|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote up this post on the Kickstarter, and since it's relevant to what Races we should expect here, I'm going to Bring it over. I am a lawyer, but this isn't my area of law, and none of this is intended as legal advice. This is only so that you all can know what to expect from the game in terms of races (and monsters). Consult a lawyer whose field this is (if you can find one not employed by paizo or Wizards of the Coast) if you decide to make your own D20-based videogame.
Without Further Ado, an explanation of why we can't get Grippli, Aasimar, Tieflings, and maybe some other races as well.
The OGL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License) allows the use of the D20 Mechanics for Tabletop games.
The license basically lets you use a lot of Wizards of the Coast's Intellectual Property, stuff like D20 Mechanics and the Unique monsters they created, but says "You can't use all of it, Some stuff is so emblematic of D&D that we wanna keep that stuff for ourselves" that Stuff is "Product Identity" and you won't find any of that in Pathfinder. "Product Identity" is stuff like The Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Elminster, The Eye of Vecna, Torm, The Underdark, and Beholders.
A lot of stuff that otherwise would have been Product Identity became usable under the OGL for tabletop thanks to the Tome of Horrors (due to the licensing expanding to make a lot more monsters OGL-Accessible). This means that it can be used under the OGL in Tabletop games like Pathfinder.
You CANNOT use the OGL to make derivative works. This is why the only D20 based games you see are D&D based and officially licensed. But, Paizo has some of the Best lawyers in the business focusing on the OGL and they figured out a workaround. Thus you can have a Pathfinder video-game.
Unfortunately, while certain Intellectual Property (IP) is is usable under License for a tabletop game under the OGL (sort of like saying "sure you can walk across my lawn to get to the woods in back), the workaround is such that the OGL license doesn't apply. This game isn't made under OGL. So as a result, the Burdens of the OGL don't apply.
With that said, Because you aren't making this game under license, you don't have to conform to the license's restrictions (like not making D20 based Videogames) but you also don't get any of the benefits of the license either. That is, you don't get to use any of the cool stuff they grant you when you work under the OGL; Wizards' Intellectual Property that is NOT "Product Identity."
As a result, anything whose concept was created by Wizards of the Coast (or it's predecessor TSR) is off the table, even if it would be accessible in the Tabletop version of the game. This basically means any and every monster or race that either wasn't created by Paizo specifically for Pathfinder, or by someone else beforehand is off the table for this game. All the core races are okay because Humans, Elves, Orcs, Halflings and so on all pre-date Wizards of the Coast. Likewise a Jabberwock is fine, and so is the concept of the "Fey." Unfortunately, a lot of Player Races ARE off the table. Wizards didn't come up with Frogmen, but they did come up with the word "Grippli." They also came up with Aasimar, and Tieflings (though not the Duergar or Drow which hail from Scandinavian folklore).
Basically any race that either Paizo Created or has an origin in Folklore is fair game. So Kitsune, Tengu, Nagaji, Ghoran? All okay. Grippli, Aasimar, and Teifling? Not gonna happen.
I'd think there is enough pre-TSR/WotC folktales, legends, and myths to act as a basis for new races of frog-folk ("heqetians"?) and "fiend-touched" humanoids. But they can't be called grippli (or bullywugs, sivs, boggards, etc.) or tieflings, and they'd probably need distinctive concepts/hooks to clearly differentiate them from any existing WotC-owned OGL humanoids.
I wouldn't rule them out down the road in an expansion, DLC, or sequel, but Owlcat probably has more than enough on their plate trying to shoehorn in all the other flavor & crunch stuff into this current game.
|
|
Thainen (a Dev on Reddit) posted this: "The decision to make it REwP wasn't a simple one. I'm afraid we are unlikely to see a turn-based Pathfinder game anytime soon due to some complicated legal reasons."
While I hadn't thought about it earlier, this tracks with what I said earlier about the OGL and wanting to avoid being sued. Implementing RTwP likely changes the system enough so that they can avoid being sued for copyright infringement (you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea, and making it real time with pause drastically changes that expression).
So, I hope that this brings a satisfying conclusion to the "Turn Based or 'RTwP'" debate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I hope that this brings a satisfying conclusion to the "Turn Based or 'RTwP'" debate.
Well that's never going to happen...
Does playing the game turn-based or real time with pause really make that big of a difference to people? Seriously? I mean, in my head, real time with pause is much more the application of the turn-based mechanic anyway. The turn-based mechanic at the table-top is designed to accommodate the table-top, but it is an abstraction that is supposed to simulate combat in real time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The New Chapter at the 700K goal is a Direct Continuation of the main Story (i.e. Continuing the Campaign). Estimates put it at adding another 10 hours of Gameplay.
No word on how long Camping adds, though presumably that varies depending on how often you camp.
All content and Features mentioned on the Kickstarter are available upon release in the main game. there's (still) no plans for DLC or extras.
There will be a Paypal option in the Backer Portal post-campaign for those who cannot use Kickstarter.
Still no word on Owlkittens. I blame Cosmo.
RE: Stretch goals. I think the Oracle is a very very strong contender for the next class stretch goal because it allows for the divine version of a spontaneous caster and the "curses" are thematically cool and mechanically simple to create. I think a witch is off the table just because there isn't that much that makes a witch different then a wizard. Slightly different spell list and slightly different spec bonuses.
I think the summoner is going to be a pass for two reasons: spamming monster spawns is something that has been nerfed through PoE (it's easy to plug a doorway with spawns and go through a dungeon on easy mode) and the eidolon would be a lot of effort not just on the content side but also on the art asset side. Would be cool but think about the effort of coding up a bunch of different "base' monsters and then modifying them with legs and arms and tails and tentacles etc. If summoner was added in you would get railroaded on the eidolon side which makes this class very similar to just a conjuration focused sorcerer or wizard.
I think Swashbuckler has a strong chance. Again a lot of theme but underlying it is a lot of the same "resource pool" mechanics that would already be added from the magus.
I think Gunslinger has a strong chance but perhaps just as a Bolt Ace to avoid excessive content creation OR it could be treated similar to a bladebound in that the firearm is selected at character creation and that is the only firearm in the game. The player can dump gold/resources into it to upgrade it to keep it along the equipment curve but you won't be looting random guns from people. Again the Gunslinger/Magus/Swashbuckler/Arcanist/Investigator are all built mechanically off of a "internal pool that can be used to power different effects" mechanic and don't require huge amounts of additional art assets. Once you added one, the others are really just tweaks of that core code.
Brawler should be out. I know I know I love them too but you already have Fighters and Monks and unarmed combat just isn't a big crowd pleaser.
Investigators and Hunters are probably out. Investigators just don't have core crunch that really fits with a cRPG and Hunters represent lots of game assets similar to the Summoner. Shamans are the equivalent to witches so those are out...
Warpriests should be a solid addition, same with Bloodragers and Skalds.
tl;dr: In my opinion
Very likely: Oracle, Swashbuckler, Arcanist
Likely: Gunslinger (with tweaks), Warpriest, Bloodrager, Slayer, Skald
Not Likely: Brawler, Investigator, Witch, Shaman
Very not likely: Summoner, Hunter, Cavalier, Vigilante, Occult classes, Gunslinger (without tweaks)
For classes. I think Witches have a strong case as Hexes are a cool mechanic and they've mentioned 'The Witches of Irrisen' as possible kingdom allies and so... why not be able to play as a witch?
A challenge with the swashbuckler is that they break the standard action economy quite a lot with their parry and counter mechanics.
I love investigators, and they'd be a perfect choice for a more urban crpg, I agree that they don't quite fit Kingmaker so much.
Yeah, with the constant mentions of Irrisen it's a pretty safe bet that Witches will be in at some point.
Yes and no. Witches can easily just be a term applied on top of a wizard or sorcerer. Don't get me wrong, hexes are neat however it just feels redundant to me. If I were trying to implement for most gain and least work I would just add hexes as something you could pick up as a wizard. Take a few iconic ones like evil eye and add them in as part of the progression path.
As for swashbucklers, they break action economy for a turn-based game but for a RTwP their mechanics work out great because they can automatically attack and riposte without user input beyond setting them to that action in the first place. A RT game actually smooths out a lot of the breakdowns with a swashbuckler. Click a button to activate "parrying and riposte" and it will just eat up your pool automatically as you counter. Put in logic that ends it at 1 panache so you don't dry yourself out and
While I'd greatly prefer the oracle, I think the witch is a likely new addition, simply because everything you need to make a witch is already there. Spellcasting should go without saying, patrons work very similar to Bloodline spells and hexes aren't very different to domain powers (from a design/programming standpoint).
The main problem I see with the oracle is putting it into a CRPG. Many curses (and quite a few revelations as well) simply don't translate to a CRPG very nicely. How would the tongues curse work in a video game? Deaf? Haunted? I'm not saying it's not possible to implement those but their real disadvantages go way beyond simple penalties to a skill or two, which probably means they'd need to be redesigned quite extensively.
Does playing the game turn-based or real time with pause really make that big of a difference to people?
Kind of. I'm unlikely to ever play it if it's not turn based.
It's a moot point though.
Just curious but will the game have stamina & combat tricks, automatic bonus progression, and/or variant multiclass?
Unless I miss it, there seems to be little to no talks about these.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just curious but will the game have stamina & combat tricks, automatic bonus progression, and/or variant multiclass?
Unless I miss it, there seems to be little to no talks about these.
I seriously doubt they'll use any of those. Maybe stamina simply to give martial characters more abilities.
But automatic progression would negate loot too much for an official adventure path (even more so for an CRPG) and variant multiclassing is a clunky system that can screw your character very quickly if you don't know what you're doing.
They did say (just an hour ago, actually) that they won't use the fractional BAB from PF Unchained though.
If you want to get more information, try the comments section of the Kickstarter. Their Community Manager is around often and answers questions as far as possible.
Does playing the game turn-based or real time with pause really make that big of a difference to people?Kind of. I'm unlikely to ever play it if it's not turn based.
It's a moot point though.
Really? I'm genuinely interested to hear why that is Steve. What is it about turn based that you prefer to the point of exclusion?
I'm something of a corner case (and it's a done deal anyhow as far as this game goes so a bit of a distraction for the thread).
I'll send you a pm (but it'll be tomorrow). :)
I'm something of a corner case (and it's a done deal anyhow as far as this game goes so a bit of a distraction for the thread).
I'll send you a pm (but it'll be tomorrow). :)
Okay, I'll look forward to it. :)
Giving Hex options to wizard/sorc isn't very thematic I don't think. Plus the witch spell list is pretty different from the wizard/sorc spell list! Less utility, but more debuff and heal spells! I think you're underselling the distinctions between those classes praguepride.
In any case let's get to 700K first to see what else they have planned and what we can realistically get to. It might be the Magus is the only additional class we get.
The next goal is obviously archetypes. The question is, will we get those at 750kor 800k. I'm not sure that we'll go much higher than 800k so if that's where archetypes are, there might indeed be nice other classes added.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without Further Ado, an explanation of why we can't get Grippli, Aasimar, Tieflings, and maybe some other races as well.
You mostly end up with the right conclusions, but you have a few issues on the way there. (And again, I'm not a lawyer; the OGL is Wizards' license, not Paizo's; you may wish to consider speaking with an intellectual properties legal specialist; etc.)
The OGL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License) allows the use of the D20 Mechanics for Tabletop games.
The OGL is not restricted to d20 mechanics or to tabletop games.
You CANNOT use the OGL to make derivative works.
I'm not sure what you were going for here. That's exactly what the OGL does do. It explicitly lets you "use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content."
This is why the only D20 based games you see are D&D based and officially licensed. But, Paizo has some of the Best lawyers in the business focusing on the OGL and they figured out a workaround. Thus you can have a Pathfinder video-game.
Unfortunately, while certain Intellectual Property (IP) is is usable under License for a tabletop game under the OGL (sort of like saying "sure you can walk across my lawn to get to the woods in back), the workaround is such that the OGL license doesn't apply. This game isn't made under OGL. So as a result, the Burdens of the OGL don't apply.
Most of that chunk is a bit sideways. I would just say that using game mechanics by way of the OGL provides one set of benefits and drawbacks, and using game mechanics by way of the fact that they're not copyrightable provides a different set of benefits and drawbacks.
Because you aren't making this game under license, you don't have to conform to the license's restrictions (like not making D20 based Videogames)
The OGL does not contain any restrictions against videogames (or any other medium). A lot of folks think it does because they're confusing it with a license that Wizards introduced alongside the OGL called the d20 System License, which did specifically prevent you from creating "interactive games." (That license is apparently no longer available, and it wouldn't particularly interest us if it were—the main thing it let you do was use a "d20 System" logo that Wizards created, and use the D&D trademark in statements like "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.".)
This basically means any and every monster or race that either wasn't created by Paizo specifically for Pathfinder, or by someone else beforehand is off the table for this game. All the core races are okay because Humans, Elves, Orcs, Halflings and so on all pre-date Wizards of the Coast.
It's not "predating Wizards of the Coast" that's the important bit—it's about not being anyone's intellectual property. We can use stuff we created, and we can use stuff that's in the public domain. We can't use stuff that is copyrighted, trademarked, or patented by other people, no matter who created it or when, unless we obtain permission to do so.
All I know is after Magus will probably Witch and maybe Summoner. Especially since it seems they're going with APG, not ACG atm.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
But they can't be called grippli (or bullywugs, sivs, boggards, etc.) or tieflings, and they'd probably need distinctive concepts/hooks to clearly differentiate them from any existing WotC-owned OGL humanoids.
The word "boggard" has been around since at least the late 1800s, but other than that, you're on point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But they can't be called grippli (or bullywugs, sivs, boggards, etc.) or tieflings, and they'd probably need distinctive concepts/hooks to clearly differentiate them from any existing WotC-owned OGL humanoids.The word "boggard" has been around since at least the late 1800s, but other than that, you're on point.
Yeah, but boggards as amphibians seems to be a TSR/WotC thing (at least from what I could dig up on the Intertoobz). Edit: Despite what my memory keeps telling me, boggards as amphibians is actually a Paizo thing.
It's like Demogorgon and Tiamat predate copyright and TSR/WotC, but anyone that uses them in an product should make their versions clearly distinctive and different from TSR/WotC's multi-headed versions.
Or you can use the Ogdoad from Egyptian myth {waves to proteans}, but you can't make them similar to Stross'/TSR's/WotC's chaotic frog-headed outsiders. Sadly.
|
|
Explanation of where I went wrong.
Hah! That'll teach me to give off-the-cuff opinions without actually putting in the time to run a check on the legal cases and reading the license at least three times rather than once. Sloppy. Thank you for taking the time to point that out.
Ah well, no harm done. I didn't realize that the d20 system underpinning D&D constituted Mechanics either, though obviously I should have.
With that in mind I'll have to revise my opinion. Revisions are in Italics.
Without Further Ado, a (revised) explanation of why we can't get Grippli, Tieflings, Aasimar, Any of the Subraces of regular races (But not including Drow, Svirfneblin, and Duergar), Elans, Xephs, Dromites, Grimlocks, Troglodytes, Azer, and maybe some other races as well:
The OGL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License) allows the use of the "Open Content" for the d20 system, this includes all sorts of monsters, and as well as everything in the d20SRD (Including the aforementioned Tieflings and Aasimar) and the Tome of Horrors (including Grippli). it also includes: "the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity." You can find a copy of 3.5's OGL here: http://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm I'm not certain if that's the one Paizo is restricted under (Paizo has a different version which reflects what Paizo has determined to be Product Identity which can be found here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/openGameLicense.html) but it seems likely since you weren't allowed to modify the OGL for any reason.
The license basically lets you use a lot of Wizards of the Coast's Intellectual Property, stuff like D20 Mechanics and the Unique monsters they created, but says "You can't use all of it, Some stuff is so emblematic of D&D that we wanna keep that stuff for ourselves" that Stuff is "Product Identity" and you won't find any of that in Pathfinder. "Product Identity" is stuff like The Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Elminster, The Eye of Vecna, Torm, The Underdark, and Beholders.
A lot of stuff that otherwise would have been Product Identity became usable under the OGL for tabletop thanks to the Tome of Horrors (due to the licensing expanding to make a lot more monsters OGL-Accessible). This means that it can be used under the OGL in derivative works like Pathfinder.
You can use the OGL to make derivative works, you can even use it to make videogames, so long as you don't use any "Product Identity". This is a huge hassle, so Paizo has decided NOT to do their video game under the OGL. They can do this because "Copyright law does not protect ideas, methods, or systems." (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ31.pdf). "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form." (https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf). So, plots, proper names, setting, artistic depictions, maybe even specific artifacts, those are all protected. the underlying mechanics are not. Thus you can have a Pathfinder video-game. (Paizo still has some of the Best lawyers in the business focusing on the OGL, but this is basic copyright law at work).
Of course, NOT using the OGL means that you can't use any of the neat stuff that IS copyrightable (WotC's Intellectual Property like Grippli, Aasimar, and Teiflings) that made it into the license as "Open Content". This is stuiff that originated at Wizards and TSR. stuff that they either made up whole cloth, or iterated on to the point where it became an original idea. That stuff belongs to Wizards and they haven't given you permission to use it if you aren't working under the OGL.
As a result, anything whose concept was created by Wizards of the Coast (or it's predecessor TSR) is off the table, even if it would be accessible in the Tabletop version of the game. This basically means any and every monster or race that either wasn't created by Paizo specifically for Pathfinder, or by someone else beforehand is off the table for this game. All the core races are okay because Humans, Elves, Orcs, Halflings and so on are all public domain now i.e. they are not anyone's intellectual property which is why you can't call your Halflings "Hobbits" (Thanks Tolkien!). Likewise a Jabberwock is fine (Lewis Carroll's been dead long enough that his stuff's public domain), and so is the concept of the "Fey." Unfortunately, a lot of Player Races ARE off the table. Wizards didn't come up with Frogmen, but they did come up with the word "Grippli." They also came up with Aasimar, and Tieflings (though not the Duergar or Drow which hail from Scandinavian folklore, though they may be able to make an argument that their particular version of them is distinct enough to merit artistic protection under copyright law).
Basically any race that either Paizo Created or has an origin in Folklore is fair game. So Kitsune, Tengu, Nagaji, Ghoran? All okay. Grippli, Aasimar, and Teifling? Not gonna happen.
Explanation of where I went wrong.Hah! That'll teach me to give off-the-cuff opinions without actually putting in the time to run a check on the legal cases and reading the license at least three times rather than once. Sloppy. Thank you for taking the time to point that out.
Ah well, no harm done. I didn't realize that the d20 system underpinning D&D constituted Mechanics either, though obviously I should have.
<...>
Wizards of the Coast doesn't seem to consider Tieflings and Aasimar to be Product Identity.
The 3.5 SRD has Tieflings and Aasimar in it (albeit as monsters under Planetouched, and player races as a footnote).
It's a bit cumbersome to view the original material, and you have to use the wayback machine to view it, but:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160202110448/http://www.wizards.com/default.as p?x=d20/article/srd35
More conveniently, you can use d20srd.org, which has the same content, but I figured you'd be more interested in the source.
Further, look at the SRD5, which also has a very carefully delineated list of what is Product Identity, yet doesn't mention tieflings, despite being in the SRD5.
https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf
Rysky,
She's cool but I'm waiting to if I get a paladin companion...
I'd love for a theological debate between a PC paladin of Iomedae and a companion Paladin of Erastil.