General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well. So, it's not too late.
This.
I love Paizo, I love 4e, and unless there's a really enormous disconnect between how large I imagine the audience for quality 4th Edition adventures and how that audience actually is I cannot see any solid reason not to put the effort into widening the impact of your brand like that.
I love Paizo, I love 4e, and unless there's a really enormous disconnect between how large I imagine the audience for quality 4th Edition adventures and how that audience actually is I cannot see any solid reason not to put the effort into widening the impact of your brand like that.
The Pathfinder decision is very likely all-consuming and pushing what is quite a small company to the absolute limit. They'd have to spin off a whole department to handle 4E material to the quality we're accustomed to, and even then they'd be committed to branching Pathfinder down two very different roads and maintaining support for both of them simultaneously. In other words, they would be making a decision that Wizards, a company with far more resources, has declined to make since they took over the brand.
__________________ "The last time I ran into myself, I kicked my own ass." Chasing the DM, a blog for DM's like me who really feel they should know what they're doing by now.
For DM's: 4E Dungeon Index (adventures, conversions, and sidetreks by level, last updated 16th Oct. through Dungeon #171).
The Pathfinder decision is very likely all-consuming and pushing what is quite a small company to the absolute limit. They'd have to spin off a whole department to handle 4E material to the quality we're accustomed to, and even then they'd be committed to branching Pathfinder down two very different roads and maintaining support for both of them simultaneously. In other words, they would be making a decision that Wizards, a company with far more resources, has declined to make since they took over the brand.
That might be the case, but if so I hope Paizo considers partnering with or licensing someone else to produce printed 4e adaptions of the Pathfinder adventures. I'm currently buying every issue of Pathfinder, plus all of the Golarion world-books. However, I'm not terribly interested in the Pathfinder RPG though, so if there are no plans to ever have 4e support for the Pathfinder adventures, I'll feel less inclined to keep supporting that line.
On the other hand, if Paizo were to licence someone else to produce 4e versions of their adventures, I'd probably buy those as well as continuing to buy the fluffilicious Golarion products from Paizo.
That might be the case, but if so I hope Paizo considers partnering with or licensing someone else to produce printed 4e adaptions of the Pathfinder adventures. I'm currently buying every issue of Pathfinder, plus all of the Golarion world-books. However, I'm not terribly interested in the Pathfinder RPG though, so if there are no plans to ever have 4e support for the Pathfinder adventures, I'll feel less inclined to keep supporting that line.
On the other hand, if Paizo were to licence someone else to produce 4e versions of their adventures, I'd probably buy those as well as continuing to buy the fluffilicious Golarion products from Paizo.
This is exactly it. Whether they produce it in-house or license it out, enabling conversions of their own products for a rules set that is currently the industry giant seems like a no-brainer - they provide incentive for people not only to purchase the conversion guides, but to purchase the original adventures which they normally would not consider doing since they play 4th Edition.
Given the time it's taken for an acceptable GSL to show up, I can understand Paizo's reaction...but nonetheless, it seems foolish to pass up easy chances to grow your customer base in economic times like these!
I think it partially comes down to resources. They've put a lot of resources into developing the Pathfinder RPG. It's not just 3.5 with a facelift, it's a major overhaul of the system. It's so much that I feel that it qualifies as a new edition in its own right. Paizo customers are not predominantly people who strictly play 4E. Since they're releasing (I believe) 3 RPG books per month and they're all 3.5/Pathfinder RPG compatible, and they're selling well, why would they want to divert resources away from those lines to create products for a system they've decided not to support? Then there's that little matter of WotC still being able to kill your 4E product line at any time and for any reason. In a few years they're going to move on to 5E, and they would expect Paizo to stop producing 4E stuff for an indefinite amount of time when that happens, and who knows if 5E will even be GSL?
Licensing it out would be problematic as well since everything produced would have to be up to Paizo's standards. That means further diverting resources to ensure that the quality from the licensee is there. Also, the licensee would probably be required to print in color, which is something that very few publishers can even afford to do these days. I just don't see that working in today's RPG industry.
I think Paizo is making exactly the right choice for them.
__________________ Darrin Drader
Freelance Writer/Game Designer
Previously posting as Whisperfoot
From the Paizo message-boards and James' LJ, it seems reasonably clear that Paizo still don't believe that the 4e rule-set is a good 'fit' for the stories they want to tell in Golarion.
Among the problems is the fact that, since the launch of Pathfinder, Paizo have been extensively 're-defining' D&D rules-elements (witness the discussion of goblins early on for instance.) In other cases, WotC have redefined iconic rules-elements, with things having the same name as a 3e monster (for instance) but looking, and working, very different. The GSL does not allow Paizo to publish products with 'Elves' which are not martial, out-door, ranger-types. What were 'high' elves are now called Eladrin, and the GSL will not allow a redefinition of the word 'Elf'. Similarly with many aspects of the new rules. And while this could be avoided by appending the word 'Golarion' to all these names, I don't think they want to go down that route - they want the name of the rules-item to be the same thing the inhabitants of the world say when referring to that creature, etc.
That's logical, I think, even if it is disappointing, as I think I, personally, prefer 4e to its predecessors.
I think it partially comes down to resources. They've put a lot of resources into developing the Pathfinder RPG. It's not just 3.5 with a facelift, it's a major overhaul of the system. It's so much that I feel that it qualifies as a new edition in its own right. Paizo customers are not predominantly people who strictly play 4E. Since they're releasing (I believe) 3 RPG books per month and they're all 3.5/Pathfinder RPG compatible, and they're selling well, why would they want to divert resources away from those lines to create products for a system they've decided not to support? Then there's that little matter of WotC still being able to kill your 4E product line at any time and for any reason. In a few years they're going to move on to 5E, and they would expect Paizo to stop producing 4E stuff for an indefinite amount of time when that happens, and who knows if 5E will even be GSL?
Licensing it out would be problematic as well since everything produced would have to be up to Paizo's standards. That means further diverting resources to ensure that the quality from the licensee is there. Also, the licensee would probably be required to print in color, which is something that very few publishers can even afford to do these days. I just don't see that working in today's RPG industry.
I think Paizo is making exactly the right choice for them.
I agree it's a matter of available resources for them. I think there were good reasons for them to go their Pathfinder approach (especially due to the fact that there was no GSL available for quite some time, and the first round wasn't so great for them.).
But if they would support 4E, they wouldn't have any weaker sales now. The only thing they could do would get more sales, because a lot of 3E "die hards" would reconsider their options if they knew they could get exactly the type of adventures they love in 4E, too.
WotC made a bad decision when they left Paizo "hanging" and waiting for the GSL and the revised GSL.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
From the Paizo message-boards and James' LJ, it seems reasonably clear that Paizo still don't believe that the 4e rule-set is a good 'fit' for the stories they want to tell in Golarion.
To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion.
I don't know what is their "true" opinion, or if they really believe it, but that's what it is. None of the adventure paths I have played in os far (Dungeon or Pathfinder) contained anything that couldn't be converted storyline wise to 4E. In fact, that is exactly what we have done with Savage Tides and Curse of the Crimson Throne (and a little bit with Rise of the Runelords.)
Quote:
That's logical, I think, even if it is disappointing, as I think I, personally, prefer 4e to its predecessors.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Section 18 Waiving my rights to a jury trial of despute. If wizards does take my stuff, and I think its not right, I have to ask them politely to fix it and hope for the best.
Is that enforceable? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be in the UK. Undermining the authority of the courts is one of the few things contracts are not allowed to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by see
The OGL was (and therefore is) an explicitly perpetual license, and while new versions with different terms can be released by WotC, the OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use whatever version of the OGL you prefer with any OGC.
Not quite. OGL 1.0a explicitly lets you use any later version for content released under it. Had there been an OGL 2.0, assuming it included the same language then you could use content released under OGL 1.0a under 2.0, but not vice versa. If it ommitted that clause entirely, you could still do that; the difference would come if OGL 3.0 arrived. At least, that is my understanding.
IANAL. EDIT: And I'm sure the 3 (at least) lawyers who are contributing to this thread will set me straigt!
glass.
Last edited by glass; 4th March 2009 at 12:42 PM..
To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion.
I think you may be correct here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the new GSL, product lines can include products published under both the OGL and the GSL, correct?
Doesn't this mean that Paizo could continue to publish its adventure paths under the OGL as it has been, and then publish a separate conversion document under the GSL? It wouldn't have to jump through hoops (whether or not those hoops exist in reality) to avoid "re-definition" since all it would need to provide in the conversion document (the one using the GSL) is the necessary information on how to run it in 4th Edition. The "fluff", plot and other information where you might get tangled up in problems of terminology would all stay in the original adventure, free from the restrictions of the GSL.
The issue with paizo's story style is 4e's pg-13 limit. Paizo often pushes the limits, remakes monsters and redefines what something is.
Could they do..child eating monsters?, gay lovers?, incest driven cannibalistic creatures? carnivals of pain ?
The issue is having to tip -toe around someone else rules on what you can and can not say.
And it would take months extra just to get one mod out,...send it in..reject...send it in..reject...send it in reject. It's to much, they can not tell storys how they want, they have to limit it to how the gsl allows. Simple as that
Add that they are small, are streached as far as they can and 4E just is not gonna happen.
__________________ Remember kids whisky will not put out flaming mages ,but it will confuse the deathknight
"The Soul of D&D? It's rolling a natural 20 when you're down to 3 hit points and the cleric's on the floor and you're staring that sunnavabitch bugbear right in his bloodshot eye and holding the line just long enough to let the wizard unleash a fireball at the guards who are on their way, because they're all that stands between you, the Foozle and Glory." - WizarDru
Thank you Gary Gygax, for everything.
"Rock on, Paizo, for you rock mightily".- dragonlordofpoondari
To be blunt here: That's just male cow excrement, and it will stay that, no matter how often they will repeat this opinion.
I don't know what is their "true" opinion, or if they really believe it, but that's what it is. None of the adventure paths I have played in os far (Dungeon or Pathfinder) contained anything that couldn't be converted storyline wise to 4E. In fact, that is exactly what we have done with Savage Tides and Curse of the Crimson Throne (and a little bit with Rise of the Runelords.)
Which completely ignores the second paragraph about redefining.
Piazo's goblins, ogres, harpies, elves, drow, and gnomes have been extensively redefined. Not mechanically, but description and background wise. They can't do that under the GSL. Additionally, there's the moral violence and gore cause. If that was in effect a lot of stuff that they've done they might not have. Ogres and ogre-kin, the side quest in Runelords featuring them, Lamashtu, Calistria, Zon-kuthon... heck, even Cayden Cailean might get them in trouble.
Now, they could come up with a second world or PG-13 versions of Golarion; but they're a small company who have decided they don't want to divert resources to developing a world that they can do in 4e, or to make a clean version that won't potentially make WotC either now or later revoke their liscense.
__________________ We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
Never confuse movement with action. - Ernest Hemingway
I see pathfinder as paizo's take on a 4e (i don't mean a clone or copy of wotc's 4e), it's thiers and I can definately see why they wouldn't want to divert resources at this time.
Gil
__________________ "If life gives you lemons go find someone with vodka and make a party!" --Antilles
I agree it's a matter of available resources for them. I think there were good reasons for them to go their Pathfinder approach (especially due to the fact that there was no GSL available for quite some time, and the first round wasn't so great for them.).
I dont think thats its JUST resources. I think pedr is hitting the head on the nail: WOTC's redefining alot of things throws a huge wrench in Paizo's world- which is based on more 3.x stuuf. 4e background stuff doesnt work in pazio's newly created world.
Plus as was said-the SRD doesnt allow things like Elves of G, or perhaps Classic monsters revisited....
Plus the "no excessive gor or violence...They couldnt make things like AP3 hook mountain perhaps.
Although I had hoped that Paizo could enter the 4E market safely, I do understand their reluctance. I don't play 4E myself, but my thought was that by marketing 4E material Paizo could widen their audience and please those who have moved on into 4E whole-heartedly. However, considering the size of the company and the amount of effort developing the 4E line would take, right before Pathfinder's rules set release date of August I can see where they are coming from. They have also mentioned that most of the folks there are unfamiliar with the new rules, and the time that it would take to become 'professional-grade proficient' would be prohibitive. Que sera sera.
I guess that Vic had it when he called it 'too little too late'. They have decided to devote all their resources to Pathfinder, and that's not such a bad thing ...
And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL.
Wait a second... in the same product? Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?
__________________ My D&D Class: Lawful Good Human Paladin
My Robin's Laws Game Style: 100% Method Actor, 92% Storyteller, 92% Specialist (paladin), 83% Butt-Kicker, 75% Tactician, 67% Power Gamer, 17% Casual Gamer
And now, amazingly, the GSL permits something really great--you can use OGL content (meaning you can pour in stuff from the d20 SRD) in the SAME product that also uses content from the GSL. That is an amazing concession! That actually exceeded my expectations.
So lemme ask you.
Orcus is in the Tome of Horrors. So is Jubilex (not Juiblex) and a couple of other big-name demons and devils, some renamed, some "classic". All OGC.
One project I've been working on, off and on, is a Big Book Of Slimes And Oozes, 'cause I think they're cool. I was going to use the TOH Jubilex as the centerpiece and reference him by name a lot.
Could I make a (mostly) 4e book, but include Jubilex (not Juiblex), provided I correctly included the OGL solely to reference his name, writing up my 4e version of him? Theoretically, I can include as much or as little actual text from an OGL source in an OGL product that I wish, so I could, I think, include just the name as text and the rest as "concept". I don't think you can trademark/copyright "Big slime demon" as an idea.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
Which completely ignores the second paragraph about redefining.
You are correct, I ignored that.
My view on this is: If you redefine a race that strongly, why bother with calling it "Elf" or "Harpie": Give it your own frigging name! Even if it's just "Golorian Elb" or something like that.
Especially in 4E, this would be a great idea to do in the first pace, since races really have characteristics and abilities that make them unique. Why not represent their take on Elves or Goblins with their own racial abilities?
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
