Recent Posts
I was just flipping through the SRD today and thinking about how much of the history and culture of gaming is locked away as WotC IP. For example:
The Beholder
The Mind Flayer
The Giant Space Hamster
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day while a fair bit of material is open gaming content some of the iconic images and ideas of gaming never made it into the SRD. (I can already foresee the day a couple years hence when I slip use a WotC name for a spell, only to pull blank stares from the rest of the table).
Golarion is a nice setting to present standard material. I wonder though it it pushes the boundaries enough to throw off things like the Giant Space Hamster (though I'll admit that a good portion of gamers might think Spelljammer went a bit too far towards being an inventive setting).
I was just flipping through the SRD today and thinking about how much of the history and culture of gaming is locked away as WotC IP. For example:
The Beholder
The Mind Flayer
The Giant Space HamsterAnd that's just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day while a fair bit of material is open gaming content some of the iconic images and ideas of gaming never made it into the SRD. (I can already foresee the day a couple years hence when I slip use a WotC name for a spell, only to pull blank stares from the rest of the table).
They are locked away from being reprinted, but there is nothing stopping us from using them. That is the best part of pathfinder, I know after the core comes out there will be many posts on the boards with conversions of classic monsters and such. I think between us we can keep the icons alive. I also think it is a mistake to call them the 'WotC' names for spells and such. They are the DnD names, and I for one plan on continuing to use them.
What is an example of a WotC name for a spell compared to a Pathfinder name for a spell? I thought all spells were open content?
Yes... there are some creatures that are not open content. Mind flayer, beholder. Githyanki! I guess that means they will never surface in a Pathfinder AP. :(
Having said that, PF are really good at making up new monsters. And these are really high level monsters as well, as much as I love them they rarely made appearances into my games.
Mordenkainen, Tenser, &c. are WotC product identity.
You might look at this pdf by Clark Peterson, though I don't know how current it is.
The more common practice is to just call spells interposing hand, floating disk, and disjunction.
"Morden" is a good name for a famous archmage.
That's the beauty of playing and not actually writing and selling books. We can incorporate whatever we want into our games and still be happy. I will miss a lot of the WotC settings, though. Greyhawk is really growing on me, and I would have liked to see more 3.5 Spelljammer.
There was 3.5 Spelljammer?
I was just flipping through the SRD today and thinking about how much of the history and culture of gaming is locked away as WotC IP. For example:
The Beholder
The Mind Flayer
The Giant Space HamsterAnd that's just the tip of the iceberg. At the end of the day while a fair bit of material is open gaming content some of the iconic images and ideas of gaming never made it into the SRD. (I can already foresee the day a couple years hence when I slip use a WotC name for a spell, only to pull blank stares from the rest of the table).
Golarion is a nice setting to present standard material. I wonder though it it pushes the boundaries enough to throw off things like the Giant Space Hamster (though I'll admit that a good portion of gamers might think Spelljammer went a bit too far towards being an inventive setting).
I just want the SRD to include THE miniture gaint space hamster. I am sure the boo can cover the details...
I don't know about everyone else but I'll still use the original names.I won't. Mordenkainen never set foot on Golarion.
In the case of those names, I don't mind them keeping them to themselves. They make the core rules less independant from Greyhawk, anyway.
I personnaly prefer some of the spells as "named" spells. But I plan to use the names that are in the world or maybe reward a PC or two and name the spell after them.
Black Tentecles just isn't Evards Black tenticles. Alas Evard isn't in our world. So maybe is KaeYoss Black Tenticles instead....
I always did like the spelling of that name anyways and that spell is awesome for mid level battlefield mayham.
My 2 cent's DM's add your own names. Have fun.
I don't know about everyone else but I'll still use the original names.I won't. Mordenkainen never set foot on Golarion.
In the case of those names, I don't mind them keeping them to themselves. They make the core rules less independant from Greyhawk, anyway.
I personnaly prefer some of the spells as "named" spells. But I plan to use the names that are in the world or maybe reward a PC or two and name the spell after them.
Black Tentecles just isn't Evards Black tenticles. Alas Evard isn't in our world. So maybe is KaeYoss Black Tenticles instead....
I always did like the spelling of that name anyways and that spell is awesome for mid level battlefield mayham.
My 2 cent's DM's add your own names. Have fun.
Mount is replaced by Sebastian's Multi-Hued Mount.
I was just flipping through the SRD today and thinking about how much of the history and culture of gaming is locked away as WotC IP. For example:
The Beholder
The Mind Flayer
The Giant Space Hamster
As long as you use a different title and don't use WotC's stat-blocks/prose/art, nothing can stop you from implementing the IDEA of a floating giant eyeball with nasty powers. Same with tentacled humanoid mind-f+!&ers. I don't even believe the title "Giant Space Hamster" is particularly copyrightable, any more than "Miniature Pony" would be.
People are too easily convinced they have no rights by the likes of RIAA, MPAA.
Take a cue from Hollywood studios themselves: they clearly have no problem ripping off foreign films to re-shoot in English with American movie-stars. Computer software is the only area to date (at least recently in some jurisdictions, like USA) where BOTH copyright AND patents have been thought to apply, but with in re: Bilski invalidating 'business method' patents, even that is in doubt now (re: patenting algorhythms/IDEAS not just sourcecode/binary copyright).
That said, Paizo's been clear that they don't see the need to re-implement the ideas of WotC IP like Beholders/Githyanki (Though they ARE re-implementing OGL monsters) ...I basically think they're just being 'courteous' even though the only LEGAL restrictions are based on copyright, i.e. Proper Names, prose/statblocks, and artwork.
No one uses his spells. I have never seen a Golarion spell list that contained the word "Mordenkainen". I never heard about any one using it :P.I won't. Mordenkainen never set foot on Golarion.Are you sure about that? All the wizards are using his spell. How do you explain that? :)
Eh, they just forgot his name; that's all.
Morgana...no that's not it.
Mork and Mindy...I don't think so.
Mad Mardigan...dang it!
:)
DM Jeff
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
Officially, yes, they're off limits to published stuff, but here's my take:
Some things, like Beholders and Mind Flayers can get a little old. I like the fact the APs provide us with new monsters instead of treading the classics into the ground. Makes Golarion feel apart from "all the other" worlds.
However, what you want to throw into your home game is open and free. Githyanki and Githzerai will sure show up in my Great Beyond!
No one uses his spells. I have never seen a Golarion spell list that contained the word "Mordenkainen". I never heard about any one using it :P.I won't. Mordenkainen never set foot on Golarion.Are you sure about that? All the wizards are using his spell. How do you explain that? :)Eh, they just forgot his name; that's all.
Morgana...no that's not it.
Mork and Mindy...I don't think so.
Mad Mardigan...dang it!:)
Logically, you could say the spells with his name are only credited to him because he was the first one to master them and/or publish them. We see this all the time in the RW with respect to scientific theories. For example, the coordinate system by Descartes and Fermat or Calculus by Newton and Leibniz. So it is totally logical to assume in a different world, a different mage (or perhaps a dragon or something) developed the various spells independently.
While I was bummed out at first when thinking about all the things Paizo couldn't make room for in their cosmology and/or Golarion, I've since reevaluated that position.
Basically, the 'iconic' monsters from way back when are iconics of that particular setting and role-playing game system. Paizo has given us a clean slate. I actually think I will not include - for example - Githyanki and Githzerai into my game's cosmology, because even though I always loved them, there would be a lot of baggage attached. Players expecting them to behave in a certain way, et cetera.
What Pathfinder is about, for me, is: take the familiar patterns and redevelop them in new ways. Make goblins scary-but-funny little critters, instead of mere cannon fodder, for example. I'm looking forward to employing the Paizo 'analogues' such as Seugathi in PFRPG - but Mind Flayers, for me, will have to stay in 3.5Ed.
That's what makes for fond memories, after all.
That's the beauty of playing and not actually writing and selling books. We can incorporate whatever we want into our games and still be happy. I will miss a lot of the WotC settings, though. Greyhawk is really growing on me, and I would have liked to see more 3.5 Spelljammer.There was 3.5 Spelljammer?
It was a polyhedron article. Nice stuff. Birthed 2 new campaign worlds for a while. I'm of half a mind to make it the defualt setting (more or less) for my first pathfinder game.
Al
