Does Paizo worry about any future legal battles with WotC?
The OGL allows for the use of existing open gaming content. If you write adventures I think you're OK.
However, in a new, aggressive age of WotC IP control, I would not be surprised at all if lawsuits were used as a way to prevent small businesses from creating new innovations into the OGL. Their case? The new material copies or patterns material that is outside of the OGL.
It may be a shaky case, but is Paizo prepared to defend themselves? They already dropped the 'Adventure Path' trademark issue; I wouldn't be surprised if WotC started using that term in the future.
I think the safest route is to keep the RPG as close to the existing OGL as possible. Some of the things I'm seeing are already very similar to the ideas presented in the 4E previews.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
From my admittedly non-legal perspective, it looks like the OGL allows pretty much anything other than certain basics, such as XP awards and character generation basics such as rolling (or point buying) ability scores.
I'm pretty curious what Paizo's plans are for the final hardcover Pathfinder RPG in 2009, whether they will include those or not. One thing I don't know about the OGL is if there are any provisions for adding these restricted elements once the 3.5 core rule books have been out of print for a while. If there is, I'd guess a 1 year out of print timing, which would make August 2009 a coincidentially good time to put out a full rulebook using the OGL.
But the d20 system is unimportant to WoTC now that they have 4E. Why would they suddenly change the d20 OGL if they no longer use it and are no longer making products for it? The new, more strict, license relates only to the 4E system. If WoTC were to sue Paizo, it would be out of spite. I firmly believe that this will not happen.
Edit: Also, there are other companies that have printed the two big no-no's: XP and Ability Score Creation. They just say "uses the rules for the d20-fantasy game" or something along those lines. They even print the OGL in the back of the book. Check out the World of Warcraft RPG, for instance.
If they are careful Paizo shouldn't become any more vulnerable to lawsuits than any other RPG publisher, if they use OGL or not.
Also the OGL can't be changed. They can't ever revoke any ot the things they allowed once. The stuff that could become problematic would be if you publish a feat or prestige-class, that is very similar to another one by wizards, which is not in the OGL.
But if you keep things generic enough, there could hardly be anything anyone could do against it. For example "ninja" is no original work of wizards and anyone can make a ninja class. "Ki-strike" is equally generic. Introducing a "Sudden Strike" on the other hand, that is a variation of Sneak Attack, would clearly be plagiatism.
Edit: Also, there are other companies that have printed the two big no-no's: XP and Ability Score Creation. They just say "uses the rules for the d20-fantasy game" or something along those lines. They even print the OGL in the back of the book. Check out the World of Warcraft RPG, for instance.
That is allowed in OGL, but not d20.
I'm just worried that new developments in the OGL may be challenged because 4E is derived from the OGL and is now closed. I'm thinking that any addition to the OGL that could be argued as similar even in style to 4E could become a legal nightmare.
If WotC did that, they would not have ANY ground to stand on. Others have done the same, just to name a few:
OSRIC
True20
Mutants and Masterminds
Conan
Babylon 5
These are all complete games that use SRD info to make complete games and WotC did nothing to them legally. OSRIC is blantently 1E is the serial numbers filed off. Wizards has done nothing to them.
Creative Director
|
I'm not that worried, especially since that'd cause a huge ripple effect that would bring in other companies who have created successful games off the OGL (Mutants and Masterminds, for example), and no legal action has been taken there yet. AND: The PR backlash against such a thing would be nightmarish.
Anything's possible, sure. But I'm not worried about what MIGHT happen. I'm more worried about making Pathfinder as awesome as it can be while avoiding the nervous breakdown that's lurking just over my shoulder. I think it just bought a baseball bat. And it's not a fan of baseball, is what I'm saying...
I'm more worried about making Pathfinder as awesome as it can be while avoiding the nervous breakdown that's lurking just over my shoulder. I think it just bought a baseball bat. And it's not a fan of baseball, is what I'm saying...
Whenever you hear its footsteps behind you remember to take long, deep breaths.
Adapt as the stresses come and know that all problems are just challenges, and that nothing will ever break you.
Whenever you hear its footsteps behind you remember to take long, deep breaths.Adapt as the stresses come and know that all problems are just challenges, and that nothing will ever break you.
Jade has some good advice for you, James.
Also remember, you don't need to quit your job and move to Alaska to fight flying saucers. You can fight flying saucers right where you are, without quitting your job.
They're everywhere. :D
If WotC did that, they would not have ANY ground to stand on. Others have done the same, just to name a few:
OSRIC
True20
Mutants and Masterminds
Conan
Babylon 5
They were developed in an OGL friendly era of WotC, and during a time when the current version of D&D fell within the license of the OGL. I'm not suggesting they would be sued for violating the terms of the OGL; I'm worried they would be sued for mimicing concepts designed for the new, non-OGL D&D system.
When it comes to non-D&D IP, WotC has pursued litigation despite the negative publicity of lawsuits against competitors.
My hope is that PF RPG keeps it simple and doesn't stray far from OGL. I don't want to see the line disappear like so many RPGs before it.
Well, we don't intend to "backwards engineer" 4e into our system, so I'm not worried about it.
If 4E is around and influential in any way on playtesters then you could have trouble if any of the feedback you incorporate into Alpha/Beta even remotely resembles 4E (be it vague and/or unintentional).
Personally I'd like to see you continue your focus on adventures. The standard OGL has worked for Paizo so far. Keep it as close as possible.
In neither our world or any nearby alternate universes would WotC sue Paizo over anything of this nature. Never.
You've got to understand that most of the people in the upper levels of the industry know each other and are typically at the very least friendly if not outright friends (a few exceptions allowed for the rule). Yes, even those soulless devils at WotC. ;)
At cons, they hang out, have a drink at the bar, and share stories, and most importantly, there is a camaraderie that is worth much much more than any frivolous lawsuit.
Not going to happen.
And as I've said elsewhere, Paizo has given the fans a voice, but they still make the final choice. Based on their track record, I personally am willing to trust them with that choice fully.
|
|
In neither our world or any nearby alternate universes would WotC sue Paizo over anything of this nature. Never.
You've got to understand that most of the people in the upper levels of the industry know each other and are typically at the very least friendly if not outright friends (a few exceptions allowed for the rule).
*coughCOUGHKevinSiembiedaCOUGHcough*
|
Does Paizo worry about any future legal battles with WotC?
The OGL allows for the use of existing open gaming content. If you write adventures I think you're OK.
However, in a new, aggressive age of WotC IP control, I would not be surprised at all if lawsuits were used as a way to prevent small businesses from creating new innovations into the OGL. Their case? The new material copies or patterns material that is outside of the OGL.
It may be a shaky case, but is Paizo prepared to defend themselves? They already dropped the 'Adventure Path' trademark issue; I wouldn't be surprised if WotC started using that term in the future.
I think the safest route is to keep the RPG as close to the existing OGL as possible. Some of the things I'm seeing are already very similar to the ideas presented in the 4E previews.
This idea is a non starter. If you actually look at the OGL, nothing actively prohibits publishers from releasing their own material as additions.
As to your point in a later post about prefering adventures, you are not alone. However, pazio has explained in several threads that a games system BOOK has to be available to get your adventures on the shelf. No PFRPG = no Paizo adventures in stores. That's a no-brainer.
[wear tinfoil hat]Finally, if we are going to engage in outlandish what-if thought exercises, I would imagine that if the admittedly nigh-impossible law suit you postulate occured, Paizo could avail themselves of opensource legal counsel and funds, and would thus not have to attempt a defense alone. [/wear tinfoil hat]
but all of this is based off speculation without support and can safely be ignored. I'm not saying Hasbro wouldn't LIKE to sue, I just think they recognize that the percentages are too low to make it worth while.
If it's your right shoulder, you seem to have really been ticking off the celestials recently....
Just whose brainchild do you think Cheliax is?
(I actually don't know the answer to that question, but James has done nothing but promote and support those diabolists, I can tell you that.)
|
Senior Software Developer
|
SSquirrel, nobody deleted your post. I am currently on the hunt for bugs which eat posts. Or put them in the wrong page of a thread. Or make posts not show up for awhile. Or...
I rewrote our messageboards code extensively last week because performance issues were killing our site. There are almost certainly bugs in the new code, which I am squashing as I find them.
If we delete a post we'll let you know.
[edit] A quick check of my error logs doesn't show an exception being thrown for you. When you made your post did you get tossed back to the front page of paizo.com?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Also the OGL can't be changed. They can't ever revoke any ot the things they allowed once.
The first quoted sentence isn't correct: Wizards can publish a revised OGL anytime they like. However, there is apparently legal precedent in open source licensing that indicates that parties can continue to use any officially released version of an open license at any time, so the second quoted sentence remains true.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Now you're getting me worried, Vic. Could you please clarify for me if in US/international law legal precedents can be overturned if enough lawyers make enough of a fuss effectively enough on behalf of megacorporation clients?
You know, I don't know what I was thinking. Precedent likely doesn't even matter, because the license itself says this:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
(Though I'll also point out I'm not a lawyer.)
I'm all for biting the hand that starves you. "You'll be fed tomorrow, honest. I'll have the food then." Won't give me food? I'll take the hand. You're not doing anything with it, anyway.
If they are careful Paizo shouldn't become any more vulnerable to lawsuits than any other RPG publisher, if they use OGL or not.
Also the OGL can't be changed. They can't ever revoke any ot the things they allowed once. The stuff that could become problematic would be if you publish a feat or prestige-class, that is very similar to another one by wizards, which is not in the OGL.
But if you keep things generic enough, there could hardly be anything anyone could do against it. For example "ninja" is no original work of wizards and anyone can make a ninja class. "Ki-strike" is equally generic. Introducing a "Sudden Strike" on the other hand, that is a variation of Sneak Attack, would clearly be plagiatism.
From my understanding, it would be really difficult even if something was blatantly similar.
The mechanics cannot be copyrighted along with a large amount of descriptive names. Basically what's copyrighted is the fluff. Rename here and there and give it a different descriptor and basically you could have something nearly identical (though probably not identical seeing is Paizo seems to have a flair for changing things, which I enjoy) and basically be in the clear.
This of course doesn't mean that a lawsuit won't occur. Lawsuits happen all the time, even if there is little basis for them.
SSquirrel, nobody deleted your post. I am currently on the hunt for bugs which eat posts. Or put them in the wrong page of a thread. Or make posts not show up for awhile. Or...
I rewrote our messageboards code extensively last week because performance issues were killing our site. There are almost certainly bugs in the new code, which I am squashing as I find them.
If we delete a post we'll let you know.
[edit] A quick check of my error logs doesn't show an exception being thrown for you. When you made your post did you get tossed back to the front page of paizo.com?
Oh and for the record this drives me mad, and I have to get smurfy to avoid yelling at my computer.
The worst part is it almost always happens on long posts...never short ones. Is this some kind of page-timeout?
Oh and for the record this drives me mad, and I have to get *&^%$# to avoid yelling at my computer.The worst part is it almost always happens on long posts...never short ones. Is this some kind of page-timeout?
yeah I think it is...I have learned rightclick and copy is your friend.
At first I thought it was the administrators way of yelling "FRAT!!!" at me and my long posts.
Then I remembered this is a board dedicated to tabletop gamers, and for something to be FRAT it has to be 40 pages long with annotations.
/threadjack
The worst part is it almost always happens on long posts...never short ones. Is this some kind of page-timeout?
Murphy's Subroutine
yeah I think it is...I have learned rightclick and copy is your friend.
Oh and for the record this drives me mad, and I have to get *&^%$# to avoid yelling at my computer.The worst part is it almost always happens on long posts...never short ones. Is this some kind of page-timeout?
LOL, I do this too. Ive had so many temporary post.txt files on my desktop. :)
I usually just backgrack and copy the text from there. Works well with the right browser.
Hopefully Mike won't mind me reposting this from another thread on these very forums, but I think its relevant to the discussion:
Actually, I can bear witness that Ryan predicted this in 1999. When he first came into Wizards' RPG R&D department with this crazy-but-brilliant-sounding idea* of decentralizing D&D, he was asked what would happen if Wizards ever wanted to put D&D back in the bottle. Ryan was clear that he believed such an attempt would be doomed to failure, and that the open system would remain economically viable for someone after that point.
To be absolutely clear, Wizards hasn't said it's not supporting open gaming, and some of the people making the decisions there now were in the same room I was when Ryan brought this up. All I'm saying is that Ryan did think of this possibility at the dawn of d20, before anyone else did.
Mike
*Or, to some at the time, this crazy-but-seriously-I-mean-really-crazy-sounding idea.
The point being that it didn't really blindside WOTC that people might try to base a new, non-D&D game off of the SRD. It was something that was discussed at the inception of the SRD, right from the start.
When D&D was pretty much the SRD + other stuff, this wasn't a problem. Do you want to buy the actual deal, or the cheap knock off? Its only when D&D looks less and less like the SRD that any issue becomes apparent, and WOTC knows that possibility was out there, and still decided to make 4th edition unlike the SRD version of the rules.
I'm a law student interested in IP, and I've looked over the OGL. Its very interesting, so I might write a paper on it.
While WotC seems to own some of their trademarks lock, stock, and barrel, there are certainly things in the SRD and DnD I don't think they can copyright or trademark. That doesn't mean that they can't drive a smaller company out of business by way of legal fees.
But, to be fair, I'm only a law student. I can't give sound legal advice. This is just my opinion.
Just don't get into trouble until I pass the bar in two years. :)
I always wondered how WOTC decided what monsters to hold out of the SRD. I get the beholder and mind flayer, since those really didn't exist outside of D&D (though the mind flayer obviously owes its inspiration to Lovecraft).
But why one race of fish people, and not another (Kuo-Toa versus Sahuaghin, for example)? Why displacer beasts (which now that I see their origins, were pretty much even cut and pasted for their appearance) but not blink dogs, their mortal enemies? And why on earth is such a "generic" fantasy concept as a snake blooded race (yuan-ti) on the "no no" list?
Other creatures, while obviously inspired by a type of fiction, are certainly more unique to D&D (like aboleth, areanea, etc.)
I'm not complaining, mind you, just wondering what the thought process was as to what should and shouldn't be on the list.