What Pathfinder Content Do You Want to See First?

[rob]

We're going to be releasing an assortment of content for Realm Works when we launch the Content Market in December, with the initial focus being on adventures and other highly reusable material that can be dropped into numerous campaigns. A healthy portion of the content will be for Pathfinder, but not all of it. Beyond December, we'll continue to add more content for different game systems, with Pathfinder being prominent. This is just an informal poll to give us an idea of what aspects of the overall Pathfinder catalog you would find most desirable.

Note: This particular poll is exclusively targeted at Pathfinder GMs and players. If your interest lies with other game systems, please don't assume this means we're only going to be focusing on Pathfinder. We'll be supporting a variety of game systems. Pathfinder just happens to have a vast catalog, and we want to target our support effectively for the game.

[DMG]

I'm looking for the CRB, followed by the Strange Aeons AP.

However I selected the essential rule books first.

[MNBlockHead]

Not interested in PF, but in general I think it is best to have the bestiaries/monster manuals first for linking purposes. I'm finding rules less important. They are nice to have in there for searching and looking up, but I'm finding linking to rules not so important.

[Pollution]

Deleted

[NeoEvaX]

I would personally prefer Rise of the Rune Lords. I am planning on running it as soon as I can get Realm Works.

I wouldn't mind having the core books in there as well, but with so much of that being online now I don't see the need. Where as turning a Adventure Path into the structure of Realm Works is something we cant easily search through.

I tend to think my main use of Realm Works is to plan out adventures, not look up rules.

My 2 cents at least.

[JustinThomason]

I personally voted for APs and Huge Adventures, but Modules and Smaller Adventures is a very close second for me.

While broader rulebooks would be great, and I am sure I will buy rulebooks and bestiaries eventually once they are available, I use Realm Works to manage adventures more than anything else.

I have Hero Lab to wrangle monsters (and routinely attach portfolio files as RW snippets) and general rules are easy to look up online. My biggest time sink is entering the adventure content and if I could purchase a pre-structured version of the module or AP I plan to run, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

[Pollution]

Deleted

[kbs666]

Personally I want the bestiaries first.

Presently my rules almanac is mostly monsters and what races/classes archetypes are allowed in the campaign.

I really don't expect to ever want a lot of rules crunch in RW. For instance the allowed classes and archetypes is little more than a list and a reference to what source it appears in. I leave all the crunchy stuff to HL.

[Dhrakken]

I voted core rulebooks first.. bestiaries would be next followed by the AP (specifically Reign of Winter lol). I won't be starting the second book until the new year so there's hope still!

[NeoEvaX]

I think it is interesting how we all use Realm works differently.

I use Hero Lab for my monsters and encounters, then I load their files into Realm Works. I use Realm works for all the Story/Towns/NPC background/Lore/etc. Not the "rules".

I don't think I would use Realm works to look up rules or monsters, I would just use the web, or Hero Lab. But Realm works works so much better than trying to scan through the huge book that is RotRLs. Looking up who runs the item shop in Sandport is a LOT harder without Realm Works than looking up the stats to a beast or Rules.

I am not saying how other people use it is wrong, just kinda intrigued how many ways it can be used. Its a testament to how powerful it can be.

[Dhrakken]

I have yet to really use it; it just seems natural to me to have all the core stuff in first and then layer the adventures on top of it. My vision is that eventually, RW and HL will be the only tools I will use for campaign and encounter management. I'll still use roll20 I think as I love the additional functionality it gives (like being able to drop spell effects right on the map) over RW. But hey, I'm not here to debate RW's VTT (or lack thereof) capabilities; I just want content cuz I'm a lazy ass!

Question: when the Bestiaries are available, I assume they will include the HL link/statblocks automatically?

[LeeSmith]

I'd love to see some "Generic" stuff, as I dont play Pathfinder, I do play Castles and Crusades though.

[AEIOU]

I'm voting for Modules and Smaller Adventures as I've moved on to 5e and these could be recyclable.

If I wanted PF material, I'd choose the Golarian Campaign Setting. I'm a sandbox person so having the world at my fingertips would be a godsend. Rules and Mobs would be next.

[ShadowChemosh]

For myself I would like the adventures and world information (ie everything from Pathfinderwiki would be SWEET). The only part of the Bestiary that I would make use of is the Fluff Text and Images. The hard-rules statblock is left to HL to deal. I don't run combat from RW.

I also don't see myself needing core rules mixed with my campaign stuff. To me they are just two very separate things that work better using different tools. In this case using d20pfsrd for the rules and RW for the campaign.

I recently starting entering info for a new Realm for Dragons Demand. I tried putting a few monsters in the mechanics section to see how it would work. I stopped after 3 as I found it allot of work for little gain. Plus visually seeing the statblock in RW is SUPER hard for me to read. I don't know why but looking at the statblock on d20pfsrd is way easier for my eyes to parse the data. :(

[Silveras]

What is LoneWolf's position viz. Open Game License content?

Specifically, since it is (presumably) legal for any RealmWorks user to enter and re-publish all of the content on the Pathfinder Reference Document as a Realm... what is LoneWolf's expectation along that line?

[Tejedor]

i think it is interesting how we all use realm works differently.

I use hero lab for my monsters and encounters, then i load their files into realm works. I use realm works for all the story/towns/npc background/lore/etc. Not the "rules".

I don't think i would use realm works to look up rules or monsters, i would just use the web, or hero lab. But realm works works so much better than trying to scan through the huge book that is rotrls. Looking up who runs the item shop in sandport is a lot harder without realm works than looking up the stats to a beast or rules.

I am not saying how other people use it is wrong, just kinda intrigued how many ways it can be used. Its a testament to how powerful it can be.

this!

[Galymyr]

I'm going to have to go with the campaign setting. Admittedly I'm very very new to Realm Works but I'm not seeing the value in having the core Rulebooms in RW. I thought RW was supposed to help me manage the intricacies of the game world and all the interactions happening. How does having access to initiative rules in RW help me at all? Am I missing something really awesome about RW?

[RexCelestis]

I will cast another vote for Rise of the Rune Lords

[ShadowChemosh]

What is LoneWolf's position viz. Open Game License content?

Specifically, since it is (presumably) legal for any RealmWorks user to enter and re-publish all of the content on the Pathfinder Reference Document as a Realm... what is LoneWolf's expectation along that line?
Good question. That then naturally leads into the thought that if this starts to happen than we could end up with dozens of Pathfinder SRD by different community members. Unlike a wiki no way to work cooperatively "yet" on a single realm.

That seems like both a good and bad thing. :)

[BufonP]

I think it is interesting how we all use Realm works differently.

I use Hero Lab for my monsters and encounters, then I load their files into Realm Works. I use Realm works for all the Story/Towns/NPC background/Lore/etc. Not the "rules".

I don't think I would use Realm works to look up rules or monsters, I would just use the web, or Hero Lab. But Realm works works so much better than trying to scan through the huge book that is RotRLs. Looking up who runs the item shop in Sandport is a LOT harder without Realm Works than looking up the stats to a beast or Rules.

I am not saying how other people use it is wrong, just kinda intrigued how many ways it can be used. Its a testament to how powerful it can be.

this!

Yeah, THIS.
I use realmworks primarly to build my own stuff or as a compendium of relationships and ownerships for preexisting campaigns.

[Silveras]

I'm going to have to go with the campaign setting. Admittedly I'm very very new to Realm Works but I'm not seeing the value in having the core Rulebooms in RW. I thought RW was supposed to help me manage the intricacies of the game world and all the interactions happening. How does having access to initiative rules in RW help me at all? Am I missing something really awesome about RW?

I think most people want things like Classes, Races, Feats, and such.. not so much Cover, Concealment, Initiative, etc. (although I did enter those in my Rise of the Runelords Realm).

And that, I suppose, exposes another slice of the question.. if you want Rules, do you want ALL Rules, or just selectable things like Classes, Races, and Feats?

[rob]

What is LoneWolf's position viz. Open Game License content?

Specifically, since it is (presumably) legal for any RealmWorks user to enter and re-publish all of the content on the Pathfinder Reference Document as a Realm... what is LoneWolf's expectation along that line?

We have a full license from Paizo for doing ALL Pathfinder material. So it's just a matter of prioritizing what we do first. An army of users will absolutely get stuff done faster than we can, but there's also the question of quality, consistency, accuracy, and quite a few other words ending in "y". :)

Any content that users create and share under the OGL is perfectly fine. And it can co-exist with anything we do. The two co-exist peacefully on the Hero Lab side. Lots of users will want the artwork (not OGL) and the "official" material that we've put the time and testing into. Lots of users will want to save some coin. There's a place for both.

The one big concern I have with our revised Content Market approach is that it may become "the Wild West" for a short time. The original CM model positioned us as sort of "curating" the available content, since users could not share content outside of our ecosystem. Without that chokepoint in place, I can see multiple users providing the same or overlapping material, and it could even become "competitive" on some level. That's going to be confusing (and very annoying) for everyone. So we (Lone Wolf) may have to become involved in the process to some extent. I'm just not sure how that will unfold yet.

This is something that I'm definitely losing sleep over these days, as it's going to have a qualitative impact on the overall experience for everyone. This is probably the one biggest drawback accompanying the revised plan, but we felt the pros far outweighed the cons, and it seems the user community agrees with that view. We're still working to figure out how best to handle this wrinkle.

[Silveras]

Good question. That then naturally leads into the thought that if this starts to happen than we could end up with dozens of Pathfinder SRD by different community members. Unlike a wiki no way to work cooperatively "yet" on a single realm.

That seems like both a good and bad thing. :)

I imagine the differentiation would be along the lines of whose organization scheme is considered better, or at least more compatible with the buyer's style of play. It would likely lead to some very specialized packages... Core + PFS changes vs. Core + all non-world-specific books vs just Feats, Skills, Classes, etc. from all books... and so on,

LoneWolf, as licensors, could use the actual artwork from the books, which would be one differentiator for them. And some folks just feel better with the "official" version.. so that's another. PFS acceptance of an "official" Realm is unlikely, given that (as I understand) printed copies of PDF pages are required now (and the PDF itself is not accepted)... though that could change, I suppose.

If the re-packaging of Open Content is to be expected, then I would think that pushes the importance of the closed content... the Adventure text and the World-specific setting content... to the front of the priority list for LoneWolf.

[Silveras]

We have a full license from Paizo for doing ALL Pathfinder material. So it's just a matter of prioritizing what we do first. An army of users will absolutely get stuff done faster than we can, but there's also the question of quality, consistency, accuracy, and quite a few other words ending in "y". :)

Any content that users create and share under the OGL is perfectly fine. And it can co-exist with anything we do. The two co-exist peacefully on the Hero Lab side. Lots of users will want the artwork (not OGL) and the "official" material that we've put the time and testing into. Lots of users will want to save some coin. There's a place for both.

The one big concern I have with our revised Content Market approach is that it may become "the Wild West" for a short time. The original CM model positioned us as sort of "curating" the available content, since users could not share content outside of our ecosystem. Without that chokepoint in place, I can see multiple users providing the same or overlapping material, and it could even become "competitive" on some level. That's going to be confusing (and very annoying) for everyone. So we (Lone Wolf) may have to become involved in the process to some extent. I'm just not sure how that will unfold yet.

This is something that I'm definitely losing sleep over these days, as it's going to have a qualitative impact on the overall experience for everyone. This is probably the one biggest drawback accompanying the revised plan, but we felt the pros far outweighed the cons, and it seems the user community agrees with that view. We're still working to figure out how best to handle this wrinkle.

Thanks, Rob.

In a way, LoneWolf is pretty much in the position Adobe was in when Acrobat was premiered. A little-known product that offers a new medium for publication.

The difference is that RealmWorks is dependent upon the servers at LoneWolf. That's a more closed-system operation than PDFs were back then. That carries the responsibility to police the closed environment, as you mentioned; the opening up of that environment does have other risks.

Unlike Adobe, who "only" had to worry about establishing PDF as a standard, RealmWorks' consumers are bound to LoneWolf by that closed environment. The gaming market is niche enough that, even if RealmWorks becomes popular within that population, it is not like that is a large enough population (right now, anyway) to support an independent "hosting" environment.

So... fasten your seatbelts... it's going to be a bumpy ride.,

On the plus side, the OGL community has had some time to mature. You may see a few ambitious amateurs pop up, and some may even "make it big", but I'd like to think it won't be quite as wild as the past. :)

[Exmortis]

We have a full license from Paizo for doing ALL Pathfinder material. So it's just a matter of prioritizing what we do first. An army of users will absolutely get stuff done faster than we can, but there's also the question of quality, consistency, accuracy, and quite a few other words ending in "y". :)

Any content that users create and share under the OGL is perfectly fine. And it can co-exist with anything we do. The two co-exist peacefully on the Hero Lab side. Lots of users will want the artwork (not OGL) and the "official" material that we've put the time and testing into. Lots of users will want to save some coin. There's a place for both.

The one big concern I have with our revised Content Market approach is that it may become "the Wild West" for a short time. The original CM model positioned us as sort of "curating" the available content, since users could not share content outside of our ecosystem. Without that chokepoint in place, I can see multiple users providing the same or overlapping material, and it could even become "competitive" on some level. That's going to be confusing (and very annoying) for everyone. So we (Lone Wolf) may have to become involved in the process to some extent. I'm just not sure how that will unfold yet.

This is something that I'm definitely losing sleep over these days, as it's going to have a qualitative impact on the overall experience for everyone. This is probably the one biggest drawback accompanying the revised plan, but we felt the pros far outweighed the cons, and it seems the user community agrees with that view. We're still working to figure out how best to handle this wrinkle.

ME? I want bestiaries followed by rules, but only got one vote.

Rob,

I wouldn't lose sleep over this, it is absolutely going to be the wild west, but this will be the initial short term impact.

Your analogy to HL is valid and a good key way for everyone to see as the future of RW, after the initial rough patch settles down.

LWD's HL work is great, the communities work in HL superbly complimentary to it. That's how I envision RW in a year or so, people like Shadow leading the way for the community to rally around, like the RW Desert Rangers.

[daplunk]

How will RW > HL integration be handled in situations where the *.user file has not been released to the user?

I know we can embed portfolios in RW but they still require the underlying *.user file to pre-exist in Hero Lab in order for the content to work.

Lets say a new monster book is released via RW. Does that then come with the HL user file? Will installation be possible on HL for the purchased content within RW?

[Exmortis]

How will RW > HL integration be handled in situations where the *.user file has not been released to the user?

I know we can embed portfolios in RW but they still require the underlying *.user file to pre-exist in Hero Lab in order for the content to work.

Lets say a new monster book is released via RW. Does that then come with the HL user file? Will installation be possible on HL for the purchased content within RW?

Those are two different products with two different stores. So You would have to buy the product on both, or the 3PP doing the release would have to make both available I would think.

For my take, if I decided to share out my Daede campaign, it would include the Daede.user file I have created to support the campaign in HL. But I am not a publisher for money on it, it would be just a dude sharing his work for others to use if they so desired.

[daplunk]

This is where I go back to some of my other comments in that Hero Lab and Realm Works need to become closer. One store, one cloud solution, one login that manages your license issues.

Given the two integrate it would not make sense to have to buy the content twice.

At this stage with my current understanding, the only way I would want to release Hero Lab portfolios would be content that is made using a custom monster race that is included in the core content. Then comparability would not be an issue.

[Daelda]

I don't play Pathfinder, BUT I DO use some of their adventures (slightly modified). I've done this sort of thing for over 30 years - taken adventures, NPCs, artwork, maps, etc, from other game systems and adapted them for the game system I am currently using.

Often, I have found that the one thing most lacking in many game systems is adventures and similar material. But if I can snag a Pathfinder, D&D, Warhammer or other adventure and tweak it just enough to fit the system I am using, I'm golden!

What this boils dow to is this - by starting with adventures, and building from there, you cater not just to the Pathfinder folks, but also to people who don't play Pathfinder, or even D&D. You will get people who play all sorts of game systems purchasing the material and adapting it to their own games. This is a big win, because I am sure that after all of this time and all of these delays, Lone Wolf is chomping at the bit to see some cash flow!

Oh, and on a personal note - I want the Grand Temple of Jing as soon as possible! I have plans for that place! Bwahahaha!

[rob]

How will RW > HL integration be handled in situations where the *.user file has not been released to the user?

I know we can embed portfolios in RW but they still require the underlying *.user file to pre-exist in Hero Lab in order for the content to work.

Lets say a new monster book is released via RW. Does that then come with the HL user file? Will installation be possible on HL for the purchased content within RW?

You should never be sharing ".user" files directly. You should be generating an export file to contain those files. Once you do that, the user just double-clicks that file and HL sucks it in and does the right things with it automagically.

So...

All you need to do is add a single "Foreign Object" snippet to the entry point topic for your exported RW content. This snippet is assigned the HL file you created above. And you can include some GM Directions atop that snippet to tell users what the file is and does, along with instructions to just launch the file from within RW. When the user does that, HL gets launched and the file gets sucked in.

Everything is ready to go, and it just requires a single snippet be added to your content! :)

[rob]

Those are two different products with two different stores. So You would have to buy the product on both, or the 3PP doing the release would have to make both available I would think.

If the content is being sold separately for the two products, then separate purchases would be required.

For my take, if I decided to share out my Daede campaign, it would include the Daede.user file I have created to support the campaign in HL. But I am not a publisher for money on it, it would be just a dude sharing his work for others to use if they so desired.

In your case, you could easily leverage the approach that I outlined above for @daplunk.

[ShadowChemosh]

You should never be sharing ".user" files directly. You should be generating an export file to contain those files. Once you do that, the user just double-clicks that file and HL sucks it in and does the right things with it automagically.

To build on this see THIS (http://www.wolflair.com/index.php?context=hero_lab&page=custom_content_on_the_ipad#userfiles) article on LW website on how to build the .hl file that Rob is talking about. Yes it talks about the iPad but all version of HL can suck in the "export file" (ie .hl file).

All you need to do is add a single "Foreign Object" snippet to the entry point topic for your exported RW content. This snippet is assigned the HL file you created above. And you can include some GM Directions atop that snippet to tell users what the file is and does, along with instructions to just launch the file from within RW. When the user does that, HL gets launched and the file gets sucked in.
This to me opens up a whole can of worms actually of potential issues. I will wait to see how the content market actually works before asking questions. I will for now safely assume that Rob has already foreseen those and worked them all out. :)

[rob]

This is where I go back to some of my other comments in that Hero Lab and Realm Works need to become closer. One store, one cloud solution, one login that manages your license issues.

Given the two integrate it would not make sense to have to buy the content twice.

There will be users who want the Hero Lab stuff without Realm Works. There will be users who want the Realm Works stuff without Hero Lab. And there will be those that want both. That leaves us with two options: sell them separately or require users to pay the combined price for both when they only want one piece of it. We think users clearly would prefer the former option.

A common misconception is that users are paying for the same content multiple times. That couldn't be farther from the truth, as that would mean the exact same work is being done for writing the original material (by the publisher), creating the Hero Lab files, and getting everything folded neatly into Realm Works. I think everyone here on these forums is well aware that those are three RADICALLY different efforts. Yet they still get conflated with some regularity.

That being said, your proposal is absolutely a good one regarding a closer integration of the two products. In fact, that's something we're actively working towards behind the scenes right now. You'll be hearing more about that in the months to come. Once that happens, though, you'll still see a clean separation between the two products, at least for quite some time. The only thing we'd be able to do better is provide a discount to someone who wants both the Hero Lab AND Realm Works material, which is something we'd love to offer but currently cannot.

[rob]

This to me opens up a whole can of worms actually of potential issues. I will wait to see how the content market actually works before asking questions. I will for now safely assume that Rob has already foreseen those and worked them all out. :)

Um, maybe. Maybe not. I'd vastly rather you flag the concerns NOW and have me confirm that it's already been considered than get blind-sided by something I overlooked in a couple months. :)

[RonnieMonster]

I'd like to see large amounts of complex content in Realm Works first. Ideally, I want everything (yeah, I'm a Pathfinder junkie), but my dream is for the Rise of the Runelords adventure path already entered into RW, since that's what my group's getting me to run.

[kbs666]

You should never be sharing ".user" files directly. You should be generating an export file to contain those files. Once you do that, the user just double-clicks that file and HL sucks it in and does the right things with it automagically.

So...

All you need to do is add a single "Foreign Object" snippet to the entry point topic for your exported RW content. This snippet is assigned the HL file you created above. And you can include some GM Directions atop that snippet to tell users what the file is and does, along with instructions to just launch the file from within RW. When the user does that, HL gets launched and the file gets sucked in.

Everything is ready to go, and it just requires a single snippet be added to your content! :)
This opens up some exciting possibilities.

A campaign author could provide not just a RW realm but a customized HL export file that automatically had the campaign's languages, deities etc. available in HL without the purchaser needing to do a thing.

[DaFranker]

(...)
The one big concern I have with our revised Content Market approach is that it may become "the Wild West" for a short time. The original CM model positioned us as sort of "curating" the available content, since users could not share content outside of our ecosystem. Without that chokepoint in place, I can see multiple users providing the same or overlapping material, and it could even become "competitive" on some level. That's going to be confusing (and very annoying) for everyone. So we (Lone Wolf) may have to become involved in the process to some extent. I'm just not sure how that will unfold yet.

This is something that I'm definitely losing sleep over these days, as it's going to have a qualitative impact on the overall experience for everyone. This is probably the one biggest drawback accompanying the revised plan, but we felt the pros far outweighed the cons, and it seems the user community agrees with that view. We're still working to figure out how best to handle this wrinkle.

If it's going to be the Wild West for a while, perhaps what you need is simply some Sheriffs, to keep the metaphor.

Let the users go wild with things. It's a large new free open world. But for various community efforts, give us the tools to set up "mayors" and "sheriffs", people who coordinate community content creation efforts and who can gate the user-created content for inclusion in community packs.

Basically, the wikipedia approach. Would that work?

[kbs666]

Alternatively, why worry about it at all?

If several content creators produce something similar then let them compete against each other. If it is something the community wants people will find the approach they like best and use it.

Look at the Steam Workshop. For a popular game many different modders may do essentially the same thing. People post reviews and the community figures out which ones are good and which ones aren't.

[ShadowChemosh]

Um, maybe. Maybe not. I'd vastly rather you flag the concerns NOW and have me confirm that it's already been considered than get blind-sided by something I overlooked in a couple months. :)
Fair point. My concern would be now that you just turned RW into a source code repository tool that it has to be allowed to "update" the source file. The .hl file that contains the .user files is simply not guaranteed to work with each new update to the Pathfinder HL game. That is not a put down just a simple statement of fact. So the .hl file in the snippet has to have a way to be updated/changed/fixed.

Based on your comments before the content market data can be used in a way that the snippet would "point" to the data. In other words a full copy of the snippet/data would not need to be duplicated into each persons realm. My assumption is that when the data that is being pointed/referenced is updated that a person would be notified. Hence the same could happen to get a new .hl file to everyone.

I said you must have taken this into account as RW needs to be able to take into account changes/fixes/errata to published rules/adventures. But sense I have not seen the content market stuff yet I am not 100% sure.

If the above is not possible then the idea of supporting a secondary update URL in addition to the .hl file could be done. The GM Snippet could have info on setting up the URL into HL. So that future updates would happen from HL not RW. That is an alternate solution that is both good and bad.

The next issue I was seeing was that publisher ABC puts out a .hl file. They stop supporting the RW stuff or maybe go out of business. For community stuff the person simply gets bored of gaming and leaves. The .hl file stops working a year down the line when a new official Pathfinder update comes out. Another person (like myself) fixes the .hl file but now I have no way of getting the fixed file to everyone as I don't have authority to update the Realm the HL file is in. Leaving many people that don't check forums unable to use the HL part of what they got. :(

You asked but I am feeling this is derailing way off the threads topic... :o

[rob]

If it's going to be the Wild West for a while, perhaps what you need is simply some Sheriffs, to keep the metaphor.

Let the users go wild with things. It's a large new free open world. But for various community efforts, give us the tools to set up "mayors" and "sheriffs", people who coordinate community content creation efforts and who can gate the user-created content for inclusion in community packs.

Basically, the wikipedia approach. Would that work?

There's one critical distinction wherein the core problem lies. Everything for wikipedia is wholly contained within wikipedia. So a "sheriff" would be someone that assists us within an ecosystem we controlled. Alas, users will be able to distribute content independently of us. As such, there is no way to appoint anyone "sheriff" and give them any actual authority whatsoever.

[rob]

Alternatively, why worry about it at all?

If several content creators produce something similar then let them compete against each other. If it is something the community wants people will find the approach they like best and use it.

Look at the Steam Workshop. For a popular game many different modders may do essentially the same thing. People post reviews and the community figures out which ones are good and which ones aren't.

Um, I think you're overlooking a very important aspect of all this. An example will help illustrate my concern. Let's say that User1 puts together a few of the Pathfinder rulebooks and distributes them under the OGL. Now User2 does the same thing. You adopt the material from User1 for whatever reason. Then User2 becomes the "fan-favorite" source and User1 abandons his efforts. So now you want to switch to the material from User2. Sounds good so far, right?

You import everything from User2. You now have duplicates of everything that was done by both User1 and User2. So you have go and clean all that content from User1 out. But wait. The content in your realm is all linked to the material from User1. So you also have to re-link all your content to the new material from User2. Both of those steps are going to be extremely annoying, right?

There's no problem with the wild west for people creating their own content. It will work fine for that, and I'm not worried in the slightest. The gotcha is with OGL material that can be provided by lots of different users that overlaps. Users will experience both the issues that I outlined above, and it will get even more convoluted if there are a half-dozen users providing the same content instead of just two.

I hope that makes more sense! :)

[rob]

Fair point. My concern would be now that you just turned RW into a source code repository tool that it has to be allowed to "update" the source file. The .hl file that contains the .user files is simply not guaranteed to work with each new update to the Pathfinder HL game. That is not a put down just a simple statement of fact. So the .hl file in the snippet has to have a way to be updated/changed/fixed.

Based on your comments before the content market data can be used in a way that the snippet would "point" to the data. In other words a full copy of the snippet/data would not need to be duplicated into each persons realm. My assumption is that when the data that is being pointed/referenced is updated that a person would be notified. Hence the same could happen to get a new .hl file to everyone.

I said you must have taken this into account as RW needs to be able to take into account changes/fixes/errata to published rules/adventures. But sense I have not seen the content market stuff yet I am not 100% sure.

If the above is not possible then the idea of supporting a secondary update URL in addition to the .hl file could be done. The GM Snippet could have info on setting up the URL into HL. So that future updates would happen from HL not RW. That is an alternate solution that is both good and bad.

The next issue I was seeing was that publisher ABC puts out a .hl file. They stop supporting the RW stuff or maybe go out of business. For community stuff the person simply gets bored of gaming and leaves. The .hl file stops working a year down the line when a new official Pathfinder update comes out. Another person (like myself) fixes the .hl file but now I have no way of getting the fixed file to everyone as I don't have authority to update the Realm the HL file is in. Leaving many people that don't check forums unable to use the HL part of what they got. :(

You asked but I am feeling this is derailing way off the threads topic... :o

Excellent points! And you caught me being overly simplistic in my examples, which was probably an error in hindsight, so let me clarify. :)

For something simple, such as the specific rules for a setting that someone is sharing, using the embedded ".hl" file will work great. For more sophisticated situations, though, that would be a big mistake, as your arguments above all apply. However, the model employed would remain basically the same. Instead of there being a snippet containing the ".hl" file itself, there would be a snippet containing the appropriate secondary updates URL, along with instructions for how to add that URL into Hero Lab. Once that's done, the user would always get the latest version of the appropriate HL data files for the shared content.

I believe both approaches will have their place. And I'm guessing that there will be cases where someone starts small with the embedded ".hl" file and their material gains traction with users to the point where it grows and needs to transition to using the secondary updates approach. There will also probably be people who start out with embedded ".hl" file that shouldn't. I'm pretty sure those cases will be recognized by users "in the know" about the better way of handling things, at which point corrections can be made in the next "version" of the content that gets shared.

We've got the ability for users to share the same content as an "update" that replaces and/or augments the original content (errata is fundamental to RPGs). So the original snippet gets dropped and the new one with the URL gets added. Users get the new details and everything is right with the world.

At least, that's how I'm envisioning things working. We'll see if I'm overlooking something nasty or if authors refuse to accept proper encouragement to use the best approaches for blending their HL files within RW. My guess (hope?) is that it will all work out alright. :)

[Cornelius]

Um, I think you're overlooking a very important aspect of all this. An example will help illustrate my concern. Let's say that User1 puts together a few of the Pathfinder rulebooks and distributes them under the OGL. Now User2 does the same thing. You adopt the material from User1 for whatever reason. Then User2 becomes the "fan-favorite" source and User1 abandons his efforts. So now you want to switch to the material from User2. Sounds good so far, right?

You import everything from User2. You now have duplicates of everything that was done by both User1 and User2. So you have go and clean all that content from User1 out. But wait. The content in your realm is all linked to the material from User1. So you also have to re-link all your content to the new material from User2. Both of those steps are going to be extremely annoying, right?

There's no problem with the wild west for people creating their own content. It will work fine for that, and I'm not worried in the slightest. The gotcha is with OGL material that can be provided by lots of different users that overlaps. Users will experience both the issues that I outlined above, and it will get even more convoluted if there are a half-dozen users providing the same content instead of just two.

I hope that makes more sense! :)
I am not sure if the wild west will happen, although I understand the concerns. But this issue also creates a sort of loyal fanbase. Especially if there is 'official' work. When for instance the core set of PF is 'official' only users that build upon it (and not duplicate it) are interesting for me. Users that have their own system of doing things will probably be less interesting as I have to do a lot of rework on it to fit it in my own realm. That will prevent me from using material from different suppliers. Users or groups of users could create their own fanbase, so to speak, if they are consistent in their approach.

As in real life parts can be governed and other parts cannot not. If there is a group of dedicated users for a specific game system maybe they can be sanctioned by either LW or the publisher to do the work for them. Of course if the Publisher is on board it is (almost) offical work. Of course if the publisher is not on board IP issues may arise and as LW you do not want to be caught up in those.

I am not sure if there will be a review system within the CM, but if it is this is also a way for other users to comment on the work that is delivered and in essence govern themselves better.

[Happydevil43]

If I could have voted for 2 then it would be the bestiaries and the AP's.
The AP's (be nice if it was Jade Regent and then Crimson Throne...but that's just me, as I am running Jade Regent, and probably Crimson Throne after that), and the bestiaries well be nice to link directly to monsters etc.

I am really looking forward to the changes...

[ri_gamer]

I voted for the AP's. I'm not really a Pathfinder DM, but I have been converting Runelords to 5E. I'm really looking forward to having the data entry part done for me so that I can concentrate on the conversion

[jkthomsen9]

I would love to see Wrath of the Righteous and Giantslayer campaigns.

[Arbarth]

I am interested in seeing Rise of the Runelords and associated materials. In addition I would like to see the core set of rules (Core, AG, ACG, ARG, All Beastries). These would be my choices for initial release content.

[Jamz]

Um, I think you're overlooking a very important aspect of all this. An example will help illustrate my concern. Let's say that User1 puts together a few of the Pathfinder rulebooks and distributes them under the OGL. Now User2 does the same thing. You adopt the material from User1 for whatever reason. Then User2 becomes the "fan-favorite" source and User1 abandons his efforts. So now you want to switch to the material from User2. Sounds good so far, right?

You import everything from User2. You now have duplicates of everything that was done by both User1 and User2. So you have go and clean all that content from User1 out. But wait. The content in your realm is all linked to the material from User1. So you also have to re-link all your content to the new material from User2. Both of those steps are going to be extremely annoying, right?

There's no problem with the wild west for people creating their own content. It will work fine for that, and I'm not worried in the slightest. The gotcha is with OGL material that can be provided by lots of different users that overlaps. Users will experience both the issues that I outlined above, and it will get even more convoluted if there are a half-dozen users providing the same content instead of just two.

I hope that makes more sense! :)

Is there a way (or will there be a way) for multiple users to share a "Content Owner ID"?

For example, say 3 friends start a "company" and produce content for the market, can any of the 3 update said content? Same question for a "Community Project"...

Or should we just, say, share the DB raw via something like GitHub and the users would have to check in/out the whole DB to modify content?

I guess another way to "Sheriff" this whole thing would be someone, lets say ShadowChemosh, offers a "Community Base Realm" and other users submits individual books as they do them. The sheriff's job would be to import them into his realm, make sure things are good, then publish the combined effort?

[Farling]

Is there a way (or will there be a way) for multiple users to share a "Content Owner ID"?

For example, say 3 friends start a "company" and produce content for the market, can any of the 3 update said content? Same question for a "Community Project"...

Or should we just, say, share the DB raw via something like GitHub and the users would have to check in/out the whole DB to modify content?

I guess another way to "Sheriff" this whole thing would be someone, lets say ShadowChemosh, offers a "Community Base Realm" and other users submits individual books as they do them. The sheriff's job would be to import them into his realm, make sure things are good, then publish the combined effort?

This would be covered by them including support for multiple GMs, which is in the list of requested features (see that forum).

[rob]

Is there a way (or will there be a way) for multiple users to share a "Content Owner ID"?

For example, say 3 friends start a "company" and produce content for the market, can any of the 3 update said content? Same question for a "Community Project"...

Or should we just, say, share the DB raw via something like GitHub and the users would have to check in/out the whole DB to modify content?

I guess another way to "Sheriff" this whole thing would be someone, lets say ShadowChemosh, offers a "Community Base Realm" and other users submits individual books as they do them. The sheriff's job would be to import them into his realm, make sure things are good, then publish the combined effort?

As @Farling indicated, shared access to a realm would require multi-user support. And multi-user support is quite complicated in a disconnected model like RW. So that's not going to be possible out of the gate.

Your idea about having one person merge the content from others into a unified whole would (I think) work well from an operational standpoint.

An important thing to keep in mind is IP considerations. RW introduces the ability for users to fold IP owned by others into their realms. That's perfectly fine for your personal use to run your games. However, sharing that material can quickly become a problem. Even with OGL material, there is typically a mixture of Product Identity material mixed in, so users will need to be careful about properly excising the PI material from the OGL material that can be freely shared. I'm assuming that some users will be diligent about that, while others won't be. And the moment that there is a collaborative effort, whoever the "consolidator" becomes will need to police that aspect appropriately.

This is all readily achievable, but I feel it's important to keep everyone mindful about these considerations, lest it get glossed over and somebody gets into trouble unnecessarily. :)

[themantheycallcris]

If Giantslayer is added in before we're too much further into the campaign then Lord willing I would be buying a license for myself to run it, and a player license for all the guys at my table.

Without Giantslayer, I'm in no rush and may pick up a license in a couple years.

[ChipmunkPDX]

I will cast another vote for Rise of the Rune Lords

I have to admit (embarrassingly so) that I saw a YouTube Video which made it seem like Rise of the Runelords was already available, which is why I bought it. So this is what I am waiting for. My group is new to Pathfinder, and wants to start with that campaign. So Realm works will just sit unopened until that is available for us to use.

[kbs666]

We've seen Rise of the Runelords in several videos from LWD so it is safe to assume it will be in the first wave of CM material.

[rob]

We've seen Rise of the Runelords in several videos from LWD so it is safe to assume it will be in the first wave of CM material.

NOTHING IS SAFE TO ASSUME!

While portions of RotRL were shown, that was WAY back. Chapter 1 was done as a PROTOTYPE of how we'd be doing content in general. What we showed back then was that prototype. As with all good prototypes, it was subsequently thrown away. :)

Yes, RotRL is high on our list of stuff to release. However, I'm pretty sure that RotRL will NOT be in the FIRST wave of content we release. That said, I'm also pretty sure that it will be in the SECOND wave of content we release. So please don't expect it in the first batch of content. But you can definitely expect it to be released pretty soon thereafter. :)

[mazzy]

NOTHING IS SAFE TO ASSUME!

That should be your signature :p

[ri_gamer]

Too bad, was really looking forward to RotRL in the first wave. Is there a guesstimate for when we see the second wave?

[Maidhc O Casain]

I'm hoping the first wave will include all the stuff that was set up in the Kickstarter...

[AEIOU]

I'm expecting the stuff that was in the Kickstarter will be released before other new content. Fulfill commitments that are already years late.

[Hilmig]

I voted for pathfinder rule books first as this the realm I started with when creating my own adventure, I have since started playing 5th edition and would like content for this system as much as is legally allowed. I have yet to use RW in an actual session, still entering adventure details, however I love the way RW works and will definitely use it once I feel my adventure is ready for my current group. I can't wait for the content market to start up.

[Billy277]

Rob or other staff,

I know schedules are always subject to change and you can't say anything with too much certainty, but do you have a timeframe for how often you hope to see Pathfinder content released? Like, would you shoot for some fixed number of sourcebooks or adventures/modules a month?

[BJ]

Rob or other staff,

I know schedules are always subject to change and you can't say anything with too much certainty, but do you have a timeframe for how often you hope to see Pathfinder content released? Like, would you shoot for some fixed number of sourcebooks or adventures/modules a month?

Unfortunately, we don't have a concrete schedule at this time, but we do hope to release content of various kinds on a regular basis.

[Znicker]

NOTHING IS SAFE TO ASSUME!

While portions of RotRL were shown, that was WAY back. Chapter 1 was done as a PROTOTYPE of how we'd be doing content in general. What we showed back then was that prototype. As with all good prototypes, it was subsequently thrown away. :)

Yes, RotRL is high on our list of stuff to release. However, I'm pretty sure that RotRL will NOT be in the FIRST wave of content we release. That said, I'm also pretty sure that it will be in the SECOND wave of content we release. So please don't expect it in the first batch of content. But you can definitely expect it to be released pretty soon thereafter. :)

A bit disappointed by this. I would really like to know the aprox expected release of "the second wave" then. The wait for this delays my planned RotRL AP. If i know that it will be a year before release i will do the job my self. But i its a matter of months i will wait and save the time creating it.

I would really appriciate a honest aprox release time:)

This is not meant as critisicm, but just a way for me to plan my use of RW!

Im all yours faithfully for ever! Thanks for making awsome programs, and keep up the good work:)

[Billy277]

Just to sort of echo what Znicker said, what would be very wonderful is knowing which modules/APs are coming down the pike. If we have some idea of what's coming in the next, say, six months, we'll know which ones we may or may not want to build ourselves.

[jkthomsen9]

Just to sort of echo what Znicker said, what would be very wonderful is knowing which modules/APs are coming down the pike. If we have some idea of what's coming in the next, say, six months, we'll know which ones we may or may not want to build ourselves.

+1 For this. I have stopped all data entry waiting to see what is coming. My players are quickly gaining on me as I am waiting to see if Wrath of the Righteous made the cut. It is difficult for me to invest 40-60 hours per module if I can buy it soon.

[rob]

Rise of the Runelords is expected to be in the second waves of content, which will probably come about a month after the first wave. So the wait for RotRL won't be long.

For other material, BJ and I need to sit down together and nail down the plan. When doing that, we also need to look at the survey results to incorporate that feedback into the overall priority of content. This is a pretty reasonable request. We'll do our best to get you a bit more details like you want. However, please understand that we'red swamped right now, so please be patient, and provide a few polite reminders in in interim.

[Znicker]

Rise of the Runelords is expected to be in the second waves of content, which will probably come about a month after the first wave. So the wait for RotRL won't be long.

yay! Dancing on the living room floor a little:)

[ri_gamer]

Woo Hoo!

[daplunk]

Excellent. I think this will really impact how people are using the tool. I know a number of us have stalled data entry for specific products as we are unsure if that effort will be replaced by official content.

I'm already starting to consider what the 5e SRD release means for me.

Assuming all 5e content is created in a realm that contains the SRD content (I would hope this happens) then it will be important to use the SRD as the base to ensure linking occurs with future content. Knowledge of the pipeline will help everyone make the individual decisions on what to focus on.

Thanks Rob.

[Happydevil43]

Rise of the Runelords is expected to be in the second waves of content, which will probably come about a month after the first wave. So the wait for RotRL won't be long.

Excellent, our group is about 6 months from the end of Giantslayer, and we have been toying up returning to RotRL (starting afresh) and luckily I have only just starting doing some data input, so I will hold off now, our other option is to go to Crimson Throne.

So release schedule will come in very handy...

[themantheycallcris]

Any news or ideas on when the Giantslayer Campaign might become available in the Content Market? I'm really wanting to get it going with our group, and I've got 5 players that I plan to purchase player accounts for.

Any idea of when it would be available (months, years, whatever) would be very helpful!

Thanks!

[Viking2054]

First, we have to have the content market actually roll out. Who knows how long after they finally roll out the content market that it will become available? It could be available at the roll out or sometime later (days, weeks, months or years).

[pyremius]

Since any completed data entry has been invalidated by Paizo's upcoming switch to Pathfinder 2.0, I'd like to change my vote to Not Interested - I'd much prefer to see core functionality completed so we can make better use of the software with our system of choice, rather then waiting on a 3rd party to dither and dawdle so that nothing usable can be accomplished on any front.

[Acenoid]

good choice pyremius :D

[Asandir]

Since any completed data entry has been invalidated by Paizo's upcoming switch to Pathfinder 2.0, I'd like to change my vote to Not Interested - I'd much prefer to see core functionality completed so we can make better use of the software with our system of choice, rather then waiting on a 3rd party to dither and dawdle so that nothing usable can be accomplished on any front.

I'd like to respectfully disagree about the completed data entry. Our group has looked at the playtest and pretty much decided that we are not moving forward with PF2 and will remain with our two current systems, PF1 and 5E, which we alternate between depending upon who is GM'ing the current campaign.

I am also in favor of more core functionality completed as well. No argument from me on that front.

My two cents, FWIW. :)

[Dark Lord Galen]

We're going to be releasing an assortment of content for Realm Works when we launch the Content Market in December {2016}, with the initial focus being on adventures and other highly reusable material that can be dropped into numerous campaigns. A healthy portion of the content will be for Pathfinder, but not all of it. Beyond December, we'll continue to add more content for different game systems, with Pathfinder being prominent. This is just an informal poll to give us an idea of what aspects of the overall Pathfinder catalog you would find most desirable.

Note: This particular poll is exclusively targeted at Pathfinder GMs and players. If your interest lies with other game systems, please don't assume this means we're only going to be focusing on Pathfinder. We'll be supporting a variety of game systems. Pathfinder just happens to have a vast catalog, and we want to target our support effectively for the game.

Not to seem overly cynical.. (but will be taken that way by some) it's interesting that this thread started nearly 2 years ago and while we were assured then that this was not to seem like "we're only going to be focusing on Pathfinder. We'll be supporting a variety of game systems. " that is exactly what has occured... the brakes applied awaiting PF then,, and now....

In the one year and 10 months "other game systems "could have been supported" (or better yet overall completion of other commitments and improved general use) but the LWD course was already predetermined regardless of the fact that nearly 1/3 the people polled were "not interested" in the PF part, but wanted more functionality... kinda tells you where your vote is and all your +1's account for doesn't it.........:(

[rshold]

Not to seem overly cynical.. (but will be taken that way by some) it's interesting that this thread started nearly 2 years ago and while we were assured then that this was not to seem like "we're only going to be focusing on Pathfinder. We'll be supporting a variety of game systems. " that is exactly what has occured... the brakes applied awaiting PF then,, and now....


agree 100%

[Acenoid]

Just taking old posts at the beginning or on the middle of the road is imho a bit out of context. They communicated here and there what they gonna do. And we have here 120 votes or so... so what? If they rely on 120 ppl then they can shutdown the whole zoo here.

And the recent posts here all say the same just from different angles. Everyone should be allowed to post his/her opinion, but surely it is not necessary to spam every thread with an old lwd rob comment in it.

Let's wait for that content market and see what they are going to do. Probably they won't change the strategy now, after so many months passed by and paizo nearly done.

See ya around ! :)

[Dark Lord Galen]

Just taking old posts at the beginning or on the middle of the road is imho a bit out of context. They communicated here and there what they gonna do. And we have here 120 votes or so... so what? If they rely on 120 ppl then they can shutdown the whole zoo here.
True, and to point.. I didn't resurrect this particular thread.. was only clarifying the duration of its start in reference to where it sits currently...

And the recent posts here all say the same just from different angles. Everyone should be allowed to post his/her opinion, but surely it is not necessary to spam every thread with an old lwd rob comment in it.
Not sure that quoting what was in fact said qualifies as "spam"... Now has Rob / LWD position changed .. on somethings sure, others who knows , this defers back to the lack of good communication of a path forward... which also is pertinent to the discussion.. IMO it is not "spam", the quote(s) leave any "grey he said / she saids" out of it... they are merely a frame of reference for those that have not been on this "journey" for the years it has undertaken.

Let's wait for that content market and see what they are going to do. Probably they won't change the strategy now, after so many months passed by and paizo nearly done.

See ya around ! :)
correction.. not months... years.... :D
But you do have a valid point, any reference or discussion of past events / statements should have a full frame of reference for the benefit of those that have not been a part of the community for as long as we have.:)