PETITION: Keep the term 'Adventure Path' Open Source!

[Tewligan]

Hasn't Sinister Secret of the Saltmarsh taught us anything?

You mean stay out of haunted houses?

 

[grimslade]

You mean stay out of haunted houses?

Or that Giant Weasels should not be trifled with or put on wandering monster tables.

Alliterative adventure appellations is the number one contribution of Sinister Secret of the Saltmarsh and Danger at Dunwater. The Final Enemy is an inferior product compared with the first two. Coincedence? I think not.

 

[Qualidar]

Can I start a PETITION to have Takasi stop stalking Paizo?

For real?

 

[Glyfair]

As has been mentioned the first series of adventures WotC did for 3E (starting with the Sunless Citadel) was referred to as the "adventure path." However, I do remember Erik requesting that others refrain from using the term "adventure path" a while back. Still, it was in use before Paizo.

 

[Klaus]

It's come to my attention over on the Paizo boards that they're trying to make the term 'Adventure Path' a registered trademark. Their staff is trying to prevent all publishers and even consumers from using it to describe non Paizo products.

In this thread:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...Edition/40PAIZOISSTILLUNDECIDED&page=4#307086

Erik Mona talks about how publisher support of 4th edition may kill the 3.5 OGL. He thens goes on to say that 3.5 preserves all of the "sacred cows" and praises the fact that it can't be revoked. It seems ironic that their entire business model is based on material that WotC opened up for them and now they're taking something they developed for Dungeon and keeping it to themselves.

I ask Paizo that at the bare minimum to please give back to the open gaming community what they've founded their business on. Please give us the term "Adventure Path". It's a "sacred cow" to me, as a gamer. Shackled City, Age of Worms and Savage Tide are just as much "Dungeon" as they are "Paizo". I want to see future Dungeon Adventure Paths, as well as other Adventure Paths from third party publishers.

This post makes no sense.

First time the term "Adventure Path" was used was for the initial 3e WotC adventures. And Paizo was the first to use it commercially ("Shackled City Adventure Path"). But the term is no special snowflake. Call it Serial Adventure (awesome stuff, GMSarka!), Adventure Road, Challenge Course, Module Series, Lemoncurry Sauce, whatever.

"Give to us"? Really?

 

[azigen]

It seems like the guy at Paizo are beating a dead horse in that thread. The mention that it was generic and still they reminded him.

Seems like a real asinine thing to do to me. I agree with Takasi on this one. If they are going to go after some uses Adventure Path in a generic manner, let them die with 3.5

I haven't visited the Paizo forums much but every time they do they seem whiny to me.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

I think that I'm going to publish some adventure series and call them Adventure Railroads. I believe in truth in advertising.

 

[barsoomcore]

Just like that one game store that went out of business when they accidently ordered six dozen products from Nissan...

Thread won.

 

[olshanski]

I think its fine for Paizo to have "Adventure Path" as a trademark.

That way whenever I see "Adventure Path" I'll know who published it and know what the quality is.

Just like I'd be fine with WoTC having trademarked "Return to" and "Expedition to"...

Is there anyone that is getting hurt by this? Does someone need to use "Adventure Path" because it is crucial to their product? isn't "Complete Campaign" about the same thing, possibly more descriptive, and not infringing?

There are plenty of other ways of saying it without trying to piggyback on a term that gained recognition at paizo.

How about "Adventure Serial", "Progressive Play", "Great Journeys"... or any other catchy phrase.

 

[Orcus]

edited. better judgment prevailed.