Which option is more attractive to you as a PATHFINDER player/GM: Adventures which can be dropped into any existing campaign (plug-and-play), or one that is presented as part of a new campaign setting?
FULL DISCLOSURE: Adamant has some freelancers pitching PATHFINDER projects. Adventures, primarily -- and we're wondering which option would be more in demand.
Which option is more attractive to you as a PATHFINDER player/GM: Adventures which can be dropped into any existing campaign (plug-and-play), or one that is presented as part of a new campaign setting?
FULL DISCLOSURE: Adamant has some freelancers pitching PATHFINDER projects. Adventures, primarily -- and we're wondering which option would be more in demand.
plug-and-play for me.
|
I prefer plug-and-play.
What often bugs me is that even in plug and play writers feel obliged to invent new gods.
Why not just use: "Character X is a devotee of St. Horrible (St. Horrible can be a saint of any evil god dedicated to cruelty and corruption) , St. Horrible grants these two domains...."
I prefer plug-and-play.
What often bugs me is that even in plug and play writers feel obliged to invent new gods.
Why not just use: "Character X is a devotee of St. Horrible (St. Horrible can be a saint of any evil god dedicated to cruelty and corruption) , St. Horrible grants these two domains...."
Or better yet, they could default to PRPG gods if it is PRPG compatible.
I would definately prefer plug and play. There are lots of settings all over the place, that info doesnt need to be shoehorned into the adventure. I'd rather more adventure, and let me choose or write my own setting material.
Or better yet, they could default to PRPG gods if it is PRPG compatible.
The majority of Paizo's gods (and I believe all of the major deities) are not OGL. The only ones I know for sure that are OGL are Orcus, Pazuzu, and a few others.
Or better yet, they could default to PRPG gods if it is PRPG compatible.The majority of Paizo's gods (and I believe all of the major deities) are not OGL. The only ones I know for sure that are OGL are Orcus, Pazuzu, and a few others.
I was going to post something to this effect...none of the gods listed in the Core Rulebook are open game content and thus can't be used by third parties, which can make for some interesting adventure writing.
I was going to post something to this effect...none of the gods listed in the Core Rulebook are open game content and thus can't be used by third parties, which can make for some interesting adventure writing.Or better yet, they could default to PRPG gods if it is PRPG compatible.The majority of Paizo's gods (and I believe all of the major deities) are not OGL. The only ones I know for sure that are OGL are Orcus, Pazuzu, and a few others.
And while the gods in our Book of Divine Magic are also not open content, 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming would be more than happy to work out an easy arrangement if others wanted to use them in their adventures.
Robert
4WFG
|
First let me say i totally get why gods are not open content. Now with that said though. That is a big reason a lot of divine 3pp books are of limited use to me. They are good for mining idea's but I can't use them as is. unless I plan to use those gods as is. If I do that then any other divine book is of limited use. I think thats part of why divine books are always way down on my list of things to buy. Not because they are not good, only cause i know ahead of time it will take more work on my part to use the books, than other books I can buy.
Though I do wish there was a way that paizo could keep their IP of their gods protected yet allow 3pp to at least use the names of the gods and make references to them in products. It would for me at least increase the value of them.
Just curious to publishers do divine books tend to sell worse than others? If so maybe thats why.
First let me say i totally get why gods are not open content. Now with that said though. That is a big reason a lot of divine 3pp books are of limited use to me. They are good for mining idea's but I can't use them as is. unless I plan to use those gods as is. If I do that then any other divine book is of limited use. I think thats part of why divine books are always way down on my list of things to buy. Not because they are not good, only cause i know ahead of time it will take more work on my part to use the books, than other books I can buy.
Though I do wish there was a way that paizo could keep their IP of their gods protected yet allow 3pp to at least use the names of the gods and make references to them in products. It would for me at least increase the value of them.
Just curious to publishers do divine books tend to sell worse than others? If so maybe thats why.
Out of curiosity, do you just not want to incorporate 3PP deities into your game at all, or because there is no further support for them and other 3PP can't use them?
I guess I can understand that, but in my personal games (not material we publish, just the games at the table), I use deities from us, Paizo, WotC (FR, Greyhawk, and others), and many other sources.
As far as divine book sales, Book of Divine Magic ranks at #3 on our sales charts, behind Book of Arcane Magic and Gear & Treasure, but ahead of Paths of Power and Strategists & Tacticians.
|
|
No I use some 3pp ones. But they need to stand out and be very different from any existing gods. Since everyone always needs to cover the basics. God of war for example well you really only need one. Plus eventually you need to cap the gods. You don't want 200 plus gods running around, or at least I don't. :)
But I was more talking about as a example. Say a company comes out with a divine rituals books. Rituals clerics can do in their faith. It is a new mechanic that adds a new level to clerics. Well if the rituals are only done for their gods, the product is of less use to me. Since I know it would take me work to either adapt said rituals or make new ones for existing gods.
Honestly a little surprised Book of Divine Magic is outselling Strategist & Tacticians.
You don't want 200 plus gods running around, or at least I don't. :)
I'm the exact opposite. :D The real world had hundreds of pantheons, many of them in existence at the same time, so for me having a huge list of deities that crosses racial and cultural boundaries makes it more realistic.
Honestly a little surprised Book of Divine Magic is outselling Strategist & Tacticians.
Remember, BoDM has been out for several months longer than S&T.
I'd be curious to know what some of the pitches are and if they appeal to me as a purchaser. I'm already interested in the post-apoc setting that Walt is working on.
|
Though I do wish there was a way that paizo could keep their IP of their gods protected yet allow 3pp to at least use the names of the gods and make references to them in products. It would for me at least increase the value of them.
I wonder, almost, if a publisher could get more third parties to refer to their work by declaring only the names of deities as OGC.
I wonder, almost, if a publisher could get more third parties to refer to their work by declaring only the names of deities as OGC.
For us, that's what it is. We don't actually place the deities as closed content, but rather state that all proper names are not open content. Thus, the descriptions of the deities and the religion, along with their domains, are open content. Even the new domains we introduced in Book of Divine Magic are Open Content.
Robert
4WFG
Adventures, Modules, & Core book = Plug and Play. Plug them into my world and play them with ease.
That being said =
I do love Hardback World books, with a new mechanical feel or magic feel.
I love novels and stories to supplement that world, like Dark Sun.
If you are going to change your whole game mechanic, like D&D 4th ed did, then leave the bloody old campaigns worlds alone (like Forgotten Realms), and start a new world campaign from scratch.
|
|
plug-and-play for me.Which option is more attractive to you as a PATHFINDER player/GM: Adventures which can be dropped into any existing campaign (plug-and-play), or one that is presented as part of a new campaign setting?
FULL DISCLOSURE: Adamant has some freelancers pitching PATHFINDER projects. Adventures, primarily -- and we're wondering which option would be more in demand.
Same.
Ahh, I did not know that, though now that I think about it, I should have known. Thanks for the info, DM and L.
I wonder, almost, if a publisher could get more third parties to refer to their work by declaring only the names of deities as OGC.
For us, that's what it is. We don't actually place the deities as closed content, but rather state that all proper names are not open content. Thus, the descriptions of the deities and the religion, along with their domains, are open content. Even the new domains we introduced in Book of Divine Magic are Open Content.
Robert
4WFG
If I'm reading Starglim correctly, he's asking for the opposite of what you just said. He's saying it would be great if the gods like Gorum or Torag were declared open content, but only their proper names. This way JBE could come up with an entire supplement on prayer feats for each of the deities or Super Genius could pump out weekly supplements on each deity or etc. But only the names be open. This would prevent an Erastil supplement being set in the stolen lands or Abadar supplement to be set in Korvosa.
This is problematic, however. As demonstrated by the Monsters of the River Nations, even that can be gotten around. While I don't have to set an Erastil book in the Stolen Lands itself, I could set it in the River Nations, a place that is obviously referring to the River Kingdoms. If I could have used Erastil, the book could have been alot closer to Paizo's setting. (But, personally I wouldn't do that. MotRN was as close to another's setting as I feel anyone else setting should get. Any closer and it will be crossing a line.)
My own opinion, Paizo is right to keep the names of the gods closed content. It prevents other company's products from riding way to close to their setting.
|
|
I wonder, almost, if a publisher could get more third parties to refer to their work by declaring only the names of deities as OGC.For us, that's what it is. We don't actually place the deities as closed content, but rather state that all proper names are not open content. Thus, the descriptions of the deities and the religion, along with their domains, are open content. Even the new domains we introduced in Book of Divine Magic are Open Content.
Robert
4WFGIf I'm reading Starglim correctly, he's asking for the opposite of what you just said. He's saying it would be great if the gods like Gorum or Torag were declared open content, but only their proper names. This way JBE could come up with an entire supplement on prayer feats for each of the deities or Super Genius could pump out weekly supplements on each deity or etc. But only the names be open. This would prevent an Erastil supplement being set in the stolen lands or Abadar supplement to be set in Korvosa.
This is problematic, however. As demonstrated by the Monsters of the River Nations, even that can be gotten around. While I don't have to set an Erastil book in the Stolen Lands itself, I could set it in the River Nations, a place that is obviously referring to the River Kingdoms. If I could have used Erastil, the book could have been alot closer to Paizo's setting. (But, personally I wouldn't do that. MotRN was as close to another's setting as I feel anyone else setting should get. Any closer and it will be crossing a line.)
My own opinion, Paizo is right to keep the names of the gods closed content. It prevents other company's products from riding way to close to their setting.
Yep thats what I would love to see. I understand why it is not that way, but as a fan it is something I would love to see.
|
|
Yep thats what I would love to see. I understand why it is not that way, but as a fan it is something I would love to see.I wonder, almost, if a publisher could get more third parties to refer to their work by declaring only the names of deities as OGC.For us, that's what it is. We don't actually place the deities as closed content, but rather state that all proper names are not open content. Thus, the descriptions of the deities and the religion, along with their domains, are open content. Even the new domains we introduced in Book of Divine Magic are Open Content.
Robert
4WFGIf I'm reading Starglim correctly, he's asking for the opposite of what you just said. He's saying it would be great if the gods like Gorum or Torag were declared open content, but only their proper names. This way JBE could come up with an entire supplement on prayer feats for each of the deities or Super Genius could pump out weekly supplements on each deity or etc. But only the names be open. This would prevent an Erastil supplement being set in the stolen lands or Abadar supplement to be set in Korvosa.
This is problematic, however. As demonstrated by the Monsters of the River Nations, even that can be gotten around. While I don't have to set an Erastil book in the Stolen Lands itself, I could set it in the River Nations, a place that is obviously referring to the River Kingdoms. If I could have used Erastil, the book could have been alot closer to Paizo's setting. (But, personally I wouldn't do that. MotRN was as close to another's setting as I feel anyone else setting should get. Any closer and it will be crossing a line.)
My own opinion, Paizo is right to keep the names of the gods closed content. It prevents other company's products from riding way to close to their setting.
And my compromise solution is: "Character X is a devotee of St. Horrible (St. Horrible can be a saint of any evil god dedicated to cruelty and corruption) , St. Horrible grants these two domains...."
Okay, here's a setting I want:
Essentially, it's Dark Heresy, but with Pathfinder rules. It's like Hellknights in Space stamping out heresies on behalf of the Empress.