Decided to move this to its own thread:
Would you have a link to anything like that? The only thing I've seen from Wizards recently that's even close was a reference along the lines of "We're planning something in the vein of an Adventure Path, but a little bit different," which is fine.
I don't know if I should. I like using the term generically, and personally want to see it marketed by WotC. In my heart an Adventure Path belongs to D&D, as that's where it was born. It just seems...wrong...from my perspective, that it's no longer a part of D&D.
And it's just two little words. And Paizo would be nothing (or close to nothing) if it weren't for shared intellectual property from WotC. And despite all of the paranoia from you guys about Wizards not sharing their IP in 4th edition, what open source material have you ever contributed? I haven't seen anything yet for Pathfinder. Are you planning on opening up any of your IP? Or are you going to take what you claim to be yours by rights of use and not share back? What you're doing with the AP name seems wrong considering your complaints against WotC and 4th edition.
But anyway, you guys have been good to me, a customer, at least. (Except for those conversion notes, those still make me mad. All this free time spent on blogging and goofing off in chat rooms and still no conversion notes. Or maps without details. Makes me mad.)
Here's the link where WotC is using the term 'Adventure Path':
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/dodstandards
I think Paizo created the adventure path and the idea and it should be theres Screw WOTC after the rules compedium i wont buy a book from them
I think Paizo created the adventure path and the idea and it should be theres Screw WOTC after the rules compedium i wont buy a book from them
It just seems hypocritical that they're whining about not seeing 4th edition's OGL, and their business is founded on using the 3.5 OGL, yet they are trying to trademark this term. It's like trademarking "You're fired!" It just seems really, really lame.
I think Paizo created the adventure path and the idea and it should be theres Screw WOTC after the rules compedium i wont buy a book from them
Agreed.
And personally, I think this is pretty silly.
WOTC can just call it something else.
|
It just seems hypocritical that they're whining about not seeing 4th edition's OGL, and their business is founded on using the 3.5 OGL, yet they are trying to trademark this term. It's like trademarking "You're fired!" It just seems really, really lame.
Do you think it's hypocritical that Wizards created this OGL and yet don't allow people to use Illithids and Beholders willy-nilly?
Do you think it's hypocritical that Wizards created this OGL and yet don't allow people to use Illithids and Beholders willy-nilly?
They have contributed a thousand times more to the pot than Paizo ever has.
Two words. That's not much to ask.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This thread rocks. It's just absurd enough to not be taken personally. I also love how the original post is chock full of bait relating to every flame war takasi has ever started. It's like a buffet of petty idiocy.
For those who weren't around for the last time takasi awoke from his hundred year slumber to rampage about ridiculous minutia, don't take his posts personally or seriously. Takasi posts some really great stuff - his thread about RotRL sidequests is solid and deserves responses (I've been meaning to do so myself).
Unfortunately, takasi has some sort of paranoid delusion about Paizo and the importance/universality of his opinion, and for every high quality thread, you get one of these. It's really too bad.
|
I think Paizo created the adventure path and the idea and it should be theres Screw WOTC after the rules compedium i wont buy a book from themIt just seems hypocritical that they're whining about not seeing 4th edition's OGL, and their business is founded on using the 3.5 OGL, yet they are trying to trademark this term. It's like trademarking "You're fired!" It just seems really, really lame.
WotC didn't open the gaming market with OGL to be good neighbors. They did it as a smart business decision (practically free advertisement, for one). The juggernaut that is the WotC marketing scheme has apparently blinded you to their true motives. Paizo should keep everything they can lay claim to (including WotCs old office staplers and tape dispensers). If they don't, WotC will gobble up everything in their path and turn it into a cookie-cutter, level grinding MMO.
Just want to add that Paizo does contribute OGL in Pathfinder. However, I still think it's ironic that they keep this very generic term so close. I think the industry needs a standardized name for "adventure paths", and it would be nice if they gave that term back to the community.
Hey Takasi!
I just wanted to say thanks. You're rants about Dungeon magazine at ENworld a few months back are what clued me in to Paizo's existence. I'd always assumed Dragon and Dungeon magazine were produced by WOTC. It wasn't until the Paizo staff politely responded to all your attacks and accusations there that I realized that they were, in fact, a separate entity.
So, without your bizarre complaints about Dungeon's content, I wouldn't have started coming to these boards and ended up discovering Pathfinder and Gamemastery , which are the best products for D&D that I've ever seen.
So thanks again Takasi. And keep on reaching for that rainbow!
WotC didn't open the gaming market with OGL to be good neighbors. They did it as a smart business decision (practically free advertisement, for one). The juggernaut that is the WotC marketing scheme has apparently blinded you to their true motives. Paizo should keep everything they can lay claim to (including WotCs old office staplers and tape dispensers). If they don't, WotC will gobble up everything in their path and turn it into a cookie-cutter, level grinding MMO.
For whatever their motivations, it has obviously helped Paizo become what it is today.
And don't tell me about cookie-cutter and Paizo. Their mantra of "keep it generic and vanilla" has been said over and over.
Not that I don't like Vanilla. But it's definately cookie-cutter at its core. Let's start off our campaign with a goblin attack on the town and a big long dungeon crawl. Please. (Not that I don't like it, but it's nothing ground breaking. The fact that it's traditional though is what makes it appealing. But don't accuse WotC of doing the same. They are introducing new concepts like Eberron, and the Forgotten Realms has everything but the kitchen sink.)
Just want to add that Paizo does contribute OGL in Pathfinder. However, I still think it's ironic that they keep this very generic term so close. I think the industry needs a standardized name for "adventure paths", and it would be nice if they gave that term back to the community.
The term is "campaign", and has been since the dawn of time. TSR gave us that long ago (though it probably came from whatever wargames inspired Chainmail in the first place).
The term is "campaign", and has been since the dawn of time. TSR gave us that long ago (though it probably came from whatever wargames inspired Chainmail in the first place).
A campaign is a series of game sessions run by a DM.
An adventure path is a series of sequential modules to be used throughout the entire lifetime of a campaign.
An adventure path is a series of sequential modules published by Paizo to be used throughout the entire lifetime of a campaign.Edited for legal accuracy.
See the confusion has already started!
Please give this term back to the community. It would be a sign of generosity to other publishers and in the spirit of open gaming.
Paizo already has Pathfinder Chronicles to differentiate themselves in the marketplace.
Here are a few more places where WotC used the term Adventure Path, going back as far as 2001:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881670000
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/iw/iw20011007a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20060418a
|
|
Great. Another "Takasi has a venomous opinion that everyone should bow down to and except" thread.
I would love to see you get banned from the site. You contribute nothing except half-thoughts and ire and the rudeness you display only encourages others to dig down to the depths where you like to troll around.
Just go away.
Great. Another "Takasi has a venomous opinion that everyone should bow down to and except" thread.
I would love to see you get banned from the site. You contribute nothing except half-thoughts and ire and the rudeness you display only encourages others to dig down to the depths where you like to troll around.
Just go away.
Wow, was this post suppose to be an example of irony, or was that just accidental?
Maybe Paizo and WotC could make a trade, two words for two words. WotC can have Adventure Path, and Paizo can have 'Dungeons & Dragons.'
ROFLMAO!!!!
Adventure Paths for Paizo only! No open Source!
Two words. That's not much to ask.Maybe Paizo and WotC could make a trade, two words for two words. WotC can have Adventure Path, and Paizo can have 'Dungeons & Dragons.'
Ironically, Paizo probably wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to use those two words for the past few years. They should give the other little guys a break and keep Pathfinder Chronicles and let go of Adventure Path.
You know.. when I had that feedback about crafting, I just never thought it would come to this.
I'm sorry for that!
|
Contributor
|
Takasi, honestly, is there a publisher out there who is crying out to use the term "Adventure Path" and who's excellent product line will fail without it? If so, that would be the kind of evidence you should present, to support your argument.
Because right now, under all of this, I think you have made a potentially interesting point. The problem is, that point is emphatically not "Paizo should release the term Adventure Path to the public domain," The point is "If WotC tried to dispute Paizo's claim to the trademark on 'Adventure Path,' they might have a leg to stand on."
As for the rest, Paizo and WotC entered into a business agreement and both lived and prospered by that agreement while it lasted. WotC saw it as advantageous at the time, and the fact that Paizo grew under it's terms does not mean that Paizo owes anything further to WotC now that that agreement has ended.
I'm loathe to admit it, but as much flame bait as it is, he's correct. His point about gaming freedom vs. corporate restriction being disingenuous is dead to rights. There, I said it. Now I'm going to go wash myself off.
Takasi, honestly, is there a publisher out there who is crying out to use the term "Adventure Path" and who's excellent product line will fail without it? If so, that would be the kind of evidence you should present, to support your argument.
Agreed.
Takasi, honestly, is there a publisher out there who is crying out to use the term "Adventure Path" and who's excellent product line will fail without it? If so, that would be the kind of evidence you should present, to support your argument.
I may want to publish one day. Or someone else might.
Or I may want to setup shop as a retailer one day and advertise all of the adventure paths to potential DMs.
Or I may just want a simple, universal term that I can use to search for a series of modules that encapsulate a campaign.
They may be killing off products developed in the future by their actions today.
Pathfinder Chronicles is a brand. Gamemastery is a brand. Adventure path is a product type. I think the industry needs the name to help improve the quantity and quality of that product type.
|
What I don't understand is that any other company could easily publish what looks like an Adventure Path, but using another name for it instead of Adventure Path. If Paizo wants to keep the rights of Adventure Path to themselves, I would think it's only because they want to reduce confusion in customers. The Adventure Path name has only be associated to Paizo products so far, so if someone else uses that name, customers could be confused about whom published it.
On top of that, I also see the OGL not as a gift, but as a kind of prison. To play Pathfinder/Modules products, you still need a PHB, a DMG and a MM1. Those 3 are published by WotC, so they make plenty of money there. If there was no OGL, 3rd parties would have to publish their own PHB, DMG and MM, and it would make WotC book sell less copies and would dilute the customer base into many different, yet very similar games. So, yes OGL makes 3rd parties happy, but it also helps WotC greatly in keeping the players under its wings!
3rd parties are probably more likely to publish products under the OGL, because it's easier than creating an entirely new game, but it gives WotC more sales. For exemple, if WotC goes fast enough to give Paizo staff 4e material and OGL, Paizo could turn to 4e with the 3rd AP. That means, I and many other customers of Paizo, will probably buy 4e core book quite fast to be ready to play AP3. How many would have bought those 4e core books if it weren't for readily accessible adventures Modules and APs that use those? I'm prety sure many would not buy 4e core book until they realy need them. Or until they have tried them and made sure they like it. And, lest face it, the actual average D&D player/GM doesn't need 4e to have fun and doens't need to convert until his favorite adventures requires/encourages it.
I may want to publish one day. Or someone else might.
Or I may want to setup shop as a retailer one day and advertise all of the adventure paths to potential DMs.
Or I may just want a simple, universal term that I can use to search for a series of modules that encapsulate a campaign.
They may be killing off products developed in the future by their actions today.
At the risk of prompting a warning from the board ops, this is the most ridiculous argument I think I've ever heard. Copywriting the term "Adventure Path" holds no danger whatsoever of killing potential products.
And you claim to be a creative person. Maybe all this energy spent on whinging about this is perhaps better spent on coming up with an alternate term. Then you have no more problem.
But seriously, this is ridiculous.
|
Who cares who owns "Adventure Path"... it's not like Paizo is going to come after US for using the term when we're talking.
Frankly, I'd rather Wizards not be able to us it. Otherwise they'll start putting "Adventure Path" on every module they sell whether it's good or bad and ruin the term.
I would hate to see DD1: Barrow of the Forgotten King, DD2: The Sinister Spire, and DD3: Fortress of the Yuan Ti called Adventure Path and used as the basis for all Adventure Paths. Granted DD1 was good and can be used anywhere.. but come on.
Nothing stopping companies from using Adventure Chain.
|
Ok addressing each one of Takasi's arguements:
"I may want to publish one day. Or someone else might."
So publish.. how is this stopping you from publishing?
"Or I may want to setup shop as a retailer one day and advertise all of the adventure paths to potential DMs."
We already do this at our store - it's all on a shelf labeled Adventure paths/Complete campaigns/and module series
"Or I may just want a simple, universal term that I can use to search for a series of modules that encapsulate a campaign."
Go with whatever term that site uses for linked adventures.ever since the internet I have had to search different sites for different sets of linked adventures, whether they were called 'linked adventures','campaigns','staggered campaigns', 'adventure paths', or 'paths to glory' (these are just from the sites I have bookmarked) These sites won't change, so being able to use these words won't make it any easier to search.
"They may be killing off products developed in the future by their actions today."
I Don't see this as a threat to the industry, most companies that produce adventures, already have their own name for adventure paths, and as I've shown above - there are plenty not used that are available.
"Pathfinder Chronicles is a brand. Gamemastery is a brand. Adventure path is a product type. I think the industry needs the name to help improve the quantity and quality of that product type."
The first 2 sentences are true.
The third is only semi true - adventure paths are now known as a product backed by Paizo's customer service and above par community, at least this is how the players shopping for adventure paths are looking for. people who come into the store who don't care about online content, just ask for adventures that they can string together to create a campaign. This is from my experience as an employee at a comic/gaming store.
|
funny how these things start...
I originally commented to Vic about the insecurity of the term Adventure Path in another topic. Never did I imagine this would start.
Fact is, regardless if WOTC used the term before they did not trademark it. Which would have been easy to do. Paizo has trademarked the term, though not registered it. The difference is simply an ease in defending your claim in court.
We, as consumers can use the phrase in any context we like, nothing keeps us from doing that. However, another publisher may not use that term. If they do, Paizo has every right to take that publisher to court for damages and infringement. My point was that Paizo's claim may not be 100% rock solid as the phrase has already been used in the gaming industry. It would be like trademarking the phrase Hit Points, or Strength (well not quite but you get the idea).
Now this does not mean that Paizo does not have a legitimate claim on the phrase. Only a court could rule on that definitively. But, WOTC, especially, has a case for contesting the trademark.
Be that as it may be, I really doubt any publisher out there really wants to go to court, and incur the high legal fees associated with it, to argue over the phrase Adventure Path.
Besides, as cool a phrase as Adventure Path is, if another publisher is not original and creative enough to find another phrase for the same thing, then I probably won't buy their product anyway.
|
|
Just silly. Why does Paizo's trademarked term for "Campaign-in-a-Box" need to be open? Why is this so bloody critical? Can't people use another term for their own "Campaign-in-a-Box" (obviously, as that's what they did over at ENWorld)? Is the whole gaming community going to collapse without "Adventure Path" being opened up? Just silly.
So, uh... smurf? Yeah, smurf.
Oh, I love it when a thread turns to smurf!
It's time for the vomit guy to show up.