| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently I commented that JBE is stepping away from developing for Pathfinder on a regular basis. Sure, we will be doing a Pathfinder release when we believe that there's a significant contribution to be made, but we are not going to release a Pathfinder product every two weeks just to keep our place in the market. But the single biggest reason I personally am stepping back from the game is because Pathfinder is no longer fun for me. I do this after I get home from the day job so this is what I do for fun. And when it is as enjoyable as the day job, I have to reevaluate what I am doing.
So most of my time lately has been involved in some 13th Age but mostly Traveller. JBE started out with Traveller and it is great to get back to the company's roots. But I am having far more fun these days then I have been for a long time with Pathfinder for one simple reason: I am devoting much of my Traveller design work these days to Foreven Worlds as an unofficial part of the Third Imperium setting. It is just SOOOOOO NIIIIIIICE to be able to have a Zhodani bad guy or a Vargr thief or to just say the The Third Imperium.
More than anything else, Jon Brazer Enterprises is known for the Book of the River Nations. Why did we call it the River Nations? Because we couldn't call it the River Kingdoms. We had to get as close as possible so that most people would figure that it was *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* the same place. But then we had to explain to others over and over again that we "cannot legally call it the River Kingdoms so this is as close as we could get," "are not lazy designers, are aware that it is really called the River Kingdoms but we can't call it that legally," "designed it this way on purpose so that you would know it would work in your game," and on and on. It really was a tiring, never ending battle of explaining that every product that had "River Nations" on the cover was not a mistake, not us being lazy or underhanded, or outright malicious before a person will consider looking at the release. Mind you, that is after the tiring effort of making sure there is not a single other reference to any other Pathfinder setting location is in the product to begin with.
This is not just limited to Pathfinder, mind you. We are experiencing the same issue with 13th Age. The idea of icons is OGL but the icons themselves are not. So I can't say, the High Druid. Instead I have to say the Great Druid. And again, we got called "lazy designers" for "messing up the name of the icon." As such, our releases with 13th Age have been limited.
Now, compare that with the Foreven license for Traveller. I can define the area all I want and make all the adventures in that section of space as I desire, calling a Vargr a Vargr instead of an "Uplifted Canine Alien" without getting in legal trouble. And no one has yet to call me a single name for doing so. Infact the two reviews for our first release have been glowing. The less glowing review, his chief complaint boils down to him wanting more because he really enjoyed what was there so much. Plus, setting development is just more enjoyable then system development. All of this translates to me having MUCH MORE FUN designing for this then just about anything else I have worked on for Pathfinder.
Take the Forgotten Realms Map for a moment (click on the link for a image). You see several continents with nothing defined on them and others with not everything defined. Even Faerun isn't fully detailed. It was first published in 1987 and is arguably the most developed RPG campaign setting in the world. Can anyone give me a single competent reason why a continent that has nothing defined on it to date cannot be opened up to other publishers on an unofficial basis? Or even just one country in the undefined parts of Faerun? Or take the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. Paizo didn't start defining the setting in a major way until 7 years ago when Rise of the Runelords was released. Even if you ignore all the D&D 4E Forgotten Realms material, that setting has 21 years of development to Pathfinder's 7. So if the Pathfinder Campaign Setting is still going strong 14 years from now (2028), will it be as defined as the Forgotten Realms is today? If you take a look at the FR map, that still leaves lots of room for Paizo to grow the Pathfinder CS if they reserve one country or even one continent for other publishers.
Now the real question would be: why on earth would a publisher want to open up part of their campaign setting, even on an unofficial basis, to other publishers? Easy answer is this: money. Lets say Paizo allowed other publishers to make material for the area just south of Geb. No country is defined there so odds are Paizo hasn't even considered planning a single product there. So it costs Paizo nothing to release if another publisher created an adventure path set there (we'll call it South of Geb to make life easy). Now compare that with someone playing in the Cross of Fire Adventure Path from LPJ Design (which I am looking forward to reading, btw). What does Paizo sell to a GM running in the two APs? Cross of Fire: more PFRPG hardcovers and that's it; South of Geb: same PFRPG hardcovers, Inner Sea Gods, if Paizo released a Geb campaign setting book, that would probably would be bought as well, plus a number of other campaign setting books/players guides to help the GM get a full understanding of the surrounding region and the organizations involved, plus some stand alone adventures of Paizo's incase the players go off the rails (since they take place in Paizo's world, they are easier to move to a different country then to a different setting). How about players? Cross of Fire: a few copies of the player focused hard covers (so no Bestiaries) that the player didn't already own and that's it. South of Geb: those same player focused hard covers plus Inner Sea Gods (possibly the full campaign setting as well), a players guide for the race the player is playing, another player's guide that covers the class, and several more. So for both players and GMs, Paizo sells more products to them.
If all of this sounds familiar, it is because it is the basic ideas behind the OGL to begin with. This, however, takes it to its next level. The campaign setting material is not invalidated because the group did not change settings. There's a reason why Wizards stopped supporting all their 2e campaign settings once they were bought by Wizards and went to 3e. If it had a Forgotten Realms label on it, gamers didn't feel it was useful in their Greyhawk game. So those gamers didn't buy it. So Wizards consolidated the number of campaign settings they supported during their 3e days: Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Paizo took that same idea and made a single setting that could encompass just about every possible style of d20 play. But now the areas that are not being developed much (like Psionics) are getting support from other publishers who, because they can't touch Paizo's setting, are making their own setting, with a corresponding adventure path (also really enjoyable and highly recommended). So a desire maintain a tight control on the number of campaign settings has actually resulted in more campaign settings, a kind-of return to the 2e days.
Now I'm sure that Wizards is not going to do this and I wonder if Paizo will. But what about 13th Age? Can Pelgrane Press honestly say that they will have the world beyond the Dragon Empire detailed as much as Golarion is today in 7 years? Or how about other settings? If we all took a lesson from Traveller and opened up part of our campaign settings for unofficial development, maybe the setting would get more development and more players.
And designers like me would have more fun.
Be sure to check out all of Jon Brazer Enterprises' downloads for Pathfinder, Traveller, and 13th Age at the d20PFSRD store today. Be sure to visit the JBE blog at d20PFSRD.com for more musings and ramblings.
Share your thoughts below.
I can empathize with your frustration, my friend, even if I don't share it. For me, the frustrating thing is not being able to use powerfully iconic NPCs from universal parts of the setting - planar faction leaders like Asmodeus, for example - as opposed to specific locations. And, yes, they can't copyright the name so you can write your own, but...that brings us back to the integration problem all over again.
Perhaps because I prefer to work without restriction my habit as far as setting-additions go is to create a location that can be placed into any campaign setting with a minimum of effort. If I put the city-state of Asheholm (and the island of the same name) in "a tropical sea, perhaps a week's voyage from land by ship" adding it in is as simple as pinning your map to a wall and throwing a knife at it to pick a spot. But if I try to work within, oh, Thay, or Geb, or wherever, I run into lore and fiddly bits that maybe I don't wanna deal with. The difference, I feel, is primarily one of style - I deeply respect the skill it takes to work within the confines of someone else's setting and add your own touch without violating the themes or moods you're dealing with.
I wish you best of luck with your company's new focus.
I dunno...personally I would rather see more original settings, than "stuff" necessarily stuck in pre-existing ones. If a publisher (such as Paizo) opens up their campaign setting in such a way that anyone can publish and make money off it, than potentially the publisher either loses the ability to develop that region, or if they do develop it, their is confusion over what isn't or isn't canon, as well as potentially rendering a product someone produced as irrelevant.
Not to mention part of the wonders of copyright is having control over the creative direction of the setting. If the publishers want a grim gritty world, than having a third party produce populate a continent with sparkle ponies kind of weakens that aspect.
In the case of Paizo, I think they absolutely have in rough terms figured out the themes of the other major unexplored regions, even if the exact geography or make up of nations and cultures is still not fully formed. And at any rate, I think it's important for a good setting to have Terra Icognito, in case the developer later comes up with an awesome idea but can't find a pre-existing realm to easily place that in.
If a publisher (such as Paizo) opens up their campaign setting in such a way that anyone can publish and make money off it, than potentially the publisher either loses the ability to develop that region, or if they do develop it, their is confusion over what isn't or isn't canon, as well as potentially rendering a product someone produced as irrelevant.
That;s why I used the example of South of Geb. The only thing south of Geb right now is "off the map". Its not like they're losing anything that way.
Asmodeus,
Asmodeus is public domain. Lamashtu as well.
If a publisher (such as Paizo) opens up their campaign setting in such a way that anyone can publish and make money off it, than potentially the publisher either loses the ability to develop that region, or if they do develop it, their is confusion over what isn't or isn't canon, as well as potentially rendering a product someone produced as irrelevant.That;s why I used the example of South of Geb. The only thing south of Geb right now is "off the map". Its not like they're losing anything that way.
For now.
But you assume that they have no plans to ever develop that region. James Jacobs has said on many occasions they hope to explore southern Garund in the future, and in other products they have already hinted at specific nations found south of the map, so some thought has obviously already been put into the region (same as Arcadia, Casmaron, etc).
Asmodeus,Asmodeus is public domain. Lamashtu as well.
I'm aware - but Pathfinder's interpretation of him is not. WotC's interpretation is not. In the latter case that's a damn shame, since the Lord Below is an awesome guy. The PF version is kinda a complete classless hack.
For now.
But you assume that they have no plans to ever develop that region. James Jacobs has said on many occasions they hope to explore southern Garund in the future, and in other products they have already hinted at specific nations found south of the map, so some thought has obviously already been put into the region (same as Arcadia, Casmaron, etc).
Seriously, take a look at that Forgotten Realms map (linked above) That is 21 years of development. That includes the 3e days of regular 160-196 page supplements plus regular dragon magazine articles. And they still have yet to finish Faerun.
Dotting for later. I hope I will be able share a thought or two tomorrow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, take a look at that Forgotten Realms map (linked above) That is 21 years of development. That includes the 3e days of regular 160-196 page supplements plus regular dragon magazine articles. And they still have yet to finish Faerun.For now.
But you assume that they have no plans to ever develop that region. James Jacobs has said on many occasions they hope to explore southern Garund in the future, and in other products they have already hinted at specific nations found south of the map, so some thought has obviously already been put into the region (same as Arcadia, Casmaron, etc).
Which is by a different company...which at various points has supported 3 or more campaign settings at a time, and has also done major reboots of their primary setting.
I mean really...this is about creative control. You could make this argument about legally publishing fan fiction for novel series. If you are going to invent new lands, why not just apply the effort to a novel setting. I mean, it's not like GM's won't cannibalize the parts they want anyway to fit into there own version of Golarion. Or attempt to organize a new setting with other 3rd party publishers that is completely OGL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think a universal campaign setting that other people can publish content for is such a money maker for the campaign creator, why don't you create it? Then everyone wins.
2 things:
1) I didn't say a "universal campaign setting." I said a small, unused portion of an existing campaign setting that will (most likely) never be developed. Thank you for blowing my words out of proportion.
2) I am. Foreven Worlds: Fessor Subsector was the first of many releases that I am doing in such a case. The Foreven license says that anyone using the license can refer to someone else's material in an OGL-like fashion. It goes further then that. Another company could all but copy and paste my text and (as long as it was referenced properly) publish everything I wrote. So I am doing exactly that. I am putting my money where my mouth is.
I mean really...this is about creative control.
That is basically the argument that many used around D&D 4e's release by those saying that the OGL is a bad thing.
"The tighter you tighten your grip, Tark', the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -Star Wars: A New Hope, 1977
I mean really...this is about creative control.That is basically the argument that many used around D&D 4e's release by those saying that the OGL is a bad thing.
"The tighter you tighten your grip, Tark', the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -Star Wars: A New Hope, 1977
To me there is a thin line between rules and flavor. Rules provide the means to play a game, while flavor provides the means to tell the story in the game.
Your argument is less about why game companies don't open up their settings, and more about why copyright exists. After all I could take your example and extend it to ask why I can't publish novels set in Essos...obviously George R.R. Martin not doing all that much with most of the free cities? Or why can't I write a series of novels set in the Americas in the Harry Potter Universe? It's not like J.K. Rowling will?
In many ways, Golarion is really the only thing "unique" that Paizo has (even then it's built on a lot of well established tropes). The game itself is an adaptation of a pre-existing ruleset, and while the company has added new elements, it's still mostly an updated 3.5.
So yeah, I like to think that the people who have invested blood, sweat, and tears in investing in the setting, whether it's comic books, novels, movies, or campaign settings, should have the final say in what exists and doesn't exist in their world. I think it's just a bit...weird...to begrudge them from keeping their own product identity when they make almost their entire rule system OGL.
Furthermore, I think that the OGL was great for the hobby, but probably bad for Dungeons and Dragons. It directly allowed a major competitor to develop and support a system they were hoping to do away with.
I still don't really see how this is limiting 3rd party producers. You can still produce sourcebooks on african adventures that most people would use to fill in Garund for now. Odds are if someone is using 3rd party products they are already merging them with Golarion, Midgard, or Faerun anyway.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't really see how this is limiting 3rd party producers.
I think his point is right there in his first post, that there is a bias against purchasing 3PP products that aren't official Golarion releases even if all that was needed for compatibility was changing of a few words or names.
People who are biased against 3PP products are not going to necessarily be won over because someone is releasing products for an off the map section of Golarion. They MIGHT get more buyers, but that is because some people will be confused and think it's actually a Paizo product. Which doesn't strike me as engendering good will with consumers. Not to mention it would generate a lot of needless internet debate over Golarion canon, when product x implies something that is refuted by product y from another company.
Its not about "limiting," MMCJawa. Its about customers understanding what a book is for.
Put yourself in my shoes for a second. Imagine you are at a convention and a conversation with a customer starts off with, "This book says River Nations on the cover. I'm playing in an adventure path in the River Kingdoms. Will this work with my game?" You explain it some. Then that person follows up with, "I don't understand. Why does it say River Nations if it can be used in the River Kingdoms?" You explain it again, in a different way. Then end it off with, "I don't know. My GM might be confused by the River Nations when we're playing in the River Kingdoms," or "I don't know. We're playing in the River Kingdoms and I don't want to use anything that is completely different from the adventure path in my game," right before they walk away, confused because "Nations" vs "Kingdoms" blew the person's mind.
Now have that conversation 100 times.
In one day.
Each day you are at the convention.
Now imagine having that conversation on forum thread after forum thread across various message boards every single time you talk about the book.
Imagine having that same conversation on a regular basis over the course of years.
Now imagine having conversations just like that for every single product you make.
All of them.
Every. Last. Product. You. Make.
"Limited" is not the word. "Frustrated" is. Frustrated to the point of walking away, like I am doing.
The above is a solution. It requires no oversight because everything is unofficial. It hardly limits anyone's creativity since it is off the official map. It curtails the number of competing campaign settings and does not invalidate products from the main campaign setting. And if the license to do so has the appropriate protections, it could be easy for the licensing company to pull the logo an individual product or the offending publisher if the license is violated.
I still don't really see how this is limiting 3rd party producers.
I think his point is right there in his first post, that there is a bias against purchasing 3PP products that aren't official Golarion releases even if all that was needed for compatibility was changing of a few words or names.
Or maybe some of the opinions here, here, here, or here?
-Ben.
Or maybe some of the opinions here, here, here, or here?
-Ben.
For the purposes of this, I choose to ignore that attitude. But you are spot on, good sir. That is frustrating as well.
My personal favorite "trolling to my face" that I received at a convention was when I was told that I was responsible for 3.5's demise. Its funny considering the fact that the first product I wrote was announced (not published, simply announced it was coming out) the same day 4e was announced.
Also, I love hearing how the stuff I write is utter crap while the stuff I write for Paizo is great. From the same people. Where the only difference between the two in writing quality is ... none.
People who are biased against 3PP products are not going to necessarily be won over because someone is releasing products for an off the map section of Golarion. They MIGHT get more buyers, but that is because some people will be confused and think it's actually a Paizo product. Which doesn't strike me as engendering good will with consumers. Not to mention it would generate a lot of needless internet debate over Golarion canon, when product x implies something that is refuted by product y from another company.
So far no one has yet to confuse Foreven Worlds: Fessor Subsector with anything Mongoose has produced. Also there are as of yet no discussions about which version of Third Imperium canon is accurate (since I actually took great pains to make sure it was completely in line with the existing setting). So from practical experience, I can safely say that your fears have yet to materialize.
Not to say it can't happen, mind you. But all indications point to increased intuitive customer understanding with a lack of customer confusion and even less explanation about how what Mongoose produces and what I produce interact.
Its not about "limiting," MMCJawa. Its about customers understanding what a book is for.
Put yourself in my shoes for a second. Imagine you are at a convention and a conversation with a customer starts off with, "This book says River Nations on the cover. I'm playing in an adventure path in the River Kingdoms. Will this work with my game?" You explain it some. Then that person follows up with, "I don't understand. Why does it say River Nations if it can be used in the River Kingdoms?" You explain it again, in a different way. Then end it off with, "I don't know. My GM might be confused by the River Nations when we're playing in the River Kingdoms," or "I don't know. We're playing in the River Kingdoms and I don't want to use anything that is completely different from the adventure path in my game," right before they walk away, confused because "Nations" vs "Kingdoms" blew the person's mind.
Now have that conversation 100 times.
In one day.
Oh...I can definitely see how that is annoying. Although to be honest I wonder how a person can even find their way out of their house if they are confused by River Nations/River Kingdoms
Now imagine having that conversation on forum thread after forum thread across various message boards every single time you talk about the book.
Imagine having that same conversation on a regular basis over the course of years.
Now imagine having conversations just like that for every single product you make.
All of them.
Every. Last. Product. You. Make.
"Limited" is not the word. "Frustrated" is. Frustrated to the point of walking away, like I am doing.
Confession: I have never ever played or bought any of the Kingmaker volumes, nevertheless 3rd party products supporting them.
With that said, I wonder if this is more an issue with producing really specialized products pitched toward a single AP from Pathfinder. As I see it you are basically catering to a very very limited audience:
Pathfinder players...who are playing in the Kingmaker AP...who regularly buy 3rd party products. At each step you are reducing your audience down. I would also imagine that pool shrinking even further if its adventure plug-ins that ultimately are of only of interest to GMs
As someone who supports third-party products...I admit I tend to lean towards products which are pitched towards a broader audience. Monsters, new races, and new classes which I can plug in anywhere as needed. Or completely new settings which I can mine for ideas
So far, not many other 3rd party publishers have replied to this thread, and I know there are a few other publishers that do adventure plug-ins and such for APs. I would be curious to hear there opinions on this thread.
So far no one has yet to confuse Foreven Worlds: Fessor Subsector with anything Mongoose has produced. Also there are as of yet no discussions about which version of Third Imperium canon is accurate (since I actually took great pains to make sure it was completely in line with the existing setting). So from practical experience, I can safely say that your fears have yet to materialize.
Not to say it can't happen, mind you. But all indications point to increased intuitive customer understanding with a lack of customer confusion and even less explanation about how what Mongoose produces and what I produce interact.
As someone who spends an ungodly amount of time here, I pretty commonly see confusion on flavor elements between Paizo and WOTC products (How gods work, presence/description of certain races, etc). So I am not certain that if there were 2 or 3 different versions of Arcadia, people could really mentally figure out what elements were Paizo and what were from other creators.
|
Pathfinder players...who are playing in the Kingmaker AP...who regularly buy 3rd party products. At each step you are reducing your audience down. I would also imagine that pool shrinking even further if its adventure plug-ins that ultimately are of only of interest to GMs.
And if there was a chance to label his product for a specific AP (for say Kingmaker vs. River Nations), then that is one level reduction down which is avoided. Having to use code speak doesn't help when it comes to selling supporting material - that's the basic run-down of the whole situation.
I am leery of 3rd PP when it comes to hard rules, because there could be some feat and equipment conflicts, redundancies or overlay.
When it comes to creative content I think there are a few 3rd party companies that have shown to be better at Paizo at their own game (no pun intended). Frog God Games and Raging Swan producing superior campaign and adventure content than Paizo.
On the plug-in side, I was a KS backer for Legendary Games hardcover compendium for the Gothic AP - TBH, most if not all the content was better (depth-wise) than was offered in that AP and it meshed perfectly. Granted having some of the same authors as the AP helped.
I also purchased some River Nations content with no regrets. I needed more info to flesh out a Kingmaker campaign.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it shows that things are working as intended - Paizo are retaining relatively tight creative control over Golarion whilst being much more free with the rules.
I think they want to have a clear distinction between "official" Golarion stuff and unofficial-stuff-you've-decided-to-import. Possibly there's legal reasons, but there's no doubt an element of not wanting to let the cat out of the bag - many 3PPs are great, but if you allow a free-for-all there will be some lousy product and it will be irrevocably tied to your brand (witness the complaints that still roll by regularly about how the 3PP glut and low quality "ruined" 3.5 - no matter how many good, professional publishers existed).
I think your solution is best frankly. If you want to produce stuff for Golarion you need to maintain a certain distance - if that's not making you happy you shouldnt do it. A focus on your own IP, a more open IP from some other company or on the less restrictive game mechanics is probably best for you. Those 3PP who do want to make pseudo-Golarion products to ride the popularity of Paizo's IP will have to pay a certain cost (ie nebulous branding and frustrating questions) to do so.
I dont really see the argument that, because many 3PP would like to produce Golarion content and because there's room for it without Paizo harming their ability to release content, Paizo should therefore allow it. (Is that a fair summary of your position?)
The fact is that (relatively) tight control of Paizo's IP is a risk-mitigation strategy - by keeping a clear defining line between Golarion content and things 3PP put out which are "compatible" with Golarion, there's no risk that you'll produce something south-of-Geb six months before Paizo release competing material. There's also no risk that some startup, inexperienced company might put out rubbish which may well serve to devalue the Golarion brand. I dont think this last is a significant risk with the well-known 3PPs, but I think the risk is definitely there and once it's allowed it seems hard to roll back.
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
When it comes to creative content I think there are a few 3rd party companies that have shown to be better at Paizo at their own game (no pun intended). Frog God Games and Raging Swan producing superior campaign and adventure content than Paizo.I can't speak for the Frog God chaps, but this comment made my day. Thank you so much! I'm absolutely delighted you like Raging Swan's stuff so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far, not many other 3rd party publishers have replied to this thread, and I know there are a few other publishers that do adventure plug-ins and such for APs. I would be curious to hear there opinions on this thread.
So I'll chime in. :)
First, Dale, do what makes you happy, man. I get it, as someone who also doesn't do publishing full-time, but after the day job, after spending time with the family, and instead of other activities.
Now, Dreamscarred doesn't do much in the way of adventure plug-ins or the like, but I can tell you - the conversation that Dale gets, I get a variation of about psionics at every single convention I have gone to representing Dreamscarred Press.
"So this is Pathfinder official?"
"No, this is Pathfinder-compatible." (Point to the compatibility logo)
"Well, if there aren't any official psionic rules, then why isn't this official?"
"Because Paizo is likely going to do some sort of psionics or mind magic at some point. But it's likely going to be very different from the power point system we use and that a lot of folks like."
"But the book looks so professional. It looks official."
"Thank you very much, but I cannot say it's Pathfinder official content. It's Pathfinder compatible."
"Oh, well, my GM doesn't use anything unless it's official."
And that's just one of the conversations I get at every single convention. So I understand Dale's perspective. It gets tiring to have that same conversation over and over.
It's not exactly the same as what Dale's dealing with, but it's of a similar vein.
Disclosure: I don't buy a lot of 3PP products -- but the ones I do purchase, I am drawn to because they are either setting neutral or easily adaptable to other settings. Because I run in my own homebrew campaign and stuff designed for specific settings I have to write out the setting specific stuff.
I am indeed desperate for more setting neutral stuff that uses the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game system.
And the beauty of course of "setting neutral" is that someone who runs in an established campaign setting can adapt it to their games as easily as someone who wants to use it for their own homebrew game.
If I want a given campaign setting, I will buy from its creators--if for no other reason, only have so much money, and if I've got to prioritize between what I do buy and what I don't, what I do buy is going to be the stuff from the originals where possible. For Golarion in particular... it's a fine setting but I'm just not all that interested in it. And I'd seriously break the bank just buying Paizo campaign setting products before I could even think about picking up 3PP supplements.
Not to mention, some publishers trying to cling to a given established campaign setting read as, for lack of a better phrase, non-canonic fanfiction. Not saying JBE does that--I've frankly never bought a JBE product. Just saying that's an additional turn off as to why I'm not interested in most 3PP takes on established settings.
For me, the ability to come up with something technically neutral but still showing novel ideas or good encounter design is a much better sign for me of a good designer, and a good buy. (Also, as a would be freelancer, I'd rather not have to spend hundreds of dollars to get campaign setting books to learn a setting for which I'd have to sell a gajillion pieces to earn back the money spent to learn the setting thoroughly.)
So for me personally, the idea of a 3PP giving up on writing stuff in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting.... yay!
The idea of a 3PP designer deciding that means the Pathfinder RPG system itself isn't worth developing for? Boo.
|
I wish JBE all the best in their future endeavors!
I have stated this before in some other threads but i probably own more third party material than i do paizo material. You guys fix the stuff that paizo wont and provide great support for ideas that do not get fully fleshed out. I use a lot of 3pp material in my home brew specifically because it is built on the OGL frame and thus is very flexible.
I would be fascinated to see what you guys could come up with in the golarion setting if paizo threw you a continent to run around in.