|
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?
Ah! Found it. It's clause 6 in the new GSL, "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License".
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
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?
The Pathfinder Compatiblity License will be available by the end of the week.
|
|
The Pathfinder Compatiblity License will be available by the end of the week.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?
Yay!
|
Creative Director
|
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..."
Thing with the rules-light books is that they don't NEED to be converted, though. Some of my friends are using the Pathfinder Campaign setting hardcover to run their 4th edition games, for example. No conversions necessary.
|
Creative Director
|
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.
In order to tell the stories we want to tell... we need to be able to reinvision things like goblins to fit our world. The GSL wouldn't let us do that, since "goblin" is already defined in the game.
Also, our products ARE more mature content; several of the things we produce would probably butt heads with the section of the GSL that prohibits pushing the PG-13 envelope. And the problem there is that what pushes the envelope isn't a hard and fast rule; what we might not bat an eye at, someone at WotC might freak out about.
I'd rather not have to tiptoe around worries about redefining monsters and pushing maturity levels when doing a product. Those aren't things that someone who converts a Pathfinder adventure to 4th edition for his own home game has to worry about. But it's something that a publisher of an adventure DOES have to concern themselves with.
I'm pretty sure that Skinsaw Murders (with its mature content and with its classical take on lamias, as opposed to the bug women lamias of 4th edition) would not fly under the GSL, and that's reason enough for me to not want anything to do with the GSL. Especially since that's one of the bestselling products Paizo has ever done.
Mature content in RPGs has served Chaosium and White Wolf quite well. It's serving Paizo quite well too. I want to be the one who decides on what's in good taste and what's not... I don't want to leave those decisions to someone else.
|
|
And the problem there is that what pushes the envelope isn't a hard and fast rule; what we might not bat an eye at, someone at WotC might freak out about.
There was an RPGA adventure involving a pregnant NPC giving birth on an evil altar. The DM was none to please with that aspect and changed her into a...cup. Which our PCs had to "rescue". While WotC obviously permitted the original concept, I can imagine Jacobs having to constantly second guess if WotC will allow such envelop-pushing scenes or just say, "nope. Can't do it. What? We did something similar with our own mods? Well, that editor was canned and we're telling you that you can't do it now. Oh, and can you add another dungeon in your module?"
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.
I do! Keep playing, I promise it's there. Are you looking at it with a mindset grounded in trying to find things about the system to dislike, or trying to evaluate all the ways it's different from previous versions of the game? That may be the problem. Try just playing D&D. I guarantee you'll have more fun if you're committed to trying to have fun.
|
Some of you here can`t hear what James speak aloud because you think too much at what you, personally, wish... I dont intend to hurt no one, but some 4e lovers tend to push too much. I am new to the roleplay world, but I love both editions and both settings. And I value the 3PP work too. But, if you don`t think only at your desires, is easy to undestand each companies motivations and goals...
It is not about market share and marginal profit. It is all about company image. From the day they announced Pathfinder RPG, Paizo had ceased to be a minor 3PP and had entered into the big league of games producers. Although they have a lower capacity of production and a smaller market share, they are a direct and major competitor for Wizard of the Coast. And they are not anymore a mouse who try to eat some from what drops from the beak of the big eagle. So, Lisa simply can`t go and bow to the mighty wizards and beg them to let James to hunt some rabbits from his huge forest. Not as long Paizo want to show that they are confident about the Pathfinder RPG succes...
Picture this... Adventure introduction... The former herald Paizo leaved the Mighty Wizard court to become a farmer. They now grow cattle, sheeps and pigs, and sell them pretty well. In the meantime, the wizard still make money from the game hunted on the vast forest he posses. He have his own rangers, but had indulged some mercenaries to hunt in his forest, with the condition to sell the game on his courtyard. So, that they will bring more customers to his own market. Now, what you think?!... Would Paizo daddy be greedy for a few more coins and send one of his sons to become a mercenary, or he would be confident that his familly can keep the farm profitable?! Would he humiliate in front of his former master, showing that he was wrong leaving, or he would demonstrate that there is life outside wizard slavery?!...
For me things are very clear... WotC live into a corporate world, in wich they must show a growing sale chart at the end of each year, although the big Hasbro dragon would fire them out. Paizo folks live in a boemic world, in wich they are happy if they can live their dreams and make enough money to eat pizza and buy books and minis. Why they should be greedy for something they not care?!...
Pfuiii... I tend to writte to much... Forget my language mistakes, I am not native (what good excuse!).
In order to tell the stories we want to tell... we need to be able to reinvision things like goblins to fit our world. The GSL wouldn't let us do that, since "goblin" is already defined in the game.
Which is why you introduce them as Golarion goblins, or somesuch. As I understand the GSL, what they're trying to avoid is people mistaking a 3pp's version of a creature (or race, or class, etc.) for the official, core version. The GSL FAQ explains it thusly:
Q: Can I redefine non-mechanic materials (“fluff”)?
A: No. You may add new material, but you cannot define, redefine, or alter any 4E Reference, including “fluff.” Please refer back to Section 4.1 on redefining 4E References. As an example: “In this world Eladrin are between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5” in height and can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would redefine the definition of Eladrin, whereas the statement: “The isolation of the Deepwood Eladrin have allowed them to evolve with several unique traits including being slightly taller in height, between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5”, and after generations of meditation can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would extend the definition by adding a Deepwood sub race while allowing the term Eladrin to maintain its original definition as found in the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook.
All you have to do is make sure that the GSL product you're producing (which - and bear in mind I'm not a lawyer - I believe would only apply to the conversion document, not the original adventure; you could continue to publish the adventure paths under the OGL like you currently do, and now that the old Section 6 has been removed you can, I believe, then publish a separate conversion document under the GSL which means that only the converted materials would be subject to a different license) uses terminology specific to your product line when extending the definition of a 4E Reference. If you want to discuss what goblins are like in Golarion, you simply need to use terminology that explains them as such. I'm sure Scott Rouse would be willing to talk you through the specifics of how this works. I can't imagine that you guys wouldn't be able to work something out that would make both parties happy if you were committed to it.
Also, our products ARE more mature content; several of the things we produce would probably butt heads with the section of the GSL that prohibits pushing the PG-13 envelope. And the problem there is that what pushes the envelope isn't a hard and fast rule; what we might not bat an eye at, someone at WotC might freak out about.
This is a legitimate concern, and again would be something that you'd have to check with the Rouse to get a feel for what they actually mean by this, but I imagine that in reality the content standards of both companies are not too dissimilar. The Hook Mountain Massacre is often pointed to as an example of Paizo pushing its own envelope, and while it contains some disturbing imagery I don't think anything within it would qualify as "excessive" (and you yourself decided to cut sections from it that you considered excessive). Again, I don't think this is something that would be at all difficult to overcome if you were committed to making it work.
I'd rather not have to tiptoe around worries about redefining monsters and pushing maturity levels when doing a product. Those aren't things that someone who converts a Pathfinder adventure to 4th edition for his own home game has to worry about. But it's something that a publisher of an adventure DOES have to concern themselves with.
That's true, but speaking as someone actively working on a fan-based conversion, they often suffer from the same lack of professional rigor and review that anything a fan churns out does. It may not be true right now, but I can't imagine that Paizo will never be in a position where it feels it can invest something in an extremely popular rules set.
I'm pretty sure that Skinsaw Murders (with its mature content and with its classical take on lamias, as opposed to the bug women lamias of 4th edition) would not fly under the GSL, and that's reason enough for me to not want anything to do with the GSL.
The Skinsaw Murders gets graphic at some points, but I don't think it falls under the realm of "excessive". Again, however, this is something that a quick phone call to Scott Rouse can answer for you.
As for the Lamia, you yourself did exactly what the GSL encourages, even before the GSL existed! You didn't call your creature a lamia, you called it a Lamia Matriarch - extending the definition of a lamia to include a different variety of creature (presumably because an entirely different lamia already existed in D&D 3.5). In other words, you already jumped through the hoops you're dreading, without even realizing it. That's how easy it was, and it's a perfect example of how the GSL isn't going to force you to compromise on your vision of Golarion, or the adventures you publish.
Especially since that's one of the bestselling products Paizo has ever done.
Mature content in RPGs has served Chaosium and White Wolf quite well. It's serving Paizo quite well too. I want to be the one who decides on what's in good taste and what's not... I don't want to leave those decisions to someone else.
If these are your chief reasons for avoiding an expansion of your market, I think you really owe it to yourself and Paizo to at least call Scott Rouse and confirm that your concerns have merit. A lot of really eager fans would love it if it turned out that they don't.
Not as long Paizo want to show that they are confident about the Pathfinder RPG succes...
Producing a short conversion document for their adventure path releases would demonstrate, quite conclusively, that Paizo is committed to its own revision to the 3.5 rules set, but understands that some of its fans play other games and would still like to be able to enjoy the consistently high-quality adventure content that Paizo puts out.
Publish the original adventure in PFRPG. This makes it clear where your priorities lie, as it should be. But no one is going to think that Paizo believes any less in its own system or success if it shows that it understands it has fans that exist beyond the bounds of its proprietary rules system.
As for the Lamia, you yourself did exactly what the GSL encourages, even before the GSL existed! You didn't call your creature a lamia, you called it a Lamia Matriarch - extending the definition of a lamia to include a different variety of creature (presumably because an entirely different lamia already existed in D&D 3.5). In other words, you already jumped through the hoops you're dreading, without even realizing it. That's how easy it was, and it's a perfect example of how the GSL isn't going to force you to compromise on your vision of Golarion.
I don't think so. Most of that bestiary article refers to the lamia in the monster manual and I do believe at least a good of it would have to be rewritten to conform to the GSL. I don't think it is anywhere near the perfect example of how to do it and, in fact, still find it one of the best examples of what problems there would be.
As for the Lamia, you yourself did exactly what the GSL encourages, even before the GSL existed! You didn't call your creature a lamia, you called it a Lamia Matriarch - extending the definition of a lamia to include a different variety of creature (presumably because an entirely different lamia already existed in D&D 3.5). In other words, you already jumped through the hoops you're dreading, without even realizing it. That's how easy it was, and it's a perfect example of how the GSL isn't going to force you to compromise on your vision of Golarion.I don't think so. Most of that bestiary article refers to the lamia in the monster manual and I do believe at least a good of it would have to be rewritten to conform to the GSL. I don't think it is anywhere near the perfect example of how to do it and, in fact, still find it one of the best examples of what problems there would be.
Why? The parts you seem to be referring to are all contained in the "fluff" of the bestiary entry, which is almost entirely non-mechanical (and thus wouldn't be part of the conversion document published under the GSL anyway). The only part that would need to be reprinted in the conversion document is the name - which, as I explained, already complies with the GSL. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what the removal of the old Section 6 of the GSL means, this isn't an issue.
In fact, for an example of everything you'd need to use a Lamia Matriarch in 4th Edition - which would be legal under the GSL if I were working under it - check out this stat block. That's all that needs to be in there. Everything else could remain in the original adventure, published under the OGL and not subject to the GSL's restrictions.
This is a legitimate concern, and again would be something that you'd have to check with the Rouse to get a feel for what they actually mean by this, but I imagine that in reality the content standards of both companies are not too dissimilar. The Hook Mountain Massacre is often pointed to as an example of Paizo pushing its own envelope, and while it contains some disturbing imagery I don't think anything within it would qualify as "excessive" (and you yourself decided to cut sections from it that you considered excessive). Again, I don't think this is something that would be at all difficult to overcome if you were committed to making it work.
And I imagine it would come back that it means what it says. I don't think they spent months writing and having lawyers go over a document to be unclear what they want.
Also, the employees working there do change and what the current person in charge might find perfectly fine, the next might call out as a violation.
Really, I doubt that it is ever sound business practice going in saying, "I don't think that is breaks the license requirements." If you are doing that on a regular basis, I think you shouldn't have agreed to the license in the first place because you are unable to follow the rules without putting finger quotes around "follow."
And I imagine it would come back that it means what it says. I don't think they spent months writing and having lawyers go over a document to be unclear what they want.
Of course. It's up to interpretation, but talking to the guy who knows exactly why that clause is in there really can't hurt.
Also, the employees working there do change and what the current person in charge might find perfectly fine, the next might call out as a violation.
Yes, that's true too.
Really, I doubt that it is ever sound business practice going in saying, "I don't think that is breaks the license requirements." If you are doing that on a regular basis, I think you shouldn't have agreed to the license in the first place because you are unable to follow the rules without putting finger quotes around "follow."
That's also certainly true, but I don't think it matters one bit, and here's why:
You don't need to put depictions of graphic violence or sex acts in a conversion document. Again, very much not a lawyer, but as I read the GSL, the ability to publish under both the GSL and OGL for the same product line suddenly allows for conversion products like this that do nothing but provide the information needed to run an adventure in a different system. Paizo's already provided this for some of their adventures - you can download free True20 conversions from Paizo's store.
And if the Big Bad Hasbro Corporate Boogeyman does tell you that your conversion product violates some clause or another in the GSL, then you only lose that product - the original adventure remains yours under the OGL, and Hasbro can't touch it.
There are legitimate concerns about this that need to be examined: Would such a product be profitable? Will Paizo ever be able to afford to invest some of its employees' time in working on this product? Will it harm the sales of its own rules system? I would guess that none of these are insurmountable questions, but they do need to be addressed.
As for the Lamia, you yourself did exactly what the GSL encourages, even before the GSL existed! You didn't call your creature a lamia, you called it a Lamia Matriarch - extending the definition of a lamia to include a different variety of creature (presumably because an entirely different lamia already existed in D&D 3.5). In other words, you already jumped through the hoops you're dreading, without even realizing it. That's how easy it was, and it's a perfect example of how the GSL isn't going to force you to compromise on your vision of Golarion.I don't think so. Most of that bestiary article refers to the lamia in the monster manual and I do believe at least a good of it would have to be rewritten to conform to the GSL. I don't think it is anywhere near the perfect example of how to do it and, in fact, still find it one of the best examples of what problems there would be.Why? The parts you seem to be referring to are all contained in the "fluff" of the bestiary entry, which is almost entirely non-mechanical (and thus wouldn't be part of the conversion document published under the GSL anyway). The only part that would need to be reprinted in the conversion document is the name - which, as I explained, already complies with the GSL. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what the removal of the old Section 6 of the GSL means, this isn't an issue.
In fact, for an example of everything you'd need to use a Lamia Matriarch in 4th Edition - which would be legal under the GSL if I were working under it - check out this stat block. That's all that needs to be in there. Everything else could remain in the original adventure, published under the OGL and not subject to the GSL's restrictions.
Yes, but what brought us to this point in the conversion is that they don't believe doing a 4e adventures in Golarion would fit with the flavor of the world, not just a conversion document.
Paizo's already provided this for some of their adventures - you can download free True20 conversions from Paizo's store.
Yes, and it should be noted that they didn't actually do them, nor have their production actually continued.
Yes, but what brought us to this point in the conversion is that they don't believe doing a 4e adventures in Golarion would fit with the flavor of the world, not just a conversion document.
I don't think anyone cares whether Paizo puts out adventures designed specifically for 4th Edition. All it needs to do is continue producing adventures for 3.5 or PFRPG, and then publish solid rules for running those adventures in a different rules set. I don't think anyone is asking for anything more.
Paizo's already provided this for some of their adventures - you can download free True20 conversions from Paizo's store.Yes, and it should be noted that they didn't actually do them, nor have their production actually continued.
So? It's been done, and it's been endorsed by Paizo. It isn't impossible, and I suspect the reasons it was discontinued (if it has been) is because Paizo a) is creating its own system and is of the mind (as they are now) that it would be competing with themselves, and b) True20 isn't that popular. I think that reason 'a' isn't an issue (because the people playing 4th Edition probably would play that edition whether or not Paizo put adventures out for it - they'd just settle for other adventures instead), and I think issue 'b' doesn't hold true when you suddenly apply it to the industry-leading rules set.
If you really, really want to see 4e conversion guides for Pathfinder adventure paths, make them. Post them. At the moment, you are calling on Paizo to do it for you. They have weighed in, and pretty much admitted that they would be bad at writing conversions, because they don't have the time, or inclination, to learn 4e with any fluency.
Instead of trying harder to get them to do it, fill the niche yourself. You obviously care.
I do! Keep playing, I promise it's there. Are you looking at it with a mindset grounded in trying to find things about the system to dislike, or trying to evaluate all the ways it's different from previous versions of the game? That may be the problem. Try just playing D&D. I guarantee you'll have more fun if you're committed to trying to have fun.
And I don't. :)
I don't say that the game can't be fun (in fact I had fun playing this adventure), but I really have the feeling that I'm playing some board game like Descent, and not D&D.I'm no fan of at will powers (and it's the same in Pathfinder RPG), all these healing surges and a bunch of other things. It makes a really different atmosphere. But what I dislike more is all their changes to the world and background. While I can accept the change in rules, I don't want to see a 30 years old background being changed like that.
I have seen some nice and interesting ideas, but I think they could have been incorporated in the game without so drastically changing it.
But don't worry, I will try to continue to play if my DM proposes us other adventures, and I will play it like another game. But I will not DM it. 4th doesn't allow me to run the style of adventures I want.
industry-leading rules set?
I think that is like saying that McDonalds is the industry-leading burger.
Yes, but what brought us to this point in the conversion is that they don't believe doing a 4e adventures in Golarion would fit with the flavor of the world, not just a conversion document.I don't think anyone cares whether Paizo puts out adventures designed specifically for 4th Edition. All it needs to do is continue producing adventures for 3.5 or PFRPG, and then publish solid rules for running those adventures in a different rules set. I don't think anyone is asking for anything more.
I was just clarifying what I believe the listed problem was. As I don't believe that it was listed to be an issue with producing conversion documents and instead was just an issue of making 4e Pathfinder adventures.
I think James has already listed the problems with them making conversions earlier in the thread with this post.
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.
If you really, really want to see 4e conversion guides for Pathfinder adventure paths, make them. Post them. At the moment, you are calling on Paizo to do it for you. They have weighed in, and pretty much admitted that they would be bad at writing conversions, because they don't have the time, or inclination, to learn 4e with any fluency.
Instead of trying harder to get them to do it, fill the niche yourself. You obviously care.
Hi, I run a little project called Tales from the Rusty Dragon. In fact, I keep a thread on this sub-forum and the Rise of the Runelords AP sub-forum to keep the community updated on its progress, and have for over half a year now.
I'm filling that niche as best I can, and while I personally believe it's the most complete conversion of Paizo products to 4th Edition out there, it's nothing compared to what someone who did this professionally could do. I certainly can't - I've got years of education still ahead of me and am not considering a career in the tabletop industry - but there are plenty of talented people out there who could if Paizo chose to make it happen.
I was just clarifying what I believe the listed problem was. As I don't believe that it was listed to be an issue with producing conversion documents and instead was just an issue of making 4e Pathfinder adventures.
I think James has already listed the problems with them making conversions earlier in the thread with this post.
I saw that, and I think those are legitimate concerns for James to have. Paizo is obviously very focused on producing high-quality products and they don't want to put something out that wouldn't meet their standards. While it might not be possible right now due to the unique circumstances of having to publish their own rules set in a short time frame, I can't imagine it remaining that way forever. I don't think it would be difficult for them to justify its development (in-house or otherwise) at a later date. That is, of course, for James, Lisa and the rest of the Paizo team to decide, though.
So? It's been done, and it's been endorsed by Paizo. It isn't impossible, and I suspect the reasons it was discontinued (if it has been) is because Paizo a) is creating its own system and is of the mind (as they are now) that it would be competing with themselves, and b) True20 isn't that popular. I think that reason 'a' isn't an issue (because the people playing 4th Edition probably would play that edition whether or not Paizo put adventures out for it - they'd just settle for other adventures instead), and I think issue 'b' doesn't hold true when you suddenly apply it to the industry-leading rules set.Paizo's already provided this for some of their adventures - you can download free True20 conversions from Paizo's store.Yes, and it should be noted that they didn't actually do them, nor have their production actually continued.
No, I believe the listed reason for it being discontinued was that the other company pulled the person who was working on it. From what they said, Paizo was not involved at all in the decision to stop them.
industry-leading rules set?
I don't think anyone is under the impression that 4th Edition isn't selling the pants off any other tabletop RPG product on the market right now.
No, I believe the listed reason for it being discontinued was that the other company pulled the person who was working on it. From what they said, Paizo was not involved at all in the decision to stop them.So? It's been done, and it's been endorsed by Paizo. It isn't impossible, and I suspect the reasons it was discontinued (if it has been) is because Paizo a) is creating its own system and is of the mind (as they are now) that it would be competing with themselves, and b) True20 isn't that popular. I think that reason 'a' isn't an issue (because the people playing 4th Edition probably would play that edition whether or not Paizo put adventures out for it - they'd just settle for other adventures instead), and I think issue 'b' doesn't hold true when you suddenly apply it to the industry-leading rules set.Paizo's already provided this for some of their adventures - you can download free True20 conversions from Paizo's store.Yes, and it should be noted that they didn't actually do them, nor have their production actually continued.
Ah, that explains it very well, then. Paizo didn't necessarily have a problem with it continuing then, which bodes well for the prospect of future conversions.
I'm filling that niche as best I can, and while I personally believe it's the most complete conversion of Paizo products to 4th Edition out there, it's nothing compared to what someone who did this professionally could do. I certainly can't - I've got years of education still ahead of me and am not considering a career in the tabletop industry - but there are plenty of talented people out there who could if Paizo chose to make it happen.
I don't think Paizo can chose to make it happen.
They can't make other industry professionals to start work on conversions for the Adventure Paths that are available for download.
I think that it is just as likely that WotC could make it happen. They can call upon someone to start working on these conversions. And, unless I'm wrong about how this whole thing works, they could make those conversions just like you have been doing.
Now, I'm not sure what would be required for something more than what is covered by the fan-license (or even if Paizo would agree to it). However, I think that it would have to be initiated by other people asking Paizo if they can do it, rather than the other way around.
I don't think Paizo can chose to make it happen.
They can't make other industry professionals to start work on conversions for the Adventure Paths that are available for download.
No, they don't have the power to force anyone to do anything. But it is certainly within their power to say "We'd like to license this project out to someone willing to create the official Pathfinder 4th Edition conversions."
I think that it is just as likely that WotC could make it happen. They can call upon someone to start working on these conversions. And, unless I'm wrong about how this whole thing works, they could make those conversions just like you have been doing.
They could, but none of these would be "official" unless Paizo gave it their stamp of approval. Not to mention that Paizo currently doesn't have a standing license system in place that would allow people to use its properties for a conversion without fear of legal issues.
Now, I'm not sure what would be required for something more than what is covered by the fan-license (or even if Paizo would agree to it). However, I think that it would have to be initiated by other people asking Paizo if they can do it, rather than the other way around.
Paizo is pretty connected to the industry at large, I would imagine. I think they could give it a shot.
No, they don't have the power to force anyone to do anything. But it is certainly within their power to say "We'd like to license this project out to someone willing to create the official Pathfinder 4th Edition conversions."
But I don't think I've ever seen them do that for anything. If they haven't done it, I assume that there are pretty good reasons why it hasn't happened.
They could, but none of these would be "official" unless Paizo gave it their stamp of approval. Not to mention that Paizo currently doesn't have a standing license system in place that would allow people to use its properties for a conversion without fear of legal issues.
Yes, but this appears to be changing within the week. I didn't that time would detract significantly from anyone's ability to start doing conversions.
Paizo is pretty connected to the industry at large, I would imagine. I think they could give it a shot.
But I would think that if that they have to go asking around for groups willing to start this conversion without Paizo paying them directly for them (or if they were like the way True20 conversions look now, indirectly either), then it might not be something that is really likely to occur.
When they use there connections for projects they seem to either pay the people they get work from or they are a judge or in an advisory position while I think can be difficult at times, they are not as significant as asking someone to agree to writing many successive conversion documents.
But I don't think I've ever seen them do that for anything. If they haven't done it, I assume that there are pretty good reasons why it hasn't happened.
Maybe there are, or maybe a situation where it's a worthwhile thing to seek out just hasn't come up. I think this is a worthwhile thing to seek out.
Yes, but this appears to be changing within the week. Hopefully it is no longer a valid point within the next 24 hours. I didn't think either time period would detract significantly from anyone's ability to start doing conversions.
Just because you're operating under a fan license doesn't make it official. I doubt Paizo is putting much in the way of quality control or review into their fan license. I'll be interested to see what it allows me to do as an amateur with a blog, but I think there's a further step or two that can be taken with the group given Paizo's official OK to convert their material to 4th Edition.
But I would think that if that they have to go asking around for groups willing to start this conversion without Paizo paying them directly for them (or if they were like the way True20 conversions look now, indirectly either), then it might not be something that is really likely to occur.
When they use there connections for projects they seem to either pay the people they get work from or they are a judge or in an advisory position while I think can be difficult at times, they are not as significant as asking someone to agree to writing many successive conversion documents.
I don't think it would be a terrible idea for Paizo to consider subsidizing the conversions, considering the very real possibility that this could expand the market for their adventures. Couple the possibility of subsidies with the money made from charging for the conversion and someone might be willing to consider putting some dedication into it.
I think it's worth a shot.
|
|
Oh, Scott, I have read some threads from 4e section and I apreciate your conversion efforts. And I am sure you have good intentions. But you are acting like the inquisitor monks into conquistadorial South America. While you should act like a shaolin monk. You fervor harrass people and close your ears and eyes. Your god is 4e and you think that all people must believe in him. Why dont are you a good cleric and let people believe in what they want? Why don`t you keep your preaches into your temple and chase peoples on the threads?! Open your eyes! You scare them! The faith come as an inspiration and can`t be implanted by force into the people heads and hearts.
Now, please stop your thoughts train for five seconds an try to see what I had said here...
It is not about market share and marginal profit. It is all about company public image. From the day they announced Pathfinder RPG, Paizo had ceased to be a minor 3PP and had entered into the big league of games producers. Although they have a lower capacity of production and a smaller market share, they are a direct and major competitor for Wizard of the Coast. And they are not anymore a mouse who try to eat some from what drops from the beak of the big eagle. So, Lisa simply can`t go and bow to the mighty wizards and beg them to let James to hunt some rabbits from their huge forest. Not as long Paizo want to show that they are confident about the Pathfinder RPG succes...
Your answer is very relevant your wrong perception...
Producing a short conversion document for their adventure path releases would demonstrate, quite conclusively, that Paizo is committed to its own revision to the 3.5 rules set, but understands that some of its fans play other games and would still like to be able to enjoy the consistently high-quality adventure content that Paizo puts out.
Scott dear, that "revision" has an name. It is Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and it is a lot more that a simple revision. It is an full grown game that compete with the other game, named Dungeon&Dragon - 4th Edition. And, starting from august, the Pathfinder Adventure Path, as the other additional books and adventures will be compatible with the PFRPG and not anymore with the official D&D, as 4e will be the only legal version of this game on the market.
You can make how many conversions to 4e you like, for Pathfinder or even Warhammer, and maybe some 3PP could do it too. But you can`t ask James to call at Wizard and ask if they let him do some conversion work in order to take more of their market share. Even if that is what some fervent fans (who seems to love Golarion but not Pathfinder RPG) demand. Get serious!
Imagine how will be if an Apple CEO would call at Microsoft and ask to let them make some of their products compatible with Windows? Oru imagine Konami (WoW TCG, Yughioh TCG) asking Wizard to let them make some of their allready produced sets compatible with the Magic rules, only because it is "the most popular game" in TCG industry and they could sell them twice to the players. Sure, they can call, in theory, but that is something no one would do in practice...
Why I am talking all this things with you? Because you prozelitism hurt me too. Listen to yourself, man!... You demand ("ask" would too gentle here) James to convert their adventures because you only like the stories and the world they created, but you don`t wanna play them in the way they are intended, D&D4e beeing better, for you, that their "revison". Can you see how offending is that?! They wanna show us that they can stay on their feet, but you send them to do their homework with those little 3PPs. For your 4e god sake, it is painfull even to hear you telling them this things...
And... you keep talking about Paizo "fans", like a good sheperd of us...
but understands that some of its fans play other games and would still like to be able to enjoy the consistently high-quality adventure content that Paizo puts out.
... so, do yo dare to go on Wizards forums and ask Bil Slavicek or James Wyatt to call at Paizo to let them convert their adventures to PFRPG?!...
Scott, as others told you on Paizo messageboards, you make a bad image to 4e. If I didn`t studied 4e before "meeting" your zealottery, I certainly started too hate that game. Stop patronize us, man! You are better at converting PF adventures to 4e that at converting people to 4e...
I don't think it would be a terrible idea for Paizo to consider subsidizing the conversions, considering the very real possibility that this could expand the market for their adventures. Couple the possibility of subsidies with the money made from charging for the conversion and someone might be willing to consider putting some dedication into it.
I think it's worth a shot.
I believe that if Paizo has to do that, it probably isn't worth doing. If the person they personally asked to do it isn't confident enough in their business plan to maintain the conversions without subsidies, then I doubt that it is a sound plan for Paizo to undertake.
|
S
e
o
n
i
Scott Betts, I not sure about converting paizo Intellectual property to 4ed with out their consent is good idea. I may be barking at the wrong tree here but I don't see the GSL policy on your website (have you applied to using the SOA document? are you using the correct version of the document?) or even the paizo own OGL policy for using their Intellectual property.
Hypothetically speaking if one person is conversion paizos intellectual property to the GSL format are they inavertly putting paizo intellectual property and themselves at risk?
if they use the GSL they need paizo license to use their ip but if you are using the 4ed system with out making use of the GSL but converting paizo ip to GSl with out their consent what happens?
I sure if no one visits your web site and you dont get money out of it thing will be ok, however if you get 1k+ of visit everyone and directly or indirectly making money out of this then what? (directly = charging to converted material, indirectly = asking for donations to help you convert the stuff)
That is one question I would as my lawyers first.
|
|
Scott, they can`t stop you play on your blog if you give away your conversions for free.
But, they can`t let you sell your conversions without checking their content and without charging you for that. It is their IP and they must control the way it get to the public. And they must also get their share from sells. Sound like a PFAP francise, but that will force them to put an editor or developer to check every conversion you made and negotiate its content with you. While they can put that one skilled man to make himself the conversions and keep all the profit into the company accounts.
Is there on the market some company that had lend their homemade adventures to a 3PP to convert them for some competitor game system? Had ever WotC let someone to convert their homemade adventures to other systems?!
|
|
S
e
o
n
i
I don't think Paizo can chose to make it happen.
They can't make other industry professionals to start work on conversions for the Adventure Paths that are available for download.
No, they don't have the power to force anyone to do anything. But it is certainly within their power to say "We'd like to license this project out to someone willing to create the official Pathfinder 4th Edition conversions."
I think that it is just as likely that WotC could make it happen. They can call upon someone to start working on these conversions. And, unless I'm wrong about how this whole thing works, they could make those conversions just like you have been doing.They could, but none of these would be "official" unless Paizo gave it their stamp of approval. Not to mention that Paizo currently doesn't have a standing license system in place that would allow people to use its properties for a conversion without fear of legal issues.
Now, I'm not sure what would be required for something more than what is covered by the fan-license (or even if Paizo would agree to it). However, I think that it would have to be initiated by other people asking Paizo if they can do it, rather than the other way around.Paizo is pretty connected to the industry at large, I would imagine. I think they could give it a shot.
Converting their IP to GSL could put their IP content into jeopardy since if wizard publish some material under the GSL that contain new components that are NOT part to the GSL makes third party own IP components violate the GSL it is left to wizards to decide if they add to the GSl or not and the third party has no power over this decision.
create an original aspect (Race, Class, Monster, Item, etc) for the game which WotC
could later put into a D&D book but not into the SRD. Will that 3PP then be in
violation of the GSL?
A: Wizards of the Coast does not wish to cause undue damage to third party publishers
that have accepted the GSL and are supporting the 4th Edition of D&D. The GSL allows
and assumes that development of original aspects (Race, Class, Monster, Item, etc) may
happen separately, but in parallel, with neither party having knowledge of the other’s
actions. In the unlikely event that this situation occurs, a publisher can petition for their
original work to be entered into the SRD although WotC reserves the right under the
license to incorporate its original aspect into the GSL SRD.
|
|
Portela, you are so right. And I had made a mistake in my last post. Now I see clear...
Scott dear, you are great, we can have the Paizo adventures for free from your blog and we don`t need to purchase them anymore. How convenient. When can we get the next one? Don`t worry, for that money saving i`ll make the reconversion at home...
Man, it is bad, you can not play the conversion game on public, even for free. Some people invested money in the production of those adventures...
|
While I understand Paizo's reasons I am still saddened that they will not be producing 4E material now that they can do so alongside their OGL material. I also understand that the WotC bears the greatest amount of responsibility for this. Who honestly believes that the current GSL should have taken this long to produce. In a few months I look to run my second 4E version of a Paizo AP. Your adventures are peerless and I do really wish I could see the Golem on some 4E products. But I understand and will keep converting away.
Tam
|
|
S
e
o
n
i
I will support Paizo at any direction they decide to take, they have proved every time that they are whiling to listen to their customers and they are very good at managing our expectations and knowing this I don't mind they doing it. They are company as much as they are here to enjoy themselves and play games with us they are also trying to make a living like all of us.
Wizards and the many 3pp that are going to provide GSL products will be fine, there will be plenty of variety in the market and THAT is what is important not some monopolistic market. I want choice and the laws of the US and many other countries demand choice.
|
|
The things are very clear with Scott blog. If he posts there any part from one adventure, he is breaking the copyright law. Is like posting an entire chapter for the last R.A. Slavatore book on your blog...
I am sorry about Scott work, but he is on a wrong rute. And probably no one at Paizo didnt checked that blog till now...
|
|
The things are very clear with Scott blog. If he posts there any part from one adventure, he is breaking the copyright law. Is like posting an entire chapter for the last R.A. Slavatore book on your blog...
I am sorry about Scott work, but he is on a wrong rute. And probably no one at Paizo didnt checked that blog till now...
Cicattrix he can make citations (see pathfinder wiki as an example) but posting PFrpg stat blocks and any other material may be fine or may be not ~(it is at paizo discretion). Converting to 4ed.... and posting the said stats block and mechanic changes he needs to conform to the fansite policy of wizards and paizo which one or all are not out yet. He is also mixing OGL and GSL products which said fan site policies may prohibit.
We have to wait until the policies are out.
Thing with the rules-light books is that they don't NEED to be converted, though. Some of my friends are using the Pathfinder Campaign setting hardcover to run their 4th edition games, for example. No conversions necessary.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..."
Sure, but being able to slap the big "D&D" logo on it gets it put over in the D&D section where the mouth-breathers can see it and buy it, is my point. Very few of your average Barnes & Noble clerks, or people who go to B&N to buy RPGs, will understand that the two are linked any more than the White Wolf stuff they also see there otherwise.
Greetings from Greece.
I am really happy that PAIZO will keep on focusing on the PATHFINDER series. :)
Dimitris
|
|
S
e
o
n
i
Sure, but being able to slap the big "D&D" logo on it gets it put over in the D&D section where the mouth-breathers can see it and buy it, is my point. Very few of your average Barnes & Noble clerks, or people who go to B&N to buy RPGs, will understand that the two are linked any more than the White Wolf stuff they also see there otherwise.
This is really not relevant however it makes me feel pity for the shop owner that buy stock and don't try their best to sell it. besides I rather think that if I had a company which I am proud of it for its accomplishments that these were done over my own efforts and not because I have piggy back my way in, basically being proud for my own creativity is a lot more rewarding specially when novels, films, fandoms, games etc is being created for it.
