my vote is this:
use new stuff in new modules.
use a side bar to suggest the alternative.
ie there is a witch with xy and z hexes , in the side bar there is a suggestion to use a sorceror with these stats as a substitute. i think it would take up less print than printing a whole apg stat block, hexes and feats from apg, but still make it useful for players without those sources.
for monsters, ( id ont have best 2) do the same, suggest something in the side bar with similar flavor and same CR.
i cant make a comparison, because i dont have the best 2.
If someone would like to gift it to me for xmas?
re KEJ
I think you are going a bit far with your example. Anybody who plans to DM has to make an investment, though I suppose there are some who could get by on the PRD alone. if the new player was going to be a PC in someone else's campaign, then they would only need the Core rulebook.
Again, I think we all expect Paizo to use non-Core products wisely. I do not think anyone was thinking that you are going to start seeing an AP that only includes non-Core rules. We are probably talking, at most, 5% (just picking a number out of the air).
Furthermore, every DM has to prep, and each DM has their own amount of prep whether you are using Core-only or non-Core books. Printing off a couple extra sheets from the PRD should not be that big of deal. If you are the type of DM that doesn't like to do any prep, then you should just replace whatever, which is probably what you do anyway normally.
|
I think Paizo should prepare a little something for those without the books and access to the net during play time:
Have a support page for each product that has non-referenced material. Have the URL (or instructions on how to find it) in the book (in a side-bar). Maybe a section that branches off the PRD.
On that page, have two things:
Links to all relevant items (the archetypes in question, the monster, everything).
A PDF that compiles the stuff. Nothing fancy, just the text from the PRD so you can take this PDF and print it out if you don't have access to computers during the game.
I think this is an elegant solution, especially if a simple PDF compiles all the PRD rules outside of Core for the adventure.
|
Ah Bugley, but you're famous for going drama over publishers, your love/hate relationship with WotC could well do as a HBO series ;-)
I'd also like to point out that the infamous "bloat" in WotC material was mostly a player-side problem, because making your mind up with a choice between 100 base classes, 3,000 PrCs, 3,000 Feats and zillion spells was, well, kind of ugly.
Not to mention the poor DM who was supposed to be aware of all that and spot any attempts to pull a Pun Pun.
If we're talking about APs, which are DM material, bloat isn't a problem because the DM isn't facing such dramatic choices as player does (if DM uses feat X instead of feat Y, he is modifying a tiny fraction of his work, if a player does so he's making a major choice that will stay with his PC).
Again, isn't a man entitled to the sweat from his brow ? If Paizo wrote APG to have Cool New Stuff, and I bought it to have Cool New Stuff, why can't we coolnewstuff together ? (I feel a little dirty at the amount of cultural references above).
|
|
I would prefer Paizo use other sources like the GMG, Bestiary 2 and APG in their Adventure Paths and Modules.
BUT
There should be a line reading: "You can replace this monster with a [bestiary] replacement on pg. XX. Otherwise you can find the full rules for this monster on the Pathfinder PRD." for monsters.
For NPCs using non-core classes there should be a line reading: "You can also replace this NPC's [Non-Core Class/Feat/Spell] with [Pathfinder Core Class/Feat/Spell] X. Otherwise if you don't have [Book] you can find the full rules on the Pathfinder PRD."
AND
A conscious effort should be made to have no more than two non-core rules bits in any given issue. So if an issue uses a monster from the Bestiary 2, and a class from the APG, then there shouldn't be a bunch of stuff from Ultimate Magic anywhere in there. One of the biggest annoyances is a need to flip between a multitude of books to run any one particular adventure.
LASTLY
The non-core stuff should be in the minority of an adventure so anyone converting their adventure to core can do so with a minimum of work. Say no more than 1/10 or 1/8 creatures being non-core. I like the non-core stuff being a part of my game, (I already have a tendency to convert to non-core classes where appropriate). But I feel that every effort should be made to make life a little easier for those who don't want to invest in a bunch of extra books.
P.S.
I also wouldn't mind if there were short stat-blocks of NPCs based on the ones found in the GMG. If the GMG was considered core I wouldn't mind that either. 3.5 had three core rule books and Pathfinder having a great load of NPC stats handy should be utilized. It makes for a great space saver too.
I removed a couple posts. I realize this is an issue near and dear to some people's hearts, but there is no reason to attack one another.
As Rob pointed out, we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we never use content from additional books, or always reprint it in its entirety, we upset people who want to get some use out of their new books (and use up valuable space). If we use it but only give page references, we upset people who don't want to refer to too many books.
One of the ways we try to solve this dilemma is by making content available for free online with the PRD. I understand that not everyone has internet access at the gaming table, but there is nothing stopping you from printing out a few pages from the PRD and slipping them into your GM's notes for an adventure.
With all due respect Ross, that sounds like Paizo's already decided what they are going to do, which means James asking for opinions is somewhat less than useful. I know he said it was already done in the early development of Carrion Crown, but he also seemed to indicate that Paizo would be open to how this goes over.
Only on the internet would people complain about having to look up an occasional reference to information in a $40 book that the company put online for free on its own website....
Furthermore, every DM has to prep, and each DM has their own amount of prep whether you are using Core-only or non-Core books. Printing off a couple extra sheets from the PRD should not be that big of deal. If you are the type of DM that doesn't like to do any prep, then you should just replace whatever, which is probably what you do anyway normally.
I disagree that an entry level GM should be expected to know to expect he is going to have to invest a lot of money and time into the game, beyond just reading and comprehending the material. Perhaps I'm wrong, I don't know.
However, I do know I don't like to buy an adventure and have it tell me that in order to run it, I have to do more prep work over and above what I would normally do.
I personally do tons of prep work in a campaign. I do like to be prepared, have player hand outs, have information organized the way I like to organize it, and to personalize and add certain elements. But if I'm buying a prepackaged adventure to run, I want to make those decisions.
This is actually reminding me a lot of Second Darkness and the "come up with something to bridge a few levels" philosophy. If you leave me to do enough extra work in a published adventure, it doesn't take much for me to decide to just scrap using a published adventure and run my own campaign from scratch.
|
|
On on the internet would people complain about having to look up an occasional reference to information in a $40 book that the company put online for free on its own website....
Not to mention they likely shelled ten times as much for WotC splat material which never got used anywhere outside the books it was in :)
On on the internet would people complain about having to look up an occasional reference to information in a $40 book that the company put online for free on its own website....
Sean, I respect your talent and the time you spend online talking to fans, but you have either missed the point entirely, or you are intentionally trying to cast some legitimate concerns, and people just responding to James' call for opinions, as "typical" internet whiners.
I don't like to infer anyone's intentions without facts in evidence, but if its the latter, I'm really pissed and disappointed, because I kind of expected better from Paizo.
With all due respect Ross, that sounds like Paizo's already decided what they are going to do, which means James asking for opinions is somewhat less than useful. I know he said it was already done in the early development of Carrion Crown, but he also seemed to indicate that Paizo would be open to how this goes over.
That's not the impression I was trying to give at all. Nothing is set in stone (well, except things that have already gone to the printer, and they're set in paper, not stone.) We're always open to feedback from our fans and customers, and we're always trying to find the 'sweet spot' between pleasing different groups of people. All I was trying to say is we do take measures to try to make that 'sweet spot' as large as possible (and to get people to stop yelling at each other.)
That's not the impression I was trying to give at all. Nothing is set in stone (well, except things that have already gone to the printer, and they're set in paper, not stone.) We're always open to feedback from our fans and customers, and we're always trying to find the 'sweet spot' between pleasing different groups of people. All I was trying to say is we do take measures to try to make that 'sweet spot' as large as possible (and to get people to stop yelling at each other.)
You have my apologies. I did not mean to misinterpret your intent. As I said, I understand from James' point that the "experiment" is already going forward, so I know its going to work this way for at least some of the future products.
Only on the internet would people complain about having to look up an occasional reference to information in a $40 book that the company put online for free on its own website....
It is cool that those things are free online But if I am buying a 20 dollar book that is supposed to work with just the 2 core books then I damn well except it to have everything outside of core included.
If not it needs clearly marked on the back over at lest that you need access to a printer and the internet or yet more costly books to use this product.
Include extra stuff, thats cool but really it needs labeled that you can not run the product without extra items if your gonna demand people have to look up non core items you decide to include.
Sean, I respect your talent and the time you spend online talking to fans, but you have either missed the point entirely, or you are intentionally trying to cast some legitimate concerns, and people just responding to James' call for opinions, as "typical" internet whiners.
I don't like to infer anyone's intentions without facts in evidence, but if its the latter, I'm really pissed and disappointed, because I kind of expected better from Paizo.
Let's take Vaults of Madness as an example.
On page 19 of Vaults of Madness there's a stat block for a deryhi (a monster from the module Crucible of Chaos) ranger. The stat block is complete. All of the deryhi's special abilities are fully described in the stat block. You don't have to refer at all to the module the monster originally appeared in.
On page 23 there's an advanced kech stat block (kech is a monster from Tome of Horrors Revised). There's nothing in the stat block that you need to look at another book for.
Ditto for the megapiranha swarms on 28. And the gray nisps on 29. And the muck shaitan on 32. And the variant vampire on 40. And the plant monster on 42. And the fungi on 43. And the vermin on 44. And so on and so on for every monster that comes from a different print sourcebook (namely, print sourcebooks you'd have a hard time finding and/or can't get for free/can't get online for free).
And then there's a monk with the hungry ghost monk archetype on page 52. It has one feat from the APG (a feat this archetype gives instead of Improved Unarmed Strike). And that feat is right here for free. And that feat is marked with an asterisk, and the stat block says "See Advanced Player's Guide."
So in the entire adventure of that AP (I haven't looked through the rest, the other articles may make references to other books), of multiple references to other books where you're supplied all the info you need right there, there is one feat that's not provided for you in the book.
To repeat: One stat block requires you to look up something elsewhere. The stat block marks exactly what you have to look up in that other book--one feat. You can look at that one feat for free on our website. And people are complaining that having to do this is too much extra work for the GM. Or that because the book doesn't include that feat and you have to look it up on a free website, the adventure is "incomplete."
Pardon me if that sounds like I'm categorizing people as "whining."
|
I'm with Seeker, KnightErrantJR and Buglyman on this one. I don't mind APG or Bestiary 2 characters being in an Ap if they are fully stated up but asking people to have to look at multiple things is a bit much. Case in point I was going to ask one of my group to run Carrion Crown and give me a break from DMing but now with this development that is probably not going to be the case (Entire reason he wants to run an Ap is because he does not have to have anything beyond three books).
Also as a possibly silly sounding side note does this mean we will be using power point Psionic rules in Pathfinder now? Since one of the main arguments was they took up to much space to explain and use with this new none core ruling that is clearly no longer the case.
|
I'm with Seeker, KnightErrantJR and Buglyman on this one. I don't mind APG or Bestiary 2 characters being in an Ap if they are fully stated up but asking people to have to look at multiple things is a bit much. Case in point I was going to ask one of my group to run Carrion Crown and give me a break from DMing but now with this development that is probably not going to be the case (Entire reason he wants to run an Ap is because he does not have to have anything beyond three books).
Also as a possibly silly sounding side note does this mean we will be using power point Psionic rules in Pathfinder now? Since one of the main arguments was they took up to much space to explain and use with this new none core ruling that is clearly no longer the case.
I disagree. The material is available for free on the internet.
Having all of the APs limited to core limits the options in the AP. The builds are always fully stated up, but if it's on the PRD, it's open license and fair game.
Bring on the Inquisitors in the next AP!
|
|
I guess that some people are used to the WotC closed content model of splatbooks and still can't wrap their heads around Paizo's open content philosophy.
That being said, I'd kinda wish for open content from B2 to appear faster than the APG content did. I know, economic and technical reasons and all, but maybe a bit faster ? Pretty please with a cherry on the top ?
|
|
I'm with Seeker, KnightErrantJR and Buglyman on this one. I don't mind APG or Bestiary 2 characters being in an Ap if they are fully stated up but asking people to have to look at multiple things is a bit much. Case in point I was going to ask one of my group to run Carrion Crown and give me a break from DMing but now with this development that is probably not going to be the case (Entire reason he wants to run an Ap is because he does not have to have anything beyond three books).
Also as a possibly silly sounding side note does this mean we will be using power point Psionic rules in Pathfinder now? Since one of the main arguments was they took up to much space to explain and use with this new none core ruling that is clearly no longer the case.
I disagree. The material is available for free on the internet.
Having all of the APs limited to core limits the options in the AP. The builds are always fully stated up, but if it's on the PRD, it's open license and fair game.
Bring on the Inquisitors in the next AP!
Actually my friend does not have internet access which means I will have to print the items off for him which will kind of give the game away when he asks me for x, y and z from whatever book. To clarify if you want to put in fully stated characters and/or monsters from the Apg or Bestiary 2 in an AP then no problem It's when you simply put in the creatures name and say refer to bestiary 2 pg xxx with no stat block that I disagree with.
|
|
Actually my friend does not have internet access which means I will have to print the items off for him which will kind of give the game away when he asks me for x, y and z from whatever book. To clarify if you want to put in fully stated characters and/or monsters from the Apg or Bestiary 2 in an AP then no problem It's when you simply put in the creatures name and say refer to bestiary 2 pg xxx with no stat block that I disagree with.I'm with Seeker, KnightErrantJR and Buglyman on this one. I don't mind APG or Bestiary 2 characters being in an Ap if they are fully stated up but asking people to have to look at multiple things is a bit much. Case in point I was going to ask one of my group to run Carrion Crown and give me a break from DMing but now with this development that is probably not going to be the case (Entire reason he wants to run an Ap is because he does not have to have anything beyond three books).
Also as a possibly silly sounding side note does this mean we will be using power point Psionic rules in Pathfinder now? Since one of the main arguments was they took up to much space to explain and use with this new none core ruling that is clearly no longer the case.
I disagree. The material is available for free on the internet.
Having all of the APs limited to core limits the options in the AP. The builds are always fully stated up, but if it's on the PRD, it's open license and fair game.
Bring on the Inquisitors in the next AP!
I don't think we should limit what can be used in Adventure paths because your friend can't afford a net book.
|
|
Download the PRD website, slap on a netbook/notebook/ipad/smarthpone, voila (hey Paizo, any chance for a downloadable zip of the website html files ?).
It's 2010 and we're not living in, say, Poland like I do (and even still, despite living in Europe's backyard, I'm yet to hear a "I don't have Internet access, please print it for me" argument here).
|
|
I would definitely like to see options from the APG and other rulebooks included in the APs. Classes, archetypes, spells, feats, magic items, traits, you name it...
However, I do think it would be good to list vanilla options to substitute for people who don't have those books, where possible, and it would be great (if the work involved weren't too prohibitive) to have some kind of web enhancement that includes all of the extra material that was left out for space reasons in one place, accessible by a single hyperlink.
Also, if each chapter of an AP included a holographic projection of James Jacobs that would answer all of my questions (and fetch beer), that would be great, too.
|
|
Sean, I respect your talent and the time you spend online talking to fans, but you have either missed the point entirely, or you are intentionally trying to cast some legitimate concerns, and people just responding to James' call for opinions, as "typical" internet whiners.
I don't like to infer anyone's intentions without facts in evidence, but if its the latter, I'm really pissed and disappointed, because I kind of expected better from Paizo.Let's take Vaults of Madness as an example.
** spoiler omitted **...
I like using the APG in my aps. I have even modified Npcs to add stuff from the APG. I say bring it and the bestie 2.
Sean, thank you for bringing perspective to the hysteronics. The sky is not falling. Sorry, you had to do a little, more prep. Enjoy your time here on the Paizo forums. The PRD is to the right. The PDF is only $9.99.
Enjoy your time here on the Paizo forums. The PRD is to the right.
My right, or your right?
All I am saying that if you can not use the AP's with only the two core books they need clearly marked on the cover what all you need to play.
It seems you simply can not run CC like you could every other AP. Try to make it sound like nothing all you want but it simply is not a non issue.
You can not run the AP from just the 2 core books and the AP books. I will not be buying a product I must print off online items to use when I already paid 20 bucks for the book. They need marked as they are not ready to run products like the other AP's.
All I am saying that if you can not use the AP's with only the two core books they need clearly marked on the cover what all you need to play.
It seems you simply can not run CC like you could every other AP. Try to make it sound like nothing all you want but it simply is not a non issue.
You can not run the AP from just the 2 core books and the AP books. I will not be buying a product I must print off online items to use when I already paid 20 bucks for the book. They need marked as they are not ready to run products like the other AP's.
Okay, so your point is that these APs aren't listing on the cover what books they expect you to have.
Seeker, you do realize that even before the APG and Bestiary 2, the APs didn't have anything on the cover stating what books you needed? They just have the PFRPG logo (and before that, the 3.5 compatibility logo). And the logo doesn't say "requires the PFRPGCR and Bestiary." Nowhere is that idea defined.
Let me repeat: The APs have not explicitly stated on the cover what core books you need. Ever.
We didn't start saying until PF#38. This info is on the Credits page. And as of #39 we also included the GMG and APG in that notice. So we have taken steps to inform the readers exactly what books we expect them to have access to in order to make best use of the AP (and all of those Paizo books are available for free on the website). This information is just not on the cover, where you'd like it to be, but has never been before.
You're upset that we didn't announce on the cover what books we expect you to have, but we've never done that with the APs, even for the books that you agree are core to playing the game (Core Rulebook and Bestiary[/i]).
It is a valid point to say, "I would like the list of required books to appear on the cover."
It is not a valid point to say, "These books are not clearly marked" because your definition of "clearly marked" is a brand-new definition made by you, i.e. "listed on the cover."
So... I accept that you would like to see the list of "makes use of" products on the cover of the book, and I'm sure James and Wes will take that into consideration. That said, I think you need to accept that you're asking us to do something we've never done before, and shouldn't act as if we're trying to trick people or have been trying to hide something by not having this info on the cover (because we've never done that).
Up til now You have never needed any other books. Back cover or something would work fine, but up til now each AP had everything needed in the book or the core book.
One reason this kinda bugs me is I had recommended the AP's to new gamers based off that you had everything you needed to run them in the AP's or the core books. That is no longer the case,Now it seems you guys are moving away from a self contained product. I simply do not think it is to much to ask that somewhere it is marked that you need to download the rest of the content or buy books with the rest of the content in them.
|
|
Also, some of the GMG stuff (city statblocks ?) have been in the APs for quite a while, and I'm yet to see anybody rise hellfire and brimstone over Paizo shoving non-core content down his throat.
APG and GMG crunch is available, for free, online. Nobody is forcing anybody to spend any money on them.
|
You still don't 'need' the other books. The few things you may not have access of information on are easily substituted with things out of the books you do have. Honestly, I don't know of any GM who runs things exactly as written anyway. Even new inexperienced GMs are pretty quick to start thinking, 'this would be cooler/more challenging if it happened like this'. You've been around long enough that I assume you are an experienced GM, so I really don't understand your 'My way or I'll take my ball and leave' stance.
Paizo has been using stuff from other sources for a long time. How many monsters from Tome of Horrors have shown up in APs? They have always been playable even if you don't have the original source. Paizo's been doing APs for a while now, I think they have the hang of it.
I would rather give them the freedom to use whichever creatures and npcs fit the story best. I'm sure they will do their best to minimize the need to print additional material from the PRD out. This seems like nothing to get worked up about.
Guys it is not using no core content. It is using it, but providing no stats in the book, but a page number and a check the PRD for details.
Up til now all non core content had been repeated in the AP. Not so with CC it seems.
I disagee, but they will do what they want. All I can do is say I do not agree and stop buying products made that way as I do not feel they are complete products.
|
I disagee, but they will do what they want. All I can do is say I do not agree and stop buying products made that way as I do not feel they are complete products.
No problem, i´ll buy extra books to cover for your desistance. What i think that isn´t a complete product is a product limited by mediocrity.
I just wanted to clarify, that, except for one person's responses directly to me, I'm not really upset with Paizo for asking this, or even giving this a try. As a business, you try out new business practices to see if they work, and if you are good, you listen to your consumers.
I also don't expect my opinion to carry any more weight than anyone else's opinions.
The fact that they are trying this does not offend or upset me in the least. The main thing that has upset me in this entire thread has been that people feel the need to label and nullify opinions instead of just stating their own.
|
|
You still don't 'need' the other books. The few things you may not have access of information on are easily substituted with things out of the books you do have. Honestly, I don't know of any GM who runs things exactly as written anyway. Even new inexperienced GMs are pretty quick to start thinking, 'this would be cooler/more challenging if it happened like this'. You've been around long enough that I assume you are an experienced GM, so I really don't understand your 'My way or I'll take my ball and leave' stance.
I agree. Some people do like to just argue. Some like to be in the 'absolute' right. I trust the Paizo staff, and will keep buying their products to they stop making them or I go broke.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
First off, the use of web-only material isn't new. That ship sailed when the Legacy of Fire Players' Guides were available as free downloads.
What i think that isn´t a complete product is a product limited by mediocrity.
I would not have characterized the Kingmaker and Serpent's Skull APs as "mediocre", DB, as they do exactly what seeker and knight are asking Paizo to do in future APs, exactly what you claim would make them mediocre.
My recommendation -- if the developers of an adventure product (module or AP) want to use material from a non-core sourcebook, embrace that choice, feel free to use a metric buttload of it in the product, but label the product -- somewhere, probably on the back, but I don't care where -- as requiring that non-core material.
So, if an AP takes us to other planets in the star system, and there's a non-core book about all those planets, then explain that the module requires that sourcebook, and we're golden.
Requiring GMs to consult a website during a gaming session, free or not, is just asking for trouble.
|
|
So, if an AP takes us to other planets in the star system, and there's a non-core book about all those planets, then explain that the module requires that sourcebook, and we're golden.
Requiring GMs to consult a website during a gaming session, free or not, is just asking for trouble.
Huh ... they can copy-paste the relevant information, print it out, keep it on their telephone ... unless we're talking about DMs who don't read the material ahead and just run it on the move, which is anyway a recipe for disaster as far as DMing goes.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Guys it is not using no core content. It is using it, but providing no stats in the book, but a page number and a check the PRD for details.
Up til now all non core content had been repeated in the AP. Not so with CC it seems.
This.
To use Vault of Madness as an example, it lists creatures in the bestiary as (critter bestiary page) but things like mud elementals are statted in full.
Yes, you can change it to (Mud elemental 152 HP bestiary 2 pg 120) and save space. But... the book becomes less useful for someone without the time and resources to find it on the net and print it/have a laptop. Also, the full stats in the book lend themselves to cross pollination. If a GM reads VoM, and finds the Mud Elemental cool, he may be more inclined to buy Bestiary II
We've seen anecdotal reports of the issues here. In my old gaming group, I'm the only one with (reliable) net access. Now for us it's not an issue, since I can let the DM borrow my Bestiary II, APG, whatever because of my subscriber status. We are likely an unusual group. Also, I hope to corrupt my godkids with PF basic when it comes out. 12-16 year olds don't have Bestiary income. So what if my limited resources are divided between letting my goddaughter borrow the Bestiary, and my friend who wants to run lightning elementals and not tell me?
If Paizo is committed to this plan, I'd hope to have it start in PFS. Since those scenarios are PDF only, it's safe to assume the DM *does* have the internet access and tools to use the PRD.
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.
However, as with the removal of the pregenerated iconics the AP now has two more pages, maybe these two pages can be used to collect the necessary rules in the back of the book, maybe even using a slightly smaller font to fit them on these two pages.
Another point: the APs designed for the Pathfinder RPG have "needed" the respective Player's Guide from the start, which - gasp! - is only available on the Internet. So this argument simply falls flat.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Huh ... they can copy-paste the relevant information, print it out, keep it on their telephone ... unless we're talking about DMs who don't read the material ahead and just run it on the move, which is anyway a recipe for disaster as far as DMing goes.
With respect, Gorbacz, about half the GMs I know, of any system, prep their game in the hours directly before the game, often reading through it and making notes at places like restaurants.
Now, you're right; those people will be taught soon enough that they'll need access to their computers when they prep for their sessions. I'm not saying that the new policy puts up an impenetrable barrier to GM's. I'm saying it makes things harder in non-trivial ways. Whether they have to pay money for it isn't the issue; the issue is accessibility.
Pathfinder Society policy is that players who want to use non-core material to the table need to bring an authorized copy to the table, for the GM to consult if she has questions during the game. To my opinion, asking the PFS GM to digest all the rules to, say, the Summoner and his Eidolon, right before the session is a burden. The new policy places even more burden on the GM.
And again, I don't think it's a mistake to use material from the APG, or Bestiary II, or any of the material in the PRD. I think it's a mistake to include it without any explanation.
Another point: the APs designed for the Pathfinder RPG have "needed" the respective Player's Guide from the start, which - gasp! - is only available on the Internet.
I've mentioned that before. In addition, there have been "web enhancements" going back to Shackled City. But the GM didn't need those enhancements to run the adventures. The material in the Player's Guide is optional. Traits themselves are optional. Knowing the mechanics behind the Witch opponent, isn't.
As Chris says, the players guide are pure options you do not need to run, My RL LoF group did not use them at all or traits.
This is totally different then say using a non core monster or magic items then not providing stats for them in the very book they are being used in.
|
|
As Chris says, the players guide are pure options you do not need to run, My RL LoF group did not use them at all or traits.
This is totally different then say using a non core monster or magic items then not providing stats for them in the very book they are being used in.
Again, getting hung up on "The Core" made sense back in the WotC days when "Core" was open and everything else was closed, but makes little sense now that every-g~!$*!n-thing* is open content.
You don't have to buy things to have the access to the rules any more. It's all out there, free like a bird.
* except Coeurl and Deep Crow, of course.