| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could Paizo open up the World of Golarion intellectual property for self-publishing via a dedicated venue at DriveThruRPG, à la DMs Guild?
Could they? Yeah. Probably. Would they? Doubt it. There isn't much financial incentive to do so and allowing second-party authors who are not under direct contract likely weakens their IP protections legally-speaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could Paizo open up the World of Golarion intellectual property for self-publishing via a dedicated venue at DriveThruRPG, à la DMs Guild?Could they? Yeah. Probably. Would they? Doubt it. There isn't much financial incentive to do so and allowing second-party authors who are not under direct contract likely weakens their IP protections legally-speaking.
Counterpoint: Check out what WotC has done with Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Ravenloft on the DM's Guild. Anyone can publish material using otherwise protected material from those settings on the DM's Guild, and WotC gets a 50% cut. Seems to be working well for them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards is a much larger company with a much tighter grip on their IP and a lot less to lose.
What MaxAstro said. WotC is one portion of Hasbro, which is made of money. Paizo pretty much is Pathfinder.
On the other hand, with the core rules tied a bit tighter into the Lost Omens setting, we might have more leeway than everyone is assuming. How much of the Adventurer's Handbook can be used, for example?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC can afford people whose only job is to vet DM Guild material.
Paizo can't.
I'm not convinced the economics of it are as open and shut as you all seems to think.
I would assume the DM's Guild easily pays for itself many times over, so reading between the lines, I guess none of you believe Pathfinder IP is popular enough for a Paizo GM's Guild to be self sustaining? Is that the gist of it?
EDIT: One thing that's always puzzled me that maybe someone can help clarify: the development and design team for Pathfinder is SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the team for D&D. Given the size disparity between the two companies, what's the rationale for this? Is it because they make a smaller margin on a larger number of products, so they need a bigger team to crank out enough volume to make a decent profit?
WotC can afford people whose only job is to vet DM Guild material.
Paizo can't.
I'm not convinced the economics of it are as open and shut as you all seems to think.
I would assume the DM's guild easily pays for itself many times over, so reading between the lines, I guess none of you believe Pathfinder IP is popular enough for a Paizo GM's Guild be self sustaining? Is that the gist of your argument?
More that the return on investment may not be worth the effort of doing so. Without knowing the specific numbers around DM Guild's profits, how they relate to how D&D sells in-general, and how those might translate over to Pathfinder's typical profits, it is incredibly hard to say anything concrete.
TTRPGs are already barely profitable for the vast majority of companies, if not outright losses. PF Guild (or whatever) would have to identify that threshold and be sure they could cross it reliably.
Wizards is a much larger company with a much tighter grip on their IP and a lot less to lose.
Could you clarify the bolded portion of your comment? It seems to me that a company's "grip on its IP" is as tight or loose as the terms of the license. So the DM's Guild is actually a fairly loose approach, given that anyone can publish in WotC's worlds if they agree to the very permissive license.
Or have I misunderstood your point?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More that the return on investment may not be worth the effort of doing so. Without knowing the specific numbers around DM Guild's profits, how they relate to how D&D sells in-general, and how those might translate over to Pathfinder's typical profits, it is incredibly hard to say anything concrete.TTRPGs are already barely profitable for the vast majority of companies, if not outright losses. PF Guild (or whatever) would have to identify that threshold and be sure they could cross it reliably.
Right, but "MAY NOT be worth the investment" is very different from "it's not viable, period". Maybe Paizo is too risk averse to explore the possibility, but I think if PF2 does well, it's something they could consider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference is WotC really doesnt' care how D&D does, it is such a small part of their revenue stream it is really just a nice to have.
On the other hand really the only thing Paizo has to make money off of is Golarion (and it's universe in the case of Starfinder).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify that point: WotC has held their IP for longer and defended it from more threats than Paizo has. Should a legal battle be needed, it would be much easier for WotC to show a strong history of defending their IP than it would for Paizo.
Not that it would necessarily be hard for Paizo, just that it would be much easier for WotC.
The other issue is that larger schools have better football teams.
To clarify: D&D has much higher visibility than Pathfinder. The number of people aware and interested in it is vastly larger. By simple probability, that means the number of people able to produce quality content is higher and the distinction between quality and not quality content is wider.
The smaller the pool of potential content-creators, the larger the risk investing in that pool is. Paizo is also less secured against risk than D&D is.
To put it another way, suppose that opening your IP is simplified to a coin toss: Either you make $X or you lose $Y, 50% chance, with Y being a smaller number than X.
For a huge company like Wizards, that's a no-brainer, because the loss of $Y is not going to affect them long term.
For a smaller company like Paizo, the loss of $Y could put them out of business. Sure, they could win big - but why take a 50% chance of losing everything?
Making a lot of simplifications here, but hopefully the logic makes sense.
And Open Game License means that people can already make whatever content that's compatible with Pathfinder 1 rule set.
So the group of people you're looking at are those who are want to write an adventure, for profit, using Golarion setting (not just generic Pathfinder rules).
I'm not sure what that quantity of people is, especially if Paizo is going to charge 50% of the income from it.
And already mentioned is the non-zero cost associated with Paizo personnel vetting the material for conformance with existing materials and themes the company wants to be associated with.
Honestly, it just doesn't seem like it would be profitable enough with everything else they've got going on to worry about such a thing.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards is a much larger company with a much tighter grip on their IP and a lot less to lose.
I would hazard to guess it's the opposite, really. WotC isn't really doing a whole lot with those IPs anymore beyond cranking out new 5E materials for people to play in them. They've intentionally dropped the novel lines and even their adventures are being written out of house to a fairly significant degree. There's much less concern from WotC's side about whether or not someone writes an adventure that allows you to establish your own domain within Ravenloft, kill Lloth, what-have-you, because they're not really utilizing that IP as more than an engine to move RPG books and licenses.
Paizo on the other hand has a very direct and active hand in their IP, and only one campaign setting. The results of APs, PFS scenarios, modules, etc. all inform what happens next in the setting, and all the developers work very hard to try and keep everything consistent (or address inconsistencies as they creep up).
WotC's IPs are all largely in semi-retirement, with the only active changes and growth being directly made by the company primarily those necessary to launch the next product. Golarion is very much alive and being constantly cultivated, and there is exactly one person (James Jacobs, the creative director) overseeing the lore and canon. James Jacobs has to review and approve every adventure from the tiniest PFS quest to the most expansive AP. That would be impossible if the IP was opened up to an outside source, and Paizo's IP would lose value as it was diluted by semi-official, non-canonical content. There's a very significant difference between a company maintaining one carefully planned and cultivated campaign setting and a company who has half a dozen settings with decades of backstory, retcons, and reinterpretations associated with them (and a lot of that is before you actually start looking at the difference in business model between small 3pp publishers, privately owned mid-sized publishing companies like Paizo, and larger corporately-owned publishing divisions of a multinational gaming conglomerate).
And Open Game License means that people can already make whatever content that's compatible with Pathfinder 1 rule set.
5e D&D is also OGL with its own SRD and everything; a content creator can publish 5e content either on the DM's Guild or in the traditional manner via the OGL. Despite this, there are comparatively few OGL 5e products, whereas the DM's Guild is just exploding with content. Clearly, something about the model is working. Probably a combination of ease of use and access to otherwise off-limits IP.
Also, I'm fairly certain that contrary to assumptions earlier in this thread, WotC DOES NOT have any staff policing the content on DM's Guild. The whole enterprise is a partnership with Drivethru RPG, and I'm fairly certain that job falls to the Drivethru folks. Also, they pretty much only take down content for violating the terms of the license; there's definitely no quality control.
I think Paizo wants to keep pretty tight control over anything that's actual expansion of the setting. It's their baby and they've got a lot of ideas about what's going in it that they've hinted at, but aren't ready to put out until the right moment - like an AP using a region or a villain or something.
Throwing it wide open to 3rd party work takes away some of that control...
If we never see a Paizo GM's Guild, I think this is the real reason why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5e D&D is also OGL with its own SRD and everything; a content creator can publish 5e content either on the DM's Guild or in the traditional manner via the OGL. Despite this, there are comparatively few OGL 5e products, whereas the DM's Guild is just exploding with content.
A part of that could well be the fact that, while D&D does have its own SRD, it's very lean compared to Pathfinder's. Somebody writing a D&D adventure that uses the SRD has access to only a small portion of what appears in the core, while somebody writing an adventure for Pathfinder can draw from virtually any part of the game.
I've got no idea if the DM's Guild model could work for Pathfinder or not. However, I do get the feeling that, despite their linked origins, D&D and Pathfinder have some very pronounced differences. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we never see a Paizo GM's Guild, I think this is the real reason why.I think Paizo wants to keep pretty tight control over anything that's actual expansion of the setting. It's their baby and they've got a lot of ideas about what's going in it that they've hinted at, but aren't ready to put out until the right moment - like an AP using a region or a villain or something.
Throwing it wide open to 3rd party work takes away some of that control...
I think it would upset a lot of the people working for Paizo if, say, a 3rd party publisher got ahead of them on making a Galt AP. And personally I think they'd be right to, they've put a lot of effort into cultivating this setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Ssalarn on WotC's actual laisez-faire approach to this and why that isn't relevant to Paizo.
I don't think it's about who beats who to doing something first.
I think they have worked with partners on certain select setting products.
IMHO it is more issue of quality, and it doesn't help brand to put any official stamp of approval on stuff which really doesn't have editorial coherence.
Which is what a generically open licence/venue for this means. If any writer is really top notch and wants to put together Golarion product, they can pitch it to Paizo on a one-off licence. and actually benefit from Paizo's own internal setting information, written and in collective headspace. Nothing is stopping amateur fan-creations from being produced independently, it just will be non-commercial as appropriate for amateur work.
If we never see a Paizo GM's Guild, I think this is the real reason why.I think Paizo wants to keep pretty tight control over anything that's actual expansion of the setting. It's their baby and they've got a lot of ideas about what's going in it that they've hinted at, but aren't ready to put out until the right moment - like an AP using a region or a villain or something.
Throwing it wide open to 3rd party work takes away some of that control...
I think the only solution to something like this is open a Multiverse Golarion
For their products they use the Golarion 1, and nothing that happens there occurs in Golarion 2, that is the place that the IP is broken and anyone can write adventures.
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't get the upside of opening Golarion IP. What is the benefit, to Paizo and/or the customer base?
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't get the upside of opening Golarion IP. What is the benefit, to Paizo and/or the customer base?
More Golarion content for customers, hopefully a relatively low maintenance additional revenue stream for Paizo. Basically, it's the D&D DM's Guild model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Low maintenance" is the rub, though. It's not guaranteed or possibly even likely to be low maintenance, and despite all reason things that get published in a theoretical "GM's Guild" are going to affect people's opinion of Paizo.
I think it would upset a lot of the people working for Paizo if, say, a 3rd party publisher got ahead of them on making a Galt AP. And personally I think they'd be right to, they've put a lot of effort into cultivating this setting.If we never see a Paizo GM's Guild, I think this is the real reason why.I think Paizo wants to keep pretty tight control over anything that's actual expansion of the setting. It's their baby and they've got a lot of ideas about what's going in it that they've hinted at, but aren't ready to put out until the right moment - like an AP using a region or a villain or something.
Throwing it wide open to 3rd party work takes away some of that control...
In theory, something like that could be done in Wayfinder -- but the fact that the Community Use license does not permit making any money seriously limits the volume of work likely to be done that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't get the upside of opening Golarion IP. What is the benefit, to Paizo and/or the customer base?More Golarion content for customers, hopefully a relatively low maintenance additional revenue stream for Paizo. Basically, it's the D&D DM's Guild model.
Hm. To me, the thing is, that WotC and Paizo have very different business models. As I understand it, WotC produces far less of its own adventure content than Paizo does. A Pathfinder GM's Guild would necessarily compete with Paizo's own products more than DM's Guild stuff does.
Given AP volumes and Society scenarios releasing once a month, plus whatever frequency the Adventures line alights on, does the customer really *need* more Golarion content? Or would they choose between GM's Guild products (of which Paizo gets a cut) and official Paizo releases (the revenue of which is all Paizo's)?
In my uninformed opinion, Paizo has a great deal more to lose than WotC by allowing others to profit from their product. They're both supplying more content in their setting than WotC is and more reliant on selling said content. As such, I'd be surprised to see them go in that direction. But that's just me armchair-CEOing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is my understanding that adventures are Paizo's main product line -- in fact, the main reason that they created Pathfinder in the first place was to have a non-obsolete game system supporting their adventure path line.
Franchise Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could Paizo open up the World of Golarion intellectual property for self-publishing via a dedicated venue at DriveThruRPG, à la DMs Guild?
We are certainly aware of the DM's Guild and recognize that it has been successful for WotC and OBS, but we don't have any current plans to replicate that business model ourselves. If we were to ever do something similar, it likely wouldn't be done in partnership with another online marketplace, however, as we have our own web store we can use to distribute such content.
I would assume the DM's Guild easily pays for itself many times over, so reading between the lines, I guess none of you believe Pathfinder IP is popular enough for a Paizo GM's Guild to be self sustaining? Is that the gist of it?
Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron were all popular IPs before WotC allowed the type of dynamic you are talking about.
As far as I know, the only supported IP for Pathfinder is Golarion.
This is going to be a new edition that finally incorporates Golarion directly into it (like DnD has done with Greyhawk for a while).
There's just not a lot to work with unless someone wants to spin up a whole other IP region and have Paizo sanction that and take a cut.
Even then, I doubt there's a market for it, both from a content creator perspective and a Paizo perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Low maintenance" is the rub, though. It's not guaranteed or possibly even likely to be low maintenance, and despite all reason things that get published in a theoretical "GM's Guild" are going to affect people's opinion of Paizo.
And yet we have the example of the DM’s Guild, which is a low maintenance cash cow for WotC. Tellingly, there’s been no backlash against WotC for the tonnes of low quality content on there, but WotC does get loads of accolades for making it easy for people to self-publish in their settings. Plus, there’s also lots of great content on there.
I also think it’s telling that Mark Moreland doesn’t endorse any of the naysayers’ objections, and leaves the possibility of Paizo doing something like this in the future open. They might eventually do it, or they might never do it, but they’re not dismissing the idea as unfeasible and impractical.
My impression is that the ambivalence is more one of philosophy than economics. (After all a dollar lost in AP sales which was diverted to a paizo-run GM's guild where they could collect both Drive thru and WotC commissions would probably result in a higher profit margin).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I publish a lot on the DMs Guild and love that service.
And there are the other related stores as well, like the Storyteller Vault or Cypher System Creator program. Basically, every major RPG system except Pathfinder...
The big selling feature is that you don’t need to know the ins and outs of the OGL to publish. The bar for publication is much lower than being a regular 3rd Party Publisher.
It is the perfect stepping stone between home brewing for fun and giving away content and starting your own publishing company.
However, that’s much trickier with Paizo, as everything on their store needs to conform to the OGL. If they open up 3rd Parties to freely post documents on their web store, that opens them up to problems if the fans don’t know how the licence works.
That said, Paizo could be a little looser with their Community Use program, allowing some ability to make money indirectly. So fan sites aren’t just giant financial holes. Such as allowing ads or running a store. Generating profit, allowing known micro/ fan publishers to operate via Patreon.
It’s not like the various 3rd Parties aren’t doing Golarion books or AP tie-ins already.
|
|
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't get the upside of opening Golarion IP. What is the benefit, to Paizo and/or the customer base?Growth in customer agency, in customer buy-in, and customer "investment"...because the customer base is literally empowered to become entrepreneurs in service of Pathfinder. If I'm getting a dollar stream from the bits and bobbles I've authored for GMs Guild, (even if it's a modest stream) then I'm likely to retain longer-term interest in Pathfinder vis-a-vis other gaming and entertainment options.
Long-term interest builds a cultural base and a consumer base.
Plus, it meshes with kit-bashing culture of TRPGs and, specifically with the Open Gaming culture upon which Pathfinder was founded.
All you mentioned does not require opening Golarion IP to outsiders. It would work just as well in any setting using Pathfinder.
Way I understand it, DM's Guild is a way for WOTC to make money from IPs they own but will not invest in. Always better to gather dollar than dust on these oldies you do not particularly care about but others do.
Paizo has no similar trove of IPs in its attic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I don't get the upside of opening Golarion IP.
The upside is that the five people who want to write "official" modules where Valeros gets to release his true love - Rovagug - from prison, get to. Shipping is a thing.
What is the benefit, to Paizo and/or the customer base?
More seriously, aside from the inevitable um... lesser-quality releases, some of the more trustworthy 3rd-party publishers could write things in-setting. For instance, while I ran Slumbering Tsar in Golarion just fine, it would've been just a touch easier if Greg had access to use Paizo's IP. (Not that he would've, since it's sort of part of the Necromancer Games universe.) But the point is that respectable publishers could produce material without requiring conversion.
That said, again I doubt many would. These days the big 3pp guys are pushing out material that's PF1/5e, and I doubt they want bonus work making the PF version Golarion-compliant. Easier to just write a generic setting and change the mechanics.
Way I understand it, DM's Guild is a way for WOTC to make money from IPs they own but will not invest in. Always better to gather dollar than dust on these oldies you do not particularly care about but others do.Paizo has no similar trove of IPs in its attic
I'm afraid you've understood it wrong. In fact, it works in precisely the opposite way: WotC only opens up a setting on DM's Guild AFTER they publish official 5E material in that setting. So Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and Ravnica (the new kid on the block) are the only settings currently open for use on DM's Guild. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape et al. are off limits, gathering dust.
However, that’s much trickier with Paizo, as everything on their store needs to conform to the OGL.
I found your post very interesting, thanks for sharing. However, I'm not sure that the quoted portion (above) is true. Can you cite a source for that? Paizo is free to sell non-OGL stuff on its webstore as far as I know. For instance, you can still buy back-issues of Dragon/Dungeon Magazines (print copies, no less).
AFAIK—and please correct me if I'm wrong—PF2 is not going to be part of the OGL.
If I'm wrong, and PF2 is in fact an OGL game, then I do see your point.
|
|
I'm afraid you've understood it wrong. In fact, it works in precisely the opposite way: WotC only opens up a setting on DM's Guild AFTER they publish official 5E material in that setting. So Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and Ravnica (the new kid on the block) are the only settings currently open for use on DM's Guild. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape et al. are off limits, gathering dust.
Way I understand it, DM's Guild is a way for WOTC to make money from IPs they own but will not invest in. Always better to gather dollar than dust on these oldies you do not particularly care about but others do.Paizo has no similar trove of IPs in its attic
I guess that if you want to get people eager about 5e, you indeed need to put some 5e version of your setting out before opening it. I guess that these other IPs you mention might be opened too once they get the 5e basic treatment.
Is there a setting which is both WOTC IP and using 5e rules but that has not been opened to DM's Guild ?
However, that’s much trickier with Paizo, as everything on their store needs to conform to the OGL.
I found your post very interesting, thanks for sharing. However, I'm not sure that the quoted portion (above) is true. Can you cite a source for that? Paizo is free to sell non-OGL stuff on its webstore as far as I know. For instance, you can still buy back-issues of Dragon/Dungeon Magazines (print copies, no less).
AFAIK—and please correct me if I'm wrong—PF2 is not going to be part of the OGL.
If I'm wrong, and PF2 is in fact an OGL game, then I do see your point.
The playtest document is OGL. I can’t imagine why that would be OGL but PF2 wouldn’t be.
They may still be able to sell print dragon/dungeon magazines since they’re leftover from when they published them.
I'm afraid you've understood it wrong. In fact, it works in precisely the opposite way: WotC only opens up a setting on DM's Guild AFTER they publish official 5E material in that setting. So Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and Ravnica (the new kid on the block) are the only settings currently open for use on DM's Guild. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Planescape et al. are off limits, gathering dust.
Way I understand it, DM's Guild is a way for WOTC to make money from IPs they own but will not invest in. Always better to gather dollar than dust on these oldies you do not particularly care about but others do.Paizo has no similar trove of IPs in its attic
I guess that if you want to get people eager about 5e, you indeed need to put some 5e version of your setting out before opening it. I guess that these other IPs you mention might be opened too once they get the 5e basic treatment.
Is there a setting which is both WOTC IP and using 5e rules but that has not been opened to DM's Guild ?
No there isn't, which undercuts your original idea that DM's Guild is just a way for WotC to cynically milk its unused, unloved IPs for spare change. Be that as it may, I have this overwhelming sense that no matter what the facts are, you're going to spin them to suggest WotC is nothing but a soulless, evil, money-grubbing corporate empire...
I mean, you're not wrong that WotC wants to make money. So does Paizo. But in my opinion, WotC's strategy with 5e and the DM's Guild makes not only good business sense, but also makes for great gaming. I've had a lot of fun with 5e, just as I used to with Pathfinder 1E, and I look forward to having tonnes of fun with PF2 as well!
The playtest document is OGL. I can’t imagine why that would be OGL but PF2 wouldn’t be.
They may still be able to sell print dragon/dungeon magazines since they’re leftover from when they published them.
I guess having permission to use Aboleths, Ankhegs and the like is too valuable for Paizo to give up. That does add an extra little wrinkle for the creation of a Paizo GM's Guild... Probably not insurmountable, but it is an issue.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure Jester David meant that everything Paizo *publishes* needs to conform with the OGL. Dungeon/Dragon were published under a separate licensing agreement, and for all we know, that agreement still holds that Paizo can sell any leftover mags and PDFs. Beyond having those on sale, Paizo can't publish any closed content that's property of WotC (or anybody else) unless they get an explicit license. Which they did and do from time to time.
Which means that if they were to make anything like DM's Guild, they'd need probably an additional full-time employee or two vet every thing put there for conformity with OGL.
Conformity with OGL is tricky. Here, let me ask you, of these monsters, which ones are open content and you can use them under OGL?
- coeurl
- displacer beast
- deep crow
- witch crow
- dark young of Shub-Niggurath
- star-spawn of Cthulhu
- gauth
- eye of the deep
- neothelid
- ulitharid
And heavens have mercy if Paizo publishes anything that doesn't follow OGL to the letter. Hasbro's legal department would have a field day writing that cease and desist. And they could then print it out and store it in that little "stuff we could use in court against Paizo" folder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, that’s much trickier with Paizo, as everything on their store needs to conform to the OGL.
I found your post very interesting, thanks for sharing. However, I'm not sure that the quoted portion (above) is true. Can you cite a source for that? Paizo is free to sell non-OGL stuff on its webstore as far as I know. For instance, you can still buy back-issues of Dragon/Dungeon Magazines (print copies, no less).
AFAIK—and please correct me if I'm wrong—PF2 is not going to be part of the OGL.
If I'm wrong, and PF2 is in fact an OGL game, then I do see your point.
Pathfinder 2E is almost certainly going to be published under the OGL. Paizo has not officially released thier plans on that front yet, but I would be shocked if it wasn’t under the OGL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2E is almost certainly going to be published under the OGL. Paizo has not officially released thier plans on that front yet, but I would be shocked if it wasn’t under the OGL
From the FAQ:
Yes. The Pathfinder Playtest and Second Edition will both be published under the OGL.