I've seen this term bandied about and it has several meanings within PF1 and got reused in PH2 (which I'll ignore here).
History
2004+ the term is used to refer to product lines, WotC D&D 3.5 and such.
Aug 2011 - I first see it used in the boards in context. It's pretty much ignored BUT it was the first in my search.
It pops up again but with different meanings until late 2013. It usually revolves around the CRB stating you only need it(CRB) and the B1 to run a game or GMs just using the Core Product line(which included the APG & others). I consider the CRB statement self-advertisement. Many posters comment that the CRB + APG make the game reasonable/mature RPG.
Dec 2012 - PFS Core Assumption update.
Jul 2013 - post PaizoCon editor notes "core campaign setting" refers to Golarion as the setting which is a Core Product line statement.
Jul 2013 - PFS leads/Developers talk about the Core Assumption.
Nov 2013 - "Core Only campaign" refers to using only the Core Product line.
Dec 2013 - People questioning PFS's Core Assumption statement pops up.
2014 - PFS grumbles are seen and there's commenting about power creep etc (perpetual grousing).
9 Feb 2014 Blog - PFS Core Campaign(about languages and indicates the Core Campaign as an event started the previous week)
16 Feb 2014 Blog - PFS Core Campaign update
Jan 2015 - PFS Introducing Core Campaign(an update actually, the reporting tool updated late Jan so GMs could report play)
etc...
my personal experience is the PFS Core Campaign never really became popular and was less than 5% of play after 2016.
so I'd have to say it has several meanings (by frequency of use);
1) referring to a general restriction of resource materials or a Product Line. It is the common meaning and rather nebulous other than "consult your GM".
2) refers to the PFS Core Campaign (which uses 4 things: Core Rulebook, Character Traits Web Enhancement, Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, PFS Additional Resources, leaving out PFS Campaign Clarifications).
3) a campaign only using the CRB, GMG, APG, B1+(as in Bestiary & B2 etc), and likely UltCmpgn.
4) is about using the Core Product line only (expansion of 2 above).
5) using only the CRB for players (most restrictive meaning).
what do you think?
Any time I see a "Core only" game, I think it means a game only using the Core Rulebook, and that's it. At least for the players; it's assumed the GM would at least use the first Bestiary.
By the way, I had to look up what you meant by "B1." I think you're referring to Crypt of the Everflame, but I rarely see anyone refer to specific adventures by that coding ever since Paizo stopped using it.
Andostre wrote: Any time I see a "Core only" game, I think it means a game only using the Core Rulebook, and that's it. At least for the players; it's assumed the GM would at least use the first Bestiary.
right.
I think my years in Organized Play (not just PFS) and seeing thousands of players and coordinating conventions really expanded my concept on players/play styles/etc. Home Games tended to be isolated pockets with some internet chat until Virtual Tabletop websites(VTTs) impacted things.
I also wanted to show how the common usage changes within the lifecycle of a product among its consumers/users. There might be a cycle there 8^)
I think business folks where there's a "Core" product line will always use that reference or say "core product".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"Core" has one main meaning and that is "the center" sometimes also used for "the most pivotal".
When it comes to playing the game "core only" means just the core rulebook. This is why they say Core + APG or any other of convination when they want to do something different.
Also, this thread gave me an idea. A campaign where you are not allowed to use any player option from the core rulebook.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I thought "core" meant Core Rulebook, but I recognise that the term can be ambiguous. I will be careful to say "Core Rulebook" or "CRB" in future to prevent confusion.
I think it's clear there are several meanings and the shorter the term the more uncertainty.
it is language, jargon, and abbreviations, etc... there will always be an evolution in meaning and various meanings for the subgroups/peer groups you are talking with. So it's best to clarify what you mean rather than get huffy over "defined terms" as it is interpretive. Usually there's some context to help but it's not always the case.
I also wanted to point out that when PFS created the Core Campaign it solidified the idea around the CRB and moved it away from a Core Product Line game. Still, their Core Campaign isn't as rigid as people want to believe as they use traits at the onset and players can get non-CRB rules via play (Chronicles).
For me when Core is used in an rpg it means just using material ( feats, classes etc) from the main core handbook.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That's how I usually see it used as well. When someone recruits for a Core game, they really mean CRB only.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I am only familiar with 'Core' meaning specifically the Core Rulebook(s), specifically when referencing table top game systems. If anyone wanted to reference only the products made by the original company, it is generally called '1st party' sources. I am not familiar with the term 'Core' shifting to mean anything other than that.
DeathlessOne wrote: I am only familiar with 'Core' meaning specifically the Core Rulebook(s), specifically when referencing table top game systems. If anyone wanted to reference only the products made by the original company, it is generally called '1st party' sources. I am not familiar with the term 'Core' shifting to mean anything other than that. so I take it you mean the Core Line of Products as the "(s)" made that intentionally plural. You could be referring to #5 plus Bestiary and GMG. I'm sure if you respond you'll clarify.
As you generalize to "table top systems", I think those only existed for large publishers with various product lines (for campaigns/settings) in FRPs. I'd rather not open it to all table top systems like boardgames, dice, cards, etc.
I think the history of how the terms are used evolved and that's clear in the posting history.
on "'1st party' sources": it has always been interesting given that "third party material" on these boards ubiquitously refers to PF1 compatible product produced by other publishers. PF1 which contains the OGL and would be 'second party material' if I follow that logic correctly. LoL. Which means '1st party' is DnD 3.5.
TriOmegaZero wrote: That's how I usually see it used as well. When someone recruits for a Core game, they really mean CRB only. Right, and that's been the impact of PFS on the jargon used today. But as I'm being rather specific here to avoid confusion as there is a difference in what PFS did(#2) and #5 (above).
If you generalize then #1,2,5 are grouped together, as is #3 & 4.
No, that’s the impact of GMs who refuse to admit books that are not Core in their games. Those existed in 3.5 times.
TriOmegaZero wrote: No, that’s the impact of GMs who refuse to admit books that are not Core in their games. Those existed in 3.5 times. I am pretty sure you mean CRB for the players only.
There wasn't a CRB in 3.5, there was the Core set.
Core to me means any hardback book that is more likely to have been rigorously reviewed than "splat" (softback) books which were more likely to introduce unbalanced options.
Core books tended to be bigger and introduced basics like classes to the game, rather than dropping only archetypes and new feat options.
If I were referring to only the core rule book I usually say "CRB" because using the word "Core" is ambiguous.
Andostre wrote: By the way, I had to look up what you meant by "B1." I think you're referring to Crypt of the Everflame, but I rarely see anyone refer to specific adventures by that coding ever since Paizo stopped using it. From context, I am pretty sure they meant the first Bestiary.
Claxon wrote: Core to me means any hardback book that is more likely to have been rigorously reviewed than "splat" (softback) books which were more likely to introduce unbalanced options. That is not what "splatbook" means. It means, "book that is (or is planned to be) part of a series where each volume focuses on a different specific instance (or subset of instances) of a common concept." Comes from "splat" being a slightly obscure term for asterisk, in the wildcard sense.
if you log in and check your digital download page you can see the various product names and there's a "Brand" list on the left. The format is "product":"name".
"Splat" isn't there. Yeah I get it... those were Player Companion books written by (I assume) independent contractors with a Paizo lead. They didn't get a lot of editing or rules checking. It was one way to get new rules in the door & sell a product, test them via player response, and see if they wanted to incorporate the idea into the core line of products. That happened with several of them.
From a rules lawyer perspective it was a mess. That's why I refer people to the PFS rulings as that pre-screens the overpowered, ambiguous, or the negative-public-relations terms (lol, luckily rather rare). Sadly the dreck remains.
if you're interested as it's a side topic - earlier editions of D&D and some terminology on wikipedia
glass wrote: Claxon wrote: Core to me means any hardback book that is more likely to have been rigorously reviewed than "splat" (softback) books which were more likely to introduce unbalanced options. That is not what "splatbook" means. It means, "book that is (or is planned to be) part of a series where each volume focuses on a different specific instance (or subset of instances) of a common concept." Comes from "splat" being a slightly obscure term for asterisk, in the wildcard sense. I think you're overly focused on the letter of my description without looking for the intent. Splat is essentially anything that isn't core.
By and large "core books" in roleplaying games tended to be hardback publications. But it's true that it's not some golden rule that's always true. But I'm trying to convey a general idea without getting into each and every specific book that Paizo has published.
To ignore what I said because it doesn't focus on a specific facet of a character feels like a disingenuous engagement with what I've said.
Claxon wrote: glass wrote: Claxon wrote: Core to me means any hardback book that is more likely to have been rigorously reviewed than "splat" (softback) books which were more likely to introduce unbalanced options. That is not what "splatbook" means. It means, "book that is (or is planned to be) part of a series where each volume focuses on a different specific instance (or subset of instances) of a common concept." Comes from "splat" being a slightly obscure term for asterisk, in the wildcard sense. I think you're overly focused on the letter of my description without looking for the intent. Splat is essentially anything that isn't core. Responding to the words you chose to use in your post because I cannot read your mind is not being "overly focused". You said that splatbook mean softback - I knew this to be nonsense, so I felt I had a duty to point that out to you and (more importantly) to anyone else reading the thread.
If your "intent" was to say something other than what you actually said, that's on you not me.
Core is the Core Rule Book and Bestiaries.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
