|
Cute.
Q5: WHAT ABOUT PAIZO'S PATHFINDER?
Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is being designed to replace the void left by the original 3rd Edition rulebooks going out of print.
Dream Machine Productions feels strongly that this is a void that needs to be filled, and we champion Paizo's efforts. In the fall of 2007, when it became apparent that 4th Edition was going to be radically divergent from the design traditions of 3rd Edition, we began exploring the idea of re-tasking Legends & Labyrinths as a replacement core rulebook to fill that void.
In March 2008, however, when Paizo announced their plans for Pathfinder, we scrapped those plans. We feel strongly that 3rd Edition gaming should continue to be supported, and we feel equally strongly that this can't be accomplished if our collective efforts are diluted through unnecessary competition.
However, Legends & Labyrinths was not originally designed to compete with the 3rd Edition core rulebooks, nor do we feel that it competes with Paizo's Pathfinder. Rather, Legends & Labyrinths complements those products and serves a unique niche in the market. Think of it as the red box Basic Set for 3rd Edition.
I admit I'm now curious to see what's their product.
I know, from speaking with several publishers behind the scenes, that Pathfinder is being looked at as the best product to fill the void. This is especially true since so many of these publishers, all of which have based their product lines on the OGL and D20 STL, have rejected the GSL. Not only is there simply no other alternative in terms of real market presence, but it looks like Pathfinder is seeking to solve the problematic issues inherent in the system while continuing the rules set to the next successful iteration within the same line.
On a side note, I for one, am more than willing to invest in a whole new set of core books if they keep 3rd edition game alive but tweak the problem areas.
We game in interesting times.
Perhaps I should have grabbed a quote instead:
Change always comes bearing gifts. ~Price Pritchett
I think we can expect to see a lot of publishers doing this very soon.
The cover looks pretty cool, and the promised content sounds mildly appealing to me, as I'm not too thrilled with the changes that the PRPG is making at the moment. They are cool, but they only solve some of the very small issues that are inherent in the 3.5 ruleset. I think high-level play will be the make or break deal for me.
You say this as if this is a new thing. Several publishers have come on Paizo's own boards and expressed support for Pathfinder RPG and said they are more then interested in publishing for it, provided the license is quality.
After the long frought back and fourth of the GSL, Paizo's license will look like a breath of fresh air to quite a few publishers.
You say this as if this is a new thing. Several publishers have come on Paizo's own boards and expressed support for Pathfinder RPG and said they are more then interested in publishing for it, provided the license is quality.
After the long frought back and fourth of the GSL, Paizo's license will look like a breath of fresh air to quite a few publishers.
As I understand it, the Paizo license will only allow 3PP to use the Pathfinder RPG logo on their products, while the system is covered by the OGL. So a 3PP could still support PRPG without the license, they just can't put the logo on their books.
And that's the beauty of this whole thing. Even if Paizo decides to scrap the PRPG sometime in the future, or make a Borg license like WotC, 3PP can still use the PRPG ruleset, and even continue developing it since it's OGL. And that's probably why many 3PP are eying PRPG at the moment, since they don't have to gamble their entire business on Paizo's good will.
On a related note, I would actually like to see Paizo go one step further, and invite 3PP in the development process of the system. If a number of game designers cooperated to develop the OGS, each one with the right to publish the system under their own name (PRPG in Paizo's case) I think that the system could have the potential to capture a good chunk of the RPG market.
As I understand it, the Paizo license will only allow 3PP to use the Pathfinder RPG logo on their products, while the system is covered by the OGL. So a 3PP could still support PRPG without the license, they just can't put the logo on their books.
Yeah, the license is just there for the logo, so people can indicate compatibility. And Paizo will make it very easy to get the Pathfinder license.
On a related note, I would actually like to see Paizo go one step further, and invite 3PP in the development process of the system. If a number of game designers cooperated to develop the OGS, each one with the right to publish the system under their own name (PRPG in Paizo's case) I think that the system could have the potential to capture a good chunk of the RPG market.
No one kept them from giving feedback, but I think taking a lot of other companies in as additional cooks would be spoiling the broth. They did get Monte "Mister Third Edition" Cook as a rules consultant, though.
|
|
However, Legends & Labyrinths was not originally designed to compete with the 3rd Edition core rulebooks, nor do we feel that it competes with Paizo's Pathfinder. Rather, Legends & Labyrinths complements those products and serves a unique niche in the market. Think of it as the red box Basic Set for 3rd Edition.
The idea of a nicely packaged, PFRPG-licensed, "basic" boxed set... well, that's just sweet.
|
|
On a related note, I would actually like to see Paizo go one step further, and invite 3PP in the development process of the system.
I agree with this sentiment, but I don't know that it's going to happen on any formal level. However, it wouldn't surprise me if a few high-profile designers from 3PPs are quietly providing the Pathfinder team with some feedback and suggestions.
IMHO, what would be truly sweet is if a few designers 'donate' some previously closed content to Pathfinder under the OGL. Companies like Green Ronin and Malhavoc have already grappled with some of the same issues in 3.5 that Paizo is currently working on - but much of the relevant work is closed content, preventing Paizo from re-using it.
On a related note, I would actually like to see Paizo go one step further, and invite 3PP in the development process of the system. If a number of game designers cooperated to develop the OGS, each one with the right to publish the system under their own name (PRPG in Paizo's case) I think that the system could have the potential to capture a good chunk of the RPG market.
Wulf (blanking on his last name) of Bad Axe Games has been a very vocal supporter of PfRPG on ENWorld and is also a playtester. IIRC he's posted here a few times.
|
Wulf (blanking on his last name) of Bad Axe Games has been a very vocal supporter of PfRPG on ENWorld and is also a playtester. IIRC he's posted here a few times.
Wulf Ratbane.
If i remember my ENWorld lore correctly, the name is the name of a dwarven character who began his career killing rats. His real name is Benjamin Durbin.
I believe Dreamscarred Press has also expressed interest in doing Pathfinder Psionics.
Wulf Ratbane.
If i remember my ENWorld lore correctly, the name is the name of a dwarven character who began his career killing rats. His real name is Benjamin Durbin.
I believe Dreamscarred Press has also expressed interest in doing Pathfinder Psionics.
IIRC, you are correct on all counts.
So, is there a list of the publishers who are supporting PfRPG and of those crazy enough to really go 4E?
I don't think any publisher is openly and definitively saying they are going to be a PfRPG 3PP until they see the license. While licenses put out by former 3PPs thus far (GR and Mongoose, most notably) have been very fair and, I suspect, most publishers are very willing to assume Paizo's license will be very fair as well, I don't think anyone wants to make another GSL mistake and are this time waiting.
I know that I'm planning on soon complementing my freelancing with publishing my own material. (Just gotta finish up one last lingering project - sorry Dreamscarred!!) Originally it was going to be a pretty even split between 4e and 3.5/3P. But after finally seeing the GSL, I plan on publishing nothing but 3.5/3P! (Well, maybe tri-stat down the road with True20 if there's interest.)
Plus, since I'll be publishing electronic products that will be easy to update, I plan on supporting... uh... "3P"... right away and offer updates as necessary once later versions are released.
I don't think any publisher is openly and definitively saying they are going to be a PfRPG 3PP until they see the license. While licenses put out by former 3PPs thus far (GR and Mongoose, most notably) have been very fair and, I suspect, most publishers are very willing to assume Paizo's license will be very fair as well, I don't think anyone wants to make another GSL mistake and are this time waiting.
Clark Peterson of Necromancer has all but declared offering some Pathfinder products. I'm still in the "publisher wannabe" camp, but I fully intend to support a certain system I can't claim compatibility with, but just might be relevant to this discussion. ;)
I think the delay is more from scrambling to balance the GSL, the copyright/trademark law path of supporting 4e, supporting own product lines, supporting 3.5/Pathfinder, or like Monte saying "It's been a fun ride, we'll dabble a bit, but we're basically done now."
As for worry about the Pathfinder logo license, considering:
1) Paizo and the Paizo staff have an excellent reputation for being fair.
2) After seeing the GSL train wreck, I don't think other publishers would be interested in creating another licenses along those lines.
C) Pathfinder is an "underdog" system, so the benefits of being open is pretty obvious, whereas the benefits of D&D being open has good arguments on both sides. So it's in Paizo's financial interest to get as many other publishers on board as possible.
iv) It's only a logo license. The GSL licenses the system, but that cat if already out of the bag with Pathfinder Alpha. Any OGL publisher can make any Pathfinder compatible product today because the rules are already open under the OGL. Indicating to consumers that it's Pathfinder might be a bit tricky, but it's far from impossible.
E) Erik Mona has stated that it's probably along the lines of "a couple paragraphs of legal text" if I recall. It took the GSL 7 pages to achieve it's infamy. Although it's surprising how much legalese can fit into a couple of paragraphs, it sounds more "CYA" legalese than massive GSL-like restrictions.
Given all of those, I really don't see many publishers worrying about the Pathfinder license. I'm sure the big companies won't promise anything until they see the details, but I'd figure they would be more tentative about whether the decision to support "the previous version of D&D" is financially viable or not.
I'd expect to see droves of PDF publishers who aren't going 4e jump on board, however. But the big print shops are probably facing the much larger question of supporting 3.x in any version or not. The Pathfinder logo debate only follows from that other decision.
Clark Peterson of Necromancer has all but declared offering some Pathfinder products.
I'm putting Necromancer in the "Might do a few products for Pathfinder" column instead of the "fully committed" column. He's said he'll do Tome of Horrors Pathfinder Edition but I suspect that to be more because he likes the Tome of Horrors line and doesn't want to have to scrap all previous books of that line just to sell a new one for the line involving "best of" monsters. I don't, however, expect to see a regular line of adventures from Necromancer.
E) Erik Mona has stated that it's probably along the lines of "a couple paragraphs of legal text" if I recall.
Yea, I expect the license will be 2 pages long (if that) and resemble something Green Ronin or Mongoose put out. But still, if I were a publisher, I'd wait until I saw the license before signing up with it or else my regular customers would be crying "vaporware" if I changed my mind after seeing it.
I remember Clark saying he wanted to support PfRPG but also he was definitely supporting 4E.
He can do one or the other but not both.
I wonder which side he will land on.
Nope, he can definitely do both.
A misunderstanding of a leaked comment he heard led to the mistaken belief that you had to go one way or another as a whole company. The truth is that each product line has to go one way or another.* So as long as the 4e products are distinctly separate product lines from the Pathfinder ones, Necromancer can easily support both games.
* Let's leave aside the whole rant about how WotC can define "product line" however they want or revise the GSL at will or lock a product's content away forever. There's already plenty of discussion and ranting about that in other threads. :)
Last we heard, Clark's not planning a Tome of Horrors 4E because that would mean that he'd have to scrap all 3E Tome of Horrors books, which isn't something he wants to do. He did say he's planning a 4E monster books, but called something else.
From what he's been saying all year, I'm guessing he had a monster book planned (and nearly completed) with a bunch new monsters and plenty of "best of" monsters, but it a good portion of those monsters doesn't fit with the GSL so he's making a monster book with those monsters plus some others in the future for pathfinder.
*Editted because I got ninjaed.*
I just wish Hasbro / WotC gave up and sold D&D in its entirety to Paizo. The 4e 'extreme makeover', while mechanically sound, wasn't necessary. Paizo just feels like it would be the perfect place for D&D to call home right now. To me, Paizo = TSR done right.
To me, Paizo = TSR done right.
EDIT: Nevermind... duh me.
To me, Paizo = TSR done right.*Confused* Do you mean T$R?
The thing that leaps out to me: as far as I can tell, all Paizo staffers are also gamers. That makes one hell of a lot of difference. It's not a company that's being run by suits who've never tossed a d20 in their whole frikkin' lives.
Paizo are just a bunch of geeks like us. :)
Any Necromancer products for Pathfinder is a plus for me.
However, I have two hopes left for Necromancer:
Slumbering Tsar and Tegal Manor using 3.5/Pathfinder.
If we can get one or both of those, I'll be a very happy camper.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
To me, Paizo = TSR done right.*Confused* Do you mean T$R?The thing that leaps out to me: as far as I can tell, all Paizo staffers are also gamers. That makes one hell of a lot of difference. It's not a company that's being run by suits who've never tossed a d20 in their whole frikkin' lives.
Paizo are just a bunch of geeks like us. :)
Well, she-who-shall-not-be-named was very proudly not a gamer, so TSR was just as guilty of that as Hasbro. They just had the benefit of being smaller, and only one generation removed from the actual creators of the game.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yea, I expect the license will be 2 pages long (if that) and resemble something Green Ronin or Mongoose put out. But still, if I were a publisher, I'd wait until I saw the license before signing up with it or else my regular customers would be crying "vaporware" if I changed my mind after seeing it.
I actually just finished the first draft last night, and it's now circulating for comment from folks around the office. Erik was being optimistic with the "couple of paragraphs" notion—I've written in layman's English, and our lawyer will be responsible for translating it to legalese, but it's currently about 1500 words. I basically looked at a bunch of other OGL-derived licenses, and worked with the goal of being slightly friendlier than those as much as possible, while still protecting our interests, as well as the interests of Pathfinder RPG players. The licenses that were the most influential were Grey Ghost's Fudge System Trademark License and Green Ronin's True20 Adventure Roleplaying Trademark License.
Are fan sites are acceptable and legal, maybe derivative software containing non-IP rules? :D
I actually just finished the first draft last night, and it's now circulating for comment from folks around the office.
BEST DAMN NEWS POSSIBLE TODAY
The licenses that were the most influential were Grey Ghost's Fudge System Trademark License and Green Ronin's True20 Adventure Roleplaying Trademark License.
Also some damn excellent news.
The licenses that were the most influential were Grey Ghost's Fudge System Trademark License and Green Ronin's True20 Adventure Roleplaying Trademark License.
Hey, if those were your inspirations, then that sounds great to me!
|
|
The licenses that were the most influential were Grey
Ghost's Fudge System Trademark License and Green Ronin's True20 Adventure Roleplaying Trademark License.
Here they are:
Ghost's Fudge System Trademark License
Green Ronin's True20 Adventure Roleplaying Trademark License
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Are fan sites are acceptable and legal, maybe derivative software containing non-IP rules? :D
The license I'm talking about covers printed books and electronic books only. We've started talking about website policies, but they're not even to the draft stage yet. As for software, we want you to negotiate separately with us (because there's a big difference between say, an online character generator and an MMORPG, so it would be unwise of us to place them under the same blanket license). In fact, we've already been talking to a few prospective software licensees.
Of course, there's still a lot that can be done under the OGL and under fair use.
Are fan sites are acceptable and legal, maybe derivative software containing non-IP rules? :DThe license I'm talking about covers printed books and electronic books only. We've started talking about website policies, but they're not even to the draft stage yet. As for software, we want you to negotiate separately with us (because there's a big difference between say, an online character generator and an MMORPG, so it would be unwise of us to place them under the same blanket license). In fact, we've already been talking to a few prospective software licensees.
Of course, there's still a lot that can be done under the OGL and under fair use.
Damn. Vic, are you TRYING to get me off of CoH / CoV? Because that just might do the trick if the game(s) are well thought out, have interesting adventures, and offer some Role Playing opportunites as well.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Damn. Vic, are you TRYING to get me off of CoH / CoV? Because that just might do the trick if the game(s) are well thought out, have interesting adventures, and offer some Role Playing opportunites as well.
The license I'm talking about covers printed books and electronic books only. We've started talking about website policies, but they're not even to the draft stage yet. As for software, we want you to negotiate separately with us (because there's a big difference between say, an online character generator and an MMORPG, so it would be unwise of us to place them under the same blanket license). In fact, we've already been talking to a few prospective software licensees.Of course, there's still a lot that can be done under the OGL and under fair use.
We've spoken to people about software *accessories* only so far!
~sad sigh~ Darn. Fine, be that way, Vic! ~grins~ Oh well.
A misunderstanding of a leaked comment he heard led to the mistaken belief that you had to go one way or another as a whole company.
That was what they first said. Then came the storms of protest, and they amended it. Which might of course be what hey intended from the beginning, and they hoped to get some good PR points by "relenting".
That was what they first said. Then came the storms of protest, and they amended it. Which might of course be what hey intended from the beginning, and they hoped to get some good PR points by "relenting".
A misunderstanding of a leaked comment he heard led to the mistaken belief that you had to go one way or another as a whole company.
Could be, but I'm inclined to take Scott and Linae at their word. And at least Linae was answering right away along the lines of "product line" than "per company" and stating it might be a misunderstanding. Scott said he didn't have the 100% final, every department okayed GSL in front of him, so he wouldn't say anything until then. But right from the start it sounded like a misunderstanding, and considering how big of a change it was and how slow WotC has been in approving changes, I'm inclined to believe them. Besides, I trust Scott and Linae, and other industry people I trust also trust them. However, that doesn't mean I trust WotC, especially in the long term.
But whatever path the GSL went through and whose version of the story you believe, we at least have the actual document in hand now. I suppose I shouldn't have editorialized and instead just corrected the poster that the final GSL has a "per product line" restriction, not a "per company" restriction. :)
Could be, but I'm inclined to take Scott and Linae at their word. And at least Linae was answering right away along the lines of "product line" than "per company" and stating it might be a misunderstanding.That was what they first said. Then came the storms of protest, and they amended it. Which might of course be what hey intended from the beginning, and they hoped to get some good PR points by "relenting".
A misunderstanding of a leaked comment he heard led to the mistaken belief that you had to go one way or another as a whole company.
Actually it was Orcus that said that he heard it straight from Scott and Lidda that it was by company and he was literally begging Scott and Lidda to come on ENWorld and correct him if he was on.
Besides, I trust Scott and Linae, and other industry people I trust also trust them. However, that doesn't mean I trust WotC, especially in the long term.
I prefer to think of it as, "I trust Scott and Lidda, I don't trust anyone that signs their paychecks"
the final GSL has a "per product line" restriction, not a "per company" restriction. :)
Today.
Could be, but I'm inclined to take Scott and Linae at their word.
I'm not.