BitterClinger's page

Paizo staff have explained all that in the Kingmaker thread.

Vic Wertz said Kingmaker doesn't use the OGL

Thanks for following up with links. I made it through about 150 of the 842 posts, and then I saw you added links. I am very grateful!

I don't want to re-hash or re-open old arguments. I'm just looking for a clarification.

One of the reasons given for the lack of Pathfinder game mechanics in Pathfinder Online was that, being a 'computer game', it was not permitted under the Open Gaming License.

The implementation of Pathfinder game mechanics in Pathfinder: Kingmaker by Owlcat games would seem to directly contradict that.

Was there a change to the Open Gaming License that allowed Pathfinder: Kingmaker to move forward?

Again, don't want to tear the PFO scab open. I'm more interested in the Open Gaming License and whether or not changes were made to it specifically pertaining to computer games.

BitterClinger wrote:

I keep hearing this, but there must be more to it. The OGL clearly allows for "computer software", and WotC further clarifies that "computer games" are permitted in their FAQ.

Ironically Ryan Dancey was one of the people that helped make the OGL and it ended up blocking what they could do for PFO. I think there is a thread somewhere in this subforum where they talked about it.

To my knowledge and reading of the OGL (I Am Not A Lawyer) the main problem is that they would need to code the game and then release a plain text version of the code outlining all the rules and mechanics they used that are then available to anyone else for use. Literally everything the code does to govern the game, and they would need to update it with every change. A dump of the source code is not good enough (plus the whole giving away your code thing).

This is probably why the few commercial d20 games out there were all directly licensed instead of trying to use the OGL.

Thanks for the response. I was aware of the Section 8 disclosure requirements, but they didn't seem particularly onerous. Though, talk about your "spoiler alert", yikes.

Anyway, I'll look for that thread and try and do more investigation on this. Again, appreciate the answer.

BitterClinger wrote:

My hope is the real Pathfinder multiplayer game will include at least a subset of the actual Pathfinder game mechanics.

That can't happen. The pathfinder mechanics are OGL, and can not be used in an electronic game. That particular ship sank before it got in the water.

I keep hearing this, but there must be more to it. The OGL clearly allows for "computer software", and WotC further clarifies that "computer games" are permitted in their FAQ.

What's next? My hope is they strip all Pathfinder IP from the game, rename it, and sell it to some other entity.

I realize this means starting over from scratch with a new "pathfinder" game, but I'm willing to wait and contribute to that.

My hope is the real Pathfinder multiplayer game will include at least a subset of the actual Pathfinder game mechanics.

Thanks for the response. I am just doing some research for a video.

Were any Pathfinder products ever published under the d20 System license?

I'm really talking about the early 2007 products. Were they published under the d20 license? Did they display the official d20 logo?

...one of the most superficial criticisms of PFO was that they took a coop TT game and turned it into a FFA PvP game.

Far from superficial, the criticism speaks to the core of the Pathfinder brand and consumer expectations.

When consumers who are familiar with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game see the Pathfinder logo, a few associations may come to mind:

• d20 Ruleset
• Character-based Progression
• Group-based Co-op Gameplay

The academic discussions about the MMORPG market and MMORPG design are interesting, but not particularly relevant to the topic, which is the insurmountable dissonance between the branding of this game and the content of this game.

If I had an open world PVP game, I would not choose a name like "Pathfinder" or "Dungeons & Dragons". Heck, might as well call it "Co-op Adventures" and immediately lose any appeal it might have to exactly the kind of game players I want to attract.

Product names and brand names mean something. Let's look at some PVP games:

• Ultima Online
• Mortal Online
• Asheron's Call-Darktide
• Dark Age of Camelot
• Shadowbane
• EVE Online
• Darkfall Online
• Crowfall
• Age of Conan Unchained
• Camelot Unchained

Now, I'm not suggesting they should change the game mechanics at all. I'm suggesting they should remove Pathfinder from the name and rebrand it. It's not my area of expertise, but I would recommend something like "Eventide" or "Shadow's Call".

If Paizo then decides that they want a Pathfinder branded video game, they can make something that more closely aligns with the brand and has a broader appeal to their existing market.

Finally, kudos to Bluddwolf for the best comment in the thread:

If it were a WOW clone, or a clone of just about anything else, it would have been more successful.

No truer words were ever spoken, or something like that.