Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[JohnSnow]

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

Yup. That's true.

I'd say 10% of the customer base won't switch. Of that 10%, maybe 10% will be interested in the Pathfinder RPG.

In the end, they'll get maybe 1% of the existing D&D market. Is that a lot to Paizo? I have no idea.

 

[Dragonklaw82]

I have to say that ever since the release of Pathfinder, Paizo has been doing 3e better than WOTC, IMO. Not surprising, since WOTC has been neck-deep in 4e, but I believe that Pathfinder (and Paizo's Dungeon and Dragon run) produced better 3e material than a lot of stuff at WOTC. So since they are so good at it, I'm happy to see that there will be future 3.5 options, because it is a good system, and I love to play it.

On the other hand, I do plan on converting to 4e. I like what I have seen, and I think 4e is going to be a fantastcally fun game that fixes all the complaints I had with 3e. I'll admit that not every decision about 4e thrills me, but that can't be helped.

I think I will probably play both. I love the work I've seen in Pathfinder, and the future promises to be bright, but here's the problem:

D&D remains my priority.

Like I said, I'm switching to 4e, so I am going to opt for what I believe to be the next step in an ever-evolving game before I purchase a product that supports an older system. If I have the opportunity to buy both, I will, but it looks like WOTC still gets the bulk of my expendable income at the moment.

I wish Paizo good luck in this bold endeavor, but I share the sentiment that the hardline 3.5'ers are not as viable a market as those who switch to 4e.

But, Paizo is taking care of that market with the adventure path they are releasing for Necromancer Games, so maybe they are more savvy than most are giving credit.

Best of luck, to Paizo. I sincerely hope this new product will be something that makes me want to continue to support what has become the best 3rd party publisher out there.

 

[xechnao]

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.

So are you saying that Mongoose can't make a 4e Hyborian Age product but that only in case Wotc releases 3e SRD under the 4e GSL?

 

[Lizard]

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.

This was one of the main concerns when the OGL was first being created. Many publishers were worried precisely about this, so the OGL was explicitly written as to make it impossible.

WOTC doesn't own your stuff, even that released under the OGL. They CAN use it under the terms of the OGL, of course, but they can't do anything else with it.

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

If they hadn't, D&D would be a much smaller part of the marketplace. The OGL created a standard system in gaming, the 'long tail' of which kept reaching back to WOTC, even for 'stand alone' games. People buy Conan/B5/True 20 *in addition to* D&D; very few people use them without having first been D&D players. The D20 system kept gamers in the "D&D Space", even if they weren't playing D&D, leading to all sorts of ancillary beneficial effects for WOTC.

They're going to feel its loss.

 

[Mirtek]

Interesting how people who really seemed to enjoy calmly telling the anti-4e people complaining that their system is going to lose support to something they don't like that they're just not the target audience and should just leave are now screaming bloody murder because some third-party publisher chose to not support their new holy grail of gaming.

It's the

"If 4e adds something a 3e person dislikes it's always easier to ignore than to add yourself because adding yourself is much work and ignoring just doesn't cost anything<> If 4e removes something that a 3e person likes it's always easier to add yourself than to ignore because it's no work at all to add yourself and the mere existence of the thing you ignore is diminishing your gaming experience even if you ignore it"

all over again.

I'll try to be more clear this time. I'm saying that Lisa Stevens could have written her announcement letter in language that was far more conciliatory than what she actually chose to use. She implies quite strongly (and I'm being generous in using the word "imply") that the reason for not going with 4E is because it sucks. This is a statement that, unless she's got a friend at WotC whose given her access to a copy of the PHB, she's in no position to be making.

If you can parse out how I'm criticizing someone's playstyle from the above paragraph, I'll bake you a cookie. Maybe even a whole dozen.

And how is this different from how the 4e designers advertised 4e at the cost of 3.x in their blogs?

 

[Lizard]

So are you saying that Mongoose can't make a 4e Hyborian Age product but that only in case Wotc releases 3e SRD under the 4e GSL?

I'm not sure I follow you.

It is *highly* suspect they'll be able to make a 4e Conan product under the terms of the GSL.

If Mongoose wanted to, say, updated Quintessential Fighter to 4e, they'd need rights to any 3x material they wanted to upgrade that doesn't currently exist in 4e. This material comes from the SRD, a document to which WOTC owns the copyright. WOTC placed the 3x SRd under the Open Games License -- no other license. To use material from it under 4e, either:
a)The 3x SRD would need to be placed under the GSL. Very unlikely.
b)WOTC will place the SRD under some sort of custom, one-off license allowing the use of material from it in products released under the GSL, probably restricted in many ways. Much more likely.

I would be very hesitant to 'upgrade' any 3x material to 4e while the status of the 3x SRD WRT to the GSL is unclear.

 

[xechnao]

If Mongoose wanted to, say, updated Quintessential Fighter to 4e, they'd need rights to any 3x material they wanted to upgrade that doesn't currently exist in 4e. This material comes from the SRD, a document to which WOTC owns the copyright. WOTC placed the 3x SRd under the Open Games License -- no other license. To use material from it under 4e, either:
a)The 3x SRD would need to be placed under the GSL. Very unlikely.
b)WOTC will place the SRD under some sort of custom, one-off license allowing the use of material from it in products released under the GSL, probably restricted in many ways. Much more likely.

I would be very hesitant to 'upgrade' any 3x material to 4e while the status of the 3x SRD WRT to the GSL is unclear.

This is where you are making an error IMO -not a legal one, but a realistic one. 4e rules are not compatible with the 3e SRD. So if they want to make Quint Fighter they will have to redesign it without keeping touch of the 3e SRD anyway. Not to say that they might not be allowed at all to make such a product or products that in your theory (but not in practice) they would need 3e SRD licensed for 4e.

 

[Azzy]

That said, while I'm fully behind Paizo on this, I think their initial release - the Alpha rules - falls short. I believe they needed a much stronger "product" to coincide with this announcement. My first impression of the Alpha rules is kind of "meh". Yeah, there are some nice additions to the classes and cool ideas here and there but it doesn't really do anything to address some of the core problems of 3.5 gameplay - rest for 8 hours and spend all resources in one battle, save or die spells/effects, energy drain, attacks of opportunity, full attack/iterative attacks, etc..

Please keep in mind that these alpha rules are pretty much what one employee (Jason) threw together on the side:

"Back in October 2007, I began a small side project. Since 4th Edition had recently been announced, I began to wonder how many people would stick with the 3.5 rules set. Everyone could agree that 3.5 needed some work, but the system itself was mostly sound. I thought that those folks might want some updated rules, since support was beginning to wane. What started out as a simple side project soon turned into an obsession as the rules document got longer every day. When Paizo started looking for alternatives, my side project was a natural fit, leading us to where we are today."

What we're seeing is just the first public step--the alpha rules need to grow and mature, and those that are interested are welcomed to help these simple house rules grow into a matured product.

Really, I don't see the problem some people are having. Sure, I'm pro-4E, but I fully accept that a percentage of current 3.5e players won't want to switch. This gives them an option, and Paizo the chance to keep making money. It's not like it's adding a split to the market that wasn't already coming anyway.

Personally, I want 4e. I've been playing (DMing mostly) 3e since day one and, honestly, I'm tired of it, which is why I won't be buying Pathfinder RPG. But I don't see a problem at all with anybody else who does prefer it, just like I see no problem with people who prefer HERO or GURPS. Or, for a more fitting example, I play Mutants and Masterminds, but have no problem with those who prefer Silver Age Sentinels, and I don't understand why anybody would.

I heart you. You speak wisdom.

The above we know. Now, time for a prediction:

In 1-2 years, Paizo *will* have the GSL and *will* move to 4E.

That really depends. If there are enough gamers like me to keep the Pathfinder RPG financially viable, Pathfinder/Golarion won't go 4e. That's not to say that Paizo won't create other products that support 4e, but I seriously doubt Pathfinder will go there as long as there's enough of us to support it.

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...

Personally, for GenCon, I'd consider giving copies away free with another purchase and soak the printing costs just to get it circulated amongst the attendees. But, then, that's just me.

 

[Spatula]

Yup. That's true.

I'd say 10% of the customer base won't switch. Of that 10%, maybe 10% will be interested in the Pathfinder RPG.

In the end, they'll get maybe 1% of the existing D&D market. Is that a lot to Paizo? I have no idea.

There's a whole lot of unfounded binary thinking going on here in this thread, too. Just because someone buys the eventual Pathfinder rulebook & adventures doesn't mean they aren't also interested in 4e books (and vice versa). Being interested in one doesn't mean that you have to repudiate the other, though you wouldn't know it reading half the posts here...

 

[IanB]

There's a whole lot of unfounded binary thinking going on here in this thread, too. Just because someone buys the eventual Pathfinder rulebook & adventures doesn't mean they aren't also interested in 4e books (and vice versa). Being interested in one doesn't mean that you have to repudiate the other, though you wouldn't know it reading half the posts here...

While they're not necessarily exclusive, I think it is probably true that most gamers don't have the time or inclination to devote to more than one 'main' game they play when it comes to pen and paper RPGs, especially DMs. The binary thinking should not be a surprise at all. I know that I have no interest at all in maintaining rules mastery over multiple systems.