Given that Pathfinder contains character creation rules which are basically identical to 3e D&D (character creation rules which are specifically not included in the SRD or covered by the OGL), I guess we can safely agree that Pathfinder is in the same murky gray area, crushable by frivolous lawsuits, and therefore risky enough for ultra-cautious publishers to avoid associating themselves with.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?
- Thread starter ShinHakkaider
- Start date
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Character creation rules may not be included in the SRD, but there's nothing prohibiting the creation of them as original content.
They were prohibited under the d20 STL, but Paizo isn't using that (nor is OSRIC, S&W, etc.).
Wicht
Hero
Actually no.
The creation rules in Pathfinder are not identical to those in 3e.
The same options are ultimately in there, but the whole of it is presented in a different fashion and the wording is very different. The same holds true for the advancement rules - they are different from those in 3e. Pathfinder is on very safe ground here. As already noted - nothing prevents the addition of new rules to rules released under the OGL. In fact quite the opposite is true. The very nature of the license encourages publishers and designers to add their own mark to the OGL contents.
It's not so much a question of which license is used, but how the game has been licensed. Here's where it can get murky.
All forms of D&D before 3e are still protected under copyright law. WoTC has never created an open license for any of the former versions of D&D. (In fact, they have specifically licensed it a few times to either paying clients or for other reasons).
Rules can't be copyright, according to prior law, but individual expressions of them can. The hard thing with an RPG, as opposed to monopoly, is that the RPG is a lot of words.
The problem with a retro-clone is that the goals of them is to duplicate the older non-SRD released versions of D&D.
You can legally prove, for instance, that a game like Pathfinder came from 3e as a base and then diverged. Even variants like C&C are safe because while they try to go more towards what 1e was like, they still use the same base d20 ruleset. And a game like M&M is different in so many ways it's more or less original.
The problem with a retro-clone is that they are trying to duplicate an existing ruleset that was never given a release under the OGL as specificially as possible. If you look at OSRIC, stuff that is specific to AD&D is in there: Percentile Strength, the Encumbrance tables, the Thief tables, etc. There's no way you can argue parallel development because some of the stated goals are to get as close to AD&D as possible and it would be hard to argue that this was a case of parallel development or independent ideas.
(In the past, people who used the game rules are not copyrightable defenses would sometimes use care to use different terminology--like Monster Level instead of Hit Dice, hits to kill instead of hit points, Armor instead of Armor Class. I think if the retroclones did that they'd have more protection).
The addition of the OGL is to also allow the addition to the copyright elements that are similar between 1e and 3e to be used in the retro-clones. Things like spell descriptions, for instance.
While I believe for the most part they are safe, there are still edge cases that drift towards the grey area. Is the Thief percentile chart considered copyrightable or not? What about spells that were not part of 3e that are in a book like OSRIC, such as Airy Water? I could see--if WoTC wanted to--making a sensible legal argument that it goes too far. And I think that's why some publishers chose not to embrace OSRIC or another retroclone, because I think it's a reasonable argument. (Even if there is little to no chance WoTC will take that action, based on the past few years).
All forms of D&D before 3e are still protected under copyright law. WoTC has never created an open license for any of the former versions of D&D. (In fact, they have specifically licensed it a few times to either paying clients or for other reasons).
Rules can't be copyright, according to prior law, but individual expressions of them can. The hard thing with an RPG, as opposed to monopoly, is that the RPG is a lot of words.
The problem with a retro-clone is that the goals of them is to duplicate the older non-SRD released versions of D&D.
You can legally prove, for instance, that a game like Pathfinder came from 3e as a base and then diverged. Even variants like C&C are safe because while they try to go more towards what 1e was like, they still use the same base d20 ruleset. And a game like M&M is different in so many ways it's more or less original.
The problem with a retro-clone is that they are trying to duplicate an existing ruleset that was never given a release under the OGL as specificially as possible. If you look at OSRIC, stuff that is specific to AD&D is in there: Percentile Strength, the Encumbrance tables, the Thief tables, etc. There's no way you can argue parallel development because some of the stated goals are to get as close to AD&D as possible and it would be hard to argue that this was a case of parallel development or independent ideas.
(In the past, people who used the game rules are not copyrightable defenses would sometimes use care to use different terminology--like Monster Level instead of Hit Dice, hits to kill instead of hit points, Armor instead of Armor Class. I think if the retroclones did that they'd have more protection).
The addition of the OGL is to also allow the addition to the copyright elements that are similar between 1e and 3e to be used in the retro-clones. Things like spell descriptions, for instance.
While I believe for the most part they are safe, there are still edge cases that drift towards the grey area. Is the Thief percentile chart considered copyrightable or not? What about spells that were not part of 3e that are in a book like OSRIC, such as Airy Water? I could see--if WoTC wanted to--making a sensible legal argument that it goes too far. And I think that's why some publishers chose not to embrace OSRIC or another retroclone, because I think it's a reasonable argument. (Even if there is little to no chance WoTC will take that action, based on the past few years).
Last edited:
You should be a bit careful there using Goodman as a source for embracing the GSL. Looks like as of late, especially with their creation of their own old school game, they moved away from 4e and the GSL.....
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17553&page=3
quotes like discounting its 4e adventure line and such......
Orcus
First Post
Wow, normally I dont like to weigh in on threads that sort of are about me. It tends to slow down the discussion and discussion is good.
Let me clarify a few things.
1. I was a big cheerleader for 4E. No doubt. Maybe the biggest non-WotC person on these boards. I wouldn't say that was an unfair characterization at all.
2. I was just as largely disappointed by the resulting GSL and lack of responsiveness to suggested changes. And, as mentioned above, I came here on enworld, gave a mea culpa and ate crow. Everyone said Wizards wouldn't listen and I said, no, hold on, I trust them. I was working with Scott and Linae (who by the way are two of the coolest, must trustworthy, ethical and just overall nice people you will meet) and felt real confident I was being heard and the changes I hoped for might be made. Then they weren't made. Linae was gone. The Scott was gone. Then, all ability for me to believe otherwise also being gone, I came in and said you guys were right and I was wrong.
3. I have refrained from talking about why I chose this or that for fear of inflaming edition wars and I don't want to do that. But since it has been requested, I can tell you in short.
4. So why be a 4E cheerleader? I have always been clear about this, I just philosophically believe in supporting the most current edition of the game. When I played the white box, and AD&D came out, I embraced AD&D. Same with 2E, then 3E. So when 4E was announced, I was on board. I didn't have to see it first. I trusted Wizards. Heck, look at what they did with 3E, which I thought was a much needed revamp of the game. And I wasn't alone. Paizo and everyone else was happy and was lined up to get on board 4E. So the "adopt 4E sight unseen" didn't really make me any different than many big publishers at that time.
5. I was really conflicted when Paizo started Pathfinder. I understood why they did it. And I don't know that I can convey how much respect and love I have for everyone involved over there. Erik and I have been friends for years now. Lisa is amazing. James Jacobs is, without exaggeration, the man. I loved what they did with Dungeon (I loved Dragon, too, but I think what they did with Dungeon was beyond compare). Erik loves D&D. He loves Greyhawk. He and I share the same view of what the heart of the game is and what D&D should be all about. But, frankly, their support of Pathfinder made it even more viable for my niche of supporting 4E, since I was planning on working with those guys. So I wasnt choosing one over the other, we both found a relationship that seemed to work in harmony. Bill, I have to admit, was much less excited about 4E (and I think that is being polite).
6. Real life tugged at both Bill and I (not to mention too many hours playing Lord of the Rings Online, curse you MMOs!). As many are aware, he (Bill) is super-successful in his normal job and I was a partner in a law firm. So our need to do Necro was not overwhelming. We have the unique luxury of really this being a hobby for us. Also, the market was changing big time. We had the rather ability to sit out for awhile, which we did. And, frankly, I was a bit burned out. The demands of a law practice, running a company, being a husband and parent, there are just not enough hours in the day. Plus, without really realizing it, Bill and I had both stopped being primary authors as we were in the beginning and turned into project managers. Let me tell you, its just not the same. So the "thrill" we were getting out of what we were doing had decreased. Not to mention the fact that you just can't ignore the market and the decreasing profit margins. We never did it for the money, we did it for the love of it. BUT we both have families. And its one thing to justify a super-time consuming hobby to your significant other when some money is rolling in as opposed to when there isn't. And we both had kids about the same age. We started Necro just as they were born (or right before) and so both of us were faced with kids that were staying up later and demanding more time of us, which we were loathe to miss out on. So Necro lapsed.
7. For other real life reasons, Bill wanted to get back into it before I did. I was consumed with a recent change in my status (as has been mentioned by others) and let me just say that has been very time consuming. But that has been over a year now and I have my feet well under me and the itch has started again. I am a gamer at heart and I won't ever be able to leave it alone. And, having produced stuff before, I have the itch to do it again. Maybe to some that seems fickle, that's fine. If I was an outsider looking at Necro purely as a business I would scratch my head, too. But while it is one, you have to always understand that Bill and I run it as a hobby.
8. Because Bill was ready to get back into things before I was, it wasn't fair to him for him to do it as Necro. Heck, why would you want to split profits with me when I'm not involved at all? You wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect him to. So he started Frog God with my blessing (not that he needed it) and he is totally kicking ass. I am proud of him. Necro continues to exist for many legal reasons, not the least of which is that we continue to have pdf sales and other things. There is no reason to dissolve that framework. But going forward, there are few projects either of us will do that will be Necro (other than Tome which is a Necro product to be distributed by Frog God Games, for many legal reasons, not the least of which is that I and Necro have the permission to do it). For that reason, whatever I do will be done by a seperate company too.
9. I'm still in the planning stages. But once you have that itch, you gotta scratch it.
10. So why Pathfinder now? For the same reasons I ate crow before. I find the GSL unacceptable. That has been discussed to death. Heck, I actually volunteered to write the original GSL for them (though I proposed 4E be released under the OGL with a new D&D license for 4E, and made other counter proposals). I even wrote lengthy letters to Wizards about needed GSL revisions. A few happened, most didn't. Scott left and Linae left. The people who were listening to me were gone. Though I don't expect my opinion to guide anyone else, everyone is free to make their own choice, I simply refused to use the GSL as it was. But I also got lucky. Once the dust settled, 4E didnt wind up being the game I hoped it would be, while Pathfinder, too, didn't remain mired in the past as I worried it would. Pathfinder wound up making lots of "modern" changes that I was happy to see. And they remain super-dedicated to open gaming, which I also support very deeply. I ran a 4E campaign and we all lost interest. It just wasn't D&D FOR ME (your mileage may vary and I am not making any statement about it other than my own subjective opinion). Pathfinder, however, kept all the things I loved about 3E yet also moved the game forward which I love. And, candidly, when 3E came out and promised us grognards a revamp of Greyhawk, I was geeked. I think it is fair to say they never delivered on that promise. Frankly, Mona's Golarion is the modern Greyhawk. So when I say that Pathfinder is where the heart of D&D now resides, what I mean is all the things I love in D&D, the way I want to play the game, the things I think are important, have all found their way to Pathfinder and NOT to 4E. (again, this is my subjective opinion, YMMV). In a way I'm glad that I can't support 4E because now I dont have to deal with the conflict I would be then presented with--supporting the official game or supporting the version of the game that I think actually captures the spirit of the game I love, because to me those have become different. Because I can't support 4E (or more accurately, find the GSL unacceptable and thus won't support it), I am now permitted the luxury of supporting Pathfinder.
11. What am I going to do now? I have my plans. I'm talking to some key people. We will see. I don't want to make promises and not fulfill them, as happened with 4E. But I am interested. I have the time. I have the itch.
Hope that helps.
Clark
Let me clarify a few things.
1. I was a big cheerleader for 4E. No doubt. Maybe the biggest non-WotC person on these boards. I wouldn't say that was an unfair characterization at all.
2. I was just as largely disappointed by the resulting GSL and lack of responsiveness to suggested changes. And, as mentioned above, I came here on enworld, gave a mea culpa and ate crow. Everyone said Wizards wouldn't listen and I said, no, hold on, I trust them. I was working with Scott and Linae (who by the way are two of the coolest, must trustworthy, ethical and just overall nice people you will meet) and felt real confident I was being heard and the changes I hoped for might be made. Then they weren't made. Linae was gone. The Scott was gone. Then, all ability for me to believe otherwise also being gone, I came in and said you guys were right and I was wrong.
3. I have refrained from talking about why I chose this or that for fear of inflaming edition wars and I don't want to do that. But since it has been requested, I can tell you in short.
4. So why be a 4E cheerleader? I have always been clear about this, I just philosophically believe in supporting the most current edition of the game. When I played the white box, and AD&D came out, I embraced AD&D. Same with 2E, then 3E. So when 4E was announced, I was on board. I didn't have to see it first. I trusted Wizards. Heck, look at what they did with 3E, which I thought was a much needed revamp of the game. And I wasn't alone. Paizo and everyone else was happy and was lined up to get on board 4E. So the "adopt 4E sight unseen" didn't really make me any different than many big publishers at that time.
5. I was really conflicted when Paizo started Pathfinder. I understood why they did it. And I don't know that I can convey how much respect and love I have for everyone involved over there. Erik and I have been friends for years now. Lisa is amazing. James Jacobs is, without exaggeration, the man. I loved what they did with Dungeon (I loved Dragon, too, but I think what they did with Dungeon was beyond compare). Erik loves D&D. He loves Greyhawk. He and I share the same view of what the heart of the game is and what D&D should be all about. But, frankly, their support of Pathfinder made it even more viable for my niche of supporting 4E, since I was planning on working with those guys. So I wasnt choosing one over the other, we both found a relationship that seemed to work in harmony. Bill, I have to admit, was much less excited about 4E (and I think that is being polite).
6. Real life tugged at both Bill and I (not to mention too many hours playing Lord of the Rings Online, curse you MMOs!). As many are aware, he (Bill) is super-successful in his normal job and I was a partner in a law firm. So our need to do Necro was not overwhelming. We have the unique luxury of really this being a hobby for us. Also, the market was changing big time. We had the rather ability to sit out for awhile, which we did. And, frankly, I was a bit burned out. The demands of a law practice, running a company, being a husband and parent, there are just not enough hours in the day. Plus, without really realizing it, Bill and I had both stopped being primary authors as we were in the beginning and turned into project managers. Let me tell you, its just not the same. So the "thrill" we were getting out of what we were doing had decreased. Not to mention the fact that you just can't ignore the market and the decreasing profit margins. We never did it for the money, we did it for the love of it. BUT we both have families. And its one thing to justify a super-time consuming hobby to your significant other when some money is rolling in as opposed to when there isn't. And we both had kids about the same age. We started Necro just as they were born (or right before) and so both of us were faced with kids that were staying up later and demanding more time of us, which we were loathe to miss out on. So Necro lapsed.
7. For other real life reasons, Bill wanted to get back into it before I did. I was consumed with a recent change in my status (as has been mentioned by others) and let me just say that has been very time consuming. But that has been over a year now and I have my feet well under me and the itch has started again. I am a gamer at heart and I won't ever be able to leave it alone. And, having produced stuff before, I have the itch to do it again. Maybe to some that seems fickle, that's fine. If I was an outsider looking at Necro purely as a business I would scratch my head, too. But while it is one, you have to always understand that Bill and I run it as a hobby.
8. Because Bill was ready to get back into things before I was, it wasn't fair to him for him to do it as Necro. Heck, why would you want to split profits with me when I'm not involved at all? You wouldn't. And I wouldn't expect him to. So he started Frog God with my blessing (not that he needed it) and he is totally kicking ass. I am proud of him. Necro continues to exist for many legal reasons, not the least of which is that we continue to have pdf sales and other things. There is no reason to dissolve that framework. But going forward, there are few projects either of us will do that will be Necro (other than Tome which is a Necro product to be distributed by Frog God Games, for many legal reasons, not the least of which is that I and Necro have the permission to do it). For that reason, whatever I do will be done by a seperate company too.
9. I'm still in the planning stages. But once you have that itch, you gotta scratch it.
10. So why Pathfinder now? For the same reasons I ate crow before. I find the GSL unacceptable. That has been discussed to death. Heck, I actually volunteered to write the original GSL for them (though I proposed 4E be released under the OGL with a new D&D license for 4E, and made other counter proposals). I even wrote lengthy letters to Wizards about needed GSL revisions. A few happened, most didn't. Scott left and Linae left. The people who were listening to me were gone. Though I don't expect my opinion to guide anyone else, everyone is free to make their own choice, I simply refused to use the GSL as it was. But I also got lucky. Once the dust settled, 4E didnt wind up being the game I hoped it would be, while Pathfinder, too, didn't remain mired in the past as I worried it would. Pathfinder wound up making lots of "modern" changes that I was happy to see. And they remain super-dedicated to open gaming, which I also support very deeply. I ran a 4E campaign and we all lost interest. It just wasn't D&D FOR ME (your mileage may vary and I am not making any statement about it other than my own subjective opinion). Pathfinder, however, kept all the things I loved about 3E yet also moved the game forward which I love. And, candidly, when 3E came out and promised us grognards a revamp of Greyhawk, I was geeked. I think it is fair to say they never delivered on that promise. Frankly, Mona's Golarion is the modern Greyhawk. So when I say that Pathfinder is where the heart of D&D now resides, what I mean is all the things I love in D&D, the way I want to play the game, the things I think are important, have all found their way to Pathfinder and NOT to 4E. (again, this is my subjective opinion, YMMV). In a way I'm glad that I can't support 4E because now I dont have to deal with the conflict I would be then presented with--supporting the official game or supporting the version of the game that I think actually captures the spirit of the game I love, because to me those have become different. Because I can't support 4E (or more accurately, find the GSL unacceptable and thus won't support it), I am now permitted the luxury of supporting Pathfinder.
11. What am I going to do now? I have my plans. I'm talking to some key people. We will see. I don't want to make promises and not fulfill them, as happened with 4E. But I am interested. I have the time. I have the itch.
Hope that helps.
Clark
I guess that's kind of what I was waiting to hear. The reason I expressed my opinions was it was hard to see where you were coming from in terms of your preferences--and as a creator, your preferences matter because they'd affect what you'd create. I think that came from the "3e Rules, 1e feel" that was the Necromancer statement--could you deliver the same kind of experience when the whole way things work in 4e is a lot different and more removed from the 1e way that 3e was. It had seemed like a lot of your fans had actually rejected 4e (based on conversations on Necro's message boards), and that sort of confused me.
Dark Mistress
First Post
Well hopefully Clark's big post helped clear up any lingering questions, that I wasn't able to cover earlier. And/Or provide truth instead of my educated guesses. 
Theodric the Obscure
First Post
Huzzah!
Long live Orcus!
Love live Pathfinder!
Huzzah!
PS Frog God and Friends aren't bad, either.
Long live Orcus!
Love live Pathfinder!
Huzzah!
PS Frog God and Friends aren't bad, either.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
