Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Psion]

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

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and you may be right. We're in agreement that Wizards would have to do it.

The question is to what degree the acceptance of the OGL granted Wizards of the Coast authority over material produced under it. And that's probably a question much more complex than we can answer.

My reading is that some of the clauses in the OGL can be read to imply that Wizards wisely maintained the right to release an updated license (such as the GSL) that, for example, allows GSL users access to the open content released under the OGL, but designates GSL releases as "closed content" for purposes of the OGL.

Now, that right may be restricted to WotC itself, but it may not.

Of course, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I may be totally wrong.

 

[Stormtower]

And this, right here, is why this Pathfinder RPG thing is bad for the hobby. Paizo just set themselves up (intentionally or not) as the embodiment of the hope that Fourth Edition will fail spectacularly.

I can only speak for myself here.

I support Paizo's decision to publish the Pathfinder RPG, and I will show that support with my dollars. I don't intend to buy every 4E product under the sun that WotC publishes (as I did in my system of choice, 3.5E), but I liked the game enough at DDXP to also support it with my dollars. I don't want either game to fail, and I certainly don't perceive Paizo as the embodiment of some kind of hope that 4E will fail spectacularly.

The opportunities for face-to-face social experience that the tabletop RPG hobby provides are only increased by the survival and success of both games.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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.



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

But if they don't plan on switching to 4e based on what they know, why would they possibly say what you want them to? Maybe the restrictions of the new license would cramp what they are doing too much, so why not say 3.5 is a better fit for what we are doing? I'm not seeing the problem here.

 

[Cadfan]

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.

They can't say that. People would interpret it to mean that they'd LIKE to be publishing under 4e, but because they can't due to release schedules and the need to get product out the door, they'll have to publish something crappier instead.

I, too, share your distaste of phrases like "right for the stories we want to tell," mostly since its a vague, content-free emotional catch phrase appropriate only for marketing speak. But this was marketing speak, so that's fine.

 

[Lizard]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and you may be right. We're in agreement that Wizards would have to do it.

The question is to what degree the acceptance of the OGL granted Wizards of the Coast authority over material produced under it. And that's probably a question much more complex than we can answer.

Not really.

The answer is "None whatsoever." WOTC has no right to use/control/reprint/sublicense any material released under the OGL, except under the terms of the OGL. Same as you or me or anyone else.

They have rights to release *their own material* under any license -- just as I could release a wholly original (not SRD-derived) game system under both the OGL and Creative Commons, but they cannot release other people's material.

The *can* update the OGL -- but one of the terms of the OGL is that ALL VERSIONS OF IT remain valid, and material released under one version of the OGL can be released under any other. That's why there's a GSL -- because releasing 4e under any "new" OGL is the same as releasing it under any old one.

 

[crazy_cat]

I've just worked my way through the Pathfinder thread in RPG General, and I made it all the way to post 116 in this thread before I hit this....

...Are the Paizo and Pathfinder brands sufficiently valuable to overcome people's attachment to the brand name Dungeons & Dragons?

This really made me think - as I've never been sure about 4e.

I think the Pathfinder announcemnet has made my mind up however - I'll probably still buy the core three 4e books to read, but Pathfinder sounds like the sort of D&D I want to carry on playing.

Go Pathfinder !

 

[Spatula]

And this, right here, is why this Pathfinder RPG thing is bad for the hobby. Paizo just set themselves up (intentionally or not) as the embodiment of the hope that Fourth Edition will fail spectacularly.

In marketing, perception is reality. And the perception this moves creates is that Paizo WANTS 4E to fail. Since I don't agree with that, I don't want to support Paizo as a business. So, as intriguing as some of their APs looked to me, I'm not going to be playing 3.x after June. And I'm not going to buy their products because I don't want my purchase to be to be misconstrued by Paizo as supporting this move.

Part of me wants to boycott all Paizo-published materials (including Necromancer's stuff) to show Paizo that decisions like this have consequences, but that wouldn't be fair to Clark, who's actually supporting Fourth Edition wholeheartedly.

...wut?

A handful of delusional posts on the internet (WotC will crash & burn, Pathfinder will cut into 4e's sales by a large margin, etc.) do not create reality. So you want to boycott Pazio (presumably their edition-neutral products; of course you wouldn't buy 3e adventures if you're playing 4e) because a few people want 4e to fail, and they've latched onto Pazio? Those people weren't going to buy or support 4e in the first place. Pazio is just publishing adventures and keeping the rules in print. Seriously, how does this actually affect your life or WotC's business?

People who don't want to switch don't need Pazio to keep playing 3e. This whole thing has basically no impact on 4e.

 

[Azzy]

My take is 10%, maybe as much as 20%.

I'm a big Paizo supporter, but I think that that's a much more realistic estimate. Paizo is still a a fairly small company, after all.

Whoever at WoTC caused the GSL to not be ready at GenCon 2007 is really the main cause of this. The GSL and keeping Paizo in the D&D camp should have been one of their highest priorities.

Agreed.

 

[JohnSnow]

Not really.

The answer is "None whatsoever." WOTC has no right to use/control/reprint/sublicense any material released under the OGL, except under the terms of the OGL. Same as you or me or anyone else.

You're right. The layman's reading is "none whatsoever." Except that it's probably not that clear-cut.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd bet one could come up with a legitimate argument that WotC preserved authorship control over any material derived from its SRD. One could also probably come up with a legitimate argument that no such control exists.

Which one a court would buy into is, I think, an open question.

But it's probably not really relevant. WotC doesn't need access to (for example) Green Ronin's material to make much of the relevant content available for conversion to Fourth Edition. What couldn't they release? Well, there's a few third-party monsters (those not derived from 1e and 2e ones), feats, and classes. In other words, while they'd lose access to some specific third edition stuff, very little of that matters.

I do think it's highly likely you won't see the GSL allow the publication of character creation rules, so variant PHBs (like Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes) and derivative systems that are complete games in and of themselves like Castles & Crusades, Spycraft, Mutants & Masterminds, True 20, Game of Thrones and the Pathfinder RPG probably can't be published under the terms of the GSL.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed WotC ever allowed it.