|
Right here. New terms and everything.
Also, Morrus over on EnWorld posted up a letter he received from WoTC detailing the changes.
Publishing friends,
I just wanted to let you know that the revision of GSL that we announced back in August 2008 is going live today (it should go up around 4PM PST). I have posted a copy for your reference.
Also a revised SRD, logos, and updated FAQ are being posted to: http://www.wizards.com/d20
Highlights include:
* Removal of section 6, which set terms & conditions for 4e compatible product lines that may have been previously published under the Open Game License (OGL).
* Inclusion of a provision for a “Notice of Termination”, allowing publishers to end their use of the GSL at their choosing. This includes the addition of a 6-month inventory sell off period after executing a Notice of Termination.
* Modification to imagery clause that clarifies use derivative art work.
* Additions to the SRD from Player’s Handbook® 2, Monster Manual® 2, and Adventurer’s Vault™ including:
o Barbarian, bard, druid, and sorcerer class options
o Alchemy, alchemical formula template, and alchemical items
o Vehicles, mounts, and the vehicle template
o Disease template
o Demons, devils, rust monster, metallic dragons, duergar, and over 50 other monstersI hope you find the revisions to your liking and I want to thank you for your patience as we revised the GSL.
Sincerely,
Scott Rouse
Sr. Brand Manager - Dungeons & Dragons
Wizards of the Coast LLC
is it still a dead in, line killer? or is it usable now?
not being snarky but alot of 4e fans are wanting 3pp stuff
is it still a dead in, line killer? or is it usable now?
not being snarky but alot of 4e fans are wanting 3pp stuff
Compared to the v1 of the GSL this is much better. Is it better than the OGL? Ehh, could be debated (and will I'm sure) but I don't think so.
|
|
I still am not sure why someone would use this vs. Fair Use and such. It seems that's what 3PPs have been getting away with up until now. There still seems to be a lot they could do to screw you over if they wanted to. I'm not saying they would, just it seems like you'd be conceding a lot of potential ammo if they ever ripped you off and switched the contract to something less palatable or credible. Then again, they do have an opt-out clause now...
Just from what I've seen today on a number of boards, multiple publishers are now submitting Statements of Acceptance for the new GSL who were not previously making use of it to produce 4th Edition products. It sounds like the publishers are getting what they need to feel comfortable, and I think that's what counts.
|
|
Just from what I've seen today on a number of boards, multiple publishers are now submitting Statements of Acceptance for the new GSL who were not previously making use of it to produce 4th Edition products. It sounds like the publishers are getting what they need to feel comfortable, and I think that's what counts.
If that's the case, then I guess its doing what it was supposed to do.
I've seen Necromancer. Who else is throwing their hat in the ring?
|
S
e
o
n
i
I'm having a hardtime wrapping my head around it, but my impression is that folks who write adventures area at least a little better off, and folks who write electronic tools are screwed :(
You got it right, interactive tools are hasbro domain no one else. and dont even think about changing the rules either you MUST use the core book that they sell.
I think if Paizo does do some 4E material it will benefit both games. Pathfinder will gain a wider audience because 4E folks will come to the site and see what's going on here, and 4E will gain some top-notch design material. That being said, I think they will advance slowly if at all, not wanting to endanger what they have in place already. However, if the GSL is loosening, I can't see why they wouldn't do something 4E, though I would guess it would be completely separate from Golarion.
I really loved Paizo's products for 3.5. I hope they will do either conversions of the Pathfinder series that are already out (cheaper development) or start a new line of 4e adventures.
Please Paizo, I want to give you my money but you make it so hard!
I'm not sure if that will occur any time soon with Paizo leading. They are already going full speed, I believe, with all the lines they have right now. Doing something for 4e would slow them down from working on their focused products.
Also, for some reason, I recall some comment back in some thread with someone from Paizo (Vic I think) saying that they had a list of things they want from the GSL before signing up and revealed one of the big requirement, which was that the licensee could use any version of the license. From what I've seen this GSL has not changed that, you still have to use the latest version of the GSL or start the sell of period (think! not a lawyer!).
However, I think that this could possibly open up an opportunity for another group to get a license from Paizo to make conversions of existing Pathfinder products to 4e. But I'm not sure what would be required to make this happen or if it would be viable for a company do so.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Good for 3PP that they can do dual products, if I'm understanding it correctly (work firewall blocks wizards)
While it's theoretically possible, it's a minefield. See the FAQ entry:
Q: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?
A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must
take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the
GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product
licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede
like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the
process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation).
However, it is certainly a good thing that 4E publishers can now produce OGL materials without having to put their entire business at risk on Wizards' definition of the term "product line."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm not sure if that will occur any time soon with Paizo leading. They are already going full speed, I believe, with all the lines they have right now. Doing something for 4e would slow them down from working on their focused products.
You are correct, sir. This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.
I do appreciate that it makes life easier for some other parties, though.
I'm thinking of what the "6 month inventory sell-off" proviso would do to to books still at the printers, in editing, or currently in the middle of being written. Not a pretty picture.
I'm not sure if that will occur any time soon with Paizo leading. They are already going full speed, I believe, with all the lines they have right now. Doing something for 4e would slow them down from working on their focused products.You are correct, sir. This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.
Thank God.
No offense, but I'd rather have Paizo's resources invested in Pathfinder RPG / 3.5 than in 4E. There are already several other companies supporting 4E (Goodman Games, Expeditious Retreat
and now Necromancer Games) let them do just that. And let Paizo take care of those who have decided not to go the 4E route.
I don't mind either way if Paizo decide to support 4e , with adventure paths or whatever. It will be a business decision for Paizo, just like Wizards with the GSL and quite a few 3PP, I imagine.
There's still a bit too much ambiguity in parts of the GSL for my liking - it's an improvement, certainly. It's much better than I expected but not quite as good as I'd hoped.
I'm waiting for news on the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility licence, which to be honest holds more of my interest.
You are correct, sir. This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.
Thanks for clarifying this, Vic!
Now the more interesting quetion is will Paizo put out some 4e adventures?
Don't count on it. They don't seem to have enough hours in the day to do what they want with Pathfinder.
However, I think that this could possibly open up an opportunity for another group to get a license from Paizo to make conversions of existing Pathfinder products to 4e. But I'm not sure what would be required to make this happen or if it would be viable for a company do so.
This would be cool. I think it goes without saying that a substantial market would be there - as large if not larger than the original market for the Pathfinder adventure paths in 3.5.
However, I think that this could possibly open up an opportunity for another group to get a license from Paizo to make conversions of existing Pathfinder products to 4e. But I'm not sure what would be required to make this happen or if it would be viable for a company do so.This would be cool. I think it goes without saying that a substantial market would be there - as large if not larger than the original market for the Pathfinder adventure paths in 3.5.
I think that you are overestimating the size of the group who would buy conversions or are underestimating the size of the original market. Not that there are not a lot of people that play 4e, just that the number of 4e players looking to get a 4e adventure from Paizo rather than someone else is not that high.
|
I think that you are overestimating the size of the group who would buy conversions or are underestimating the size of the original market. Not that there are not a lot of people that play 4e, just that the number of 4e players looking to get a 4e adventure from Paizo rather than someone else is not that high.However, I think that this could possibly open up an opportunity for another group to get a license from Paizo to make conversions of existing Pathfinder products to 4e. But I'm not sure what would be required to make this happen or if it would be viable for a company do so.This would be cool. I think it goes without saying that a substantial market would be there - as large if not larger than the original market for the Pathfinder adventure paths in 3.5.
Is Paizo even interested in 4e adventures, whether conversions or new mods? Mona has more than once posted they don't find the system appropriate for the kind of stories they want to tell; Stevens has mentioned more than once that the company would rather be the "big fish" of the Pathfinder rpg pond than competing against other third parties producing 4e products (ala Goodman Games) while WotC dominates the 4e pond.
Is Paizo even interested in 4e adventures, whether conversions or new mods? Mona has more than once posted they don't find the system appropriate for the kind of stories they want to tell; Stevens has mentioned more than once that the company would rather be the "big fish" of the Pathfinder rpg pond than competing against other third parties producing 4e products (ala Goodman Games) while WotC dominates the 4e pond.
I would think the answer from that and what has been said in this thread is that they are not interested in creating new 4e products. I'm not sure how they would react to a trusted third party asking for a license to convert Pathfinder monsters, items, and adventures (or even if it is viable to do so under the GSL).
If that were an option, they wouldn't have to spend the resources converting it themselves and it might be an appropriate way for them to appear under 4e mechanics.
It might take away focus from their system, which would be a significant reason for them to say no to this sort of offer, but from my perspective I don't think that it is definite.
|
Creative Director
|
Is Paizo even interested in 4e adventures, whether conversions or new mods? Mona has more than once posted they don't find the system appropriate for the kind of stories they want to tell; Stevens has mentioned more than once that the company would rather be the "big fish" of the Pathfinder rpg pond than competing against other third parties producing 4e products (ala Goodman Games) while WotC dominates the 4e pond.
At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.
We're launching the PF RPG this August, and it's just not good business sense for us to try to support other games at this time. Furthermore, the 4th edition rules are dramatically different than the 3.5/Pathfinder RPG rules. None of us here at Paizo are overly familiar with the 4th edition rules, and I, as Editor-in-Chief, am one of the least familiar with those rules of all of us simply because I've not really had time to tear away from Pathfinder-related stuff to branch out into playing other games, be they 4th edition D&D, Mutants & Masterminds, Traveller, or whatever. (Although I do try to make exceptions now and then for Call of Cthulhu!)
The point is, though, no one at Paizo is an expert at the 4th edition rules, and in order to become experts at the rules so that we could produce products we wouldn't be embarrassed to see in print for all the errors, we'd have to invest a LOT of time getting up to speed. Time that would take away from producing the Pathfinder/3.5 products we're already short on time with, but that we do well and that are financially successful. Personally, I agree with Erik in that the 4th edition system isn't appropriate to the types of products and adventures I'm interested in producing for Paizo—both from a rules stand point and CERTAINLY from a flavor standpoint.
Honestly, at this point, something relatively catastrophic would have to happen before Paizo considered switching over to 4th edition.
Pathfinder RPG (and by extension due to its compatibility, 3.5) is the game we'll be producing content for.
stuff...
It is only a minefield if you are planning on using a GSL and OGL in the same product which is completely redundant if you ask me. Of course people should know and be aware that the OGL and GSL are two different licenses and follow the support of two different product lines.
stuff...It is only a minefield if you are planning on using a GSL and OGL in the same product which is completely redundant if you ask me.
Which is exactly the thing he was responding to.
Honestly, at this point, something relatively catastrophic would have to happen before Paizo considered switching over to 4th edition.
Pathfinder RPG (and by extension due to its compatibility, 3.5) is the game we'll be producing content for.
So asking for a one- or two- off Castles and Crusades adventure would fall on deaf ears? :D
So asking for a one- or two- off Castles and Crusades adventure would fall on deaf ears? :D
Huh? Wha's that you say sonny? I can't hear ya.
And get off my lawn!
At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.
So I have to ask, when do you think you might have the Pathfinder SRD / OGL up and available for 3PP to view and use?
|
Creative Director
|
At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.So I have to ask, when do you think you might have the Pathfinder SRD / OGL up and available for 3PP to view and use?
I hope that we'll have that up and available at Gen Con, when we release the actual game. In fact, I believe the goal is to get that done before Gen Con.
Of course, since the whole thing's based on the SRD anyway, the OGL/SRD works fine too.
I hope that we'll have that up and available at Gen Con, when we release the actual game. In fact, I believe the goal is to get that done before Gen Con.
Of course, since the whole thing's based on the SRD anyway, the OGL/SRD works fine too.
So, while we can't claim compatibility with Pathfinder yet, we can produce material for Pathfinder under the ogl...?
Cool.
|
|
S
e
o
n
i
PF RPG is lovelly set of rules and golarion is a lovelly setting too. 4ed would just harm this. the gsl is not open enough to allow the creativity in paizo to flow. OGL is. Having read the Revised not yet !finalized! paizo and paizo alone are wise to keep thei hands on their pockets. the market needs variety the gsl just promotes monopoly of one rule system.
On regards to other companies I am sure the gsl fit their business model other wise they would not be taking it.
the gsl is profitable to some and not to others.
I have to wonder what impact this has on Clark / Orcus' (Necromancer Games) plans for a "Classic 4E" GSL-compatible product are.
|
Creative Director
|
I hope that we'll have that up and available at Gen Con, when we release the actual game. In fact, I believe the goal is to get that done before Gen Con.
Of course, since the whole thing's based on the SRD anyway, the OGL/SRD works fine too.
So, while we can't claim compatibility with Pathfinder yet, we can produce material for Pathfinder under the ogl...?
Cool.
You could... but we'd prefer you wait until you see the final rules. We don't want lots of confusion about whether something's Alpha version 3, beta, or what; waiting until the rules are finalized at Gen Con is the best bet if you don't want your Pathfinder RPG product to self-obsolete.
|
Personally, I agree with Erik in that the 4th edition system isn't appropriate to the types of products and adventures I'm interested in producing for Paizo—both from a rules stand point and CERTAINLY from a flavor standpoint.
That is great news from my point of view, which due to aligning planets or whatever mirrors your stance on the Pathfinder/4E issue.
This is also why Paizo rather than WotC will be receiving a my hard earned cash.
Regards to you and your very talented team,
Stefan.
You could... but we'd prefer you wait until you see the final rules. We don't want lots of confusion about whether something's Alpha version 3, beta, or what; waiting until the rules are finalized at Gen Con is the best bet if you don't want your Pathfinder RPG product to self-obsolete.I hope that we'll have that up and available at Gen Con, when we release the actual game. In fact, I believe the goal is to get that done before Gen Con.
Of course, since the whole thing's based on the SRD anyway, the OGL/SRD works fine too.
So, while we can't claim compatibility with Pathfinder yet, we can produce material for Pathfinder under the ogl...?
Cool.
That makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the reply.
I think that's for the best. You really do have to focus your efforts especially when launching a new game... And I'm much more interested in seeing one more Pathfinder book than one 4e book, selfishly.
Although it is tempting in some cases. Y'all have a couple books like the Gazetteer and Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting that are very, very rules light. Pay someone to do the very minimal work of changing the crunch (or hell, delete it) and sell it as "4e" so that 4e-ers, who will be desperate for a real campaign setting, can see the glory of Golarion and start saying "Hmmm, I wish I could use all those boss adventures those guys write... Maybe I should try Pathfinder too..."
Add me to the (short it appears) list of those who would love to see Paizo do 4E stuff. I think Paizo's work is some of the best, but I play 4E. I will be canceling my Pathfinder subscription now that the 3rd adventure path is complete, but would renew it or start a new one for 4E content.
Thank you Paizo for the great products you have put out. I had a great time playing through both Age of Worms and Rise of the Runelords. Good luck!
Should you start support for 4E, please announce it everywhere (as I am sure you would if you did) and I will be back.
Personally, I agree with Erik in that the 4th edition system isn't appropriate to the types of products and adventures I'm interested in producing for Paizo—both from a rules stand point and CERTAINLY from a flavor standpoint.
That is great news from my point of view, which due to aligning planets or whatever mirrors your stance on the Pathfinder/4E issue.
This is also why Paizo rather than WotC will be receiving a my hard earned cash.
Regards to you and your very talented team,
Stefan.
Given that I'm a third of the way through converting an entire Paizo adventure path to 4th Edition without (I believe) compromising its original feel in any significant way, I'm inclined to think that the inability to tell the stories Paizo wants to tell is a reflection of their unfamiliarity with 4th Edition - speaking from personal experience, it is more than possible to tell Paizo stories through 4th Edition. I've done it, and close to a dozen other gaming groups that I'm personally aware of are doing it at this moment.
Avoiding competition with oneself is a worthwhile effort, but in this case I don't think Paizo needs to worry much. While there may be a few groups who are avoiding 4th Edition simply because of a lack of adventures, I imagine that most of those sticking with 3.5 are doing so because of the rules set (which means they'd be buying PFRPG whether or not Paizo produced their adventures - or conversions thereof - for multiple systems). And since Paizo has always been about selling their adventure paths as their flagship products, converting them to another system allows them to make more sales of the original adventure path, plus the converted material. You don't even have to put together a completely separate product to access a market currently closed to Paizo - you just have to make a few not-that-difficult-at-all adjustments to a product you've essentially already produced.
I think James' assertion that they don't feel familiar enough with the rules or have enough time to learn them is legitimate. They've got a lot on their plate. But when things have slowed down a tad and they have some time to spare (and assuming that a market for quality 4th Edition adventures exists), it strikes me as decent business sense to at least look into the prospect of widening the market for your products like this.
|
|
- speaking from personal experience, it is more than possible to tell Paizo stories through 4th Edition. I've done it, and close to a dozen other gaming groups that I'm personally aware of are doing it at this moment.
<snikt>
I think James' assertion that they don't feel familiar enough with the rules or have enough time to learn them is legitimate. They've got a lot on their plate. But when things have slowed down a tad and they have some time to spare (and assuming that a market for quality 4th Edition adventures exists), it strikes me as decent business sense to at least look into the prospect of widening the market for your products like this.
Does the new GSL allow more adult-oriented material to be published by 3PP? I'm not talking about BoEF (which was actually not a bad supp) but, like, the same-sex relationship between the queen and the head of the guards in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Or how about the more graphic horror in Carnival of Tears?
I remember there was some discussion about such a clause in the original GSL. If it still exists, would Paizo be willing to "tame" its adventures per the clause to compete in the 4E market?
Personally, I agree with Erik in that the 4th edition system isn't appropriate to the types of products and adventures I'm interested in producing for Paizo—both from a rules stand point and CERTAINLY from a flavor standpoint.
This is exactly what detract me from 4e.
It's not the flavor I like and I don't want to DMing with these rules, but I will maybe be a player if I have the opportunity.The game is really different now, in fact after having played one session of 4e, I don't recognize it.