Sales here at Paizo blow sales at RPGNow and DriveThruRPG combined out of the water, and I get 10% more of the cover price. I'm more than happy with that arrangement. ;)
I'll just quote that, and for myself say we are very happy with our business relationship with Paizo, both as the custodians of Pathfinder, and as a sales venue.
I'll give that a +1.
As one of said 3PP, I don't mind that. A good chunk of our income is through sales here at the Paizo site, and their cut is better than any of the other sites... And I don't have to deal with customer service issues on those orders like I do for orders at my own store. I'm project manager, customer service, web developer, content editor, content creator, technical support, and publisher all rolled into one. Letting Paizo handle part of that for a good chunk of our sales frees up a significant amount of time for me to work on getting quality books out to the public.
Sales here at Paizo blow sales at RPGNow and DriveThruRPG combined out of the water, and I get 10% more of the cover price. I'm more than happy with that arrangement. ;)
Yes, yes and yes. To all of that. :D
Chief Technical Officer
|
Does anyone even create 3PP product for 4E? I think Goodman Games was at one time but I'm sure they will stop once their own RPG is out. I can't even think of any other 3PP for 4E material.
You can find the 4E product section at paizo.com right here. It currently includes 264 products. 100 are from Wizards of the Coast, 21 are officially licensed D&D accessories, 143 are 3PP GSL and non-GSL print and PDF products and accessories offered through Alliance or consigned directly with us. (There are other 4E products on the market that we don't carry.)
Sales here at Paizo blow sales at RPGNow and DriveThruRPG combined out of the water, and I get 10% more of the cover price. I'm more than happy with that arrangement. ;)I'll just quote that, and for myself say we are very happy with our business relationship with Paizo, both as the custodians of Pathfinder, and as a sales venue.
And I'll quote you both. There's a reason why Pathfinder 3PP support is as strong as it is.
@ ENHenry:"Tea Party with Adolf Hitler"...lol.
When you guys say "tea party", do you mean the same as I do? Because I hear Americans sometimes have weird notions about tea parties, and your profiles don't list a nationality so I can't know whether you are Americans or not.
It's kinda like in high school, WOTC is the kid that has a core group of friends but doesn't appreciate them because he wants to make cool, NEW friends. So, he decides to neglect his old friends and distance himself from them to pursue these new friends. But young WOTC tries too hard to make them like him, and doesn't really succeed.So, then young WOTC decides to go back to his old friends and act like nothing happened. But, his old friends are now offended and angry because he ignored them to chase after new friends. So, poor young WOTC doesn't have many new friends and his old friends don't like him anymore.
You forgot the racial jokes wotc made about his old friends. When thy got angry, wotc refused to comment at all. No "that wasn't meant to be a racial joke, I misspoke" or anything.
(Troll is a race)
Lol, tea party in this case means sitting down with Hitler the BBEG and having hot water with dead leaves in it.
Sad but true, WOTC the company is definitely not friendly in any sense of the word.
The OGL was dropped because of the book of erotic fantasy? Was that really one of the stated reasons?No, the OGL was dropped for many reasons. Mostly because the WotC management changed and no longer considered 3PP essential to the promotion of their brand.They never stated that outright. They said they want to insure that 3PP produce products that were up their standards of decency, making the game non-OGL a necessity. Fan outcry made them do something so the anti-OGL crowd agreed to the GSL. The only d20 product that did not meet WotC's decency standards was ... the Book of Erotic Fantasy. More than anything it was the anti-OGL's excuse to do what they wanted to do. While they never said it outright, it was hinted at enough to be more than obvious that it was their excuse.
I think had the writers not used actual photographs of real nudes in the Book of Erotic Fantasy it might have gone over a bit better. The content wasn't too off the wall compared to The Book of Vile Darkness IMO, but real photographs really put it over the edge, especially the picture of the hermaphrodite god/goddess.
Those 3PP who generated products for 3.x and now the Pathfinder RPG, is there a difference in how the two companies treat you and/or your products?
Well, I guess I'm not officially a producer of support products for Pathfinder yet, but I sure am close :) Legendary Games will be releasing stuff in the next few weeks.
That said, as one of the first 3Ps for 3E, the difference is night and day. Just look at this message board.
The first few GenCons I bugged Wizards to do a promo poster with some of the logos of the various 3Ps to help support us and we in turn support them. But even then, though Ryan Dancey's vision was 3P support, there were grumblers at WotC about super-successful products like the Creature Collection. They NEVER helped cross-promote us--let alone kept a message board that was the central location for 3P discussion. Here, the real Pathfinder 3P discussion happens on these boards, with full support and even promotion by Paizo. Lisa gets on here and pimps new products by 3Ps. That is amazing. We were never embraced by WotC at all. We were considered the unfortunate side effect of Ryan's open game vision, the detritus of the game, those who did the things WotC didn't care to do, a example of economies of scale--let them do adventures, they aren't profitable anyway! they said.
Rarely, if ever, did we interact with people from Wizards. Except for a couple cool friends I had there in the beginning, no one there cared. The 3P community was ENworld, without any doubt. Now its Paizo.com for Pathfinder. Paizo embraces its 3P supporters.
With Paizo it is the opposite. They ALL care. They ALL get it. Games are supported by gamers. So it makes sense to have a vibrant, enthusiastic community of gamers. And 3Ps fill the need for gamers who want some variant that it doesnt make sense for Paizo to make, but that one of us can do and fill that need. Its like the modding community. Its an amazing comment about the kind of people at Paizo and the commitment they have to gamers, not just to selling stuff to gamers. And that, right there, is the difference.
Clark
Awwww, thanks Clark! <sniff> See you at Paizocon!
-Lisa
Wow Lisa you are good -- most people get upset when you pimp them out, and here Clark is saying what a great thing it is for you to pimp for him.
That's like epic level of pimping I think.
|
Awwww, thanks Clark! <sniff> See you at Paizocon!
-Lisa
Wow Lisa you are good -- most people get upset when you pimp them out, and here Clark is saying what a great thing it is for you to pimp for him.
That's like epic level of pimping I think.
Well he's a demon lord of course he is all for pimping, just normally he is the one doing the pimping. :)
|
Every time I see threads like these I subconsciously associate Paizo with Andoran and Wotc with Cheliax (Taldor might fit better actually).
The young upstart country (company) striving to stand up for the little guy (3pp) and righting wrongs of the older, established empire (conglomerate) who is just out for profit (and also Satan worship, since we dont have any "if your child plays Pathfinder-specific 'I cant live without Lidda comics').
Am I the only one who feels that way?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Every time I see threads like these I subconsciously associate Paizo with Andoran and Wotc with Cheliax (Taldor might fit better actually).
The young upstart country (company) striving to stand up for the little guy (3pp) and righting wrongs of the older, established empire (conglomerate) who is just out for profit (and also Satan worship, since we dont have any "if your child plays Pathfinder-specific 'I cant live without Lidda comics').
Am I the only one who feels that way?
Taldor/Cheliax(before the rise of Thrune) might be the better analogy. Colony spinning off from its declining parent taking other holdings with it.
Taldor also fits the WotC model one other way. They still can turn it around.
(Trying to write this in a non-bashing-WotC way. It just seems like they are flailing with the D&D property now. might be my PoV is skewed.)
We are also very happy with Pazio!
There are some design philosophies that I don't mind (and very much like) in fourth edition -- I can't same I'm as ecstatic about the execution of those philosophies, but many of the basic ideas, and premises aren't bad. The problem comes strictly down to their method of dealing with the public -- every time Wizard's opens its mouth it makes it sound like the public owes it something, that we are somehow offending them, and that if we were simply just a bit less stupid we would see things from their point of view. Compounded by the fact they tend to act like a big company just looking for a profit at the expense of the customer and developer alike (another wave of lay offs every holiday season for example) simply hurts their corporate image more.
Even taking bias into account or the adage, 'you can't please them all' doesn't mean you go out with the idea to offend in the first place -- you still have to try, even if you don't think that it's going to get you very far to do so.
Those 3PP who generated products for 3.x and now the Pathfinder RPG, is there a difference in how the two companies treat you and/or your products?
Well, another problem I heard about (can't give examples) was that many fly by night publishers made 3PP stuff, but only passingly read the OGL, so they broke many of the rules. Only a handful of companies actually followed the OGL to the letter, and you can kinda tell who did in that they are still around. (I'm sure many of you that are 3PP publishers that did/do follow the rules heard of some of those that didn't)
So, from what I was told, this also contributed to the fall of the OGL in WotC's eyes.
There are some design philosophies that I don't mind (and very much like) in fourth edition -- I can't same I'm as ecstatic about the execution of those philosophies, but many of the basic ideas, and premises aren't bad. The problem comes strictly down to their method of dealing with the public -- every time Wizard's opens its mouth it makes it sound like the public owes it something, that we are somehow offending them, and that if we were simply just a bit less stupid we would see things from their point of view. Compounded by the fact they tend to act like a big company just looking for a profit at the expense of the customer and developer alike (another wave of lay offs every holiday season for example) simply hurts their corporate image more.
Even taking bias into account or the adage, 'you can't please them all' doesn't mean you go out with the idea to offend in the first place -- you still have to try, even if you don't think that it's going to get you very far to do so.
The problem I see with 4e (and I admit I've not played it, only spent an hour reading through the core book...omg all the classes MISSING from the core book that were in the core in 3.x... highway robbery making us buy extra books for Druid and Ranger!) is that in a lot of ways it reads like they want to cater to the World of Warcraft "Durh I like PvP! Arrpee sucks!" crowd, trying and failing to get them to try out RP. D&D has always been about the party composition to an extent, but it just seems D&D 4e tells you "Ok, make sure you have a tank, a healer, and 3 dps ready before you enter the dungeon"
Did someone call me? Hello?
Those 3PP who generated products for 3.x and now the Pathfinder RPG, is there a difference in how the two companies treat you and/or your products?Well, another problem I heard about (can't give examples) was that many fly by night publishers made 3PP stuff, but only passingly read the OGL, so they broke many of the rules. Only a handful of companies actually followed the OGL to the letter, and you can kinda tell who did in that they are still around. (I'm sure many of you that are 3PP publishers that did/do follow the rules heard of some of those that didn't)
So, from what I was told, this also contributed to the fall of the OGL in WotC's eyes.
I think you're thinking of the d20 system license, rather than the OGL.
The OGL is extremely broad in scope in what it can do and how you can use it.
The d20 System License, however, was significantly stricter in what you could and could not do, and people producing a variety of glut under the d20 license contributed to a devaluation of said license.
I'm of the opinion that the broad nature of the OGL is why WotC stopped using it, rather than the quality of material. I believe the quality of material is why the d20 System License -> GSL became more severe in terms.
I think you're thinking of the d20 system license, rather than the OGL.
The OGL is extremely broad in scope in what it can do and how you can use it.
The d20 System License, however, was significantly stricter in what you could and could not do, and people producing a variety of glut under the d20 license contributed to a devaluation of said license.
I'm of the opinion that the broad nature of the OGL is why WotC stopped using it, rather than the quality of material. I believe the quality of material is why the d20 System License -> GSL became more severe in terms.
Close but not quite.
The real problem was the decreasing value of the d20 logo and thus the declining incentive to use the d20 logo and d20 STL. As 3E went on to 3.5, by that time many people were just using the OGL and not the d20 STL, which is the license that had all the restrictions.
The problem is WotC did little (if anyting) to create the value of the d20 logo.
Basically, people wanted to support D&D and get a license to say "compatible with D&D." Wizards didn't permit that. INSTEAD they added an intermediate layer--the d20 logo and license, which kind of says "the rules system from D&D". But the more they diluted that, the less connection between d20 and D&D existed, the less value it had to be associated with that logo.
Couple that with the fact that outside of a few key people (Ryan, etc) WotC didn't even understand their own license. For example, their total butchery of their attempt to use the OGL in MM2 showed that they didn't really have any clue what they were doing with their own license.
It wasnt that people produced lots of d20 stuff, the problem was that WotC failed to make and preserve the concept that "d20=D&D" and thus the value of the association with the logo (and thus the need to use that license) went away. Smart people said, "why use a license (the d20 STL) that they can change at will and that is restrictive when we get nothing (or so little it is essentially nothing) from using the license which permits us to use the logo."
When 4E and the GSL debacle came about, I wrote an open letter to WotC. One of my many suggestions (and I even drafted the various licenses I proposed for them), was that they release 4E under the OGL, but have a "compatible with D&D" license that contained their strict rules (with mods) from the old d20 STL. That is what everyone wanted in the first place--the ability to say "compatible with D&D".
Note, Paizo did it right (as always). They didnt issue some silly intermediary logo. They made the Pathfinder license where you got to say your stuff is compatible. Perfect. Exactly how it should be done.
In fact, I've never posted this before anywhere. Here is my open letter I wrote to Scott Rouse at Wizards of the Coast as a follow up to an earlier letter I had sent him:
Open Letter to Scott Rouse and Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Re: 4th Edition D&D and the OGL
March 22, 2008
Scott,
I know you are working hard finalizing the GSL while juggling the many responsibilities you have for the launch of 4th Edition. If I may be so bold, I have a suggestion—a suggestion that I believe is a perfect solution to many of the issues you may be facing regarding the GSL.
My suggestion is simply this: Release 4th Edition D&D under the current OGL, but with a new Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License, instead of the d20STL.
In keeping with my suggestion, which I outline and explain in greater detail below, I have taken the liberty of amending the d20STL and creating the very documents that I propose you use: (1) a Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License v1.0, (2) a Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide, and (3) a Dungeons and Dragons Product Identity Agreement. Please find those documents attached to this letter. Please note that the attached documents have “track changes” turned on so that you can see the exact changes I have made with comments. [I haven't posted those here]
In the event that you feel it will not be possible to approve these documents in time to allow crucial third party support for 4th Edition, I would be happy to help you draft a proposed 4th Edition Gentleperson’s Agreement that would serve to allow third party publishers to support 4th Edition while the final license details are completed.
Let me highlight for you a number of the key changes I made in these documents (and in one case a key thing I left alone) and explain why I made them and why I believe adopting them is the best course of action.
• There is no need to revise the OGL
The OGL v1.0a does not need to be changed. It does exactly what you want it to do: it allows you to release Open Game Content to us, and it allows us to make products with it.
It also has the benefit of familiarity. It has been in use for years. It is simple, and well understood by the various publishers. No need to change what people already know how to use.
Further, it allows the use of Open Game Content, and it makes no restriction on where that OGC comes from, whether it be from the old 3E SRD or from the new 4E SRD. And it allows said OGC to be used in the same product, in that it doesn’t disallow such use. I think that is the biggest hurdle facing a 4E OGL/GSL—dealing with products that want to use open content from both SRDs. The current OGL would allow it, which is in and of itself a reason to keep it.
Additionally, the OGL is basically irrevocable. In my view it is a mistake to merge the terms of the STL into an irrevocable GSL: either you will have to make the GSL irrevocable, which gives up control, or you would have to make it revocable, which would be a bad PR move and would be something that would give people pause. The better idea is to keep two separate licenses—the OGL, and the “other license” that has your restrictions that you want in it and that is revocable and that you can change at will.
That brings me to my big point—the problem isn’t the OGL, the problem is the d20 STL. Here is why and how you change it.
• Change the d20STL to the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License”
I understand the recently stated desire to add certain controls into the GSL by merging some of the terms from the d20 STL into the OGL. My guess is the thinking behind merging the OGL and the STL is to force the acceptance of some of the limitations found in the STL into the OGL because people were making OGL-only products and not using the STL. But, as I’ve said, the problem there wasn’t the OGL. Let me explain.
The reason why the d20 STL did not continue to be used by the publishers, and thus those controls were avoided, is that “d20 did not mean D&D.” It did at first. But over time, that connection was watered down. The d20 logo as a brand and a symbol lost its value. Initially, the idea was that everyone would want the d20 license because that let people use the d20 logo, which was on the D&D books and at first had a clear link to D&D. What publishers really wanted to do was say “compatible with D&D,” but the licenses didn’t allow that and the d20 logo was the next best thing. As a result, things like standards were tied to the d20 STL because it was presumed that was the thing publishers couldn’t live without. But that didn’t prove to be true. In the end, that d20 logo didn’t just mean D&D anymore. So as the value of the d20 logo declined, so too did the need to use the d20 STL. All of a sudden, we could do D&D products without the d20 STL and just with the OGL. Once that happened, there were no longer any restrictions. But had the d20 logo had more value we would have had no choice but to accept them since we would have needed the d20 logo.
Solution: license the Dungeons and Dragons name and logo and let us say “compatible with Dungeons and Dragons” or “for use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” That license should contain the content restrictions. That license should be separate from the OGL and should be revocable and changeable by you at your whim, like the STL.
I have made some basic modifications to the d20 STL and have created the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License v.1.0,” (“DDTL”). Here are a few of the changes:
I kept the “License” and “Guide” format, which incorporates the content from the Guide into the trademark license and allows you to make changes you need to make. The DDTL lets you use the D&D logos, the Guide tells you what you have to do and contains the restrictions. See below for more on changes to the Guide.
I deleted reference to the d20 Modern game, because this license is about promoting D&D.
Each license—the d20 STL and the DDTL—are independent and independently useful. You can’t use the d20 logo without using the d20 STL and you cant use the D&D logo without using the DDTL.
The DDTL can be used with the d20 STL if someone wants. One doesn’t supersede the other. I also suggest that you leave the d20 STL and Guide in place so people can keep making Third Edition products. At this point, they can whether you do or not so you might as well.
• Change the d20 System Trademark Guide to the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide”
The Guide is a flexible way for you to make changes to the content controls that you want in any products that will use the D&D logo. Most of the changes come here, in the Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide (“D&D Guide”). Here are the changes in my proposed version of the new D&D Guide:
I deleted references to the d20 STL and logo, as those are still covered by the d20 STL which continues to be valid.
I deleted references to d20 Modern and other games and settings, as this is about supporting D&D. Plus, those references are still in the d20 STL and people would want to use that license with those games.
I tied the license to OGL v1.0a or later, so that an earlier version cannot be used. I did this just to clarify things in the event an updated version of the OGL is ever introduced.
I deleted all the “defined game terms.” Those restrictions for a d20 license made sense when the point is to support a core game system and to have similarity among game systems, because the d20 system means a certain thing. However, you are no longer licensing d20 with this license, you are licensing Fourth Edition D&D. So none of those terms need be in the license, and frankly the 4E definition of many of those terms is different from the 3E versions and would cause conflict.
I kept the restriction of describing character creation and describing applying the effects of experience. In my view this was valid restriction in the d20 STL and it is an even more valid restriction now. This was one of the key restrictions that drove people to abandon the d20 STL. It will also make people who want to use the license to make alternate game systems abandon this license—which, in my view, is exactly what you want to happen. You don’t want people to make alternate games like Mutants and Masterminds to have the D&D logo on those products.
I deleted the “you may not change the definition of a defined game term” restriction, as the game terms were deleted. Again, the d20 STL had those terms to make sure all d20 games are consistent. That isn’t the point of this license anymore. This license exists to support D&D.
I added a new term that “A minimum of fifty percent (50%) or more (word count or letter count) of the Open Game Content used in a Covered Product must be from the Fourth Edition System Reference Document (“4ESRD”).” The reason I added this is because the logo we are licensing is the Fourth Edition D&D logo. You want to make sure that the majority of the open content used in your product comes from the 4E SRD.
I changed the mandatory trademark usage to allow publishers to say “compatible with” or “for use with Dungeons and Dragons,” which will solidify the value of this license and prevent the problem that plagued the d20 logo insofar as that license failed because d20 did not properly equate to D&D.
I changed the text block requirement to delete the maximum size. I never understood why Wizards didn’t want us putting in as big of words as possible that our product required the use of its core books.
I permitted users to reference other works by Wizards of the Coast by name and page number, and I also required that any such titles of works be included in the legal disclaimer text block indicating that such titles are used with permission and are owned by Wizards. It was always silly that we couldn’t refer to a specific page of a core rule book.
• Suggestions for the 4E SRD
My suggestion is that the 4E SRD be a text file for each book and that for the most part the entire book be open. I see no reason why Wizards should provide, for free, pre-typed versions of all the books. Plus, the process of stripping the content seems to be far too time consuming and in my view was one of the reasons why subsequent products were not released in the SRD. Using this approach would allow all subsequent books to be added to the 4E SRD. It is foolish, in my view, to let us support 4E but not let us help you sell the splat books for that edition. Further, if you want, you could include a list of “Product Identity” for each book.
Here is how I would do it. I would simply do an open game content designation for the book as if you were using the OGL, complete with a designation of Product Identity. It is literally that easy. This, then, would be the 4E SRD entry for the Player’s Handbook:
Player’s Handbook
All written rule-related game content within this book — excluding any text on the inside or outside of the front or back cover or on the Credits page and further excluding content related to character creation and to applying the effects of experience to a character, as defined in the Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License, v1.0 — is hereby designated as Open Game Content, subject to the Product Identity designation below, including by not limited to all races, classes, monsters, templates, spells, feats, powers, mundane items, magic items, deities, divine powers, [and all other stuff you want to add] and including the proper names of any such new content and related stat blocks but not any text descriptions other than that which contains game-related information is hereby contributed as new Open Game Content.
Inadvertent Inclusion or Failure of Designation: Any inadvertent inclusion of content in this product which is otherwise not Open Game Content shall not cause such content to become Open Game Content by virtue of its inadvertent inclusion here.
Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity as provided in section 1(e) of the Open Game License:
Any and all material or content that could be claimed as Product Identity pursuant to section 1(e), below, is hereby claimed as product identity, including but not limited to:
1. The name “Wizards of the Coast” as well as all logos and identifying marks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., including but not limited to the Wizards logo and the phrase “XXX” as well as the trade dress of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., products;
2. Any and all Wizards of the Coast, Inc., product names, including but not limited to Player’s Handbook, [list any other names];
3. All artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, illustration, graphic design, maps, and cartography, including any text contained within such items;
4. The names, personality, descriptions and/or motivations of all artifacts, creatures, characters, spells, enchantments, powers, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities, places, locations, environments, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, gods, races, countries, cities, city states, political or geographic features, historic events, groups, feats, spells, skills, organizations, items, monsters, planes or deities in this book as well as the name of any other thing originating from other Wizards of the Coast, Inc., products, but not their stat blocks or other game mechanic descriptions (if any);
5. All stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements;
6. Any other content previously designated as Product Identity is hereby designated as Product Identity and is used with permission and/or pursuant to license.
Literally, there is your 4E SRD entry for the Player’s Handbook. Of course, I would be more specific if I actually had reviewed the book. Note that I exclude from open content any character creation information as well as describing the effects of applying experience, which ties into the D&D Trademark Guide restriction.
• Add a Product Identity License Agreement
Then, in addition to the above, allow Product Identity to be used. My attached Product Identity License Agreement allows people who use the D&DTL (and only those who use the D&DTL) to use some of the key D&D PI, such as beholders and githyanki and mind flayers and the new gods, etc. Now more than ever, the core D&D books include and are tied to certain setting concepts. If you do not allow us to support those things, you fragment the market drastically and force rather transparent work-arounds that serve little purpose other than to annoy the readers. In my proposed PI License, I provide further notes on the reasons behind such a license.
• Conclusion
I hope I haven’t overstepped my bounds in taking the liberty of drafting these simple changes and submitting these solutions. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help in this process.
Sincerely,
Clark Peterson
President
Necromancer Games, Inc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sent a letter to Scott at Wizards in about September of the year before (2007). It predicted many of the coming problems. Unfortunately, I only have a saved draft of the letter (and the file date on the file is 9/9/07). This is not the final letter. But it is of historical value, so I post it here (again, for the first time anywhere):
Scott,
I appreciate you talking with me the other day. I am very much looking forward to 4e and to helping transitioning our fans to 4e.
I know you have an internal meeting coming up soon to discuss a number of issues regarding licensing and content and third party publishers. I have been thinking about what we talked about, and I have some thoughts and a proposal that come down to this: Let me help you.
My guess is that you guys are getting ready for the 4e launch and are firmly focused on getting to your “pencils down” date which I am guessing is about the end of the year so that you can make print deadlines, etc. Getting content to third parties and dealing with the legal ramifications of licenses, etc, is probably not the highest thing on your list of things to deal with right now. Or even if you did have time, my guess is that your group’s time would be better spent elsewhere.
I have a very unique experience with the licenses and the history of getting said content to third party publishers. So I hope I have some valuable things to offer.
Here are some bullet points that show what I mean and what I can do for you. Please pardon me if I repeat things that are obvious to you. I’m just trying to work it through.
• There is significant resistance to 3e to 4e.
My sense from our discussion is that you understand this and it is important to you. I would hate to see the player base of the game fragment.
• Third party publishers can help transition that significant group.
Luckily, respected third party publishers can help you reach people who may be on the fence. Guys like XXXXX [no need to drag others into this -Clark] and I have a good deal of impact with our audiences. I have been out there saying we are going to embrace 4e so long as Wizards allows it. And that stance can change people’s minds or influence “4e rejectors”. In a weird way, third party publishers have the “street cred” that Wizards may not be able to have simply because we are not Wizards, if you see what I mean. If Necro adopts 4e, then it is ok for this group of gamers to adopt 4e. And that is what they are saying. Our boards went from “no way we are doing 4e” to “well, I’ll wait and see” or “if NG does it, I will too” within a short time of me saying we were going 4e. The good third party publishers can help you.
• You need to get content out to their party publishers by the end of the month so we can support launch with viable products.
The market is not the same now as it was at launch of 3e when a 32-page adventure was a viable d20 product. And, just like you likely need a “pencil down” date of the end of the year to meet launch, so do we. Our products are larger. Most of us ship out our printing to China or out of the states. We can’t get this stuff in December and make a launch in May-June. We have to have this by the end of this month.
Don’t force publishers to make the choice between waiting for the 4e playtest rules which by definition means we will only be able to make 32-page products for launch OR rejecting 4e and keeping on with our current products. Forcing that choice means more people will choose to reject 4e and support 3.5. How many, I don’t know. But it is being discussed right now.
• Delay in acting may lead to publishers staying with 3e and not supporting 4e
By not getting us content early, you may be forcing the hands of some companies to stay with 3.5. Because most companies simply can’t deal with the delay and lag time or simply can’t delay product schedules that far. This short time frame is a real problem.
• It doesn’t need to be perfect.
It doesn't matter what state the current rules documents are in. They aren’t final, we understand that. We can all deal with that and we don’t care. We can’t simply create products and then jam the new stuff in when we get it in December. But we can create with draft rules and then make changes to products made using those draft rules in December. That is workable.
• We will accept any restrictions you want to place on it.
I helped make the original Creature Collection that beat WotC's MM to press. Though everyone denies it, I have always wondered if there was some lingering animosity from that. Ryan says no. All the people from that time frame say no. But they are gone, mostly. If you want to tell us: "dont do that this time," we would all agree to that I am sure. Whatever limits you want on our product creation, thats fine.
• It can be informal, that is how we did it before.
Let history be your guide. Prior to 3e launch, we got draft rules. We had a good lead time. We got revised versions when the actual rules went to print. We all handled it fine. It was all done informally and by an email (which, strangely enough, was from Ryan to me). That email became known as the "gentleperson's agreement." And it was honored by everyone.
• Leave the license issues for later, after your “pencil down” date.
Maybe I am wrong, but I get the sense that Wizards is intertwining the decision of getting the content to third party publishers with the issue of how to license the use of said content. Don’t join those. Getting the content out doesn’t mean you have finalized what we can do with the stuff. Don’t let those decisions slow down getting content to your third party publishers. Get us the content. Then we can figure out what to do with it once you are past the pencil down date for 4e.
• Trust the publishers.
Like I said, we have all done this before informally and with a handshake. It worked out fine. And you know who you can trust. You know the people and companies who have been good caretakers of the content, who have been helpful, who have tried to give instead of just take, and who actually cared about D&D and Open Gaming.
• Do it like we did before—just give us a short list of what you don’t want us to use.
Give us the draft versions of the rules (not to everyone if you don’t want to, that’s up to you). Give us a list of what you DON’T want us to use. That is what we got from Ryan. “You can use everything from the PHB except don’t refer to the GH gods, or X or Y or Z” or whatever it was he said. It was a list of a few things. I can dig the email up if you want to see it.
• Solution: Let me do it.
I will do it for you if you want. If the problem is the time crunch of getting this done while dedicating all efforts to finalizing 4e, let me step up and take it off your plate. Forward me your normal NDA so I can see what it covers. I will craft a short addendum to your normal NDA stating that these draft rules are provided to potential third-party publishers. Providing this content for your review is no guarantee that you will subsequently be allowed to use it, or, if allowed to use it, what the terms and scope of that use will be. In agreeing to receive these draft rules you agree not to distribute, etc.
Heck, whether you want me to or not I am going to do it for you anyway and send you my draft. I want to make it easy for you to get this stuff out to us.
Clark
PS: I do have some licensing issues in case you wanted to address them. But my priority is to get the rules content to us asap.
Don’t make use of the d20 STL conditioned on a fee (or don’t make that the only barrier to entry).
[edited by Clark to protect the guilty, don't ask]. ‘Nuff said. You don’t have to say it. I said it.
Don’t try to resurrect the d20 logo as a quality brand, that isn’t what it has come to mean.
d20 is a valuable logo—but to you, not to us. Let d20 mean “dominant rule system,” which is what it means. Don’t try to revive it as a mark of quality. The reason people moved away from the logo was because of the d20 STL, which had restrictions. Just let the d20 STL be what it is.
Allow use of the phrase “Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons”
Let us do this. Seriously. Just like the old Judges Guild products. It’s not an endorsement. It’s not a loss of your IP. We would all have to say “D&D is a registered trademark of WotC, used by permission, its use is not a challenge…blah blah blah.” It’s real simple language, done all the time.
Let us refer to the titles of new books and item/class/race/spell etc. names from that book
One of the problems with the current license is that it didn’t let us help you sell books other than the core rules. Big mistake. Though I never used it, I actually got permission from Wizards to refer to some of the splat books and their feats and spells, such as “Erithrax, Wiz5/Druid5/Vermin Lord 4*; [rest of stats] *The Vermin Lord is detailed in the Book of Vile Darkness”. Just a simple reference like that would be great. It would help us help you sell those books and it opens up all this killer content for us that we want to use. Because, while some might not want to admit it, Wizards has been making some really, really great stuff recently.
Don’t worry about perceived fairness about how you deal with the license issues.
You are Wizards. You will always be blamed for something. Not opening up enough. Too many restrictions. Playing favorites when you aren’t. In my view, you shouldn’t worry about this. In my view, your only focus should be “how do we create the right pool of third party companies that will help support and enliven 4e at launch and for the sustainable future, and transition people from 3e to 4e.”
Please let me help you with this.
|
|
If you do not allow us to support those things, you fragment the market drastically and force rather transparent work-arounds that serve little purpose other than to annoy the readers.
Oh, I remember various 3PP books that would jump through hoops to reference the 'God of Slaughter' or 'Goddess of Death and Magic' because they couldn't say Erythnul or Wee Jas, or the ones that just came up with different names, like the Book of Fiends coming up with mispelled versions of Graz'zt and Fraz-Urb'luu's names.
So kludge-y.
OTOH, I kinda liked the way Kingdoms of Kalamar came up with different setting specific mages to replace Mordenkainen, Tenser, Otiluke, Bigby, etc. rather than just calling the spells 'Mage's Sword' or 'Floating Disk' or 'Crushing Hand.' That was a neat sort of lemonade-from-lemons situation where they managed to take the restricted IP and use it to tie the spells to their own setting.
I hope you folks appreciate those. Those documents are some key documents from the whole 4E/GSL decision days.
Scott (and Linae Foster) were great. And I am convinced they tried their hardest to get my ideas across to the powers that be at Wizards.
I have never posted or showed those letters to anyone before. But since the thread was starting to speculate about the reasons for certain actions, I figured I might as well post the actual discussions by the actual players about what happened and why it was happening.
I also drafted a proposed Gentleperson's Agreement for 4E. I felt responsible for various reasons: (1) I have expertise in it, and (2) the original "Gentleperson's Agrement" came from the old private d20 discussion forum headed by Ryan Dancey, and the email giving permission to use 3E content came in an email addressed to "Clark Peterson and anyone else who may want to use 3E content." So I have a sort of historic link to the Gentleperson's Agreement for 3E, I figured why not help out with 4E.
Of course, in the end, I guess it worked out that they didn't heed my warnings. As a result, Paizo made Pathfinder. A game that I am happy to support.
Clark
Please keep in mind when I wrote these letters (in late 07 and early 08). At that time, my philosophical position was to adopt 4E. Pathfinder didnt even really exist yet then (Pathfinder's first printing wasnt until August of 09). As stated in some recent posts, I have for many reasons changed that stance and eaten crow. But back when I wrote this letter, I was trying desperately to get WotC to let 3Ps support 4E. I ultimately failed in that task.
Thank you very much for posting those letters. It is a fascinating look behind the scenes (and ultimately at the birth of Pathfinder, or at least of the primordial soup from whence it came).
I know there was some talk about having to pay for a license to use the 4E rules ahead of time. I was working with a shop trying to put that together, but we were only going to get a paper copy that couldn't be copied, and had to be mailed, and then we weren't getting a copy...and it just spiraled. It made tough to make something for the Gencon release, which was part of why we didn't.
and from personal experience on their 4E Living Campaign, that was a giant charlie foxtrot. It might not be now. But in the beginning of 2010? Yes, totally screwball. As a freelancer working on a simple project, they were very much operating in an uncomfortable, "back of a volkswagon"* manner.
-Ben.
*See _Mallrats_
|
|
Thanks for posting those. And thanks for making the effort - I would have really liked to see an OGL-ed 4th ed. But things have worked out great with pathfinder, no it all worked out in the end consumer-wise :)
Thank you, indeed.
And thank EVERYONE, 3PP and Paizo staff, for your responses. The thread was far more eye-opening than I imagined when I originally wrote it up. I was actually thinking of responses more in the line of Owen's "yes" or "well, yeah. Wizards would give a tertiary glance over our stuff while Cosmo of Paizo wanted at least five copies as gifts, etc." I never expected the incredible depth above.
And thank EVERYONE, 3PP and Paizo staff, for your responses. The thread was far more eye-opening than I imagined when I originally wrote it up. I was actually thinking of responses more in the line of Owen's "yes" or "well, yeah. Wizards would give a tertiary glance over our stuff while Cosmo of Paizo wanted at least five copies as gifts, etc." I never expected the incredible depth above.
By the way, I don't want people to think that the failure of the 4E GSL led directly to Pathfinder. I think the idea for Pathfinder was in the works no matter what. But all this was going on around the same time. Everyone was wondering what to do as the d20 STL was coming to an end and 4E was in the hopper.
And to me it relates back to the poster's initial question--the difference between Paizo and WotC with 3Ps. Remember, though Paizo was never a true "3P" like my company, Necromancer, since Paizo were licensees, in a way they were like a 3P because WotC was yanking the Dungeon and Dragon licenses from them.
I think all of that, plus the fact that the people at Paizo are just plain super-cool gamers that understand the heart of our game, contributes to how great Paizo is to their supportive 3PPs.
I know there was some talk about having to pay for a license to use the 4E rules ahead of time. I was working with a shop trying to put that together, but we were only going to get a paper copy that couldn't be copied, and had to be mailed, and then we weren't getting a copy...and it just spiraled. It made tough to make something for the Gencon release, which was part of why we didn't.
If only they would have listened to me, where would we be? Who knows?
(Or more accurately, if only they had listened to Scott Rouse, who was listening to me, because he was the only one I was talking to directly. I firmly believe he was trying to convince WotC to open 4E).
|
CEO
|
I hope you folks appreciate those. Those documents are some key documents from the whole 4E/GSL decision days.
Clark:
Thanks for posting those for posterity! I remember talking to you on the phone about those topics. Crazy times and quite nerve-wracking if you were trying to decide which way to go. Glad it all worked out for us. :)
-Lisa
...Crazy times and quite nerve-wracking if you were trying to decide which way to go. Glad it all worked out for us. :)
-Lisa
I remember being excited about the new Edition of D&D and also remember my utter disappointment when Paizo announced that they would not supoport 4e and instead do their own thing.
It was then that I realised that I had not bought a WotC product for quite some time but instead exclusively purchased Paizo products for 3.5
Made my decision easier than I would have thought.
I hope you folks appreciate those. Those documents are some key documents from the whole 4E/GSL decision days.
Much appreciated, very interesting read.
I think that if WotC had heeded your advice, 4e wouldn't have had such a rocky start (that continues to this day) as, apart from the core books, pretty much everything they released was either low quality (adventures) or an obvious money grab (PHB2).
Third party publishers can help transition that significant group.
Luckily, respected third party publishers can help you reach people who may be on the fence. Guys like XXXXX [no need to drag others into this -Clark] and I have a good deal of impact with our audiences. I have been out there saying we are going to embrace 4e so long as Wizards allows it. And that stance can change people’s minds or influence “4e rejectors”. In a weird way, third party publishers have the “street cred” that Wizards may not be able to have simply because we are not Wizards, if you see what I mean. If Necro adopts 4e, then it is ok for this group of gamers to adopt 4e. And that is what they are saying. Our boards went from “no way we are doing 4e” to “well, I’ll wait and see” or “if NG does it, I will too” within a short time of me saying we were going 4e. The good third party publishers can help you.
Well, not everyone on your boards was saying that. ;)
But back when I wrote this letter, I was trying desperately to get WotC to let 3Ps support 4E. I ultimately failed in that task.
While I might be reading to much into this, I hope you aren't blaming yourself. You maybe be a Demon Lord of CR 30-ish (plus Scott and Linae of similar CRish), but even you can't hope to win against an entire corporation of opponents with that high of CRs. Like you said elsewhere (paraphrased), the GSL is a compromise between open gaming and nothing, with the pro-nothing crowd having a stronger hand.
You managed to get something, which is better than nothing. Even though that something isn't great, its noting to sneeze at either.
|
|
...Crazy times and quite nerve-wracking if you were trying to decide which way to go. Glad it all worked out for us. :)
-Lisa
I remember being excited about the new Edition of D&D and also remember my utter disappointment when Paizo announced that they would not supoport 4e and instead do their own thing.
OMG, I forgot about that. The boards ran red with flame during that time....
|
OMG, I forgot about that. The boards ran red with flame during that time.......Crazy times and quite nerve-wracking if you were trying to decide which way to go. Glad it all worked out for us. :)
-Lisa
I remember being excited about the new Edition of D&D and also remember my utter disappointment when Paizo announced that they would not supoport 4e and instead do their own thing.
Nah, not really. Most of Paizo fanbase either welcomed that with excitement, or shrugged. There were a few people geniuinely disappointed with the decision, but other than that, it was more a cheer of joy rather than a flamestorm.
Now, Pathfinder Alpha/Beta forums, that was a flamewar. The burn scars on my back from those days... I wear them proudly.
But back when I wrote this letter, I was trying desperately to get WotC to let 3Ps support 4E. I ultimately failed in that task.While I might be reading to much into this, I hope you aren't blaming yourself. You maybe be a Demon Lord of CR 30-ish (plus Scott and Linae of similar CRish), but even you can't hope to win against an entire corporation of opponents with that high of CRs. Like you said elsewhere (paraphrased), the GSL is a compromise between open gaming and nothing, with the pro-nothing crowd having a stronger hand.
You managed to get something, which is better than nothing. Even though that something isn't great, its noting to sneeze at either.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
From reading these letters, it's obvious that Clark went above and beyond his responsibility to help Wizards structure licensing in a way that would benefit both the industry and the fan base it serves - even to the point of drafting the necessary legal agreements at no cost to Wizards (something that normally could be quite costly if you had to pay an attorney to do it for you).
That Wizards refused to accept that assistance, offered in good faith and generous spirit from an industry figure, demonstrates a lack of vision and failure on their part - not, in any way, on Clark's behalf.
Thank you for posting these letters, Mr. Peterson. They were an informative read that provided much insight into the licensing process for those of us on the outside looking in.
(And boy am I curious to know what that edited-out business was with "protecting the guilty"... but I guess some secrets are better kept, well, secret.)
|
|
Does anyone even create 3PP product for 4E? I think Goodman Games was at one time but I'm sure they will stop once their own RPG is out. I can't even think of any other 3PP for 4E material.You can find the 4E product section at paizo.com right here. It currently includes 264 products. 100 are from Wizards of the Coast, 21 are officially licensed D&D accessories, 143 are 3PP GSL and non-GSL print and PDF products and accessories offered through Alliance or consigned directly with us. (There are other 4E products on the market that we don't carry.)
There's a funny comprasion here.
4E 3PP suff available at Paizo store: 143 products
Pathfinder 3PP suff available at Paizo store: 594 products
Especially considering that 4E is one year older.
Does anyone even create 3PP product for 4E? I think Goodman Games was at one time but I'm sure they will stop once their own RPG is out. I can't even think of any other 3PP for 4E material.You can find the 4E product section at paizo.com right here. It currently includes 264 products. 100 are from Wizards of the Coast, 21 are officially licensed D&D accessories, 143 are 3PP GSL and non-GSL print and PDF products and accessories offered through Alliance or consigned directly with us. (There are other 4E products on the market that we don't carry.)There's a funny comprasion here.
4E 3PP suff available at Paizo store: 143 products
Pathfinder 3PP suff available at Paizo store: 594 products and countingEspecially considering that 4E is one year older.
I figured that we needed to add that addendum to your statement.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
There's a funny comprasion here.
4E 3PP suff available at Paizo store: 143 products
Pathfinder 3PP suff available at Paizo store: 594 productsEspecially considering that 4E is one year older.
And some of the products listed here are OOP. All of Mongoose's 4E stuff is OOP and worth about $5 new (from their own site). Mongoose is just starting up with Pathfinder product (slowly and carefully!) this year. Even ENWorld has been talked into doing PF adventure paths.
Wizards has a list of 3PP but it is out of date (Mongoose is still listed for example).
|
|
It's also important to remember, that apart from GSL and 3PP support issues, the biggest killer of 4E 3PP is the DDI.
Simply put, since a vast majority of 4E players and GMs use DDI, there's very little room for 3PP material, since it's not included in DDI. I think that with the Monster Builder there's the same problem with monsters. And since there's problem with monsters, there's problem with adventures...
It's also important to remember, that apart from GSL and 3PP support issues, the biggest killer of 4E 3PP is the DDI.
The same can be said about HeroLab. But PFRPG3PP's are starting to get into the game on this as well. SGG released a class of theirs for HeroLab. I've got my own plans for upcoming products and I am sure other are as well.
The real difference here is that the GSL forbids making compatible computer products while Pathfinder licensed it out.
|
It's also important to remember, that apart from GSL and 3PP support issues, the biggest killer of 4E 3PP is the DDI.The same can be said about HeroLab. But PFRPG3PP's are starting to get into the game on this as well. SGG released a class of theirs for HeroLab. I've got my own plans for upcoming products and I am sure other are as well.
The real difference here is that the GSL forbids making compatible computer products while Pathfinder licensed it out.
Yeah, and let me say that not only is having Hero Lab be available as a format we can build tools in exciting, but reps from the company itself jumped in on a thread to help one of our customers who was having an issue with our official HL file for the Dragonrider. I think HL also "gets it" when it comes to building a strong network of users.
|
|
It's also important to remember, that apart from GSL and 3PP support issues, the biggest killer of 4E 3PP is the DDI.The same can be said about HeroLab. But PFRPG3PP's are starting to get into the game on this as well. SGG released a class of theirs for HeroLab. I've got my own plans for upcoming products and I am sure other are as well.
The real difference here is that the GSL forbids making compatible computer products while Pathfinder licensed it out.
There are several important differences between HL and DDI
1. DDI is a modest subscription, HL is a visible financial bump, especially if you consider APG and other optional packs. Also, DDI sub grabs you the magazines.
2. DDI is currently an online application, meaning it's not limited by license and installation limit
3. DDI is (IMO) more intuitive than HL. Not that I don't enjoy HL's interface, but it's somewhat hard on new users.
All this contributes to DDI becoming a standard tool to degree of non-DDI people being "the strange ones", while HL is still just one of few options.
Well, not everyone on your boards was saying that. ;)
Very true. And still true. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
There are several important differences between HL and DDI
1. DDI is a modest subscription, HL is a visible financial bump, especially if you consider APG and other optional packs. Also, DDI sub grabs you the magazines.
2. DDI is currently an online application, meaning it's not limited by license and installation limit
3. DDI is (IMO) more intuitive than HL. Not that I don't enjoy HL's interface, but it's somewhat hard on new users.
All this contributes to DDI becoming a standard tool to degree of non-DDI people being "the strange ones", while HL is still just one of few options.
I thought DDI cost about $120 a year and once you unsubscribe it is gone? Seems expensive to me. Last I checked, Hero Lab was $20 for the core rulebook and the rules from Inner Sea World guide and $9.99 for APG. That's about 3 months of DDI and you keep it, right?
I realize the GM would have to throw in another $25 bucks for the monsters but even so that's $55 to own the whole package (Core, APG, Inner Sea rules, and two Bestaries) not just rent it.