Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?

[Twowolves]

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.

Except, you know, it's not. Their point buy system is not the same as in any version of 3.X. And the XP system is completely different. Different enough, it seems.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

I can point to a dozen games that involve rolling three or four d6 for abilities, or a point buy based around a medium attribute of 10. Given that GURPS, which was published in 1986 and which offered both methods, has not been sued out of existence, I think Paizo is safe. Runequest has "basically identical" character creation, as does Dragon Warriors, Call of Cthulhu, Villains and Vigilantes, Dragon Age, Hero System, Palladium Fantasy, etc. Runequest was in fact published in a form under the OGL, as was BESM d20, SAS d20, Adventure! d20, Mutants and Masterminds... Unless WotC is ready to pump, probably, tens of thousands of dollars, if not millions, into remedying the situation, the time has long past where challenging that is practical.

Further, since Green Ronin stated early on, explicitly, that they wanted to include character creation, are licensees under the OGL, and WotC was doubtlessly aware of their intentions, WotC would be a bad actor to implicitly countenance that use of the license, only to turn around later and cherrypick lawsuits. Not that they couldn't, just that they would have be both unethical and acting contrary to their own financial interests at the same time, which makes the possibility unlikely.

 

[Orcus]

Long live Orcus!
Love live Pathfinder!
Huzzah!

PS Frog God and Friends aren't bad, either.

Huzzah, indeed, TXH. Huzzah, indeed!

 

[Psion]

Nice to hear from you Clark, and I can't wait to see what you have in store!

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yup looking forward to what is coming this way!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Great to hear you're back in business, Clark.

I look forward to seeing what you've been working on. Or will work on - either way.

 

[Pramas]

When Necromancer made their big announcement, there were 5 major 3pp companies trying to be catered to: Goodman, Mongoose, Green Ronin, Paizo and Necromancer. Goodman and Mongoose both signed the GSL without "looking before they leaped" so to speak. Green Ronin released an OGL-based 4E test product that didn't do well enough for them to do any more.

That's not quite right. We had already decided not to sign the GSL or devote resources to 4E well before we did our one support product. I discussed it here on my blog:

Ex-Teenage Rebel: Decision Made

Basically, our d20 Character Record Folio was the best selling GR product of all time (it went through something like 7 print runs) and we figured we should at least try updating it to 4E even if we weren't embracing 4E and the GSL as a whole. It wasn't a test product, however. We were not watching its sales with the idea that maybe we'd do some 4E support if it went well. We made our decision and moved on, and events have proved that we made the right choice.

 

[Ourph]

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 character creation rules are as "different" between 3e and Pathfinder as they are between AD&D and OSRIC, which has been my one and only point in this thread.

 

[Cergorach]

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.

I'm curious why D&D 4E didn't measure up to your expectations, I'm not looking for an edition war, but I came to the same conclusion and am curious why others came to that conclusion.

Anyway, good to see you back on the boards and I am looking forward to what you cook up.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I can point to a dozen games that involve rolling three or four d6 for abilities, or a point buy based around a medium attribute of 10. Given that GURPS, which was published in 1986 and which offered both methods, has not been sued out of existence, I think Paizo is safe. Runequest has "basically identical" character creation, as does Dragon Warriors, Call of Cthulhu, Villains and Vigilantes, Dragon Age, Hero System, Palladium Fantasy, etc. Runequest was in fact published in a form under the OGL, as was BESM d20, SAS d20, Adventure! d20, Mutants and Masterminds... Unless WotC is ready to pump, probably, tens of thousands of dollars, if not millions, into remedying the situation, the time has long past where challenging that is practical.

Further, since Green Ronin stated early on, explicitly, that they wanted to include character creation, are licensees under the OGL, and WotC was doubtlessly aware of their intentions, WotC would be a bad actor to implicitly countenance that use of the license, only to turn around later and cherrypick lawsuits. Not that they couldn't, just that they would have be both unethical and acting contrary to their own financial interests at the same time, which makes the possibility unlikely.

It is worth noting that WotC hasn't tried to take this stance, even against Kenzer & Co, which was more publicly dismissive of the legalities in the use of WotC's rules.

This is, in my estimation, a point in WotC's favor. Save your battles for ones you can win.

The Auld Grump