I seem to recall seeing somewhere that there might be plans for a Pathfinder RPG logo at some point in the future. I also seem to recall some related statement that there'll be no such thing available before the final, release edition of PRPG hits stores. Please correct me if I misremember any of this (which I can't remember how to find right now).
Here's the problem:
I'm undertaking a game development project. The project is intended to ultimately be designed specifically with PRPG compatibility in mind. I won't release it in a final form until I have a final release version of PRPG in my hot little hands so I can make sure I get the compatibility right -- but I do intend to offer pre-release test versions, perhaps in a manner similar to the way Paizo is doing the Alpha and Beta test versions of PRPG itself (though probably not on the same grand scale).
While I'm doing this, I'd like to be able to refer to it as a development/test version of something intended to ultimately be compatible with PRPG, developed parallel to PRPG itself. What would be the preferred manner of doing that? "Pathfinder RPG" is a trademark of Paizo -- yes? Well, I don't want to step all over Paizo trademarks, or for that matter use the name without some kind of at least unofficial sanction for doing so, if I can avoid it.
I still need some way to specify the game system basis for what I'm doing, within the text of what I'm creating, though. Answers from people who actually speak for Paizo in some way would be most appreciated.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Our compatibility license will indeed require compatibility with the finished rules, and won't allow publication of products before the release of the finished rules.
However, since our alpha and beta rules are published under the OGL, and the only thing that's not open content is the list of our deities, the OGL does allow you to *use* that content so long as you comply with the other terms of the OGL. And Section 7 of the OGL does indeed prohibit you from saying that your product is compatible with the Pathfinder RPG:
You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.
All I can say is that if you don't use our trademarks, you're fine... and we're not trademarking abbreviations like "PRPG."
. . . but can I refer to "intended compatibility with the completed Pathfinder RPG", or in some other way refer to Pathfinder RPG as a target for compatibility, so long as I indicate that compatibility cannot be guaranteed before development is completed? If so -- how would you suggest I do so?
Obviously, the doctrine of fair use gives me some options here, but I'd prefer to simplify the language I use as much as possible.
My intent, of course, is to support Pathfinder RPG as much as possible, and at the same time provide as high quality a product of my own as possible, in part via community feedback. If I have to be circumspect about identifying the target of its "compatibility", this will interfere with my ability to elicit feedback in a meaningful way -- and I certainly don't want to have to wait a year before I even start working on it, just to ensure I don't have to dance around the subject of compatibility.
In short, what I want to be able to do is identify it as targeting Pathfinder RPG compatibility without officially calling it "compatible" with Pathfinder RPG, and without having to avoid actually mentioning Pathfinder RPG by name. Suggestions on how to accomplish this without stepping on anyone's toes would be appreciated.
Obviously, the doctrine of fair use gives me some options here, but I'd prefer to simplify the language I use as much as possible.
I'm no lawyer (so lawyers, please do not stomp on me to hard since I admit it) but it would seem logical to me that the OGL would supersede Fair Use.
Vic, could Paizo assist in coming up with a standard verbage to stand in for a logo for the following year, please? Perhaps something like, "For use with the Beta version of the Revised of the 3.5 Rules" or something like that?
Well Pathfinder is suppose to be compatible with 3.5, why not claim that your product is also compatible with 3.5.
If A ~ B and B ~ C, then A ~ C?
Well Pathfinder is suppose to be compatible with 3.5, why not claim that your product is also compatible with 3.5.
If A ~ B and B ~ C, then A ~ C?
If I made and publish a product with 101 colorful NPCs using the PRPG rules does it make sense for me to say "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 3.5"?
If I made and publish a product with 101 colorful NPCs using the PRPG rules does it make sense for me to say "Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 3.5"?Well Pathfinder is suppose to be compatible with 3.5, why not claim that your product is also compatible with 3.5.
If A ~ B and B ~ C, then A ~ C?
Who said anything about Dungeons and Dragons? It is compatible with OGL version 3.5, which is what Pathfinder is also compatible with, isn't it?
Who said anything about Dungeons and Dragons? It is compatible with OGL version 3.5, which is what Pathfinder is also compatible with, isn't it?
There is no OGL version 3.5, the OGL is a license which contains no actual game rules. Version 3.5 of the SRD is licensed under version 1.0 of the OGL. When Paizo references their open gaming content they say simply "OGL"... it's actually a bit confusing because while their content is under the OGL, their new version will also be under the OGL, as are many other alternate games systems rules which are clearly incompatible.
You could I suppose say "Compatible with version 3.5 of the SRD" but the SRD is not very commonly known and no one really knows what it is. Worse, someone could buy it assuming it's Core 3.5 stuff and they would be quite frustrated because there are strange class features, bloodlines, rogue skills, etc which are not part of the SRD.
I think Vic was hinting that "Compatible with PRPG" or something similar would be acceptable to Paizo and also OGL compliant.
You can use the OGL to actually use the Pathfinder rules, since everything except the deities has been declared as OGC (Open Gaming Content). The OGL however prohibits you from indicating compatibility with any registered trademark unless explicitly allowed to by the trademark holder (as will be possible once Paizo published their Compatibility Logo License). That is also the reason why many OGL Products say "For use with the world's most popular role-playing game."
Obviously, the doctrine of fair use gives me some options here, but I'd prefer to simplify the language I use as much as possible.I'm no lawyer (so lawyers, please do not stomp on me to hard since I admit it) but it would seem logical to me that the OGL would supersede Fair Use.
This is true -- but there's still room for fair use to come into play, because the OGL does not specifically address all such options. It simply states that you cannot directly say something is compatible by way of the use of a trademark.
Thus, with some effort, I could equivocate in a manner that gets the point across without specifically saying it's "compatible", per se. The problem is that playing games with the doctrine of fair use can get a little hairy, since the only way to be sure how much fair use protects you is to test it in court. A further problem is that I wish to comply with the spirit of Paizo's wishes as expressed by its use of the OGL, and not just the letter of the license and the law.
At this point, I'm leaning toward using some kind of statement to the effect that development targets Pathfinder RPG rules but strict compatibility cannot be guaranteed until the official PRPG release. Unfortunately, while that's acceptable for inclusion in the frontmatter of a free playtest download, it's not very friggin' useful for telling people what it is that I'm doing before they actually look at the thing.
How do you convince people to give it a look if you can't tell them what it is -- or, at least, can't tell them what it is in a form that doesn't provoke TL;DR responses.
So . . . I need something a bit shorter, snappier, and clearer than "Intended to eventually be compatible with the final release version of an unnamed game currently in development that is a fork of the next-to-last version of the world's most popular roleplaying game."
In other words, I want to be able to just say what I mean, rather than dancing around the subject trying to effectively imply what I mean until people get tired of trying to understand the point and quit paying attention.
|
Creative Director
|
One of the main reasons we're hesitant to allow official compatibility logos with the Beta is: it's a Beta. It's not a finished product. There WILL be changes between the Beta and the final rules, some of them, I suspect, might be relatively significant. Anything that comes out before then that says "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG" runs the risk of confusing customers, as a result, since anything that comes out before August 2009 WILL be immediately out of date once that time comes along.
It's best, as a result, to either simply use the 3.5 OGL for products for now. When we go live with the PF RPG, it'll be compatable with itself of course and with the 3.5 rules. It technically would be compatible with all manner of Beta and Alpha releases too... but the fear is, I think, that would make things more confused.
But as Vic mentioned above, as long as you avoid using trademarked stuff... everything should be all cool.
I guess I might use something along the lines of "For use with the PRPG Beta Playtest Release", perhaps with some more text on the inside stating that it might not be as compatible with the final release.
Wish I knew how to publish, but thats a differnt topic. To the point. How about something like this.
3.5 OGL (3P Testing) on the cover, full explaniation inside, and if a PDF on the discription of the work. Lets face it anyone in the know will understand 3P and anyone not will know 3.5 OGL, anyone else is most likely only getting materail from a brand name. I say 3P only because if Kalamar can simply put 4E without signing GSL I assume 3P isn't a tradmark and people will know what it is. Feel free to slam me if I'm mistaken somehow.
As to confusion, at this point either everyone is confused or in the know, I doubt if your really surpising anyone at this point.
JJ fair enough. I kinda/hope that LPJ will come out with an "OGL Beta Compatable" logo.
I'm no lawyer (so lawyers, please do not stomp on me to hard since I admit it) but it would seem logical to me that the OGL would supersede Fair Use.
Assuming someone enters into the OGL in the first place. If you're operating under OGL then the terms can be binding regardless of fair use.
In my view, you can indicate compatibility without being a party to the OGL. You have to be cognizant of copyright and trademark laws, however.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic, could Paizo assist in coming up with a standard verbage to stand in for a logo for the following year, please?
To be honest, we really don't *want* people doing anything with the beta (other than playtesting it with existing or home-grown materials), partly because the rules are—by definition—in flux, and we don't want customers or publishers investing time, effort, or money into stuff that could well be outdated the day it's released.
|
To be honest, we really don't *want* people doing anything with the beta (other than playtesting it with existing or home-grown materials), partly because the rules are—by definition—in flux, and we don't want customers or publishers investing time, effort, or money into stuff that could well be outdated the day it's released.
Understood. I for one, am not too interested in printed logos (at the moment).
For those of us that *may* be developing settings that are compatible, but intended as free products that support Pathfinder (and aren't intended as commercial competitors), what do you suggest?
Obviously, we need to follow each of the releases and try and swing our rulesets (now 3.5, evolving in PFRPG) in your direction.
However, once the system is complete, I'm sure many of us expect to to step completely away from OGL and carry its own brand/refined system. In this case, will Paizo still allow fan work to be created? Will private licenses be drawn up?
While I don't expect to see anything as Draconian as the GSL, will a similar (and far less restrictive) license exist for fans/potential independent designers?
Cheers,
Jaye Sonia
However, once the system is complete, I'm sure many of us expect to to step completely away from OGL and carry its own brand/refined system. In this case, will Paizo still allow fan work to be created? Will private licenses be drawn up?
While I don't expect to see anything as Draconian as the GSL, will a similar (and far less restrictive) license exist for fans/potential independent designers?
Cheers,
Jaye Sonia
The Pathfinder Compatibility Logo is almost certain to require certain conditions, like the d20 liscense did. I don't think anyone knows those conditions yet, including the Paizo staff, because they haven't been decided. However, not meeting those condtions will only mean you can't use the logo or the Pathfinder trademark. The OGL cannot be put back in the bottle by Paizo any more than it could by Wizards. Therefore, content using the PFRPG rules will always be allowed.
|
Our compatibility license will indeed require compatibility with the finished rules, and won't allow publication of products before the release of the finished rules.
However, since our alpha and beta rules are published under the OGL, and the only thing that's not open content is the list of our deities, the OGL does allow you to *use* that content so long as you comply with the other terms of the OGL. And Section 7 of the OGL does indeed prohibit you from saying that your product is compatible with the Pathfinder RPG:
You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.
OK I am confused, if the basis of PRPG is the OGL, and the OGL prohibits anyone from saying their product is compatible with PRPG, then how will you have a logo and license to use it, that does not conflict with the OGL?
|
|
To be honest, we really don't *want* people doing anything with the beta (other than playtesting it with existing or home-grown materials), partly because the rules are—by definition—in flux, and we don't want customers or publishers investing time, effort, or money into stuff that could well be outdated the day it's released.Understood. I for one, am not too interested in printed logos (at the moment).
For those of us that *may* be developing settings that are compatible, but intended as free products that support Pathfinder (and aren't intended as commercial competitors), what do you suggest?
Obviously, we need to follow each of the releases and try and swing our rulesets (now 3.5, evolving in PFRPG) in your direction.
However, once the system is complete, I'm sure many of us expect to to step completely away from OGL and carry its own brand/refined system. In this case, will Paizo still allow fan work to be created? Will private licenses be drawn up?
While I don't expect to see anything as Draconian as the GSL, will a similar (and far less restrictive) license exist for fans/potential independent designers?
Cheers,
Jaye Sonia
Seemed pretty darn clear what they suggest. In no way try to publish anything at all that is trying to claim to be or is compatible with PRPG Alpha or Beta. If you want something compatible, wait until August 2009 when the real deal comes out. Until then they prefer you not publish anything at all. And I expect that applies for free products as well.
Until August 2009, I doubt they have a clue what the license will entail. I doubt they know for sure what will be added to the OGL and what parts of PRPG will remain proprietary. It is possible for PRPG to have a few OGL rules in them but for the real changes to not be part of OGL.
Seems like what they are saying is wait until August 2009 and find out then when they know for sure.
|
Creative Director
|
For those of us that *may* be developing settings that are compatible, but intended as free products that support Pathfinder (and aren't intended as commercial competitors), what do you suggest?
Obviously, we need to follow each of the releases and try and swing our rulesets (now 3.5, evolving in PFRPG) in your direction.
However, once the system is complete, I'm sure many of us expect to to step completely away from OGL and carry its own brand/refined system. In this case, will Paizo still allow fan work to be created? Will private licenses be drawn up?
While I don't expect to see anything as Draconian as the GSL, will a similar (and far less restrictive) license exist for fans/potential independent designers?
The PF RPG rules will be almost entirely open, as far as I know; things like deity names will remain closed, as will POSSIBLY a few other things. But allowing fan work and the like is an important part of open gaming, and Pathfinder will remain very supportive of that scene. Something as restrictive as the GSL flies in the face of that goal.
|
|
The PF RPG rules will be almost entirely open, as far as I know; things like deity names will remain closed, as will POSSIBLY a few other things. But allowing fan work and the like is an important part of open gaming, and Pathfinder will remain very supportive of that scene. Something as restrictive as the GSL flies in the face of that goal.
James,
That's what I had hoped to hear. I expected that intellectual property would be closed content, but didn't know if significant enough changes to the system would warrant stepping away from the OGL and copyrighting a whole new system.
However, if Paizo intends to print Pathfinder as an extension of the OGL, I've little to worry about. I'll worry about logos and the like when you guys have a finished product that you're ready to license. :)
Until then, you've got my support (and a bit of my wallet).
Cheers,
Jaye
OK I am confused, if the basis of PRPG is the OGL, and the OGL prohibits anyone from saying their product is compatible with PRPG, then how will you have a logo and license to use it, that does not conflict with the OGL?
The OGL prohibits claiming compatibility without express permission. A license is s form of permission.
Edit: In fact, it provides specifically for licenses:
Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
Will private licenses be drawn up? ... will a similar (and far less restrictive) license exist for fans/potential independent designers?
We were told previously to check out Green Ronin's True20 license and Grey Ghost's Fudge RPG license for the major sources of their inspiration for their own logo license.
|
|
OK I am confused, if the basis of PRPG is the OGL, and the OGL prohibits anyone from saying their product is compatible with PRPG, then how will you have a logo and license to use it, that does not conflict with the OGL?The OGL prohibits claiming compatibility without express permission. A license is s form of permission.
Edit: In fact, it provides specifically for licenses:
Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
ahhh thanks. I hate all that legal crap.
But it sure beats the days of old D&D and when no one could do anything for it.