Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?

[BryonD]

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

It may not have been the perfect choice of words, but the point of what I said stands.

The D20 SRD is just that, the D20 SRD. OSIRIC clearly DOES use the SRD as establishing as "open" certain elements in it that (and don't take this as legal speak, I make no claims) could be called "art" and are associated with multiple editions. The fact that they are in the SRD makes them "open" and OSIRIC can and does point to that.

But the heart of OSIRIC is, obviously, a completely different rule system than the D20 SRD provides for. And there is no evidence that the intent of it was to be leveraged into "opening" prior editions.

Pathfinder "uses" the SRD to build the game on it. OSIRIC "uses" the SRD as a lever to go a significantly different direction. Yes, my choice of word was poor. But I think a reasonable consideration could see what I meant.

And again, I'm not arguing that there is anything wrong with OSIRIC.

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.

I recall reading some of his comments on exactly this topic. Certainly I have no idea if I read 5% of what he said or 95%. But the idea that 3E was SUPPOSED to be open *forever and ever amen* was clear and the idea that 1E was not seemed clear to me. I think that IS a moral opinion. BUT the unjust interpretation being applied now is that the *forever and ever amen* part was supposed to just mean "until we release another edition". I never saw him say anything to in any way imply that. Did I miss it? If so, I'll readily admit I'm wrong. But I don't think I did.

As a purely moral position he is still being consistent.

Again, no intent whatsoever to speak for or put words into Clark's mouth. These are my memories and interpretations.

 

[BryonD]

Clark wanted to support the current edition of DnD even before he knew what 4e was like he wanted to support it for the love of DnD.

Yeah. This is what I was referencing when someone said something about his "undying love". I think he has an undying love of D&D, and strongly wanted to support IT, in whatever incarnation it took. But love for the legacy and tradition doesn't in any way mean love for any given rule set.

 

[Treebore]

Yeah, but copyrights are not trademarks, so "they" (being an amorphous, non-constant conglomerate of unknown businesspeople) could change their minds at some later date. Unless they have a written license, I wouldn't expect "communications" to be dependable in a court of law.

Quite honestly, so long as OSRIC is small, I would not be surprised if WotC (or Hasbro, above them) chose to ignore it as not worth the effort and legal costs - their lawyers usually have bigger fish to fry. But, it might well be challenged if it looked like a real commercial success.

They could change their mind, but their many years of doing nothing with full knowledge would hurt their efforts. Something along the concept of "innocent party" status I am sure has been lost here. So if WOTC/Hasbro had a problem with OSRIC they should have already acted.

Then again, I would have never thought they would make PDF's of Star Frontiers and Marvel Superhero's freely available, so who knows what WOTC/Hasbro thinks! Maybe they are capable of simply being "cool" when it doesn't apply to their active IP's.

Or maybe between the OGL and how copyright isn't this monolithic legal straight jacket in the first place has more to do with it.

Bottom line is, WOTC/Hasbro has known about OSRIC for years now (over 5? 6?), and have done nothing to stop it. Silence does speak volumes. Even in law.

 

[Falstaff]

I guess our definition of standard bearer greatly differs. I won't argue, however, and just concede/retreat from this thread.

Thank the gods.

Ladies and gentlemen, this a great example of how being rude gets you kicked out of the thread. - Piratecat

 

[Ourph]

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.

i.e. Pathfinder.

 

[Fifth Element]

Are you serious? Why would anyone invest their effort into producing IP if they aren't sure they like what they're doing? There are plenty of people who put in a week's work without liking what they're doing, but most of them aren't self-employed side-businessmen creating intellectual property.
I suspect a more appropriate approach will be putting his best business model to the project he prefers doing.

Indeed. This isn't a public company we're talking about here. He has no requirement to maximize shareholder value. If he wants to make some stuff he likes and make some money at it, he can do that regardless of whether making something else might make him more money.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

For now I am far more interested in Frog God Games.

Yeah, me too.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My bolding above is how I take his statement. Pathfinder does have the soul of the prior edition of D&D, it's a direct modification of that game. That's one reason I do not prefer it over my game of choice. But other people do, and we're all happy to have a game we like to play.

That was how I read it as well, and Pathfinder is my current game of choice. Well, one of them at any rate.

And Necro was a nostalgia based company. (With some really good stuff!)

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's Bryon.

So you are not mad, bad, and dangerous to know?

The Auld Grump, eh, that George Gordon, always fun at parties....

 

[BryonD]

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.

i.e. Pathfinder.

You mean that "3.5 Thrives" game?
http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/PZOP/PZOPFLAUNCH_500.jpeg