The discussion in the “License Curiosity” thread sparked an interesting questions in my mind.
Where does the “line” exist for the Pathfinder Compatibility License and what defines compatibility?
The best “rule of thumb” I heard of was from Liz. She basically said, “can you drop something from your book into one of our adventurers and vice versa?” (para)
While things like 3rd party classes, feats, monsters fit in there pretty well, there are some things that kind of skirt that line of compatibility. If someone introduces a new subsystem that “fixes” or “overrides” an existing one for instance, by it's nature that is not compatible with the core rulebook material (and by extension, the adventurers Paizo produces).
To follow that up, would conversion rules for said subsystem make it (more) compatible?
Another good one I heard poking around about this is the “Pathfinder Modern” debate. Would a d20 modern style Pathfinder conversion be compatible? You could drop a Pathfinder fighter into a d20 modern game pretty easily but a druid, maybe not if there were no spell-casting (for example). You'd still have to adjust skills and weapon groups. In those cases, is the game compatible still?
I'm sure there are lots of other examples, these are just the two that are rattling around in my mind at the moment.
Any input would be awesome!
-Scott
PS: I love the PCL :-)
Just want to make sure stuff we put out in the future isn't stepping on any toes or anything.
PPS: If this is the wrong section to post this, please pardon. Didn't see a more fitting area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a mix of personal taste and your own goals, IMO. Compare 1st and 2nd ed Mutants and Masterminds. 1st ed used basic D&D chargen info but departed from there. It had a d20 logo on it. 2nd ed had its own character generation system. The d20 license forbid that so they took the logo off.
No one will argue that M&M should be used in a standard D&D game, but it did have the logo on there because because Green Ronin wanted people to know that it was a very similar game to D&D so the rules would be relatively familiar to a D&D player. But by the time 2nd ed rolled out, it made enough changes (plus it had an established enough market presence) that it made sense to take the logo off.
So it depends on what you want to do with it. Do you want to communicate to potential players that it uses the base pathfinder system, even if rules are altered to suit the feel of what you are doing? Or do you feel that the changes are so significant that it you need to alter fundamental parts of the game to accomplish what you are doing? At the end of the day, only you can decide that.
Thanks LazarX.
I am trying to personally pick apart section 5. Compatibility.
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.
You agree to use your best efforts to ensure that the licensed products are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009. Your products may additionally be compatible with other systems.
Perhaps that line about “standalone games” not being allowed is the definition that might be more relevant to examine. The way I see that being defined is as a game that has to reprint rule sections (like combat, terms, definitions, etc)
I think if a company put forth all good faith efforts to develop a compatible setting (“You agree to use your best efforts...”) would keep you within the license.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks a lot Dale! That was the kind of input & insight I was hoping for!
If it still plays and 'feels' like Pathfinder but you've made some flavor-tweaks then you should be good, but if the system could stand on its own ("Stand alone game") then no - then you've just built your own system that may be similar to, but not the same as, PF. I would think its almost more of a percentage thing - if you've modified anywhere 30-50 percent of the rules you are starting to get too close to that 'line'. If you go over 50% then its a different game and no license.
For instance, I developed my own targeting rules (with hit locations) that I used in 3e/3.5, and now I plan to adapt it to Pathfinder. My combat feels very different, but I don't need to do any conversions before I run a module - its still Pathfinder 'under the hood'.
I guess thats just it then - if you can run published adventures without much trouble then it should be fine.
I think the smart idea, when writing something that might blur the line a bit, would be to contact Paizo and work with them to make sure it falls within their guidelines for what defines a non-stand alone game.
Thanks Vic!
So if the book is reliant on the Core Rulebook (example: Frequently cities "See Chapter # of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook") to function thats a good sign?