Is Pathfinder basically a "cloned" D&D 3.0/3.5?

[Manchu2]

Competition does indeed make everyone better; but basically stealing a game and repackaging it, even if strictly legal is still a shady way to make money even if it was in response to a desire to keep playing 3.5 and bypassing 4E.

 

[delericho]

The intent, however poorly or successfully executed, was for D&D or D20 content to be "official" and still be published by third party; it was never for a third party to make a "new" game but supplements for the existing game.

Back when the OGL was first being put forward there were extensive discussions about what sorts of products might be possible. The possibility of entirely new games, and even of a cloned PHB, was raised. And Ryan Dancey, who was the driving force at WotC behind the adoption of the OGL was heavily involved in those discussions.

So WotC were aware of the possibilities. They could have formulated the license differently to thus prevent that from happening, and they chose not to do so.

 

[dracomilan]

Anyway, I share some of Manchu2 feelings, and never managed to buy a single PF product.

 

[Morrus]

I have to say I disagree. The intent, however poorly or successfully executed, was for D&D or D20 content to be "official" and still be published by third party; it was never for a third party to make a "new" game but supplements for the existing game. It was for gamers to have more options and more content, not a competing game.

There is really only one single reason for the existence of license and contract law - so that you don't need to guess at the intent of each party. All you have to do is read the license. The intent is what the license says, not what we guess it may or may not have been. If we're just guessing at what the involved parties really meant, then why would contracts exist in the first place?

 

[CapnZapp]

Competition does indeed make everyone better; but basically stealing a game and repackaging it, even if strictly legal is still a shady way to make money even if it was in response to a desire to keep playing 3.5 and bypassing 4E.

This is wrong on many levels.

Pathfinder is morally and legally in the clear.

But it wasn't an altruistic move to keep 3E fans with something to buy. It was a way to keep some revenue. An opportunity taken, not more not less.

A way to stay relevant when WotC didn't want to share D&D any longer.

Which itself is not shady either, neither legally nor morally.

There is no grounds whatsoever to be outraged. There are nothing to base a conspiracy on.

Those wanting to stay with d20 won. Those wanting to explore WotC new direction won.

And, with 5E finally those of us desiring neither d20's numbing complexity nor 4e's slow play and focus on the tactical combat, won too!

 

[Alzrius]

Competition does indeed make everyone better; but basically stealing a game and repackaging it, even if strictly legal is still a shady way to make money even if it was in response to a desire to keep playing 3.5 and bypassing 4E.

By this logic, you should never buy any products that are "repackages" of another work, even if that other work has been discontinued.

Under this line of thinking, selling a sports drink is stealing Gatorade and repackaging it; selling a car is basically stealing a Model-T and repackaging it; heck, using a personal computer is basically stealing a Programma 101 and repackaging it.

In fact, these are all even more morally-suspect than buying/playing Pathfinder, since Pathfinder was made under a license, whereas all of those other products were just produced on their own, without any licensing from the original inventors.

 

[Manchu2]

I disagree with most of your analogies. Though your overall point is still somewhat valid. Someone making "A" boardgame is not stealing/copying, but someone making an almost exact copy of one and selling it as their own is. Copyright laws don't apply due to the OGL, but the other items you listed are not appropriate since Ford didn't invent the car (if someone reverse engineered a Model T and slapped a different name on it and sold it as their own they would be sued out of business by Ford (at the time).

D&D was the first true RPG, others followed, they borrowed things like Hit Points, and leveling, but made their games unique. Read of Dice and Men or Playing at the World or any of a long list of books about the origins and history of RPGs (table and video) and you can see that there is room for more than one game. I believe the OGL was a mistake in that it allowed for a copy of the game to become a competitor and I don't think Paizo is doing anything illegal; but I still don't see any reason to play it or support it. I understand that it all came out of the edition wars and some poor decisions by WotC, I just don't like the game being diluted (my opinion).

 

[Dandu]

Was Paizo also in the wrong when they were running and making content for Dragon Magazine?

 

[Morrus]

Well, remind me never to license something from you, Manchu2! I wouldn't want you to later claim I was stealing it!

 

[Celebrim]

"I believe the OGL was a mistake in that it allowed for a copy of the game to become a competitor..."

From the perspective of Hasbro I suspect many within the company do feel the OGL was a mistake. If they didn't feel it was a mistake, they would have continued releasing content under the OGL license.

But that it was a corporate mistake to create a virtually unlimited license to use their gaming system, does not make it immoral for someone to use the license as it was intended. Let's not forget, Pathfinder was far from the first full and complete game created using the D20 system and the OGL, and while some of those like Mutants & Masterminds competed indirectly, some of those games were intended to compete directly with D&D. Moreover, even games like M&M arguably kept WotC from publishing their own Supers RPG, and basically all RPGs are competing with each other for attention and play time.

Incidentally, I disagree with the suits at Hasbro that think the OGL was a mistake. Prior to the OGL, D&D wasn't even the #1 game being played. Based on what I saw out there, more people were out there playing WoD colon games and Deadlands than were buying and playing D&D. The OGL resulted in a situation where 3e D&D reached a point where it had basically crushed every competitor, resulting in a "we can't beat them, we might as well join them" situation. If you really don't like D&D, the OGL probably makes you weep, because it crushed all sorts of innovative designs and gaming systems that were being explored while D&D was in torpor.

But again, and this is entirely the point, comments by Ryan Dancey who was the chief architect of the OGL indicate that the Pathfinder situation was to me exactly what was being put on the table here. At the same time Ryan was saying with good reason, "This OGL will give us a competitive advantage in the market, and push even competitors to promote and support our product.", he was thinking, "I love D&D and this will ensure that regardless of what the corporate suits do, regardless of what happens to WotC, regardless of who the rights holder is and regardless what they want to do with D&D, it will always belong to the fans who will if necessary be able to continue printing the game without TSR or WotC or Hasbro or anyone else." I think the OGL was designed not just to help WotC promote their game and make money, but to strongly discourage them from doing the vary sorts of things that they did. If Hasbro/WotC failed to understand that the OGL virtually ensured that if the harder they tried to grasp the game in their hands, the more the game would simply slip through their fingers - that's there own fault. If Hasbo/WotC failed to understand at the time that Paizo's virtual monopoly of IP creation while WotC owned D&D products focused mostly on crunch (and badly balanced often poorly thought out crunch at that) was making Paizo at least for the time being the stronger partner in the relationship, again, that's not Paizo's fault.

The Paizo/WotC divide reminds me of the spat between Pixar and Disney a few years back, when Disney decided it didn't need Pixar and would just make it's own movies, turning what had been a successful partnership into a competitive relationship. Pixar movies were a huge success; Disney's attempts at making Pixar movies flopped. Disney however almost immediately realized just how stupid it had been and made nice.