|
I'm in an argument on another board with a fellow who is attaching much weight to the fact that "the Beta Ruleset is the very first Pathfinder product in print which doesn't carry the orange '3.5/OGL compatible' logo." He claims this is some sort of evidence that Paizo is nefariously plotting in smoke-filled back rooms, plotting to invalidate 3.5 D&D with PRPG.
I kind of suspect it has a far more mundane reason, and is not as he suggests an attempt by Paizo to secretly telegraph their next evil move.
Does anyone know the actual reason the 3.5 OGL compatible logo is gone from the Beta? My first assumption was "oversight," as in "Someone forgot." But then I realized maybe it was some issue stemming from the Beta's nature as a replacement for the core rules.
Does anyone know the actual reason the 3.5 OGL compatible logo is gone from the Beta? My first assumption was "oversight," as in "Someone forgot." But then I realized maybe it was some issue stemming from the Beta's nature as a replacement for the core rules.
My suspicion is simply that it isn't intended to be a supplement. It is a playtest document. The final version I am certain will have Paizo's 3.5 compatible logo, along with whatever new Pathfinder RPG logo they create. The beta is too transitory (even though it'll be used for a year) to be considered a real product.
Chief Technical Officer
|
The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed.
It's still an OGL product—see page 403 for the license, and page 1 for the declarations of Product Identity and Open Content.
|
|
The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed.
It's still an OGL product—see page 403 for the license, and page 1 for the declarations of Product Identity and Open Content.
Danke! That is an eminently sensible answer and now I have something to say to this guy other than "Yeah, I don't know what that's about."
|
Hi Vic. Regardless of how the OP cast the point he takes issue with, I would like to state that the quote he's coming from comes from me and that I do not see it as Paizo's "next evil move". You'll find my own take on it in the few posts I have on this board. See also PS.
The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed.
It's still an OGL product—see page 403 for the license, and page 1 for the declarations of Product Identity and Open Content.
I can't see how what you say here addresses the issue. The issue is not whether the Pathfinder RPG Beta uses the term "Product Identity" as defined in the OGL or whether it partly invokes other material which is OGL compatible (as per page 1 and 403 in the Beta). The question is whether the product as such, and as a whole, is 3.5/OGL compatible. Because that's what the logo says and what it was designed to communicate. After all, the logo doesn't say "use with 3.5/OGL compatible system". In fact, it appears to me that both the intent of the logo and the issue of whether or not a company is allowed to stick it on a particular product of theirs are regulated by the license and not the licensee.
PS. If I had a conspiracy theory, it would be this.
In the months leading up to the creation, then development, of the Pathfinder Alpha and Beta, we all saw the worst of WotC with respect to their licensing third party publishers, what with "you get the 4E GSL sticker and you can get rid of your 3E OGL product line". In fact, when that line first leaked, it caused James Jacobs to write on EnWorld:
I'm not sure how this [GSL announcement] is a "judo throw" to our announcement of the Pathfinder RPG. We weren't planning on supporting 4th edition with Pathfinder anyway... the whole POINT of Pathfinder RPG is to give us something of our own to build on.
I think the advantage of not being at WotC' whim with their licensing far outweighs the small increase in brand recognition the logo grants. Paizo has, by now, got enough brand power on its own, and has seen plenty of bad history with WotC licensing (Dungeon/Dragon) to take its leave. Forsaking 3.5/OGL compatibility as defined under the license the logo stands for is a small price to pay for that freedom. And it will boost your sales, on top of that. I'm not just taking selling new rulebooks. With all the "3.5/OGL" stickers gone from your product in August next year, you can jump into the 4E market and make considerably large profit on the 4E/GSL after all side by side with the products based on your own RPG. Because it's one thing to have one's main (or sole) product line depend on a WotC license, and another to have a peripheral (and optional) product line depend on one.
|
|
The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed.I can't see how what you say here addresses the issue.
Really? It's an incredibly direct answer. I don't see how Vic could make it any clearer, Windjammer.
It doesn't carry the "OGL/3.5 compatible" logo because it is the OGL/3.5 system. There is no need to tell people that it is compatible with itself. That much should be obvious.
|
|
It doesn't carry the "OGL/3.5 compatible" logo because it is the OGL/3.5 system.
1. That's not what Vic said.
2. Abstain from hurling insults at me. The question I raised is what this whole thread is all about. Labelling it "dumb" does not help anyone. I should also point out that the question wasn't directed at you.Speaking of which, I didn't so much direct a question at Vic as say that his response bypasses the issue of whether the Pathfinder Beta Rulebook meets the criteria of 3.5/OGL compatibility as encoded in the license that goes with the logo in question.
The fact that a company "didn't need to" stick a logo on a product does not answer the question of whether it could have done so.
The final version I am certain will have Paizo's 3.5 compatible logoVic, are you in a position yet to tell us whether that is true? Or does Paizo not intend to stick the logo on the final product, regardless of how much the rules are fiddled with till next year?
Why would the final edition of the Pathfinder rules need a logo saying "3.5 compatible" on it?
Won't subsequent products for the Pathfinder rules have something saying "An adventure for the Pathfinder RPG" on them instead of saying "3.5 compatible"?
|
|
1. That's not what Vic said.
2. Abstain from hurling insults at me. The question I raised is what this whole thread is all about. Labelling it "dumb" does not help anyone. I should also point out that the question wasn't directed at you.
Dirty pool man. There is absolutely no need to drag that conversation over here, especially given the free-wheeling knuckleduster that is therpgsite. I'm also a bit offended that you just outed me on another board. Totally uncool.
|
|
Speaking of which, I didn't so much direct a question at Vic as say that his response bypasses the issue of whether the Pathfinder Beta Rulebook meets the criteria of 3.5/OGL compatibility as encoded in the license that goes with the logo in question.
The fact that a company "didn't need to" stick a logo on a product does not answer the question of whether it could have done so.
Since when is there a license to put an OGL/3.5 Compatible logo on a product? I think you're thinking of the D20 license.
|
OMG They are so right! And not only that! But EVERY SINGLE 3.5 PRODUCT FAILED TO HAVE A LOGO FOR COMPATIBLE WITH 3.0 RULES! It must be a conspiracy!
The simple fact of the matter is that 3.5 is dead. There is virtually no support coming for it all.
The simple fact is that 3.0 is dead. There hasn't been support for it in years.
The simple fact is that Pathfinder RPG WILL REPLACE 3.x as a ruleset. 3.x material will be compatible with PRPG.
There is no obligation of what-so-ever to put a logo claiming compatibility with the 3.x rules. In fact Paizo will be using their own special logo for Pathfinder compatible products.
|
|
Since when is there a license to put an OGL/3.5 Compatible logo on a product?
Section 7 of the OGL (v1.0a) regulates any "indication of compatibility". 3PP have found good ways to circumvent it, and Paizo's "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game" is a personal favourite of mine.
Don't forget the other point I made in the post before ("PS."). The issue with the "3.5/OGL compatibility" logos (whatever - "indication" is the official term) has been complicated by the GSL. The OGL is only half of the story. Perhaps Paizo simply doesn't want to debar themselves from producing officially 4E/GSL compatible material in the future. I'd be thrilled if they did so - Greg Vaughan and Tim Hitchcock already wrote 4E Dungeon adventures - but I'm not implying any intention on their part at this point. Still, keeping one's options open seems a very good frame of mind for a company with the potential of Paizo. Paizo would effectively support two editions of D&D at once (if 3E more tenuously), which is the very thing that a great number of people wish WotC would have done. However, to do so, their "3.5/OGL compatible" logos would have to come off. At least, that's my understanding of the great problem with the GSL. It definitely resonates with what Erik Mona felt was deeply wrong with the GSL at the time Pathfinder Beta was being planned/developed: Great interview.
|
|
OMG They are so right! And not only that! But EVERY SINGLE 3.5 PRODUCT FAILED TO HAVE A LOGO FOR COMPATIBLE WITH 3.0 RULES! It must be a conspiracy!
Whose products are we talking about? Paizo's? Hardly. WotC? I suggest you read article 7 of the OGL. It states that juxtaposing compatibility claims with trademarked terms such as "D&D", or simply exhibiting distinct items of Product Identity such as the D&D logo ARE considered an "indication" of compatibility with the 3.0 or 3.5 system. The term "indication" ranges farther than "logo", if that's the point you are trying to make. Are you? I mean, your point can't be that WotC products don't carry brand logos.
The simple fact of the matter is that 3.5 is dead. There is virtually no support coming for it all.
I consider what Paizo is currently doing with their Adventure Path Modules to be very lively support for 3.5. It's the only remaining reason I don't feel 3.5 is dead yet. But you are right, that's probably going to change next August.
|
Creative Director
|
Last I heard (and keep in mind that being ensconced in the editorial pit, I am sometimes a bit behind on things), the plan was for us to develop some sort of bug or logo to put on our Pathfinder RPG products like the adventure paths and modules that says: "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG or the 3.5 SRD."
I understand that some folk are disappointed that we're moving on to the PFRPG from 3.5, but that evolution isn't really a choice for us. The games we publish HAVE to have a support rulebook available in venues other than used book stores and eBay. Estranging 3.5 players is not the goal of PFRPG.
|
|
Section 7 of the OGL (v1.0a) regulates any "indication of compatibility". 3PP have found good ways to circumvent it, and Paizo's "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game" is a personal favourite of mine.
Section 7 does regulate indication of compatibility, but it's entirely irrelevant to the point you were making.
Good question, Tarren Dei. What caught my attention was Jacobs' mention of a "bug" instead of a logo. What kind of bug are we talking about here? A miniature Rovagug?
|
Creative Director
|
Good question, Tarren Dei. What caught my attention was Jacobs' mention of a "bug" instead of a logo. What kind of bug are we talking about here? A miniature Rovagug?
Having just watched Phantasm again earlier, I'd say it was an alien fly the size of an orange that hatched out of a twitching severed finger.
|
|
Good question, Tarren Dei. What caught my attention was Jacobs' mention of a "bug" instead of a logo. What kind of bug are we talking about here? A miniature Rovagug?Having just watched Phantasm again earlier, I'd say it was an alien fly the size of an orange that hatched out of a twitching severed finger.
Can I get one of those?
Can I get one of those?Good question, Tarren Dei. What caught my attention was Jacobs' mention of a "bug" instead of a logo. What kind of bug are we talking about here? A miniature Rovagug?Having just watched Phantasm again earlier, I'd say it was an alien fly the size of an orange that hatched out of a twitching severed finger.
Of course. You get them in 4 easy steps:
1. Sell your soul to a dark entity of your choice (hels, if the entity has ties to necromancy, insects, and unspeakable practises.
2. Cut of your finger
3. ...
4. Profit!
As an ancillary question, I have a little confusion regarding the usability of the 3.5/OGL/d20 system indica. The license agreement (1.0a) doesn't prohibit the use of the term "d20 system," which is fine and all, except that as I recall Wizards requires publishers to have their permission to publish - I forget all the details; some fallout from the Book of Erotic Fantasy, I think - so couldn't WotC theoretically refuse approval and then "suggest" that approval would be forthcoming if the references to d20 system were stripped out and the license updated to 1.0c?
You do not need permission to publish an OGL product. You did need permission to produce a d20 licensed product with the official d20 logo on the book. That's what happened to the Book of Erotic Fantasy. They reprinted it without the d20 logo using just the OGL. I saw a new copy at Borders just the other day.
Paizo hasn't published their products using the d20 license, so the whims of Wizards doesn't effect them. The "3.5/OGL Compatible" logo they use is their own creation.
I personally think their new pathfinder/OGL logo should have a goblin head in place of the O. ;)
Can I get one of those?Good question, Tarren Dei. What caught my attention was Jacobs' mention of a "bug" instead of a logo. What kind of bug are we talking about here? A miniature Rovagug?Having just watched Phantasm again earlier, I'd say it was an alien fly the size of an orange that hatched out of a twitching severed finger.Of course. You get them in 4 easy steps:
1. Sell your soul to a dark entity of your choice (hels, if the entity has ties to necromancy, insects, and unspeakable practises.
2. Cut of your finger
3. ...
4. Profit!
Where does stealing underwear fit into this?
|
|
Perhaps Paizo simply doesn't want to debar themselves from producing officially 4E/GSL compatible material in the future. [...] Paizo would effectively support two editions of D&D at once (if 3E more tenuously), which is the very thing that a great number of people wish WotC would have done. However, to do so, their "3.5/OGL compatible" logos would have to come off. At least, that's my understanding of the great problem with the GSL.
The GSL (or OGL for that matter) makes no conditions of the "3.5/OGL compatible" logo as thatis something created wholly by Paizo (other publishers have their own versions of a logo indicating 3.5 compatibility).
Paizo simply cannot have both 4e books via the GSL and books using the OGL in the same product line. It doesn't matter what logos they do or do not put on those products. If even a single product in the product line uses the OGL (even if it was so they could reference some Mongoose RuneQuest stuff) then it would be a violation of the GSL.
Basically, if Paizo converted a single Pathfinder product to 4th edition under the GSL they would need to cease production and distribution of all other products released under the OGL in the same product line, and it is WOTC who "reasonably define" what that product line is - they could say anything with Pathfinder on it is a line, or they could just say that it is just Adventure Paths (if an AP was converted) or even a specific AP.
Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL.
|
|
Last I heard (and keep in mind that being ensconced in the editorial pit, I am sometimes a bit behind on things), the plan was for us to develop some sort of bug or logo to put on our Pathfinder RPG products like the adventure paths and modules that says: "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG or the 3.5 SRD."
Unless each product is 100% compatible with both RPGs then I would rather such a logo was limited to purely "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG".
This is for the simple reason that I have chosen to treat Pathfinder RPG as just another d20 based RPG and am not planning on mixing and matching D&D3.5.
So if I bought a book claiming to be "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG or the 3.5 SRD" and I found a feat with a pre-requisite of "Perception 3 ranks" than I would want my money back. Petty? Maybe. But if I have to do even that level of conversion I could just as well buy a 3.0 supplement or a Conan d20 supplement.
TBH I hope it is for this reason that the Beta does not carry a 3.5 OGL compatible logo - because it isn't 100% compatible and it would be misleading to state otherwise.
I understand that some folk are disappointed that we're moving on to the PFRPG from 3.5, but that evolution isn't really a choice for us. The games we publish HAVE to have a support rulebook available in venues other than used book stores and eBay.
I would argue that the evolution is a choice, because "evolving the ruleset" and "publishing a ruleset to keep the core rules in circulation" are not mutually exclusive options.
If your business model is to make significant money off of sales of the Pathfinder RPG then, yes it would be wise to evolve the product so that you maximise sales.
However if instead the business model was to make the majority of revenue off supplements and adventure paths (as Paizo has done up until now) then it might have been a better idea to simply republish the 3.5 rules unchanged, just in a different package. This would have allowed Paizo not to estrange any existing D&D3.5 players.
Yes, it would have meant that sales would have been much less (it would also not have allowed two versions of the rules to have been sold within the the space of two years) but then it would be a loss leader (or rather a minimal contribution leader hopefully).
I do admit though that not evolving the ruleset may not have won back some players who gave up on 3.5 due to some problems that Pathfinder now apparently fixes.
In the end Paizo has made its choice - which is fine, however Paizo have to accept that this may have estranged some 3.5 players even if that was not the goal.
|
|
TBH I hope it is for this reason that the Beta does not carry a 3.5 OGL compatible logo - because it isn't 100% compatible and it would be misleading to state otherwise.
How dare you suggest this? Obviously you think Paizo nefariously plots in smoke-filled back rooms and/or secretly telegraphs their next evil move. I thought this concern was answered above: no smoke-filled room in Paizo buildings. There was even an official press release to provide evidence to that effect , apart from the conspiracy of covering up Cosmo's assassination. Quote: "Cosmo, our customer service guru, needed to pay for his past transgressions." And there are still kids out there who think the guys at Paizo are all sunshine and flowers.
|
|
TBH I hope it is for this reason that the Beta does not carry a 3.5 OGL compatible logo - because it isn't 100% compatible and it would be misleading to state otherwise.How dare you suggest this? Obviously you think Paizo nefariously plots in smoke-filled back rooms and/or secretly telegraphs their next evil move.
I am not quite sure whether your sarcasm means you agree with me or not?:S
I don't think there is any conspiracy or anything, Paizo have been quite open with the amount of change they are putting into the Beta release (the fact that there is a whole open playtest indicates that there are significant changes to playtest). Not putting a 3.5 OGL compatible logo on the book is, to me, only honest and correct given the amount of changes the rules have undergone.
If anything, putting a 3.5 compatible logo on the rules would IMHO be a dubious act. I am not sure whether it would go so far as to breach the trade descriptions act (or whatever the US equivalent is) but as a consumer I would consider it misleading.
Where does stealing underwear fit into this?
Well, there's all sorts of dark entities.
|
Last I heard (and keep in mind that being ensconced in the editorial pit, I am sometimes a bit behind on things), the plan was for us to develop some sort of bug or logo to put on our Pathfinder RPG products like the adventure paths and modules that says: "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG or the 3.5 SRD."
I understand that some folk are disappointed that we're moving on to the PFRPG from 3.5, but that evolution isn't really a choice for us. The games we publish HAVE to have a support rulebook available in venues other than used book stores and eBay. Estranging 3.5 players is not the goal of PFRPG.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The question is whether the product as such, and as a whole, is 3.5/OGL compatible. Because that's what the logo says and what it was designed to communicate. After all, the logo doesn't say "use with 3.5/OGL compatible system". In fact, it appears to me that both the intent of the logo and the issue of whether or not a company is allowed to stick it on a particular product of theirs are regulated by the license and not the licensee.
I think you're confusing Wizards' official d20 logo with the "3.5 OGL Compatible" logo that we designed.
The d20 logo does have the intent you described, and its usage is indeed regulated by Wizards' d20 license (not the OGL). However, we don't publish under the d20 license; we publish under the OGL, so we cannot and do not use that logo.
The OGL license doesn't have an official logo; many companies have made their own, though.
The intent of *our* orange 3.5/OGL logo is solely to tell you what rules set to use with the product, and the only company that's "allowed to stick it on a product" is us—it's part of our trade dress, and thus is covered under Product Identity. Other than that, it is not regulated by the OGL or any other license.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Speaking of which, I didn't so much direct a question at Vic as say that his response bypasses the issue of whether the Pathfinder Beta Rulebook meets the criteria of 3.5/OGL compatibility as encoded in the license that goes with the logo in question.
Again, you're confusing the OGL with the d20 license. There's nothing in the OGL that says that products have to be compatible with the SRD, or with anything else for that matter. All it says is that if you want to use anything that has been designated as Open Content under the OGL, you may do so under the terms of the OGL. If you wanted to, you could design an entirely new and incompatible game, and use the OGL to add in the descriptive text of a single OGL monster. It's a very flexible license.
As an example of what Vic is talking about, I could design an RPG that uses playing cards instead of dice, or rock-paper-scissors, or the first letter of the name of the next song played on a random FM radio station. And I could publish those rules using the OGL ... which would mean that other people could make their own products using the rules that I published.
The OGL determines how other people can use the content you declare as Open Content.
The d20 System License determines how publishers can use the official Wizards d20 logo and the name "d20 System."
They address different things.
You can publish a book that uses the OGL and d20 STL ... for example, just about any d20-compatible adventure that has the d20 logo on it is OGL+d20STL.
You can publish a book that uses the OGL but not the d20 STL ... for example, Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (which has rules for character generation, which means you can't use the d20 STL), or the Pathfinder RPG (ditto).
You can publish a book that uses the d20 STL but not the OGL ... for example, most 3rd edition books from Wizards of the Coast have the d20 logo (to let you know they're d20 System compatible) but NOT the OGL (because Wizards doesn't have to declare anything of theirs Open).
You can publish a book that uses neither the d20 STL nor the OGL. For example, any RPG published before 2000 (the creation of the OGL and d20 STL) uses neither of these licenses.
So it depends on who you are, and what you want to do.
I lobby for the creation of a new "Pedantic Meathead Compatible" logo that can be used in cases like this. That should settle things.
|
|
Thanks to Vic and Sean for further clarifications.
I lobby for the creation of a new "Pedantic Meathead Compatible" logo that can be used in cases like this. That should settle things.
Yes, that should come as a huge incentive to buyers who aren't swayed yet. Thanks for your contribution, and for reminding me why this place has come to feel more and more like EnWorld since the Alpha release, where raising and resolving an edition issue in a rationalized way has become the exception, not the norm, thanks to a loyal fanbase that clings to the opinion that this is, obviously, the best way to serve their company to draw in people still on the fence.