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 moneyI am not seeing that in Charles's post at all.
Cool; I'm happy to have been irritable and not reading Charles's message in the best light....I fully concede that I may very well have been going off half-cocked :)
Cheers,
Colin
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).
Yeah, or you know...anyone of my lads/lasses (Canucks) or yours (Yanks) that are serving overseas without a reliable internet connection. Not trying to play some patriot card in the game here (really!) just pointing out that while clearly everyone posting on this forum has an internet connection (duh!), there are some segments of the population who are gamers and Paizo/AP customers who can't necessarily count on an internet connection (at least not reliably).
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.
You might be right (although I hope not) but the galling thing for me is that for all the previous APs this was not the case, so it is unfortunate that a product which we had both enjoyed must now lose/make unhappy a certain portion of its previously very, very happy reader base.
And bloody hell, as I keep saying, we can both have our cake and eat it too, if we just accept that some word count is going to be lost for the sake of both sides being happy. For me, it's a small price to pay, especially since we've (finally!!) lost the iconics at the back :) :)
I do accept (and fully understand why, especially for those who write the darn things) that for some, losing a 1/2 page of text (or even, heaven help us, a full page of text) is just not acceptable. But for me it is, especially if it keeps both parties happy. *shrug* I do know that my opinion is just that though, and everyone (Paizo staffers included, of course!) is free to have and express their own opinion on the matter.
I don't think that this is a great position for Paizo to be in, and it is certainly a tough decision to make, do doubt, but that's why they get paid the big bucks, right? As more and more "newbies" as well as just plain casual players join who aren't necessarily interested in owning everything or who might be intimidated by a notation in an adventure which says (paraphrasing, badly) "We assume you own books X, Y......and Z, and W, and Q.", Paizo runs the risk of losing or just alienating readers. Now, so far of course we're only up to Z and W (Bestiary 2 and APG), but it really is only a matter of time before Complete Magic and its brawny companion enter the stage, plus of course Bestiaries 3, 4, etc etc.
Cheers,
Colin
I keep saying, we can both have our cake and eat it too, if we just accept that some word count is going to be lost for the sake of both sides being happy.
Unless you have an issue with new content being used at all, this isn't a compromise. Your sole issue is new content only being referred to by page number. Charles's sole issue is old content being reprinted making him lose new content. By sacrificing word countm you're happy, but no concession has been made for Charles.
I keep saying, we can both have our cake and eat it too, if we just accept that some word count is going to be lost for the sake of both sides being happy.Unless you have an issue with new content being used at all, this isn't a compromise. Your sole issue is new content only being referred to by page number. Charles's sole issue is old content being reprinted making him lose new content. By sacrificing word countm you're happy, but no concession has been made for Charles.
Hmmm, I think what we at least partially have here is a failure to elucidate our terms....for me new content is stuff like say, AFP classes or monsters from Bestiary 2...so Charles is not losing out on "new" material that if the material is reprinted. So what is the new material that he's worried about missing out on? Adventure plotline and room descriptions, i.e. the meat of the AP that might be cut for the reprints? Or something else I'm not considering? I hope I'm not sounding snarky, I guess I just want a definition of what Charles considers new material that he's going to be shafted on.
Again, since nobody has addressed my earlier point (understandable since it was lost in a sea of babble ;-) ), why was it that Rise of the Runelords, Crimson Throne, the Darkness/drow one whose full title eludes me, Legacy of Fire, and Kingmaker were able to satisfy everyone in their audience (I'll grant you that the drow one seemed to create some ill-feelings ;-) ), but now suddenly we're at the point where someone has to get a bad taste in their mouth? Suddenly splat happens plus a new monster book and that throws a monkey wrench into everything? I just don't get it....
Cheers,
Colin
Shoot, the USA is behind MANY countries when it comes to internet connections. My internet selection is between dial-up, and wireless broadband (with a tiny download limit). Seems like a great selection huh? Not!
Yet internet isn't a issue for me.
Nor is it for me....I wasn't speaking for myself, and I did think that that was obvious...
I will give you the 1page, will you give me anything that eats up more than that? Like if they want to include something (or more than 1 thing) that is going to eat up 2-5 pages, will you then say it's worth it to not re-re-print?
Unless someone is really going hogwild with Bestiary 2 monsters, then I doubt that could happen....but then again I've seem some issues with huge swaths of Revised Tome of Horrors critters in them that all needed to be statted up, so I suppose it's not beyond the pale. And (as you may have gathered) I wouldn't want it any other way.
It is something that every AP writer up until this point has had to wrestle with: What cool critter/template from another source beyond the core can I include without blowing my wordcount all to hell? And I get why that sucks, but it's also a part of being a writer, and I'm really not convinced that that has to change to satisfy one portion of the audience and irk another segment, when both segments were previously happy.
Cheers,
Colin
Hmmm, I think what we at least partially have here is a failure to elucidate our terms....for me new content is stuff like say, AFP classes or monsters from Bestiary 2...so Charles is not losing out on "new" material that if the material is reprinted. So what is the new material that he's worried about missing out on? Adventure plotline and room descriptions, i.e. the meat of the AP that might be cut for the reprints? Or something else I'm not considering? I hope I'm not sounding snarky, I guess I just want a definition of what Charles considers new material that he's going to be shafted on.
Again, since nobody has addressed my earlier point (understandable since it was lost in a sea of babble ;-) ), why was it that Rise of the Runelords, Crimson Throne, the Darkness/drow one whose full title eludes me, Legacy of Fire, and Kingmaker were able to satisfy everyone in their audience (I'll grant you that the drow one seemed to create some ill-feelings ;-) ), but now suddenly we're at the point where someone has to get a bad taste in their mouth? Suddenly splat happens plus a new monster book and that throws a monkey wrench into everything? I just don't get it....
I just wanted to thank you for elaborating on points that were similar to why I myself had misgivings. I have noticed a few others have done so as well, so anyone else that posted good points, please don't think that I also do not appreciate your comments as well.
For those that do not want any amount reprinted in the book, I respect your opinion and your position, and I just wanted to point out that all I've ever been trying to do is voice an opinion, not nullify any other opinions.
Hey guys:
I just wanted to say thanks for not turning this into an assploding flamewar. :)
|
Again, since nobody has addressed my earlier point (understandable since it was lost in a sea of babble ;-) ), why was it that Rise of the Runelords, Crimson Throne, the Darkness/drow one whose full title eludes me, Legacy of Fire, and Kingmaker were able to satisfy everyone in their audience (I'll grant you that the drow one seemed to create some ill-feelings ;-) ), but now suddenly we're at the point where someone has to get a bad taste in their mouth? Suddenly splat happens plus a new monster book and that throws a monkey wrench into everything? I just don't get it....
Cheers,
Colin
Because back then there was no splat material that could be used so.
And I get why that sucks, but it's also a part of being a writer, and I'm really not convinced that that has to change to satisfy one portion of the audience and irk another segment, when both segments were previously happy.
You're under a deeply mistaken impression that folks were fine with the fact that Paizo APs were "SRD only". Many people weren't, but we had to live with that anyway, because there was no suitable OGL material that could be used. Now there is, and some of us want it used without losing out on the word count.
Because back then there was no splat material that could be used so.
Well, ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer....I thought it might be a bit deeper than that, i.e. mabye, just maybe, the adventure is all about the flavour and the wonderful Paizo adventures are wonderful not because of the nitty gritty details, but because of the big picture things like character motivation, story/plot, interesting adventure locales, etc etc. and those things are completely independent of whether someone is using splat book X, Y, and Z.
But I'm prepared to be wrong about that ;-)
You're under a deeply mistaken impression that folks were fine with the fact that Paizo APs were "SRD only". Many people weren't, but we had to live with that anyway, because there was no suitable OGL material that could be used. Now there is, and some of us want it used without losing out on the word count.
Heh, good thing then that Paizo isn't hiring me as a marketing consultant, as I clearly do not have my ears on the pulse of the AP audience....I appear to have missed out on this undercurrent despite these years of being on the message boards, and I don't mean that snarkily. I genuinely stand corrected (I'm not changing my position, mind you, I'm just acknowledging (sic) that I have made the classical error of confusing my opinions and those of the gamers I know with being a picture of a macrocosm rather than quite possibly a distinct minority amongst the AP audience).
So, even though it does appear that this is going to be an "East is East and West is West..." sort of thing, I will (stupidly, perhaps) ask again....what happens when Bestiary 3, 4, and 5 are considered core and we have to start lugging them around and/or printing out all the relevant information in order to adequately prep for/run the latest AP? I take Erik Mona at his word regarding bloat, but even if this latest run of splat books truly is the end of the run, I can't imagine Paizo stopping at just two Bestiaries...hell, there's a thread for the third one, and since I LOVE monsters myself, I personally sure don't want them to stop at just three.
Will the intro page to later APs seriously read that the game master will need to own V, W, X, Y, and Z or get their tuchis logged on to the PFSRD ASAP? Is that a message that encourages new players or even those who just read an AP to steal scenes/characters from, or even those who just read for pleasure, because a well written adventure is a great thing to read, even if it never gets run?
I don't know the answer myself (although I for myself I'm not exactly thrilled...obviously), but I'm wondering if this issue has been really thought through all the way to its logical conclusions, and if it has, is the possible loss of casual AP readers more than made up for by the influx of hard-core APers? Hell, will there in fact even be any losses in readership if the trend continues other than just a very small minority, and most people frankly don't care? And how the heck do they get the soft, creamy caramel inside the Caramilk bar?!?!
Sorry for the chocolate bar joke, it's getting bloody late ;-) ;-)
Cheers,
Colin
for me new content is stuff like say, AFP classes or monsters from Bestiary 2
But they're not new. You already own the Bestiary 2 so the content is old content. You don't want new content to be described in full, you want non-core content to be described in full. And you're bringing the definition of "core" in from 3.5e. Paizo has said they consider Bestiary 2 to be core. You own Bestiary 2 so this isn't a time issue. This is about not wanting the definition of core to be expanded any further, because you want to have the option of not buying Bestiary 3. You may end up buying it, you may not. But if Paizo refers to monsters from it by page number, you feel forced to buy it.
Charles on the other hand wants the new content used without sacrificing word count. An actual compromise is Paizo only uses shorthand version of "non-core" monsters/NPCs if those are made freely available. This way you aren't forced to buy Bestiary 3, and Charles doesn't have to give up on new content. Not everything in Bestiary 2 will get used under this method (or if it is used, it will be detailed in full), but more of it will be used without sacrificing word count.
This is an actual compromise where both sides lose a bit and win a bit. Charles will lose some word count because Paizo won't make the entirety of Bestiary 3 freely available. And you will lose out because you will need to either buy Bestiary 3 or download SOME of the monster stats. But you win by not being forced to purchase Bestiary 3.
mabye, just maybe, the adventure is all about the flavour and the wonderful Paizo adventures are wonderful not because of the nitty gritty details, but because of the big picture things like character motivation, story/plot, interesting adventure locales, etc etc. and those things are completely independent of whether someone is using splat book X, Y, and Z.
If using Bestiary 2 monsters is more appropriate to the flavour of the adventure Charles would rather see them used without having to do without word count.
I've stated in another thread that GMs should treat the incorporation of content beyond the core rules into their games as a part of their responsibility as GM when running published APs.
I still feel that way - because honestly, how many GMs have access to a store where they can purchase new APs but no access to the internet, even if it's just at a public library or cyber cafe?
The bigger issue is not whether such content should be reprinted - it probably shouldn't, because Paizo can add more unique content using the extra space saved by not reprinting full stat blocks, class abilities, and feats from non-core sources.
Rather, it is that the content used to construct APs needs to remain open content in perpetuity. If that were to ever change, I think a dramatic decrease in sales would coincide with such a decision. Part of the reason I own a copy of Bestiary 2 is that I wanted a handy printed reference for all the awesome monsters that were being indexed on d20pfsrd.com, and there's something about getting to see the pretty, shiny artwork next to the stat block that makes for a more awe-inspiring read-through. But with no indication as to what content was included, I'd probably not have bothered to purchase a print copy.
(Admittedly, making hardcover books closed content doesn't stop anyone from leafing through a copy at the store before they buy, but I still believe you reach a much larger potential audience by not going down this road at all.)
Rather, it is that the content used to construct APs needs to remain open content in perpetuity.
That's the way the OGL works. If something is declared open content. It is open content until the sun grows cold and black. It doesn't end. It doesn't expire. Literally, my great-great-great grandchildren can use all material that is currently open content in their publishing endeavors (if they become publishers).
While it may or may not be freely available online forever, I imagine it will be freely available online in one form or another while the game is highly played. If Paizo stops putting it up on the web, the folks at d20pfsrd.com will do it. And if not then, then someone else. But I have full faith that "important" open content (such as the core rules or the bestiaries or etc) will be available freely online for a very long time.
It's comments like this that I'm keeping an eye out for. If it's a commonly held opinion, we'll switch back.
Please add mine to the tally to the people who DON'T want you to switch back.
If a GM has access to the internet, anywhere, at all, (which everyone who is complaining here clearly does), then he has access to the APG and Bestiary 2. For free. Forever. There is no more necessity to include the full stat block for a dhampir than there is for a goblin.
If a GM has access to the internet, anywhere, at all, (which everyone who is complaining here clearly does), then he has access to the APG and Bestiary 2. For free. Forever. There is no more necessity to include the full stat block for a dhampir than there is for a goblin.
Right now there would be if you didn't want to rely on a site other than the PRD.
|
Right now there would be if you didn't want to rely on a site other than the PRD.
If a GM has access to the internet, anywhere, at all, (which everyone who is complaining here clearly does), then he has access to the APG and Bestiary 2. For free. Forever. There is no more necessity to include the full stat block for a dhampir than there is for a goblin.
This is true. So my preference is, if it's not on the PRD, it should get a full stat block. For practical purposes, I'd say that generally equated to the next full AP should be fully statted out, but after that it's on the PRD and is pretty much freely acessible.
We haven't yet announced a Bestiary 3. If and when we do
Really? I mean... really? C'mon.
Please add me to the ranks of tbug, Jason Nelson, Neil Spicer, and all the other folks who said they would like APs to use new content and sourcebooks.
I spend money on them. I like the content. If the content is not also on the PRD or at another well known site, the PDFs are incredibly reasonably priced. It doesn't strike me as a real hardship, though I concede I have no way of knowing everybody's personal circumstances. I wish I was Bruce Wayne and I could help gamers out everywhere.
I do know my own circumstances. That is, I play with five adults, who also buy the books for their own enjoyment, and they also want to use them when I run Paizo Adventure Paths.
It's comments like this that I'm keeping an eye out for. If it's a commonly held opinion, we'll switch back.
Please add mine to the tally to the people who DON'T want you to switch back.
If a GM has access to the internet, anywhere, at all, (which everyone who is complaining here clearly does), then he has access to the APG and Bestiary 2. For free. Forever. There is no more necessity to include the full stat block for a dhampir than there is for a goblin.
Hear-hear!
I don't mind new bestiary content not being reprinted in an AP, but looking up those APG abilities that aren't reprinted in an AP in order to prepare for a game is something I'm not looking forward to. (Heck, my ideal adventure would also print all the monster stat blocks but I realize with page limitations I can't have everything)
I support Paizo's adventure paths and modules in order to cut down the amount of work I need to do to run a game. Extra preparation from looking up APG, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic abilities doesn't appeal to me.
I'd rather have a Core Rulebook NPC (who will likely die in 3 to 5 rounds anyway) who has abilities I know and don't have to put in extra preparation time for, than an NPC with a smidgen more flavor or specialist abilities that requires me to create a sheet of notes for before GMing the weekly gaming session.
I'm not sure how fun it would be for me, the full-time GM, to just buy books so I could watch players use them.. Whereas if their content was never utilized in an AP, I would have no real use for them other to adjudicate the player characters and their actions.
Or, I could just forbid players from enjoying the new books, because I had no use for them. Which sucks and is kinda selfish, and I won't be doing.
I don't know. To me prep time is just prep time. My prep time is cut a thousand times by not making my own home brew campaign. THAT is why I buy an AP. Sure it would be perfect if I could have this marvelous rich game with all these options and never have to spend any time preparing. However I tried one well known formula for that sort of game (4E), and it just didn't work out as advertised. (No offense to its fans, it's still a worthwhile game.)
Exclusion of new material from the APs just seems like an exercise in futility and frustration for me. I either buy books so that everybody but me can use them, or I take material that Paizo publishes and rewrite it so that it does include the new material, and THAT far and beyond any prep time I do spend, is something I REALLY do not have any time for. It would prompt me to wonder why I bought the extra books in the first place.
Really, my whole pleasure with the game would take a good swift kick.
My regrets if my comments come across as argumentative. I prefer that they just be passionate, so my apologies if I offend.
I am going to bow out of the thread now, having said my peace.
You know what would be helpful: a little superscript APG, UC, UM, B2 etc if it is these or future books indicating which book it is in. I mean like spell name^(UM) or "Male half elf rogue (spy^APG)" or something like that in the stat block that indicates which book it is in. This way, we don't have to remember "Is that archetype in Ultimate Magic or in the APG?" This way, if we don't have that book, we can replace the few abilities or feats or spells or whatever that are not in any book possessed.
EDIT: You know, something like this: link.
Creative Director
|
You know what would be helpful: a little superscript APG, UC, UM, B2 etc if it is these or future books indicating which book it is in. I mean like spell name^(UM) or "Male half elf rogue (spy^APG)" or something like that in the stat block that indicates which book it is in. This way, we don't have to remember "Is that archetype in Ultimate Magic or in the APG?" This way, if we don't have that book, we can replace the few abilities or feats or spells or whatever that are not in any book possessed.
EDIT: You know, something like this: link.
Nope. We already use superscript "D" to denote domain spells, so using superscript codes for content from other books will only confuse things. Instead, we simply asterisk the new content and then at the bottom of the stat block print something like:
* Detailed in the Advanced Player's Guide.
I don't suspect we'll be loading up ANY stat block with content from more than two non-core books ever (as my own personal preference to limit the amount of book swapping), so we'll likely never need to go to three asterisks, and only rarely to two.
Anyway, that's the method we've been using for the last several books we've sent to the printer for the most part.
Getting Bestiary 2 content up on the PRD here is something that, hopefully, we'll get taken care of soon.
(crosses fingers so hard they creak)
I hope so too! My cleric of Brigh wants to summon some inevitables. :D
The compromise may be to release web supplements as teasers to showcase creatures, classes, etc. from upcoming releases. That way you keep your word count, and advertise what is coming next. But whatever rules are in place, for development on the specific content to include, I am sure they can still make a great story, and the average joe will not notice the difference.
Nope.
Just a thought.
A question for everyone who is saying "yes, pile on the content into the APs":
If there was an alternate rules system (such as the "Words of Power" expansion that was playtested for Ultimate Magic, or a hypothetical "martial arts system" from Ultimate Combat), would you want that to show up in your AP?
Put another way: if it were OGL, would you prefer to have Magic of Incarnum and Truespeakers in your AP? How many of you would roll your eyes and say "I don't want to look up any lexicons of the perfected map, I never bothered learning those" vs how many would be excited to see this content supported?
A question for everyone who is saying "yes, pile on the content into the APs": If there was an alternate rules system (such as the "Words of Power" expansion that was playtested for Ultimate Magic, or a hypothetical "martial arts system" from Ultimate Combat), would you want that to show up in your AP?
I don't think it has to be an "either/or" issue, Erik.
Is it unreasonable to expect APs and adventure modules to stick exclusively to the Core Rulebook and Bestiary? Yes. I believe it is. Paizo publishes additional books and expands the PRD for the express purpose of making more material available to more people.
But, is it also unreasonable to expect APs and adventure modules to start throwing in Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat with nothing more than a simple page reference? Yes. I believe that would be unreasonable, too.
Regardless, there should be a line established somewhere. Including the Bestiary 2 content seems infinitely acceptable to me. Same goes for the Advanced Player's Guide. I think it's reasonable (in the internet age) to expect that as things get added to the PRD, full stat-blocks using such resources don't need a full write-up anymore in the adventures and APs.
I think that's a "please most of the people most of the time" approach. And Paizo traditionally covers that territory better than just about any publisher out there.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
And again, just to repeat: I'm expressing this view because I am a huge fan of the AP and module lines. I love them, and don't want them compromised; I want to be able to keep recommending other GMs to purchase them.
I wrote this earlier in another, similar threas. but I think it bears repeating.
My take on this issue is this: I want the new content to show up in the adventures, I want NPCs to be built with these new options. It was silly enough in the 3.5 times with rulebook after rulebook being printed, but next to no adventures making use of them. This contributes to another problem - power skew. Players will most certainly make use of these options, and I want them to consider using them, too, for more variety in the game. But more options, more feats, more spells, etc. means more power - not in the same order of magnitude as with 3.5 splat books, but I'm certain it'll become notable. NPCs not using these options will mean they will end up underpowered compared to a party of PCs using the expanded rules, possibly created by optimizing players - there will be a power skew, if only in the way that NPCs can't be built to be prepared against certain new powers the PCs might have.
In short, yes, please use non-core content in the adventures. I think GMs who don't want to have to lift a finger in preparation are in the minority anyways.
I understand that it would be easier to omit the complete text of some rules, but I also understand that some customers wouldn't like this. Personally, I would not mind, as I have all the rulebooks, but I find it a bit of a hollow argument to say, "no I don't want to have to look it up on the Internet", well yeah, preparing an adventure is work, so what.
I don't think it has to be an "either/or" issue, Erik.
Is it unreasonable to expect APs and adventure modules to stick exclusively to the Core Rulebook and Bestiary? Yes. I believe it is. Paizo publishes additional books and expands the PRD for the express purpose of making more material available to more people.
But, is it also unreasonable to expect APs and adventure modules to start throwing in Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat with nothing more than a simple page reference? Yes. I believe that would be unreasonable, too.
Regardless, there should be a line established somewhere. Including the Bestiary 2 content seems infinitely acceptable to me. Same goes for the Advanced Player's Guide. I think it's reasonable (in the internet age) to expect that as things get added to the PRD, full stat-blocks using such resources don't need a full write-up anymore in the adventures and APs.
I think that's a "please most of the people most of the time" approach. And Paizo traditionally covers that territory better than just about any publisher out there.
Exactly in one!
EDITED: redacted my post. Too invested. Mr. Spicer's remarks represent my feelings well.
well yeah, preparing an adventure is work, so what.
Exactly. For my Kingmaker campaign, I spent hours browsing through potential suppliments to bolster the "dark faeries" faction I was putting into my game. I poured through both game-books as well as books on Celtic Mythology. I thought carefully around where to put various antagonist's lairs so that the PCs would stumble into them "at the right rate" rather than all at once. One of my characters comes from Mivon and wants to unite the kingdoms, so I'm crafting my own module to cover that adventure so that she can more fully realize her backstory. Most of my players want slow XP growth, but one player needs a sense of power-growth, so I'm retooling the Weapons of Legacy system and giving him extra ancestral gear to "power up" to sate his needs. Last session I spent all my hours retooling a mini-game for how they can win over their citizen's hearts and minds through creative use of festivals.
My point is: GMs spend their time on various things. Every minute I'm spending printing out lists of Inquistor Judgments and Alchemist Infusions is minutes I'm not spending printing out NPC portraits and mood artwork. Please, don't accuse me or any other GM of "not lifting a finger": we invest in the areas we feel are important, and we invest until we run out of time.
...I think GMs who don't want to have to lift a finger in preparation are in the minority anyways...
This is exactly the kind of remark that starts flame wars.
First, you're essentially calling the people who like what you don't lazy. Second, your label could just as easily be applied to people who want newer content in the AP. After all, can't those people "lift a finger" to add that content?
Disappointing. And this thread had been going so well...
That is, there is a huge difference between saying that they should have the freedom to use some new content, and saying that every new AP Chapter should be riddled with it, thus extorting the consumer to buy the latest book. Really? Seriously? Does anybody suddenly expect Paizo to start using that as a business model? Come on.
Of course not.
However, let's say you've got a new GM. Never ran Pathfinder before, only has the core book. He says "wow, writing up a campaign sounds hard, but I heard these APs are good." Then he flips through one, and agrees. He then turns to you and says "hey, I want to run this, what all do I need to buy in order to run this?" we get this sort of question all the time on the forums. If you hit a newbie GM with an implication that be might be expected to about $300 worth of books, that's enough to make him cower in fear, even if you try to reassure him "don't worry, it's all online." I've found the PRD is a hard place to learn new material - I've had players try, and it ends in disaster. (It's great to reference material you're already somewhat familiar with.)
Even if the material is "sparsely used", you still run into the issue where the book/PRD-knowledge becomes "required to use" in the eyes of most new GMs.
I'm sorry, that that didn't come across as what it was originally meant to say. I certainly didn't mean to offend the last two posters.
As I said, I copied that from another post, and was a reply - if I remember it right - to someone who said that they don't want to buy any more books and "can't be arsed" to look it up for free on the internet.
I should have removed that when copying the post here. It doesn't apply to this thread. Please, everyone who was offended by this remark, accept my apology.
I'm sorry, that that didn't come across as what it was originally meant to say. I certainly didn't mean to offend the last two posters.
As I said, I copied that from another post, and was a reply - if I remember it right - to someone who said that they don't want to buy any more books and "can't be arsed" to look it up for free on the internet.
I should have removed that when copying the post here. It doesn't apply to this thread. Please, everyone who was offended by this remark, accept my apology.
Apology accepted. Please accept my apology for getting my knickers in a twist. :)
Carry on.
Okay Erik, this is a non-snark question. I mean it at face value. At what point do you honor the regular customer who as invested in your product line, as opposed to the new potential customer?
Particularly when there is an online resource, and as said in my example, you're adding those elements sparingly? Yes, learning the whole game from the PRD is hard, but is one feat all that hard to look up?
At some point, in order to treat everyone equally, you're treating no one fairly.
Okay Erik, this is a non-snark question. I mean it at face value. At what point do you honor the regular customer who as invested in your product line, as opposed to the new potential customer?
Particularly when there is an online resource, and as said in my example, you're adding those elements sparingly? Yes, learning the whole game from the PRD is hard, but is one feat all that hard to look up?
At some point, in order to treat everyone equally, you're treating no one fairly.
I believe you're proceeding from a faulty assumption. I am a regular customer. I own the books in question, in both PDF and hard copy. Yet I want to see fairly tight controls on the AP contents, because I like being able to put everything I need for a game in a bag without flirting with a hernia. :)
I believe you're proceeding from a faulty assumption. I am a regular customer. I own the books in question, in both PDF and hard copy. Yet I want to see fairly tight controls on the AP contents, because I like being able to put everything I need for a game in a bag without flirting with a hernia. :)
I own pretty much everything Paizo has put out and and agree with Bugleyman completely.
I believe you're proceeding from a faulty assumption. I am a regular customer.
Not really, but I hear what you're saying. I think you're reading into what I wrote. I am also a regular customer and own all the products in both PDF and hardcopy just like you, but I can't represent myself as part of a group or as part of an example?
I mean, you're absolutely right. It was a generalization. Guilty as charged. I was not supposing to represent every single last regular customer, and I don't assume that every regular customer thinks just like I do. However, if we can't extend each other a little grace in our choice of words, then our ability to have an actual civil conversation really breaks down. Instead it becomes a syntax gotchya game. Conversations need to be a little relaxed for them to flow, wouldn't you agree? I retracted my earlier post because I recognized that the "other side" was coming from a position of good intent. Can that be vice versa?
Back to point, what about those regular customers who buy the books and want to use them... and what point does their patronage become just as valued as the would-be new customer, and people such as yourself who have the books but don't want the content to be included in the APs?
I own pretty much everything Paizo has put out and and agree with Bugleyman completely.
Then I'm afraid, my question is moot. The parties will just have to agree to disagree.
Then I'm afraid, my question is moot. The parties will just have to agree to disagree.
For what's it is worth, I do see your point. At least part of the draw of new rules content is to see it show up in the AP volumes.
I could even get behind some defined set of rules, like say Bestiary 1 and 2, Core rulebook, and APG. That may not be where I would personally draw the line, but it is a line, and seems like it might be a good compromise. What I don't want is an individual list for every AP volume, especially if that list someday includes things like Ultimate Combat, Adventurer's Armory 3, Bestiary 4, the (pen)ultimate guide to one-eyed halfing slingers, etc.
Or maybe the Pathfinder modules have an individual (and wider ranging) list, while the AP works form a subset.
I believe that while we may not see eye-to-eye, a reasonable compromise can be reached. And I love that we're having the discussion, and that Paizo is obviously "listening."
Then I'm afraid, my question is moot. The parties will just have to agree to disagree.For what's it is worth, I do see your point. At least part of the draw of new rules content is to see it show up in the AP volumes.
I could even get behind some defined set of rules, like say Bestiary 1 and 2, Core rulebook, and APG. That may not be where I would personally draw the line, but it is a line, and seems like it might be a good compromise. What I don't want is an individual list for every AP volume, especially if that list someday includes things like Ultimate Combat, Adventurer's Armory 3, Bestiary 4, the (pen)ultimate guide to one-eyed halfing slingers, etc.
I believe that while we may not see eye-to-eye, a reasonable compromise can be reached. And I love that we're having the discussion, and that Paizo is obviously "listening."
And for what it's worth, I do see the other side as well. I wouldn't want an AP to be laden down with new rules just for the sake of doing it. Erik made some fine points.
I'm mostly in favor of it because I believe that we're always innovating and always coming up with new cool stuff that really adds to the game. I'm cautious about excluding it just because it happens to be new. But dumping the new stuff on? No.. not necessary.
This is exactly the kind of remark that starts flame wars.
First, you're essentially calling the people who like what you don't lazy. Second, your label could just as easily be applied to people who want newer content in the AP. After all, can't those people "lift a finger" to add that content?
Disappointing. And this thread had been going so well...
Yeah, it frustrates me, because the main reason I'm against adding new content without printing relevant rules is due to the fact that I'm worried it will be a problem for people new to the system, as it will require a larger and larger initial investment and become an obstacle.
In other words, I want Paizo to do well, so I'm concerned.
And yet, because I'm worried about a company being successful in the future that I have no direct stake it, I get called a lazy GM.
For what its worth, here's a link to my blog where I discuss what I do to prep for a session:
Also, I'm getting a bit frustrated when people that are for including new content without the relevant rules reprinted continue to phrase this as a choice between "only Core rulebook and Bestiary" or "new material," when many of us have said we want new material, just new material that can be used out of the book.
I've been really respectful of the opposing view. I understand that the guys at Paizo work really hard, and it would help them to be able to cut the references down. I understand this isn't because they will be doing less work, overall, but it will make the AP volume a bit more manageable. I think I've been pretty clear that I respect them and understand the desire to go this route and what the benefit is.
I understand people that want more new content, and believe they will get more content without reprinting relevant rules. More adventure content is good, I'll not deny.
I also understand that this is Paizo's decision to do what is good for their business. As a fan, and someone that is trying to picture this from a newcomers point of view, I'm just concerned that it might be a mistake. That's all I'm trying to say.