| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why did the now defunct PF Online change the rules?
Because the OGL doesn't apply to video games, is my understanding. They can't make a video game based on the underlying 3.x d20 mechanic that belongs to WotC.
Why did the now defunct PF Online change the rules?Because the OGL doesn't apply to video games, is my understanding. They can't make a video game based on the underlying 3.x d20 mechanic that belongs to WotC.
Bingo.
Although Pathfinder is both immensely popular and has not been out about as long as both 3.0 and 3.5 combined (and longer than 4th), it operates under the 3.0 Open Game License, which permits third party publishers to produce tabletop game content for 3rd edition D&D. Wizards of the Coast still retain full ownership of 3rd edition D&D, which Pathfinder is a 3rd party product of, and thus Paizo cannot use the 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder ruleset for anything except a tabletop roleplay game.
TL;DR: Lawyers.
Why did the now defunct PF Online change the rules?Because the OGL doesn't apply to video games, is my understanding. They can't make a video game based on the underlying 3.x d20 mechanic that belongs to WotC.Bingo.
Although Pathfinder is both immensely popular and has not been out about as long as both 3.0 and 3.5 combined (and longer than 4th), it operates under the 3.0 Open Game License, which permits third party publishers to produce tabletop game content for 3rd edition D&D. Wizards of the Coast still retain full ownership of 3rd edition D&D, which Pathfinder is a 3rd party product of, and thus Paizo cannot use the 3.0, 3.5 or Pathfinder ruleset for anything except a tabletop roleplay game.
TL;DR: Lawyers.
I think it's slightly more specific than that; the reason why Pathfinder Battles minis have many creature names changed is because using the OGL version of their names would require printing the OGL on the mini itself. So clearly it's more than just tabletop RPGs that are permitted.
I think there's some language somewhere directly reserving rights to produce video games. But... I could be misremembering.
|
I'm too lazy to go look, and it's late, but I remember Vic posting about this at one saying, saying that the problem is that it's gray area, legally speaking. A company might spend a bajillion dollars making a game and when they're ready to release, in swoops Hasbro with a big, fat lawsuit. Or maybe not. What Hasbro/WotC would do is not something that can be predicted, so it turns into a hugely risky thing that could potentially bankrupt a developer.
-Skeld
That's weird. If that is the case you shouldn't be able to create third party stuff for the Pathfinder RPG, as that requires using the Pathfinder Compatibility License along with the OGL. Or am I missing something here?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one of the times when Ryan explained the OGL issues:
The problem with the OGL is not that it excludes all electronic games from being created. There is no such limitation in the OGL.
The problem with the OGL is that is has an exclusionary license. By that I mean that Open Game Content can only be licensed with the OGL, and cannot be encumbered by any other terms.
That causes several problems.
First, most computer software is derived by combining lots of code together and that code all has licenses which describe how those combinations are made legal and which bind the recipients of the final software to certain terms and conditions. All of that would be incompatible with the OGL. That means that a piece of software either has to be written from scratch so that there are no entangling licenses, or it has to be structured in such a way that the Open Game Content used with that software is wholly separate from the other licenses which encumber the code. In practice that means that OGL licensed software is practically, but not legally, impossible outside of a very narrow range of utilities.
Second, most commercial computer software is licensed to end users, not sold. Those licenses carry all sorts of restrictions against copying, disassembly, etc. Even "Open Source" licenses like the GPL have terms which are binding on the recipients to protect the integrity of the "copyleft" mechanisms that they use to license the copyrights embodied in the work. All of those licenses are incompatible with the OGL.
Third, MMOs in particular also require terms of service which prohibit all sorts of activities like harassment, cheating, reverse engineering the protocols used to communicate between client and server, disrupting the server, failing to pay for subscriptions, etc. None of those terms would be compatible with the OGL.
This makes it both practically and legally impossible to make an MMO that uses Open Game Content. Which means that we cannot make Pathfinder Online use the D20 game system used in the Pathfinder Tabletop RPG...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To expand upon Vic and Ryan: OGL and PCL are attached to very different (legally) items. OGL encompasses expressions of rules, terms, names etc. while PCL encompasses 'the product'.
When you apply PCL, you don't actually (from legal POV) touch the OGL content, you merely gain the right to declare it as Pathfinder compatible. You're not attaching the PCL to the content, there's no legal link arising at any rate. By the way, pint of beer to whoever wrote the PCL to make it super clear that it doesn't bump into the OGL. Some serious legal drafting ninja skills there, doubly so because PCL is written in a moderately humane legalese (unlike, say, the infamous 4E GSL which I am pretty sure was purposefully written in hardcore legalese).
Whereas in a video game, where say, a sound bank license was to be applied by means of attaching a specific licensed burping sound to the OGL-covered entity 'Hezrou Demon', it's a tangle. And nobody will clear this tangle for except WotC (which it won't do) or the court during an IP breach lawsuit filled by WotC (which you very much don't want to happen, doubly so if your name is Paizo and you're WotC's biggest competitor). So you avoid the landmine and don't touch the OGL.
Tangentially, that's why Pathfinder Tales books also avoid OGL terminology. The OGL isn't super clear on how sits with non-game-product-fiction, so it's best avoided there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas in a video game, where say,
[.sarcasm]What is this legal mumbo jumbo - are you casting spells at me! Get out of here with that lawyer gobbledygook.[./sarcasm]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Gorbacz, that makes it clear(er).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is true, however, there are certain things which OGL or not, cannot be bound by an OGL lest they decide to sue the entirety of the world.
Generating random numbers from 1 o 20 is something that is basically open.
Stats that number from 1 to 20 or 30 or whatever, is basically open game.
Naming conventions, the precise manner of AC to Attack bonuses, rules on how D20 and skills work...those are terms and things that would fall under OGL, but should be easily adaptable in a computer game to mean something similar but be different. Utilizing things that cannot be claimed under rights or patents you should be able to replicate something at least recognizable as PF.
I think you could keep many of the same dynamics and how things operate due to the freely available items which NO ONE can currently claim rights to (and would lose in court) without going so far off to wild different rules land as the now defunct PF MMORPG did.
Otherwise, Hasbro or GW would have sued the pants off Blizzard's WoW and Diablo and won a gazillion billion dollars at this point...which they haven't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you can try to skirt it. But then WotC sues you for 100m USD in damages. Your lawyer asks for a modest 1% fee up front, which amounts to 1m. And like that, you're bankrupt. You might win the case, but you just ruined your company. Can Paizo eat up one million USD in legal fees? I doubt that.
Litigation in United States is not about Law, Truth or Justice. It's a business tool, and you're up against the might of Hasbro. You don't take chances.
And the reason many high profile lawsuits don't happen isn't because the law is clear or somebody is objectively and undeniably right. It's because the ROI on the lawsuit would be crap. Sure, WotC could have maybe sued Blizzard over those funky one-eyed monsters but both sides would eat up legal fees without blinking and it's not entirely sure if the judge would rule in WotC's favour, so why bother if you can't ruin the target by means of legal fees? What is your net gain?
And to make something clear: the current available assets of entire Hasbro are at 4.36 bn USD, for ActiBlizzard it's 15.25 bn USD. Who has more ammunition for a legal war?
|
|
Personally, I still think that a tabletop RPG and an MMORPG have different needs, especially in areas like the speed and frequency of combat encounters, and the duration of downtime for healing and resource recovery.
Set the MMO in the same world as the pen and paper game? Sure. Explore some of the same themes? No problem. Operate the two games under the same rules? Not so much.
I suspect that the guiding principle of "Nonconsensual PVP is always a possibility - your character is never 100% safe from other players," deterred more potential players than the differences between the game mechanics.
By the way, the servers are still running. Development is still proceeding (very, very slowly). PFO may be dying, but it's not defunct yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I still think that a tabletop RPG and an MMORPG have different needs, especially in areas like the speed and frequency of combat encounters, and the duration of downtime for healing and resource recovery.
Set the MMO in the same world as the pen and paper game? Sure. Explore some of the same themes? No problem. Operate the two games under the same rules? Not so much.
Interestingly, one of my favourite MMOs, Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited largely did just that. A lot got adapted and tweaked, and they came up with a nifty talent point system to slow down leveling... but all told it is a lot of fun.
That said, probably the most irritating things are the ones closest to the original game, and the most enjoyable when they took a lot more license with the design.
I suspect that the guiding principle of "Nonconsensual PVP is always a possibility - your character is never 100% safe from other players," deterred more potential players than the differences between the game mechanics.
+1
Ability to make lasting changes in the game world? Awesome!
Enabling of jerklike behaviour? Not so awesome.
Some people like games where you are forced to always watch over your shoulder just in case there's a high level enemy player looking to gank you. I do not. I don't mind PvP (I did a ton of it in WoW), but I prefer to keep it out of my leveling/mining/crafting time.
Sure, you can try to skirt it. But then WotC sues you for 100m USD in damages. Your lawyer asks for a modest 1% fee up front, which amounts to 1m. And like that, you're bankrupt. You might win the case, but you just ruined your company. Can Paizo eat up one million USD in legal fees? I doubt that.
Litigation in United States is not about Law, Truth or Justice. It's a business tool, and you're up against the might of Hasbro. You don't take chances.
And the reason many high profile lawsuits don't happen isn't because the law is clear or somebody is objectively and undeniably right. It's because the ROI on the lawsuit would be crap. Sure, WotC could have maybe sued Blizzard over those funky one-eyed monsters but both sides would eat up legal fees without blinking and it's not entirely sure if the judge would rule in WotC's favour, so why bother if you can't ruin the target by means of legal fees? What is your net gain?
And to make something clear: the current available assets of entire Hasbro are at 4.36 bn USD, for ActiBlizzard it's 15.25 bn USD. Who has more ammunition for a legal war?
That's actually EASY to counter if you win the case. In most cases, if you have an effective lawyer in these types of situations, you can counter against them for all legal fees. As long as you win, you won't pay that 1M, they will.
That's actually, not really even a consideration if you think you have a good case. Hasbro won't sue typically on a lawsuit that they will lose or is considered frivolous, as that actually detracts from their brand name.
The blizzard/Hasbro/GW thing was simply an example. Furthermore, Hasbro does not want to OPEN ITSELF up to lawsuits. If it were to sue Paizo for something, let's say...random number generation from 1-20, and actually won that case...they'd have just opened themselves for litigation by half the computer programming companies around the world.
A litigation they would most likely LOSE since D&D did NOT pre-exist math nor the first computers. It's a lawsuit Hasbro would not only not want to bring up (most likely because they'd lose anyways), but in addition, it would cause more problems than it would solve.
Easy things that are accepted in the public domain, normally isn't something a reputable business is going to try to stake out. Now, one of those patent hunting legal companies...maybe...but we are talking about Hasbro...not those patent trolls.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's actually EASY to counter if you win the case. In most cases, if you have an effective lawyer in these types of situations, you can counter against them for all legal fees. As long as you win, you won't pay that 1M, they will.
You need to win first. And before you win, you need to pay up front. Sure, you might get your money back. But it doesn't change the fact that your small company needs to pony up 1m USD. Which I doubt is money that Paizo has idly laying on their account.
Honestly, all WotC needs is a lawsuit that is not manifestly unfounded and gets thrown away right at the start. That's all they need to drive Paizo into the ground. So what Paizo doesn't want is to get anywhere close to such possibility. Making a game that's "not OGL but very similar say there's Base Attack Bonus but it's not *that* Base Attack Bonus so uh, I think we're good here" is not safe territory, that's playing with fire.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Why not make a MMORPG that will follow the PFRPGD20 rules by the book? Yest the death rate would be high but it would be fun. Why did the now defunct PF Online change the rules? I think a by the book Pathfinder Online would rule.
First, Pathfinder Online is not defunct. It's still not complete, and the staff is very small, but they've been pushing out updates (including new content) regularly. But things are about to get a lot better—you can expect a major announcement in the near future.
But to your main point, OGL issues aside, an MMO that uses the tabletop rules exactly as they are would be a terrible game. Here are just a few of the reasons:
• Pathfinder RPG encounters are turn-based, and those turns usually happen much more slowly than real time. An MMO where you had to wait for everyone else in the encounter to take actions before you declare your own would be a whole lot of no fun.
• Pathfinder RPG has a level cap. Depending on how much you play, it might take you a year to level a tabletop character from 1 to 20. But let's assume that we manage to solve the problem outlined in the above bullet point, and manage to make encounters happen in something approaching real time. Dedicated players might then be able to get through the number of encounters needed to level a character from 1 to 20 in a matter of days, if not hours. And then there's no more advancement. End of fun.
• Pathfinder RPG's leveling system provides too broad a power range. If a 1st-level newbie were to face a 20th-level veteran, the veteran would win almost every time (unless the veteran rolled terribly several times in a row while the newbie rolled a bunch of consecutive 20s.) The result of this? First one to the top wins—anyone late to the game need not apply.
MMOs and tabletop games just have different needs. What's good for one isn't necessarily good for the other.