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

GSL posted


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

401 to 450 of 807 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

Jason_Langlois wrote:

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?

It won't impact the ability to discuss 4E on any forums, any more than we can or can't talk about Star Wars or Venture Brothers or Cujo on public boards.

It MIGHT impact posting conversions of other edition products to 4th edition to fan sites... WotC hasn't yet released its fan site rules yet, so we don't know.

It certainly prevents us from doing any official 4th edition conversion stuff on paizo.com, but that's not unexpected at all.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
firbolg wrote:


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.

I love this concept, and as much as I am not a fan of Mongoose's products, I applaud them for the idea.

However, since the GSL is now an "at will" agreement and we're all pretty much in agreement that WotC was more interested in preventing people from working with their product than allowing them. Don't you think it would be dangerous for another company to release all their 3.5 materials as free to try to skirt the GSL requirements? Sure it's not in violation of the GSL, but WotC can just yank that out from under your feet anyway because you looked at their product funny.

Taldor

James Jacobs wrote:
I suspect we'll be announcing THAT in relatively short order.

And so my level of anticipation again rises to catastrophic levels.

Andoran

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

. . . I hope you mean in the next five minutes, before the anticipation kills me.


James Jacobs wrote:


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

HA!

That could be that teaser that Joshua Frost was alluding to.. that exciting surprise he said would come in June or July!

Get thee in a meeting and get that announcement released! Now is the time!

Taldor

Watcher wrote:

HA!

That could be that teaser that Joshua Frost was alluding to.. that exciting surprise he said would come in June or July!

Get thee in a meeting and get that announcement released! Now is the time!

This man knows what he's talking about. Please listen to him.

Spoiler:
Please?

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

James Jacobs wrote:
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.

My hope: Pathfinder Logo License

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Sebastian wrote:
(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.)

Despite all this, I still find it funny that Necromancer is moving forward with 4E plans. Necromancer hasn't even been accepted as a licencee yet. I wonder what he'd do if their products sold too well and Wizards "killed" Necromancer and "took its stuff."

Cheliax

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
(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.)
Despite all this, I still find it funny that Necromancer is moving forward with 4E plans. Necromancer hasn't even been accepted as a licencee yet. I wonder what he'd do if their products sold too well and Wizards "killed" Necromancer and "took its stuff."

Hmmm seems like Wizards has been taking rogue levels. }; )


Robert Conley wrote:


So does this means that if you write about Demons for a 4th edition product it has to be under that SPECIFIC cosmology? If you are say writing a old testament or babylonian product that you can't call their evil supernatural beings Demons because those two cultures have a different definition (but similar) for Demons. The same for Devils? You can't even EXPLAIN the default cosmology because that would result in a violation of the prohibition of copying any text.

As I understand from GSL (para. 7c), you could not use real-world demons anyway. Possibly not even old testament campaigns if a real-world religious group is still adhering to the practice. Might as well just use the book-defined cosmology.

chopswil wrote:


If you, as a third party publisher, create the greatest campaign setting ever in 4e <snip> they can just yank your license, reproduce everything you wrote into their version of it and they now own it?

You could probably win that in court. Your best-ever campaign world is so because of its cast of characters & events, not the few mechanics it introduced. Imagine in the day of 2e making a game world of dead / undead with separate areas devided by mists, ruled by a powerful lord named "Stred" and some fallen knight named "Lord Sith" and see if you got called out.


Alex Draconis wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
(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.)
Despite all this, I still find it funny that Necromancer is moving forward with 4E plans. Necromancer hasn't even been accepted as a licencee yet. I wonder what he'd do if their products sold too well and Wizards "killed" Necromancer and "took its stuff."
Hmmm seems like Wizards has been taking rogue levels. }; )

No, they've been taking Expert levels. Rogue levels would have been an INTELLIGENT choice.


Well after wading my way through all 400+ (yeesh) posts in this thread...my excitement way back when 4th edition was first mentioned has finally fallen to nil. It's been a long gradual fall, but fall it has.

Long live Paizo and Pathfinder!


James Jacobs wrote:
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.

It's the Bella Sara Live Action Rolepaying Game.

Step 1: Get a horse!


MisterSlanky wrote:
firbolg wrote:


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.

I love this concept, and as much as I am not a fan of Mongoose's products, I applaud them for the idea.

However, since the GSL is now an "at will" agreement and we're all pretty much in agreement that WotC was more interested in preventing people from working with their product than allowing them. Don't you think it would be dangerous for another company to release all their 3.5 materials as free to try to skirt the GSL requirements? Sure it's not in violation of the GSL, but WotC can just yank that out from under your feet anyway because you looked at their product funny.

Well, that's always a danger, but considering how open the GSL is for yankage, Wizards could pluck any number of reasons out of the sky anyway. Like I said back when the 4th edition kafuffle started out, that's the danger when you create support products for a company whose agenda diverges for yours- you find yourself no longer captain of your own destiny as you play catchup for their plans.

I'd hope they'd see beyond this and push the envelope and give 3.5 a decent sendoff- the financial equivalent of a viking pyre, if you will. If Wizards was to act punitively via the GSL, then it'd be clear exactly what kind of relationship one is entering and perhaps reconsider.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Keneto wrote:
Robert Conley wrote:


chopswil wrote:


If you, as a third party publisher, create the greatest campaign setting ever in 4e <snip> they can just yank your license, reproduce everything you wrote into their version of it and they now own it?

You could probably win that in court. Your best-ever campaign world is so because of its cast of characters & events, not the few mechanics it introduced. Imagine in the day of 2e making a game world of dead / undead with separate areas devided by mists, ruled by a powerful lord named "Stred" and some fallen knight named "Lord Sith" and see if you got called out.

They can revoke your license at anytime for no reason at all.

You may still own it, but hey can prevent you from making money on it.

Andoran

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Has anyone been paying attention how other forums are taking the new GSL?

Like Gleemax?

EN World?

Other 3rd Party?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:

Has anyone been paying attention how other forums are taking the new GSL?

Like Gleemax?

EN World?

Other 3rd Party?

Gleemax was down for almost the whole day. Not much posting on the GSL, therefore.


Dragnmoon wrote:

Has anyone been paying attention how other forums are taking the new GSL?

Like Gleemax?

EN World?

Other 3rd Party?

Gleemax was quite hostile toward the GSL last night; I haven't looked today.

Enworld seems to be pushing a "no big deal" slant, which I find surprising. For all the talk of ENWorld bias, I had usually found them to be quite fair.


Dragnmoon wrote:

Has anyone been paying attention how other forums are taking the new GSL?

Like Gleemax?

EN World?

Other 3rd Party?

ENWorld has a bit less gnashing of teeth, sproadic support of Pathfinder. Clark of Necromancer was posting over there, he seems cautious but still semi-optimistic.

ENWorld and here are about the only places I check out.

Cheers! :)


bugleyman wrote:


Gleemax was quite hostile toward the GSL last night; I haven't looked today.

Enworld seems to be pushing a "no big deal" slant, which I find surprising. For all the talk of ENWorld bias, I had usually found them to be quite fair.

What you might have to remember bugley, is that if you don't care much about 3rd party support, whether or not the GSL is restrictive doesn't really matter to you much at all.

I'd expect that's a position that a lot of people will have re: the GSL.

Cheers! :)


bugleyman wrote:


Enworld seems to be pushing a "no big deal" slant, which I find surprising. For all the talk of ENWorld bias, I had usually found them to be quite fair.

Really?

I've been reading the industry forums section of EnWorld (because I assume the zealous moderators would be booting discussion of the GSL there, and is there's been plenty to be found).

Most of what I read is negative.

Not frothing at the mouth negative, and everybody is being mature and adult, but the "stiff upper lip" pragmatic posts seem to be in the minority to the "gosh this sucks buttock" consensus.


David Marks wrote:


ENWorld has a bit less gnashing of teeth, sproadic support of Pathfinder. Clark of Necromancer was posting over there, he seems cautious but still semi-optimistic.

ENWorld and here are about the only places I check out.

Cheers! :)

Hmm.. I take it as a few shades grimmer. I guess I could see how you get Clark as being semi-optimistic. However relative to how he has been in the past... eehh.. yeah.. not so much.

"Calm down, nobody panic", never struck me as a cheerful sentiment. :)

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The OGL forum on ENWorld is slanted negative re the GSL.

The General Forum on ENWorld seems split, with a lot of the 4e crowd thinking its a good deal for 3rd party companies.

That's been my read today anyway.


magnuskn wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:

Has anyone been paying attention how other forums are taking the new GSL?

Like Gleemax?

EN World?

Other 3rd Party?

Gleemax was down for almost the whole day. Not much posting on the GSL, therefore.

I just hopped on and there appears to be three trains of thought up on the GSL thread:

"Arrgh- Gleeeeemaaaaxx!"
"The GSL is going to kill all 3rd party software support"
"The GSL is important for the future of WotC's business"- washing down the "let them eat cake" with some refreshing koolaid.
Overall, the criticism seems to be pretty muted- can't say I'm surprised really considering the state of the boards over there in the past 48 hours or so


Watcher wrote:

Hmm.. I take it as a few shades grimmer. I guess I could see how you get Clark as being semi-optimistic. However relative to how he has been in the past... eehh.. yeah.. not so much.

"Calm down, nobody panic", never struck me as a cheerful sentiment. :)

True, I don't have Clark's previous postings to compare/contrast, not having followed this issue too closely.

And all I have to say is "DON'T PANIC" strikes me as particularly reassuring. I mean, it's telling you what not to do right there. Couldn't be anymore helpful. ;)


firbolg wrote:

I just hopped on and there appears to be three trains of thought up on the GSL thread:

"Arrgh- Gleeeeemaaaaxx!"
"The GSL is going to kill all 3rd party software support"
"The GSL is important for the future of WotC's business"- washing down the "let them eat cake" with some refreshing koolaid.
Overall, the criticism seems to be pretty muted- surprise, surprise

I would say expecting a site devoted to DnD in general to be as concerned/upset about the GSL as a 3rd party publisher's message board might be asking a bit much.

Just saying.


David Marks wrote:
firbolg wrote:

I just hopped on and there appears to be three trains of thought up on the GSL thread:

"Arrgh- Gleeeeemaaaaxx!"
"The GSL is going to kill all 3rd party software support"
"The GSL is important for the future of WotC's business"- washing down the "let them eat cake" with some refreshing koolaid.
Overall, the criticism seems to be pretty muted- surprise, surprise

I would say expecting a site devoted to DnD in general to be as concerned/upset about the GSL as a 3rd party publisher's message board might be asking a bit much.

Just saying.

Yeah, you're right David- call me naive, I suppose. Oh well, at least there are other avenues of discourse.


Wicht wrote:

The General Forum on ENWorld seems split, with a lot of the 4e crowd thinking its a good deal for 3rd party companies.

That's been my read today anyway.

Ah... how could I forget? ::slams forehead::

If it's not critical of 4E it can remain in the General Forum, proper posting locations be damned! How silly of me not to check in the general forum.

Those wacky En World Moderators.


Watcher wrote:
bugleyman wrote:


Enworld seems to be pushing a "no big deal" slant, which I find surprising. For all the talk of ENWorld bias, I had usually found them to be quite fair.

Really?

I've been reading the industry forums section of EnWorld (because I assume the zealous moderators would be booting discussion of the GSL there, and is there's been plenty to be found).

Most of what I read is negative.

Not frothing at the mouth negative, and everybody is being mature and adult, but the "stiff upper lip" pragmatic posts seem to be in the minority to the "gosh this sucks buttock" consensus.

Yup, but most of what I read was in the "How will a lack of third party support affect your 4E plans?" thread and not the main GSL or the "reap what you sow" ones.

I'd read the rest, but I've got a a bunch of work to knock out today. Freakin real life. ;-)

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

Dragnmoon wrote:

Has anyone been paying attention how other forums are taking the new GSL?

Like Gleemax?

EN World?

Other 3rd Party?

Link

Dreamscarred said, "Unless I'm given some overwhelming reason to, don't expect to see an Untapped Potential 4E, a Third Dawn 4E, or a High Psionics 4E."
Reality Deviant Publications said, "I'm fairly certain I won't be adopting this license."
Phil Reed of Ronin Arts said, "My one word response to the GSL? No."


firbolg wrote:
Yeah, you're right David- call me naive, I suppose. Oh well, at least there are other avenues of discourse.

No hard feelings bolg. I just wanted to head off any cross board negative feelings before they got started. :)


Watcher wrote:
DaveMage wrote:


So, can he do an "open design" product for 4E and under the OGL?

Seems like if he does one for 4E, the others are toast, yes?

Uh uh, not really Dave.

Wrath of the River King (the tenative 4e Project title) can still be published under a different product line. It couldn't have any connection to Zobeck, or any other distinctive components of his 3.5 Projects, but the license still allows for an unrelated 4E Project, without ceasing publication of your OGL line.

With his 4E patrons Wolfgang has toyed with names for a 4E line, and/or maybe a distinctive product line logo.

None of this is offical. The 4E project isn't fully funded yet, and nothing was ever finalized until the GSL came out. Plus I'm not his offical spokesperson.

I only know this because the nature of Open Design requires some advance planning, and he discusses things with Patrons, even in the preliminary stages.

Not really, dude. Someone may have raised this point already, but according to the GSL Wizards gets to make a reasonable call about what they think is all part of the same product line. And its seems a reasonable argument that everything called Open Design belongs to the same line.

That said, I read this as meaning that when I launch or convert to a 4e line, I'm at risk of Wizards declaring my other stuff part of it. Which immediately stops me from making more or selling PDFs of whatever they've declared as part of my 4e line. My recourse would, presumably, be to sue them to get my products un-declared part of the same line. But I'd be shut down (not including print stock already on the shelves) until it was resolved. *shudder*

Cheliax

Dark Psion wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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.

It's the Bella Sara Live Action Rolepaying Game.

Step 1: Get a horse!

The... BS-LARG? I feel the urge to find a better acronym, one that does not sound like a puking ogre. ;-)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

SirUrza

The bit about dedicating the OGL to she-who-shall-not-be-named was a joke.

I now am the founder of an internet rumour cool.


James Jacobs wrote:
Jason_Langlois wrote:

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?

It won't impact the ability to discuss 4E on any forums, any more than we can or can't talk about Star Wars or Venture Brothers or Cujo on public boards.

It MIGHT impact posting conversions of other edition products to 4th edition to fan sites... WotC hasn't yet released its fan site rules yet, so we don't know.

It certainly prevents us from doing any official 4th edition conversion stuff on paizo.com, but that's not unexpected at all.

After reading the GSL and the Gleemax terms, I'm crafting a larger tinfoil hat when the fan site policy is released.


gr1bble wrote:
Watcher wrote:
The definition of Product line is admittedly, troubling.
As troubling as it is for 3rd party publishers, it's really the only sensible way WotC could have defined it. Not that it's really any more than a heads-up to discourgae publishers from over-working their legal department - after all, they can just yank the license from a publisher without reason under this license if they really want to...

Which is precisely why they could have defined product line better than whatever they can reasonably declare is part of a product line.

To misquote Sebastian, I believe they were up to doing a better job of defining Product Line if they'd wanted to do so.


Lou wrote:


Not really, dude. Someone may have raised this point already, but according to the GSL Wizards gets to make a reasonable call about what they think is all part of the same product line. And its seems a reasonable argument that everything called Open Design belongs to the same line.

Yeah Lou, but you skimmed over the part about him coming up with a different product line name (different than "Open Design"), with a different logo.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I did point out that he was planning on taking reasonable steps to avoid an obvious trap.

Which Wolfgang also reasserted to Dave, further along in the thread, down from where you replied to me.

Again, I'm not saying that your concern and point isn't valid- just that you didn't take my entire post into account when you said I was wrong. That one should be cautious about doing something does not equate to the fact that it can't be done.

Lou wrote:
That said, I read this as meaning that when I launch or convert to a 4e line, I'm at risk of Wizards declaring my other stuff part of it. Which immediately stops me from making more or selling PDFs of whatever they've declared as part of my 4e line. My recourse would, presumably, be to sue them to get my products un-declared part of the same line. But I'd be shut down (not including print stock already on the shelves) until it was resolved. *shudder*

Again, the point is valid.

Now, I'm not his spokesperson. At best I'm his Patron. As of last night all of this was just under thoughtful consideration. He has stressed that he wants to protect KQ and O.D., and like many other industry people (such as yourself), he needs to sit with this a while and think it through. He might change his mind about it now.

Find his post Lou, and reply to him. That would be an interesting conversation.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Dark Psion wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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.

It's the Bella Sara Live Action Rolepaying Game.

Step 1: Get a horse!

Be sure to enter the code correctly!


Sebastian wrote:
lojakz wrote:

I saw this coming.

Many, many, many months ago I actually posted on a thread here on Paizo that I was afraid of something like this coming about.

Now to dig through the threads and find it.

*Shakes head*

Well, I'm happy Paizo's going the route they are.

Great. Why do I have the feeling I'll be the first person who responded to you in that thread to say "they'd never do something that stupid, put away your tinfoil hat."

Hmmm...crow...yummy...

Because it wouldn't be the first time? :)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Here, can I pass you another helping?

:)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:

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

You know, I can't help but compare Lisa's posts with the attitude behind the GSL. There's such a vast difference between the two, and I think it really speaks volumes about WotC's and Paizo's respective mindsets and philosophies.

All I can say is, long live Paizo, and thanks, Lisa! :-)


Starfury wrote:


You know, I can't help but compare Lisa's posts with the attitude behind the GSL. There's such a vast difference between the two, and I think it really speaks volumes about WotC's and Paizo's respective mindsets and philosophies.

All I can say is, long live Paizo, and thanks, Lisa! :-)

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the 4E devs also had cake (and possibly champagne) when they finally got the books off to the printers.

Bringing the GSL into things is apples to oranges. :)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

David Marks wrote:
Starfury wrote:


You know, I can't help but compare Lisa's posts with the attitude behind the GSL. There's such a vast difference between the two, and I think it really speaks volumes about WotC's and Paizo's respective mindsets and philosophies.

All I can say is, long live Paizo, and thanks, Lisa! :-)

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the 4E devs also had cake (and possibly champagne) when they finally got the books off to the printers.

Bringing the GSL into things is apples to oranges. :)

The cake is a lie.

Taldor

James Jacobs wrote:
The cake is a lie.

Not true! The cake was there!

/Threadjack

Paizo Employee Master of Coin

James Jacobs wrote:

The cake is a lie.

Your vile slandering of the cake is the lie!

...it's the grief counseling that's the real lie.


James Jacobs wrote:


The cake is a lie.

As long as Lisa sprang for the booze, James. As long as the booze wasn't a lie.

Or, are you saying that WOTC's cake was a lie?

Should we institute "Cake for Jacobs Day"?

I don't mine chipping in ten bucks to buy you a cake. Like chocolate?

Andoran

Chris Self wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The cake is a lie.

Your vile slandering of the cake is the lie!

...it's the grief counseling that's the real lie.

At least the offer wasn't, Cake or Death...;)


Robert N. Emerson wrote:
Chris Self wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

The cake is a lie.

Your vile slandering of the cake is the lie!

...it's the grief counseling that's the real lie.

At least the offer wasn't, Cake or Death...;)

Now I want cake. :(

Edit: Cause it beats death!


Lisa Stevens wrote:
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:

You do have the best staff in the business -- professional, incredibly talented, they love RPGs, and (for lack of a better phrase) they love their customers.

Not every company in the industry can lay claim to all those qualities.


Watcher wrote:
Lou wrote:


Not really, dude. Someone may have raised this point already, but according to the GSL Wizards gets to make a reasonable call about what they think is all part of the same product line. And its seems a reasonable argument that everything called Open Design belongs to the same line.

Yeah Lou, but you skimmed over the part about him coming up with a different product line name (different than "Open Design"), with a different logo.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I did point out that he was planning on taking reasonable steps to avoid an obvious trap.

Which Wolfgang also reasserted to Dave, further along in the thread, down from where you replied to me.

Again, I'm not saying that your concern and point isn't valid- just that you didn't take my entire post into account when you said I was wrong. That one should be cautious about doing something does not equate to the fact that it can't be done.

Lou wrote:
That said, I read this as meaning that when I launch or convert to a 4e line, I'm at risk of Wizards declaring my other stuff part of it. Which immediately stops me from making more or selling PDFs of whatever they've declared as part of my 4e line. My recourse would, presumably, be to sue them to get my products un-declared part of the same line. But I'd be shut down (not including print stock already on the shelves) until it was resolved. *shudder*

Again, the point is valid.

Now, I'm not his spokesperson. At best I'm his Patron. As of last night all of this was just under thoughtful consideration. He has stressed that he wants to protect KQ and O.D., and like many other industry people (such as yourself), he needs to sit with this a while and think it through. He might change his mind about it now.

Find his post Lou, and reply to him. That would be an interesting conversation.

Fair enough! That's what I get for skimming. I think old Wolfie has a headache right now, so I'm going to leave him alone for now. Maybe catch him on the WC boards, later. I'd be pooing a brick, myself. What if they decided I'd changed the name and logo just as an attempt to avoid having things declared part of the same line that I knew were part of the same line? Gah. My head hurts.


I'm no legal expert, but if I'm reading this correctly, it allows WotC to retain FULL POWER over their 4th edition rules, including anything that may be produced by 3rd parties.

If you create a class or race they like, and they re-print it in one of their books, YOU are forced to stop printing it (and making money off your own hard work!)

If everyone in the industry agreed to this (and only an idiot would), it would mean every designer is now back to working for WotC...this time for FREE.

I've never seen such a one-sided legal document in my life - even pre-nups aren't this brutal.

If a company starts to become 'too successful' producing 4e products, as far as WotC is concerned, they can 'torpedo' that company by ripping the license out from under them... even when they have already paid for the development of several up-coming products! Do you have any idea what that would do to a smaller company?

The are trying to give themselves the legal right to forcibly bankrupt their competitors!

Just... Wow...

401 to 450 of 807 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.