Hi all,
I'm curious why Pathfinder is foregoing the d20 branding and license in favour of the broader OGL designation.
In the past, I've seen two major reasons given to drop the D20 mark and be "just" OGL:
1) The product implements rules that are forbidden in the d20 license, typically to allow the product to stand alone without a PHB. Examples include Mutants & Masterminds and Spycraft 2nd Edition.
2) The product contains material that might be objectionable under the "good taste" clause of the d20 license - Book of Erotic Fantasy being the most infamous example.
I can't imagine that Pathfinder is going to be walking that second path - is the lack of the d20 brand a precaution to make it easier to cite non-d20 OGL content? I would think that a d20 book could freely integrate material from non-d20 OGL releases, provided that the borrowed material met the d20 license restrictions.
(And yes, Mr. Conspiracy theorist, I know ... I left out "3) WotC is killing the d20 license!" Gencon is only a week away, let's not start that fire quite yet, yeah?)
I'm curious why Pathfinder is foregoing the d20 branding and license in favour of the broader OGL designation.
It's probably because the conventional wisdom now is that the d20 brand doesn't really help sell a product. A lot of people either have no idea what the d20 brand means or avoid it entirely. Those who are aware of it are typically aware of which products are OGL and d20 compatible.
Why bother worrying about the restrictions (even if you never go against them) if there is no advantage to using the logo?
|
Erik Mona answered it here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/gameMastery/modules/whyOGLOnlyAndNotD2 0&page=1#223305&source=search
Contributor
|
Erik Mona answered it here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/gameMastery/modules/whyOGLOnlyAndNotD2 0&page=1#223305&source=search
Thanks Tessius. :)
After seeing some of the product line coming out for the GameMastery line it hit me like a ton of bricks. The previous WotC/Paizo agreement allowed them to use non-SRD material. As of now they are limited to using what ever is in the SRD (pardon my obviousness but I just received a shipment of books today PHBII, Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium and went immediately to the front of the book where it states that no Open Content is in these books).
I expect that the GameMastery books like Gazeteers and the Pathfinder material itself will shore this up in future. I have no problem with these products being OGL as the creativity coming out of Paizo these days is amazing.
Later,
Greg Volz
I'll also point out that the major revision to the d20 license in 2002-ish mean that Wizards has the right to force publishers to revise or pull d20-licensed content that Wizards finds objectionable, even years after the fact. That means that if Paizo published d20 Pathfinder issue #1 in Aug 2007, and in 2010 someone at Wizards objects to the content in Pathfinder #1, Paizo has to recall or destroy all unsold issues of P#1 (which costs money) and if they want to continue selling P#1 they have to revise and reprint (which costs money) without the "objectionable" material.
It's not likely that Wizards would ever do so (they made the revision to the d20 license so they could intervene if someone published the "Guide to Babykilling" or something like that*) but even if it is only remotely likely it is still possible for them to do so.
*This misguided change to the license is actually contrary to Wizards' interests. Under the old license, if some third party did publish the d20 Guide to Babykilling, Wizards could say, "these people are jerks and we don't agree with the idea of their product, but the license gives us no power to stop them, any more than Microsoft can prevent people from making violent or sexual videogames that run on the Windows OS."
Under the new license, by giving Wizards the "right of review," it basically forces them to act, because if Wizards gets any complaints about third-party content (say, a prominent Muslim who objects to some indy publisher presenting Allah as a deity with d20 stats, domains, and so on) the revised d20 license essentially makes Wizards responsible for policing third-party content -- Wizards has given itself the powers to do so, and if they fail to police the content it in effect means they're approving it.
|
I, personally, am ecstatic that this line of products is OGL if it means I'm not going to see any warforged psionic 1/2 tatooed warmage/warlocks/warmongers.
I know many of us old-timers are a bit fed up with the creature feep that d20/wizards has become. Old people can only carry so many $24.95 books, our backs give out after awhile.
We punted most all the extra bulk and are playing with the base 3 books again. And wonders, everyone is still having a good time, if not better!
So woo-hoo! No monsters from Monster Manual XXVII? Great! Give me goblins, giants, and dragons!
I am very interested in the reimagining of some of the OGL materials. The new Goblins are very entertaining and I can't wait to see the rest. Realize that the MM has at best a page on the classic monsters. So much to play with just from those. (Kobold Ninjas!)
I honestly believe that the reimaging of some of the classic OGL materials will really help sell this product and if Paizo takes the lead there they'll be surprised by the response. Hey, if it worked for Battlestar Galactica, it can work for Goblins!
