Not trying to start a fight or anything, just kinda wondering where 3PP now stand on the editon wars. For the record I'm OGL guy now, I'm sure 4th has merits, but its not my game and will not get my money, any hate from me goes to the company not the rules. And yes while I'll never buy or run, I don't have such an issue with any system that I wouldn't at lest play, no such thing as a perfect system also means no such thing as a broken or bad system.
So far I see 4E guys to be
Wizards (yeah I see them as 3PP now).
Goodman
and maybe Necro, though he's on the fence, playing both sides I guess.
OGL people.
Mongoose
Green Ronin
Paizo
WOW RPG
Malhovic (although they really aren't in the game much anymore.
3.5 isn't being supported as such, but I suppose you can put Paizo there, though purest like Pres Man would beg to differ.
Anyways I thought a board keeping up on where publishers stand might be interisting thread.
|
Wizards (yeah I see them as 3PP now)
Funny, I have the same feeling.
OGL people:
If possible, could anyone adding 3PPs to this list please provide a link to where each company have declared their commitment to one system or another? I am very curious to know which of my favourite game systems will be staying 3.5, and would like to read it straight from the horse's mouth, and not third-hand or via heresay.
For example: I hadn't heard any news which direction WOW RPG were taking with future products. However, WOW Forum: Will the World of wrcraft rpg stay 3.5 ed suggests that what has already been published is likely all we're going to see.
And while I believe we'll here it from Paizo before we hear it from anywehre else, which companies are going to support Pathfinder RPG? I'd be surprised if Paizo haven't already had discussion with some 3PPs. Eg, Kobold Quarterly would be a great asset if it aligned itself with Pathfinder.
Anyways I thought a board keeping up on where publishers stand might be interisting thread.
Indeed it is, thanks! :-)
|
Last I had heard was that Mongoose was keeping up its OGL games but not publishing any new generic OGL fantasy, in favor of some 4e GSL products.
|
|
Last I had heard was that Mongoose was keeping up its OGL games but not publishing any new generic OGL fantasy, in favor of some 4e GSL products.
Indeed: Mongoose Announcements
Also, the Grand OGL Wiki - a project to archive 3.5 rules from Mongoose D20 products online for free access!
Good I'm glad people wanted a place for this, and I agree when possible lets get the info directly.
As a side note I noticed that mongoose isn't putting its eggs in on basket, I like Conan as a OGL low fantasy, and am using some its rules in Pathfider so great that it'll stay OGL, on the other hand supporting 4th might a good bussines choice. At the same time looks like Goodman is going 4th with DCC if not all there lines, except for J.G. adv. which I don't think they own. I know there is spectulation as too if they singed with GSL or simply going 4th, but if they are doing GSL they risk the brand name.
In either case sad to see them go, and wish them the best. Like I said don't want this to become a 4th is bad thread, just looking to see where they are going.
TTFN Dre
So far I see 4E guys to be
Wizards (yeah I see them as 3PP now).
Goodman
and maybe Necro, though he's on the fence, playing both sides I guess.OGL people.
Mongoose
Green Ronin
Paizo
WOW RPG
Malhovic (although they really aren't in the game much anymore.
For what it's worth (preview for up coming Tome episodes, www.thetomeshow.com) I chatted with several people at different companies at Origins on this subject and I would say pretty confidently that you can take Green Ronin out of the OGL category and place them firmly in the "undecided" group. At least from what I was told last week by Steven Kenson.
Likewise, you can add Margret Weis Productions to the 4e category. They told me pretty conclusively that they are going to re-release the Castlemourn setting (by Ed Greenwood) as a 4th Edition setting. To my knowledge they don't have plans to publish anything under the OGL. It will be Castlemourn and then the rest looks like it will be Cortex (their own system).
I think the only people who will probably go GSL all the way are the companies that only make generic modules or companies that are so small they feel they have to hitch their wagon to the new marketing juggernaut. Anybody who has their own settings or game systems will probably dual-track to protect their other properties from the vagaries of the GSL. Margaret Weis' company is a good example. They're converting their one D&D setting to 4e under the GSL, while also developing their own system for any other settings they want to make.
3.5 isn't being supported as such, but I suppose you can put Paizo there, though purest like Pres Man would beg to differ.
*laughs like little school girl* tee hee, I got recognized
Currently Pathfinder is in fact still in the 3.5 column, but that will only last for another year and then it will switch to the OGL column. At that point, 3.5 will probably be effectively dead from a professional game company perspective. The true spirit of the OGL will then be dead, instead companions will turtle in and continue developing their own particular game systems and as time goes on they will diverge farther from each other.
Don't know what he'll do in the future, but Mario over at 0one games has plenty of stuff that's OGL.
A few of us did a campaign setting book. That and my writing for OGL superfriend Sinister Adventures represents my most favorite game writing of late.
Tricky Owlbear Publishing, Inc. is staying with 3.5/OGL. I could include a few links here to where it's declared but, since I'm the president of the company and all, hopefully this post will do. :)
Bret Boyd
I'm very curious to see what Necro does.
It seems to me the GSL limitations are potentially pretty damaging to their planned 4E "Advanced Player Guide" and they have already tentatively announced a Pathfinder Tome of Horrors.
Clark's been very quiet over the last couple of weeks as well. Hopefully the silence indicates greater support for Pathfinder...
(Well, I can dream.)
Nice resource guys. RedBrick has announced 4E support (they're the owners of EarthDawn, although I don't think they'll be releasing a 4E EarthDawn, which would totally rock!)
Also, there was another 3PP that announced they were coming to 4E, but I can't recall their name now. :(
They had an interesting setting, kinda modern/fantasy mix. I saw the announcement on the 4E boards ... if I can find it again I'll come back and let you guys know ...
Cheers! :)
Nice resource guys. RedBrick has announced 4E support (they're the owners of EarthDawn, although I don't think they'll be releasing a 4E EarthDawn, which would totally rock!)
I don't know. I mean I tend to think of Earthdawn as moving pretty much in the opposite direction as 4E. 4E is extraordinarily modular - put a system in or take one out and it has very little impact on the rest of the game. Earthdawn is the opposite of that. Everything effects everything else - your stats impact your magic in a manner thats far more pronounced then any edition of D&D and certainly more pronounced then 4E.
It strikes me as trying to take a systems with very different approach and just forcing it to fit the mold of the opposite approach.
Nice resource guys. RedBrick has announced 4E support (they're the owners of EarthDawn, although I don't think they'll be releasing a 4E EarthDawn, which would totally rock!)I don't know. I mean I tend to think of Earthdawn as moving pretty much in the opposite direction as 4E. 4E is extraordinarily modular - put a system in or take one out and it has very little impact on the rest of the game. Earthdawn is the opposite of that. Everything effects everything else - your stats impact your magic in a manner thats far more pronounced then any edition of D&D and certainly more pronounced then 4E.
It strikes me as trying to take a systems with very different approach and just forcing it to fit the mold of the opposite approach.
Hmm. I'd have to go get my ED books out to see whats your talking about (man, it has been FOREVER since I've managed to play a good game of ED :(), but I don't think a conversion would have to be mechanically accurate.
That said, all of the 4E classes At-Will/Encounter/Daily setup seems like it could work well in the ED world; especially with the more supernatural Martial Exploits.
But I don't want to sidetrack this thread too far ... bring in the 3PP news! :)
Nice resource guys. RedBrick has announced 4E support (they're the owners of EarthDawn, although I don't think they'll be releasing a 4E EarthDawn, which would totally rock!)
Since Redbrick is actually licensing the Earthdawn IP from FASA, I doubt they'd have the authority to do a 4e Earthdawn. Of course, the delay between their announcement of GSL acceptance and the product announcements could mean there are negotiations going on.
Also, there was another 3PP that announced they were coming to 4E, but I can't recall their name now. :(
They had an interesting setting, kinda modern/fantasy mix. I saw the announcement on the 4E boards ... if I can find it again I'll come back and let you guys know ...
Cheers! :)
I think you're talking about Dias Ex Machina. I really hope they don't get screwed over by a GSL termination or revision. It would suck to see their options for their own original setting shrink.
I think you're talking about Dias Ex Machina. I really hope they don't get screwed over by a GSL termination or revision. It would suck to see their options for their own original setting shrink.
Nailed it in one Kelvin! Thanks for the assist there.
As I said earlier, I'd like to see some 4E style ED, and now you have gotten my hopes up in thinking I'll actually see it. Drats! :P
Holy smokes! 4E EarthDawn!
Please excuse me while I go celebrate! :)
I like the clever way they did it. By naming their product after the setting, they may have insulated themselves somewhat from GSL revisions.
|
|
Just to add to the list of settings staying or going:
Paradigm Concepts' Living Arcanis setting will be not be going 4E, but neither will it remain 3.5. Instead, they plan on moving over to their own system. > Announcement here <
I thought Living Arcanis was a very popular and successful setting under 3.5, and by the Henry Lopez, Paradigm Concepts President's own admission, he expects to lose a percentage who play Arcanis because it's another 3.5 setting - sadly, myself among them. I can understand the creative freedom to weave stories under their own system, but ...
Henry claims "Ever since 4E was announced sales of 3.5 books have plummetted across the industry". However, by all reports, Pathfinder seems to be growing by leaps and bounds - evidence perhaps that players are turning to third-party providers for the 3.5 content that Wizards no longer produces. With less 3.5 publishers in the market, particularly the departure of the largest player (Wizards), could result in a larger share of the 3.5 pie for established publishers who play their cards right.
I can understand publishers moving to 4E; I can understand publishers remaining 3.5; but when you already have a successful 3.5 setting, I can't really understand moving to a new system.
As another example, I loved 3rd Edition Rokugan, though I found the dual-statted rulebooks lost focus, and when it moved back to it's own L5R system, they lost me as a player.
When 4E was announced, my hope was that Goodman, Necro, and Paizo would stay 3.5.
Goodman is going 4E (boo!)
Paizo is staying 3.5 (yay!)
Necro is likely to go 4E, but also may be doing some Pathfinder (Tome of Horrors).
I can understand publishers moving to 4E; I can understand publishers remaining 3.5; but when you already have a successful 3.5 setting, I can't really understand moving to a new system.
I can, but it doesn't mean that I, as a consumer, am interested in following.
Monte Cook announced his retirement a while ago, and stated that Malhavoc had no plans to write any 4E products.
Kenzer and Co just announced a new 4th Edition compatible Kalamar Guide, over 500 pages, including a reprint of the Kalamar Atlas.
Where did it say Paizo was converting to 4E in a year's time? I must have missed that.
Where did it say Paizo was converting to 4E in a year's time? I must have missed that.
There has been any. But they are converting to their own system, Pathfinder RPG, in about a year. It is based closely on the 3.5 system (as are several other OGL 3PP systems).
|
|
Re: Living Arcanis moving away from 3.5
Henry seems to be relying on the strength of the campaign setting to migrate players over to a new system. However, my personal experience has been otherwise. I dropped Dragonlance when it went Saga (pre-3rd Edition); left Rokugan when it departed 3E; abandoning Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and anything else that Wizards publishes now that they've gone 4E; and likewise I'll drop Arcanis when it leaves 3.5.
Granted, there was a lot of choice in 3.5 campaign settings and related product. Having invested heavily in 3.5, there was little incentive to divert spending on something different. And much of it was "plug-and-play", in that you could port ideas from one 3.5 setting or sourcebook directly over to another with little-or-no conversion required.
3.5 is a very established system that a majority of players are familiar with. No need to learn a new system. I don't care whether it's 4E, L5R or something else, changing systems is not going to carry me over, no matter how compelling the campaign setting is.
I'll miss Arcanis, Eberron and others, but Pathfinder is a great setting played in a system I'm familiar with and love - with a new Adventure Path chapter every month!
I know Arcanis has a dedicated following, perhaps one that is more campaign-plot-driven than the average game. Some will make the move, they may even attract some non-D20 players, but I think breaking away from 3.5 will fracture their player-base just as much as D&D has been with 4E.
I'll miss Arcanis, Eberron and others, but Pathfinder is a great setting played in a system I'm familiar with and love - with a new Adventure Path chapter every month!
You do realize that Pathfinder will be going to its own game system in a year right? You seem to be acting as if it is going to stay 3.5, so I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the fact it is going to change.
|
|
I'll miss Arcanis, Eberron and others, but Pathfinder is a great setting played in a system I'm familiar with and love - with a new Adventure Path chapter every month!You do realize that Pathfinder will be going to its own game system in a year right? You seem to be acting as if it is going to stay 3.5, so I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the fact it is going to change.
Pathfinder's goal is to remain backwardly compatible with 3.5. Currently playtesting the Alpha-3, I don't regard it as markedly different than what I was previously playing. Some tweaks, yes, some improvements, yes. However, 4E is a completely different ruleset, as is L5R and I have no reason to suspect Paradigm Concepts have anything remotely "backwards compatible" in mind for Arcanis, or they would have said so.
I'm not sure where you're going with this "Pathfinder will be going to its own game system in a year". I see you're a regular on these boards, and thought you'd be aware of Pathfinder's goals? The Alpha-3 is available for everyone to playtest and see for themselves.
Pathfinder's goal is to remain backwardly compatible with 3.5.
That is one of their goals, yes, though not necessarily the most important goal all the time. Also one has to consider what is meant by "compatible", does it mean plug and play or is "convertible" a better choice of description.
Currently playtesting the Alpha-3, I don't regard it as markedly different than what I was previously playing. Some tweaks, yes, some improvements, yes.
Ok. So you don't regard it as different enough, that is fine. But you do admit it is different. Others may have different opinions on how different it is for them personally. While what you have seen still qualifies as "3.5" to you (though as you say it is different in places), others may say it is no longer "3.5", at least as much as 3.5 was not 3rd edition. In fact most people are describing it as 3.75 or 3.P, that seems to be a clear understanding that it is not 3.5.
However, 4E is a completely different ruleset, as is L5R and I have no reason to suspect Paradigm Concepts have anything remotely "backwards compatible" in mind for Arcanis, or they would have said so.
True. So it is not that you don't see logic of changing from 3.5, but instead you don't see logic in not being backwards compatible? I totally understand that. My group might have considered 4e if it had some backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure where you're going with this "Pathfinder will be going to its own game system in a year".
I am not "going" anywhere with this, just trying to put some facts out there for people. When people suggest that Pathfinder is going to be 3.5, that can be misleading. It clearly is based on 3.5 and is meant to be convertible (at least in one direction, 3.5 to PfRPG), but it is not 3.5. I am not saying that is a bad thing or anything. But the worst thing that could happen is for someone to purchase the product believing it was 3.5 and then get pissed because it was not and start bad mouthing the company. Paizo has tried to be more open than say WotC, let's continue that and be truthful in our descriptions is all.
I see you're a regular on these boards, and thought you'd be aware of Pathfinder's goals? The Alpha-3 is available for everyone to playtest and see for themselves.
I am, and I have looked over the system as well as read comments by the people involved in its develop, that is how I know that backwards compatibly is not their one goal or even necessarily their primary goal all the time.
Pathfinder generally strikes me as an evolution from 3.x, and as such, it does not 'feel' like a markedly different system. On the whole, there really was not a massive difference between 3.0 and 3.5, to the extent that I and those I played with did not have to make any major changes when we 'switched'. In fact, I can't really even recall when we did, because we were still using the same sourcebooks, just with a new PHB/DMG/etc. Rules changes crept in, but it felt as much like collected errata as it did anything else.
4th Edition, by contrast, is such a huge change on so many levels that there is really no mistaking it. It is an entirely different system, that happens to use similar base concepts and terms. This isn't referring to whether or not it's difficult to learn/etc, but no one can mistake that you're playing it.
Incidentally, it probably also adds a little bit of confusion that 'Pathfinder' is not just the name of the gaming system rules, but also is used for the module periodical series, and has been used to refer to the game world of Golarion as well.
Incidentally, I hear a lot about the differences between the OGL and GSL, and about how some companies intend to get wholly behind this or that, or how they're going to publish. Would anyone be able to publish the details of what it means, legally, to sign, what you can and can't do, etc?
Would it be correct then to describe Pathfinder as a game evolving from the OGL (which is a 3.# derivative anyway)? I'm glad I didn't mishear as I'm looking forward to seeing where Pathfinder goes.
Would it be correct then to describe Pathfinder as a game evolving from the OGL (which is a 3.# derivative anyway)?
I think that is a very good description.
|
|
I think you're talking about Dias Ex Machina. I really hope they don't get screwed over by a GSL termination or revision. It would suck to see their options for their own original setting shrink.
Ugh, those guys. That setting seriously blows. Only time I've wanted my money back on a rpg book.
Those guys are welcome to go to 4E.
Okay guys, lets not go up in flames, thats why I phrased Paizo as OGL. PresMan most people see OGL/3.5 as being the mechanics more then the absolut rule set, lest its been my experince that making the distiction causes more confusion then not. Example, both Rokugon and Dragonlance had rules changes to fit the setting almost as extensive as Pathfinder, they are still considered 3.5 or in Rokugon's case 3.0. Not saying your wrong, just saying most people get more confused by saying its a new system.
As to the latest news. Arcanus will be missed, I like there Prist better then the Cleric, though I would give him maybe less hit dice to make the distiction between the two. Still It may not be a bad move as they could in theory do Pathfinder conversions at a later date.
Kingdoms of Kalamar on the other hand has been the first real dumbfounded moment in the Editon Wars for me. They risk the brand setting if they go GSL, and they risk being sued by Wizards if they don't but come out with 4th compatable. Yes I know courts will back them up in the end, but lets face it the legal sytem is about how much money you can spend over the other guy. Moreover I thought they would simply stick to Hackmaster (which I've actually heard nothing but good things about) and be done with it. Now I really have to buy up a lot of KoK stuff before the total end. I'm not a publisher, nor lawyer, so I rarely say this, but I think going 4th with a setting like that, either as GSL or not, is a big mistake.
In any case thanks for the up dates all, and keep them coming, I want a good source of info for all.
TTFN Dre.
Okay guys, lets not go up in flames, thats why I phrased Paizo as OGL. PresMan most people see OGL/3.5 as being the mechanics more then the absolut rule set, lest its been my experince that making the distiction causes more confusion then not.
Indeed, I also placed the PRPG, when it comes out next year, in the OGL category (see my first post on this thread). While most of the people you have contact with may agree with you that OGL/3.5 is more "the mechanics more then the absolut rule set", that may not be the case for everyone (personally I am not exactly sure what you mean by that, don't the mechanics make up the rule set?).
Let me just pose a hypothetical. Let's say you see a product online, it seems interesting and it says "OGL 3.5 compatible" and you decide that because you like the 3.5 system, you'll purchase it. When it arrives, you begin looking through it, only to realize that it is actually just a 3rd edition product that they slap a "OGL 3.5 compatible" sticker on. Is the sticker wrong? Is it not compatible with 3.5? Well sure it can be converted over, possibly with little difficulty, but you might still feel you were duped. I would just hope nobody ends up feeling the same way about PRPG.
Paizo has a good record of being open and having good customer service. I don't think telling people that it is 3.5 when it is actually more like 3.75 is in the best interest of that. Paizo should be proud that they are "advancing" the game and not feel stuck with the 3.5 label. Paizo should be saying something like, "PRPG is taking the OGL to the next level." Instead of suggesting that it is still 3.5.
EDIT: I guess if we wanted to be truly specific we should call it OGL version 1.0a
Kingdoms of Kalamar on the other hand has been the first real dumbfounded moment in the Editon Wars for me. They risk the brand setting if they go GSL, and they risk being sued by Wizards if they don't but come out with 4th compatable. Yes I know courts will back them up in the end, but lets face it the legal sytem is about how much money you can spend over the other guy. Moreover I thought they would simply stick to Hackmaster (which I've actually heard nothing but good things about) and be done with it. Now I really have to buy up a lot of KoK stuff before the total end. I'm not a publisher, nor lawyer, so I rarely say this, but I think going 4th with a setting like that, either as GSL or not, is a big mistake.In any case thanks for the up dates all, and keep them coming, I want a good source of info for all.
TTFN Dre.
On the Kenzer message boards, David Kenzer claims that they first released KoK in the 2e days without a license. But actually, being sued for not accepting the GSL is better than being sued for GSL noncompliance. At least this way, Kenzer doesn't automatically have to pay WotC's legal fees.
Okay guys, lets not go up in flames, thats why I phrased Paizo as OGL. PresMan most people see OGL/3.5 as being the mechanics more then the absolut rule set, lest its been my experince that making the distiction causes more confusion then not.Indeed, I also placed the PRPG, when it comes out next year, in the OGL category (see my first post on this thread). While most of the people you have contact with may agree with you that OGL/3.5 is more "the mechanics more then the absolut rule set", that may not be the case for everyone (personally I am not exactly sure what you mean by that, don't the mechanics make up the rule set?).
Let me just pose a hypothetical. Let's say you see a product online, it seems interesting and it says "OGL 3.5 compatible" and you decide that because you like the 3.5 system, you'll purchase it. When it arrives, you begin looking through it, only to realize that it is actually just a 3rd edition product that they slap a "OGL 3.5 compatible" sticker on. Is the sticker wrong? Is it not compatible with 3.5? Well sure it can be converted over, possibly with little difficulty, but you might still feel you were duped. I would just hope nobody ends up feeling the same way about PRPG.
Paizo has a good record of being open and having good customer service. I don't think telling people that it is 3.5 when it is actually more like 3.75 is in the best interest of that. Paizo should be proud that they are "advancing" the game and not feel stuck with the 3.5 label. Paizo should be saying something like, "PRPG is taking the OGL to the next level." Instead of suggesting that it is still 3.5.
EDIT: I guess if we wanted to be truly specific we should call it OGL version 1.0a
Sigh-Oh well why not.
Okay heres the logical part:
If I bought the product and it was totally Changeling the Dreaming and nothing else with D20 on it yeah your right. If on the other hand it had Changeling the Dreaming magic system slaped onto an otherwizse D20 (which I used to define the way I now define as OGL) then thats fine. In-fact I ran a game dong just that using Changeling magic system in D20, though no product ever did the same. It worked out well.
>Flames Rage Flames<
Historical Back up part:
Not sure if it was Mr. Cook or not, but when this first started read an interview with one of Wizards developers where they asked something to the effect of aren't you worried that other game lines/companies would add new mechanics and systems to the core rules. The response was that is what they were hoping for so that the game gets better. In the long run a standard would develope that is simply accpeted. I saw that as being that the general mechanics, roll for skills by adding up ranks/ablity/misc. will stay somewhat the same (even if you replace ranks with skill points ala Pathfinder) but it would only be generally accpeted if its an improvement. Well Wizards was the leader of that, now its Pathfinder.
>Rage Flames Rage<
Now the somewhat mean part:
Honestly are you also mad at Wizards for coming out with 3.0 OGL/D20 when the true real D20 would not be made until 2003 with 3.5?
>Flames Rage Flames<
Response Part:
1. Sure you can change this, that, and the other thing, but at what point is it not 3.5/OGL.
2. Wizards wanted that sort of, but really they wanted 3PP to be there lap dogs an only make supplments not to dare make improvments to there game.
3. I find your last remarks insulting.
>Rage Flames Rage<
I shoot back-ahhh I'm tired now.
Yadda yadda yadda Flames yadda rage yadda flames, and nothing gets settled. Like I said, your not wrong technically its just not a fight we need here.
On the Kenzer message boards, David Kenzer claims that they first released KoK in the 2e days without a license. But actually, being sued for not accepting the GSL is better than being sued for GSL noncompliance. At least this way, Kenzer doesn't automatically have to pay WotC's legal fees.
Kingdoms of Kalamar on the other hand has been the first real dumbfounded moment in the Editon Wars for me. They risk the brand setting if they go GSL, and they risk being sued by Wizards if they don't but come out with 4th compatable. Yes I know courts will back them up in the end, but lets face it the legal sytem is about how much money you can spend over the other guy. Moreover I thought they would simply stick to Hackmaster (which I've actually heard nothing but good things about) and be done with it. Now I really have to buy up a lot of KoK stuff before the total end. I'm not a publisher, nor lawyer, so I rarely say this, but I think going 4th with a setting like that, either as GSL or not, is a big mistake.In any case thanks for the up dates all, and keep them coming, I want a good source of info for all.
TTFN Dre.
Never looked at it that way. Intersting. I suppose thats valid, just I wouldn't risk my creation on it. Moreover are they going to dule everything with Hackmaster. I vaguly hoped they would continue 3.5 compatable as Print on demand as they have been doing. Seems like I now have to get that stuff fast before its pulled.
Looking forward to next year when the dust is settled and the games that that remained OGL will be what I get without the worry of hurrying up and buying everything. This year is almost breaking me.
On a related note, to any and all out there, whats going on with J.G. stuff. I know they are not goodman/necro but seems they put there stuff out with them. Since both are very close to going 4th is J.G. considred a sperate line, and are they sticking with OGL?
Sigh-Oh well why not.
I did not view my post as flame-bait or flame-warring or whatever. It was merely that you called me out in your previous post and I felt it appropriate to reply to you. In the future you might want to refrain from suggesting that an issue should be dropped and then trying to get a parting "shot" at a fellow poster. If you want to drop an issue, then drop it. At least that is how I see it, YMMV.
LOL I'm "trying to get a parting "shot""? Yeah okay.
Back to topic just read in a Pathfinder thread that Clark of Necromacer games wants changes to GSL before supporting 4th.
He wants to do Pathfinder stuff when the final game comes out (which only makes sense since the final rules have not been ehh finalized?)
He also mentions that the J.G. is kinda in limbo because If I'm reading correctly J.G. would perfere to remain OGL and not get tied up with the GSL problems but at the same time this makes Necromacer publishing it an issue. I'm not exactly sure why that is as I understood the current GSL allowed product lines to go fourth as the company wanted. This seems to hint that GSL is still an all or nothing for a company.
Please, I'm not trying to spread rumors it just they way I read the post and to be clear I really don't know, it seems to read that way. In any case it makes less sense as Clark seems to be going to make Pathfinder (OGL) product and wants to make GSL stuff at the same time. Maybe this is more JG issue. (Imput would be welcomed).
In any case as I said else where in the end this is Good news Bad news. Wizards has nuked OGL but it lives on. This is a victory for Paizo as they never had to defeat wizards simply survive. They have done so and it looks like they have allies as well. Good news. Yet the market is very factualized bad news as less product means less experimentation, but we were left with only Paizo, Necro, and Mongoose visa-vi Conan, that'd be acceptable.
He also mentions that the J.G. is kinda in limbo because If I'm reading correctly J.G. would perfere to remain OGL and not get tied up with the GSL problems but at the same time this makes Necromacer publishing it an issue. I'm not exactly sure why that is as I understood the current GSL allowed product lines to go fourth as the company wanted. This seems to hint that GSL is still an all or nothing for a company.
It's in limbo because of the Judges Guild product line begins using the GSL, they cannot, ever, put out another JG product under the OGL. And I doubt Necromancer Games really sees that as an optimal deal.
So the GSL isn't an "all-or-nothing" for a company in whole, but an "all-or-nothing" for a product line, switching to just "nothing" if you end up having your GSL permission yanked.
He also mentions that the J.G. is kinda in limbo because If I'm reading correctly J.G. would perfere to remain OGL and not get tied up with the GSL problems but at the same time this makes Necromacer publishing it an issue. I'm not exactly sure why that is as I understood the current GSL allowed product lines to go fourth as the company wanted. This seems to hint that GSL is still an all or nothing for a company.It's in limbo because of the Judges Guild product line begins using the GSL, they cannot, ever, put out another JG product under the OGL. And I doubt Necromancer Games really sees that as an optimal deal.
So the GSL isn't an "all-or-nothing" for a company in whole, but an "all-or-nothing" for a product line, switching to just "nothing" if you end up having your GSL permission yanked.
I see. I didn't think J.G. was going GSL, last I heard it was going to re-do players guide book as OGL, that was a few months back however. Too bad really, sorta hoping they'd stick to OGL. Anyways thanks for the info.
I see. I didn't think J.G. was going GSL, last I heard it was going to re-do players guide book as OGL, that was a few months back however. Too bad really, sorta hoping they'd stick to OGL. Anyways thanks for the info.
If they do stay OGL, then they can't publish anything under the GSL.
If they go GSL, they have to stop selling their electronic OGL-compatible files ASAP, and stop printing the OGL-compatible as well.
Also, one of the clauses in the GSL prevents any product lines that use it from EVER going back to the OGL.
Right now, Clark's saying that the GSL is far too restrictive, but the OGL market is drying up, so the line can't go either direction really.
I think you're talking about Dias Ex Machina. I really hope they don't get screwed over by a GSL termination or revision. It would suck to see their options for their own original setting shrink.Ugh, those guys. That setting seriously blows. Only time I've wanted my money back on a rpg book.
Those guys are welcome to go to 4E.
Oh right...you posted the review on RPGNow that got deleted by the site because they thought you actually hadn't read the book... ;)
Seriously, we have no issues with the GSL and the response from basically all but one :) of the fans has been extremily supportive.
Its been a real learning experience and the end result will be much stronger than the old 3.5 edition...
Don't worry, if we get screwed, you'll be the first to know. :)
Just heard Mongoose is going to do the Quintessential line for 4th ed.
I find it somewhat odd that they decided to support 4e with all the risk, though maybe thats just my only personal disapointment getting in the way of a bussiness choice.
In case someone happens to know, I wanted to ask what ever happened to Mongooses plans to give older 3.x d20 stuff for free on the web, after the end of the year deadline. I have most of there stuff but I would like to get back ups of the better/more useful Products. They claimed that due to the cost of removing the d20 logo it wasn't worth the time and effort to keep them available for pdf purchase. Thus an other reason to dislike Wizards. Its one thing to try to kill 3e but to attempt to erase it for fans even in the form of older books via pdf files was my last straw. If mongoose is still going ahead with that plan its great of them, though I must admit I still feel somewhat like I'm just stealing from them if they do so. The rogue in me wont let the guilt stop me mind you, but it'll be hard.
Hoping this tread dosent die I'll also give an other bit of news.
Looks like GSL will be revised, who know when or as what, though I see this not as a move by Wizards admiting maybe GSL is too strict but to undermine the OGL movement. If a publisher wasn't going to go for the restrictions (though many have anyways)they would at lest consider the an OGL source (True 20, Pahtfinder, maybe even Conan had Mongoose come out with that rulesystem setting netural as I actually like some things about that game better then what I've seen in the early Alpha playtest)but if its less restrictive or seems that way (I no longer trust Wizards in any way shape or form, they might get my money for Star Wars and minatures, but never my trust) a 3pp will support 4e. Its a move to kill OGL, just a smarter one.
I've ranted enough, keep the infomation coming.
TTFN Dre