Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Vic Wertz

Vic Wertz's page

Chief Technical Officer. 20,671 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joshua Gremillion wrote:
I'd much rather have preferred to get some more racial diversity in the card game instead. I mean, we've got two human characters in both the Monk & Barbarian class decks. Why can't we have more unique races like the one Tengu Monk & one Tiefling Oracle? I'd personally love to see a Kitsune (and I appreciate the Halfling Barbarian too) - but even more Dwarves, Gnomes, Elves, and Half-Orcs would be a welcome sight. I originally thought the Barbarian class deck was even going to have a dwarf and an elf (it was on the box art) - so seeing that there's neither in the finished product (but there are two humans) is even more upsetting for me.

The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game stories are set in the world of Golarion, so racial diversity looks to that background.

When we're talking about a specific Adventure Path such as Mummy's Mask, we have an especially particular background. Mummy's Mask is set in the country of Osirion. Osirion's largest city, Sothis, is home to 87453 humans, 6055 dwarves, 4918 halflings, 3361 elves, 2266 gnomes, 1924 half-elves, 1563 genie-kin, 1109 half-orcs, and 3340 others. A lot of MM takes place in the small city of Wati: 6670 humans, 292 halflings, 73 dwarves, 26 half-elves, and 239 others. A tengu or a kitsune in Wati is going to stick out like a sore thumb, and you can expect that to be reflected in the racial composition of the characters we choose to feature in that AP.

Class Decks aren't tied to a particular story or region, but they are still Pathfinder products intended for use with stories set mainly in Golarion's Inner Sea region. Race distribution in Golarion varies wildly from nation to nation, but if you were to look at the Inner Sea region overall, you'll find a majority are human. The other core races (dwarf, elf, gnome, half-elf, half-orc, halfling) are a majority of the remainder. Races like tiefling or tengu are far from the norm.

Indeed, I believe you'll find that the racial diversity in our Class Decks already errs on the side of overrepresenting these races relative to our setting. That is, if you were to take a random selection of 10 class deck characters, you "should" get something like 5–7 humans, 2–3 total characters of the other 6 core races, and maybe 1 character of a non-core race.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Well at least we know there is more then one secret project.
There usually is, though, so that's not really news.

D'oh! I thought the fact there is more than one secret project was supposed to be secret!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:
Young Boromir wrote:

Looking forward to hearing about both the next Iconic Heroes set and the next featured case set.

How many Iconic Heroes sets are in the works? Is #6 the last or will there be more?

So far only 6 sets have been planned.

But Paizo already said if they sell good enough there will be more.

We didn't say that. We're not in any position to say that, because that's WizKids' decision to make, not ours.

We *have* said that we really want to see more, and we have made sure WizKids knows that.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joshua N Hancock wrote:

There's a typo on Amiri in the first ability, last sentence:

"If it is your exploration, bur it is not the first exploration of your turn, add an additional 1d6 ([] 1d8)."

Sigh. This sort of thing bugs me more than some of the stuff we issue FAQs on.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ranty McRanter wrote:

SAVING THROWS

...the single die roll you were given to prevent the instant and utter eradication of your character. One random number generator disregarding your AC and hit points which would wipe your character from that plane of existence. At least with 4th Edition, nothing could ever kill you dead unless you were already close to dying. Some people will applaud that brutal nature of the game, but there’s a point where that stops being fun, especially when it’s your character.

Ranty McRanter wrote:

ANNOYING DEATHS

Dying means very little.... Death should mean something more than a slight financial burden.

So which is it? Unfun brutal eradication of your character, or a meaningless financial burden?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Josh Vogt wrote:
He's actually designing the ultimate gaming-themed nuclear fallout shelter. Just in case.

If you combine that with the suggestion he's working on Second Darkness, and with the statement that Paizo can't seem to give away the original printings of that AP, then you'll realize he has been tasked with making the shelter out of the unsold copies.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am hopeful of that.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew L Klein wrote:
Disappointing the two rows don't hold a fully sleeved set. I suppose you could throw a card type like locations or adventures/scenarios in a single drawer, but this seems to be less and less like a product I'd be willing to pay for. Sad for something I was so looking forward to.

Before you dismiss it, you might consider how you actually play.

• You start with just the ~400 B cards, and likely the 110 C cards... but you immediately set aside ~15 card decks for each character playing, along with their character, role, and token cards. Assuming those go in a drawer, your "box" area probably has less than 450 cards. (And if you put the characters, roles, and tokens you're not playing with, and all the story cards you've completed into a drawer, all the better.)

• As you proceed through Adventure Decks 1 and 2, you'll add 220 cards, but you'll also be removing several per character into your decks because you gained card feats. Maybe you've got ~650 cards in the main part of the box at the end of AD2.

• When you get to AD3, you'll add another 110 cards, but at this point you start removing Basics from the game (which is to say, you're putting them into another drawer). You'll also still gain the occasional card feat. So at the start of AD3, you'll have ~760 cards in the main part of the box, but that number will go down as you play through AD3.

• Your numbers will get pretty unpredictable from here, with lots of removals punctuated with regular additions. By the time you're in AD6, you'll have added another 330 cards, but you'll probably have removed ~200 cards. I've never done an exact count, but I would guess that my groups probably never had more than about 900 cards in the main part of the box while playing an AP, which means if I'm single-sleeving, I could always fit them in the top. (And since the top actually fits ~200 cards more than that, I could also fit at least 2 class decks—maybe 3, depending on how many boons I remove.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm kind of amazed we haven't had a Red Mantis Assassin in the Battles line yet. I can't imagine Erik would allow that to remain the case all that much longer.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Retailers running the Adventure Card Guild get a code that gets them a complimentary copy of the current season's Base Set. We'll be making the switch to make that apply to Season of the Runelords as early as next week.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
davrion wrote:
You got to wonder when the Ostog mini will make it into a set, lol

He already exists in unpainted metal and Minimate forms...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Goblins investigating Scooby Doo-style mysteries!

Whodunnit? Oh—wedunnit.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This product works best for either printing, screen-shotting, or just displaying directly on a screen.

"Image extraction" is where you pull an image from a PDF into a separate file. "Image capture" is where you essentially take a digital snapshot of the screen.

Unfortunately, due to a limitation of the software, image extraction doesn't work with the Interactive Maps, though it does work with the non-interactive maps that are in the regular PDF edition.

You can use image capture utilities on the Interactive Maps, And if you're viewing the maps in Adobe Acrobat, you can also save the pages as JPEGs (go to File->Export->Image->JPEG) and crop them in an image editing program.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Graeme Cooper wrote:
I just played this with my friends and finished it. One thing we noticed though was that on the 5th scenario Closing the worldwound the henchmen it asks you to use in the set up is multiple copies of Dark Adept, but the game only comes with one copy in the base set. We subbed them in, I think its either an oversight or a misprint.

See this FAQ entry for the correct answer.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
We don't plan to ever bring back any out-of-print Map Packs or Flip-Mats—at least not in the exact same form.

As many of you know, our policy here has changed a bit, resulting in the Flip-Mat Classics line. I think some of you might be interested in me addressing my earlier points with an explanation of why things changed for that line. (When I'm quoting myself in this post, it's from the first post in the thread, six years ago!)

Vic Wertz wrote:
First of all, the printing costs are usually the highest costs associated with most products. And since print costs are based strongly on volume, that means for a reprint, we pretty much need to print—and sell—almost as much as we did the first time around so that we can charge the same retail price.

The number one thing that changed here is that our printer found a way to offer us much better pricing on much smaller print runs. We print a lot fewer copies of a Flip-Mat Classic than we do of a new Flip-Mat, and our unit cost is only a little bit higher. (This is also why we're only reprinting Flip-Mats—small runs of books or cards still have impractically high unit prices.)

Vic Wertz wrote:

Next, keep in mind that most sales for a new product happen in the first month or two, and then taper off over the next couple of months to—hopefully—a slow-but-steady trickle. (You might notice that it usually takes a few years to sell out most of our products. And we've planned things so that that works for us.) Past sales—and our current subscribers—give us the knowledge we need to set print runs and retail prices to ensure that that first burst of sales pretty much covers our costs, allowing the profits to come in slowly over the next year or two, or three. That's one of our primary strategies for staying in business: Cover your costs on the launch.

Now, reprints don't get that "new product" burst at the front end. For one thing, we wouldn't be sending it to subscribers, so that's a huge loss in immediate sales right there. Also, our distributors generally place much, much smaller orders for most reprints than they did the first time around. Without that initial sales bump, it would take much longer to sell out the run—and more importantly, we wouldn't be generating the instant cash that lets us pay the print bill out of the product's own cash flow.

The maps we're choosing to reprint have been unavailable to our distributors for years. As a result, they are ordering them in much larger quantities than they would for a simple restock of a product they've had in their warehouse recently. So we're able to recoup our print costs pretty quickly, even though we're not automatically sending them to subscribers.

We're also being really careful about what we're choosing to reprint—a Flip-Mat that originally sold out in a year or two will definitely be considered for the Classics line, but a Flip-Mat that took several years to sell out isn't likely to return anytime soon.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I is tricksy that way.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
This protected Product Identity content is declared in the SRD 5.0's OGL notice, and the claims are pretty broad, including content previously declared as Open Game Content in the 3.5 SRD. I've been converting the SRD to more accessible formats, removing or replacing the protected content in the process. Stuff I've removed includes named NPCs and locations, several spells mentioned in class features and stat blocks that are not open content.

I can't speak definitively on this, but I would certainly argue that if you declare something as OGC and then declare it as PI, I can treat it as OGC. The three sections of the OGL I would quote to back that up are these:


  • Product Identity" means [stuff] clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content...

    This is worded so that exclusion specifically trumps inclusion. It therefore doesn't matter if you clearly identify something as PI if you've also specifically excluded it.

  • the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

    If I have been granted a perpetual license to use it, you can't shut it off.

  • You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

    "Originally" brings in a temporal element here that pretty strongly suggests you can't undo what's been done.

Garrett Guillotte wrote:
Note that even Paizo's PRD also lets some product identity slip on occasion. There are still protected deity names on the official PRD. Their presence on the PRD does not automatically make them open content.

"Letting it slip" implies that those things are there accidentally—they were included intentionally. But, as you say, their presence does not automatically make them OGC, and the statement of Product Identity included with the PRD does specify that, among other things, "proper names (characters, deities, etc.)" are Product Identity.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:

Cosmo: Can I use you for an experiment real quick?

Me: ...

Liz will be missed. :-(

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"And" doesn't work because it might suggest to some people that you can't do the end of the turn unless you also did it at the start of the turn. "And/or" technically works, but it's clunky and we try to avoid it. "Or" works because cards don't have memories—whether or not you did it before has no bearing on whether or not you can do it now.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThreeEyedSloth wrote:
I don't think that's the case at all. The "may" is simply allowing Meliski to break the normal rule of a single blessing coming from his own hand. Now you can choose to play two with that feat, but the blessings still get recharged whether it was one or two played.

That's the intent. Added to FAQ.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ffordesoon wrote:

So here's a question: what goes into deciding what is and isn't covered under the aegis of Product Identity? In other words, what makes beholders copyrightable that doesn't also make Worgs copyrightable?

I have a feeling I know some of the answer, but humor me.

You asked two questions there, phrased in a way that made it seem that the first was rephrasing of the second, but they're really two very different questions.

The first question is relatively simple: "What goes into deciding what is and isn't covered under the aegis of Product Identity?" The answer to that is that the author of an OGL work can effectively decide for themselves what parts of their original contributions to the work are Product Identity and which are not. (So if you're asking specifically "why did Wizards chose the particular list of things they declared as PI in the 5.0 SRD," only they could tell you.)

The second question, "What makes beholders copyrightable that doesn't also make Worgs copyrightable?" isn't really an accurate question, as the fact is that any original expression that Wizards or TSR ever put into a worg actually *is* copyrighted. The idea of a big evil intelligent wolf can't be owned, and the word "worg" can't be copyrighted (though it theoretically *could* be protected by trademark), but any actual language used to describe them is copyrightable, as are any illustrations of them. (That you chose "worg" is an interesting example, given that they're clearly derived from Tolkien's "wargs," and World of Warcraft's worgs are clearly derived from them, which shows you just how hard it is to protect an idea like that!)

Overall, the "copyrightability" of a monster (or a character) is a fairly complicated subject. There's a fairly straightforward overview of some of the more salient points here.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
EltonJ wrote:
And we all thought it was a good trade.

Obviously, Paizo thinks it's a very worthwhile trade!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
What [if] the new rewrite of spells used different format of presenting information about spell? Go the Call of Cthulhu way where all the information about spell is just contained in the description? Introduced an assumption that all spells have casting time of 1 action unless noted otherwise and a standard range unless noted otherwise?
Drejk wrote:
Does the fact that, in each case(save the name and the exact material component), the game mechanics in those five lines appear in the SRD on existing spells mean that the terms are in effect Open games content, even if the spell is not?

Only Wizards can answer that. And unless they are willing to do so in advance, trying to do either of those things (or probably any other workaround you can think up) comes with risk.

But maybe I focused a bit too much on those 5 lines—really, my point is that if you're deriving your work directly from Wizards' copyrighted materials that have deliberately not been made Open Game Content, you run a pretty high risk that your work could be considered a derivative work, which violates their exclusive rights.

J.K. Rowling can't stop me from writing a book about kids in a wizard school, but if that book contained entire chapters paraphrased from Harry Potter, I'd expect to be hearing from her lawyers.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Demon wrote:
Per Circular 34, I can definitely use it in a list for an NPC, monster, or character. In fact, since the format and terminology of the spell description is present in the 5e SRD, the spell could simply be rewritten and fall under Fair Use. There is no reason to do that because the 5e SRD is about writing new not trying to copy existing material.

I believe everything in your post is fundamentally correct, except that the phrase "the spell could simply be rewritten" glosses over something that I think is actually quite tricky.

The problem is that in games, the line between the game mechanic (which is not copyrightable) and the expression of that mechanic (which is copyrightable) is often blurry. Take the Fireball spell from the 5.0 SRD:

5.0 SRD wrote:

Fireball

3rd-level evocation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 150 feet
Components: V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration: Instantaneous

A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

Clearly they can't lay claim to the word "Fireball." And sure, those three paragraphs at the bottom can easily be rewritten. But what about those other 5 lines at the top? Is "Casting Time: 1 action" a non-protectable mechanic, or a protected expression of a mechanic?

If you change "1 action" to, say, "1 step," or if you remove it entirely, it no longer makes sense in the game, so maybe that argues that it's a game mechanic, and is thus free to use... but if you were to publish a non-OGL book that has huge chunks of spells where the spell names and the next 5 lines of every spell are clearly taken directly from Wizards' products, I'd fully expect any intellectual properties attorney to tell me that you have violated Wizards' exclusive rights to create derivative works from their copyrighted material.

I think what you suggest might appear easy, but is in fact a very risky proposition.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Looks like the commission on Dungeon Master Guild products is 50% (split somehow between OneBookShelf and WotC). How does that compare if you want to distribute a self-published PDF through the various sites?

It's at the high end, but not completely outside the range of what other distributors charge. OBS normally charges between 20% and 35% (35% base, 25% for products sold exclusively through OBS, and the affiliate program can get you a little bit extra). Paizo is a bit wonkier in that they charge a different rate for PDFs than for print. For PDFs Paizo takes a smaller cut than OBS (according to Neil Spicer on the forums, lemme see if I can find that post....) On the other hand, Paizo charges 50% (!) for print, and requires the publisher to cover more of the expenses related to print products than OBS does. Bradley Crouch (the owner of Interjection Games) estimated that he would make three times as much of a profit from selling a hardcover on OBS as he would from selling the same hardcover for the same price on Paizo, and many other small publishers sell print products only on OBS but sell PDFs on both Paizo and OBS.

That's a bit misleading. See "Q: How do royalty payments work with regard to printed copies?" on the DriveThru FAQ. Yes, DriveThru pays 70% if you're an exclusive publishing partner, and 65% if you're not... but that's *after* they deduct the print cost of their PoD book. Using their FAQ example of the $14.99 print edition, selling it at DriveThru as an exclusive publisher nets you $7.35; as a non-exclusive publisher, you get $6.87, so their royalty as a percentage of cover price in that example is 49% (exclusive) or 46% (non-exclusive). Yes, their position as a PoD publisher means your sale through them will be more profitable for you, but the 50% royalty you get on a paizo.com sale ($7.49 in the example) isn't exactly unreasonable.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ah. Yeah, I always thought Herolab needed more than just the OGL anyhow for some complicated legal reason about licenses or somesuch.
Much like you can't make computer games using OGL material - which keeps Paizo from licensing a computer game that actually uses the PF rules.

That's a misconception. The old d20 license had prohibitions against "interactive game" software, but the OGL has no media restrictions; in fact, the OGL's Software FAQ specifically addresses how to do it.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I could wrong, but I don't think they can do that. They can't just arbitrarily claim things are product identity. Fictional creations - setting, adventures, even invented monsters are protected under copyright law, not just the actual words, but the basic concept. You can't use them without permission, just like you can't sell a story set in Middle-Earth, even if you don't quote Tolkien.

Game mechanics on the other hand aren't copyrightable - beyond the actual expression. Saying something is Product Identity doesn't change that in the slightest.

The only protection they have here is copyright law. Everything else derives from that. The OGL loosens that protection, letting others use content that would otherwise be protected. But it can't go past that and limit anything beyond what would normally be allowed.

It can, and it does. The OGL is not a gift—it's a trade. Publishers who use the OGL gain the ability to use Wizards’ own expressions of all game mechanics that Wizards (or anyone else) has declared as Open Game Content, in exchange for which they must give up the ability to use anything that Wizards (or anyone else) has declared as Product Identity, even if that use would be legal under copyright or trademark law.

One such example is the ability to say that your product is “compatible with Dungeons & Dragons,” or “better selling than D&D,” or “preferred by customers over D&D 4th Edition,” all things that are legal to say under the “nominative fair use” doctrine of trademark law, but which cannot be said if you use the OGL.

Another is that, since copyright law protects tangible expressions of ideas but not the ideas themselves, you are able to describe a beholder using your own words without violating Wizards' copyrights, but because Wizards specifically declared beholders as Product Identity, when you agree to use the OGL, you agree to give up that ability.

(Obviously, Paizo believes that using the OGL is a worthwhile trade.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marco Massoudi wrote:

I will wait with my reviews until i have my case but one thing is already certain:

This set is generally not as well regarded as the one before - Dungeons Deep by most people.

I can't help but note that several people say they think this is the best set yet in this thread:

Vernon Fults: "RDI is the best minis release ever!"
Coyle: "Arguably the best set yet."
Joana: "I think this is absolutely the best set yet, quality-wise."
MillerHero: "I agree that Rusty Dragon Inn may be the best set yet..."

There was plenty of other praise (and criticism)—I just searched for the word "best."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're making any money from the content you are publishing, we are likely to believe that makes you a commercial publisher.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem here is that they left a "content gap"—that is, anything that isn't in the SRD and isn't also in the statement of Product Identity is currently not covered under the OGL (as I understand it), so it is protected only inasmuch as copyright law protects it—meaning the ideas can be used, though not the actual words.

If Wizards were to include the OGL in future printings of their core rules, and state that anything in those books that isn't in the SRD is Product Identity—or just add a statement equivalent to that to the PRD—then I believe no content gap would exist; that is, anybody using the OGL would be unable to include derivations of that content. I'm not clear on whether or not "closing" that content could trigger retroactive effects, though.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ha. One of my favorite statements in the agreement is this (the all-caps is theirs, not mine):

"IN NO EVENT WILL OUR (OR OWNER) LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED THE GREATER OF (I) THE AMOUNT OF FEES DUE AND PAYABLE BY US TO YOU UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD PRECEDING THE CLAIM AND (II) FIFTY DOLLARS ($50.00)."

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:
(Which is why you should never build a house on land you don't own.)

I actually think it's a pretty reasonable program, as things like this go. I just hope the participants realize what they're getting into when they agree to it.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm surprised the vetting is kind of "retrospective".

Vetting things takes time and people, and gives you very little return for your effort. It's way easier to let the audience identify the problem children for you. Same reason our Compatibility License and Community Use Policy don't have a vetting process.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Our Community Use Policy is system agnostic.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I wonder if there's any vetting process.

From their FAQ: "There will not be an approval process by Wizards or OneBookShelf per se. However, if you’re found to be breaking our content guidelines, there will be repercussions. For example, your content can be pulled from the site, you might be ejected from the Dungeon Masters Guild as a content creator, and you would receive no payment for copies sold."

Steve Geddes wrote:
Or if you give up any rights by using it.

You retain ownership of the content you create, but you give them "the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to develop, license, reproduce, print, publish, distribute, translate, display, publicly perform and transmit your Work, in whole and in part, in each country in the world, in all languages and formats, and by all means now known or later developed, and the right to prepare derivative works of your Work."

Note that word "exclusive" in there—that means that you are giving up the right to do those things yourself, as well as the right to authorize anybody else to do so. So once you publish a work there, you can't publish it or sell it anywhere else.

You also give them "the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, the Owner and other third parties to use the User Generated Content."

Which means they can do whatever they want with whatever you create. And because you also "expressly agree that your User Generated Content, once submitted to the Program will become Program IP and useable by other members of the Program as well as the Owner as described in this Agreement," it also means that anybody else using the program can do whatever they like with your work, within the guidelines of the program.

So if you create an NPC, or a town (or whatever) under the program, technically, you can't use that NPC or town in anything that isn't part of the program. Anybody in the program can do whatever they like with your NPC or town, and Wizards can put your NPC or town into anything they like without compensation or credit to you (though, outside the actual agreement, they do say "if your work merits incorporation into 'canon,' Wizards will contact you about purchasing your IP outright").

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Just for a little technical clarity here... Wizards released their SRD 5.0 using version 1.0a of the Open Game License, which has been around for 15 years and is the exact version of the OGL that we've been using all along. Which means if our designers see anything in SRD 5.0 that they think would be a good addition to our game, they can put it in. (I'm not saying they will—I'm just saying they could... and assuming Wizards is going to put the OGL into their future 5.0 products, it's just as easy for Wizards to use any Open Game Content we've created.)

That said, I don't expect any major changes to come out of this for us. Our focus is the Pathfinder RPG, and we don't currently plan to create content for 5E.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reposting from here:

Neither Paizo nor WizKids has used the term "very rare" or "super rare" in connection with these minis—if you see that, some fan came up with that tag, and it has no basis in the actual distribution method used by WizKids. Frankly, I feel that it's use is just plain misleading. You should see set dressing pieces in roughly the same proportion as rares in each case of minis, which is to say 1 or 2 or each per case. (They're not technically rares because they sometimes appear in uncommon slots, but they're not significantly more or less rare than rare.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hobbun wrote:

If WizKids doesn’t do a dedicated set for the more popular dungeon dressing, then I would like to see them an uncommon slot, or at least a normal ‘rare’ slot, instead of this ‘ultra rare/very rare’ slot I keep hearing about.

Reposting from here:

Neither Paizo nor WizKids has used the term "very rare" or "super rare" in connection with these minis—if you see that, some fan came up with that tag, and it has no basis in the actual distribution method used by WizKids. Frankly, I feel that it's use is just plain misleading. You should see set dressing pieces in roughly the same proportion as rares in each case of minis, which is to say 1 or 2 of each per case. (They're not technically rares because they sometimes appear in uncommon slots, but they're not significantly more or less rare than rare.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Right. Neither Paizo nor WizKids has used the term "very rare" or "super rare" in connection with these minis—if you see that, some fan came up with that tag, and it has no basis in the actual distribution method used by WizKids. Frankly, I feel that it's use is just plain misleading. You should see set dressing pieces in roughly the same proportion as rares in each case of minis, which is to say 1 or 2 of each per case. (They're not technically rares because they sometimes appear in uncommon slots, but they're not significantly more or less rare than rare.)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Iconic Heroes line generally features more paint operations per mini than you see in other sets, but the others are still pretty nice.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Liz Courts wrote:
Katina: HR is married to the Copy Machine?!

That's been legal in this state for a few years now!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unless something on the card tells you otherwise, that fact that a card is "undefeated" in an encounter doesn't normally have any meaning until you get to the "Resolve the Encounter" step, which is when you have to shuffle the undefeated card back into the location deck it came from. (When the card becomes undefeated isn't particularly meaningful.) Technically, you still have to do all of the other steps, but if neither harm nor good can come from doing them, you needn't bother.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Duncan7291 wrote:
Erik, have yall thought about a dungeon dressing mini set along same lines of undead and goblin packs?

Yes.

WizKids did not sell enough of the goblin or undead sets to continue with this format, though I do think it's probably the most appropriate for a dungeon dressing set. It's something I will continue to discuss with them. I know we're all pleased with how well the dungeon dressing singles have been selling.

I also have to point out that fact that we quickly sold through the dungeon dressing singles from a bunch of cases we opened is far from definitive evidence that WizKids can successfully sell enough copies of a potential dungeon dressing set to make it worth their while. We're talking about a difference of multiple orders of magnitude here. Nonetheless, we'll make sure they're aware of the fact!

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/939802 wrote:


The wyciwyg: protocol (What You Cache is What You Get) is used internally to access pages in the cache and you should never see this normally.

Clear the cache and the cookies from sites that cause problems.

"Clear the Cache":

Tools > Options > Advanced > Network > Cached Web Content: "Clear Now"
"Remove Cookies" from sites causing problems:

Tools > Options > Privacy > Cookies: "Show Cookies"
Start Firefox in Safe Mode to check if one of the extensions (Firefox/Tools > Add-ons > Extensions) or if hardware acceleration is causing the problem (switch to the DEFAULT theme: Firefox/Tools > Add-ons > Appearance).

Do not click the Reset button on the Safe mode start window or otherwise make changes.
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Safe+Mode
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/Troubleshooting+extensions+and+themes

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to clarify a bit back on the topic of the original question. (This is pretty much what Zaister said, with a bit more detail.)

The OGL itself includes a definition of Product Identity:

OGL wrote:
"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product Identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content...

That last clause tells you that if you want to know if something is Product Identity, first you need to see if the publisher has declared it as Open Game Content, because that statement trumps this list. If it hasn't been declared as OGC, but it appears in the list above, then it would be Product Identity.

Paizo's typical OGC declaration* looks like this:

Typical Declaration wrote:

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress. (Elements that are in the public domain or have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)

Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Inc. game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

*:
Note that our declaration occasionally varies from this, so it's important to check the specific statement in each product you wish to draw from.

So to parse that, technically, the OGL tells you to look at the Open Content declaration, and our Open Content Declaration tells you to look at *our* statement of Product Identity, and then tells you if it's not on that list but it is a game mechanic, it's OGC (even if it's in the PI list contained within the OGL itself).

So, even though the standard OGL boilerplate lists (for example) "spells" as PI, because "spells" is not on *our* PI list, our Open Content declaration makes the game mechanics of our spells OGC. However, if a spell listing included something on our PI list (such as the proper name of a deity), then the bit that's PI would not be OGC, though the rest of the mechanic would be.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there have been any textual changes to the screen since the second printing of the original design, when we corrected a couple of typos (which I believe were misspellings, not mechanical errors).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:

sara marie: whats the worst that is gonna happen?

robot chris: black holes

I told you people not to plug that in!*

*:
It's not UL approved!

1 to 50 of 1,716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.