Goodman Games 3.5 Revival

[Crothian]

So, does Pathfinder's existence move Paizo from a 3PP to a 1PP, or does Goodman's publishing of Pathfinder products now make them a 4PP???

OPP, you know me!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Pathfinder is a 3PP build on the original OGL.

Goodman Games is a 3PP build on many variants of the OGL (original, OGL, perhaps Pathfinder, 4e).

3rd party is still 3rd party no?

 

[Leif]

Pathfinder is a 3PP build on the original OGL.

Goodman Games is a 3PP build on many variants of the OGL (original, OGL, perhaps Pathfinder, 4e).

3rd party is still 3rd party no?

I guess you're right. But I still think that my little "rpg family tree" (and step-family tree) was more amusing.

 

[Voadam]

So, does Pathfinder's existence move Paizo from a 3PP to a 1PP, or does Goodman's publishing of Pathfinder products now make them a 4PP???

Paizo is a 3pp of WotC's OGL. It is simultaneously a 1PP of Pathfinder TM.

Just like Green Ronin with Mutants and Masterminds and their Superlink agreement for others to produce stuff for the system.

 

[Leif]

Paizo is a 3pp of WotC's OGL. It is simultaneously a 1PP of Pathfinder TM.

Just like Green Ronin with Mutants and Masterminds and their Superlink agreement for others to produce stuff for the system.

Gotcha, thanks! I was unaware that WotC had also abandoned the M&M line, but I guess they would have necessarily done so when they trashed d20, wouln't they?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Gotcha, thanks! I was unaware that WotC had also abandoned the M&M line, but I guess they would have necessarily done so when they trashed d20, wouln't they?

Not quite. I disagree with Voadam in that Paizo is a 1st PP based on them using the OGL. Ditto for Mutants and Masterminds. This is why WoTC has never 'abandoned' the M&M line as it's not d20, but rather, OGL.

Something like A Game of Thrones or other games that do not rely on the OGL license... that's another story. Both they, Mongoose, and others have moved beyod relying on the d20 system. Others are still primarily 'd20' publishers even if they are OGL brand of d20.

There's a difference between licensing specific trade dress to indicate compatibility, such as with the logos for Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder, and still being a 3rd party publisher of OGL material.

 

[kitsune9]

From a recent email from Goodman Games -




So, does this bode well for the 3.5 market? Does a big name like Goodman (with their extensive adventure support) re-releasing their stable of products, speak to their belief that the 3.5 market is still worth troubling over? Any time spent re-issuing 3.XE products (removal of d20 logo and other editing adjustments) takes time away from their 4E support, so this seems to be no small move.

Awesome. I like the Goodman DCC line and have quite a few of their pdfs. Some of their modules were dungeon-crawly awesomeness.

 

[coyote6]

Gotcha, thanks! I was unaware that WotC had also abandoned the M&M line, but I guess they would have necessarily done so when they trashed d20, wouln't they?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but WotC had nothing to do with M&M, aside from creating the OGL.

 

[Leif]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but WotC had nothing to do with M&M, aside from creating the OGL.

I was sure that I had seen them given publshing credit for (at least one edition of) M&M.

Not quite. I disagree with Voadam in that Paizo is a 1st PP based on them using the OGL. Ditto for Mutants and Masterminds. This is why WoTC has never 'abandoned' the M&M line as it's not d20, but rather, OGL.

Something like A Game of Thrones or other games that do not rely on the OGL license... that's another story. Both they, Mongoose, and others have moved beyod relying on the d20 system. Others are still primarily 'd20' publishers even if they are OGL brand of d20.

There's a difference between licensing specific trade dress to indicate compatibility, such as with the logos for Mutants and Masterminds and Pathfinder, and still being a 3rd party publisher of OGL material.

I totally agree about Paizo. And the abandonment of 3.5 by WotC just reinforces that fact.

But I truly don't understand what the difference is between d20 and OGL. I'll look at the text again tonight, but I was honestly under the impression that they were two names for the same thing. Ok, wait. My wheels are spinning once again: d20 predates OGL, doesn't it? d20 was the first incarnation, OGL the second, and now GSL is the thrid. Am I even close to right?

I understand that a company may license trade dress for their products to indicate, or imply, compatibility, but the very fact that this is even done (because it's almost surely going to have some slight variances in the trade dress that are going to seem blatant to customers of the original line) seems to fairly scream 3PP to me.

 

[BryonD]

I was sure that I had seen them given publshing credit for (at least one edition of) M&M.

Nope.
Green Ronin (and specifically Steve Kenson as author working for them) are the publishers from day 1.

But I truly don't understand what the difference is between d20 and OGL. I'll look at the text again tonight, but I was honestly under the impression that they were two names for the same thing. Ok, wait. My wheels are spinning once again: d20 predates OGL, doesn't it? d20 was the first incarnation, OGL the second, and now GSL is the thrid. Am I even close to right?

OGL is the license for open gaming. The SRD was released under it.
The D20 license was released at pretty much the same time as a specific agreement that allowed other parties to put WotC's D20 logo on their product, in exchange for agreeing to certain terms.

They are not the same thing at all.

There are tons of finer details, and an actual publisher (or lawyer) could give a much better answer. But that is the nutshell version.