Revised GSL TODAY!

Dannager · Mar 4, 2009

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
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.

Am I correct in how I understand this?

Hunter In Darkness · Mar 4, 2009

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.

Krensky · Mar 4, 2009

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
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.

Gilwen · Mar 4, 2009

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

carmachu · Mar 4, 2009

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
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.

LurkMonkey · Mar 4, 2009

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 ...

Halivar · Mar 4, 2009

Orcus said:
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?

Vanuslux · Mar 4, 2009

Halivar said:
Wait a second... in the same product? Is it possible to publish settings/adventures/etc. that are side-by-side 3.x and 4E?

I'm not sure that's the case, but dual-edition products would be mega-awesome.

Lizard · Mar 4, 2009

Orcus said:
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.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Mar 4, 2009

Krensky said:
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?