What is 3-Play?

[John Reyst]

3-Play is the name of a planned new organized play network which will include products created by Pathfinder 3rd Party Publishers, and which allows a select subset of products from publishers. The plan is that the proposed initial set of allowed content will be presented to players and potential GMs and then voted on publicly to determine what should and shouldn't be included. Going forward we will implement a rolling APL (Approved Products List) which updates which products are approved for 3-Play and which may have to be updated or altered based on feedback.

Ultimately a separate goal of this network is to establish an impartial body which will generate a "stamp of approval" for products entering into the network, and which by extension will hopefully allow GMs who are not even involved in 3-Play to say "I allow any products stamped "Approved for 3-Play" because the GM knows that the products have been rigorously reviewed and examined for potential trouble spots.

Please post any comments, ideas, or suggestions you may have for this organized play network here. Also, we're going to be taking names of potential GMs for 3-Play and building a network of managing 3-Play events.

[Mythusmage]

How is work coming along on sites for ftf play? Any plans on pages for listing your desire for a game or players?

[Glampersand]

Sorry for nothing particularly constructive, but I think this is an awesome idea - one of the biggest barriers stopping me from buying into 3P material was the risk factor involved. I'm a GM so feel free to add me onto any list you like. If it helps, I've done extensive system analysis on games before (when helping with play-testing for developers and stuff).

[John Reyst]

No, that is very constructive, in that you explained how this would benefit you AND the publishers AND you indicated you are a GM and to add you to any lists we build. I'd call that very helpful and the sort of thing we're looking for. We'll be engaging the players and judges in determining what products become "approved" so everyone has a chance to say if something is widely considered broken/too strong, or just plain not interesting enough to add. Ultimately this might serve as a sort of Darwin-ization of 3pp products where the best float to the top and the weakest filter out. At least that's one of my own personal goals.

[Adam Langsdorf]

Count me in with Glampersand. I currently run a blanket ban on 3rd party material because of content from SGG. Been around the table for a long time (since 1987) as both a player and GM, would definitely be interested in helping with information.

[John Reyst]

When you say "blanket ban ... because of content from SGG" does that mean that you had a bad experience with SGG products in general, or a specific product, and if so, can you explain which product so we can see if we need to ensure that product does not get included in the Approved Products List?

Also, anyone with experience RUNNING or managing organized play networks please feel free to respond. We need to build what we're right now calling our "Judge's Guild" of which we'll later poll for products to add/remove from the proposed initial Approved Product List.

[Rick Hershey]

Just want to point out that the idea of a group approving 3rd pp products to earn a "seal of approval" bugs the heck out of me. I would much rather see a list of guidelines/requirements where a publisher can use them to create compatible content and then a committee that double checks their ability to follow those guidelines. I'm always against individuals having the exclusive power to determine an approval process, and am cautious when the term impartial is used, as I find it rarely is.

[John Reyst]

Ok, as mentioned previously, this "seal" would be required to designate products as approved for play in the 3-Play environment. By extension normal users might come to view this seal as an indicator of a quality level.

On Saturday, May 11, 2013 3:00:39 PM UTC-4, Rick Hershey wrote:

Just want to point out that the idea of a group approving 3rd pp products to earn a "seal of approval" bugs the heck out of me. I would much rather see a list of guidelines/requirements where a publisher can use them to create compatible content and then a committee that double checks their ability to follow those guidelines. I'm always against individuals having the exclusive power to determine an approval process, and am cautious when the term impartial is used, as I find it rarely is.

r 

[Adam Langsdorf]

Specifics... some of the concepts for classes bother me (godling classes) and are clearly intended to need prior GM approval.
I do not know the name of the module that a friend was running, but it was a 5th or 6th level party that found a ship (smaller one) which had it's hold full of blackpowder. Either I'm wrong about the price of blackpowder or that is well past what wealth for that level should be. (if anyone knows the module in question, let me know, was right past an ochre jelly in the captain's quarters? ship wasn't very large and had wrecked there.) When we found the black powder I flat asked him who the publisher was, hazarding a guess it was SGG. I was correct.
I think the racial favorite class bonuses for asterions and pipers both are better than anything others get..

Asterion ones..
*can you name another race with +2 to 2 physical stats and -2 to a mental stat?
*Base speed 40
* the vigorous charge rule?
Witch: +1/3 to effective witch level when determining the effectiveness of hexes. (+1 effective level for every three times you select this option.)
Cleric: +1 to concentration checks to cast a spell from one of your domains.
.... last I checked, those effects are hard to come by and, especially in the witch's case, quite potent once you have "save or out of the fight" hexes (slumber, frost tomb, and death curse all come to mind) remember, effective level sets the DC of those saves. for the cleric, +concentration checks has combat casting, and a trait.. i think it was focused mind? basically it's not easy to get. cleric one is more forgivable due to being restricted to domain spells.

Piper ones:
Mystic Voice (Su): Piper spellcasters have a natural magic in their voice and must use it as an element of all their spellcasting. The additional magic imbued in their voice means a spellcasting piper never has to worry about somatic components, and ignores the somatic component of any spell. However, pipers cannot cast spells without singing out verbal components. Even spells that normally do not have verbal components gain them when cast by a piper, and pipers cannot use the Silent Spell feat. Further, a piper cannot cast such spells quietly. It is not possible for a piper to make a Stealth check when casting.
FULL. PLATE. CASTER. RACIALLY.
Sorcerer: Gain the ability to add metamagic to spells without increasing casting time 1/3 times/day. (One use of this ability per day for every three times you select this option.)~ this ability also available in Bard.
Ranger: Add one type of humanoid to your humanoid favored enemy. (Must have humanoid favored enemy to select this option.)~this basically gives you, every level, an effect nearly as powerful as what you get every fifth level in this class.

Lapith seems the most balanced of the three (I didn't look at the racial feats mind you) but I would worry about using the dragoon racial trait and being a ranger to gain a favored terrain every other level.

• Dragoon: This racial trait only applies if you have a companion or mount special ability from your class. You do not gain a companion or mount. Instead, gain one additional favored class option for each level you take of a class with the companion or mount.

Ranger: +1/4 an additional favored terrain selection. (+1 favored terrain for every 4 times you select this option.)
Cavalier: +1/6 of a bonus teamwork feat. (+1 bonus teamwork feat for every 6 times you select this option).


I do think some of their concepts are very interesting, I like the idea of flexibility in class features where you can trade things away to get other things. I just don't trust their balance. As for naming specific things I find disbalanced that shouldn't even get a chance in this format.. NONE. Let them have a chance with any and every product, in this format. To quote Rick "I'm always against individuals having the exclusive power to determine an approval process."

I do not claim impartiality towards SGG. Where I have a bias, I will say so openly, because to not state it is frankly dishonest. Also, I like the suggestion in the first part of Rick's post. I view the "list of approved products" as a way to gather data points so that we can say "these things need to be balanced better in these ways, and are thus out of 3play." That kind of thing will lead to the formation of guidelines. Some publishers will try to walk within those, some will disagree with the opinions and not, but I do feel that this project as brought forth by John is a good idea..... Now I really want to call Matt and see if he can recall the name of the module.

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:56:50 PM UTC-5, John Reyst wrote:

[Michael Tumey]

As a 3PP and a freelancer, I find it difficult to work-around a blanket ban based on another publisher's work that is completely outside my control. The products I develop and create have no association with SGG. Is it fair to judge all based on the output of 1?

[John Reyst]

Michael,

I want to be clear... are you asking / stating to a potential customer your frustration with why they implement a blanket ban on 3rd Party Publisher products or are you expressing frustration and concern about how this impacts the 3-Play concept? If the former, then I'm with you. If the latter then I'd like to dig into that some more in order to see if its something I can address.

[Michael Tumey]

Both really. I don't mean to target Adam specifically, but I've seen others that refer to the d20 glut days in reference to 3PP, when in my experience, it's apples and oranges really. The quality of PF 3PP material (from what I've seen) is much higher than those early days. SGG generally does good work, after all he freelances for Paizo and is a recognized publisher among 3PPs. That said, any publisher could have a less than stellar product or rule, while largely putting out top quality material. Back to the discussion, however, I don't have any control on what material is put out by anyone, except those products that I am directly involved in. I hope that 3-Play includes a wider body of opinions, so a spirit of fairness can be applied to any 3PP product or concept.

[John Reyst]

Ok, on the first part, I'm in full agreement.

On the second part I want to assure you that SHOULD 3-Play get somewhere, I want the "Approved for 3-Play" seal to be determined on a product-by-product basis by as democratic a process as possible. My initial thinking involves having all publishers who wish to participate submit 1-3 products for consideration of inclusion in "season" (or whatever we call each unit of time as done in other organized play networks) and then we take that big list of submitted products and put it before 1st the users in general at which point products will be reviewed and discussed. Users might look at the entire list and say "Book X by publisher Y is awesome except for the one feat in chapter 2 which is horribly, horribly broken." And I don't intend to let 1 person designate something as "broken" or unsuitable for play. There would be a step where if multiple people flag the same product or the same part of a product we'd add that product to the "Needs more consideration" pile. Then, a second round of consideration would be when the "judges guild" (all volunteer GMs privately discuss via closed forum the list of products and during which point they could either reconsider a product that was flagged as problematic or even further winnow down the list of products to add.) Note that just because a product does not make it on to the Approved Product List for one season doesn't mean it won't ever make it on. A publisher could take the users and judges feedback and decide to tweak that product, feat, mechanic, or whatever, and then submit it again in a later season. This way products have a chance of being "fixed" over time.

Again, note that this would never be a matter of 1 person or a very small party exerting control over others products. It would start off going before public consideration, then those products get reviewed by the judges, etc.

[Adam Langsdorf]

Michael said:..

"As a 3PP and a freelancer, I find it difficult to work-around a blanket ban based on another publisher's work that is completely outside my control.. Is it fair to judge all based on the output of 1?"

No. that's why I like this idea John has put forth. I ran a blanket ban for simplicity.. with a couple targeted bans on things by paizo itself... (most summoner archetypes, due to either slowing things down due to too many pets, or stat evasion on synths)

Also, you're right about it being better than the days of old. Even my issues with SGG pale against book of nine swords...

[Michael Tumey]

Well aside from your 3PP ban, we seem to otherwise think a like - I don't allow summoners in my game, and Bo9S - yech.

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 2:56:50 PM UTC-6, John Reyst wrote: