Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[BryonD]

I think we can safely say the GSL just got a lot tighter.

I'm not sure that adding two padlocks to a door that already has nine really makes a difference.

We don't know what the GSL says and you won't know what (if any, which I doubt) change this causes. But we already know that the idea of a 4E OGL is dead. There is zero reason to expect that this type action would be possibly with 4e under the GSL anyway. So what is there to tighten? You can't threaten to do something you already did.



As an aside, it is funny that so many people outraged by this are both certain that WotC will modify the GSL and yet also certain that WotC will be unaffected.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

They would sell a lot more by dividing the book up into three parts at a lower price. There might be a niche for a fifty dollar book, but TSR stumbled upon marketing magic with the three book model.

Hmm, well it's been a while since I've paid much professional attention to this... But I believe that you will actually show a greater profit with a very thick, very high quality hardcover at 49.99 or more than you will with multiple smaller books.

There's a perception of quality about a book with serious heft that gives them a certain cachet.

 

[Lackhand]

LOL

It is funny how statements like this are suddenly ok. Anyone who said anything remotely like that about the decisions WotC made would get buried in venom and decried as a "hater" who was just making selfish, emotional, cynical statements with no regard to merit or open-mindedness.

Welcome to the other side of the mirror.

Basically. Both sides of this particular mirror suck, I guess. I think the posters who make these posts are aware of what they're saying (and honestly, probably should know better).

But I do applaud the (despicable and unreasonable, obviously. ) 4e haters for being the better individuals and not lashing out with venom. Go team you guys!

 

[JohnSnow]

LOL

It is funny how statements like this are suddenly ok. Anyone who said anything remotely like that about the decisions WotC made would get buried in venom and decried as a "hater" who was just making selfish, emotional, cynical statements with no regard to merit or open-mindedness.

Welcome to the other side of the mirror.

Well, I never said there was anything wrong with boycotting WotC. I may have said that I doubted people would actually do it.

I may have also said that anybody proposing the boycotting of Fourth Edition, or wishing for its failure, was making a fruitless gesture. The chances are your numbers aren't sufficient enough to have an impact. And even if you do, you probably won't get what you want. Because if Fourth Edition does fail, chances are the hobby will then slowly die. Because, as someone (Ryan Dancey, I believe?) said, "as goes D&D, so goes the RPG industry."

But, boycotting a company is a perfectly valid way for a consumer to express their disagreement with its business decisions. In other words, if you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their products. Companies exist to make money. It's the only language they understand.

 

[Lizard]

Despite the prevarications and attempts of some publishers, if you actually read the license itself, any and all rules-based content published under the OGL by anyone other than WotC is open content.

And the only reason it doesn't apply equally to WotC is because, as the owner of the original mechanics, they don't have to make use of the license to release something that's compatible with D&D. Anybody else DOES.

That means ANY rules-based material released under the OGL is, by definition, open content. And since you can't release OGL material without using the OGL...

You're missing my point.

"Open content" is a term which has meaning *only under the OGL*. It's not identical to "public domain". I can't take someone else's Open Content and publish it under ANY OTHER LICENSE -- not the GPL, not Creative Commons, not the GSL.

Open content is still 100% copyrighted to the original creators. The OGL is a license ALLOWING USE of that content, not a waiver of copyright to it. The GSL cannot cover ANY content not explicitly placed under it by the copyright holder -- and in the case of material derived from multiple OGL sources, that's a complex issue.

Since only WOTC owns the copyright to the SRD, any material derived from the SRD -- i.e, most OGL material -- CANNOT be placed under the GSL unless WOTC has some explicit allowance for it, which would mean releasing a "GSL'ed" 3x SRD of some sort, with a proviso that it can only be used for 4e products.

I suspect this realization is one reason for the delay in the GSL.

 

[helium3]

Does it need to?

No, it doesn't. I think their decision makes total business sense considering the lack of a finished GSL at this stage in the game. And if they really do believe that continued support of a 3.5 based game system beyond the point where they could switch to 4E makes sense, I support that decision too. It's their business. They're free to make whatever choices they want.

They know what kind of stories they are going to be telling. They know their product, their staff, their world. They have some idea (probably more than many, despite the lack of a GSL) what kind of changes might be required to continue to produce those products under 4E. They have decided that- to do things they way they want to continue to do them- 3.5 (or some iteration) is best for them.

Right. So we're interpreting the paragraph in the same way.

They in no way say 4E sucks, or that it won't be a good system. Just that it doesn't work for what they want to do.

Fair enough. The use of the word "sucks" is not warranted. But, saying it "doesn't work for us" is still a criticism of 4E no matter how gently you couch the terms. Particularly in light of the history that these two companies have.

Here's a non-RPG example. Let's imagine that Microsoft is about halfway through the period of time between announcing and rolling out their new post-Vista OS. For whatever reason, Microsoft has been unable to provide Dell Computers with the license that Dell will need to sign to install this new OS on their computers when it's released. Because of supply chain issues, Dell has reached a point where they need to announce that Dell Computers with the new OS will not be available for purchase when the new OS itself is released. Dell Computers, instead of saying the above, issues a press release stating that they will stick with the old OS even after they could switch to the new one. Why? Because the old OS is better aligned with the kind of product that they want to sell. They then point out that Alienware, a recently acquired subsidiary that produces custome computers for high end clients will be selling computers with the new OS at the official Go Live date for the new OS.

Frankly, I'm not at all sure she (or Paizo) even have a need to conciliate with WotC, as their relationship doesn't seem to be in any way hostile, nor have they done anything that I'm aware of to publicly cheese them off (perhaps conciliatory wasn't the precise word for the point you were trying to make).

Yeah. Maybe conciliatory isn't the best word to use. The tone I'm trying to convey is more like, "Hey. WotC hasn't provided us with the GSL yet, and that's unfortunate because we need to announce our new product. It'll have to 3.5 as a result. But that's okay. We'll switch to 4E as soon as we can, without converting any Adventure Paths half-way through.

It's very politically put, IMO. She is just saying "this is the direction that we feel is best for our company at this time."

For what she's saying, she said it about as kindly as she could. I'm just pointing out what she's saying.

 

[Erik Mona]

If Paizo's smart, they'll have a low-cost print copy of the 'Beta' rules at GenCon '08. Just something people can pick up and read on the floor, with a reminder that the final rules will be there in a year...

Well, what do you know? That is exactly the plan.

--Erik

 

[helium3]

It depends on the definition of fun. IMHO, any edition of D&D (so far) is playable if you stick to its original core rules, but the official version becomes "unplayable" every time due to rules bloat ("crunch") developed to pump more money out of the powergamer/munchkin types. I'm also annoyed that powergamers "burn through" editions faster and demand new crunch . . . I'm in more-or-less the same Gygaxian campaign world I've been in since 1981, with many different parties, and I'm tired of updating stuff to fit new crunch . . . crunch changes are an obstacle to my fun, not an enhancement.

See, this is such a better way of stating your opinion than just making blanket statements about how stupid powergamers are. I'm far more comfortable keeping company with folks that make rational arguments for their preference, rather than just putting people down.

Add in that I have to pay for the displeasure of outdating all my stuff, and I'm pretty pissed at whichever corporate entity is churning the rules to "revenueize" my fun. Add in that they are going for a total reset and the residual anger about cancelling Dungeon and Dragon, and well . . . Bellevue beats Renton.

I'm still not sure what my big sticking point is. Something to do with the loss of most resource management issues.

If you really want revenge, rather than telling me I've pushed you to 4e, tell me I'll buy 4e anyhow (yes, I will) and that I'll end up playing it because oldtimers will always come around eventually, just like we did with 3e (quite plausible, but we'll see).

I've already started bolting elements of 4E to my 3.5 game and it has changed play in ways I like. It remains to be seen if I switch all the way, though.

Well, they did cancel Dragon and Dungeon just to piss me off and kill Greyhawk, so they ain't exactly coming up "good" on my Know Alignment.

Well, I'm sure that WotC had SOME reason besides pure spite. Maybe they thought they'd simply make more money publishing Dungeon and Dragon on their own, rather than having Paizo pay them for the license to do so.

Plus, they probably have legitimate legal claims -- if Paizo's basically doing D&D without buying the rights, that's kinda feels wrong, OGL or no OGL. I'm not sure what the legal issues would be, if any, but I suspect Hasbro has some kind of recourse.

I'm sure they have some recourse as well. Just probably isn't anything that anyone here has mentioned or thought up. You know how lawyers are . . .

 

[Erik Mona]

Ok . . .

So the above paragraph says what, then? It certainly doesn't say, "We think 4E is going to be awesome and we'll switch over to 4E as soon as we've had the rules long enough to develop a full length Pathfinder AP using them."

You're right, she didn't say that. She said that 3.5 better allows us to tell the stories we want to tell, which is true.

The is absolutely not saying that 4th edition "sucks," which is what you claimed.

--Erik

 

[helium3]

You're right, she didn't say that. She said that 3.5 better allows us to tell the stories we want to tell, which is true.

The is absolutely not saying that 4th edition "sucks," which is what you claimed.

--Erik

Correct. Use of the word "suck" was unnecessary hyperbole on my part. I apologize.