thought it was a given that the core rulebooks included the bestiary....I mean, I'm not one to call out reductio ad absurdum (or however the heck it's spelt) at the drop of a hat, but it does seem to me that you are raising a spectre of something that nobody has asked for at all. Have you seriously heard anyone asking for stats for everything?
If Paizo reprints rules in the AP then they have to pull content that I could use. I realize that some readers could save a few minutes of not looking things up on the internet but it would cost me money, money which would be spent on rules taking up space that could include content I haven't paid for yet. It would be like including skeleton or zombie stats so a GM doesn't have to buy the Bestiary.
Since customers who don't own the Bestiary 2 couldn't seem to understand that I don't want rule info reprinted in APs when that space could instead by used to, for example, add a page of adventure or an extra new monster, I tried to use an example that might make more sense by including an example from a rulebook that most AP readers are expected to have. When I wrote "It would like" that means I'm using an example to try to help others understand my point, not in any way suggesting that anyone has asked to include Bestiary stats in an AP. Your reaction is about what I'd expect: it would be crazy to include Bestiary stats in the AP which is a similar reaction I have to so many people asking to reprint Bestiery 2 stats in an AP.
Why should I be penalized for buying Paizo rulebooks? Either by having to pay for the rules again or by not getting to see those rules used? I honestly don't understand how that seems equitable to anyone. That rule content is available (and in many cases paid for by many of us customers) outside the AP and should be used and not reprinted.
How on earth are you being penalized for buying the rulebooks if the info is repeated in an adventure? You don't use your rulebooks independently of the APs with your own adventures, or just to spice up old APs and modules that you think could use a little dose of Something New (trademark pending)? The only way they see use is if something official by Paizo includes said material? I'm not trying to be snarky, man, I'm just not sure I see the logic in your stance.Cheers,
Colin
Here's another example (not an example in the real world, one created to try to explain my point). I have an AP. It has reprinted stats for a monster in the Bestiary 2. Those stats take up a quarter page. That quarter page means that a new haunt has to be removed. I already have the quarter page of info on the monster (in my Bestiary 2). I don't have the new haunt. I have now lost the new haunt and paid for, instead, a reprinting of rules.
Over months of buying APs and with each Bestiary 2 monster or APG NPC with reprinted rules, these reprinted rules really add up and strip yet more NEW content out of the AP.
Simply put, if old rules are recycled it takes page count away from new rules or story that can be created. My purchase of the Bestiary 2 becomes less valuable (I pay for the rules twice so other customers don't have to buy the Bestiary 2) AND my AP purchase also becomes less valuable (new rules are replaced by rules I already have in the Bestiary 2 so some customers don't have to buy it).
I understand and respect that other people don't want to spend their money on game books. I have a job and bills to pay as well. However, I do want to spend my money on my hobby (after I pay my bills and save!:) and I want the company I buy from to continue to support the product I buy from them.
As a loyal customer, I'm helping them pay their bills (and hopefully save) and they need to continue to entice me to buy to stay in business. Reprinting rules to support customers who don't want to buy as many Paizo products is an option for them as is supporting the use of more rules or something in between. It is a tough call they'll have to make.
Since I'm heavily invested in PF (it is my only hobby besides borrowing library books to read) I very much want to have my voice heard. I also speak with my time (I GM as many others do and recruit brand new players to both RPGs and PF) and my money (I buy a lot of Paizo product and no longer use 3.5 as I have almost all new players and 3.5 is out of print and I don't support Wizards anymore anyway).
I don't want my voice drowned out by customers who want only Core Rulebook and Bestiary support.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Here is an example of me as a customer when I don’t want to spend money. My reaction is not an attempt to strip options from customers who do choose to spend money on a product they want.
The example:
I won’t pay for TV and I wait for a new season of Supernatural to come out on DVD and borrow it from my library (my taxes pay for the DVD but I don’t get to watch it right away). I spend some of the money not spent on cable on Paizo product instead.
I don’t write the producers of Supernatural asking them to go straight to DVD instead of being on TV first because I don’t want to pay for TV and I want to watch the latest season sooner. I believe that purchasers of TV would find my request unreasonable and they would likely question me on why I don’t pay for TV (my money, my choice of course).
Instead, as a consumer I have chosen not to buy TV so I wait to watch the newest season. I don’t try to stop TV customers who do pay money from enjoying their purchase just so I can save money and time. I could try, but I choose not to.
The conclusion:
This is not an exact comparison (TV is not the same as an RPG and waiting for a show to come out on DVD is not the same as using additional rule content) but the concepts are similar. I don’t want to spend money to fully enjoy something—should I spend some of my own time to make use of it while allowing those who do spend money to fully enjoy their purchase or should other customers give up something they enjoy for my convenience?
Because reprinting rules/statblocks that are avilable FREELY online is taking up space that could be used to make the adventure more awesome.
To expand upon this a bit, I also think that the Paizo will be less likely to use content from non-core books if they have to reprint it every time.
I have a problem with adventures not listing the necessary information on magic items, monsters or NPCs. It is very rare you would have to explain a new rule. But this may be a price point issue, as I would be more bothered that an adventure path did not have it, versus a couple session module. I can understand the arguments against it, but the DM is strapped for time like everyone else, and having everything in one book/adventure saves time from having to look it up elsewhere.
I am curious how many pages people think this would add?
I have seen a similar issue in open design products.
Here is an example of me as a customer when I don’t want to spend money. My reaction is not an attempt to strip options from customers who do choose to spend money on a product they want.
The example:
I won’t pay for TV and I wait for a new season of Supernatural to come out on DVD and borrow it from my library (my taxes pay for the DVD but I don’t get to watch it right away). I spend some of the money not spent on cable on Paizo product instead.I don’t write the producers of Supernatural asking them to go straight to DVD instead of being on TV first because I don’t want to pay for TV and I want to watch the latest season sooner. I believe that purchasers of TV would find my request unreasonable and they would likely question me on why I don’t pay for TV (my money, my choice of course).
Instead, as a consumer I have chosen not to buy TV so I wait to watch the newest season. I don’t try to stop TV customers who do pay money from enjoying their purchase just so I can save money and time. I could try, but I choose not to.
The conclusion:
This is not an exact comparison (TV is not the same as an RPG and waiting for a show to come out on DVD is not the same as using additional rule content) but the concepts are similar. I don’t want to spend money to fully enjoy something—should I spend some of my own time to make use of it while allowing those who do spend money to fully enjoy their purchase or should other customers give up something they enjoy for my convenience?
THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.
Good going Charles.
For me it's pretty spot on of what some people are asking of Paizo.
Creative Director
|
To expand upon this a bit, I also think that the Paizo will be less likely to use content from non-core books if they have to reprint it every time.
Because reprinting rules/statblocks that are avilable FREELY online is taking up space that could be used to make the adventure more awesome.
That's an astute observation. And that'd be really lame. I'd be disappointed if the people who can use our expansions the least are us.
|
Creative Director
|
Here is an example of me as a customer when I don’t want to spend money. My reaction is not an attempt to strip options from customers who do choose to spend money on a product they want.
The example:
I won’t pay for TV and I wait for a new season of Supernatural to come out on DVD and borrow it from my library (my taxes pay for the DVD but I don’t get to watch it right away). I spend some of the money not spent on cable on Paizo product instead.I don’t write the producers of Supernatural asking them to go straight to DVD instead of being on TV first because I don’t want to pay for TV and I want to watch the latest season sooner. I believe that purchasers of TV would find my request unreasonable and they would likely question me on why I don’t pay for TV (my money, my choice of course).
Instead, as a consumer I have chosen not to buy TV so I wait to watch the newest season. I don’t try to stop TV customers who do pay money from enjoying their purchase just so I can save money and time. I could try, but I choose not to.
The conclusion:
This is not an exact comparison (TV is not the same as an RPG and waiting for a show to come out on DVD is not the same as using additional rule content) but the concepts are similar. I don’t want to spend money to fully enjoy something—should I spend some of my own time to make use of it while allowing those who do spend money to fully enjoy their purchase or should other customers give up something they enjoy for my convenience?
This is an interesting analogy.
It's worth pointing out that if the only way the producers of Supernatural had to reach their customers was by getting to them via library rentals... they would not have the money to make the show in the first place.
I have a problem with adventures not listing the necessary information on magic items, monsters or NPCs.
NPC's I can definitely see an issue. Even though I'm redoing most of the NPC's in the Curse of the Crimson Throne game that I'm running (from 3.5 to Pathfinder) I'm using HeroLab so it saves a metric crap load of time for me.
Monsters I'm on the fence about. If it's a monster that appears in the AP for the first time then I'm fine with it. In my specific case the monsters in the 3.5 edition of this AP have pretty much been covered in Bestiary 1 & 2 so it's just the matter of either printing out the page that monster is on (Thank You, Thank You, THANK YOU Paizo for the mostly single page monster format.)tucking it a folder and calling it day.
Or if I need to change the moster somehow, again, modifying it in HeroLab and printing out the modded monster tucking it in a folder and calling it a day.
Magic Items though? Do you really want Pazio to print up the stats for every singel wand of magic missiles or Cure moderate Wounds that the PC's find? I admit though that aside from the charges I'd like to see what kind of magic it gives off as well as the caster level of the item, but it's something that takes little time to actually look up before hand so, for me at least it's not that bad.
Since we were asked, I'll post my preference: I'd rather that Paizo include new content in the APs rather than reprinting (rereprinting?) information that is already both in a rulebook and also available for free on-line.
|
Creative Director
|
For what it's worth... the current method we use in print (full stats for all NPCs and all monsters that differ from their baseline stats in Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2; cite references from books liberally when we use non-Core Rulebook content) is far and above my favorite method. It's what we've been doing with Pathfinder from the start, after all—we just added Bestiary 2 to the mix really with Carrion Crown, and so far we haven't seen any negative feedback from that specific example at all... although Carrion Crown's still pretty young, so I'll be keeping an eye out there for feedback of any sort.
Ditto on what the Nelson-man said...but, clearly, I'm biased since I'm one of the guys creating stuff using this material. It saves SO much room so you can spend those words on putting more awesome into the rest of the AP modules.
Since we were asked, I'll post my preference: I'd rather that Paizo include new content in the APs rather than reprinting (rereprinting?) information that is already both in a rulebook and also available for free on-line.
My opinion as well.
+1
-- david
Papa.DRB
Since we were asked, I'll post my preference: I'd rather that Paizo include new content in the APs rather than reprinting (rereprinting?) information that is already both in a rulebook and also available for free on-line.
Here is an example of me as a customer when I don’t want to spend money. My reaction is not an attempt to strip options from customers who do choose to spend money on a product they want.
The example:
I won’t pay for TV and I wait for a new season of Supernatural to come out on DVD and borrow it from my library (my taxes pay for the DVD but I don’t get to watch it right away). I spend some of the money not spent on cable on Paizo product instead.I don’t write the producers of Supernatural asking them to go straight to DVD instead of being on TV first because I don’t want to pay for TV and I want to watch the latest season sooner. I believe that purchasers of TV would find my request unreasonable and they would likely question me on why I don’t pay for TV (my money, my choice of course).
Instead, as a consumer I have chosen not to buy TV so I wait to watch the newest season. I don’t try to stop TV customers who do pay money from enjoying their purchase just so I can save money and time. I could try, but I choose not to.
The conclusion:
This is not an exact comparison (TV is not the same as an RPG and waiting for a show to come out on DVD is not the same as using additional rule content) but the concepts are similar. I don’t want to spend money to fully enjoy something—should I spend some of my own time to make use of it while allowing those who do spend money to fully enjoy their purchase or should other customers give up something they enjoy for my convenience?
I sense that essentially people are getting to the point where there are two opposing philosophies which will never quite meet, so it's probably best to not beat the horse further (little to gain, as no-one is going to be convinced of anything that the other side feels/believes, as it is exactly that, a set of beliefs and philosophies which cannot be "proven" ).
Charles, your analogy rings false as it implies that I do not want people to spend money on Paizo products, and worse yet (and I may be reading too much into this...) it seems to imply that my type of consumer (not-completionist) is a free-loader of sorts, depriving others of their goodies so I don't have to spend money. Ahem. Would you like to come to my house and see how many bloody Chronicles and Gamemastery Modules (or whatever they are currently called) I have? Damn near every single one, as well as all of the APs to date....the only thing I don't purchase are the little Players guides and the so-called splat books (I got the GMs book though...) because that sort of material doesn't interest me. My desire to see reprinted material (waiters for DVD I suppose) in no way deprives you of your seeing the material used in print (those who have paid to watch the TV show on cable)...rather, instead you have interrupted my favourite non-cable show to show snippets of some other program, and in order to figure out the plot to its fullest, I know have to get up off the couch, log on to the internet and try to Hulu the darned thing to make sense of it/best appreciate it.
I don't begrudge others their interest in that sort of material though, nor do I wish to see Paizo not use their own material in their products. What is "at stake" for me (put in quotes, because for crying out loud folks, it is just a game) is the non-neglible time and effort it takes me to suss out and then print out something that isn't part of the core rules just so others can see their toys in print.
You don't want to sacrifice word count? I hear that....but tell me, would Rise of the Runelords suddenly have become better if it had included APG material (and yeah, time travel had been created)?
You don't want your voices "drowned out"? Guess bloody what, neither does the other side of the argument....
Since I can't seem to get across my philosophy adequately, I shall try one last time (as it does seem, as I previously mentioned, that we're at the agree-to-disagree stage) to explain how I feel about such things.
I own Chaositech by Monte Cook, published by Malhavoc Press....now I love that damned book to pieces, and I've used it in several of my home adventures, but you know, I wasn't broken up that its material didn't suddenly appear in tons of products, and even if it had, in one of Monte's own modules for example, I still would want the complete write-up in the adventure, even though I ALREADY OWN IT. Because that's just a basic principle, that apparently you either think is valid or you don't, i.e. that core is what's important and all the "cool" new stuff needs to be detailed, just in case the newbie or non-completist doesn't have the book. *shrug*
And yeah, I know it's available online, but while I'm reading and not necessarily playing an adventure (and remember, a lot of the AP purchasing audience doesn't necessarily buy to play, but rather to read and savour and then play or maybe not....we're not the majority I suspect, but we're certainly not a gross minority), it's a pain in the you know what to reach some section and say...what the hell is this, I've never seen it before...hmmm, better go to the computer and surf the web to find it.
Here's some non-neglible wastes of my time as a consumer of AP products: a) time cruising the SRD to find an entry
b) time spent reading the entirety of the entry to suck it all in and get the gist of it
c) copying and pasting to a word document to have for future reference because I don't care to be looking stuff up in the middle of the session
d) printing it up and inserting it into my session notes.
Are these back-breaking, hard-toiling wasters of multiple hours? Hell, no, and I sure as heck don't want anyone claiming I've said they are....but they are non-neglible and when added up they're as big a nuisance to me as some of you claim that writing it up on your own is.
I don't want to see Paizo authors not use the tools at their disposal, but even as an owner of the Bestiary 2, I still want to see complete references for everything that is not core. That is what I, as a consumer of Paizo products (by the boatload...if you want a complete list, I'll type it up, but that's really not a valuable use of my time) feel, and I further feel that the opposite trend caters to the hard-core crowd at the expense of the casual gamer/new player, not to mention those who share my philosophy about core/non-core.
Anyhoo, best of luck to everyone in their games this weekend/week to come....don't let this get to heated, please, it is just a game after all.
Cheers,
Colin
Charles, your analogy rings false as it implies that I do not want people to spend money on Paizo products, and worse yet (and I may be reading too much into this...) it seems to imply that my type of consumer (not-completionist) is a free-loader of sorts, depriving others of their goodies so I don't have to spend money
I am not seeing that in Charles's post at all.
I own Chaositech by Monte Cook, published by Malhavoc Press....now I love that damned book to pieces, and I've used it in several of my home adventures, but you know, I wasn't broken up that its material didn't suddenly appear in tons of products, and even if it had, in one of Monte's own modules for example, I still would want the complete write-up in the adventure, even though I ALREADY OWN IT. Because that's just a basic principle, that apparently you either think is valid or you don't, i.e. that core is what's important and all the "cool" new stuff needs to be detailed, just in case the newbie or non-completist doesn't have the book. *shrug*
Under books being referenced (and posted for free on an SRD) anyone with an internet connection (which is clearly everyone on this forum) has the option to use that monster. This causes more time for DMs who don't own the book, but ultimately they're still able to gain access to the content (unless they lack an internet connection which clearly isn't anyone on this forum). Under your prefered model everyone misses out on new content.
Here's some non-neglible wastes of my time as a consumer of AP products: a) time cruising the SRD to find an entry
b) time spent reading the entirety of the entry to suck it all in and get the gist of it
c) copying and pasting to a word document to have for future reference because I don't care to be looking stuff up in the middle of the session
d) printing it up and inserting it into my session notes.
Clearly you and Charles can't be catered to by the same product (this isn't a snark. Just a neutral statement of fact). It is up to Paizo to determine which customer represents the larger population and which population will given them more money in total.
but they are non-neglible and when added up they're as big a nuisance to me as some of you claim that writing it up on your own is.
While for you it make take you the same amount of time to:
1) become inspired with a new idea, turn that idea into a mechanical monster that is both balanced and provides something new and interesting to the game, and also write this down somewhere (either in word or on a piece of paper with a pencil) OR2) read a statblock and copy it into word and hit print.
I think you'll find for the vast majority of gamers it's actually much more work to do (1) then it is to do (2)
Under books being referenced (and posted for free on an SRD) anyone with an internet connection (which is clearly everyone on this forum) has the option to use that monster. This causes more time for DMs who don't own the book, but ultimately they're still able to gain access to the content (unless they lack an internet connection which clearly isn't anyone on this forum). Under your prefered model everyone misses out on new content.
Just like to address this last point....I have always stated that I have no problem with new content being used (at all!), especially since I pretty much trust the Paizo authors to only use it where it's thematically appropriate.
I merely want the material actually described rather than just page number referenced or assumed to be a part of DMs book collection.
The only thing that loses out in this model is word count, and that's a trade-off that I am willing to make. I fully understand that that is not everyone's position though ;-) ;-)
Cheers,
Colin