I think I spotted James Jacobs somewhere referring to the Tome of Horrors. Can we expect to see a lot of the various ToH monsters from all three volumes (especially in light of your partnership with Necromancer Games)?
What about the Creature Catalogs by Swords & Sorcery?
Will any of the Necromancer Games authors (Clark) be working on Pathfinder projects?
Will you come up with really cool stuff to replace the beloved but now forbidden beholders and mind flayers?
Creative Director
|
We'll mostly be using SRD monsters, but we'll be making up new ones too AND pulling monsters from OGL books like Tome of Horrors and Book of Fiends as needed. I'm not going to open the doors to EVERY OGL monster book, partially because not everything is created equal, but mostly because I want to keep things managable.
In other words, any OGL book is an option, but don't expect us to use all of them.
As for super-iconic monsters like mind flayers and beholders... my opinion is that it's kind of lame to do knock-offs. I'd rather focus on new monsters, or monsters that fill a similar niche (aboleths for mind flayers, for example) rather than come up with something that's obviously a second-rate copy of a beloved monster.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As for super-iconic monsters like mind flayers and beholders... my opinion is that it's kind of lame to do knock-offs. I'd rather focus on new monsters, or monsters that fill a similar niche (aboleths for mind flayers, for example) rather than come up with something that's obviously a second-rate copy of a beloved monster.
*pictures a floating cube with snout-like stalks and a huge nose on one side, each of which are capable of producing a ray like magical effect, and nods in agreement.*
|
I agree with you. Bad copies are just exactly that: bad copies.
About the number of used OGL monster books: Too many monsters "dilute" the game. Could you list some kind of "Paizo canon": e.g. ToH I - III, advanced bestiary...
Greetings,
Günther
P.S.
The three ToH contain a nice variation on the monstrous snake-human combination that has its own merits.
narrowing it down might be wise. if you include monster content from every OGL book since the dawn of 3.0, you're talking X times as many creatures as WotC's stable, and i'm sure that was hard enough to manage. ;)
for a helpful hint, I worked on XRP's Monster Geographica line, which pulled from numerous OGL sources (over 20 IIRC), and i'm pretty sure at some point there was a list of the sources used.
after having worked with those, yes, i can agree that not all such books were created equal. :) as the editor for the MG line i did what i could to even that out... but some of those were beyond help!
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
About the number of used OGL monster books: Too many monsters "dilute" the game. Could you list some kind of "Paizo canon": e.g. ToH I - III, advanced bestiary...
I agree that too many monsters can dilute the game but I would rather Paizo didn't blanket list Monster books as canon. As was said before not all OGL products are created equal, the same goes for monsters in a single book. Even if each moster is perfectly balanced stat-wise it may not "feel right" for the setting. I'd like to see an evolving canon list of monsters that flow from a resonable number of sources in an manner that builds on the setting.
Not that I actually need to *see* the list, that's just how I would prefer the setting to develop.
As was said before not all OGL products are created equal, the same goes for monsters in a single book.
This is hardly an OGL thing; most monster books are filled with far more misses than hits, IMO.
The funny thing about the OGL is it is simply a list of stuff they know they'd never win a court case over (since you can't technically copyright a game), so what they do is release a strong "copyleft" which says, hey, here's a list of stuff we agree not to sue you over, but you have to let people know it came from us first, and whoever uses it from you has to do that too.
|
The funny thing about the OGL is it is simply a list of stuff they know they'd never win a court case over (since you can't technically copyright a game), so what they do is release a strong "copyleft" which says, hey, here's a list of stuff we agree not to sue you over, but you have to let people know it came from us first, and whoever uses it from you has to do that too.
You can only Copyright names and phrases, you patent games (and you would win in court). That is the difference between © and ®.
Questions
Can the OGL be pulled too?
and is the SRD list?
It seems to be a pretty well known fact that when 4.0 comes out they will no longer be doing an OGL, what does that mean for pathfinder? I am confused about all this?
It seems to be a pretty well known fact that when 4.0 comes out they will no longer be doing an OGL,
How is it well known fact? I've certainly heard speculation along those lines, but nothing definitive at all.
They cannot withdraw the OGL. The horse is out of the barn. If WotC wants to jump forward to a totally incompatible system to screw over all the D20 publishers, they can do that, although that seems like a recipe for pissing off customers who find all their 3E stuff obsolete.
In addition, it wouldn't be at all difficult for Green Ronin or Paizo/Necromancer to come out with their own OGL core books at that point and say "fine, everyone who wants to continue playing 3E, we've got your game supported right here."
Questions
Can the OGL be pulled too?
and is the SRD list?It seems to be a pretty well known fact that when 4.0 comes out they will no longer be doing an OGL, what does that mean for pathfinder? I am confused about all this?
"Well known fact"? You surely mean "another fan speculation" ;)
So....anyone got favorite OGL monsters that they'd like to see show up in the Pathfinder series?
I'm personally opting for the crucifixion spirit from Tome of Horrors II. Those things are way cool.