What's new with the GSL?

[Shroomy]

Mongoose also released a 4e version of the Quintessential Wizard.

 

[Pramas]

GR was focused on True20 before 4e was announced, and Paizo made the Pathfinder decision based on the fact that they needed to make a decision about their direction and hadn't seen the 4e rules yet. According to the people involved, the GSL didn't factor into those decisions, since there were little to no details on it at the time.

Green Ronin always has several irons in the fire. Before 4E was announced, we were doing M&M, True20, D&D 3.5, and Freeport support, and designing the WFRP line for Games Workshop and preparing the Song of Ice and Fire RPG as well. Our support for True20 did not mean that we weren't going to support 4E as well.

We spent at least a year trying to figure out if 4E was going to be good business for us. The switch from the OGL to the GSL was just not handled very well. First there was little info on what was happening, and then what info was made available kept changing, along with the date of the final GSL. We planned out some 4E projects and started several, but ultimately found the terms of the GSL unpalatable. Now we are releasing a 4E Character Record Folio using the OGL but otherwise have no 4E plans. This GSL was absolutely a factor in Green Ronin's decision making regarding 4E support.

 

[CaptainChaos]

The switch from the OGL to the GSL was just not handled very well.

That's the understatement of 2008.

 

[El Mahdi]

I read the post that James Jacobs made about the GSL not being a significant factor in their deciding to not go with the GSL and instead going with Pathfinder. I wish I had links to some of the original posts from Paizo when they talked about the GSL and why they went with Pathfinder, but alas I don't.

This is entirely from memory, and is only how I recall things. Others may have better search-foo than me and be able to dig the applicable posts up.

However, if I recall correctly, Paizo didn't like the GSL from the start, and hadn't been able to see the rules for 4E yet, and were wondering what the hell they were going to do. One of the guys at Paizo, again I can't remember his name, had a set of detailed houserules he'd been using for his own games. It was a fairly extensive set that was mostly already typed up in a document. This guy told them about his houserules and they decided, for lack of another available direction for them to publish something then (rather than waiting), to clean them up, codify and edit them, and release them as there own in-house 3.5 compatible system.

So, if I recall correctly, the GSL didn't have everything to do with their decision, but at the time it sounded like a significant factor.

Personally, I think Paizo's downplaying of the GSL as a factor in their developing Pathfinder is a bit revisionist. Perhaps someone with better links to some of those past threads could clarify this.

 

[DaveMage]

However, if I recall correctly, Paizo didn't like the GSL from the start, and hadn't been able to see the rules for 4E yet, and were wondering what the hell they were going to do.

So, if I recall correctly, the GSL didn't have everything to do with their decision, but at the time it sounded like a significant factor.

Personally, I think Paizo's downplaying of the GSL as a factor in their developing Pathfinder is a bit revisionist. Perhaps someone with better links to some of those past threads could clarify this.

There was no GSL when the Pathfinder RPG was announced. Pathfinder was announced three months before the GSL was released.

 

[lrsach01]

So, if I recall correctly, the GSL didn't have everything to do with their decision, but at the time it sounded like a significant factor.

Personally, I think Paizo's downplaying of the GSL as a factor in their developing Pathfinder is a bit revisionist. Perhaps someone with better links to some of those past threads could clarify this.

Yeah, the Paizo guys can clarify this if they wish, but the way I saw it fall out was the LACK of the GSL (or, at the time, the update/replacement of the OGL). WotC blew the updated OGL by months, tried to get companies to pony up cash to see it early and then blew THAT deadline, then continued to post pone the GSL release time after time (something they continue to do to this day).

 

[El Mahdi]

There was no GSL when the Pathfinder RPG was announced. Pathfinder was announced three months before the GSL was released.

Thanks for the clarification. That's why I said some others may need to help with the details of what happened then.

But, GSL or lack of GSL, I think one of the significant factors was that their plans, as many other 3pp's plans, were in limbo because of the GSL. So, they decided to go with their Pathfinder houserules so they would have something to print, rather than stay in limbo indefinitely. However, that earlier post basically said that the GSL wasn't a factor, which I believe isn't exactly accurate based on earlier releases and posts from Paizo and company.

 

[Ranger REG]

Thanks for the clarification. That's why I said some others may need to help with the details of what happened then.

But, GSL or lack of GSL, I think one of the significant factors was that their plans, as many other 3pp's plans, were in limbo because of the GSL. So, they decided to go with their Pathfinder houserules so they would have something to print, rather than stay in limbo indefinitely. However, that earlier post basically said that the GSL wasn't a factor, which I believe isn't exactly accurate based on earlier releases and posts from Paizo and company.

Paizo have to make money. What do you want them or any other small print presses who have jumped on the d20 bandwagon to do while WotC is taking the scenic hiking route with the GSL? Shut their businesses down?

 

[El Mahdi]

Paizo have to make money. What do you want them or any other small print presses who have jumped on the d20 bandwagon to do while WotC is taking the scenic hiking route with the GSL? Shut their businesses down?

Whoa! Easy there Hoss! I don't have a problem with Paizo, or with Paizo making money. I'm just taking a bit of issue with an earlier post on this thread being a bit revisionist because of the tone and atmosphere of the thread. In other words, "Spin". I hate "Spin". Whether people think it's okay or not, or just a fact of life or not, I find "Spin" to be a tad dishonest.

Paizo was well within their rights to take the path they did. They just shouldn't go changing the story of how they got there because of the somewhat accusatory atmosphere of the thread. They have nothing to be ashamed of, so, they shouldn't go changing the story.



edit: P.S. - I don't have anything against Pathfinder either. It's not going to be my preferred system, just as 4E isn't either (I prefer my own houseruled 3.5E). But, Pathfinder has come up with some good stuff, some of which I'm definitely stealing for my own houserules. I hope Pathfinder can garner a strong following with 3E fans. So far, they seem to be off to a good start.

My previous post was talking about this specifically:

If not for the GSL delay, there could well be no Pathfinder at all...

Not quite... Even without the GSL delay, I strongly suspect that there would have been a Pathfinder. It might have been less popular or less successful (or more; who can say?), but 3.5 remains the system that Paizo prefers, GSL or not.

Note: That doesn't translate into "Paizo hates 4th edition." My favorite RPG isn't even D&D at all, it's Call of Cthulhu, but Paizo doesn't publish CoC stuff either. Just because we don't publish adventures for that system doesn't mean we hate it. Same goes for 4th Edition.

But the GSL was not the fulcrum on which we were waiting to make the decision on what system to publish under last year. The fact that we were among the last people to actually see the rules (we didn't see them until well after we had to decide if we were going to use them at all, due to the realities of our publishing schedule) is a huge reason we went with Pathfinder.
__________________
—James Jacobs
Editor-in-Chief
Pathfinder

 

[kenmarable]

Whoa! Easy there Hoss! I don't have a problem with Paizo, or with Paizo making money. I'm just taking a bit of issue with an earlier post on this thread being a bit revisionist because of the tone and atmosphere of the thread. In other words, "Spin". I hate "Spin". Whether people think it's okay or not, or just a fact of life or not, I find "Spin" to be a tad dishonest.

Maybe I'm being a Paizo apologist, but giving him the benefit of the doubt, he might not be just throwing spin at us, but that even if they had the GSL on time and it was everything they wanted it to be, they still probably would have created Pathfinder.

Having followed their messageboards and individual blogs (especially Jason Bulmahn's) during this time, the impression I got was that between the info previews that came out, and Jason's firsthand experience playing 4e at D&D XP (or whatever it's called now), they were feeling that 4e wouldn't allow them to tell the stories they wanted to tell as well as the 3.5 system did. I believe Erik Mona even stated that specifically on the boards.

So maybe the GSL delay forced a decision they were already leaning towards, but the way I read the post by James is that considering the 4e system itself, in hindsight they would have created Pathfinder RPG regardless of any licensing issues. Doesn't seem revisionist to me. But I can see the post being interpreted either way. Just having very carefully watched it unfold, my interpretation is "we would have done PFRPG even if the GSL was on time and great" rather than "no, that's not how it really happened... forget anything we said before, I'm telling the truth now!"

I'd say if the GSL was on time and far better, it wouldn't have impacted publication of PFRPG at all... but Paizo would have possibly also tried publishing a few 4e modules to test the waters. Yeah, there's the issue of resources, but with a solid GSL (or better yet, just the existing OGL!) with enough actual time to use it, it would be smart to at least devote some resources to getting actual sales numbers comparing the two markets. But that's just my own guess.

I hate revisionist spin, as well, but I think the above interpretation is just as valid, and I tend to give people the benefit oif the doubt until they prove me otherwise.