Quote from: hamstertamer;683207It never had bloat problems with 3rd edition, then of course, I applied the common sense theory of gaming.  Don't allow something into the game that ruins the game.  If someone comes up to you and wants to play an undead red dragon death knight, just say no, then show them what will be allowed in the campaign. "Rules mastery" is a must for a game master (it's even in the title).  So it makes no sense for someone who wants to run a game to snub their nose at "game mastery."  It's your job.  It's like someone wanting to be a pilot and not wanting to bother with learning to fly.

I agree. I'm usually open, but not everything goes in my campaigns. I only allow stuff that is appropriate for my campaign. So....no undead red dragon stripper ninjas.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;683214So....no undead red dragon stripper ninjas.

And undead red dragon stripper pirates?

Quote from: hamstertamer;683207It never had bloat problems with 3rd edition, then of course, I applied the common sense theory of gaming.  Don't allow something into the game that ruins the game.  If someone comes up to you and wants to play an undead red dragon death knight, just say no, then show them what will be allowed in the campaign.

I call this the "are you fucking kidding me" principle and you need to be able to apply it if you're going to run 3e in a vaguely sane manner. That said, bloat can still be a problem in terms of the sheer quantity of stuff you have to audit; the bloat truck hit me sometime around The Complete Scoundrel or whatever that 3.5e book was that introduced the idea of Skill Tricks.

Quote from: Imp;683253That said, bloat can still be a problem in terms of the sheer quantity of stuff you have to audit

My approach for handling that is to audit individual items, not entire sourcebooks. I don't, for example, go through the Complete Scoundrel and highlight every item that I'm OK with. Instead, I have a short list of "everything in this book is OK" and then the players are free to bring me anything else they want.

This doesn't work with every system. But in something like D&D/PF it's virtually impossible for the players to overwhelm me with requests. Even if all of the players wanted non-standard everything, that translates into me reviewing a half dozen classes and races at the beginning of the campaign and maybe an equal number of feats or similar options every few sessions.

(Spells, particularly cleric or druid spells, can be more problematic. If necessary, set a cap for how many spells you're willing to review per character level or per session.)

Some players will balk at this. I've had a few problems in the past. I usually win them over the first time I say something like, "This feat you've brought me is interesting... but it's totally gimpy. Let's pump it up a bit." (And this happens with surprising frequency.)

I'm lucky because I generally have reasonable players. As a result, they're generally bringing me reasonable character concepts and it's relatively easy for me to work with them to figure out how to mechanically realize those concepts. Sometimes it's incorporating stuff from splatbooks (either stuff I've found or stuff they've found); sometimes it's designing new stuff.

Quote from: Haffrung;683109Bloat is when you need more and more books to play published adventures.

Agreed.  So the lowest level adventure in the current path references:

Advanced Player's Guide
Bestiary
Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
GameMastery Guide
Lords of Chaos, Book of the Damned, Vol. 2
NPC Codex
Paths of Prestige
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Equipment
Ultimate Magic

In addition to the Core rules.  I can predict that the mythic rules will be required next based on the (well advertised) plan of the adventure path.  It isn't a ridiculous number of books and things can be searched for.  But this is the sort of thing that I found unfortunate, much more so that players asking for things.  Whenever that has been an issue, it wasn't the game at fault.

QuoteMy approach for handling that is to audit individual items, not entire sourcebooks. I don't, for example, go through the Complete Scoundrel and highlight every item that I'm OK with. Instead, I have a short list of "everything in this book is OK" and then the players are free to bring me anything else they want.

I'm afraid the bloat truck hit me mainly because I'm bad at ignoring new material – a new book comes out for a game I'm playing/running and I want to check it out because maybe the new stuff is good! But then at that point in 3.5 there was just too much stuff and my eyeballs melted out of my head which is a thing I can't recommend personally.

In re Pathfinder bloat, a) aren't most of the new rules/ feats available on the online SRD and b) if that's the case, shouldn't they just reprint the new stuff in the adventure paths in which they use it? Or do they use so much of it that it's impractical to do that?

Quote from: hamstertamer;683207"Rules mastery" is a must for a game master (it's even in the title).  So it makes no sense for someone who wants to run a game to snub their nose at "game mastery."  It's your job.  It's like someone wanting to be a pilot and not wanting to bother with learning to fly.

I put that in quotes because it isn't a general term, the way I used it, but rather references a WotC design paradigm they developed for MtG.  The goal is to create a meritocracy where those who consume the most products have more effectiveness in game.

A GM has zero need for this.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;683366My approach for handling that is to audit individual items, not entire sourcebooks. I don't, for example, go through the Complete Scoundrel and highlight every item that I'm OK with. Instead, I have a short list of "everything in this book is OK" and then the players are free to bring me anything else they want.

Do you often find undesired consequences during the game?  And do you/can you make adjustments?

We used to do this back in the day.  "Let's try it and see" followed by the "Um, no, that needs to be changed."

I still dream of the system that has checks and balances built in to make those decisions less risky.

Quote from: Imp;683376In re Pathfinder bloat, a) aren't most of the new rules/ feats available on the online SRD and b) if that's the case, shouldn't they just reprint the new stuff in the adventure paths in which they use it? Or do they use so much of it that it's impractical to do that?

It is available, even in their own 'PRD'.  But they don't like to waste pages, and quite honestly do encourage you buy their books.  I don't know if you know this already, but they have subscriptions for their splat books.  As if it were a magazine.  Except they're $40 instead of $4, and the sub itself typically does not give you a discount.  It's a rather different assumption than I've seen anywhere else.

In my view, though, their real problem is power creep.  There's not much effort being put towards not obsoleting existing content.  This will, invariably, push them towards a new edition, which could have been prevented.

Quote from: Votan;683373Agreed.  So the lowest level adventure in the current path references:

Advanced Player's Guide
Bestiary
Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
GameMastery Guide
Lords of Chaos, Book of the Damned, Vol. 2
NPC Codex
Paths of Prestige
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Equipment
Ultimate Magic

In addition to the Core rules.  I can predict that the mythic rules will be required next based on the (well advertised) plan of the adventure path.  It isn't a ridiculous number of books and things can be searched for.  But this is the sort of thing that I found unfortunate, much more so that players asking for things.  Whenever that has been an issue, it wasn't the game at fault.

Huh. I didn't realize it had gotten that bad. The last AP I bought was the Serpent's Skull.

Quote from: Haffrung;683863Huh. I didn't realize it had gotten that bad. The last AP I bought was the Serpent's Skull.

I ran the Serpent's Skull through to the end and it was definitely less dependent on additional material.  The last episode of the previous path was just as bad, though (it was the one that had me wondering).

I honestly don't "get" the whole AP thing.

Granted I've been GMing a long time... AP's (and I've been gifted with several - Kingmaker, the new Pirates one and a couple of others) strike me as generic themed "campaigns" for:

1) GM's that are unimaginative
2) GM's that have no time, will, or desire to run their own campaign
3) GM's that are so novice they are too "intimidated" by owning their game.
4) Players that like scripted or "on rails" content.
5) Players that are unimaginative and like having their adventures dictated to them.

Take your pick of the above.

It's not that I don't think these things are bad... they're not. Every GM and player goes through those phases of being a "novice" and not necessarily thinking of the big-picture, or in a more excusable sense - the GM doesn't have the time to put into doing a proper campaign (I do get that).

But when I read the "good AP's" as I've had people tell me - I just look at them as canned spaghetti. I don't find them particularly exciting or even runnable with my players (who are all old-school players) - they would blow half the premises apart within the first adventure. I often wonder what people get out of them that a GM, that really owns their campaign and puts in a little elbow-grease, can't do fantastically better.

These things are just... pap filler to me. I think the only things I've ever used from them are a couple of maps.

Of course I realize I'm not the one these things are marketed to either. But shit - even the new guys that play with me, are past this level of play within a few months. It's amazing to me that people base their whole campaigns around this stuff. But of course if it's fun for you - game on. Ultimately that's what it's about.

Quote from: tenbones;684145I honestly don't "get" the whole AP thing.

Granted I've been GMing a long time... AP's (and I've been gifted with several - Kingmaker, the new Pirates one and a couple of others) strike me as generic themed "campaigns" for:

1) GM's that are unimaginative
2) GM's that have no time, will, or desire to run their own campaign
3) GM's that are so novice they are too "intimidated" by owning their game.
4) Players that like scripted or "on rails" content.
5) Players that are unimaginative and like having their adventures dictated to them.

Take your pick of the above.

It's not that I don't think these things are bad... they're not. Every GM and player goes through those phases of being a "novice" and not necessarily thinking of the big-picture, or in a more excusable sense - the GM doesn't have the time to put into doing a proper campaign (I do get that).

But when I read the "good AP's" as I've had people tell me - I just look at them as canned spaghetti. I don't find them particularly exciting or even runnable with my players (who are all old-school players) - they would blow half the premises apart within the first adventure. I often wonder what people get out of them that a GM, that really owns their campaign and puts in a little elbow-grease, can't do fantastically better.

These things are just... pap filler to me. I think the only things I've ever used from them are a couple of maps.

Of course I realize I'm not the one these things are marketed to either. But shit - even the new guys that play with me, are past this level of play within a few months. It's amazing to me that people base their whole campaigns around this stuff. But of course if it's fun for you - game on. Ultimately that's what it's about.

The APs I've seen are badly written shlock full of massive stat blocks, absurd anachronisms, and lengthy NPC backgrounds that will never play any part in a game.

However, what they hold out is the possibility of having everything you need to run an entire campaign for a year or two. For some of us who barely manage the time to play once or twice a month, let alone prep whole adventures and campaign settings, that's a very appealing prospect.

Basically, Paizo twigged onto the fact a big cohort of D&D's player base are now middle-aged guys with jobs, houses, families, and not a lot of free time. They also recognized that most RPGs products are read but never used in play; APs are meant to be enjoyable to read, in a way that a traditional site-based module typically isn't.

Quote from: tenbones;6841451) GM's that are unimaginative
2) GM's that have no time, will, or desire to run their own campaign
3) GM's that are so novice they are too "intimidated" by owning their game.
4) Players that like scripted or "on rails" content.
5) Players that are unimaginative and like having their adventures dictated to them.

Take your pick of the above.

6) GM's who would like an assortment of planned encounters that they can weave into their own plot (loosely based off of the path) without developing stat blocks for each NPC or creature involved.  

A well run Adventure path is also a similar experience to the GDQ series -- no game is precisely the same but they all bring out some common memories and experiences.

That said, if I am not running something as complex as pathfinder (and it isn't my preferred system) then they would be unnecessary (in say B/X D&D, 1st Ed AD&D or Savage Worlds).

Quote from: tenbones;684145I honestly don't "get" the whole AP thing.

Granted I've been GMing a long time... AP's (and I've been gifted with several - Kingmaker, the new Pirates one and a couple of others) strike me as generic themed "campaigns" for:

1) GM's that are unimaginative
2) GM's that have no time, will, or desire to run their own campaign
3) GM's that are so novice they are too "intimidated" by owning their game.
4) Players that like scripted or "on rails" content.
5) Players that are unimaginative and like having their adventures dictated to them.

Take your pick of the above.

It's not that I don't think these things are bad... they're not. Every GM and player goes through those phases of being a "novice" and not necessarily thinking of the big-picture, or in a more excusable sense - the GM doesn't have the time to put into doing a proper campaign (I do get that).

But when I read the "good AP's" as I've had people tell me - I just look at them as canned spaghetti. I don't find them particularly exciting or even runnable with my players (who are all old-school players) - they would blow half the premises apart within the first adventure. I often wonder what people get out of them that a GM, that really owns their campaign and puts in a little elbow-grease, can't do fantastically better.

These things are just... pap filler to me. I think the only things I've ever used from them are a couple of maps.

Of course I realize I'm not the one these things are marketed to either. But shit - even the new guys that play with me, are past this level of play within a few months. It's amazing to me that people base their whole campaigns around this stuff. But of course if it's fun for you - game on. Ultimately that's what it's about.

Think of it with this analogy: not everyone knows how to cook, and need lessons. The APs do exactly that (for better or worse).

On a more sophisticated level, I've found that very few GMs in my area actually produce their own content. Most rely heavily on the APs, the Pathfinder Society modules and the single adventure lineup; almost none of them are ready or willing to put the little bit of extra effort necessary into doing their own thing, not least of which is because for many it's a daunting task; the process of creating content is actually a lot tougher for many people than is the process of reading and memorizing a module. Shockingly so, it seems.

So when I wonder about Paizo's success with PF, I need only look to the other GMs around here running their APs and PFS modules to realize why this game does so well: it's spilling over with support for amateur or average GMs, and the pros can take the core and do what they want with it.

Quote from: Haffrung;684151Basically, Paizo twigged onto the fact a big cohort of D&D's player base are now middle-aged guys with jobs, houses, families, and not a lot of free time. They also recognized that most RPGs products are read but never used in play; APs are meant to be enjoyable to read, in a way that a traditional site-based module typically isn't.

Yeah also this.



EDIT: Although at least around here I am shocked at how many people run the published APs and modules. A metric ton of high school kids regularly buy and run APs at the local Hastings, for ex...and the older guys, though fewer in number, buy them, hoard them, and a few brave ones actually run them. I only know of two PF GMs, myself and one of my players who has his own game night as GM, who run our own user-created settings and modules. And even he uses Midgard as his base.

To the OP: the deal with cheap and prolific PDFs at rpgnow and drivethrurpg to remember is that if you don't go there and see them, they might as well not exist. Even Paizo has their catalogue in their godawful site parsed out such that you have to seek the 3PP content out, and can miss it if you aren't trying to locate it. FWIW when you look at what PDFs offer these days they are usually highly specific topics aimed specifically at GMs or players who need "exactly that piece of information or stat block, right now." This is a real contrast from the old print glut of products no one asked for or wanted back in the heyday of D20 publishing.

Modules/adventures were usually good sellers when I worked at a gaming store in the early 00's.  I never heard that they don't sell well until I started reading rpg forums in the late 00's.  I have a feeling that the people who don't like pre-made adventures started the rumor and then megaphoned it.  Making it a "fact." Then everyone was surprised when Pathfinder's sold well, and were confused by it.