|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting this in it's own thread to keep on just one topic.
The reason you don't see those classes, or archetypes for the most part, is that they are not part of the core assumption. If we started using the, all the time, we would either have to put the rules that are unique to them in the scenario itself, or would have to add additional books to the Core Assumption. While I'm all for that, I feel adding more books GMs have to purchase is unfair.
The question is, do we want to REQUIRE GMs to purchase another hardback for $40? I'm more than interested to hear feedback but i think the answer is to keep it as little cost as possible.
Add the APG to the Core Assumptions for GMs at least. There's just too much good stuff in there not to use. I sure someone would say it's not the case, but I think most/many PFS players have a copy of the APG. And everyone has access the the PRD with all the APG's crunchy material.
What are your thoughts?
Just because it would be a Core Assumption, does it mean the GM can't use the PRD on an IPad?
Do most people have the APG as I assume?
-Swiftbook
Just My Thoughts
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to repeat my comment from the other thread:
Players and GMs: it's only $10 to buy the PDF. That's not a big deal.
Mike Brock: can the PFSRD not be used in situations like that? We, as GMs, already spent $4 buying the module PDF. Can't our $4 investment allow us the "reprieve" of getting the rules necessary to run that adventure off the PFSRD? If the site location of the rule is linked in the scenario, we'd even have it handy for reference.
|
Although I said this from the previous thread, that would be a good idea.
Most of us already have the books, so it's kinda madness that only the Core is the Assumption, and nothing else is. Now this is not to say that we still won't have restrictions, but it would be nice.
I know there is cost involved, but the PDF is only 10 bucks and in this day and age, that's a steal!
For those who want the hardback, I recommend a temporary sale for PFS members or a free shipping deal if they keep the hardcover at full price. Just to be fair.
|
I own everything in both print and digital format. I also have a notebook for reference if I need to look at the PRD. So, I have all options available to me, but not every GM does. It is already at least a $34 investment to GM and that's assuming that your organizer is giving you free copies of the scenarios to use (which I personally don't like, but understand). It could be upwards of $114+ if you buy everything in print form. Adding more to the CA is not a great idea, IMO. Anything that could be prohibitive to new GM's stepping up, should be considered extremely carefully.
I would prefer it not be added to the core, but at the same time, the options should be used. It shouldn't add THAT much work/page count to accommodate anything but the most extreme builds.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
$34 over the coarse of years of entertainment is cheap in the long run.
Granted dropping that mush cash in one go can be a tad extreme to someone but most GM's in PFS are players first then work themselves up to GM's.
This allows for expenditures over time and makes it more doable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must say I'm against the idea, as any, even minor obstacle to GM involvement is a bad thing.
I cannot think my players would react well when I asked "can you GM next week? Oh, and you have to buy this extra book as well as the scenario."
Most of them have skipped past APG straight to the Ultimates.
Besides, I'd think newer scenarios would want to show off the latest from Paizo. Therefore, we'd be more likely to see UC classes creeping into scenarios than APG ones.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another reason I want the APG added as a GM Core Assumption is then the scenario authors can use the material without it digging into their word count. If it's not a Core Assumption, and the author wants to add an Oracle, they need to include all the relevant rules in the scenario, which cuts into their word count. Basically, with the APG, we are doubling the amount of material available to scenario authors.
|
|
I must say I'm against the idea, as any, even minor obstacle to GM involvement is a bad thing.
I cannot think my players would react well when I asked "can you GM next week? Oh, and you have to buy this extra book as well as the scenario."
Most of them have skipped past APG straight to the Ultimates.
Besides, I'd think newer scenarios would want to show off the latest from Paizo. Therefore, we'd be more likely to see UC classes creeping into scenarios than APG ones.
Kelly does make a good point. Perhaps, maybe it's time for us to include them all into the Core Assumption. Of course with adjustments, but with the PRD and PDF's being 10 dollars a piece, and most of us GM's bought the whole set anyway. Perhaps it's time for a total update.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Another reason I want the APG added as a GM Core Assumption is then the scenario authors can use the material without it digging into their word count. If it's not a Core Assumption, and the author wants to add an Oracle, they need to include all the relevant rules in the scenario, which cuts into their word count. Basically, with the APG, we are doubling the amount of material available to scenario authors.
Yes this is one of the reasons I want to see it added to core. One of the largest issues I hear from players is how vanilla the human NPC's have become of late.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we've adopted the "once it's in the PRD it's core" for our printed adventures, I'm hesitant to do so in Pathfinder Society Scenarios. The main reason for this is that the more we assume people have on-hand, the more often people will fail to meet these expectations. And that sucks for the people at the table with the GM who didn't realize that the feat we used in a BBBEG's statblock but didn't explain was from a source he forgot to reference on the PRD before going to the convention where he won't have internet access. Currently, the buy-in for someone to volunteer for the campaign (or play in it) is as low as we can make it, with only two books assumed to be in everyone's possession, and only 1 additional book assumed for GMs. But once you start to assume everyone has internet access, portable PDF readers, and even the time to prepare by looking up all the non-CRB/Bestiary elements in a given adventure, there will be people who get left out of that assumption.
It's honestly not that difficult to reprint necessary rules elements from non-core assumption sources when a given NPC or monster needs them, and I usually don't consider those elements against the total wordcount of a scenario. In most cases, these elements are copied verbatim from other sources anyway. But they're only included in the first place when the alternate or expanded rules are really necessary for the story being told. For example, there's no reason for a mook expected to get killed in 1 round to have complex archetypes that need to be reprinted; I'd rather save the less standard rules for elements that really play a large role in the story.
Anyway, I'm looking at this discussion here closely, but wanted to express some of the concerns I have with expanding this or any other assumption about what will and won't be available at every Pathfinder Society table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a book's mechanical bits are on the official Paizo PRD, they should be added to core assumption.
And that sucks for the people at the table with the GM who didn't realize that the feat we used in a BBBEG's statblock but didn't explain was from a source he forgot to reference on the PRD before going to the convention where he won't have internet access.
Regardless of scenario content, it sucks for those people because they have a GM that's unprepared. Yes, there are often times GM's have to step up and run something cold, but should the system be designed around a corner case?
Additionally, how often is it that there isn't a single person on-site that doesn't have the APG, UM, or UC? Bestiary 2, 3, setting books are another story since usually only GMs have those.
|
|
Here's another thought: Even if I *do* have access to the book, if I haven't prepared to run a Magus NPC, I'm not going to be able run it well on the spot*. IMO, w/ or w/o the rules reprinted in the scenario it's not going to be a good experience for the players if the GM isn't prepared.
*unless I've built my own PC similar to the NPC.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another thought: Even if I *do* have access to the book, if I haven't prepared to run a Magus NPC, I'm not going to be able run it well on the spot*. IMO, w/ or w/o the rules reprinted in the scenario it's not going to be a good experience for the players if the GM isn't prepared.
*unless I've built my own PC similar to the NPC.
This is a very good point, and one to take heed of, Mark. If a GM doesn't want to take the time to prepare, no amount of "requirements" will make him any better at it. Allow the PRD as "core assumption" for GM's use, assuming they purchased the module the rules are used in. Those of us who are good at what we do are already doing that. Linking stuff in the PDFs of the modules merely makes that prep-work easier.
To address something else you hinted at: if I'm running a module on-the-fly (unread, cold, whatever you want to call it), owning the books doesn't make it any easier. I'm either good at it or I'm not. If I'm good at it, I likely know any of the rules you can throw at me. If I'm not good at it, I shouldn't be doing it, but that's a discussion for a different thread.
|
Tongue firmly in cheek as I type this, but since the PRD is not a valid PFS resource, all of you encouraging using it should refer back to the "Do not cheat" sticky.
Maybe the complaints about scenarios being too easy would go away if GMs followed the rules requiring non-PRD hard copies of the rules players use...
But seriously, who wants to burst THIS GUY's bubble and tell him the PRD is not a valid resource? Not it.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have an e-reader or a laptop and don't have any plans to buy one, so I don't want to see any more books added to the core assumption because I don't want to have to carry any more books with me.
I wouldn't mind at all though if some scenarios were released that required a GM to have the APG or other books that aren't in the core assumption, so long as the scenario description mentioned which books are required.
That way scenarios could include material from the APG and other books, but GMs wouldn't be required to always lug around another heavy book, or have access to an e-reader. A GM could be like the players, and opt to only print the pages they actually need from their purchased PDF.
|
|
I understand the POV Mike is going for, with not wanting to increase the financial burden of the GM by forcing them to buy another book, whether hardback or pdf, but I think Kyle makes a good point, and that has got me to the point of questioning why Paizo cares if the info needs to be printed in the scenario.
I could understand if the Scenarios had printed versions that they would have to have made to sell (which means higher page count = higher price tag), but they dont. The scenarios are ONLY pdf on the site.
So, if including a archetype and/or new feat/spell would need to incease the page count, why is that a big deal? Do you guys have to pay more for a longer pdf file or something? Just curious.
I'd kinda like it if you guys did add it to the Core Assumption, since Ive already got it, but if you dont, I wont complain. ;)
|
|
Maybe the complaints about scenarios being too easy would go away if GMs followed the rules requiring non-PRD hard copies of the rules players use...But seriously, who wants to burst THIS GUY's bubble and tell him the PRD is not a valid resource? Not it.
I also have a funny feeling that most DMs actually don't do this. I would like to point out though that there are some situations where this is impossible, such as online play, and at cons everyone complains already that the slots are too short without having to conduct mini-audits for each character.
Since I can DM and play solely online (I live in China), actually cracking down on this rule would effectively drive me and people in my situation out of organized play, which is not acceptable. I personally would only check if someone is obviously splatbook diving in some place really obscure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tongue firmly in cheek as I type this, but since the PRD is not a valid PFS resource, all of you encouraging using it should refer back to the "Do not cheat" sticky.
Maybe the complaints about scenarios being too easy would go away if GMs followed the rules requiring non-PRD hard copies of the rules players use...
But seriously, who wants to burst THIS GUY's bubble and tell him the PRD is not a valid resource? Not it.
I would also be against firm enforcement. I had a player that has been playing with us the last 5 months who did not own a single book and used just the prd. If I'd been firm on the assumption, he'd have never continued playing, and would not have last Friday spent $40 on PDF's so he could use them at a session with his laptop. He won the money walking into a casino with $10. He's normally dirt poor.
I encourage my players to purchase the books when they're financially able and the collective GMs provide their books to use during the session. Slowly but surely our bookless players are purchasing books.
|
|
While we've adopted the "once it's in the PRD it's core" for our printed adventures, I'm hesitant to do so in Pathfinder Society Scenarios. The main reason for this is that the more we assume people have on-hand, the more often people will fail to meet these expectations. And that sucks for the people at the table with the GM who didn't realize that the feat we used in a BBBEG's statblock but didn't explain was from a source he forgot to reference on the PRD before going to the convention where he won't have internet access. Currently, the buy-in for someone to volunteer for the campaign (or play in it) is as low as we can make it, with only two books assumed to be in everyone's possession, and only 1 additional book assumed for GMs. But once you start to assume everyone has internet access, portable PDF readers, and even the time to prepare by looking up all the non-CRB/Bestiary elements in a given adventure, there will be people who get left out of that assumption.
It's honestly not that difficult to reprint necessary rules elements from non-core assumption sources when a given NPC or monster needs them, and I usually don't consider those elements against the total wordcount of a scenario. In most cases, these elements are copied verbatim from other sources anyway. But they're only included in the first place when the alternate or expanded rules are really necessary for the story being told. For example, there's no reason for a mook expected to get killed in 1 round to have complex archetypes that need to be reprinted; I'd rather save the less standard rules for elements that really play a large role in the story.
Anyway, I'm looking at this discussion here closely, but wanted to express some of the concerns I have with expanding this or any other assumption about what will and won't be available at every Pathfinder Society table.
+1
I would also prefer not to see the APG added to the core assumption for PFS|
|
I would prefer not to see the core assumption broadened again. If it was, I would rather see Bestiary 2/3 added than the player option books. I can prep any BBEG in the scenario before hand, when I have access to my books, no problem, and be ready for game day. However, if the APG becomes core, then it's assumed I have a copy handy for any and all rules that may pertain to a player character that just happens to sit down. As it is now, that burden to have the rules that may come into play is on the player to provide, and I'd like to keep it that way.
Just my 2cp
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind at all though if some scenarios were released that required a GM to have the APG or other books that aren't in the core assumption, so long as the scenario description mentioned which books are required.
There are already scenarios that include classes or creatures from APG, UM, UC, Bestiary 2/3 etc.
I'd go a step further and suggest that an icon representing each referenced product should appear on the front cover of every scenario (similar to how the Ruby Phoenix icon represents the Season 3 story arc) to serve as an instant visual reminder, when I'm grabbing a scenario for an event, of which hardcover sourcebooks I need to take with me. With so many books, I try to limit how many I carry to an event. It's so easy to forget that Bestiary 2 creature until you reach it in the third encounter, and by then it's too late if you're at an event and don't have the book with you.
Now please bear with me for a moment ...
I'm a web developer. When we build a web page, we specify a list of styles including fonts for paragraphs, headings etc. However, each computer has different fonts installed, eg Windows use different fonts than Macs, Firefox use different fonts than Internet Explorer, etc. So how does your computer display text in a font it doesn't have installed? We provide a list of fonts we would like the computer to try in decending order of preference.
Eg, "verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif"
If the computer has verdana installed it will use that font first; if not it will try arial; and so forth down the line; and if it doesn't find any of the ones listed, then it chooses it's own "sans-serif" font.
What relevance does this have to Pathfinder scenarios? I think we need a similar notation for PFS scenario content. Please consider:
CR 11 - XP 12,800
Adult brine dragon (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 2 94) hp 147
[substitute Adult black dragon (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 92) hp 161]
No need to reproduce the brine dragon's statblock in the scenario, because the developer has provided reference to a substitute within the Core Assumption.
A similar notation should exist for feats, weapons, spells etc. We're looking to provide a similar experience, so while the translation may not be precise, it should attempt to provide a similar role or theme. For example in the example below, the best substitute might be preparing a lower level spell in a higher level slot.
Spells Prepared:
4th - detonate* [substitute fireball]
* See the Advanced Players Guide
Not all feats or abilities require substitutes or descriptions - some are already factored into the opponent's statblock, just run as is, you don't need to understand where every bonus is derived from.
Finally, how many times does an opponent get to use every feat or ability in a single encounter? Maybe not everything requires translation, if the opponent has enough options to keep them busy.
Male human ninja 8 (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat 13)
[substitute Male human rogue 8]
SQ ninja tricks (combat trick, shadow clone*, vanishing trick*, weapon training) *[substitute fast stealth, surprise attack]
Basically, go ahead and include non-core content, as long as the developer has given thought to how someone without that sourcebook can deliver a similar experience using only the Core Rulebook and Bestiary, and provided those references.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Tongue firmly in cheek as I type this, but since the PRD is not a valid PFS resource, all of you encouraging using it should refer back to the "Do not cheat" sticky.
I don't think anyone, so far, has said "I don't own any of the books; I just use the PRD." What is being said is, "I own the Core Book and others that are required. But, when I prepare, I print out notes and use the PRD. Why can't I just be required to reference it, when you use stuff outside the Core?"
There is a big difference between those two statements. No one is cheating.
Maybe the complaints about scenarios being too easy would go away if GMs followed the rules requiring non-PRD hard copies of the rules players use...
No, they won't. No matter how hard things are made, some people will want it harder. The reason is because characters will become more and more powerful as more and more rules are released to customize with. Just how far you can push that rule is the name of the game for some people, and they end up "unchallenged," shockingly. [yeah, that was sarcasm]. Also, some of us don't use tactics the same way. I've seen the same module run by two different GMs, using the same stat blocks and watched as one GM was rolled and the other nearly killed his entire table. Then, factor in the dice. That's how these things work.
But seriously, who wants to burst THIS GUY's bubble and tell him the PRD is not a valid resource? Not it.
I read that, and I don't see him saying, "I don't want to buy books." He is certainly saying, "I don't want to buy them all," and is also saying he will be the translator, as there is no material published in the language his players use. Why does anyone think he's trying to get away with free stuff?
[Edit] Fixed a typo...
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think that adding more books to the Core Assumption would not be a good idea. While I personally use an iPad at the table and have all the core books on PDF, that does not mean that everyone does! A lot of players still use dead-tree versions of the books, and adding additional assumed books starts to get very heavy very quickly, particularly in an environment like a convention where you have to carry everything with you.
Even if a GM does have something that can display the PRD available (say, on a laptop), they will not necessarily have Internet access. That is particularly true in an environment like a convention.
Finally, to those who say that the GM should prepare ahead of time, I would like to raise two points:
1) GMs do not always do so. Sometimes, you have to run a scenario cold, because (for example) the slot was overbooked, or another GM didn't show up. Other times, you run a scenario "lukewarm" -- maybe it's something you've run before, but weren't planning on running that particular day. In both cases, the GM won't necessarily have had time to download/print off/whatever all the stuff from the other books.
2) Even if the GM is prepared in advance, they might not realize something is needed. A monster from the Bestiary 3 is pretty easy to note and make sure to print off ahead of time. But if a character, say, has one particular feat from the APG? A GM could easily prep the slot and not notice until he was actually running the game that he didn't know what that feat does -- particularly if it's not called out in the NPC's Tactics section.
It is already possible to include content like this without broadening the Core Assumption, by reprinting the necessary rules in the scenarios themselves. I think that's a good policy.
|
|
I would also like throw my opinion out, do not expand the core assumption(unless field guide 2).
I think current procedures work well. When I GM I bring core, no UM UC APG Bestiary 2,3, too much to carry around. I have some book PDF's a tablet, laptop and a good cell phone. I still prefer print outs of the scenarios, highlight and noted. I am not personally sold on electronic aids for GM's yet, give me some more time and I may change my views.
I think page count needs reviewed. We could add a sheet at the end of a scenario drescribing or listing feats, spells tactics etc. I would like to see some of the bestiary monsters upgraded wearing armor etc.
I would echo Kyle's assement of the Magus, and urge GM's to atleast create a character with this class.
|
|
I for one would like to see the APG added to the Core Assumption. At some point, we will need to add more to what we use, or else the scenarios will become stale. The APG expands a lot of classes, and offers some very fun classes. I also liked the option of using alternate things if the additional book is not available.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
So, if including a archetype and/or new feat/spell would need to incease the page count, why is that a big deal? Do you guys have to pay more for a longer pdf file or something? Just curious.
This question comes up a lot. We should probably add the answer to the FAQ. In any case, yes, it does cost us more to make longer PDFs. Not in printing or shipping weight, but in time. Every word that goes into a product needs to go through several stages of development, layout, and editing. It takes longer to develop a longer scenario, more time needs to be spent fine-tuning the placement of images and flowing of text when there are more of either, and the editors still spend the same amount of time on each page whether that page contains all new or reprinted material. In short, while the digital medium itself allows us to make products of unlimited length, the personel resources required to maintain Paizo's standards of quality across longer products serves to restrict what we can reasonably do within the timeframe we need to.
|
|
Tongue firmly in cheek as I type this, but since the PRD is not a valid PFS resource, all of you encouraging using it should refer back to the "Do not cheat" sticky.I don't think anyone, so far, has said "I don't own any of the books; I just use the PRD." What is being said is, "I own the Core Book and others that are required. But, when I prepare, I print out notes and use the PRD. Why can't I just be required to reference it, when you use stuff outside the Core?"
There is a big difference between those two statements. No one is cheating.
First, I was mostly being facetious. But since you want to address the issue, I'll address it. Mike and Mark need to decide if it's more important to make the rules accessible, or for Paizo to make money. If it's the latter, they (through GMs) need to crack down on players and GMs who use the PRD for their primary rules reference despite it not being an approved resource. That includes the GM printing off "notes" before the scenario. There are players, and even GMs out there that don't even own the Core Assumption. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I would be sad to see this strict enforcement implemented.
If, as I would prefer, they decide the most important thing is the rules be accessible, then the PRD needs to be added to the approved resources, no ifs ands or buts. The important thing is to have access to the rule, from a reliable source, when you need it (not 5 minutes of searching through 3 books later). This would have the side benefit of allowing designers more freedom to use flavorful class variants, useful feats, etc.
Maybe the complaints about scenarios being too easy would go away if GMs followed the rules requiring non-PRD hard copies of the rules players use...No, they won't. No matter how hard things are made, some people will want it harder. The reason is because characters will become more and more powerful as more and more rules are released to customize with. Just how far you can push that rule is the name of the game for some people, and they end up "unchallenged," shockingly. [yeah, that was sarcasm]. Also, some of us don't use tactics the same way. I've seen the same module run by two different GMs, using the same stat blocks and watched as one GM was rolled and the other nearly killed his entire table. Then, factor in the dice. That's how these things work.
The part of my post you quoted has almost nothing to do with the scenario difficulty. I'm talking about players who use the PRD or HeroLab to cherry-pick the best options so they can win the arms race without 'legally' having the rules available at the table. If the players were restricted in practice to what they're restricted on paper, the "arms race" would, IMO, slow dramatically (or at least Paizo would have higher sales).
But seriously, who wants to burst THIS GUY's bubble and tell him the PRD is not a valid resource? Not it.I read that, and I don't see him saying, "I don't want to buy books." He is certainly saying, "I don't want to buy them all," and is also saying he will be the translator, as there is no material published in the language his players use. Why does anyone think he's trying to get away with free stuff?
I don't think he's trying to "get away" with anything. All I'm saying is that he is in a situation where getting hard copies (and maybe even PDFs, I don't really understand how international taxes/charges interact with electronic media) isn't feasible. Since the PRD isn't an approved resource currently, who wants to be the one to tell him that the Rules say he can't run/play in PFSOP without access to a list of certain books?
Maybe no one else sees this as a problem. I don't see it as a major one, myself, just something for everyone's consideration.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers, Mystic Lemur.
I was just wanting to point out that no one was encouraging cheating (that access to the PRD should count, somehow), that there will always be people who want things to be "more challenging" no matter how challenging things get (ever see the Jabberwocky thread?), and that the Brazilian organizer wasn't looking for permission to get stuff free (he was just trying to mitigate expenses somehow).
You and I agree on most everything; we're just using different approaches and varying our emphasis.
|
|
some very good ideas...I am 100% behind this. I hope it is something that can be considered.
Just a little more background re the "Substitution Idea" for those who might be interested. Substitution is simply applying a few principles I use every day in my day-to-day work building websites:
Accessibility
Ensuring the widest possible audience is able to access your site, whether this is people using older web browsers, people with sight impairment or other challenges.
Graceful Degradation
Building pages with all the latest features, but ensuring that older less capable browsers are still able to access the content in a presentable and understandable manner.
Progressive Enhancement
Building the baseline first to ensure that content is accessible to the widest possible audience, and then progressively adding layers of enhancements for those browsers capable of displaying those features.
From a website perspective, these features may include (just a few examples):
- Rounded corners, background gradients, drop-shadows, semi-transparent backgrounds - older versions of Internet Explorer in particular may not be able to display these features, but as long as they can still read the text content, people may not even realise they're viewing a different experience than say Firefox.
- Flash - iPhones and iPads cannot view Flash content, so alternative content should be provided for these devices.
There are legal requirements in my industry (with heavy penalties) to build websites that are accessible to people with special needs - but it also makes good business sense not to exclude even a small percentage of customers (potential sales) from your website because it can only be viewed in the latest browser, or it won't display on an iPad, or it's not accessible to those using text-to-speech software. If 5% of customers can't view your website for whatever reason, that's effectively asking a company to take a 5% cut in sales, in the current economic environment, I don't know any company that would consider that a good idea.
From previous editions of the game, I have been well aware of the effect rules expansions have on new players entering the hobby, or my own physically carrying books to events, and I have often wondered if encounters could be written with accessibility, graceful degradation or progressive enhancement principles in mind.
Eg, if I'm GMing at home, I will include the brine dragon in the example above because I own Bestiary 2 and my books are within arms-reach. But new players who don't yet have Bestiary 2, or arrive at an event and realise they left it at home, or it was just one too many books to carry in their bag, then the black dragon makes a very suitable core substitute.
Not only does it encourage more players to step up to GMing, because they can still present a good game with just the Core Rulebook and Bestiary, but it still rewards those of us who have invested in other sourcebooks, allowing us to present more variety in the encounters we run, or the opponents we face as players.
|
|
So, if including a archetype and/or new feat/spell would need to incease the page count, why is that a big deal? Do you guys have to pay more for a longer pdf file or something? Just curious.This question comes up a lot. We should probably add the answer to the FAQ. In any case, yes, it does cost us more to make longer PDFs. Not in printing or shipping weight, but in time. Every word that goes into a product needs to go through several stages of development, layout, and editing. It takes longer to develop a longer scenario, more time needs to be spent fine-tuning the placement of images and flowing of text when there are more of either, and the editors still spend the same amount of time on each page whether that page contains all new or reprinted material. In short, while the digital medium itself allows us to make products of unlimited length, the personel resources required to maintain Paizo's standards of quality across longer products serves to restrict what we can reasonably do within the timeframe we need to.
I figured it was probably something like that. Thanks for the answer, and like I said in the first post, doesnt really matter to me if it gets added or not, since I already own the thing.
From the GM perspective though, I'd really like to see it get added, since that would likely mean an increase in APG related material included in the scenarios that are printed.
|
|
Hey, I know I'm just one player/GM here, but I want to chime in. I only get to play when I am in a place where games are happening (I live in the middle of Wyoming). That amounts to about 6-8 times per year and I aim to GM at least every 4th time I play. If the APG is added to the core assumption, I will no longer be GMing and thus no longer contributing to the community that I enjoy sharing with other players. Eventually, this will push me away from the game. I know I'm not alone. Is this so important that losing gamers is worth it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First let me preface I've only been apart of PFS since January.
I don't think that APG should be a core assumption.
I coordinate PFS in a game store for which I have to travel an hour to get to. I don't drive which means that in order to run the game day I have to bring the books with me. Forcing me to carry another meaty tome would not be fun for me and would really make me reconsider promoting PFS.
Also PDF's aren't really useful to me for a few reasons. The first is that buying a PDF doesn't support the store I game at at all.
Second the store has a no lap top rule. This rule has been in force since the early days of LFR due to players using pirated material. I keep the rule in force for PFS because players have shown up with lap tops, no pdf or hard copies of books, and just using Hero Labs. I really don't want to have to check people's character on hero labs to see what material they are using and then check to see if all their pdf's are watermarked. It easier for me to ask to see if they have the hardcopy. Now the store does have a rule that a GM can be an exception to this I won't do that because it sets a bad precedent.
And third, I hate reading pdfs.
Another reason why I don't think APG should be core is because I already have a hard time finding GM's. To tell the already limited pool I have that they have to buy another book in addition to the three they already need plus the scenarios themselves would be a problem.
|
|
First let me preface I've only been apart of PFS since January.
I don't think that APG should be a core assumption.
I coordinate PFS in a game store for which I have to travel an hour to get to. I don't drive which means that in order to run the game day I have to bring the books with me. Forcing me to carry another meaty tome would not be fun for me and would really make me reconsider promoting PFS.
Also PDF's aren't really useful to me for a few reasons. The first is that buying a PDF doesn't support the store I game at at all.
Second the store has a no lap top rule. This rule has been in force since the early days of LFR due to players using pirated material. I keep the rule in force for PFS because players have shown up with lap tops, no pdf or hard copies of books, and just using Hero Labs. I really don't want to have to check people's character on hero labs to see what material they are using and then check to see if all their pdf's are watermarked. It easier for me to ask to see if they have the hardcopy. Now the store does have a rule that a GM can be an exception to this I won't do that because it sets a bad precedent.
And third, I hate reading pdfs.
Another reason why I don't think APG should be core is because I already have a hard time finding GM's. To tell the already limited pool I have that they have to buy another book in addition to the three they already need plus the scenarios themselves would be a problem.
To be honest, if I walked into your store and you told me I couldn't use my laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc., and the watermarked PDF's I've bought and were encouraged to by Paizo it would be the last time I walked into your store. That just strikes me as a close minded pre-digital era way of thinking. In fact, it's the kind of thinking that prevents progressive movements like this.
Now, that said. If I were you, understanding the issues with pirating. If you're wanting to enforce that. Just make everyone that has a device, show you the watermark on the PDF. Voila, problem solved. If you don't like herolabs, require them to have a paper sheet they can hand you. I personally hate being handed a laptop, or having to walk around to look at a sheet. Even with my devices (laptop, working on getting a tablet), I still keep a paper sheet, that is a print out from my computer.
|
|
To be honest, if I walked into your store and you told me I couldn't use my laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc., and the watermarked PDF's I've bought and were encouraged to by Paizo it would be the last time I walked into your store. That just strikes me as a close minded pre-digital era way of thinking. In fact, it's the kind of thinking that prevents progressive movements like this.Now, that said. If I were you, understanding the issues with pirating. If you're wanting to enforce that. Just make everyone that has a device, show you the...
Dan, take a step back. It's not HIS store. He's done said it's an hour trip just to get to this store, and he's just started playing 2 months ago. I highly doubt he's got ANY real say in what the store policy is. The store, it appears, had fashioned this policy based on past experience of the client base. If the same people are still playing the new game coming, chances are the same attitudes/effects will happen if you remove the restriction again. Also, if he has to travel an hour just to play or run, I'm guessing actual store locations are probably slim pickings. In such a case, you follow the locations rules for being allowed to play there, or you move on. YMMW.
|
|
I definitely agree with Dan on this. I also want to make it abundantly clear that I am not dumping on the OP.
I wonder if any potential players in the OP's situation were turned away by that particular policy, because that is a shame that store that is obviously in an area with few other playing options has such a regressive attitude. It is exactly the opposite of what those who really want to grow PFS and the hobby in general should be doing. It is especially pernicious that the laptop ban is done in the name of being an "anti-piracy" measure, but this is neither the time nor the place for that particular rant.
|
|
Dan, take a step back. It's not HIS store. He's done said it's an hour trip just to get to this store, and he's just started playing 2 months ago. I highly doubt he's got ANY real say in what the store policy is. The store, it appears, had fashioned this policy based on past experience of the client base. If the same people are still playing the new game coming, chances are the same attitudes/effects will happen if you remove the restriction again. Also, if he has to travel an hour just to play or run, I'm guessing actual store locations are probably slim pickings. In such a case, you follow the locations rules for being allowed to play there, or you move on. YMMW.
I will admit my language was too directed. I will clarify, "your" being the store you play at.
From the sound of it, he the GM is enforcing the store rule because he agrees with it, and dislikes herolab.
Lastly, regardless if he hates PDF's or not. They are legal, and forcing someone to not use a legal medium of carrying rules is a prohibitive way of helping our cause.
Lastly, the rules say you have to have access to the rules. There is no rule saying you can't hand your copy of the rules to said extra GM without a copy. PDF, here's my laptop. Hard copy, here's my book. We do it in our group, and the GM's gradually build their own collection. Though more hard copies than laptops.
|
|
Personally, from the sound of it, he is enforcing the rule for two reasons. One, he is playing and mustering in that store. IMO, if players are not willing to abide by the code of conduct to play at a location, they need to vacate that location and find somewhere else. Two, he's been burned in the past by folks not living up to even Paizo's expectations for use of material.
I keep the rule in force for PFS because players have shown up with lap tops, and just using Hero Labs.
He doesn't like PDF's. He doesn't want to use PDF's for his resource. These are his prerogatives, and inconsequential to the main issue. He has a store that won't permit players to use PDF's on site. So, regardless of whether PDF's are legal for PFS, they're not allowed while gaming at that site. It maybe backwater, it maybe to try and have customers buy the hardcopies there, I don't know. It's not my call. It's not his call. It's not your call. It's the store's call.
Will they lose players from it? Probably.
Will they lose customers from it? Possibly.
Would they lose you from playing? It sounds like it.
Not every store/locale/situation is going to be the same. There's going to be location variance, just like there's table variance. Players just have to decide for themselves whether a situation fits their needs, and play within all the rules overseeing the table (PFS, locale, etc.)
Just my take on this.
|
|
To be honest, if I walked into your store and you told me I couldn't use my laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc., and the watermarked PDF's I've bought and were encouraged to by Paizo it would be the last time I walked into your store. That just strikes me as a close minded pre-digital era way of thinking. In fact, it's the kind of thinking that prevents progressive movements like this.Now, that said. If I were you, understanding the issues with pirating. If you're wanting to enforce that. Just make everyone that has a device, show you the...
Dan, take a step back. It's not HIS store. He's done said it's an hour trip just to get to this store, and he's just started playing 2 months ago. I highly doubt he's got ANY real say in what the store policy is. The store, it appears, had fashioned this policy based on past experience of the client base. If the same people are still playing the new game coming, chances are the same attitudes/effects will happen if you remove the restriction again. Also, if he has to travel an hour just to play or run, I'm guessing actual store locations are probably slim pickings. In such a case, you follow the locations rules for being allowed to play there, or you move on. YMMW.
The store I play at has the same rule, kinda. The owner has a 'no pdf' rule that he wants us to abide by, even if they are purchased from Paizo, because Paizo doesnt give a way for retailers to sell the pdfs. Basically, he feels store owners get undercut by Paizo by them selling the pdfs for so much less than the books. That said, if you have a copy of the books themselves, he doesnt mind if you use the pdf, cause that means he likely made a sale off of you.
I havent seen him actually enforce this lately though, as he hasnt said anything about it in some time, so perhaps his stance on it has changed. :/|
|
To expand a little, It is ok for any GM to abide by that rule if it is the store's rule. However, no GM should be banning pdf's just because he does not like them. It is a legal resource for players and, at least from my understanding, not subject to additional restrictions from a GM. If I am incorrect, please let me know as I have told other GMs here that they do not have that level of discretion.
|
|
It is definitely not alright for a DM to ban a legal resource (like PDF's), even, I think if the oragnizer fo the venue insisted on it. I think that it is accordingly not appropriate for the store to be a PFS location if they have that rule, since why should the organizer be able to break a rule that the DM's and players have to abide by.
I understand the rational of the store owner who objects to the fact that the FLGS cannot sell PDF's and can even sympathize to an extent, but if the only store-based PFS venue near me had a no PDF rule, I would not support that by DMing or playing there. I would try to start my own, home group instead.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The store I play at has the same rule, kinda. The owner has a 'no pdf' rule that he wants us to abide by, even if they are purchased from Paizo, because Paizo doesnt give a way for retailers to sell the pdfs. Basically, he feels store owners get undercut by Paizo by them selling the pdfs for so much less than the books. That said, if you have a copy of the books themselves, he doesnt mind if you use the pdf, cause that means he likely made a sale off of you.
I havent seen him actually enforce this lately though, as he hasnt said anything about it in some time, so perhaps his stance on it has changed. :/
Ugh. Some of these stores have such a dangerous attitude.
I use Paizo's PDF price to sell my books:
"Hey, if you're interested in the book, I can get you the PDF for free. How? I give you $10 off the copy you buy from me, then you go get the PDF from Paizo using that $10. When you're on their site, make sure to register for Pathfinder Society. Which, by the way, we run 4 times a month. Want a schedule?"
Obviously, that's a condensed version of the conversation, but that's usually how it goes. The existence of an organized play game is how Paizo makes money for me. Oh, and the fact that I sell a ton of their books, even to people who don't play PFS.
I don't understand why stores can't adapt to the fact that online methods exist. Except Amazon. I have a lot of hate for Amazon, but those are purely business ethics reasons...
[Edit] By the way: if you're running PFS it is because you know it is good for your store. If you subsequently ban legal resources, you're not doing yourself any favors...
|
|
I understand the rational of the store owner who objects to the fact that the FLGS cannot sell PDF's and can even sympathize to an extent, but if the only store-based PFS venue near me had a no PDF rule, I would not support that by DMing or playing there. I would try to start my own, home group instead.
Believe me, I feel the same. I do not like the rule, but tthis is the only gaming store in the area that I live in (and I drive nearly an hour to get to it from where I live now). If we could find another place that would not charge us to play, keep the kind of hours we want to use (about 10am to about 830pm on Saturdays), and had even a fraction of the other perks of playing in a store, then we might be able to move. Unfortunately, we havent found anything like that. Also, the group is currently too large for anyone in the group to host for a 'homegroup', and I would hate to simply cut some players off cause of that.
Edit: Besides that, I've been going to this store for close to 14 years now (and Im only 27), so despite the fact that this guy drives me crazy at times, he can be a nice guy and help out with a lot of stuff. As logn as you dont try to schedule a time when there is MtG going on. Don't mess with his MtG players. :P