Pathfinder 1E Clark Peterson supporting Pathfinder?
- Thread starter ShinHakkaider
- Start date
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
By the by, Bryon, it's OSRIC, not OSIRIC which sounds like OSRIC's Egyptian campaign supplement.
...which would actually be a lot of fun...!
Clark was the GSL's BIGGEST cheerleader, especially here on Enworld. Many posts about it here if you want to dig them up. But by the length the GSL debacle release finally happened, and what it looked like, he did a meta cupla also here on enworld, basically saying that the naysayers of wotc/gsl were right and he would/was eating crow, and he couldnt publish under it the way he wanted.
*holds out hands* that is the shorten condesed version. But there was no other person out there that I recall to date here on enworld that was a bigger proponent of the GSL/process then him.
MrGrenadine
I Cast...Brainstorm!
I do not know Mr. Peterson, but it seems to me that his "soul of D&D" comment, and his shift from 4e to Pathfinder are pretty clear indications of where his passions lie.
Also, I think your assertion IS unfair. What else has Mr. Peterson been doing for years, if not writing good games and game supplements? And I don't understand your comment about him being vague and uncommunicative. A simple search would reveal his thoughts on 4e, the GSL, and a variety of other topics, wouldn't it? And even if those thoughts and opinions have changed over time, thats understandable, isn't it?
To cut to the chase: I'm not skeptical. I'm excited to see what he comes up with next!
Aus_Snow
First Post
No, it isn't. Not in the slightest.
If you go back and actually read what he has said (typed) on the matter, you'll get a clearer perspective on all this.
It was a game writer/designer/publisher, and lawyer, having issues with retro-clones, on a *perceived* legal basis. And, despite the "perceived" bit, it doesn't get much clearer than that.
Likewise, his issues with the GSL (and, by extension, the making of 4e third party supplements) were also on a legal basis. Also, a business one. Due, apart from anything else, to the GSL - unlike the OGL - being a revocable license.
It's far more restrictive, and frankly, a little dubious in some areas. But this is just my opinion, and it could be coincidence that my decision would essentially be the same. Hypothetically.
To be fair, Clark hasn't written a lot lately. Looking at the NG product list, the last big thing he wrote was Rappan Attuck and Tome of Horrors stuff. He's mostly been a publisher/editor rather than a writer in these recent years.
Actually, the problem is this (for me). He supported 4e "sight unseen", not even having a preview copy. There was a long of talk about what he was going to do, but between the GSL replacing the OGL and the actual 4e release...there was a lot of silence. The problem was it was had to figure out just what Clark was doing in recent years. Necromancer has been sort of in limbo, just look at the front page of the web site, no updates (and even a lot of dead links). Clark had talked a lot about doing something, but I have yet to see anything akin to a critique about what he liked about 4e and what he hated--at least where I looked.
Most of his comments are a lot more vague than other publishers. Most publishers made a decision earlier in the game, and even went into details about what they liked or hated about the new ruleset. I'm surprised at the lack of knowledge about future projects. I mean, he doesn't have to be a publisher anymore, just write something cool. I guess a lot of it had to do with NG being a side gig rather than a primary gig.
I'm not judging him changing his mind, just that in this whole process he hasn't gone into many details like why he likes PF better than 4e, or (before) vice-versa. That's where I got confused--especially since his company is about "1st Edition Feel", but yet 4e was so different it factionalized the D&D base and I was skeptical he could produce products for that former market. In short, his statements seem to be less "passionate" than the other writers or developers out there. A more cynical view would say he is trying to find the most profitable base before making a decision--but that wouldn't bug me if he just came out and said that directly. (Although since this isn't supposed to be his primary income, why be so concerned about market share in that case--if you liked 3.5 rather than 4.0 continue releasing those items). By vague I mean it's hard to see through the short statements made recently to see what elements of the game he's passionate about today and why he likes/hates certain elements. So it's hard for me to see where he's coming from on a creative perspective, and in turn to figure out if I'll pick up future things from him.
The interesting thing about NG is that they were almost TOO loyal to D&D. The big publishers that survived the d20 crash diversified and created their own variants, like Pathfinder, C&C, and M&M or focusing on other non-d20 related games. They became less dependent on WoTC and more on themselves. Necromancer used to be one of the biggest 3pp, now they sort of fizzled out.
Last edited:
Aus_Snow
First Post
Too polite, perhaps?
Either way, it seemed to me back then that he really wanted to support 4e, because it's the current official D&D. Initially, I doubt there was any other reason. And, had things been different, I don't think that would have changed - just my opinion there, but it seems to be fairly well grounded, based on what I read anyway.
IOW, without the whole ridiculous GSL debacle, the shift in attitude/approach, etc... I'd say he would be producing/publishing for 4e. Either already, or just about to be.
See above, really.
As for what he likes best, I doubt it's even that much of a concern. It could well be a case of simply supporting the supportable*, as opposed to... the alternative.
* "Viable" might be the better word.
Last edited:
Scurvy_Platypus
Explorer
Clarification:
The GSL did NOT replace the OGL. The OGL is the Open Game License. It's still around, it's still being used.
The GSL replaced the d20 STL. That's the license that was used for everything with a d20 logo. As an aside: Basically anything you see currently being sold with a d20 logo? My understanding is, it's basically illegal (in violation of the d20 STL); WotC revoked the d20 STL and gave a time period (6 months as I recall) for all d20 logo product to be dumped.
At the time this whole debacle with the GSL was going on, there was quite a bit of question as to what was going on with the licensing in the first place. Previously, publishers had the option of using either license. With the advent of the GSL, things got very confused, especially as there was constant chatter about what was going to be happening regarding 4E and the OGL.
The GSL was a further problem, because it wasn't just a "redo" of the old d20 STL, but in fact a much stricter and (I think) somewhat harsher license. Eventually everything sorted itself out with the GSL as we currently have it, no OGL option for 4E, and as an aside there's also no "fan license" version of the GSL either. The ability for WotC to revoke the license and what might happen to IP which was produced under the license was worse (and I think murkier) when the d20 STL was dropped and the GSL adopted in its place.
All of this is kinda important, since it basically means that Necro wouldn't be able to change anything about the 4E system; so basically, the whole "old school feel" was pretty much impossible to do if doing so required _any_ sort of redefinition of _anything_ (something strictly forbidden by the GSL).
I believe that at the time there was the belief that publishers would have a greater degree of freedom than they were in fact given. That being the case, why bother complaining about an edition that's a done deal, when you can simply alter the bits that annoy you?
A lot of publishers also simply walked away from WotC pretty much at the outset of the GSL coming out. There was no way they'd be able to actually run their business as they were used to and this combined with significant changes to the rules that they were unable to change in any way as a product.
As well, WotC kept folks hanging for a _long_ time when it came to the whole license thing. Folks jumped ship because they wanted/needed to be able to get product written and printed in time for conventions (like GenCon) and WotC dithering about with the license was an unacceptable delay.
And finally, I _think_ that there was negotiation going on behind the scenes in terms of licensing etc. I seem to recall some posts that suggested that and were essentially "talks are ongoing but nothing can really be said publically".
Basically, Clark was a huge supporter of D&D. Like it or not, 4E coming out means _that_ is the new version of D&D and even if folks still dig the older versions of it (which was part of what his company was about afterall), it had still moved on. I always got the impression that he was more of the opinion that rather than pointlessly complaining about something that's a done deal, you should get on with what you want to do using the tools at hand. And at the time, it looked like that would still be possible.
The landscape changed, it no longer became possible, and given the choice of churning out product under the restrictive license or not, he chose not.
One of the biggest things for Clark to like about Pathfinder? He can make the products he wants, the way he wants. He can change things, add things, and redefine things, in order to arrive at exactly the place he wants to. Make a monster tougher, change its abilities, whatever.
I get the impression that as far as you're concerned, it's mainly a matter of what system Clark likes or whatever. And I don't think it really is. The way that certain aspects of the _only_ license possible to use for 4E material could be interpreted appears to be a major concern for him. That being the case and the fact that Pathfinder is the current thing closest to "baseline" 3.x rules that's being published and combined with the system mastery required to produce a quality product.... if he wants to contribute professionally to the hobby of D&D or D&D-like games, he really doesn't have a whole lot of options.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to offer up what seems to be a perspective you haven't considered.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I only own a couple of Necromancer products, and I don't know Clark Peterson. Everything above is based on my own human (and therefore faulty) memory and understanding of things.
Dark Mistress
First Post
A few comments due to some of the more recent posts.
Clark hasn't been doing anything game related beyond playing with his home group since becoming a Judge. That is why he stopped being active.
Clark did indeed play 4E and Pathfinder when they came out. There are things he likes and dislikes about both. I won't get into what as that has no real bearing on things.
The reason he is talking about supporting Pathfinder and not 4E from my understanding is the GSL. Clark as many have guessed will not publish in a gray area. It's why he won't support retro clones, why he won't support 4E unless he signed the GSL. Regardless if it is legal or not, it is the moral aspect of it to him. The GSL for him still has to many issues for him to sign it. Which means he can't/won't support 4E because of it.
If the GSL was loosened up and allowed him to do his optional rule book idea he wanted to do in the first place. Things might be different, but it's not.
So this has nothing to do with edition wars or anything like that. This simple has to do with, Pathfinder and the OGL allows him to make the kinda of stuff he wants to make and 4E and the GSL does not. It is really that simple.
Clark hasn't been doing anything game related beyond playing with his home group since becoming a Judge. That is why he stopped being active.
Clark did indeed play 4E and Pathfinder when they came out. There are things he likes and dislikes about both. I won't get into what as that has no real bearing on things.
The reason he is talking about supporting Pathfinder and not 4E from my understanding is the GSL. Clark as many have guessed will not publish in a gray area. It's why he won't support retro clones, why he won't support 4E unless he signed the GSL. Regardless if it is legal or not, it is the moral aspect of it to him. The GSL for him still has to many issues for him to sign it. Which means he can't/won't support 4E because of it.
If the GSL was loosened up and allowed him to do his optional rule book idea he wanted to do in the first place. Things might be different, but it's not.
So this has nothing to do with edition wars or anything like that. This simple has to do with, Pathfinder and the OGL allows him to make the kinda of stuff he wants to make and 4E and the GSL does not. It is really that simple.
I understood all you were saying, I was here when the GSL v OGL thing happened on the board here.
I actually approve and respect this, because I understand where he's coming from. I guess I was wondering during this time what about the GSL he disliked--he's made his ideas clear on why he won't publish in the "grey area", but he's been less vocal about the why the GSL was specifically bad for him. Considering Goodman Games, another "older gamer" leaning publisher, embraced it, I was very curious about the why's for the GSL rejection as it affected necromancer. If he was concerned about RA and Tome of Horrors, why not just do something else that wouldn't affect those properties.
Based on the new statement on the home page, he's not brining Necromancer back. I guess this new endeavor is him as a writer, not a publisher. I was more concerned about him reconnecting in the latter sense, as the gradual demise of NG over time and his increasing real-life demands made me a little bit skeptical of him re-entering the publishing arena.
Similar Threads
