The Compatibility License explicitly prohibits using shorthands for Paizo trademarks, such as 'Pathfinder RPG' or just 'Pathfinder'. It also prohibits using any other logos than the Compatibility logo.
However, the Community Use Policy would appear to allow these kinds of references, even when applied to indicating compatibility (per section 7 of the OGL). (In particular, it specifically allows the use of other logos)
If a non-commercial, free website wishes to use both licenses, which wins in this case? Does the Community Use Policy allow the use of other logos or shorthand? Or does the Compatibility License restrict the Community Use content to non-logo content?
Chief Technical Officer
|
The Compatibility License explicitly prohibits using shorthands for Paizo trademarks, such as 'Pathfinder RPG' or just 'Pathfinder'. It also prohibits using any other logos than the Compatibility logo.
However, the Community Use Policy would appear to allow these kinds of references, even when applied to indicating compatibility (per section 7 of the OGL). (In particular, it specifically allows the use of other logos)
Well, I suppose that the community use license does technically allow you to use the "Pathfinder" logo to refer to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, just like it technically might allow you to use the Planet Stories logo to refer to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game... but it's incorrect to do so. The "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" is not equal to "Pathfinder," and anybody who refers to it that way is probably going to confuse other people eventually.
If a non-commercial, free website wishes to use both licenses, which wins in this case? Does the Community Use Policy allow the use of other logos or shorthand? Or does the Compatibility License restrict the Community Use content to non-logo content?
I'm unclear on the question. Can you provide a specific example?
The University WiFi decided to eat my clarification post, but I think I managed to figure out my answer (my confusion stemed from conflating statements from the FAQ and the license itself.)
And the answer is?
Both licenses are permissive, not restrictive. Someone using both licenses has access to the community use materials and the compatibility logo as long as they have the correct legal text (which includes claiming compatibility with 'the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.', though shorthand may be permissible elsewhere.
My confusion stemmed from thinking that the 'you can't use any other logos' from the FAQ was part of the license. (Since it is a restrictive clause.)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
[slight tangent] It occurs to me that Paizo has built Pathfinder into a very strong, recognizable brand... Yet frequently, I have the damnedest time trying to figure out what product line within the Pathfinder brand anyone is talking about. The game is Pathfinder X, the setting is Pathfinder Y, the adventures are Pathfinder Z, where X, Y, and Z are all ephemeral terms that get swallowed up by the name recognition of the word "Pathfinder" itself.
Well, we do want that strong brand connection first and foremost, so it's good that that part's working. However, the key sub-brands should be more obvious than ephemeral: Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Modules... they are what they say on the cover. Pathfinder Chronicles and Pathfinder Companion are admitted a little less obvious, but they're hopefully more appealing than the names they'd have if everything had to be descriptive: Pathfinder Setting Books and Pathfinder Player Books.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I guess all I'm really trying to say is that I'd like to see "Golarion" featured more prominently in campaign setting titles. (More books like "Elves of Golarion," etc.) That way, "Golarion" starts to become as recognizable as "Pathfinder," the same way "Eberron" is as recognizable (in many gaming circles) as "Dungeons and Dragons." At that point, people can start referring to Golarion by name instead of informally calling it the "Pathfinder setting," emphasizing the fact that the Pathfinder...
People refer to Faerun and Forgotten Realms equally and people know that they're the same thing. I think it just needs time.
|
[huge tangent]It's not necessarily that I can't figure out which product is which. It's just that I'm anticipating hearing some version of the following conversation quite often as Pathfinder gains more market penetration:
GM: "How does your character have two feats per level?"
Player: "That's how many feats characters get in Pathfinder."
GM: "Um, not according to the rules."
Player: "Which rules?"
GM: "The 3.5 rules."
Player: "But I thought this was a Pathfinder campaign."
GM: "It is. It's set in the Pathfinder campaign setting."
Player: "Wait. So we aren't using the Pathfinder rules?"I'm already seeing people on these boards using "Pathfinder" as shorthand for both the game system and the campaign setting. And I've noticed at least two occasions where long-time board members needed to clarify to newer members that Pathfinder RPG doesn't have to use the Pathfinder campaign setting. (I don't think "Chronicles" was mentioned in either instance.)
I'm also remembering the "Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting" versus "Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting" confusion from Superstar, where a phrase with all words beginning with capital letters refers to a specific book, while the same phrase with two fewer capital letters instead refers to a product line.
(Though I suppose that is still much better off than the present state of WotC's IP, what with their attempted rebranding turning "D&D" into a genre instead of a specific game. To say nothing of everyone now having to ask "Old Realms or New Realms?")
I guess all I'm really trying to say is that I'd like to see "Golarion" featured more prominently in campaign setting titles. (More books like "Elves of Golarion," etc.) That way, "Golarion" starts to become as recognizable as "Pathfinder," the same way "Eberron" is as recognizable (in many gaming circles) as "Dungeons and Dragons." At that point, people can start referring to Golarion by name instead of informally calling it the "Pathfinder setting," emphasizing the fact that the Pathfinder...
Old realms = Forgotten Realms
New Realms = Misbegotten RealmsI always try to refer to the Campaign Setting as Golarion and the ruleset as Pathfinder...that's just me.
There's a reason book titles are typically shown in italics...
Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting rather than Pathfinder Chronicles line of Campaign setting accessories.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
People refer to Faerun and Forgotten Realms equally and people know that they're the same thing.My point being that no one says "the D&D setting" when talking about Faerun, but I see many people referring to Golarion as "the Pathfinder setting." Which is erroneous, because there is no "Pathfinder" setting, just a "Pathfinder Chronicles" setting. It would be nice if Golarion (or Chronicles, or whatever) eventually became a strong brand in its own right, as the Forgotten Realms used to be.
Keep in mind that not everything in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting will happen on Golarion...
|
[slight tangent] It occurs to me that Paizo has built Pathfinder into a very strong, recognizable brand... Yet frequently, I have the damnedest time trying to figure out what product line within the Pathfinder brand anyone is talking about. The game is Pathfinder X, the setting is Pathfinder Y, the adventures are Pathfinder Z, where X, Y, and Z are all ephemeral terms that get swallowed up by the name recognition of the word "Pathfinder" itself.
A bit of this is happening here in germany. The Pathfinder RPG has created quite a bit of interest but since it has come into existence I have to be very careful how to word things. Before, when I talked about Pathfinder everyone knew I meant the world and the adventures within. Now, if I say Pathfinder, everyone automatically tends to assume that I'm talking about the rules system which is wrong in around 95% of the situations.* So yeah, it's a bit confusing sometimes.
*This is not to say that I dislike the Pathfinder RPG. But it's the setting and the adventures which made me a costumer not the underlying system.
|
Keep in mind that not everything in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting will happen on Golarion...People refer to Faerun and Forgotten Realms equally and people know that they're the same thing.My point being that no one says "the D&D setting" when talking about Faerun, but I see many people referring to Golarion as "the Pathfinder setting." Which is erroneous, because there is no "Pathfinder" setting, just a "Pathfinder Chronicles" setting. It would be nice if Golarion (or Chronicles, or whatever) eventually became a strong brand in its own right, as the Forgotten Realms used to be.
Very true... but most do and will.
I too tend to use Golarion for the Setting, instead of Pathfinder, or instead of Campaign Setting. While not everything is set ON Golarion, I think most people are smart enough to understand the meaning. It does make it easier to quickly differentiate products. And, yes, I know Paizo would probably prefer us all use the long names, but we fans are a lazy lot!I now have three adventures I am working on for Golarion! (See you know exactly what I am referring to, and even what license I plan on using!)