Revised GSL TODAY!

Rechan · Mar 4, 2009

Mistwell said:
The Pathfinder road is not mutually exclusive with putting a guy on 4e as well. So, it's not too late.

What he said.

Dannager · Mar 4, 2009

Mistwell said:
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.

wedgeski · Mar 4, 2009

Dannager said:
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.

Echohawk · Mar 4, 2009

wedgeski said:
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.

Dannager · Mar 4, 2009

Echohawk said:
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.

Darrin Drader · Mar 4, 2009

Kunimatyu said:
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.

pedr · Mar 4, 2009

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.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Mar 4, 2009

Darrin Drader said:
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.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Mar 4, 2009

pedr said:
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.)

That's logical, I think, even if it is disappointing, as I think I, personally, prefer 4e to its predecessors.

That I agree with.

glass · Mar 4, 2009

Lord Xtheth said:
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.

see said:
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.