I realize this module series started back in 2007. Since then, there has been rule changes and updates for the actual PFRPG line (Core rulebook, Bestiary, etc.) which of course the older modules would not show. My question is when did the Adventure Path modules begin to show the most recent updated rules/material associated with the PFRPG Core rule book? Would it have started with the Kingmaker Adventure Path series? Or was it even before that?
Ok, thanks!
Now are these Adventure Paths designed to be used any world? Or are they geared towards Golaria?
They are all set in Golarion and contain much Golarion-specific information.
Oh, ok. To be honest, if the rest of our group does decide they want to play Pathfinder (sounds like we are going to) I would kind of hope the DM goes with Chronicles, as Golarian sounds very interesting.
But our DM has always been the “invent his own world” kind of DM. And if he did decide to go with Chronicles, I don’t know if he would want to spend the extra for the Adventure Path modules.
Thanks for everyone’s help.
Edit: Oh, and I know you don’t “need” the AP’s for playing in Golarian, but it looks like Paizo put a lot of work into them and they seem pretty interesting.
|
All are set in Golarion and have a pretty high Golarion content/feel to them. However you should be able to adapt it for most worlds with minimal work.
Just tried to think of the "easiest" ones to adapt and I drew a blank other than thinking that Second Darkness would be the only one hard to adapt (but to be honest, still pretty doable).
Edit:
But our DM has always been the “invent his own world” kind of DM. And if he did decide to go with Chronicles, I don’t know if he would want to spend the extra for the Adventure Path modules.
It all depends on how much you're willing to spend for how much content. Personally I've known of DMs that simply get it for storyline ideas and great encounter ideas that can be adapted to any campaign, any setting, anywhere.
I haven't looked an any AP before Council of Thieves but that one could be dropped in to any world. It is basically set in one city and he surrounding area. You could easily put that city anywhere. The inferalist flavor would need to fit but if you have spot in home brew world the city of West Crown could easily be dropped in place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, ok. To be honest, if the rest of our group does decide they want to play Pathfinder (sounds like we are going to) I would kind of hope the DM goes with Chronicles, as Golarian sounds very interesting.
But our DM has always been the “invent his own world” kind of DM. And if he did decide to go with Chronicles, I don’t know if he would want to spend the extra for the Adventure Path modules.
Thanks for everyone’s help.
Edit: Oh, and I know you don’t “need” the AP’s for playing in Golarian, but it looks like Paizo put a lot of work into them and they seem pretty interesting.
Well i can tell you from experience the AP's are not useless to a create your own world DM. I generally prefer homebrew settings, and I make my own adventures, but the AP's are still tremendously useful for ideas and inspirations. I would never use anything as is, but there are some great npcs, great encounters, and great maps that all can serve as a foundation for a homebrew game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm one of those GMs with a life-threatening allergy to running anything in a published setting. I was a world-builder when I started GMing some 30 years ago, and I'm still this way. If I were a lot poorer and could only choose between the Chronicles products and any AP, I would choose the AP. Chronicles just aren't as useful for the compulsive world-builder.
I jammed both Rise of the Runelords and the Curse of the Crimson Throne into a homebrew world and loved every minute of it. Granted, replacing the Shoanti with Aztec-style, rhinoceros-riding hobgoblins was pretty rough and probably didn't hold together quite as well plot-wise as if I had run the game in Golarion, but using my own world made me happy, and my players all had a blast.
The Adventure Paths are fabulous campaigns (I love some more than others, but who doesn't?) and actually aren't all that hard to de-Golarianize. However, even when you transplant them in another world, there are a ridiculous number of things to steal for a homebrew setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people have trouble using an AP in a homebrew campaign I wonder. It's mostly just fill in the blanks for your world.
There's troublie in Sandpoint... becomes there's trouble in Mortutania
The temple to Desna is now the Temple to Ickywoods. etc...
Mostly I've seen the people who can't convert do not really have a firm grasp on their world as a whole. They don't know that these plains are filled with this indigenous creature/primitive culture/etc
My first advice to people who want to use an AP in a homebrew setting is to have your world firmly defined so you can tranistion the people, places, things easier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now are these Adventure Paths designed to be used any world? Or are they geared towards Golaria?
They're based in Golarion, but they can easily (VERY easily) be used in any (fairly standard, of course) world.
Golarion gets points from me because it's not some freaky-deaky overly niche setting - it covers all the fantasy genre and tropes, so it's pretty easy to take the APs and place them in your own world, depending on the trope you need. Standard "european" fantasy? Check. Gothic horror? Check. Jungle adventuring? Check. Egyptian fantasy? Check. Arabian fantasy? Check. Viking-like fantasy? Check. Etc.
For example, I put all of the APs into the Forgotten Realms, and it takes very little work to do so. (I'd dump Paizo and the APs the moment it took a bunch of effort, and so far that doesn't look like it'll happen... [well, Second Darkness was kind of gross, but Second Darkness had a multitude of problems].)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people have trouble using an AP in a homebrew campaign I wonder. It's mostly just fill in the blanks for your world.
There's troublie in Sandpoint... becomes there's trouble in Mortutania
The temple to Desna is now the Temple to Ickywoods. etc...
It's not always that simple, though. I find it problematic when I have to completely rewrite a large number of the named NPCs in a published source to switch their gender around. Now, I've made a conscious choice to have a gender-balanced campaign world, and for many people that's not important. But it matters to me, and that means I have to do a LOT of adjusting to published source material if I want to use it.
Mostly, I've used published source material for maps, encounter set-ups, etc. I've lifted NPCs and occasionally adventure plots from published source material, but I wouldn't try to run a whole adventure path in my homebrew world, because balancing the NPC gender ratio would be too much of a pain in the neck for me.
|
|
I find it problematic when I have to completely rewrite a large number of the named NPCs in a published source to switch their gender around. Now, I've made a conscious choice to have a gender-balanced campaign world, and for many people that's not important. But it matters to me, and that means I have to do a LOT of adjusting to published source material if I want to use it.
I may be ignorant here, but wouldn't this be as simple as putting the text into word, pressing ctrl-h (Command-H as it were), putting in said NPCs name and then replacing it with the new person?
If you're doing a count of each and then equalizing, yes it could be an equal amount of work... but that's a very very specific want/need that won't affect the vast majority of DMs out there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lindisty, you're right, it's not always that simple, certainly not, but, I dunno, I think lots of DMs have fun adjusting and tweaking the published material to fit their tastes. I mean, does any DM actually use a published adventure exactly as is?!
Also, consider that the APs are not all equal. You can imagine that the first AP would be as generic-to-setting as possible -- not only was Golarion in its infancy, but Paizo would want it to be as usable to as many customers as possible.
Take a look at Rise of the Runelords: "Burnt Offerings"; you can run that anywhere.
I don't run Golarion; I don't run GH or FR. However, when I want to use Sandpoint or Saltmarsh or Silverymoon, or even Ptolus or Freeport, I use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I may be ignorant here, but wouldn't this be as simple as putting the text into word, pressing ctrl-h (Command-H as it were), putting in said NPCs name and then replacing it with the new person?
I find it problematic when I have to completely rewrite a large number of the named NPCs in a published source to switch their gender around. Now, I've made a conscious choice to have a gender-balanced campaign world, and for many people that's not important. But it matters to me, and that means I have to do a LOT of adjusting to published source material if I want to use it.
It also requires changing pronouns in expository text. Not that I frequently read text straight from even my own written setting info, but if I consult the material and see see someone referred to as 'he' in the text, then I have trouble remembering to use 'she' at the table in my verbal descriptions. That may just be my own defective brain, but there it is. :) I can also imagine cases where an NPC's backstory doesn't make sense if I switch genders, so the potential for a lot more rewriting than just switching gendered pronouns and names exists.
If you're doing a count of each and then equalizing, yes it could be an equal amount of work... but that's a very very specific want/need that won't affect the vast majority of DMs out there.
Oh, I recognize that I'm a corner case here, but I wanted to point out that dumping an adventure path wholesale into a homebrew setting may not be as simple as changing location names, etc. In my case, it would require making changes to a LOT of NPCs and editing an awful lot of expository text, even if *all* I was doing was changing names and editing the gendered pronouns to match. If it gets into changing NPC backstory, then... well... I might as well just write my own story and cherry pick NPCs from published sources that fit into it rather than trying to adapt someone else's story to my world.
edited for clarity
It started with Council of Thieves. AP's that are made for Pathfinder rules will say PFRPG after them. Older AP's say OGL. Kingmaker is the second AP for PFRPG.
Ok, now the difference between OGL and PFRPG is exactly what again?
From my understanding, as Tordek indicated (and I bolded), when (OGL) is at the end of the product, it indicates it is older material, before the Pathfinder RPG was actually initiated. So they won't have the updates/tweaks that are in the core rulebook.
But my confusion now is I am seeing products being released in the near future that have the (OGL) tag on it, like the Advanced Players Guide, or the Gamemastery Guide. I would think the newer products would have all the updates to the rules that were established in the core rulebook and therefore would have the (PFRPG) tag to show it?
What am I missing here? Or does the (OGL) only apply to older product in being the AP's?
Edit: I just noticed that the actual core rulebook says (OGL) as well, but obviously does have the updated rules for the PFRPG as it is the core book. Oh my head hurts now, I am so confused. lol
Yes, I'm aware of it is technically through the Open Gaming License set up, but Pathfinder 'is' Paizo's.
Ok, your answer makes it clear, though. Anything from August '09 is updated with the official Pathfinder ruleset.
I guess I am just curious now, but I wonder what the determining factor is for Paizo to label the product (OGL) or (PFRPG).
OGL = Need the 3.5 MM, DMG, and PHB to be able to use the product as written
PFRPG = Need the PFRPG Core rulebook to be able to use the product as written
OGL = Need the 3.5 MM, DMG, and PHB to be able to use the product as written
PFRPG = Need the PFRPG book to be able to use the product as written
But the corebook is OGL, wouldn't you think that should fall under PFRPG? And anything else coming out for "Pathfinder" now, shouldn't that fall under PFRPG, as well?
It's all OGL.
They just started labeling the shiny new PFRPG stuff with that tag to tie it into the new Ruleset.
But you can use the PFRPG material with 3.5 stuff and vice versa :) And I'm sure that "we're sticking to 3.5" folks are a certain part of Paizo customer base
Heh, I guess it depends on your DM. As I said in another post, our DM is a stickler on keeping the same ruleset and keeping “balance” in the system. For him, using 3.5 D&D and the new Pathfinder ruleset can unbalance the game as doesn't think of PFRPG being playtested with ALL of D&D's 3.5 books.
Yes, Paizo has stated this can be used with 3.5, but my DM is afraid there will be things that won’t transfer over (and again, the balance issue), so he would only want official PF materials that would agree with the rule set out of the core rule book.
I think part of it is he got burned when we switched over from 3.0 to 3.5 and WoTC claimed you can use all your 3.0 material, but really, there were more changes than my DM liked so he just said “3.5 only”. Which is why he would be doing the same thing with PF in only using official PF material. That's why I want to make sure the sourcebooks/materials are offically updated with the PFRPG ruleset. But when it says OGL, it makes me hesitant as it may be geared more towards 3.5 than PFRPG.
Edit: Oh, and I know you don’t “need” the AP’s for playing in Golarian, but it looks like Paizo put a lot of work into them and they seem pretty interesting.
One of the other great hidden benefits about running an AP is the wealth of community resources that other GM's have developed. I'm gearing up to run LoF this summer, and there are homebrew maps buildings, conversions to Pathfinder, etc, all focused on LoF.
In addition, other GMs have already discovered any troublesome elements in the AP and posted their own solutions or workarounds.
To me, the APs take care of a lot of little details and let you spend more time tinkering with whatever you enjoy crafting the most.
Creative Director
|
The OGL is the Open Game License. That's what lets us use the 3.5 d20 SRD (System Reference Document) as the backbone for all the rules in Pathfinder.
The best analogy is to think of it as a computer programing language. the SRD is, let's say, Linux; it contains all the code to runt he game. The OGL is the document that says "These rules are free for anyone to use; the are not protected intellectual property and you can do with them what you will to expand and adapt them, but only if you print this OGL in your product so that folks know where the original underlying base of the game came from."
So while Pathfinder is indeed all Paizo's, we built it using another company's "code." Just as if someone builds a game or a program using Linux... they own their program, but they didn't create the tools they used to make the program.
If this were caveman times, then Pathfinder would be roasted mammoth, the SRD would be FIRE, and the OGL would be the public permission by the smart and generous caveman who "invented" fire that let the rest of us use his invention without him coming to take the fire from us and hit us with a club.
The OGL is the Open Game License. That's what lets us use the 3.5 d20 SRD (System Reference Document) as the backbone for all the rules in Pathfinder.
The best analogy is to think of it as a computer programing language. the SRD is, let's say, Linux; it contains all the code to runt he game. The OGL is the document that says "These rules are free for anyone to use; the are not protected intellectual property and you can do with them what you will to expand and adapt them, but only if you print this OGL in your product so that folks know where the original underlying base of the game came from."
So while Pathfinder is indeed all Paizo's, we built it using another company's "code." Just as if someone builds a game or a program using Linux... they own their program, but they didn't create the tools they used to make the program.
If this were caveman times, then Pathfinder would be roasted mammoth, the SRD would be FIRE, and the OGL would be the public permission by the smart and generous caveman who "invented" fire that let the rest of us use his invention without him coming to take the fire from us and hit us with a club.
Yes, I dp understand what OGL represents (but thank you :)) and how you borrowed WoTC’s 3.5 ‘code’. But what I had thought was PFRPG was your updated ‘code’ that helps the ‘program’ run more smoothly. So, to stop using analogies, PFRPG has all the updates and more balanced changes you felt was needed to become a better 3.5 (or, what is known as 3.75).
So I figured anything from your core rulebook and on, would be PFRPG. As that was technically the start of your Pathfinder RPG. But I guess I am just confused that I am seeing newer books come out that have the OGL label still, as I figured you aren’t really developing for 3.5 anymore, but now for PFRPG.
I just want to make sure when I am buying a Pathfinder book, that the rules are more attuned with PFRPG ruleset than with the 3.5 rules.
|
Creative Director
|
Yes, I dp understand what OGL represents (but thank you :)) and how you borrowed WoTC’s 3.5 ‘code’. But what I had thought was PFRPG was your updated ‘code’ that helps the ‘program’ run more smoothly. So, to stop using analogies, PFRPG has all the updates and more balanced changes you felt was needed to become a better 3.5 (or, what is known as 3.75).
So I figured anything from your core rulebook and on, would be PFRPG. As that was technically the start of your Pathfinder RPG. But I guess I am just confused that I am seeing newer books come out that have the OGL label still, as I figured you aren’t really developing for 3.5 anymore, but now for PFRPG.
I just want to make sure when I am buying a Pathfinder book, that the rules are more attuned with PFRPG ruleset than with the 3.5 rules.
Until we abandon the core mechanic and (more importantly) abandon concepts like kung-fu monks, ankhegs, helms of brilliance, power attacks, and black tentalces (AKA: all of the flavor elements of the rules), the fundamental underlying mechanics of the game are still the same as 3rd edition D&D, which is owned by Wizards of the Coast. So as long as we're still riding on WotC's coattails, however far back we might be riding, we still need to give them proper credit with the OGL.
If we do a 2nd edition of Pathifnder (which I hope is MANY years away), we could, in theory, completely rebuild everything and abandon all of the non-public domain or non-mythological flavor elements of the game and come up with our own rules and flavor, then we could stop using the OGL. But since doing so would fundamentally alter a LOT of the core assumptions of our campaign setting and would destroy compatibility with our enormous (and huge) back stock of products, that's kind of a poor business choice....
|
Yes, I dp understand what OGL represents (but thank you :)) and how you borrowed WoTC’s 3.5 ‘code’. But what I had thought was PFRPG was your updated ‘code’ that helps the ‘program’ run more smoothly. So, to stop using analogies, PFRPG has all the updates and more balanced changes you felt was needed to become a better 3.5 (or, what is known as 3.75).So I figured anything from your core rulebook and on, would be PFRPG. As that was technically the start of your Pathfinder RPG. But I guess I am just confused that I am seeing newer books come out that have the OGL label still, as I figured you aren’t really developing for 3.5 anymore, but now for PFRPG.
I just want to make sure when I am buying a Pathfinder book, that the rules are more attuned with PFRPG ruleset than with the 3.5 rules.
Think of it as a branching tree. OGL is the trunk and Pathfinder is one branch. Anyone who wants to create games products for Pathfinder must adhere to the PF core rules and get the PF compatible logo. However not everyone using OGL uses Pathfinder, and these people might create a new branch based on their own rules emendations. When they do that then they may launch their own product such as JohnDoeFantasyGames. They make a product and will diverge from OGL, just like Paizo has with PathFinder. Now when you buy a product OGL/Pathfinder you know that product is specifically designed for use with the PF game system and OGL/JohnDoeFantasyGames products are compatible with their version.
So were you to use non-Pathfinder stuff then you'll have to convert it for use with PF. But if it's Pathfinder compatible then you know you're OK.
|
|
Until we abandon the core mechanic and (more importantly) abandon concepts like kung-fu monks, ankhegs, helms of brilliance, power attacks, and black tentalces (AKA: all of the flavor elements of the rules), the fundamental underlying mechanics of the game are still the same as 3rd edition D&D, which is owned by Wizards of the Coast. So as long as we're still riding on WotC's coattails, however far back we might be riding, we still need to give them proper credit with the OGL.
I guess the concept is easier to understand if you come from a software development background ;)
If we do a 2nd edition of Pathifnder (which I hope is MANY years away), we could, in theory, completely rebuild everything and abandon all of the non-public domain or non-mythological flavor elements of the game and come up with our own rules and flavor, then we could stop using the OGL. But since doing so would fundamentally alter a LOT of the core assumptions of our campaign setting and would destroy compatibility with our enormous (and huge) back stock of products, that's kind of a poor business choice....
Especially as it would irritate the underlying fan base that purchase the products. I'm a great believer in evolving and refining a product rather than scrapping it and starting from scratch. Besides all those years of development and playtesting down the drain. Please I beg you, don't do it... ;) (I'm jesting here BTW) ;0
And I'm sure that "we're sticking to 3.5" folks are a certain part of Paizo customer base
You better believe it. :)
Think of it as a branching tree. OGL is the trunk and Pathfinder is one branch. Anyone who wants to create games products for Pathfinder must adhere to the PF core rules and get the PF compatible logo. However not everyone using OGL uses Pathfinder, and these people might create a new branch based on their own rules emendations. When they do that then they may launch their own product such as JohnDoeFantasyGames. They make a product and will diverge from OGL, just like Paizo has with PathFinder. Now when you buy a product OGL/Pathfinder you know that product is specifically designed for use with the PF game system and OGL/JohnDoeFantasyGames products are compatible with their version.So were you to use non-Pathfinder stuff then you'll have to convert it for use with PF. But if it's Pathfinder compatible then you know you're OK.
And what I bolded is what I really wanted to hear. From what I have seen of the additions, tweaks and updates Paizo has done with the 3.5 rules for Pathfinder, I like it. And I want future products to build off of those changes, not try to work with both 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Because even though they are similar, there are still enough differences (and the differences I feel overall are for the better) where I want to make sure the material I am purchasing is geared more towards PF than D&D 3.5.
And I mean differences like, changing how some of the feats work, changes in the actual base classes for their abilities, how ability points are purchased when generating a character, gaining feats more often or the addition of new mechanics like CMB and CMD and changes with the skills. And nevermind the changes that might be done with the spells (haven't looked at that yet).
Some of those changes can be viewed as minor, but they are changes nonetheless and I just want to make sure future Pathfinder products build off of what Paizo has tweaked to 3.75 and not try to come out with product that tries to work with both 3.5 and 3.75, I wanted it focused for 3.75. If what I am saying is making sense.
And James, I understand you want to give credit where credit is due in who actually created 3rd edition/3.5, and I am also appreciative to WoTC for starting it for us, but I really like what you have done with Pathfinder and I want to make sure the new material flows evenly with the new ruleset you have established in PFRPG, that's all.
In my case, it wasn't so much sticking to a version compatible with 3.5; It was sticking to the game we have been playing our whole lives. I always felt that I was playing basically the same game from AD&D, 2nd Edition, and 3.5. Pathfinder is the latest version of that game, but it is still the same feeling of play that has been there since the beginning.
"If this were caveman times, then Pathfinder would be roasted mammoth, the SRD would be FIRE, and the OGL would be the public permission by the smart and generous caveman who "invented" fire that let the rest of us use his invention without him coming to take the fire from us and hit us with a club."
~"Now, I'm just an unfrozen caveman Creative Director, and I may be afraid of your zooming metal boxes, and strange lights, but..."~
|
|
And James, I understand you want to give credit where credit is due in who actually created 3rd edition/3.5, and I am also appreciative to WoTC for starting it for us, but I really like what you have done with Pathfinder and I want to make sure the new material flows evenly with the new ruleset you have established in PFRPG, that's all.
I think that James has no choice in this. Paizo has to give credit to OGL and WOTC, because its a condition on using the license. At least that is how I understood it.
I think that James has no choice in this. Paizo has to give credit to OGL and WOTC, because its a condition on using the license. At least that is how I understood it.
You understand correctly - all OGL or OGL-based products pretty much have to include the license.
|
Creative Director
|
And James, I understand you want to give credit where credit is due in who actually created 3rd edition/3.5, and I am also appreciative to WoTC for starting it for us, but I really like what you have done with Pathfinder and I want to make sure the new material flows evenly with the new ruleset you have established in PFRPG, that's all.
Ah... yeah. ALL of the books we're creating from now on use the Pathfinder RPG as its native rules set. We are no longer producing content for 3.5.
It's just that we still need to include the OGL in the books even then.
And James, I understand you want to give credit where credit is due in who actually created 3rd edition/3.5, and I am also appreciative to WoTC for starting it for us, but I really like what you have done with Pathfinder and I want to make sure the new material flows evenly with the new ruleset you have established in PFRPG, that's all.Ah... yeah. ALL of the books we're creating from now on use the Pathfinder RPG as its native rules set. We are no longer producing content for 3.5.
It's just that we still need to include the OGL in the books even then.
That is a mammoth understatement.
~grin~
And James, I understand you want to give credit where credit is due in who actually created 3rd edition/3.5, and I am also appreciative to WoTC for starting it for us, but I really like what you have done with Pathfinder and I want to make sure the new material flows evenly with the new ruleset you have established in PFRPG, that's all.Ah... yeah. ALL of the books we're creating from now on use the Pathfinder RPG as its native rules set. We are no longer producing content for 3.5.
It's just that we still need to include the OGL in the books even then.
Ok, I understand that. Question though, and not trying to make an issue of it, just trying to understand it completely, but why do some books have (OGL) in the title, where some say (PFRPG)? Shouldn't all say (OGL) then, if it is required?
|
Creative Director
|
Ok, I understand that. Question though, and not trying to make an issue of it, just trying to understand it completely, but why do some books have (OGL) in the title, where some say (PFRPG)? Shouldn't all say (OGL) then, if it is required?
Not sure where you're looking. All of our books say OGL and PFRPG on the back covers. All of our books contain the OGL in the back.
If you're talking about the blurbs on the website, that's because we separate out which books are Pathfinder RPG and which ones are 3.5 SRD. In that case, that's nothing to do with legal issues; that's just to let customers know which ruleset the books utilize. For the ones that say 3.5 SRD, that just means we published the book before last August, when the PF RPG wasn't yet out.
Ok, I understand that. Question though, and not trying to make an issue of it, just trying to understand it completely, but why do some books have (OGL) in the title, where some say (PFRPG)? Shouldn't all say (OGL) then, if it is required?Not sure where you're looking. All of our books say OGL and PFRPG on the back covers. All of our books contain the OGL in the back.
If you're talking about the blurbs on the website, that's because we separate out which books are Pathfinder RPG and which ones are 3.5 SRD. In that case, that's nothing to do with legal issues; that's just to let customers know which ruleset the books utilize. For the ones that say 3.5 SRD, that just means we published the book before last August, when the PF RPG wasn't yet out.
Yes, that's exactly what I am looking at, the (OGL) or (PFRPG) next to the book names on the website.
The thing is, The core rulebook has (OGL) at the end of it, wouldn't that be (PFRPG) as it was the first book to use Pathfinder RPG ruleset? And same with the upcoming Game Mastery and Advanced Players Guide, wouldn't they be (PFRPG) as well?
When people have trouble using an AP in a homebrew campaign I wonder. It's mostly just fill in the blanks for your world.
There's troublie in Sandpoint... becomes there's trouble in Mortutania
The temple to Desna is now the Temple to Ickywoods. etc...
Mostly I've seen the people who can't convert do not really have a firm grasp on their world as a whole. They don't know that these plains are filled with this indigenous creature/primitive culture/etc
My first advice to people who want to use an AP in a homebrew setting is to have your world firmly defined so you can tranistion the people, places, things easier.
OK, I want some info on this Ickywoods Diety...
Domains? Sphere of influence? I assume she is CG....
When people have trouble using an AP in a homebrew campaign I wonder. It's mostly just fill in the blanks for your world.
There's troublie in Sandpoint... becomes there's trouble in Mortutania
The temple to Desna is now the Temple to Ickywoods. etc...
Mostly I've seen the people who can't convert do not really have a firm grasp on their world as a whole. They don't know that these plains are filled with this indigenous creature/primitive culture/etc
My first advice to people who want to use an AP in a homebrew setting is to have your world firmly defined so you can tranistion the people, places, things easier.
I think a part of it is a world that just has different core assumptions. For example, in my homebrew there really aren't any indigenous primitive human cultures that are the equivalent of the Shoanti in any areas that are the equivalent of Varisia in general topography/culture, so adventures dealing with both would be a hard fit. Likewise, I would like to use the Kingmaker AP in my world, but large swaths of land with swamps, forests, and rivers, as well as the sort of denizens and unclaimed setting don't really work. The best fit would probably be to rewind the clock on the setting and do it as a "prequel" campaign, set before the modern era when the nations were less established. But it's not just as simple as swapping place names, in my experience. Golarion is a cool world setting, but its not necessarily laid out in the same way as some other worlds. But I like to think that my world is rather unique, so my problem may be a unique one, too.
If you're talking about the blurbs on the website, that's because we separate out which books are Pathfinder RPG and which ones are 3.5 SRD.I think the OP's confusion stems from the fact that all books in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game product line are listed in the Store as being "(OGL)" instead of "(PFRPG)."
From what I gather, that's because the "(PFRPG)" designation would be redundant. Every Pathfinder Roleplaying Game product (the Core Rules, the Bestiary, etc.) includes "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" in its title, and "PFRPG" is just the abbreviation for "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
Well no, James had indicated that they (Paizo) put the label after the book names (on the website) with either (OGL) or (PFRPG) to distinguish if it uses the 3.5 ruleset (OGL) or the Pathfinder RPG ruleset (PFRPG). And indicated anything before August 2009 (when the core rulebook came out) would be OGL, which makes complete sense to me.
What I am asking though is why books are being released now with the (OGL) descriptor at the end of their name (on the website). Like the Advanced Players Guide, Game Mastery Guide, etc. Going by James’ reasoning, I figured they would always be PFRPG now.