Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?

[Treebore]

The question is more, what exactly does Clark intend to do? Bill Peterson and Frog God Games are already basically doing Necromancer's thing already with old school adventures and a Tome of Horrors Complete for Pathfinder. What's left for Clark, exactly?

My thoughts as well. Once I see what Clark puts together I'll know how interested I will be. For now I am far more interested in Frog God Games.

 

[DaveMage]

I am really sad. Clark was one of the most enthusiastic defenders of 4th edition. I would really like to know what made him abandon it that hard.

The GSL.

 

[Treebore]

No, I didn't think you were - I was just correcting the statement that OSRIC doesn't use the SRD.


I agree, it doesn't necessarily reflect a change in opinion, especially if his comment was only based on the idea that anyone can sue for anything, or on a fact-type assessment rather than a theoretical legal one.

I'm not familiar enough with the distinction between Pathfinder and 3e to have an opinion about whether the 1e - OSRIC comparison is valid or not.

If Clark's comment was a moral judgment on OSRIC, though (as opposed to a purely legal one) then the comparison is right on target and there'd be a change of opinion*. If it was a purely legal-based comment, then I think it's unlikely that there's a change of opinion.

But at the time, a lot of people took his comment, rightly or wrongly, to be on moral grounds rather than on legal grounds. Again, since he didn't specify, there's no real way to know one way or the other.

*there's still room for argument on that, but it explains where I think people are coming from.

The bottom line is OSRIC has now been around long enough that Clark's concerns were unfounded. If OSRIC was in violation of anything they would have received letters long ago.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It's Bryon.

Ouch. Sorry I butchered your name man.

I wasnt trying to slag Clark or anything, lord knows I have enough of Necromancers products either on my shelf or as PDFs. I just remember him being a huge 4E booster at one point then him expressing dissatisfaction with the GSL, then well nothing.

Now he may be doing material for Pathfinder? I'm a little skeptical but I'm looking forward to whatever new material he puts out.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The bottom line is OSRIC has now been around long enough that Clark's concerns were unfounded. If OSRIC was in violation of anything they would have received letters long ago.

Not necessarily, as a simple "regime change" at WoTC corporate might change their attitude. I agree that there is little chance of them now acting on a retro-clone, but stranger things have happened. I think Umbran explained the situation.

A case in point, Ultima emulators are being targeted by EA, after almost a decade of being ignored.

Concerning Ultima 4 | Ultima Aiera

Legal Risk is different from saying something is "legal/illegal".

 

[Fifth Element]

Ouch. Sorry I butchered your name man.

If it makes you feel any better, I read his name as Byron for years before I noticed it wasn't.

 

[billd91]

I'm sorry Byron, but I don't understand what you're saying in the slightest.

<snip>

Regardless, I really didn't mean to put you in a position where you're arguing someone else's opinion. So, I'm just going to drop it. I still think Peterson voicing this support for Pathfinder is inconsistent with his prior very strong language with regard to OSRIC, but will exit the thread from here.

I think I get the debate going on here and I agree with Bryon to the point that I think you may be conflating two different ideas. If Clark provides some 3pp support work for Paizo, he's using the OGL and SRD in one manner - supporting a game directly derived from and sitting directly on top of the SRD. That's supported by the OGL and it's easily to see how that would be protected by the license.

The other idea is using the OGL and SRD to reproduce the rules to a game that is not the game described by the SRD. That's what OSRIC is doing and I can see anybody being wary of their interpretation of the OGL and use of the SRD to obtain licensed use of certain terms and descriptions. In other words, it looks like OSRIC is using the OGL and SRD to unlock certain IP elements of a game that was not opened up to licensing through the mechanism of those items happening to be shared between the two games.

Of course, it's not just happenstance that the IP elements are shared. The SRD's game rules are directly derived from the earlier, unlicensed version OSRIC has rewritten. But I do think they've ventured into murkier waters that a publisher more risk averse with their own IP might avoid.

 

[Treebore]

Not necessarily, as a simple "regime change" at WoTC corporate might change their attitude. I agree that there is little chance of them now acting on a retro-clone, but stranger things have happened. I think Umbran explained the situation.

A case in point, Ultima emulators are being targeted by EA, after almost a decade of being ignored.

Concerning Ultima 4 | Ultima Aiera

Legal Risk is different from saying something is "legal/illegal".

Since I know for a fact that the people behind OSRIC have had communication with WOTC, there are no issues. IF there were, they would have stopped doing OSRIC years ago, when the communication occurred.

BTW, saw the OSRIC hard cover at Gary Con, impressive, most impressive. Wish one would have fit in my carry on luggage so I could have bought one.

 

[Wicht]

I just remember him being a huge 4E booster at one point then him expressing dissatisfaction with the GSL, then well nothing.

To be fair to Clark, it turns out that around that time he also went from being a lawyer to being a full-blown judge. Being a judge made greater demands of him, and, among other things, he had to allow his gaming company to take a back seat to the new responsibilities. I have little doubt dissatisfaction with the GSL played a part in his change of habits, but apparently so did his new role in the legal world.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I think the troubling thing for me is Mr. Peterson isn't clear on things regarding his passions for either 4e and Pathfinder.

He spent a lot of time cheering on 4e and trying to work with WoTC. However, there was a certain wishy-washy feeling to it as it became clear WoTC's attitude towards the 3pp market had changed. Clark never really got down to the salient details. Did he like 4e better? Did he think 3e was better? How would you deal with the old school feel if the rules changed so much--there's a lot that changed between 3e and 4e that was more substantial than the 1/2 to 3e changes? He never really communicated his personal feelings on the game's changes. He never explained in complete detail why he felt he wouldn't go with the GSL--what was it he was concerned about--losing rights to Rappan Attuck or something? It was hard to consider when others took up the GSL with no problem. It felt, for lack of a better word, too political--I felt he was communicating as the publisher of something and not as a gamer or game designer. I'd have an easier time understanding if he had said something in detail about the actual ruleset he loved or hated. Meantime, the "old school feel" market had factionalized and a lot of people actually started playing 1e again.

I think this is somewhat an unfair feeling on my part, but it feels like he's was primarilly concerned with finding the largest target market and then supporting it, rather than writing good games. Maybe that's wrong, but it doesn't help how vague he's been on the subject, especially considering all the other creators out there who are more vocal in their opinions. I think that's led to people's skepticism towards him.