Working with WotC and Paizo


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Sir Jolt wrote:
Just adding this in case anyone reading this thread gets confused by the terminology: the d20STL and the OGL are completely different things.

Yes and no. The OGL can be used to draw from any game material that has been released into it (which even includes some non-d20 material). The d20STL allowed games using the OPGL to, with extra restrictions, put a "D20 System" logo on it. So any game using the d20STL without a special license from WotC was also using the OGL.

SpyCraft 1E, Conan 1E, M&M 1E (among others) were all d20STL & OGL.

SpyCraft 2E, Conan 2E, M&M 2E (among others) were all OGL with no OGL; big difference.

Clark's entire point was that the d20STL could have been replaced with a D&DTL without abandoning the OGL.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
The OGL can be used to draw from any game material that has been released into it (which even includes some non-d20 material).

Very true. I've used stuff from the Pathfinder core book in my Traveller material, despite Traveller being a 2d6 system and there not being a d20 anywhere in the game.

Other non-d20 games that are OGL: Traveller, Fudge/Fate, RuneQuest, just to name a few.


Jeraa wrote:
LazarX wrote:

You also have to remember that since WOTC was publishing a boatload of supplements of it's own, it tended to see the 3PP's as competition they'd rather see dry up and blow away. Whereas Paizo still being a relative startup tends to see these as reinforcing Pathfinder's relatively new presence as a game in it's own right. If Paizo were to become as established as WOTC was in it's peak that might change.

Considering that WotC were the ones that made it possible for those 3PP productions (because of the OGL), that is not a good excuse. IF they didn't want to deal with competition, then why put out the SRD in the first place?

In a podcast interview of Ryan Dancey he speaks on this topic. The 2000 OGL WAS a direct response to a direct competitor eating away at their marketshare (White Wolf with V:TM). The only way they could figure out how to steal momentum away from WW was via making their system "open source." From a strictly business perspective, it was a good and terrible move. Good because it secured short-term success, and bad because it almost guaranteed long-term troubles. Basically, the standard politician's mindset. :)

While I think Ryan Dancey is a heckuva guy, I think it's poor form on his part to play any kind of revisionist history political jibber-jabber here. He just left the farm before the "weeds" he'd help plant started to grow. If him and the whole 2000 crew came back to WOTC with direct control of everything, they still couldn't put the OGL genie back into the bottle.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Sir Jolt wrote:
Just adding this in case anyone reading this thread gets confused by the terminology: the d20STL and the OGL are completely different things.

Yes and no. The OGL can be used to draw from any game material that has been released into it (which even includes some non-d20 material). The d20STL allowed games using the OPGL to, with extra restrictions, put a "D20 System" logo on it. So any game using the d20STL without a special license from WotC was also using the OGL.

SpyCraft 1E, Conan 1E, M&M 1E (among others) were all d20STL & OGL.

SpyCraft 2E, Conan 2E, M&M 2E (among others) were all OGL with no OGL; big difference.

Clark's entire point was that the d20STL could have been replaced with a D&DTL without abandoning the OGL.

Well I'm lost now. I thought:

OGL (still alive today): Just a legal document declaring the material contained herein is open content and can be referenced in other works by other publishers except for content specifically referenced in a subsection of the OGL.

d20STL (dead today): A special license granted by WoTC to a specific product produced by a 3PP that deemed that specific product "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" and the author of such product is free to note its compatibility on the packaging of the product including use of the "D&D" logo. This can be revoked by WoTC at any time and WoTC can deny anyone use of it. This is basically WoTC saying your product works with D&D and implying customers should do so.

SRD (still alive today): A document describing what game mechanics WoTC has deemed open and usable by 3PP without special permission from WoTC.

So the Pathfinder RPG is an OGL game based on the 3.5 SRD.


Dungeon Grrrl wrote:
Lots and lots of corporate secrets betrayed

Lisa clearly has a lot to learn how to be evil overlord before she will be able to overthrow Darth Potato Head and become Darth Potato Head in his place...

But that makes me wonder how successful Erik is in the role of minion of evil overlord?

Dreamscarred Press

Count_Rugen wrote:
While I think Ryan Dancey is a heckuva guy, I think it's poor form on his part to play any kind of revisionist history political jibber-jabber here. He just left the farm before the "weeds" he'd help plant started to grow. If him and the whole 2000 crew came back to WOTC with direct control of everything, they still couldn't put the OGL genie back into the bottle.

See, I disagree with this.

The OGL did what it was intended to do quite well.

Instead of trying to leverage the OGL for 4E, WotC instead bucked the trend and further fractured the market... and in doing so, discovered that people could still support 4E using the OGL and copyright law, so their attempt at the GSL was, IMO, a limited success or partial failure, and that by pushing 3PPs away as they did with the GSL debacle (meaning the months-long debate as to whether there would even BE a GSL or how it would look), they strengthened their competitors that instead could have been supporters.

There's no doubt in my mind that Paizo could have been a big supporter for 4E had WotC not stalled, delayed, and changed their stance on 4E licensing. Instead, Paizo had to make a decision for their business and went with the PFRPG, which has become a viable competitor. I'm not going to speculate as to the size of the PFRPG player base vs the 4E player base, since I have no numbers from which to draw, but the resounding success of the game is indicative that WotC made a poor move from a community and 3PP perspective with regards to RPGs. If Paizo had instead been a 4E supporter instead of a direct competitor, I'd think that would be a win.

Also add in all the former-WotC employees who now work for or freelance for Paizo and you have a strong sense of validation of the company and their material. My gaming group largely didn't know who Paizo was... but they took notice when Ed Greenwood, Elaine Cunningham, Monte Cook, and the many others were all working for Paizo.

In my opinion, WotC could have leveraged the OGL for 4E and therefore at least attempted to keep 3PPs working for them, but by turning their backs on the OGL and by making the GSL a low priority, they gave birth to competing systems.


Clark Peterson wrote:

Vic is DEAD ON CORRECT (and so is the Professor in this regard). The OGL (or more accurately the d20STL) was designed to push d20 as the default game mechanic and thus crush all others.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating: White Wolf, the greatest of the non-Wizards companies, was one of the first to actively and on a HUGE scale sell d20 products. BIG win for Wizards. Here is WW actively making products supporting their competitor and at the same time NOT spending that time and money making its own products. They only have so many people (which is one of the reasons Necro and WW did business, they were able to have a d20 presence through me without having to dedicate their internal writers to the task).

So d20 worked as intended as well--dominate the market with one game system and co-opt ones competitors into supporting you. Genius.

I would argue that WW ended up doing D20 books to generate revenue as their WoD line went into decline. The real story there is the failure of WW to manage their properties and the crash in sales that came with nWoD. Not so much a cooping as a drowning competitor looking for a lifeline.


Dungeon Grrrl wrote:
Someone already DID "create Pathfinder before Pathfinder" – it was called Arcana Evolved, and it was backed by Monte Cook! And yet, it was totally unable to break significant market-share compared to WotC's products for as long as WotC was making things that worked off the same network.

I think AU/AE didn't become a huge smash hit because it didn't target a large enough audience. It was basically created as a niche product. No elves. No wizards. No (lots of other stuff that is absolutely vital to the core D&D experience). While there are people who were bored with the old standbies, for everyone who was there are a hundred who still liked the "boring" standard stuff.

Not that I'm saying AE/AE was bad. I got the AE book, and it had lots of good ideas.

It's just that I'm not tired of elves and wizards yet.


jeremy.smith wrote:


There's no doubt in my mind that Paizo could have been a big supporter for 4E had WotC not stalled, delayed, and changed their stance on 4E licensing.

Yes I agree. I remember a podacst I listened to in the run up to 4E where Eric Mona stated he was looking forward to 4E and being a partner with WoTC on it and the sooner they got Paizo a copy of the rules the sooner they could start planning product for it.

I believe once they got a copy of those rules, it was game over.


Clark Peterson wrote:


I think if you ask Ryan Dancey he'd say the existence of Pathfinder is proof the OGL experiment worked. That is certainly my view--that Pathfinder is proof the OGL worked.

OGL THRIVES! :)


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

If 4E was OGL, there would definitely be more 3PP support. I myself look at the 4E Rules Compendium and think, wow, this is a tight rules core. If only I could publish house rules for it to tweak it more to my liking. But I can't. I can't redefine character creation by the terms of the GSL. I can't redefine classes by the terms of the GSL. I can't use anything from Gamma World by the terms of the GSL. There's so much potential that I can't touch because 4E isn't OGL.

Wizards created a monster and released it to the wild. The monster is still very successful, too bad they let it go.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Sir Jolt wrote:
Just adding this in case anyone reading this thread gets confused by the terminology: the d20STL and the OGL are completely different things.

Yes and no. The OGL can be used to draw from any game material that has been released into it (which even includes some non-d20 material). The d20STL allowed games using the OPGL to, with extra restrictions, put a "D20 System" logo on it. So any game using the d20STL without a special license from WotC was also using the OGL.

SpyCraft 1E, Conan 1E, M&M 1E (among others) were all d20STL & OGL.

SpyCraft 2E, Conan 2E, M&M 2E (among others) were all OGL with no OGL; big difference.

Clark's entire point was that the d20STL could have been replaced with a D&DTL without abandoning the OGL.

The first editions of those games, apart from having the d20 logo on them, was they could not include advancement rules. Those games were required to mention that you had to have a copy of the PHB to play. That's a pretty hefty restriction that every single one dropped when they went to their second edtion and dropped the whole d20 thing.

SJ

Jon Brazer Enterprises

jeremy.smith wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind that Paizo could have been a big supporter for 4E had WotC not stalled, delayed, and changed their stance on 4E licensing.
cibet44 wrote:

Yes I agree. I remember a podacst I listened to in the run up to 4E where Eric Mona stated he was looking forward to 4E and being a partner with WoTC on it and the sooner they got Paizo a copy of the rules the sooner they could start planning product for it.

I believe once they got a copy of those rules, it was game over.

Heck, I remember Mona saying on ENWorld that the rules were secondary to the license itself. I really believe it was the delaying more than the license itself. Say 4E had the GSL but it was nice and friendly to other publishers, gotten to them (along with a a draft version of the rules) with enough time for them to have a product ready by GenCon '08. But the license was not OGL. I really believe that there would be no Pathfinder today.

The reason Paizo stated why they did not go 4E was because they no solid information on the license (let alone, if one would ever materialize) and what they are hearing about the system was not to their tastes. The first being more difficult to work with than the 2nd. But had they been given the license early (and it be user friendly), the first reason would have vanished.

And sure SOMEONE would have come up with their own 3.5 variant (i.e. FantasyCraft) but it would have been no where near as popular. Paizo is one of the few companies with the clout to unite everyone behind their own variant system. Very few else in the industry could have done the book with as much full color artwork as them, could have done a totally free, totally open playtest, printed in the quantity to make it something other than what some "fringe group that refuses to convert over to the new system", and have the staff to support it as much as they do. And the few others that could have had their own systems they were focused on. GR had True20 and M&M, Mongoose had Conan, RQ and Traveller, Goodman Games signed on right away, WW was busy with nWoD/Exalted, and I don't think anyone smaller could have pulled all that off.

Paizo really is the perfect storm. I fully believe that if WotC went to Paizo and said, "What do you need to sign onto 4E?" and then gave it to them, 4E would be in domination.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:

If 4E was OGL, there would definitely be more 3PP support. I myself look at the 4E Rules Compendium and think, wow, this is a tight rules core. If only I could publish house rules for it to tweak it more to my liking. But I can't. I can't redefine character creation by the terms of the GSL. I can't redefine classes by the terms of the GSL. I can't use anything from Gamma World by the terms of the GSL. There's so much potential that I can't touch because 4E isn't OGL.

Wizards created a monster and released it to the wild. The monster is still very successful, too bad they let it go.

Which is particularly ironic* given that 3pps are already hampered by the reliance of 4e upon the online tools. WotC could likely throw caution to the wind, put out a 4e OGL, and yet still not have to worry about 3pp competition due to the gated nature of those tools. Even if one of those 3pp put together a new system based on the 4e OGL (ala, Mutants & Masterminds), I'd wager they'd be less successful than in the 3.5 days because those who play 4e are spoiled by having access to the online databases/tools.

*Maybe. I'm not sure if it's ironic, I need to consult my Alanis Morrisette handbook to confirm.


bugleyman wrote:
If you ask WotC today if they wish the OGL did not exist, I'm pretty sure the (honest) answer would be "hell yes."

Well, of course. But there's almost no similarity between the WotC of today and the WotC of 2000. The people in power are different, it's now owned by a large parent company, and WotC itself has gone through 2-3 mass firings/RIFF's during that time. What WotC is trying to achieve now, and how they go about it, isn't the same as back in 2000. That the people at WotC now don't like it just says that different people would have tried different things during a time when gaming was in a different era. And even that's dubious. Compare Mike Mearl's views on things when 4E was announced compared to when he released Iron Heroes.

SJ


The one thing that most people don't mention with these kinds of discussion is Paizo had the mailing list of Dragon AND Dungeon magazine. That give them direct access to the people who would be most likely interested in Pathfinder. No other 3PP company had something like that.


Sir Jolt wrote:

Compare Mike Mearl's views on things when 4E was announced compared to when he released Iron Heroes.

Can you elaborate?


Speaking of Paizo and reasons for creation of Pathfinder - would it change much if WotC left Dungeon & Dragon magazine in your hands? Do you think you (as a company) would remain alongside with WotC when they introduced 4th edition if both magazines would still be done by you?


jeremy.smith wrote:
Count_Rugen wrote:
While I think Ryan Dancey is a heckuva guy, I think it's poor form on his part to play any kind of revisionist history political jibber-jabber here. He just left the farm before the "weeds" he'd help plant started to grow. If him and the whole 2000 crew came back to WOTC with direct control of everything, they still couldn't put the OGL genie back into the bottle.

See, I disagree with this.

The OGL did what it was intended to do quite well.

Instead of trying to leverage the OGL for 4E, WotC instead bucked the trend and further fractured the market... and in doing so, discovered that people could still support 4E using the OGL and copyright law, so their attempt at the GSL was, IMO, a limited success or partial failure, and that by pushing 3PPs away as they did with the GSL debacle (meaning the months-long debate as to whether there would even BE a GSL or how it would look), they strengthened their competitors that instead could have been supporters.

There's no doubt in my mind that Paizo could have been a big supporter for 4E had WotC not stalled, delayed, and changed their stance on 4E licensing. Instead, Paizo had to make a decision for their business and went with the PFRPG, which has become a viable competitor. I'm not going to speculate as to the size of the PFRPG player base vs the 4E player base, since I have no numbers from which to draw, but the resounding success of the game is indicative that WotC made a poor move from a community and 3PP perspective with regards to RPGs. If Paizo had instead been a 4E supporter instead of a direct competitor, I'd think that would be a win.

We may have to agree to disagree here. The purpose of the original OGL was to fight WW's growing power and make everyone look to D&D for a ruleset. It was, in short, the Paizo philosophy of today, something like "it doesn't matter if they're necessarily buying OUR product, if they're playing D&D, that's still people playing D&D."

It accomplished that mission. Short-term growth at the expense of the long-term. Paizo itself may be faced with this same conundrum a few years down the road if it reaches a point where the only way to continue to grow entails refreshing the product line.

Regarding the Paizo support for 4E theory... From a business perspective, I do not think Paizo would have stuck around anyways. I think Paizo would have supported both 4E AND 3.5 until they saw which one was more profitable (and from Paizo's perspective, it probably would have been 3.5. WOTC had abandoned the 3.x niche and if Paizo hadn't run with it, some other company would have). Remember that part of WOTC's growth strategy was to remove all the 3PPs who were cutting into it's profits. All those 3PPs were OK at the beginning of 3.x...not so much towards the end.


Sir Jolt wrote:

Well, of course. But there's almost no similarity between the WotC of today and the WotC of 2000. The people in power are different, it's now owned by a large parent company, and WotC itself has gone through 2-3 mass firings/RIFF's during that time. What WotC is trying to achieve now, and how they go about it, isn't the same as back in 2000. That the people at WotC now don't like it just says that different people would have tried different things during a time when gaming was in a different era. And even that's dubious. Compare Mike Mearl's views on things when 4E was announced compared to when he released Iron Heroes.

SJ

I honestly can't tell whether you believe you're disagreeing with me. ;-)


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Vistarius wrote:
So besides just submitting an OGL application to Pathfinder, is there more to it to become a 3pp?

That's a great question to ask at the PaizoCon Seminar "So You Wanna Be a Publisher (Or Do You Want to be Published)" Run by myself and Owen K. C. Stephens of Super Genius Games.

Edit: oops, fixed. Sorry Owen. ;)

I remember sitting in on a variation of this at GenCon last year. VERY direct, no nonsense 'this is what the biz is about' approach. But for all that, it was very friendly. I got the impression that Paizo was a competent staff that set standards and stuck to them...but hasn't lost that 'human factor' that makes the difference between a great job/partnership and a place to hang yer hat while sending out resumes when nobody in the office was watching.

Dreamscarred Press

Count_Rugen wrote:
Paizo itself may be faced with this same conundrum a few years down the road if it reaches a point where the only way to continue to grow entails refreshing the product line.

And I disagree with this.

I think Paizo has proven that if they want to do an updated version of the game, they don't have to shy away from the OGL. Otherwise, you could argue that Paizo shouldn't have been successful with Pathfinder because someone else could have done it instead.

Paizo has shown with Pathfinder that you can do an update of an existing game, with sometimes drastic revisions to some rules, while still maintaining a form of backwards compatibility, having the whole thing open to other content creators, and still be successful.

People will pay for presentation and production quality. It's one of the things I hear pretty regularly about the Paizo books - not just about the quality of the content, but about the quality of the presentation, artwork, and book itself.

I think the only thing that would defeat Paizo at this point is Paizo, just as WotC is what defeated WotC in a smooth 3.5 -> 4E transition. By alienating 3PPs and fans of 3PP, they caused a split that could have otherwise been minimized.


LMPjr007 wrote:
The one thing that most people don't mention with these kinds of discussion is Paizo had the mailing list of Dragon AND Dungeon magazine. That give them direct access to the people who would be most likely interested in Pathfinder. No other 3PP company had something like that.

when I go back over the timeline in my head, I still cannot believe just how stupid WoTC handled that whole transition.

now, I can't speak from direct experience with WoTC, but...i've survived long enough in corporate land to know a massive failure in leadership when I see it. And WoTC just screams 'toxic corporate culture', at least to me.

But hey, what do I know? i'm just one guy with an opinion...and I'm probably wrong too, so take it for what you will.


jeremy.smith wrote:
Count_Rugen wrote:
Paizo itself may be faced with this same conundrum a few years down the road if it reaches a point where the only way to continue to grow entails refreshing the product line.

And I disagree with this.

Yep, not only all your reasons, but there's a big reason they couldn't ignore the OGL.

They can't publish Pathfinder without it. Not they don't want to (I don't think they do btw), but they could not if they wanted to. They'd be in violation of the OGL and WoTC could sue them out of existence if they tried to publish PF without it.

The only way Paizo could make PF 2.0 without the OGL would be to come up with a completely and utterly different ruleset, which would not work for them. Their fanbase would detonate. :)


Hum, I think most everyone in this thread is wrong. You are treating games like a fungible product and proposing a high percentage of consumer retention in the market. That last bit is a classic gaming fallacy. New editions with minor iterative changes are possible, especially in a game going from first to second editions. Major changes once a game establishes its tropes give you a situation like Traveller: The New Era (i.e. massive market implosion).

White Wolf drunk that coolaid and is now, basically gone. (Actually they drunk it twice with revised edition then nWoD). WotC drunk the same coolaid with 4e. They simply did not realize that 3e was basically a new hit, making use of the name of a game that had already imploded in the shift from 1e to 2e. (The old TSR blew itself up so well that many companies see the 90s as a golden era, not realizing that the profusion of new games came as the fallout of the collapse of a million units/month business).

The problem is when a company cancel one of the major game lines, either by shutting down or hacking it apart in a new edition, most of those who don't adopt the new game don't move on to something else, they stop playing. The tension between Pathfinder and 4e is helping drive 4e sales. Having a decent first and second seller is keeping gaming afloat. If there were only 4e the reduction in eyeballs coupled with the recession would probably have dropped gaming from most retail channel. As it is, non D20 derived gaming is in steep decline, mainly because WW decimated the non d20 fan base with poor decision making. All this talk about OGL and WW s simply confusing symptom with cause.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

jeremy.smith wrote:
I think the only thing that would defeat Paizo at this point is Paizo, just as WotC is what defeated WotC in a smooth 3.5 -> 4E transition. By alienating 3PPs and fans of 3PP, they caused a split that could have otherwise been minimized.

I'll agree with that. The one group that bought 3pp material the most towards the end of 3.5 was GMs. WotC never produced adventures in the quantity that Goodman, Paizo or Necro produced separately (let alone combined). And late 3.5 WotC adventures sucked. Some groups switched to Pathfinder simply because the GM said, "I'm only running Pathfinder, if you want to do 4E you'll need a different GM."

Dreamscarred Press

mdt wrote:
jeremy.smith wrote:
Count_Rugen wrote:
Paizo itself may be faced with this same conundrum a few years down the road if it reaches a point where the only way to continue to grow entails refreshing the product line.

And I disagree with this.

Yep, not only all your reasons, but there's a big reason they couldn't ignore the OGL.

They can't publish Pathfinder without it. Not they don't want to (I don't think they do btw), but they could not if they wanted to. They'd be in violation of the OGL and WoTC could sue them out of existence if they tried to publish PF without it.

The only way Paizo could make PF 2.0 without the OGL would be to come up with a completely and utterly different ruleset, which would not work for them. Their fanbase would detonate. :)

This isn't entirely true.

IIRC and IANAL, copyright law doesn't apply to the mechanics, only to the way the mechanics are presented. d20 + modifier as a base system they could totally release a system for. Elves, fighters, dwarves, wizards, etc are all common terms that can be used without any sort of license or agreement.

They would have to rewrite the way the system is presented so as to not violate copyright, but they could use the same mechanics and not use the OGL without legal issue.

You'd need a good legal department to do it and it's why the safe harbor of the OGL is so inviting, but it's possible to do it without the OGL.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone

I just want to say that we have a highly interesting discussion here with alot of different viewpoints and interpretations on history. And its not descending into a flamewar. We're all sharing our thoughts and opinions and we're all doing it in a civilized manor. I just want to say this is an awesome community we have here!

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.


jeremy.smith wrote:


This isn't entirely true.

IIRC and IANAL, copyright law doesn't apply to the mechanics, only to the way the mechanics are presented. d20 + modifier as a base system they could totally release a system for. Elves, fighters, dwarves, wizards, etc are all common terms that can be used without any sort of license or agreement.

They would have to rewrite the way the system is presented so as to not violate copyright, but they could use the same mechanics and not use the OGL without legal issue.

You'd need a good legal department to do it and it's why the safe harbor of the OGL is so inviting, but it's possible to do it without the OGL.

You can't copyright 'Roll a d20 and add modifier'. However, Armor Class can be copyrighted. How you determine Armor Class can be copyrighted. Fighter has 1d10 hit dice per level can be copyrighted. Fireball does fire damage to area and does 1d6 per caster level can be copyrighted. Reflex save, Fortitude save, Will Save, can all be copyrighted.

The point being, you'd have to change things up. You could have a new system, with fighters and wizards and elves, but the SYSTEM would have to be different. See Shadowrun, it has fighters, mages, elves, orcs, dwarves, etc. But it has a radically different system. You could play D&D with Shadowrun mechanics, but it wouldn't be the same game.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Everyone

I just want to say that we have a highly interesting discussion here with alot of different viewpoints and interpretations on history. And its not descending into a flamewar. We're all sharing our thoughts and opinions and we're all doing it in a civilized manor. I just want to say this is an awesome community we have here!

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Aims flamethrower

You are wrong! I invoke nerdrage to prove it!

Fires flamethrower at full power

:)


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Everyone

I just want to say that we have a highly interesting discussion here with alot of different viewpoints and interpretations on history. And its not descending into a flamewar. We're all sharing our thoughts and opinions and we're all doing it in a civilized manor. I just want to say this is an awesome community we have here!

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

it would be pointless (at least in my view) to sit here and say 'oh yeah - well yer WRONG and ugly too boot!' i'm guessing about the internal culture and office politics of WoTC and Paizo. I recognize I could very well be wrong in my assumptions.

that said, WoTC seems to make decisions based on corporate goals and Paizo seems to make decisions on customer/fan feedback. Paizo makes an effort (sometimes extreme effort) to stay in the trenches with fans and player feedback and what fans talk about tends to end up being recognized in official pathfinder rules and/or products (at least in some form). WoTC is distant and seems to make decisions first and try to convince fans/players to purchase their product after the fact.

All which says to me that whomever is calling the shots at WoTC isn't a very good leader. their staff seem...timid. scared. distant. cautious to the extreme. in other words, a toxic office place with bad leadership. Paizo comes across to me as competent, tough but fair and above all honest.

just my .02 cents. take it for what you will.

Dreamscarred Press

mdt wrote:

You can't copyright 'Roll a d20 and add modifier'. However, Armor Class can be copyrighted. How you determine Armor Class can be copyrighted. Fighter has 1d10 hit dice per level can be copyrighted. Fireball does fire damage to area and does 1d6 per caster level can be copyrighted. Reflex save, Fortitude save, Will Save, can all be copyrighted.

The point being, you'd have to change things up. You could have a new system, with fighters and wizards and elves, but the SYSTEM would have to be different. See Shadowrun, it has fighters, mages, elves, orcs, dwarves, etc. But it has a radically different system. You could play D&D with Shadowrun mechanics, but it wouldn't be the same game.

Regardless of if you can or can't copyright "armor class"...

You could have "Armor Score" which serves the same point.

My point is that the base mechanics could be the same, as long as the text was rewritten (and not just using a thesaurus on every other word).

Instead of rolling to hit, you could roll to strike. Instead of rolling damage, you could roll wounds. Instead of having hit points, you could have vitality points. Instead of having Initiative, you could have Reaction.

The terms might change - the mechanics would be the same. Ball of Fire vs Fire Ball. Etc.

Again, that's why I say you'd need a good legal department - especially a good copyright lawyer - to make sure you aren't crossing any boundaries, but based upon my understanding, you're looking at it from a far more restricted basis than the laws actually allow. And it's why folks prefer the OGL to just not have to worry about it... but my point is that it COULD be done, it's just easier not to have to ;)

Scarab Sages

I could be way off here, because I only have my understanding of what I have read on the message boards to go by, but it seems that another big reason that Paizo's Pathfinder and 3PP do so well together is because of their model. Hopefully a Paizo staffer will chime in and correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the recurring AP/Golarion setting material/Golarion based modules was their core product and the rules were created to provide support and a reliable system for use with their world (Golarion) products.

Now maybe that model is evolving with Pathfinder game popularity, but it does do what some people were saying the OGL was intended to do- let the core game company create what they want to create and the 3pp filling in around it. It just allows more room for 3pp to create things like books for new alchemist archetypes, or Oracle mysteries, etc. During the 3.5 era, WotC seemed to want to concentrate on creating all the core rules options and leave the adventure writing up to the 3pp.

I do think the business model that Paizo uses is extremely savvy business wise as well. By structuring their online webspace and marketplace in a way that creates a section for 3pp, they are embracing a larger section of the entire industry instead of focusing on just their product line. It also has the added bonus of basically porting a good chunk of non-Paizo conversation, product, etc, onto their website and boards, creating as close to a one stop shopping experience for gamers who like many systems as is possible.

The fact that they have 143 (someone else's figure) 3pp 4E products being sold on their website says it all in my eyes.... we want to serve you the customer and fan of roleplaying games. If you want 4E products too, we will provide them as well. This is a service to the gaming industry as a whole, not just their particular product line, and it is a mindset like this that strengthens the industry, rather than causing even more fragmentation. As an lifelong avid gamer of more than 25 years, knowing that gaming itself will live on is worth more to me that a particular set of rules or game setting.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

2 people marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:


You can't copyright 'Roll a d20 and add modifier'. However, Armor Class can be copyrighted. How you determine Armor Class can be copyrighted. Fighter has 1d10 hit dice per level can be copyrighted. Fireball does fire damage to area and does 1d6 per caster level can be copyrighted. Reflex save, Fortitude save, Will Save, can all be copyrighted.

Everything I know about copyright comes from law school, and that's a long time past, but my general understanding is that you can't copyright game mechanics. The HD for a fighter, the determination of AC, etc., are, to my understanding, mechanics. You can't describe them using the exact words as WotC products, but you can provide a series of mathmatical formulas for deriving stats and rules for how those stats interact which exactly mimic 3.5.

Of course, any good lawyer knows that being in the right is worth as much in legal fees as you're willing to spend to prove it. WotC has the legal resources to shut down smaller companies, particularly one that is launching a new generic brand version of D&D, even if the party is not infringing WotC's copyrights in any way, shape, or form. Copyright law is too murky to be resolved by summary judgment (usually), so a fledgling company would be forced into court and would spend considerable attorney's fees and time proving they were right. By the time the dust settled, they'd likely be out of business even if they were completely within their rights.

People tend to confuse the actual rules of copyright law (which are murky) with the practical application of copyright law (which favors the party with deeper pockets due to said murkiness).


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Paizo really is the perfect storm. I fully believe that if WotC went to Paizo and said, "What do you need to sign onto 4E?" and then gave it to them, 4E would be in domination.

Please clarify: Do you mean "If wotc had, back when the GSL was still in the works, gone to Paizo and said that stuff" or do you mean "If wotc would go to Paizo, today, and say that stuff?"

Big difference.

I think that had they actually tried to get 3PP on board back then, they might have succeeded (though there's still the fact that Paizo doesn't think that the rules would work for them) in getting Paizo to play along.

Today? No chance at all.


OGL favors the dominant player in the market, and since 4E and WOTC moved on, it was easy for Pathfinder to fill the gap. If a new OGL/D20 game came into the picture and was very successful and took market share away from Pathfinder, then OGL would be bad for Paizo. As the new game would set the pace. But this is unlikely, because when push comes to shove, Paizo could adapt elements from the theoretical new game before it gains any traction. So if you apply that logic back to 4E and OGL, then I don't undertand why they abandoned it. Perhaps going to online content, or having too much confidence it would be a raging success, could be part of it. Or more likely, it is a small percentage of profit for Hasbro, so it was doomed from the start to adapt to the coporate mold.


Count_Rugen wrote:


It accomplished that mission. Short-term growth at the expense of the long-term. Paizo itself may be faced with this same conundrum a few years down the road if it reaches a point where the only way to continue to grow entails refreshing the product line.

I think your assumptions are flawed.

You think that Paizo will do everything for growth. I don't think they do. I think that they won't mind "merely" retaining their customer base if the opposite would be breaking their promises.

Because they basically primised that PFRPG 2e was still years and years away. I think the claim was that there wouldn't be anything before 2020 (or something along the lines).

The other error is that you think that they'll have to reboot their game at one time or go under, and I don't think that's true.

According to Paizo, their flagship was, is, and will always be the Adventure Paths. Well, maybe not "always", but it seems that they don't think that the RPG or Campaign Setting will overtake the APs any time soon.

And it makes sense:

Chronicles usually gets something like 6 products a year for 20 bucks each. 120 per year.

PFRPG Has 3 products a year for 40 bucks each. Again 120 per year.

APs cost 20 bucks, and there are 12 each year. That's 240 bucks.

Sure, that's an overly simplistic way to look at things, since they don't turn a profit of 20/40 bucks on each book, and the numbers they're selling aren't the same, and there's the PF advantage that gives different discounts depending on the product line.

But I think it is an indication.

And they can sell APs more or less forever. It never gets old. Sure, the basic rulebooks are all covered in the RPG line. After Ultimate Combat, we will probably not see any more "splat books". They'll probably move into the more specialised stuff (Monsters as characters, epic levels, stuff like that).

But I don't think they'll run out of ideas for APs and adventures any time soon.

Count_Rugen wrote:
Remember that part of WOTC's growth strategy was to remove all the 3PPs who were cutting into it's profits. All those 3PPs were OK at the beginning of 3.x...not so much towards the end.

Yeah, they tried. And failed miserably. In fact, one of them, formerly a contributor, is now their biggest competitor. That still cracks me up. They basically created their own nemesis. I can't imagine the amount of sleep lost over at wotc because of this! :)

Paizo instead supports their contributors. (I know nobody is contesting that, I just want to reiterate it).


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:
deinol wrote:

If 4E was OGL, there would definitely be more 3PP support. There's so much potential that I can't touch because 4E isn't OGL.

Which is particularly ironic* given that 3pps are already hampered by the reliance of 4e upon the online tools. WotC could likely throw caution to the wind, put out a 4e OGL, and yet still not have to worry about 3pp competition due to the gated nature of those tools. Even if one of those 3pp put together a new system based on the 4e OGL (ala, Mutants & Masterminds), I'd wager they'd be less successful than in the 3.5 days because those who play 4e are spoiled by having access to the online databases/tools.

In todays market? Probably. Since the majority of the people who have stuck with 4E have access to a DDI account one way or another.

If 4E had been OGL right from the gate? I think strong 3PP support would have encouraged more gamers to branch out beyond DDI, despite the inconvenience. Besides, the first thing I said when I saw 4E was "This would be a great system for a super hero game."

So even if the 3PP market wasn't as strong as in 2000, an OGL 4E would have a much, much stronger base than it does today. Especially if people could tweak things to make them more to their taste, like an Iron Heroes 4E or an Arcana Evolved 4E. Since no variants are allowed, you either like 4E or you play something else. Instead of a 4E OGL world where that something else might also be 4E. In which case, even if you aren't playing by straight 4E, a 4E variant player may still pick up Monster Manual 3 for more critters.


I'm probably going to get lynched for saying this, but I would love to see (and would happily buy) a Pathfinder 2E sooner rather than later, especially if it really cleaned things up and shaved a few hundred pages off the core book. Something like Star Wars Saga would be ideal.

But yeah...way in the minority here. ;-)


jeremy.smith wrote:
IANAL

You what?


bugleyman wrote:

But yeah...way in the minority here. ;-)

I agree, you are definately the minority. ;)


KaeYoss wrote:
jeremy.smith wrote:
IANAL
You what?

I

Am
Not
A
Lawyer


KaeYoss wrote:
Yeah, they tried. And failed miserably. In fact, one of them, formerly a contributor, is now their biggest competitor. That still cracks me up. They basically created their own nemesis. I can't imagine the amount of sleep lost over at wotc because of this! :)

i'm of two minds about that - on one hand, i'm sure SOMEONE over at WoTC is looking at their sales records and lamenting the fact that things are not going as well as could be....

But on the other hand, if i'm right about the personalities involved then the big guy running the show simply doesn't care. it's amazing what one bad apple at the top of the food chain can do to destroy a company in very short order.


KaeYoss wrote:
jeremy.smith wrote:
IANAL
You what?

my guess is a newly rolled character, Proctologist ally of Caromarc (Carrion Crown).


Sunderstone wrote:

I agree, you are definately the minority. ;)

Trust me, I have no illusions. :)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

I'm probably going to get lynched for saying this, but I would love to see (and would happily buy) a Pathfinder 2E sooner rather than later, especially if it really cleaned things up and shaved a few hundred pages off the core book. Something like Star Wars Saga would be ideal.

But yeah...way in the minority here. ;-)

I like new editions! Though, generally speaking, I'm pretty happy with the PFRPG rules, so to the extent I would want a new edition (which is probably 4-6 years off for me), it would mostly be a consolidation/polishing edition rather than any substantial change to the game system.


Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Everyone

I just want to say that we have a highly interesting discussion here with alot of different viewpoints and interpretations on history. And its not descending into a flamewar.

You're right. Something is seriously wrong. Something must be done.

SO DID YOU HEAR MY NEWEST FUNNY QUIP? 4e-diots! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's getting warmer already.

(Note to all who are sharpening their torches and lighting their pitch forks: That wasn't meant seriously, it was just humour.)


Sebastian wrote:
I like new editions! Though, generally speaking, I'm pretty happy with the PFRPG rules, so to the extent I would want a new edition (which is probably 4-6 years off for me), it would mostly be a consolidation/polishing edition rather than any substantial change to the game system.

I'm happy (enough) with the rules themselves, but unhappy with the presentation and organization. Heck, I think 50 pages could be chopped with re-wording and re-organization alone.

Edit: To be clear, when I wrote "presentation" I did not mean art/production values. Those are both very good (though I happen to dislike WAR's style...but that's a whole other story). :)


KaeYoss wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Everyone

I just want to say that we have a highly interesting discussion here with alot of different viewpoints and interpretations on history. And its not descending into a flamewar.

You're right. Something is seriously wrong. Something must be done.

SO DID YOU HEAR MY NEWEST FUNNY QUIP? 4e-diots! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's getting warmer already.

(Note to all who are sharpening their torches and lighting their pitch forks: That wasn't meant seriously, it was just humour.)

Spoiler:

It's 4ron, you 3tard. ;-)


Sebastian wrote:

You can't describe them using the exact words as WotC products, but you can provide a series of mathmatical formulas for deriving stats and rules for how those stats interact which exactly mimic 3.5.

Of course, any good lawyer knows that being in the right is worth as much in legal fees as you're willing to spend to prove it. WotC has the legal resources to shut down smaller companies, particularly one that is launching a new generic brand version of D&D, even if the party is not infringing WotC's copyrights in any way, shape, or form. Copyright law is too murky to be resolved by summary judgment (usually), so a fledgling company would be forced into court and would spend considerable attorney's fees and time proving they were right. By the time the dust settled, they'd likely be out of business even if they were completely within their rights.

People tend to confuse the actual rules of copyright law (which are murky) with the practical application of copyright law (which favors the party with deeper pockets due to said murkiness).

The problem is, that you can't use the same mechanics combined with the same names and layout and mechanics all at once. For example, fighter. Well, yes, there's fighters in the real world. But fighters who get +1 bab per level, 1d10 hp, 2 skill points... Copyright law is, as you say, murky. Unfortunately, that means it comes down to a jury of 12 of your peers (read 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty) to decide if you crossed the line from legal use of mechanics to copyright infringement.

Now, to me, that means you have copyrighted all that stuff, since any 12 fine upstanding jurists are going to have to find you 'More likely guilty than not' in a civil lawsuit, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That means, to me, they're probably going to look at your book, see 85% the same stuff, often with the same names, and they're going to say 'We gotta slap these guys down!'. Whether it's right or not isn't going to make the millions of award money go away. And, even if you win, you lost, since you spent millions defending.

So I stand by my statement that Paizo could not do a PF 2.0 without the OGL short of coming up with a whole new system.

201 to 250 of 445 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Working with WotC and Paizo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.