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

'Future of D&D' article


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

251 to 258 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Tilnar wrote:
And neither is the Hellknight, technically, because it's tied to Golarion -- but I think you're more than splitting hairs at this point. Classes != rules and mechanics.

Well there is also spells from other producers, magic items, whatever. Sure, you can't claim Product Identity for something like "Charge", but as you say, we probably aren't going to see eye-to-eye.

Tilnar wrote:
They could, although, most of them are either keeping their own brands alive, or releasing "generic" D20 system supplements (for instance, Dreamscarred's psionic rules) -- because it allows you to have a wider marketshare than releasing for PF -- especially since the PF brand is part of "product identity" -- just like older supplements couldn't say "D&D Compatible" - they had to say "D20".

Exactly, they are keeping their own brands alive, which is exactly what Paizo would do if 5ed took off. They aren't going back to following WotC around like a lost puppy ever again.

Tilnar wrote:
In any case, you clearly have your view -- and since Mike Mearls own comments, past experiences, etc, etc all lead you to believe that a new OGL 2.0 (for 5e) will lead Paizo to kill 5e from within (despite it making absolutely no sense, either economically or in terms of the larger gaming community) -- then I see little gain in repeating myself since your mind is clearly set on the matter.

Huh? I think you are confusing posters, I just challenged you on the idea that Paizo would go back to just putting out support material for D&D if 5ed was a wild success, I don't see that happening, OGL/GLS or whatever.

Now, I could see WotC being worried about a new company starting out as a 5ed support company, getting popular, and then breaking off with their own 5ed version if the game license was on par with the 3ed OGL. So the fear isn't Paizo exactly but a Paizo like company.

Frankly though, I think they should be more worried about giving another company "Official Content" status, since that is what really hurt them with Paizo. True20, Conan, and the others had minor impacts. But Paizo with its offical content producing status was able to get dedicated D&D groups to stick with them.

So my suggestion to WotC is, to paraphrase William Shatner, "Don't do that." As to the specific license, I imagine it is going to be somewhere between the two. There will probably rules against producing your own version of the specific game system, but a lot more free rein than the GSL otherwise.

Andoran

This line scares me

Quote:


"You don't want a situation where someone comes into a room and says 'Hey guys, I'm playing a Shardmind Seeker' and the response is 'What the hell is that?'" he said. "I know what it is because I worked on it, but it's not even in the Player's Handbook. If you [publish] too much, that shared language, it just evaporates."

Because this is exactly what I like to happen at the table. I want to be surprised and intrigued by what the other players have come up with.

I want the rules to be carefully crafted so that when they do come up with something it isn't broken, but at the same time if you bring something new and interesting to the table (that fits setting) I don't view that as a problem.

I view that as one of the best parts of gaming.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tilnar wrote:
pres man wrote:
Tilnar wrote:
Plus, I would point out that Paizo gives away the rulebooks for free (in fact, they had to, since the product is derived from the OGL) via the PRD -- and they're doing quite well for themselves.
I don't think this is totally correct. There are certain amounts and certain things that have to be open content, but Paizo doesn't have to make all the rules open content. I don't remember the exact percent of a game product that uses the OGL that must be open content, but it is not 100%.

Actually, the division is: rules must remain open while "product identity" stuff (places, artefacts, setting-specific things, etc.) are yours to keep under copyright. Basically, the difference between the PRD and the Core Rulebook, in fact -- the PRD doesn't discuss the gods of Golarion or what domains they offer under Cleric, for instance.

Emphasis mine. That is not correct. There is nothing in the OGL that states you must make new rules Open Content. It only states that you must have a clear declaration of what is Open Content and what is Product Identity. Paizo could have chosen to declare of the material in say, Ultimate Combat or Advanced Players Guide as Product Identity. But they have chosen to keep all of their rules Open Content and only protect their world and art. (See the Product Identity declaration of your nearest Paizo product for exact details.)


deinol wrote:
Tilnar wrote:

Actually, the division is: rules must remain open while "product identity" stuff (places, artefacts, setting-specific things, etc.) are yours to keep under copyright. Basically, the difference between the PRD and the Core Rulebook, in fact -- the PRD doesn't discuss the gods of Golarion or what domains they offer under Cleric, for instance.

Emphasis mine. That is not correct. There is nothing in the OGL that states you must make new rules Open Content. It only states that you must have a clear declaration of what is Open Content and what is Product Identity. Paizo could have chosen to declare of the material in say, Ultimate Combat or Advanced Players Guide as Product Identity. But they have chosen to keep all of their rules Open Content and only protect their world and art. (See the Product Identity declaration of your nearest Paizo product for exact details.)

Actually, there is -- derived content is automatically Open Content. (And rather than argue about it, allow me to quote directly from the Wizards OGL site..)

D20 OGL FAQ wrote:

Q: What is "Open Game Content"?

A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.

Emphasis, obviously, is mine.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
ValmarThe Mad wrote:
So, again, whatever happens with 5e, don't expect to see another OGL come out with it--and that's my (primary) point.
Prepare to be very disappointed. Both Mike Mearls and Monte Cook are 100% behind the OGL, and they don't need anyone to point out how thoroughly WotC was damaged by the GSL. There undoubtedly will be a new OGL, if not simply the old one updated, and once more WotC will prosper! :)

Until Paizo launches its Pathfinder-branded 5e-OGL-based products and takes 50% of WotC's market share...again.

Mearls and Cook can want it all they'd like, but the GSL proves that WotC didn't want to do another OGL (or else they would have)...

If OGL's purpose was to suppress all non-OGL games, then it succeeded--except in doing so it was also responsible for creating the biggest 3.X based OGL competitor to the D&D brand that it's ever seen...'winning the battle and losing the war' comes to mind.

But, again, until the future is here, this is all conjecture.

And, at this point I think we've exhausted the OGL 2.0 argument since there's nothing new to add--until and unless such time as there is...


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

Actually, there is -- derived content is automatically Open Content. (And rather than argue about it, allow me to quote directly from the Wizards OGL site..)

D20 OGL FAQ wrote:

Q: What is "Open Game Content"?

A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.

Emphasis, obviously, is mine.

Interesting. That's not exactly what it says in the OGL, which is the only document that matters if it came to a court case.

OGL wrote:
“Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

Exactly how much you can declare Product Identity is unclear. The Product Identity definition lists many examples, but doesn't limit it to just those. Paizo would certainly be in their rights to declare the entirety of the Hellknight prestige class Product Identity, but it is unclear if they could do that for more generic base classes like Alchemist.

But we don't really need to derail this thread further on the minutiae of the OGL. Paizo is very generous in declaring Open Content and we can all be thankful for that.


deinol wrote:

Interesting. That's not exactly what it says in the OGL, which is the only document that matters if it came to a court case.

OGL wrote:
“Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.
Exactly how much you can declare Product Identity is unclear. The Product Identity definition lists many examples, but doesn't limit it to just those. Paizo would certainly be in their rights to declare the entirety of the Hellknight prestige class Product Identity, but it is unclear if they could do that for more generic base classes like Alchemist.

See, I would have highlighted the other half of that part of the OGL, since that's the whole "new stuff becomes open content" thing --- but you're right, people can (and do) put a lot into the "Product Identity" clause (and likely abuse it) -- however, the intent of the rule is what I was saying (since it was based off a similar document referring to computer software which I am quite familiar with)

deinol wrote:
But we don't really need to derail this thread further on the minutiae of the OGL. Paizo is very generous in declaring Open Content and we can all be thankful for that.

Indeed.

251 to 258 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / 'Future of D&D' article 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.