| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, I'm deep into homebrewing 2E and loving it already, but a few times I've realized that it'd help to include other first party things in my homebrew pages. Is 2E going to come with the exact same rehosting/republishing rules as 1E?
Which to my understanding, are that for-profit sites can host content 'with the Golarion stripped out' and not-for-profit can host... most things? But I think not adventures? But can publish the player options and monsters from adventures? I'm really not clear on the details here and would appreciate any detailed breakdown of what's okay.
Thank you!
This is relevant to mu interests.
The raw rules, without any Golarion flavour or Paizo/Pathfinder branding, should be covered by the OGL (as in, they legally have to be, as long as Pathfinder contains even a single thing inherited from D&D 3.0). That means you should be able to reproduce them, provided you follow the rules of the OGL, which basically say you need to include a copy of the OGL and acknowledge all your sources, and all their sources and all their sources... look at the copy of the OGL at the back of any recent Pathfinder book, and you'll see it's an ever-growing list.
I don't know whether the Pathfinder 2 playtest branding are covered by Paizo's Community Use Policy, but if they are then you should be able to reproduce them provided you follow the rules of that policy, which basically means you don't charge any money for it, and don't pretend to be Paizo.
If you plan to charge money for a product, that makes everything more complicated and you need to get lawyers involved.
The above does not constitute legal advice. I'm just a random guy on the internet, not a lawyer. Use your brain.
IIRC Paizo doesn't want any 3rd party content for pf2 during the playtest - after that I guess it's the same as for pf1
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is relevant to mu interests.
µ interests are the best!
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game mechanics are covered by the OGL (make sure you examine the statements of Open game content and Product Identity in the playtest products) and Paizo's Community Use Policy is applicable for non-commercial users.
The existing Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License requires that your products "are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009," so that license does not apply to the Pathfinder Playtest. This is because we want to avoid complicating the playtest environment with third-party products. (We will be offering a Compatibility License for Second Edition, though.)
Please keep in mind that our primary goal for this playtest is receiving real experiential feedback on specific game systems that the designers wish to test, so we would appreciate it if your OGL and Community Use projects are designed in a way that doesn't work against that goal, and—ideally—works toward it.
The game mechanics are covered by the OGL (make sure you examine the statements of Open game content and Product Identity in the playtest products) and Paizo's Community Use Policy is applicable for non-commercial users.
The existing Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License requires that your products "are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009," so that license does not apply to the Pathfinder Playtest. This is because we want to avoid complicating the playtest environment with third-party products. (We will be offering a Compatibility License for Second Edition, though.)
Please keep in mind that our primary goal for this playtest is receiving real experiential feedback on specific game systems that the designers wish to test, so we would appreciate it if your OGL and Community Use projects are designed in a way that doesn't work against that goal, and—ideally—works toward it.
Follow up to this: I've made some points on here that haven't really been discussed yet with regards to product identity and proprietary nomenclature. Is there going to be a new compatibility license that deals with stuff like feats, class names, and traits needing to be renamed for reprinting purposes? Has a discussion been had on whether or not to include nomenclature that is setting neutral, or to have an official referential name that is ip neutral for the purposes of commercialized third party products?
That's always been the part that trips me up, because some places either go the extra mile in changes the names of certain things (to the point where I can't find the original in the Paizo source even when I buy the materials after finding the ones I want) and it makes me wonder if I need to use different names for things if say a feat or trait is used on an NPC for mechanical purposes in a 3pp adventure or something, or they incorrectly list the names of feats, classes, or archetypes that includes proprietary names for the sake of being able to reference the original material.
Personally I really liked how the Adventurer's Guide handled setting neutrality and think you guys should keep that up and use it as a standard for the quality of your products going forward. I can tell you right now you'll at least make my money that way.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Playtest products use the following statements of Open Game Content and Product Identity:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Game Content: All
trademarks, registered trademarks, proper nouns (characters, deities, locations, etc., as well as all adjectives, names, titles, and descriptive terms derived from proper nouns), artworks,
characters, dialogue, locations, plots, storylines, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content, or are exclusively derived from previous Open
Game Content, or that are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)
Open Game Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open
Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.
If we publish a game mechanic that is tied so heavily to Product Identity that we think we need to offer an open content term, we'll probably handle it like we do the Drift in the Starfinder Core Rulebook:
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Game Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper nouns (characters, deities, locations, etc., as well as all adjectives, names, titles, and descriptive terms derived from proper nouns), artworks, characters, dialogue, locations, plots, storylines, trade dress, the historical period called the Gap, the term skyfire, and the Drift (the official Open Game Content term for which is “hyperspace”). (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content, or are exclusively derived from previous open game content, or that are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)
...but there's nothing like that in the Playtest.