What Pathfinder Content Do You Want to See First?

[BufonP]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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!

[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?

[ShadowChemosh]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Silveras]

Originally Posted by ShadowChemosh

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.

[rob]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.