I'm looking through the first few GameMastery Module products, and I'm not seeing the declaration of product identity or of open game content. Am I just missing these? I've checked both D0 and D1.
- Ashavan
Contributor
|
I'm looking through the first few GameMastery Module products, and I'm not seeing the declaration of product identity or of open game content. Am I just missing these? I've checked both D0 and D1.
- Ashavan
Alas, you're not missing them, the modules are missing them.
Until we change it, assume the policy is thus:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), artwork, maps, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Until we change it, assume the policy is thus:
D'oh! We just changed it yesterday, actually. The current version, so far as I know, is:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, incidents, locations, creatures, artwork, maps, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
Hey..perfect thread for me to fire off my question: Is the new stat block format / layout considered proprietary?
|
Contributor
|
D'oh! We just changed it yesterday, actually. The current version, so far as I know, is:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, incidents, locations, creatures, artwork, maps, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
Noted, Vic. We'll make sure that text goes in the adventures. :)
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, incidents, locations, creatures, artwork, maps, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
Ick, OGL is supposed to be clearly identified. This certainly isn't clear.
First off, given the all inclusive nature of that product identity, I'm wondering what if anything is OGL? I guess a new spell or magic item would be OGL, as long as it doesn't contain plot elements. Looking through D1, there's almost no OGL at all: Adventure Background and Adventure Summary are plot. Part 1 is an incidnet. All of the dungeon is locations. All of Falcon's Hallow is location or creatures.
Secondly, this is an invalid OGL declaration. Looking at D1 again, you've included OGL monsters (kobold, spider swarm), but your declaration has declared that product identity (creatures). The OGL does not allow you to close someone else's OGC.
Please, please rethink this whole OGL policy. If you can open things up for OGL, you've got a community of users that can expand on what you've done and that costs you nothing, but drives a tremendous amount of interest in your products.
(OK, nobody asked, but a great OGL declaration would be: "All game mechanics and proper names are OGC." What would that allow?
I can post stats for the missing children in D1. Using your proper names would cost nothing.
If I want to run D1 at 9th level, I can update all of the monsters and put them on my website. Anyone who would be using that, would have to buy your product to use that.
I can write a side-adventure showing the final confrontation between Sheriff Baleson and Boss Teedum. Again, anyone using that probably has to buy D1 to know what my adventure is talking about.
I can put the monsters into a Klooge, FantasyGrounds, DM's Familiar (mine) or PCGen format for others to use. Again, anyone making use of that has to purchase your product. A DM that uses my product to run their game, is going to find your product much more desirable over the competition if that is available.)
Secondly, this is an invalid OGL declaration. Looking at D1 again, you've included OGL monsters (kobold, spider swarm), but your declaration has declared that product identity (creatures). The OGL does not allow you to close someone else's OGC.
No, actually I think it is not. I think if you check similar material by other publishers you will notice similar declarations. . . kobolds, spiders, and all the srd material are inherently OGC . . .when you declare that creatures are property identity for example, it goes without saying, that kobolds and all the other very well-known srd creatures are not your property identity and therefore are not closed. In reality, all Paizo is doing is stopping people from publishing adventures in Falcon's Hollow (Makes sense as it is their new campaign setting), using their monsters, and using their dungeon . . I guess I don't see why you so strongly abject to this. Then again it is likely I am overlooking something and seeing past your argument, if that is the case I apologize for the tangent.
|
I understand that Paizo are developing their own campaign setting for their Pathfinder/GameMastery line, and no doubt they are keen to retain some creatures unique to that setting to help establish it's own identity and flavour. I am sure, as the product line develops, Pathfinder/GameMastery signature creatures will resurface to haunt the heroes time and again. Paizo have a long-term interest in Pathfinder/GameMastery, they work hard to develop these creatures, so why wouldn't they want to protect them as product identity as they do proper names, plots, locations etc?
However, Paizo have also indicated that they intend to draw creatures from other OGL sources, such as Tome of Horrors, Book of Fiends, templates from Advanced Bestiary etc, if memory serves me correctly. It just seems to run against the grain, taking advantage of the creative works of other OGL publishers for creatures, but not expanding the OGL library by offering your own creatures in return.
Though, the bottom line is - would Dragonlance have been so appealing if every other company published Draconians in their adventures too?
|
|
On the issue of errata, how feasible would it be to update and correct the PDF download files as errata are discovered? Even if something seemed missing or wrong with the print version, we could always download and check it against the latest PDF.
This would also be a way of getting the correct Designation of Product Identity out on at least some of the product that missed it.
True, both in your statement and in your question. I would argue this . . .those companies that make OGC material do so because they believe it will make them money. And it will, if Paizo draws from them, they are supporting OGC companies by utilizing their material . . . which is exactly why those companies made their content OGC.
Paizo is not making their 'mechanics' OGC for the same reason, I imagine, business. They have likely mulled over the options and perhaps decided that keeping things their own adds an allure or extra draw to the campaign.
In this way it is a win-win. Paizo has an identity-- honed throughout their material/setting, and OGC publishers now have a campaign setting that is actively utilizing them, unlike WoTC.
|
|
Very good point - something I hadn't fully considered. Some of those books were published years ago, and now Pathfinder arrives on the scene creating an unexpected demand for their works, though some of those titles are becoming difficult to find and would require a reprint.
I already have the previously mentioned titles, but I certainly hope it helps those publishers, and maybe even provide an incentive for others to release new OGC titles, particularly creature books, which Paizo seem to be putting to good use.
Another point, though. If Pathfinder is to update and reprint the required information within it's own pages, I guess there's less incentive to seek out the original source. Even I already own those titles, I may not even need to reference them when running a Pathfinder adventure.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I understand that Paizo are developing their own campaign setting for their Pathfinder/GameMastery line, and no doubt they are keen to retain some creatures unique to that setting to help establish it's own identity and flavour. I am sure, as the product line develops, Pathfinder/GameMastery signature creatures will resurface to haunt the heroes time and again. Paizo have a long-term interest in Pathfinder/GameMastery, they work hard to develop these creatures, so why wouldn't they want to protect them as product identity as they do proper names, plots, locations etc?
However, Paizo have also indicated that they intend to draw creatures from other OGL sources, such as Tome of Horrors, Book of Fiends, templates from Advanced Bestiary etc, if memory serves me correctly. It just seems to run against the grain, taking advantage of the creative works of other OGL publishers for creatures, but not expanding the OGL library by offering your own creatures in return.
Though, the bottom line is - would Dragonlance have been so appealing if every other company published Draconians in their adventures too?
It's my intention that the monsters be completely open, in the spirit of the material we use by other companies. It's possible we need to rework the wording, somewhat. We're still getting used to this OGL stuff, and it may take us a product or two to phrase everything exactly the way it should be phrased.
Please bear with us in this regard.
|
|
It's my intention that the monsters be completely open, in the spirit of the material we use by other companies.
I didn't want to jump to any conclusions, but this is the kind of "environmentally-friendly" policy I was expecting from the Paizo I have grown to love - though I could equally have seen a business case for it to have fallen the other way.
It's possible we need to rework the wording, somewhat. We're still getting used to this OGL stuff, and it may take us a product or two to phrase everything exactly the way it should be phrased.
Please bear with us in this regard.
Thanks for the clarification, Erik. Much appreciated.
It's my intention that the monsters be completely open, in the spirit of the material we use by other companies. It's possible we need to rework the wording, somewhat. We're still getting used to this OGL stuff, and it may take us a product or two to phrase everything exactly the way it should be phrased.
Please bear with us in this regard.
Cool. Just opening up the monsters would go a long way. Still hoping for some minor loosening of the proper names, but I'll get off my soapbox now and let you work on it.
|
Contributor
|
Ick, OGL is supposed to be clearly identified. This certainly isn't clear.
First off, given the all inclusive nature of that product identity, I'm wondering what if anything is OGL? I guess a new spell or magic item would be OGL, as long as it doesn't contain plot elements. Looking through D1, there's almost no OGL at all: Adventure Background and Adventure Summary are plot. Part 1 is an incidnet. All of the dungeon is locations. All of Falcon's Hallow is location or creatures.
Okay, first off, the wording we used is paraphrased from Wizards of the Coast's Unearthed Arcana. Things you would expect to be off-limits in a WotC book are off-limits in ours. All mechanical aspects of the game are wide open, except, apparently, the names. So you can use the stats for a slurk but you'd need to rename it to something else. Hmm... actually, now that you bring it up maybe we need to drop that creatures part. Well, we'll discuss it when we get a chance; as Erik said this is a work in progress. :)
Secondly, this is an invalid OGL declaration. Looking at D1 again, you've included OGL monsters (kobold, spider swarm), but your declaration has declared that product identity (creatures). The OGL does not allow you to close someone else's OGC.
We're not closing other peoples' creatures. Only (the names of?) ours.
Please, please rethink this whole OGL policy. If you can open things up for OGL, you've got a community of users that can expand on what you've done and that costs you nothing, but drives a tremendous amount of interest in your products.
I think you grossly overestimate the size of the OGL community.
(OK, nobody asked, but a great OGL declaration would be: "All game mechanics and proper names are OGC." What would that allow?
You're kidding, right? Opening up our proper names is the same as opening up our campaign setting. That would allow another publisher to swoop in and publish a campaign setting book for Golarion before us (worst-case scenario, of course). How exactly would that be a good idea?
If I want to run D1 at 9th level, I can update all of the monsters and put them on my website. Anyone who would be using that, would have to buy your product to use that.
You can already do that, as long as you don't try to sell it.
I can write a side-adventure showing the final confrontation between Sheriff Baleson and Boss Teedum. Again, anyone using that probably has to buy D1 to know what my adventure is talking about.
You can write that adventure for your own campaign. OGL doesn't have any bearing on what a GM can do in his own campaign.
I can put the monsters into a Klooge, FantasyGrounds, DM's Familiar (mine) or PCGen format for others to use. Again, anyone making use of that has to purchase your product. A DM that uses my product to run their game, is going to find your product much more desirable over the competition if that is available.)
Like I said, I think we need to talk about the creatures thing. It was my understanding that we were going to make all our critters OGC. I might have been wrong, though, or our policy might have changed. *shrug*
No, we hope others use our stat block format, actually. :)
Good dealio - thanks!
Also, thank you for releasing an OGL product (in terrible Scottish accent: "If it's not OGL, it's crap!").
As an aside, maybe you could cut down on the verbige just by printing the OGL materials in another color (or say italics if black is cheaper) and then just put, "The shizzle in you can reuse, everything else HANDS OFF!"?
DMFTodd wrote:
(OK, nobody asked, but a great OGL declaration would be: "All game mechanics and proper names are OGC." What would that allow?
You're kidding, right? Opening up our proper names is the same as opening up our campaign setting. That would allow another publisher to swoop in and publish a campaign setting book for Golarion before us (worst-case scenario, of course). How exactly would that be a good idea?
Yes, good worse-case scenario and you shouldn't do that. What's the harm though in declaring "Kimi Eavewalker", "Falcon Hallow" and "Boss Teedum" as OGC?
DMFTodd wrote:If I want to run D1 at 9th level, I can update all of the monsters and put them on my website. Anyone who would be using that, would have to buy your product to use that.
You can already do that, as long as you don't try to sell it.
You can't distribute someone else's IP. Doesn't matter if you do it for free or you sell it.
DMFTodd wrote:I can write a side-adventure showing the final confrontation between Sheriff Baleson and Boss Teedum. Again, anyone using that probably has to buy D1 to know what my adventure is talking about.
You can write that adventure for your own campaign. OGL doesn't have any bearing on what a GM can do in his own campaign.
Right, but I'm talking about distributing.
I think you grossly overestimate the size of the OGL community.
Oh, but we're breeding.
Sprinkle some Paizo OGC on us and we'll grow like weeds.
Hey..perfect thread for me to fire off my question: Is the new stat block format / layout considered proprietary?No, we hope others use our stat block format, actually. :)
For real? that's really cool!
|
(OK, nobody asked, but a great OGL declaration would be: "All game mechanics and proper names are OGC." What would that allow?You're kidding, right? Opening up our proper names is the same as opening up our campaign setting. That would allow another publisher to swoop in and publish a campaign...
It didn't seem to hurt Freeport which is now part of both Arcanis and The Known World of Aereth.
|
Contributor
|
Just so I'm clear on critters and items,
I can use the stats for the slurk, but I have to call it something else? a Smilofrog, for example?
As I understand it, yes.
Can they still be kobold carriers, or is that part of the campaign setting.
As I understand it, yes you may use them for that.
Gods... my head hurts.
As I understand it, so does mine. *ache*
The intention is that monsters like the slurk be completely open, including their name. If we haven't done that correctly we will eventually.
--Erik
Again, cool. Can we start acting as if that was the possibility? Can I put all of the creatures from D0, D1 into DM's Familiar format and start distributing?
Sorry, that should read: "Can we start distributing as if that were the policy" or do we need to wait for the official OGL declaration?
D0: Hallow's Last Hope has been converted into DM's Familiar format using the "creatures are OGC" designation discussed here. The download can be found here.