Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

GSL posted


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

351 to 400 of 807 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Developer

Sebastian wrote:
Samuel Weiss wrote:


That just leaves the question as to who constitutes a "third party affiliated" with any particular licensee.
That may set up a situation where a company that converts a product line to the GSL must repudiate any association with a companty that sticks with the OGL just in case the OGL company uses something from a formery OGL product.
The usual definition of affiliates is parties under common control. So, a WotC is an affiliate of Hasbro because it is a subsidiary of Hasbro and Hasbro is an affiliate of WotC because it is the parent of WotC. It can also be used to look through to the underlying owners. So, any other subsidiary of Hasbro would also be an affiliate of WotC because Hasbro is the parent of both. Business relationships, such as partnerships, don't normally get swept into the affiliate definition, so if Necromancer paid Paizo to publish its line of products, neither party would be an affiliate of the other.

But if Paizo bought Necromancer or vice-versa and maintained them as two separate companies, one release OGL and one GSL material, these would constitute affiliates?


OH WOW!

Hey guys, get a load of this...

Mongoose is thinking of making all of material that can't be sold, or have it's logos scrubbed off.. and making it freely available.

If they can't sell it any longer, make it free and make it immortal.

Amazing!

LINK IS HERE

And a courtesy reprint here, from Matt at Mongoose:

Spoiler:
Matt at Mongoose wrote:

Hi guys,

There is (predictably) a lot of talk at the moment about 4e and the GSL. At Mongoose, we are currently going through the fineprint to determine whether the products we planned specifically for 4e (no conversions of older books are planned) are still viable.

However, I wanted to look back for a moment, rather than forward.

We produced a great deal of OGC under D20. Most of these books are now out of print, with just PDF copies available - by the end of the year these will disappear too, as it is not realistic for us to remove D20 licensing off every product we produced over the years. Just too many!

However, it seems a shame to have all this material simply disappear, so. . .

If there is any interest, we would be prepared to make the vast majority of our D20-based content available freely. In the past, there has been talk about an OGC Wiki of sorts, and I think we can kick such a project off in a sizeable way.

If a volunteer (or volunteers - you might have to be some sort of maniac to go through all this material solo!) were to come forward and create a suitable web site, we would happily supply electronic versions of our D20 lines for translation of OGC to such a web site. We would be very free with the material permissable, allowing you to effectively cut and paste large chunks of 'fluff' text alongside the OGC.

This would include all the Quintessentials, Slayer's Guides, Encyclopaedias, Ultimates - potentially, even some Babylon 5 material, if someone is prepared to remove all the licensed text (no Conan though, as that is still current!)

All we ask is that the project is taken seriously and that there is maybe a link or two to us from the site

If other publishers are interested in such a project, we would gladly welcome work alongside them - this could end up being a seriously large site!

So, any interest? If someone wanted to build the Mother of All OGC sites, we can give you a serious head start. Might even be able to provide you with web space and some rather large bandwidth.
__________________
Matthew Sprange
Mongoose Publishing

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com

What a way to make a stand!

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

yoda8myhead wrote:


But if Paizo bought Necromancer or vice-versa and maintained them as two separate companies, one release OGL and one GSL material, these would constitute affiliates?

Yup.


KaeYoss wrote:
Teiran wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:


KnightErrantJR wrote:

So, um . . . you can't print stat blocks unless they are wholly original monsters

So much for Ogre Fighters.

Actually, they specifically state printing something like a Orge Fighter is kosher under the liscence. Fighter is a template after all. You can't print just an Orge thats a copy of what they have in the book, but you can apply the Fighter template and print it, becuase that Orge Fighter is new.

You mean class, right? I was referring to the Ogre Fighter 5 used for several Kreeg ogres in Hook Mountain Massacre.

Is it allowed to have a, say, Drider Warlock 3 in there?

No, I mean template. As in, the various class templates which have been designed to turn a normal monster, say an orge, into a class monster.

The rules are in either the DMG or MM, I do not have my books atm to check, but basicly instead of having to stat up a whole NPC of a particular class and then applying a racial modifier to it, you simply give the basic monster from the MM a smattering of abilites from the class you want them to be. For a more powerful enemy give them more of the powers. It's a much simpler system then the 3rd edition one was.

You can still stat up a up full level 12 Orge fighter using the race in the same way you would use a human of elf, in the same vain we did in 3rd edition.

The books state that this deisgn style makes for a very good primary villian, who is supposed to be a big threat to the PC's, but if you just want a clerical flavored orc for an encounter, then you don't have to go to all that trouble and can just use the template.

In both cases, you could print the stats of monster, because they are derivative from the original rules, but are not the original rules.

That seems to be the basic thrust of the GSL. What they want you to make is advanced versions of the basic rules, not rewrite the base rules of the game.


Watcher wrote:

OH WOW!

Hey guys, get a load of this...

Mongoose is thinking of making all of material that can't be sold, or have it's logos scrubbed off.. and making it freely available.

If they can't sell it any longer, make it free and make it immortal.

Amazing!

LINK IS HERE

Oh that just makes me smile- I do love the smell of burning bridges in the morning.

Seriously though- these guys are like Paizo in that they get it- it's all about the love of the games- their take on Runequest has turned out to be cracking and I'm looking forward to see what they do with Traveller.


So, if I'm reading this right, if a third party designer creates a monster/ race/ class that WotC sees as damaging their sales, Wizards can create their own version with that name, and the other company has to stop selling it and burn all of their product? Is that about right?

Taldor

Watcher wrote:

OH WOW!

Hey guys, get a load of this...

This is amazing, and a great way to build support. I'll admit I've never read any of Mongoose's products, but now, I'll have no reason not to. And this makes me want to buy their future products...

A classy move for sure.

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this GSL release is going to be seeing all the 3rd party publishers' reactions. I'm actually pretty excited to get home and check out ENWorld, and see what's going on.


Wow, pretty neat-o on the Mongoose stuff. If it goes forward Watcher, let us know. I always wanted to check out some of the Quints but money was tight/quality was variable, so I never picked any up.

Would be happy to look 'em over though, especially if fluff is being brought along!

Cheers! :)

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Blackdragon wrote:
So, if I'm reading this right, if a third party designer creates a monster/ race/ class that WotC sees as damaging their sales, Wizards can create their own version with that name, and the other company has to stop selling it and burn all of their product? Is that about right?

You are exactly right (well, except for the burning, they could destroy it in some other way).


crosswiredmind wrote:


I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.

Your optimisim is misplaced. Think of the licences from 3.5 that when they started making money were pulled. Dungeon & Dragon Magazine, Ravenloft, Dragonlance. The last thing they want is good quality competition.


Sebastian wrote:
Blackdragon wrote:
So, if I'm reading this right, if a third party designer creates a monster/ race/ class that WotC sees as damaging their sales, Wizards can create their own version with that name, and the other company has to stop selling it and burn all of their product? Is that about right?
You are exactly right (well, except for the burning, they could destroy it in some other way).

That blows!


I just wanted to clarify on my previous post last page, I was not suggesting that if one 3pp were to make material for another 3pp, and the second one stopped producing their core material it would be done out of malice. Just possible market realities, maybe, again for example, Paizo finds that it just isn't economically feasible to do a second run of their core PfRPG books. Well if a different company was making products exclusively to be used with the PfRPG, then that totally understandable and completely not underhanded decision by Paizo, would essential make those products fairly worthless. That is the danger of hitching your wagon (even if it is just a small wagon) to another company. That company's legitimate business decisions can still negatively impact your company.

Now of course companies might do what Nick Logue is doing and make versions of many game systems, so no individual product is dependent on any one 3pp. But given many might have a hard enough time just getting 1 version of the product out, I am not sure how viable that is.

Qadira

Blackdragon wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.
Your optimisim is misplaced. Think of the licences from 3.5 that when they started making money were pulled. Dungeon & Dragon Magazine, Ravenloft, Dragonlance. The last thing they want is good quality competition.

That just tells me that they want to retool their licensing program for 4e. I doubt they will remove themselves from the possibility of closed licensing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KaeYoss wrote:
I can't think of a scenario (that doesn't involves blackmail or kidnapping) where they would do that. Unless I'm wrong, the ToH 4e would have been like the others: 4th-edition rules, D&D feel. Lots of stuff wizards left out of 4e, and maybe stuff they fubared (like the lamia).

When he stated that a 4e ToH was not looking possible, it wasn't necessarily in a "WotC won't let me" sort of way, but in a "once there is a 4e Tome of Horrors, there can never be another OGL Tome of Horrors, which is unacceptable" sort of way.

So he may be legally able to make one, just not willing. I can see how the paraphrasing you quoted could be construed either way.

(And this is just my interpretation, but if you search through the huge EN World thread, I think the whole of the post is clear on this point. And I'd rather Clark focus on digesting the license and talking with WotC to sort out these issues than to use up time clarifying posts he made on one board on another board. In other words, INAC - I'm Not a Clark, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.) :)

Qadira

Watcher wrote:

OH WOW!

Hey guys, get a load of this...

Mongoose is thinking of making all of material that can't be sold, or have it's logos scrubbed off.. and making it freely available.

If they can't sell it any longer, make it free and make it immortal.

Amazing!

LINK IS HERE

And a courtesy reprint here, from Matt at Mongoose:

[spoiler]

Matt at Mongoose wrote:

Hi guys,

There is (predictably) a lot of talk at the moment about 4e and the GSL. At Mongoose, we are currently going through the fineprint to determine whether the products we planned specifically for 4e (no conversions of older books are planned) are still viable.

However, I wanted to look back for a moment, rather than forward.

We produced a great deal of OGC under D20. Most of these books are now out of print, with just PDF copies available - by the end of the year these will disappear too, as it is not realistic for us to remove D20 licensing off every product we produced over the years. Just too many!

However, it seems a shame to have all this material simply disappear, so. . .

If there is any interest, we would be prepared to make the vast majority of our D20-based content available freely. In the past, there has been talk about an OGC Wiki of sorts, and I think we can kick such a project off in a sizeable way.

If a volunteer (or volunteers - you might have to be some sort of maniac to go through all this material solo!) were to come forward and create a suitable web site, we would happily supply electronic versions of our D20 lines for translation of OGC to such a web site. We would be very free with the material permissable, allowing you to effectively cut and paste large chunks of 'fluff' text alongside the OGC.

This would include all the Quintessentials, Slayer's Guides, Encyclopaedias, Ultimates - potentially, even some Babylon 5 material, if someone is prepared to remove all the licensed text (no Conan though, as that is still current!)

All we ask is...

DMTools!!!!! Lilith!!! They want a host for free OGC stuff!!!! LILITH!!!! Someone summon her please.


That is awesome. If someone has a forum account, could you ask what kind of storage space they'd need? I have a feeling I might be able to mirror for them on an indefinite basis.


mwbeeler wrote:
That is awesome. If someone has a forum account, could you ask what kind of storage space they'd need? I have a feeling I might be able to mirror for them on an indefinite basis.

I'll post a note...

EDIT: Your question sir... posted over there.

Spoiler:
Me wrote:

Matt,

This was cross posted over at Paizo. One of the folks over there has asked what would the storage space requirement be (or even an estimate). They feel they might be able to mirror for this collection indefinitely.

Thanks!

Paizo Employee CEO

evilash wrote:
Ken Marable wrote:

The thing WotC misses is that they are NOT holding all of the cards. There are two options out there that are suddenly much more appealing:

1) Create OGL products that use the existing OGL terms in ways that look rather similar to 4e (I can envision easily doing setting material and adventures that are 4e-compatible using only 3.x material and avoiding the GSL)

If I were Lisa I would be breaking out the champagne bottles by now, because the GSL more or less ensures that Pathfinder's market share just got a bump upward.

We actually broke out the champagne last Friday when my awesome staff got all those amazing books off to the printer so they will be there in time for GenCon. Oh, and cake too. Champagne and cake. Yummy.

-Lisa


Rambling Scribe wrote:
2) 3rd party publishers won't need to put their future in Paizo's hands in the same way to adopt Pathfinder as their system, because Pathfinder is and will remain truly OGL, and will therefore be available perpetually.

Sort of. If they wanted to use the world, names, places, pantheon, etc..., they'd still need to license those goodies.

Watcher wrote:
I'll post a note...

Thanks.


pres man wrote:
I just wanted to clarify on my previous post last page,

Understood Pres.. I didn't think you meant it out of malice.


Erik Mona wrote:

I've been expecting this sort of thing for months, obviously.

I'm feeling very pleased with our decision to stick with the OGL today...

Yah, Erik, you guys made a good call. The more I'm reading about the GSL, the more I do not like it. In my opinion, and with a little hyperbole: "It is un-American. It is un-British. It is French."*

*I'm sure Mr. Clemens won't mind me borrowing from him right now. Samuel Langhorne, that is, not Roger.


I'd say the GSL rules are good and bad. Good in that they force 3rd party publishers to actually produce high quality, playtested material. Bad in that there ultimately will be less material out there as some publishers will not purchase the GSL and thus, not make anything.

I'm going to look at this as an aggressive move by WotC, but not necessarily a bad move. 3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality. Eventually, the market got so flooded and so many books were produced, that it became standard practice to spend 20 mins or more each game session waiting for player's to find a rule or item or spell they had on their character sheet.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality.

I know!

The modules from Necromancer Games and Paizo alone were like 10x better. Heck, most of the stuff Malhovic Press put out was of higher quality too.

Oh wait, that's not what you're talking about.


Pop'N'Fresh wrote:


3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality.

True. Most of the WotC output was crap :D

The thing that bothers me most about the GSL is that the best 3.X products were done by 3PPs, and if not many of those publishers agree to work under GSL, we're stuck with sub-par WotC products (unless something changes over there).

I'm playing both 4E and 3.X/Pathfinder. If 4E has limited third party support, the balance of the systems will just favor 3.X that much more. I suspect my 4E playing will be more limited.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality.

Yes. I can see why WotC might be uncomfortable trying to live up to the standards of quality found in some of those third party books.

:D

Shadow Lodge

I read the GSL. Then I read it again. Then I did a little dance.

Congrats to Paizo for making the right call with PFRPG. I am sooo glad there is a viable path forward for quality gaming. You guys saved our game!

Cheliax Contributor

Erik Mona wrote:
Good Ash wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.
It's a trick. Get an axe.

That's much better than quoting Tori Amos.

Around the office tonight I heard a few people yell out 'IT'S A TRAP" in their best Admiral Ackbar voice. :)

I had considered making a macro picture A La LOLCATS with Ackbar and the GSL, but figured that may be in poor taste.

Osirion

Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality.
MisterSlanky wrote:

I know!

The modules from Necromancer Games and Paizo alone were like 10x better. Heck, most of the stuff Malhovic Press put out was of higher quality too.

Oh wait, that's not what you're talking about.

Heh heh heh. Nice. :)


Jacob Burgess wrote:


I had considered making a macro picture A La LOLCATS with Ackbar and the GSL, but figured that may be in poor taste.

There must be some talent around here, that is not employed by Paizo, who can make little Jacob Burgess' wish come true!

DO IT FOR JAKE!

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
I'd say the GSL rules are good and bad. Good in that they force 3rd party publishers to actually produce high quality, playtested material.

Granted, I didn't read the whole of the GSL yet (and frankly I don't really care to since I have no plans to write material under that license), but I did not see anything in there about how 3rd party publishers are required to produce "high quality, playtested material."

Hell I see little that will promote innovation and much that will inhibit it. So I see alot less 3rd party support because Wizards tied their hands.

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

<slight humor>

At least now we know why 4th Edition eliminates Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good as alignments... gods forbid new players will have terms to fully describe the RPG industry.

</slight humor>

Seriously, speaking as a small publisher, the GSL is understandable, unfortunate, and in some parts quite bizarre.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you, as a third party publisher, create the greatest campaign setting ever in 4e, selling like hotcakes, which BTW is taking $$ from Hasbro CEO's spa weekends; they can just yank your license, reproduce everything you wrote into their version of it and they now own it?

Wow, sign me up.

Do I want to support someone like WoTC who would rather squash competition than do a better job? No.

I made posts along time back about how Dungeon magazine was setting the standard and making WoTC adventures look bad, all for a decent price.
I believe that now more than ever.

Given WotC's great history with writing modules and doing web-based software like DDI (Magic v3 anyone?) I see not much of a future.

WoTC wants to compete with WoW with their own online stuff? Good luck with that one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dario Nardi wrote:

<slight humor>

At least now we know why 4th Edition eliminates Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good as alignments... gods forbid new players will have terms to fully describe the RPG industry.

</slight humor>

Seriously, speaking as a small publisher, the GSL is understandable, unfortunate, and in some parts quite bizarre.

While you're here, I'd just like to put in a vote that you DO NOT create a "Secrets of Pact Magic" under the GSL and therefore eliminate the 3.5 one.

I love that book and am looking forward to more support for it.

(Oh, and nice catch on the real reason behind the alignment change!)

Osirion

Wintergreen wrote:


From the GSL FAQ:
Q: Will there be a Game System License for non-fantasy d20-based roleplaying games?
A: Yes. We plan to release a Game System License for non-fantasy setting products in the near future. This license will be named the d20 GSL and will be posted when final.

Now, that I can see working. The 4th Edition mechanics lend themselves well to a superpowered action-adventure. I can picture Captain America as a 4th Edition fighter, Dr. Strange as a 4th Edition wizard (sorry, two Marvel references...).

I can actually envision playing 3.5/PRPG for my fantasy gaming, and 4th Edition for my superheroes.


mwbeeler wrote:
That is awesome. If someone has a forum account, could you ask what kind of storage space they'd need? I have a feeling I might be able to mirror for them on an indefinite basis.
Matt at Mongoose wrote:
I can't imagine the storage requirements would be particularly large, if it was all kept text-based (we can talk about art if this gets off the ground ).

Beyond this.. if you're interested you might want e-mail him directly. The link I posted earlier takes you to the thread where he has some contact details available.

Osirion

Jacob Burgess wrote:


I had considered making a macro picture A La LOLCATS with Ackbar and the GSL, but figured that may be in poor taste.

This will probably suffice:

Admiral Ackbar


Watcher wrote:

OH WOW!

Hey guys, get a load of this...

Mongoose is thinking of making all of material that can't be sold, or have it's logos scrubbed off.. and making it freely available.

If they can't sell it any longer, make it free and make it immortal.

Amazing!

LINK IS HERE

They tried making a OGC wiki a while back, and most people turned it down. With the advent of the GSL , maybe this movement will gain momentum once more. It would be ironic if the best thing that happened to the OGL was the GSL.

Now lets see what Malhavoc and Green Ronin have to say about this.

Taldor

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Since when is their minis business "flagging"?
Yea, I was under the impression that D&D minis and MtG were the only parts of their company that were making money.

That's interesting. After all, Spellfire cost a lot of money for TSR ...

Paizo Employee Developer

Blackdragon wrote:
So, if I'm reading this right, if a third party designer creates a monster/ race/ class that WotC sees as damaging their sales, Wizards can create their own version with that name, and the other company has to stop selling it and burn all of their product? Is that about right?

My interpretation is that WotC can not retroactively negate the legality of a publication, but they are not forbidden from releasing something official with the same name and or flavor as anything anyone else does. You know, cause after whomever releases their monk, WotC might independently develop the same good ideas.


Pop'N'Fresh wrote:
3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality.

If I may be picky....

I'd say that 3.5 was an aewsome game system.
The difference is quality was between WotC's *supplements* and some 3PP supplements.

And, honestly, some of WotC's stuff was right up there in the top tier. But plenty of it was not, and the other guys were forcing them to stay on their toes.

I wonder how they'll do when they have a lot less competetion putting pressure on them..... eek

Qadira RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6, Contributor

yoda8myhead wrote:
My interpretation is that WotC can not retroactively negate the legality of a publication, but they are not forbidden from releasing something official with the same name and or flavor as anything anyone else does. You know, cause after whomever releases their monk, WotC might independently develop the same good ideas.

The problem with that is this: You make a monk. WotC updates the rules to include a monk and then adds it to the SRD as a 4E Reference. You are bound to not alter, define or redefine any 4E References in the SRD (clause 4.1). Since you are bound by any changes in the GSL or SRD (clause 2), you are in violation once that happens.

Note I am not a lawyer, this is just my interpretation of the GSL.


I'm wondering what impact the GSL has on posting 4e conversions of the Pathfinder stuff on here? Or posting character stat blocs or discussing how to build characters or ....

Does the GSL impact our ability to discuss 4e on these forums... or does our discussion of it open up Paizo to legal action if materials covered by the SRD and the GSL are posted?


Ha GSL or not to GSL...all so passé by now.

Let me (and you if you want) look forward!!!

SO PAIZO, what is the next big thing you have in mind?

EDIT: Under OGL that is.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Tibitu wrote:


SO PAIZO, what is the next big thing you have in mind?

EDIT: Under OGL that is.

Golarion Online?

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Blackdragon wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Blackdragon wrote:
So, if I'm reading this right, if a third party designer creates a monster/ race/ class that WotC sees as damaging their sales, Wizards can create their own version with that name, and the other company has to stop selling it and burn all of their product? Is that about right?
You are exactly right (well, except for the burning, they could destroy it in some other way).
That blows!

I didn't realize you were such a fan of book burning. ;-)

(It does blow, it's not a functional license and there's really no point in using it. They could've saved a lot of legal fees by just saying "there is no new license". I suppose that new start-up companies without the leverage to negotiate a private licensing agreement might use it, but I can't say I'd recommend that they do so.)


Matt at Mongoose wrote:
I can't imagine the storage requirements would be particularly large, if it was all kept text-based (we can talk about art if this gets off the ground ).
Watcher wrote:
Beyond this.. if you're interested you might want e-mail him directly. The link I posted earlier takes you to the thread where he has some contact details available.

Good deal, thanks. From the sound of it, it looks more like they are looking for front enders, but I'm all for pitching in for OGL projects. I'm on my way to bed now, but I'll hit up the contact info and website itself this evening and see what they say.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Sebastian wrote:
Truthfulness. It's very artfully drafted, and I love the way they include a countersigning provision. This sucker is a very different beast from the OGL, which was elegant, but fairly simple.

Part of that was because the OGL requires you to include the entire OGL in any OGL product, and Ryan Dancey wanted the text to be able to fit on a single page, so they had to be very efficient and clear at the same time.


pres man wrote:
Well I wouldn't expect alot of 3pp companies to hitch their ride to another 3pp company. For example, once PfRPG comes out, I wouldn't expect many, if any, other companies to use it. Why give Paizo control of the destiny of your company (if Paizo stops printing core books, your material would then be fairly useless)?

If Paizo stops printing Pathfinder . . . you scrape the mostly-Open Game Content of the PfRPG and publish your own "Delvings and Denizens" core rules. With the OGL, there's always another day.


Watcher wrote:

OH WOW!

Hey guys, get a load of this...

Mongoose is thinking of making all of material that can't be sold, or have it's logos scrubbed off.. and making it freely available.

If they can't sell it any longer, make it free and make it immortal.

Amazing!

LINK IS HERE

On further consideration, it would be great if other companies like Goodman and Necromancer were to get on the act too- given the upcoming killswitch for their 3.5 PDFs, it certainly couldn't hurt more then it already does.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tibitu wrote:

SO PAIZO, what is the next big thing you have in mind?

I suspect we'll be announcing THAT in relatively short order.

351 to 400 of 807 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / GSL posted All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 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.