If it is just a campaign setting, then why do you need to republish material? The only thing that you really need is what is different.
I agree with Vod, why republish material?
If I'm buying a campaign setting designed for a particular system, I only want classes in that book if they're new classes special to the campaign setting, not reprints of the core classes. I already have the core book!
There is no need to republish existing classes, traits, feats, archetypes that already exist. Consider that Rite Publishing published a supplement on the samurai class with archetypes and more, however, we didn't republish the samurai class as per Ultimate Combat, we only published our own archetypes, traits, feats, etc. Anything new is created and published.
If you plan on including your own specific fighter archetypes, for example, then do so, but there's no need to restate or reprint the base fighter, anyone with the CRB already has that.
One of Rite Publishing's settings is Kaidan (Japanese horror), while all the existing classes for PF exist in Kaidan, almost all of them come with their own specific archetypes. We've released many archetypes already, and will no doubt release more to cover all the classes eventually, but none of the core/base classes need reprinting, and we'll never do that - no need for it.
But a key point I believe is that yes, you can completely reprint the classes verbatim, assuming there is no product identity contained within the class details.
But a key point I believe is that yes, you can completely reprint the classes verbatim, assuming there is no product identity contained within the class details.
True, but consider the cost for doing so. If you intend to create a printed product, taking up page space with reprinting existing Pathfinder classes is a completely unnecessary extra cost to you as a print publisher. If on the other hand you intend to create a PDF product only, if your customer ever intends to print your product for his uses, then he'll have to assume the cost of printing the extra pages, that again are completely unnecessary to do so. Why make things cost more, needlessly?
Unless your intended fighter is a complete departure from existing core class, just as archetypes include what is different about your fighter compared to the CRB fighter. If the design departure is very different just rename your intended class with all new mechanics so it doesn't get confused with the existing fighter.
It would be far easier to just state which Pathfinder classes fit well in your setting, as in: bard, cleric, fighter, etc. That way your customer knows which classes apply and where to look for the mechanics (ie: CRB, UM, whatever). Provide in your publication only what's different in your design to existing ones.
Including extra pages of existing published material is simply a waste to you and your customer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My response was not designed to answer the logic of doing so, merely to respond in the affirmative, that yes, you are allowed to do so if you wish to (and assuming you follow the other restrictions of the OGL etc.)
And I was agreeing with you, but stipulating my point back to the OP's concern - I wasn't trying to counter your response.
Fair enough :D
Presumably his intent is to release a complete standalone game, the way White Wolf did with the second version of Warcraft D20.
Of note:
In order to make use of the compatible content, your product must operate under and rely on the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Standalone game systems are in no event authorized hereunder.
I think that a complete standalone game system would need further definition. As the OGL and PCL stands right now there is nothing restricting you from reprinting everything that is declared Open Game Content.
You could reprint everything but the xp advancement table and it would not be a stand alone game. This is pretty much how the d20 logo licence worked, and why for example Arcana Evolved was published as OGL without the d20 logo. These are just examples of what has gone before though (I am not a lawyer)
You don't require a special licensing to create new classes. If you create a brand new spellcasting class, but you want to use an existing spell list, you simply include that the class has access to the wizard/sorcerer spell list, witch list, or whatever. You needn't reprint any spells, just refer to the existing spell lists your new class uses for spellcasting.
Your gamebook outline seems appropriate.
I, myself, am currently in the process of continuing development on my own published Pathfinder setting (mentioned above in my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror). We (Rite Publishing) ran a successful Kickstarter this past summer to creating printed softcover books as a GM's Guide and Players Guide to the Kaidan setting. We already released an intro mini campaign of three modules, 2 one-shot modules (with a 3rd one coming on Jan 24th), a haunts guide, 3 racial guides and 2 faction guides. The GMs and Players guides are scheduled for release in October of this year. So I'm very much in the process of doing exactly what you plan to do.
You needn't place an actual link to PRD content.
|
Thanks!
So would something like this ok:
"The following classes from the Pathfinder PRD [link to http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/] can be used in the setting.
- Alchemist [link to http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/alchemist.html]
- Barbarian [link to http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/barbarian.html#_barbarian]...etc.
Then the new classes for the setting are as follows..."
?
You can safely assume that anyone using your setting knows what the barbarian class is, and can find the rules for them as needed.
Alchemist is slightly more obscure, but the Midgard campaign setting, for instance, mentions alchemists dozens of times without feeling the need to tell you where to find the rules for playing one.
I think the most useful way of dealing with classes is a paragraph or two on each explaining how they fit into the setting e.g. "Many barbarians hail from the Northern Wastes, and civilised folk tend to assume (for good or ill) that any burly, roughly dressed stranger is a Northern Wastes berserker." or how they don't e.g. "The last of the Necromancers was killed a thousand years ago in the Third Lich War, and whilst a few wizards of other schools may secretly dabble in forbidden necromancy spells, no true necromancers exist."
I believe it would read rather awkwardly to include a link. If you use the proper citation format ("See the Paladin's entry in Chapter 3 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook") people should be fine.
My 2 cents on reprinting: Unless you are DRASTICALLY changing it you don't need to reprint it. Then again if you change it that much, it's an alternate/archetype.
You need both that little blurb on the credits page and you need to include the full license as the last page before the back cover (that's how I do it for projects I do lay out for). Pick up my free one-shot adventure, Frozen Wind, the license is included that way - to give you an idea on what needs done. Note the last lines of the license includes Kaidan material, which you would need to remove.