|
There is no need for D&D logo to promote Pathfinder.
As Jason said, there were 40.000 downloads for Beta PFRPG pdf. Add to this that Eric said that Paizo print around 10.000 copies per book and Wizards around 60.000 copies. Make the math and become clear that a great majority of the D&D players know about the Paizo new game. Now, if only 20.000 players would buy the PFRPG core books I am sure there will be summer at Paizo all the year. As they stated in the last summer anoucment.
Off course, if those players would not buy D&D 4e books, that will hurt a little the Hasbro wallet.
The strong point for the Paizo is their online community and store. Why do you think WotC took the D&D magazines from the Paizo and launched the D&D Insider?!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
At this point in time, no. Paizo's not interested at all in producing 4th edition content or conversions.I sure appreciate hearing that...
The Pathfinder Compatiblity License will be available by the end of the week....and that!
As do I. Need to modify my pre-order for 4 copies...
Scott, the horse is dead, stop beating it, you've killed it. Now your killing everyone's interest in horses all together. Is there no end to your ability to offend people? If you somehow didn't manage to offend the owners of this site it is only because they are more forgiving than I. Thank you for not showing any favortism towards the other RPGs and comics I enjoy, with your constant over-the top comments and unswerving tunnel vision you would have ruined them for me as well. You remind me of an old poster that "disappeared" as soon as the edition wars died down, I sometimes wonder if you've returned under a different name. As I recall, he used the same type of argumentive approaches and offended other people on this site almost just as much. In fact much of the posting terminology you use mirrors his. Hmmmm...just speculating.
I'm going to be blunt with you as you seem to have difficulty understanding anything else.....Your giving D&D, gaming, and specifically 4th edition a bad reputation. You may think your endorsing it but your actually making people hate it. Is this blunt enough or do I need to break it down even more? What comes around goes around. You treat others like they are "less intelligent" than you through your comments and it really relfects poorly on you. If you care half as much as you claim, you'll stop the damage your doing and learn to treat people better. Flag me, I don't care. You really hurt people, games and companies.
|
|
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.
A rule set that contains Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Dragons, etc does not D&D make. 4E is an interesting and unique set of rules but it deviates so much from the D&D basic canon that other than names of things doesn't resemble D&D anymore.
Paizo has made the decision to support the evolution of D&D canon by injecting fresh ideas BUT leaving the foundations intact. 4E doesn't have a rule fault (they are excellent rules in themselves), its fault is mindset - they went out to redefine what D&D "is".
For example in D&D wizards have spell books and use Jack Vance's idea of how to learn/cast them - you change that you change from D&D to another fantasy role playing game. Why is 4E any more D&D than say Dragonquest or MERP or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay? Each of these contains the same basic elements, meaing XP, hp's, roll dice to do things, yet all (including 4E) have only a passing resemblance to 1st/2nd AD&D and D&D v3.5/Pathfinder.
d20 presented a unified method of doing what we have always done in D&D, 4E modifies the d20 system to do things we have never done in D&D. See the difference?
As for the 4E sales being strong, of course they are, the "new" D&D was always going to sell well it has a very strong brand. My entire gaming group purchased all 3 core books, that doesn't mean they aren't now in storage! Proof of the pudding (as they say) will be sales of the 4E PHB2 compared with the first 4E PHB. WotC has setup for themselves a system that will work like the old RoleMaster system from I.C.E. in that they potentially now can make small changes to a class and call it another name. I think RoleMaster got to about 9 or 10 "PHBs" out of doing this, lets see how WotC gets on.
The "D&D" community now has choice! Either "old school" D&D aka Pathfinder and "new school" D&D via WotC. This can't be a bad thing, we can all play the game we want to play. Obviously I'm in the Pathfinder camp squarely, but I understand fully that their are those people who love the new way of doing things. I my opinion stop wasting breath saying A is better than B. A is different from B, find the one that suits you and your groups needs. Choice is nice (I will however thank Paizo for giving us this choice).
Anyway great to hear about the Pathfinder license, I look forward to some excellent material.
S.
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...
Cicattrix, I think something is being lost in translation here. I've been very clear that I'm not demanding anything, and I honestly believe that going forward with this eventually would be a good business decision on Paizo's part. If James and the others ultimately decide against that, I'll certainly accept their decision. I've made the case for giving this idea a fair evaluation.
That said, your condescension needs to stop. I've been nothing but civil in this thread, and have not been demanding in the slightest. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, nor am I trying to give Wizards more of a market share for its own sake. You have me confused with some other kind of creature, and it's coloring how you view my posts.
|
The "D&D" community now has choice! Either "old school" D&D aka Pathfinder and "new school" D&D via WotC. This can't be a bad thing, we can all play the game we want to play.
And we have soon a third choice with Necromancer Games 4E Classic! :-)
The "D&D" community now has choice! Either "old school" D&D aka Pathfinder and "new school" D&D via WotC. This can't be a bad thing, we can all play the game we want to play.And we have soon a third choice with Necromancer Games 4E Classic! :-)
not really sure how he can pull that off as you can not change or redefine pretty much anything
I could be wrong, but I just dont see how it can work under the GSL...I am no lawyer though so..shug
|
|
And we have soon a third choice with Necromancer Games 4E Classic! :-)
not really sure how he can pull that off as you can not change or redefine pretty much anything
I could be wrong, but I just dont see how it can work under the GSL...I am no lawyer though so..shug
Apparently Clark saw something with the new GSL. That, or NG made a separate agreement with WotC.
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.
Scott, I find myself agreeing with you on this one.But this does make a lot of sense, at least to me....you publish your adventure using the pfrpg rules and then create a conversion to 4E document; this to me would bring in some of the 4E players who otherwise would not have tried using the high quality adventures or paths that Paizo puts out, essentially creating more business for paizo as well.............Of course the folks at paizo know more than me on the pros/cons of doing this.
|
|
I think a "standard" conversion document would be almost impossible due to the significant differences between pfrpg and 4E. Having a document that somehow could balance out every encounter so they worked the same under both systems - good luck. Making one specifically for each adventure would be a mammoth task and I can see why Paizo wouldn't (initially) want to go down that road. I don't see the problem with an individual DM converting the stories to 4E, why is a document required? You read the adventure/campaign/path grab your 4E books and start replacing the pfrpg "stats" with ones you think fit the closest under 4E. The maps/names/places etc need no conversion.
S.
I think a "standard" conversion document would be almost impossible due to the significant differences between pfrpg and 4E. Having a document that somehow could balance out every encounter so they worked the same under both systems - good luck. Making one specifically for each adventure would be a mammoth task and I can see why Paizo wouldn't (initially) want to go down that road. I don't see the problem with an individual DM converting the stories to 4E, why is a document required? You read the adventure/campaign/path grab your 4E books and start replacing the pfrpg "stats" with ones you think fit the closest under 4E. The maps/names/places etc need no conversion.
S.
Yeah, your probably right. <strong>I was more intrigued</strong> by the possibility of 4E players that otherwise would not bother to look at Paizo's adventure paths or mods purchasing them and running them under the 4E rules set. I was more or less thinking of the crowd, like me, who doesn't have the time or even the desire to convert an adventure from one rule-set to another. An easy conversion might sway them to purchase said material versus the people who would think that the adventure is good, but I'm not buying because I don't have the time to convert........Make sense?
|
|
Scott, I find myself agreeing with you on this one.But this does make a lot of sense, at least to me....you publish your adventure using the pfrpg rules and then create a conversion to 4E document; this to me would bring in some of the 4E players who otherwise would not have tried using the high quality adventures or paths that Paizo puts out, essentially creating more business for paizo as well.............Of course the folks at paizo know more than me on the pros/cons of doing this.
Paizo addressed this. The staff's at the limit of keeping up with their schedule and products. Adding resources to a system that 1) they're not familiar with; 2) don't particularly find fits their gameview; and 3) could open up legal headaches doesn't particular sound like good business sense. And Stevens herself has directly addressed the so-called "increased profits" offered by publishing 4e products, reminding Paizo would suddenly find itself, again, in competition with WotC as well as other 4E 3PP (e.g., Goodman Games, Adamant, etc.) As the sole publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, Paizo could now dictate its generous version of the OGL to 3PP.
Huh. Now that I think about it, Paizo's path sounds similar to Green Ronin Publishing's True20 and Mutants & Mastermind lines. There, 3PPs apply to GRP to develop compatible product.
|
|
Yeah, your probably right. <strong>I was more intrigued</strong> by the possibility of 4E players that otherwise would not bother to look at Paizo's adventure paths or mods purchasing them and running them under the 4E rules set. I was more or less thinking of the crowd, like me, who doesn't have the time or even the desire to convert an adventure from one rule-set to another. An easy conversion might sway them to purchase said material versus the people who would think that the adventure is good, but I'm not buying because I don't have the time to convert........Make sense?
Sure. Then give Paizo numbers. Dollar bills. Figures. Not speculation, not heresay, not theory. The company's a business. Provide them figures of how many folks they would obtain by provide 4e conversions versus the effort to write up said conversions, they'll at least give your "intrigue" some thought.
I think a "standard" conversion document would be almost impossible due to the significant differences between pfrpg and 4E. Having a document that somehow could balance out every encounter so they worked the same under both systems - good luck. Making one specifically for each adventure would be a mammoth task and I can see why Paizo wouldn't (initially) want to go down that road. I don't see the problem with an individual DM converting the stories to 4E, why is a document required? You read the adventure/campaign/path grab your 4E books and start replacing the pfrpg "stats" with ones you think fit the closest under 4E. The maps/names/places etc need no conversion.
S.
I think he was talking about Paizo producing a conversion document for each adventure - not a standardized document on how to convert things from PFRPG to 4th Edition. What we're advocating is something like the True20 conversions that were being done for a short while - separate documents that handle the conversion work of a single adventure for you in a professional manner.
Sure. Then give Paizo numbers. Dollar bills. Figures. Not speculation, not heresay, not theory. The company's a business. Provide them figures of how many folks they would obtain by provide 4e conversions versus the effort to write up said conversions, they'll at least give your "intrigue" some thought.
Yeah, your probably right. <strong>I was more intrigued</strong> by the possibility of 4E players that otherwise would not bother to look at Paizo's adventure paths or mods purchasing them and running them under the 4E rules set. I was more or less thinking of the crowd, like me, who doesn't have the time or even the desire to convert an adventure from one rule-set to another. An easy conversion might sway them to purchase said material versus the people who would think that the adventure is good, but I'm not buying because I don't have the time to convert........Make sense?
I don't think any of us, as fans and amateurs at best, have the capacity to do this with any degree of credibility. We're just suggesting that this might be something to look into, especially now that the GSL is open enough to allow such conversion documents to be produced.
I personally hope that Paizo doesn't go the 4e route if it would threaten the PFRPG stuff, but I admire Scott Betts' restraint given how he's been addressed on occasion in this thread.
Thank you.
And for what it's worth, I don't want to see Paizo go down the "4e route" myself. I think it's fantastic that they have an honest to goodness shot at creating a competing product, and I think they should make that the focus of their efforts. That doesn't mean, however, that they shouldn't provide a small amount of simple support for another system if the audience for such support is large enough, and if/when they have the resources free (or are willing to bring more resources aboard) to do so.
If it can be justified from a business standpoint and if it makes a significant portion of your fanbase happy, I see little reason not to pursue it.
(Note: I'm not sure if this is possible, or if I'm just thinking of this the wrong way)
After thinking about it for a bit, just putting the conversion document under the GSL when the original product under OGL would have broken the GSL's rules, seems to me to be just exploiting a loop-hole in the current GSL.
Doing it this way you could make a 4e product that ignores all of the rules in the GSL by making the main product be under OGL and creating a conversion document under the GSL. The OGL product would have all the descriptive text, imagery, and such that would not be fine under the GSL, but since the conversion document would not contain any of this information it would still qualify to be under the GSL (assuming one can make a GSL conversion document for something not under the GSL).
This seems to be just an exploitation of the license that you asked for in my mind and I would find it very improper. Since, to me, it seems to be a hole in the document I would have to assume that it would be fixed at some point (or it already has been dealt with and this option is not available).
(still not a lawyer, or a source on what people can or are able to do with the OGL or GSL)
(Note: I'm not sure if this is possible, or if I'm just thinking of this the wrong way)
After thinking about it for a bit, just putting the conversion document under the GSL when the original product under OGL would have broken the GSL's rules, seems to me to be just exploiting a loop-hole in the current GSL.
Doing it this way you could make a 4e product that ignores all of the rules in the GSL by making the main product be under OGL and creating a conversion document under the GSL. The OGL product would have all the descriptive text, imagery, and such that would not be fine under the GSL, but since the conversion document would not contain any of this information it would still qualify to be under the GSL (assuming one can make a GSL conversion document for something not under the GSL).
This seems to be just an exploitation of the license that you asked for in my mind and I would find it very improper. Since, to me, it seems to be a hole in the document I would have to assume that it would be fixed at some point (or it already has been dealt with and this option is not available).
(still not a lawyer, or a source on what people can or are able to do with the OGL or GSL)
Actually, this option didn't even exist until a couple days ago when the new version of the GSL was released. They specifically removed the portion that was designed to prevent publishing a product line under two different licenses at the same time. Whether this is exploiting a loophole or not is something that should be addressed to Scott Rouse. I've considered it, but I can't imagine that their legal team didn't see this as a necessary consequence of the removal of the old Section 6.
And again, if they do change it at a later date, publishing the documents separately prevents you from losing your actual line of adventures - all you'd be prohibited from publishing are the conversions.
Sure. Then give Paizo numbers. Dollar bills. Figures. Not speculation, not heresay, not theory. The company's a business. Provide them figures of how many folks they would obtain by provide 4e conversions versus the effort to write up said conversions, they'll at least give your "intrigue" some thought.
Yeah, your probably right. <strong>I was more intrigued</strong> by the possibility of 4E players that otherwise would not bother to look at Paizo's adventure paths or mods purchasing them and running them under the 4E rules set. I was more or less thinking of the crowd, like me, who doesn't have the time or even the desire to convert an adventure from one rule-set to another. An easy conversion might sway them to purchase said material versus the people who would think that the adventure is good, but I'm not buying because I don't have the time to convert........Make sense?
And why would I do all that? Because I said I agreed with Scott on what he was saying? And I clarified what I was thinking in another post after the intital post. It was a comment based on what I was thinking at the time. It wasn't a statement meant to be backed by scientific research.
|
|
I think he was talking about Paizo producing a conversion document for each adventure - not a standardized document on how to convert things from PFRPG to 4th Edition. What we're advocating is something like the True20 conversions that were being done for a short while - separate documents that handle the conversion work of a single adventure for you in a professional manner.
Conversion to True20 isn't all that tricky, conversion to 4E from any system is a huge ask. WotC made the choice of reinventing D&D from the ground up, right now they have complete product control and I don't think that they really want you "converting" anything that isn't 4E or 4E compatible. A fighter in pfrpg is nothing like a fighter in 4E when it comes to abilities, and creatures don't just "map" across systems. It wouldn't be a conversion so much as a major rewrite from a game mechanics point of view.
Would you really want Paizo producing a "best guess" conversion document for one of their adventures knowing full well that they themselves admit to not having much working knowledge of 4E? Alternatively are you expecting WotC to provide 4E --> pfrpg notes at the back of every adventure they publish?
S.
Conversion to True20 isn't all that tricky, conversion to 4E from any system is a huge ask.
Not really. Speaking as someone who is actually doing it, the conversion work for an entire adventure could be done in the space of a day or two. Formatting it properly and publishing it would take more time, but that's going to be true of any system you do conversion work with.
WotC made the choice of reinventing D&D from the ground up, right now they have complete product control and I don't think that they really want you "converting" anything that isn't 4E or 4E compatible.
I find this difficult to believe. WotC has always been pretty cool with the idea of people converting older stuff to their latest edition. They've even encouraged it.
A fighter in pfrpg is nothing like a fighter in 4E when it comes to abilities, and creatures don't just "map" across systems. It wouldn't be a conversion so much as a major rewrite from a game mechanics point of view.
Again, it's not anywhere near as involved as you make it out to be.
Would you really want Paizo producing a "best guess" conversion document for one of their adventures knowing full well that they themselves admit to not having much working knowledge of 4E?
Absolutely not. And I know Paizo wouldn't ever do that. I wouldn't even want them working on such a project, ideally, until they've invested the resources in getting up to speed on 4th Edition. It wouldn't be a huge investment though.
Alternatively are you expecting WotC to provide 4E --> pfrpg notes at the back of every adventure they publish?
No, I'm not, but that's largely because I don't think it makes a great deal of business sense for Wizards to do so. In terms of relative gains, Paizo stands (I believe) to gain a whole lot more from suddenly offering products that the 4th Edition crowd can use, than Wizards has to gain from offering products that the PFRPG crowd can use. And scale of populations aside, Paizo's forte is their adventures. It makes sense to offer them widely. Wizards' forte is its game design. No one is clamoring for Wizards to convert their adventures to PFRPG because they simply don't make the adventures their stand-out product.
There seems to be a general misconception that D&D is owned by WotC - the trade mark D&D is and that is fact. What is debatable is if WotC are now producing "D&D" or a "fantasy role playing game that has the trade mark D&D"?
I think the only people pushing this point of view are the ones who feel that 4th Edition was too much of a change for their liking. Other than that, it's not really debated. And that's neither here nor there. This thread is about the GSL, not about what qualifies as "The Real D&D".
|
|
I find this difficult to believe. WotC has always been pretty cool with the idea of people converting older stuff to their latest edition. They've even encouraged it.
WotC produced a conversion book when 2nd ed. --> 3rd ed. (I still have it). Please point me to the current conversion rule book WotC to go from 3rd ed. --> 4th ed. As I have not seen it yet.
Alternatively are you expecting WotC to provide 4E --> pfrpg notes at the back of every adventure they publish?And scale of populations aside, Paizo's forte is their adventures. It makes sense to offer them widely. Wizards' forte is its game design. No one is clamoring for Wizards to convert their adventures to PFRPG because they simply don't make the adventures their stand-out product.
Ah the crux of the debate...
I am unsure what you are basing these observations on, and I must only assume you haven't read the beta pfrpg? Just because WotC owns the rights D&D that they can't possibly have anything other than the best game design people with the best ideas?
S.
Shows up , hands out more shields and swords so we can get a proper war going
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Stefan, I think Scott's final paragraph needs to be reread before this (mostly) civil discussion goes off the rails. This isn't an edition war debate, not a pissing contest between Paizo and WotC. This is about whether it makes sense, now or in the future, for Paizo to do 4e conversions or products. Let's not reopen the wounds that have only recently closed from the fabled edition war of 2008.
Awwww, no war? Sits in the corner and pouts You guys are just no fun!
WotC produced a conversion book when 2nd ed. --> 3rd ed. (I still have it). Please point me to the current conversion rule book WotC to go from 3rd ed. --> 4th ed. As I have not seen it yet.
There isn't one. That doesn't mean that converting a 3.5 adventure to 4th Edition is especially time-consuming. In fact, I'd wager that it would take roughly the same amount of time to put together and publish a 2nd-3rd edition conversion as it would a 3.5-4th edition conversion.
Ah the crux of the debate...
I am unsure what you are basing these observations on, and I must only assume you haven't read the beta pfrpg? Just because WotC owns the rights D&D that they can't possibly have anything other than the best game design people with the best ideas? I would argue that the approach taken by pfrpg in terms of D&D game design is a far more elegant solution to "evolving" D&D than throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach of 4E (personal opinion of course - but no less subjective than you statement).
Actually, I was simply stating what the designers of Pathfinder have said: their focus is the adventure paths, first and foremost. They are their best-selling product. Paizo isn't making PFRPG just because they thought it would be cool. They are publishing their own system because their adventure paths rely on the 3.5 rules set. Now that 4th Edition has come out, the 3.5 rules set is no longer in print. This makes it very difficult for Paizo to continue printing adventure paths and still be able to grow their market. To remedy this, they are publishing a revision of the 3.5 rules set so that rule books supporting their adventures will be available to new players. The fact that they now get to produce a line of rules supplements tailored to their own wishes is, as far as has been explained to me, a nice set of perks.
Don't mistake this for me knocking PFRPG. I'm sure the Paizo guys are quite competent at rules design. But Paizo has, until very recently, been all about their adventures, and Wizards has always been mostly about their game. This was great while the two were compatible, but now we're starting to feel the effects of the split.
|
|
Back on topic. Using the GSL and OGL would it be possible (i.e. not illegal) to put together a "fan based" conversion document for those not so familiar with converting from 3.5 to 4E (and the reverse)? I understand it would be a lot of work and some play testing, but there are a lot of us here.
I mean we don't have to rely on a registered company really?
Thoughts?
S.
Actually, this option didn't even exist until a couple days ago when the new version of the GSL was released. They specifically removed the portion that was designed to prevent publishing a product line under two different licenses at the same time. Whether this is exploiting a loophole or not is something that should be addressed to Scott Rouse. I've considered it, but I can't imagine that their legal team didn't see this as a necessary consequence of the removal of the old Section 6.
And again, if they do change it at a later date, publishing the documents separately prevents you from losing your actual line of adventures - all you'd be prohibited from publishing are the conversions.
I am aware the option just appeared. However, I do believe it is an abuse of the license and that, more than anything else, is something I don't think Paizo is going to start doing anytime soon. And it is certainly something that would make me have a lower opinion of them.
Back on topic. Using the GSL and OGL would it be possible (i.e. not illegal) to put together a "fan based" conversion document for those not so familiar with converting from 3.5 to 4E (and the reverse)? I understand it would be a lot of work and some play testing, but there are a lot of us here.
I mean we don't have to rely on a registered company really?
Thoughts?
S.
Publishing something (other than online) like that would probably require the infrastructure of a company to do right. Without a company (or at least some organized hierarchy) you will also experience a lot of butting heads over design issues. Playtesting is also a consideration - I playtest my conversions before they're posted, but I'm only able to do it once.
It's a lot of work to set up as a fan project, and I think there's something to be said for getting the official "Pathfinder Licensed Product" stamp on the finished work.
If Paizo ends up being unable to make this work in the long run, however, it may be something for the community to consider getting together and working in earnest on a dedicated conversion project. It would need a number of very talented, committed individuals to work on and edit the conversions, and a lot of community effort to provide the playtesting base necessary to refine it to the point of semi-professionalism.
I am aware the option just appeared. However, I do believe it is an abuse of the license and that, more than anything else, is something I don't think Paizo is going to start doing anytime soon. And it is certainly something that would make me have a lower opinion of them.Actually, this option didn't even exist until a couple days ago when the new version of the GSL was released. They specifically removed the portion that was designed to prevent publishing a product line under two different licenses at the same time. Whether this is exploiting a loophole or not is something that should be addressed to Scott Rouse. I've considered it, but I can't imagine that their legal team didn't see this as a necessary consequence of the removal of the old Section 6.
And again, if they do change it at a later date, publishing the documents separately prevents you from losing your actual line of adventures - all you'd be prohibited from publishing are the conversions.
You'd have a lower opinion of Paizo for publishing a conversion document that helps a lot of gamers out? Why?
Awwww, no war? Sits in the corner and pouts You guys are just no fun!I believe in this case I can talk for Scott also when I say we are happy to disappoint you. :p
Ecstatic.
I just hope at some point they have the resources, and the will, to publish for 4e as well. Now that the GSL allows OGL and 4e, I can't see them ignoring the 4e market forever.
I can.
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.
Ahh. Now this sounds like something that Paizo might go for. Licencing can be a sweet deal for them as they get money for nothing essentially.
|
|
Don't mistake this for me knocking PFRPG. I'm sure the Paizo guys are quite competent at rules design.
And please don't thinking I'm knocking WotC either. They gave us v3.5 after all!!!
Just we had 3E --> v3.5 because of the big changes to the 2E rules not working "in the field" as they did in play testing. If WotC had stayed with fine tuning v3.5 I honesty believe we would have arrived at the finest set of D&D rules to date. However 4E being a completely new approach (not bad, just new) resets the "errata & clarification" clock again. I hope that I prove to be wrong completely and 4E has been so well play tested that "broken bits" aren't there to be found.
Regards,
S.
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...
James is aware of the project, and as far as I know he doesn't have any problems with it as it currently exists. I will make any necessary changes to it once the fan site kits are released.
You'd have a lower opinion of Paizo for publishing a conversion document that helps a lot of gamers out? Why?I am aware the option just appeared. However, I do believe it is an abuse of the license and that, more than anything else, is something I don't think Paizo is going to start doing anytime soon. And it is certainly something that would make me have a lower opinion of them.Actually, this option didn't even exist until a couple days ago when the new version of the GSL was released. They specifically removed the portion that was designed to prevent publishing a product line under two different licenses at the same time. Whether this is exploiting a loophole or not is something that should be addressed to Scott Rouse. I've considered it, but I can't imagine that their legal team didn't see this as a necessary consequence of the removal of the old Section 6.
And again, if they do change it at a later date, publishing the documents separately prevents you from losing your actual line of adventures - all you'd be prohibited from publishing are the conversions.
No, that is not the reason I gave. Don't make it seem like that is what I said.
I said I would have a lower opinion if they went after, what I perceived as, exploiting a loop hole.
You'd have a lower opinion of Paizo for publishing a conversion document that helps a lot of gamers out? Why?I am aware the option just appeared. However, I do believe it is an abuse of the license and that, more than anything else, is something I don't think Paizo is going to start doing anytime soon. And it is certainly something that would make me have a lower opinion of them.Actually, this option didn't even exist until a couple days ago when the new version of the GSL was released. They specifically removed the portion that was designed to prevent publishing a product line under two different licenses at the same time. Whether this is exploiting a loophole or not is something that should be addressed to Scott Rouse. I've considered it, but I can't imagine that their legal team didn't see this as a necessary consequence of the removal of the old Section 6.
And again, if they do change it at a later date, publishing the documents separately prevents you from losing your actual line of adventures - all you'd be prohibited from publishing are the conversions.
No, that is not the reason I gave. Don't make it seem like that is what I said.
I said I would have a lower opinion if they went after, what I perceived as, exploiting a loop hole.
Ah, I see. I just misunderstood you.
If it does turn out that it was an unintended loophole then I can understand your concern. I think whether or not that's true remains to be seen. The Rouse could clear this up pretty quickly.
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.
I'd agree with you here. The only way this makes any sense at all is if the prospective 3PP doing the conversion takes on all the risks and does all the work and Paizo's only significant role in all this is the hard work of cashing the cheques the 3PP sends them in order to make use of their intellectual property.
I'd agree with you here. The only way this makes any sense at all is if the prospective 3PP doing the conversion takes on all the risks and does all the work and Paizo's only significant role in all this is the hard work of cashing the cheques the 3PP sends them in order to make use of their intellectual property.
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.
Bear in mind that Paizo would then be making money twice off of this transaction - once from the licensing fees it would receive from the company producing the conversions, and then a second time when the consumer needs to buy the original adventure from Paizo in order to use the conversion notes. In this case, the conversions are helping Paizo sell their own product to a market that would not otherwise have use for it. This is fundamentally different from a 3pp making use of, say, WotC's IP for a product - the target audience for the traditional 3pp licensed producer is those who already own the original product. The target audience for this hypothetical conversion group is those who don't already own the original product. I think this is a critical distinction to make.
If this helps explain it any better, think of traditional licensed role-playing products. You have adventures that use the OGL or GSL - their target audience is 4th Edition players, and these 4th Edition players already own everything from WotC that they'd need to use the licensed product. Therefore it makes sense for WotC to charge a licensing fee, since they won't be making money off the transaction any other way. You have rules supplements licensed for a particular game system - same thing, their target audience is people who already own the basic game and only need the rules supplements. You have video games (Neverwinter Nights, for example) which license WotC properties to produce a game which doesn't even require the actual D&D game to use.
All of the above examples illustrate traditional situations where the original publisher needs these licensing fees in order to get something out of the deal. What we're talking about is different: a product that potentially significantly expands the market of the original product.
Assuming I'm not totally off base about how many people would find conversion products worthwhile, Paizo will sell more adventure path products if they pursue getting conversions out onto the market.
The proposal would look something like this:
Imagine the 4th Edition player base. They have a game system they like, but due to both its recent emergence onto the market and a lack of quality adventures produced by 3rd parties to date, there is a clear demand in the player base for more high-quality 4th Edition adventure material.
Now, imagine that player base's interaction with Paizo. Currently, that interaction is non-existent. Paizo produces little (if anything) that the 4th Edition player base can make use of. While their adventures are (perhaps arguably) unrivaled in quality, the 4th Edition player base has no use for them because they don't support the new rules set. The 4th Edition player base is large - likely as large as the old 3.5 player base. This is an enormous pool of potential customers that are currently seeing nothing they want from Paizo.
Now, imagine that someone produced a set of documents allowing for easy use of Paizo's adventures in the 4th Edition rules set. Suddenly, this large 4th Edition player base sees some utility in Paizo's products. Thanks to the conversion material, Paizo's adventures are now playable in this player base's chosen game system. The lack of other quality 4th Edition adventures makes the demand for Paizo's converted products high. You're now seeing not only the conversion documents being sold to customers who previously had no interaction with Paizo, but you're also seeing the adventure paths themselves being purchased by these same customers, who previously had no interaction with Paizo.
Paizo absolutely would not need to appear to be marginalizing its own game system by doing this - the original adventures are still created for PFRPG, and all non-adventure supplements Paizo produces remain dedicated to PFRPG. It would also be a clear statement that Paizo believes PFRPG is strong enough to stand on its own - that the system is worthwhile enough to attract players, and not just its adventures. Finally, it demonstrates understanding for the community as a whole.
That's how I see the situation playing out in my head. My head might currently be a fantasy land of happy rainbows and groups of gamers singing Kumbaya together, but then again it might not be too far from reality.
not really sure how he can pull that off as you can not change or redefine pretty much anythingI could be wrong, but I just dont see how it can work under the GSL...I am no lawyer though so..shug
Clark's a lawyer, I suspect he knows what he's doing.
|
Creative Director
|
Perhaps I need to be more clear and to the point.
Paizo is building its own game: Pathfinder RPG. We think this game is better than 4th edition, and that's why we're going to focus our efforts supporting Pathfiner RPG (and by extension, 3.5). Time spent officially supporting 4th edition is not time well spent for Paizo.
For the same reason, I wouldn't expect to see Wizards of the Coast produce material for the PF RPG.
I'm flattered that there are folks who really want us at Paizo to produce 4th edition content, but it's just not going to happen unless, as I said elsewhere, there was some sort of catastrophic change to the face of the industry. We've put FAR too much work into the Pathfinder RPG to spend time supporting other company's rules.
EDIT: The concept that conversions will make us more money is flawed. We can't increase our head count, so that means if we do conversions, we have to either cut back on what we're doing now OR we have to take more work on ourselves. We aren't experts at 4th edition, so what we would do for 4th edition would be inferior to what WotC's doing, I suspect. We ARE experts at 3.5 and PF RPG, but if we halve the time we spend on those products to work on 4th edition products too, then all of a sudden what we produce for PF RPG/3.5 becomes unfinished and sloppy. FURTHERMORE: I'm not in this job for the money. I'm in it for the love of the game. I, and I suspect a lot of others at Paizo, would not be putting in as much work if we were working for something we didn't love and weren't proud of working on. And that would show in the quality of the product, and I'm not interested in producing low-quality product.
4th Edition's a fine game. Pathfinder RPG is better. I'd rather write for and work on the game that I feel is the better game. That's about all I have to say about that.
Ecstatic.Awwww, no war? Sits in the corner and pouts You guys are just no fun!I believe in this case I can talk for Scott also when I say we are happy to disappoint you. :p
But, but, blood shed and gore....I mean....awww...humm...not even a little war?
|
|
James comments brings me back to let's do a conversion document ourselves (meaning the D&D community), because I don't see anyone else doing it in the near future. I am not saying this because I want to convert to 4E, but I really think that the 4E players are missing out in a huge way by not making use of Paizo's legendary adventure paths. I see this as a 2 step process.
(1) Basic conversion of characters/NPC's to maintain relative balance. This would be a set reference document independent of the adventure.
(2) Adventure specific conversions (monsters/traps etc). An ongoing process.
BUT, is doing something like this legal given it will be "published" on the web?
S.
PS: James, I agree with your last paragraph... :)
Bear in mind that Paizo would then be making money twice off of this transaction - once from the licensing fees it would receive from the company producing the conversions, and then a second time when the consumer needs to buy the original adventure from Paizo in order to use the conversion notes. In this case, the conversions are helping Paizo sell their own product to a market that would not otherwise have use for it. This is fundamentally different from a 3pp making use of, say, WotC's IP for a product - the target audience for the traditional 3pp licensed producer is those who already own the original product. The target audience for this hypothetical conversion group is those who don't already own the original product. I think this is a critical distinction to make.If this helps explain it any better, think of traditional licensed role-playing products. You have adventures that use the OGL or GSL - their target audience is 4th Edition players, and these 4th Edition players already own everything from WotC that they'd need to use the licensed product. Therefore it makes sense for WotC to charge a licensing fee, since they won't be making money off the transaction any other way. You have rules supplements licensed for a particular game system - same thing, their target audience is people who already own the basic game and only need the rules supplements. You have video games (Neverwinter Nights, for example) which license WotC properties to produce a game which doesn't even require the actual D&D game to use.
All of the above examples illustrate traditional situations where the original publisher needs these licensing fees in order to get something out of the deal. What we're talking about is different: a product that potentially significantly expands the market of the original product.
Assuming I'm not totally off base about how many people would find conversion products worthwhile, Paizo will sell more adventure path products if they pursue getting conversions out onto the market.
The proposal would look something like this:
Imagine the 4th Edition player base. They have a game system they like, but due to both its recent emergence onto the market and a lack of quality adventures produced by 3rd parties to date, there is a clear demand in the player base for more high-quality 4th Edition adventure material.
Now, imagine that player base's interaction with Paizo. Currently, that interaction is non-existent. Paizo produces little (if anything) that the 4th Edition player base can make use of. While their adventures are (perhaps arguably) unrivaled in quality, the 4th Edition player base has no use for them because they don't support the new rules set. The 4th Edition player base is large - likely as large as the old 3.5 player base. This is an enormous pool of potential customers that are currently seeing nothing they want from Paizo.
Now, imagine that someone produced a set of documents allowing for easy use of Paizo's adventures in the 4th Edition rules set. Suddenly, this large 4th Edition player base sees some utility in Paizo's products. Thanks to the conversion material, Paizo's adventures are now playable in this player base's chosen game system. The lack of other quality 4th Edition adventures makes the demand for Paizo's converted products high. You're now seeing not only the conversion documents being sold to customers who previously had no interaction with Paizo, but you're also seeing the adventure paths themselves being purchased by these same customers, who previously had no interaction with Paizo.
Paizo absolutely would not need to appear to be marginalizing its own game system by doing this - the original adventures are still created for PFRPG, and all non-adventure supplements Paizo produces remain dedicated to PFRPG. It would also be a clear statement that Paizo believes PFRPG is strong enough to stand on its own - that the system is worthwhile enough to attract players, and not just its adventures. Finally, it demonstrates understanding for the community as a whole.
That's how I see the situation playing out in my head. My head might currently be a fantasy land of happy rainbows and groups of gamers singing Kumbaya together, but then again it might not be too far from reality.
I think we are just describing different ways Paizo could do this.
I'm going to hypothesize about some of Paizo's issues with any kind of project like this and argue why having a 3PP take on the burden would make sense for them.
Work Load
In my mind one of the fundamental constraints for Paizo doing anything with 4E is simply time. Having watched the company do its thing for years I can't say that I can think of any point in time when they were not running full speed just desperately trying to stay a half step ahead of the curve. I've seen them screw up and fall behind but never get to a place where the employees are hanging around wondering what they should do next. So far as I can tell their inboxes are always overflowing. I don't believe that'll ever change. Hence any kind of a model that expects James, Eric or any of the other talented individuals at Paizo to take time out from PFRPG projects is basically dead in the water. Even if it did make good business sense to go down this route I don't think that'd change anything for them - only way to solve this problem is to make days 26 hours long instead of 24, IMO.
The 3PP licensee model deals with this because they do all the work.
The WotC Boogeyman
Whether or not there is or is not a WotC boogeyman is really beside the point. Its fairly clear from varous Paizo posts and from Eric on some of the Podcasts that they are concerned about this issue. They need a firewall. Now I'm no lawyer but I'm fairly sure that the there is already fairly extensive case law out there dealing with making contracts in which Company A licenses out their intellectual property (say comic book characters as an example) to Company B. One of the things that these contracts presumably deal with is clauses that make it clear that Company A is not in any way liable if Company B happens to do something illegal while in possession of Company A's intellectual property. Hence its probably as close to routine as these things can get for Paizo to have a lawyer write up a contract that totally protects them and their intellectual property should WotC get it in their head to squish the prospective 3PP licensee like a bug. Obviously in this scenario the prospective 3PP gets squashed but in this case Paizo's intellectual property simply reverts back to them and they carry on with thier own projects.
Thoughts on Conversion Notes
While there is a benefit in making conversion notes in terms of getting the customer to buy the original Pathfinder compliant adventure I don't think the benefits are enough to outweigh the two problems above. If they went with conversion notes they'd presumably then have to interface with the company making the conversion notes to make sure that the conversions fit their products themes accurately etc. That means time which they don't have.
The second problem is that they are then interfacing with the GSL and that means they have some kind of a link that WotC hypothetically could exploit to get at them. As I noted above I think that the set up has to make it essentially impossible for WotC to be able to touch them or they're not interested. Eric mentions on one of his podcasts that its not enough for them to be 100% certain that they have the good will over at WotC today - Paizo can't read the future and therefore there is no way to be 100% certain that there is no change in management in the top echelons at Hasbro that might lead to conflict between Paizo and Hasbro. A 3PP acting as the creator of Paizo 4E content provides them that protection - the 3PP takes all the risks.
Thoughts on sales and distribution
Not sure how this might be set up though I presume it'd be some kind a flat fee + royalties type model. 3PP pays a flat fee to use Paizo's intellectual property and if they sell well Paizo gets a slice of that as well. I'd assume that the product would also be available through the Paizo store (which would give them the retailers slice of the sale as well), but also, likely, through the basic games distribution network (in which case the game store carrying the product gets the retailers slice of profit).
Is it possible to tell a Pathfinder Story in 4E?
In using the 3PP Licensee model this is not really a concern for Paizo. This is the 3PP Licensee's problem not Paizo's.
The 3PP solves this problem by taking on the burden of telling the story - Paizo does not really need to concern themselves with whether or not the story being told is identical or 'on theme' with their original product. I mean I presume that they have a clause in their contract that says - 'if your product sucks so bad that its giving us a bad name we reserve the right to take our licence back and sue your ass for damages on top of that', but beyond this staying on message is the 3PPs issue. If the 3PP decides that something is not compatible then they change it, so long as the cheques keep coming in Paizo does not concern itself with this issue. This also neatly sidesteps concerns that their product might violate the GSL 'good taste' clause. If their product is too mature for the GSL and its up to the 3PP to modify it so that its back down to PG-13, its the 3PPs job to play phone tag with Scott Rouse to make sure what they are doing is OK.
Essentially the whole idea rests on the idea that Paizo's only role in this, besides having a lawyer write up the initial contract, is to cash what are hopefully nice fat cheques.