Recent Posts
It's actually covered in the license:
You agree to use your best efforts to ensure that the licensed products are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009.Just making it compatible with the Beta doesn't work here.
Thanks Vic! I see that now. I don't know how I missed it the 8 or so times I read through the license.
Robert Thomson
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
Folks,
Usually, we don't do much in the way of messageboard moderation, but this thread is far too important to let it be derailed with jokes and other off-topic material. I have therefore suppressed a bunch of off-topic posts.
Please don't post in this thread unless you have something that adds directly to the discussion of the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License.
This is interesting.
Zachary the First of the RPG Blog II contacted the various other major d20 3PP producers about the GSL by WotC and the new PRPG Compatibility license. Here's a snippet to some of the responses:
-Goodman Games is already publishing under the GSL. They declined all comment on Pathfinder.
-Adamant Entertainment reiterated they've been supporting 4e without signing onto the GSL. With the release of both the Pathfinder license and the GSL, they're working with their lawyer to determine the best way forward.
-The Le Games (they of the Unorthodox line) issued this official statement when I emailed them:
LPJ Design will be looking for playtesters for our Pathfinder RPG Compatibility Licensed materials. We will be looking for specifically 2 to 4 groups of playetesters, so those that are interseted please feel free to contact me directly at LMPjr007@aol.com with the title "Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License Playtest". Thanks for your support.
LPJ Design will be looking for playtesters for our Pathfinder RPG Compatibility Licensed materials. We will be looking for specifically 2 to 4 groups of playetesters, so those that are interseted please feel free to contact me directly at LMPjr007@aol.com with the title "Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License Playtest". Thanks for your support.
That gives rise to a very interesting point actually. For those individuals/companies who are given an early copy of the rules, will there be a 'default' NDA for playtesters of Pathfinder RPG related material to sign or will it be the responsibility of those individuals/companies to make sure that the rules remain confidential, with their own NDA's?
If using non-local playtesting groups, I imagine it will be a little harder to make sure that confidentially can be kept (I'm quite lucky actually, Reality Four Studios has provisionally got two local groups available to playtest, one of which I DM occasionally).
That gives rise to a very interesting point actually. For those individuals/companies who are given an early copy of the rules, will there be a 'default' NDA for playtesters of Pathfinder RPG related material to sign or will it be the responsibility of those individuals/companies to make sure that the rules remain confidential, with their own NDA's? If using non-local playtesting groups, I imagine it will be a little harder to make sure that confidentially can be kept (I'm quite lucky actually, Reality Four Studios has provisionally got two local groups available to playtest, one of which I DM occasionally).
We will "most likely" developing the actual adventures / sidetreks in OGL and giving to out playtesters to see, and play to make sure they are solid. Then when we receive the new rules from Paizo, we will convert the adventures over, then have our playtesters submit a signed NDA and resubmit the adventures to our playtest groups.
...For those individuals/companies who are given an early copy of the rules, will there be a 'default' NDA for playtesters of Pathfinder RPG related material to sign or will it be the responsibility of those individuals/companies to make sure that the rules remain confidential, with their own NDA's?
It'll definitely be up to those companies to ensure that their playtesters don't violate any of our rules.
I have come to the decision that if approved, Rite Publishihg will do another Patronage Project, seeing the level of quality we have been able to achieve on Heroes of the Jade Oath and A Witch's Choice, I truly feel this would be our best direction.
I will wait for the approval process of our license application before I develop this further.
Steve Russell
Rite Publishing
I have come to the decision that if approved, Rite Publishihg will do another Patronage Project, seeing the level of quality we have been able to achieve on Heroes of the Jade Oath and A Witch's Choice, I truly feel this would be our best direction.
I will wait for the approval process of our license application before I develop this further.
Steve Russell
Rite Publishing
Coolio. Can't wait to see what you release, Steve. I'm enjoying the various RP prods so far.
I have come to the decision that if approved, Rite Publishihg will do another Patronage Project, seeing the level of quality we have been able to achieve on Heroes of the Jade Oath and A Witch's Choice, I truly feel this would be our best direction.
Well I think that is a great idea. Do I see a liberation coming on?
I have come to the decision that if approved, Rite Publishihg will do another Patronage Project, seeing the level of quality we have been able to achieve on Heroes of the Jade Oath and A Witch's Choice, I truly feel this would be our best direction.Well I think that is a great idea. Do I see a liberation coming on?
Louis, I know you're one of the first to sign up for the compatibility license. Have you released news what your first product will be?
I have come to the decision that if approved, Rite Publishihg will do another Patronage Project, seeing the level of quality we have been able to achieve on Heroes of the Jade Oath and A Witch's Choice, I truly feel this would be our best direction.
I will wait for the approval process of our license application before I develop this further.
Steve Russell
Rite Publishing
Steve,
Basically, so long as you can fill out the form correctly, you're automatically approved, and immediately appear in the registry.
This is interesting.
Zachary the First of the RPG Blog II contacted the various other major d20 3PP producers about the GSL by WotC and the new PRPG Compatibility license. Here's a snippet to some of the responses:
Thanks! I'm trying to stay on top of company reaction to the GSL and Pathfinder licenses, and update when I find out one way or the other for those who haven't signed on yet.
Cool thanks, I did not realize that at all, I swear the way it read it was an application process not a registration process, thanks for the clarification, time for me to start getting this organized.
So question, as I understand it I can advertise for a product prior to the release date, I am just not allowed to release it until the August release date correct?
Thanks! I'm trying to stay on top of company reaction to the GSL and Pathfinder licenses, and update when I find out one way or the other for those who haven't signed on yet.This is interesting.
Zachary the First of the RPG Blog II contacted the various other major d20 3PP producers about the GSL by WotC and the new PRPG Compatibility license. Here's a snippet to some of the responses:
'ppreciate it, zach. i know it helps me deciding where to spend my gaming bucks.
Vic, James, what is to prevent a company that is established as a commercial publisher, from creating a new presence that is not a commercial publisher and using both licenses?
For example company Demonic Plague Zombies, LLC (which is essentially one guy) has been known as a great publisher and is selling really great supplements with the Pathfinder RPG COMPATIBLE Logo, but wants to make free material for Golarion, so he creates Angelic Hosts as a fan site and give away free Golarion materials strictly under that site name. His personal name appears on both products, because the person is not the same as the company.
No, I have no plans on doing something like that. No one is going to pay money for my stuff, but they may enjoy it for free. It just seems like an obvious cheat around the license?
OK, so Vic, is Bedlam Asylum
going to be censored when it is finally complete? If you published it, that is? Sanitized for younger audiences?
Just wondering. I really appreciate the work you guys have done, and although I am just now posting I have been lurking around the boards for a year or so. Keep up with the innovation!
Vic, James, what is to prevent a company that is established as a commercial publisher, from creating a new presence that is not a commercial publisher and using both licenses?
I was wondering the opposite.
I'm working on racial feats for my shapeshifter race right now, when I get done I'll put it up on my google docs or msnlive docs. I also have to revise the arcane legionary and finish the spellstalker classes. When I get them done, they'll go up too. All will be 'fansite' material.
What if I purge the document of references to meet compatibility and publish it for profit? Do i need to make a business name? or can I even do it. (Like people will pay for stuff from me...)
I am a bit confused as to what sort of useful product a company could even make using the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License"...
...clearly you could not make an adventure set specifically in Golarion or using other bits of Paizo intellectual property. This is understandable, of course.
...you also could not make 'house rules' or the like, as they would not be 'fully compatible' with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. An alternate combat system or new spells could clearly be seen as being "non-compatible"
So what's left? Character sheets? Spell cards? Semi-helpful, setting-neutral trinkets?
I am a bit confused as to what sort of useful product a company could even make using the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License"...
...clearly you could not make an adventure set specifically in Golarion or using other bits of Paizo intellectual property. This is understandable, of course.
...you also could not make 'house rules' or the like, as they would not be 'fully compatible' with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. An alternate combat system or new spells could clearly be seen as being "non-compatible"
So what's left? Character sheets? Spell cards? Semi-helpful, setting-neutral trinkets?
How would adding new spells be "non-compatible"? Which clause of the license would it violate?
I think that most materials using the license would fall into one of two categories:
- Adventures that use the Pathfinder rules (but that don't take place in Golarion
- Books of new spells/new monsters/new feats/new classes/etc. that are specifically usable with the Pathfinder RPG rules (rather than just generic OGL rules)
I am a bit confused as to what sort of useful product a company could even make using the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License"...What about setting-neutral adventures using the Pathfinder RPG rules?
As I understand it (I think this was mentioned above) it was possible (before this new license) to use the Pathfinder rules (as they are OGL) in an adventure...
... I guess the new license allows you to actually tell people (via a logo on your product) that you are using the Pathfinder rules...
How would adding new spells be "non-compatible"? Which clause of the license would it violate?
I don't know how strict they plan to be on section 5 (some of which is reprinted here):
"5. Compatibility
In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder.
You agree to use your best efforts to ensure that the licensed products are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009."
bold emphasis mine. It appears at least possible that a strict interpretation of the "fully compatible" phrase could exclude anything that modifies the rules as written.
How would adding new spells be "non-compatible"? Which clause of the license would it violate?I don't know how strict they plan to be on section 5 (some of which is reprinted here):
"5. Compatibility
In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder.You agree to use your best efforts to ensure that the licensed products are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009."
bold emphasis mine. It appears at least possible that a strict interpretation of the "fully compatible" phrase could exclude anything that modifies the rules as written.
Let me rephrase the question: How would adding a new spell (as opposed to making changes to an existing spell) not be "fully compatible"?
Let me rephrase the question: How would adding a new spell (as opposed to making changes to an existing spell) not be "fully compatible"?
I don't know.
It seems like a stretch, but I suppose there could be arguments against the "fully compatible" nature of an addition based on game balance and other such issues?
As is obvious, I am still trying to understand this new license: what it does, what it allows, etc. I hope to make use of it in the future...
In fact, I think the most restrictive portions of section 5 may be linked to two phrases in the first sentence (emphasis mine):
"5. Compatibility
In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
In order to move forward, I would need some more clarification in terms of those two phrases, I guess.
In fact, I think the most restrictive portions of section 5 may be linked to two phrases in the first sentence (emphasis mine):
"5. Compatibility
In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."In order to move forward, I would need some more clarification in terms of those two phrases, I guess.
I guess I thought that was just "flavour text". ;-)
Vic, James, what is to prevent a company that is established as a commercial publisher, from creating a new presence that is not a commercial publisher and using both licenses?
For example company Demonic Plague Zombies, LLC (which is essentially one guy) has been known as a great publisher and is selling really great supplements with the Pathfinder RPG COMPATIBLE Logo, but wants to make free material for Golarion, so he creates Angelic Hosts as a fan site and give away free Golarion materials strictly under that site name. His personal name appears on both products, because the person is not the same as the company.
No, I have no plans on doing something like that. No one is going to pay money for my stuff, but they may enjoy it for free. It just seems like an obvious cheat around the license?
That's covered in the Community Use Policy:
If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy.
OK, so Vic, is Bedlam Asylum
going to be censored when it is finally complete? If you published it, that is? Sanitized for younger audiences?
Just wondering. I really appreciate the work you guys have done, and although I am just now posting I have been lurking around the boards for a year or so. Keep up with the innovation!
First of all, we're not publishing these things. Community users are publishing them themselves.
All I have to say regarding the content is please stay away from anything that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors. (And, of course, follow the rest of the Policy.)
Vic, James, what is to prevent a company that is established as a commercial publisher, from creating a new presence that is not a commercial publisher and using both licenses?
I was wondering the opposite.
I'm working on racial feats for my shapeshifter race right now, when I get done I'll put it up on my google docs or msnlive docs. I also have to revise the arcane legionary and finish the spellstalker classes. When I get them done, they'll go up too. All will be 'fansite' material.
What if I purge the document of references to meet compatibility and publish it for profit? Do i need to make a business name? or can I even do it. (Like people will pay for stuff from me...)
Same answer: If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under [the Community Use] Policy.
So you can do that, but as soon as you start selling anything, you lose the ability to use the Community Use Policy, and that goes for both existing and future projects. In short, it's a one-way trip.
In fact, I think the most restrictive portions of section 5 may be linked to two phrases in the first sentence (emphasis mine):
"5. Compatibility
In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."In order to move forward, I would need some more clarification in terms of those two phrases, I guess.
What we mean by "operate under" is that you need to actually use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules. You can't just relabel existing 3.5 stuff—you need to use Perception instead of Spot and Listen, and so on.
What we mean by "rely on" is that you may not obviate the need for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game by just republishing everything in it that you want.
And what we mean by "fully compatible" is that players need to be able to pick up your book, and use it with our book without encountering significant problems.
Will Paizo be putting together an SRD-like document of the Open Material found in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, or is it up to other prospective OGL users to strip out the "Product Identity" portions?
Our goal is to make an SRD-like document available on August 13. And in the near future, we'll explain how established publishers can get early access to the final rules.
(Please don't ask for details on either of those two things yet—we're not ready to say any more at this time.)
I have a question similar to one that was asked by someone else above:
Are we allowed to state on a web site that we are part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility license prior to August 2009, especially if we do not state which (if any) products would carry the compatibility logo?
You can do both of those things before August 13—you just can't release any products.
What we mean by "operate under" is that you need to actually use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules. You can't just relabel existing 3.5 stuff—you need to use Perception instead of Spot and Listen, and so on.
What we mean by "rely on" is that you may not obviate the need for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game by just republishing everything in it that you want.
And what we mean by "fully compatible" is that players need to be able to pick up your book, and use it with our book without encountering significant problems.
Thanks for the posts, Vic!
As an aside, I realize that Paizo is a business and as such, anything they do (including making this new license) is to ultimately drive sales of the Paizo products. I am a big fan of your setting and rules.
To complete my understanding of the technicalities involved here, please humor me with one more answer (and I understand that this covers legalities, etc and I should consult my own attorney for the definitive answers, etc):
As I understand it, I could legally make an OGL RPG using the OGL portions of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as a base (cited, as appropriate, in the copyright section), modified as desired... only then I could not partake of the secondary, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game compatibility license (and logo). This is essentially what you did to D&D to create the PFRPG in the first place.
Alternately, if I wished to say "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible" on a product, I would need to leave out enough rules (or something similar) such that the game was not 'stand-alone', and thus required the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game in order to function.
This is, in essence, the difference at large between d20 (which drives sales of the PHB) and OGL (which doesn't).
If I am correct in framing the issue as stated above, what are Paizo's guidelines as to new products with house rules or even new rules in them? How much is enough to leave out? In the d20 logo days it was sufficient to leave out the rules for character creation and advancement, as I understand it. What is Paizo's analogous benchmark?
As I understand it, I could legally make an OGL RPG using the OGL portions of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as a base (cited, as appropriate, in the copyright section), modified as desired... only then I could not partake of the secondary, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game compatibility license (and logo). This is essentially what you did to D&D to create the PFRPG in the first place.
Correct.
Alternately, if I wished to say "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible" on a product, I would need to leave out enough rules (or something similar) such that the game was not 'stand-alone', and thus required the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game in order to function.
Well, kind of, but not really. I think a more useful way to look at it is to imagine a software package that says "Windows Vista Compatible." Clearly, a customer who sees that on a box would expect that the software works with Windows Vista. The customer would *not* expect it to contain a copy of Windows Vista, or to contain a new OS that's intended to replace Windows Vista. (Nor would they expect it to work with Windows 95, unless it also has a "Windows 95 Compatible" logo.)
Basically, what we're saying here is that the logo says "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible," and that means that customers will expect that your product works with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. If that's not the case, you're not allowed to use the logo, because that would be misleading to our customers.
(And if you're looking for a "Based on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" logo, this isn't that.)
I am a bit confused as to what sort of useful product a company could even make using the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License"...
...clearly you could not make an adventure set specifically in Golarion or using other bits of Paizo intellectual property. This is understandable, of course.
...you also could not make 'house rules' or the like, as they would not be 'fully compatible' with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. An alternate combat system or new spells could clearly be seen as being "non-compatible"
So what's left? Character sheets? Spell cards? Semi-helpful, setting-neutral trinkets?
Umm essentially almost EVERYTHING that printed for 3.5 can be printed for Pathfinder RPG. New worlds, adventures, classes, environments, monsters, items... you name it!
As is obvious, I am still trying to understand this new license: what it does, what it allows, etc. I hope to make use of it in the future...
Basically, all this license does is to enable you to let people know that your stuff is compatible with PF RPG, i.e. that they can buy your stuff and use it with their PF RPG.
Everything else is already covered under the OGL. And obviously, if you want to do something similar to Arcana Unearthed or True20, it wouldn't be compatible any more, since it's its own game.
I am a bit confused as to what sort of useful product a company could even make using the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License"...
Note that this is not the GSL. They won't hunt you down and sue you to death if you dare to, say, have a non-spellcasting ranger in your product.
I think you can do pretty much everything you were able to do with the old d20 license:
You can make splatbooks with new classes, prestige classes, races, feats, spells, monsters.....
You can even make a new campaign setting. And I'm quite sure you could even make something akin to Midnight. For those who don't know, Midnight changed 3e quite a bit: The races were all different, characters got a heroic path with abilities every level, and there were several all-new classes and a new spellcasting system.
You have all been very patient and helpful, while I think out loud. Thanks!
I think one of my hang-ups all along has been incorrectly linking the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game too closely in my mind with the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting.
I can certainly see that making adventures (in your own world, not Golarion), making new things (like races, classes, PrC, feats, etc) and even creating a new campaign setting would be fine.
The interesting bit remains this: how much can one change elements of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules and still be fully compatible? I'd guess the answer is: "Not Much" or even "Not At All".
For instance, legally one could make a book of Alternate Combat Rules under the OGL (even using the open portions of the Pathfinder RPG rules as a 'new OGL starting point'); but I doubt one could make that same book "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatible".
Similarly, I think adding new feats or spells or equipment is OK. Subtracting existing feats or spells or equipment is not.
Am I on the right track?
The interesting bit remains this: how much can one change elements of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules and still be fully compatible? I'd guess the answer is: "Not Much" or even "Not At All".
There's no set answer to that question. You just have to make your product compatible with the core rules. If you make your product incompatible with the core rules, you've gone too far.
Has anyone gotten in contact with Green Ronin on this? Man I would love to see a Pathfinder version of Freeport.
joela posted a link to an article where someone asked a bunch of 3rd party publishers about the Pathfinder license. Most (including Green Ronin) said something along the lines of "We have no plans for Pathfinder at the current time; we're focusing on our current line of products."