Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I wasn't going to post in this thread, because, wow, but I do want to clarify to BryonD that when it comes to OSRIC and SRDs, Rogueattorney definitely knows what he's talking about. You can take anything Rogueattorney says about my game as gospel. (Or of course the alternative holy book of your choice, if you're offended by mention of the Bible; let's be careful not to offend anyone on ENWorld...)

 

[rogueattorney]

OSIRIC does not use the SRD. It just uses the OGL.
They may have produced an "OSIRIC SRD", I have no idea. but even if they have, it is a completely different animal.

1E was never released by the authors/owners. The D20 rule set was.

I think you maybe simply don't understand the distinction.

OSRIC uses the SRD published by WotC in 2000. Using the WotC SRD to re-state 1e is the entire point of OSRIC. There'd be no point in using the OGL to publish it, if it didn't. The licensing language on the last page of the OSRIC rules clearly references the WotC SRD.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Clark was pretty much the 4e standard bearer of the 3PPs.

Wait, what?! Standard bearer of 4e 3pp??

Literally, no one cheered the GSL prior to its release louder than Clark Peterson. No one. Not even anyone at Wizards. When the first version was released, he got really quiet. For quite some time, he went from the Lord of the Undead to Quiet as the Dead. He posted some, sure, but there was a massive decrease in his posting frequency.

Then like 3-4 months later, he posted Necromancer's official response: they would not work with the GSL as it stood. Within 24 hours (literally), Wizards announced they were going to make changes. It took them a month or two to release those changes, but it was clear that those changes were made for one reason: they lost their biggest cheerleader. Ultimately, Necromancer shut down.

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. Paizo was already heavily working on Pathfinder RPG at the time. So when Necromancer said no thanks, it became a 3-to-2 rejection of the license, enough for Scott Rouse to get changes promised.

 

[Mythmere1]

OSIRIC does not use the SRD. It just uses the OGL.
They may have produced an "OSIRIC SRD", I have no idea. but even if they have, it is a completely different animal.

1E was never released by the authors/owners. The D20 rule set was.

I think you maybe simply don't understand the distinction.

I think you might be conflating the SRD with the d20 license. There's no reason to use the OGL except for the purpose of using someone's open game content (which wouldn't necessarily be the SRD, but it usually is).

Once you've got the OGL in place, you can use IP from the SRD.

OSRIC uses a second premise, which is that one can't copyright game rules (not to be confused with the presentation of those rules, which IS copyrightable).

For example, OSRIC could have ignored the whole structure of the OGL-SRD and relied solely on the "can't copyright rules" rule, but in that case it would be missing lots of IP - the stirge is a good example. You couldn't use that monster name (it's unique under copyright law) much less couple the name with a physical description of a mosquito-bat-thing. However, by using the SRD (activated by the OGL), that name and description become usable under license.

There are clearly some gaps between non-copyrightable game rules and the SRD; anything copyrightable that didn't make it into the SRD is a blacked-out area that didn't appear in OSRIC.

On the other hand, the actual d20 license (a third factor in the OGL-SRD-d20-D&D compatibility rules), if used, would preclude the use of certain rules-changes outside the SRD. That's why OSRIC doesn't use the d20 license. It couldn't.

But you don't need to use the d20 license to access the SRD - just the OGL. OSRIC doesn't just look back to the 1e rules, it also draws considerably on the SRD for intellectual property like the stirge name and description.

I seriously doubt that Clark was saying that OSRIC had a problem as a matter of law (that would essentially be saying that the general statute had no meaning) - I think he was saying one or both of two things (a) he thought OSRIC had tripped over one of the specific tests of copyright law, either using a rule that wasn't a rule, or violating SAP, and/or (b) that WotC as a practical matter could sue regardless of merit, which could rebound on a publisher who was using it.

He didn't specify anything more than the "wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole" comment, but I really doubt he was talking about pure law in the sense of saying that theoretically it couldn't be done.

 

[BryonD]

OSRIC uses the SRD published by WotC in 2000. Using the WotC SRD to re-state 1e is the entire point of OSRIC. There'd be no point in using the OGL to publish it, if it didn't. The licensing language on the last page of the OSRIC rules clearly references the WotC SRD.

You are talkign about two different things.
OSIRIC *references* the D20 SRD for justifying that elements, such as spell effects, for example, are part of the open domain. They then released mechanics for, effectively, the 1E system under the OGL. They explain this on their website. But "using the WotC SRD to re-state 1e" is a mischaracterization.

WotC owns 3E.
WotC released their own property, 3E, for use under the OGL.

The mechanics for 1E were not released by the owners. I understand that there is a stong opinion that there is no need for that legally. And I'm not stating any opinion either way on that. But it is a point of difference.

The D20 system is free to be used forever with the blessing of the owner. (even if the owner later changes their mind)

I've never read Clark state anything that suggested that using the D20 SRD/ OGL will ever not be ok. I have read statements that it was not his opinion that the same applied to OSIRIC. (I don't have a link and don't claim to be exact or to be putting words in his mouth, that is my memory.) But that is the difference and requires no change in opinion on his part.

 

[BryonD]

I think you might be conflating the SRD with the d20 license.

No, I understand the difference.

OSRIC uses a second premise, which is that one can't copyright game rules (not to be confused with the presentation of those rules, which IS copyrightable).

...

I seriously doubt that Clark was saying that OSRIC had a problem as a matter of law (that would essentially be saying that the general statute had no meaning) - I think he was saying one or both of two things (a) he thought OSRIC had tripped over one of the specific tests of copyright law, either using a rule that wasn't a rule, or violating SAP, and/or (b) that WotC as a practical matter could sue regardless of merit, which could rebound on a publisher who was using it.

He didn't specify anything more than the "wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole" comment, but I really doubt he was talking about pure law in the sense of saying that theoretically it couldn't be done.

And I'm not arguing law here. I'm not challenging OSIRIC.
I'm saying that Clark's support of Pathfinder does not represent a change of *his* opinion.

 

[Umbran]

I've never read Clark state anything that suggested that using the D20 SRD/ OGL will ever not be ok. I have read statements that it was not his opinion that the same applied to OSIRIC. (I don't have a link and don't claim to be exact or to be putting words in his mouth, that is my memory.) But that is the difference and requires no change in opinion on his part.

I don't speak for Clark, but I remember much the same.

Technically, one cannot copyright a rules-system. You can only copyright a specific expression of those rules, and someone else can republish the same logical system if they use different words. That's the basic premise under which OSRIC operates.

If I recall correctly, Clark's objection was that, lacking an explicit statement from the copyright holder as to what is system logic, and what is particular expression, someone publishing is taking a major risk. If you don't change the wording enough, or if you include other intellectual property in with the rules, your republished version may be more than just the logic of the system, and thus vulnerable to copyright enforcement.

Think of it this way - there are monsters in D&D. Many of them are from myth and legend. With traditional prior art, you can't copyright elves and dwarves in general. If, however, you also took the mind flayer (which isn't traditional, and is wholly a creation of D&D) and included stats for it under that name, you'd be in violation of copyright, and could be sued for it.

It seemed to me that Clark felt that OSRIC's determination of what is open content was too risky to justify investment of development time and resources.

 

[rogueattorney]

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

OSRIC references the SRD, but doesn't use it? That doesn't make sense. The SRD's only purpose is to be referenced.

You seem to be claiming that the OGL either can only be used or should only be used to support d20-style games. That is clearly not what the license says, that is not how WotC portrayed the license when they introduced it, nor is it how the license has been used by many game companies.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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. He is a great guy, and it was his efforts that helped 4e a lot. But I am glad he is coming back and supporting D&D whatever edition.

I have never owned any Necromancer stuff. But when he released something for 4e someday, i will buy it... And I will at least have a look into his Pathfinder doings.

 

[Mythmere1]

And I'm not arguing law here. I'm not challenging OSIRIC.

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

I'm saying that Clark's support of Pathfinder does not represent a change of *his* opinion.

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.