So the whole picture in terms of who is going to adopt early and who is not may be different from what it seemed to be a short time ago. The difference also sounds like it's not going to be as large; it may now be neither realistic to expect third-party products from early adopters in August, nor necessary for other companies to wait until 2009. Again, explicit confirmation on the latter point would be nice but that's how it appears.
But however that may be, the following was the state of play before this announcement (updates since then are marked with blue mana symbols from M:tG). Any further news on how any element of this list may have changed, or what new ones might be worth adding, remains welcome.
- Goodman Games is IN
- Necromancer is IN
-
Wolfgang Baur's Open Design project is back in the undecided pile. They had been planning to participate but recent revelations about the terms of the GSL have thrown that into doubt. - It would appear that Fantasy Flight Games is IN.
- Paizo is OUT. They will be releasing a Pathfinder role-playing system of their own, under the old OGL, and mostly backwards-compatible with 3.5.
- Green Ronin is undecided (Actually, almost certainly out, because the aforementioned revelations would, if correct, make it impossible for them to continue publishing their current successful lines, which they have no intention of ceasing to do. No official confirmation yet, though.)
- Mongoose is undecided
- Adamant Entertainment sound very sceptical, but haven't officially announced anything yet
-
EN Publishing had serious problems with the $5000 fee and the business license requirement prior to the new announcement. Both issues seem to be resolved, as they are clearly among those who have received the new license. With a 4th Edition War of the Burning Sky confirmed, EN is IN.
Privateer Press has nothing on their website, and I'm going to bet they are out. You'd expect at least some sign, at least a mention that they were at the meeting, if they had any real intention of signing up.
I tend to agree. Their bread and butter is no longer RPGs and mainly for that reason, they have little incentive to sign up. I won't, however, update the first post until that's a little more official.
Link to ENWorld
1) WoTC doesn't have to make advance access to the OGL available at all. They could even kill the OGL entirely, if they really wanted to. I'm glad they haven't.
2) For at least 2 years WoTC has been working on a product (and putting tremendous recourses into it) that has not yet brought a dime of profit, until the preview books. (I shelled out $20 for Races and Classes, and I know I'm not the only one.) I'm willing to bet that Hasbro has put pressure on them to start making money on this thing.
3) They've got a point. I can see why they'd rather avoid a glut of 3rd party material right out of the gate. It's harsh, but the fee is a way of limiting this to publishers who are serious about making a quality product, and making sure that somebody doesn't misuse the opportunity. C'mon, what would you do if you had a chance to get the SRD next week as opposed to this summer? For free? Or if you did have to pay, how much would it be worth to you?
They also have to be careful, or they're going to have the whole SRD plastered all over the internet in a matter of hours. If you think that's a can of worms, keep in mind that it's a pre-publication version of the SRD. We all know how the denizens of the interwebs love to take every ball and run with it off the field, and then make huge jumps to conclusions. Now give them a comprehensive but unfinished SRD to play with.
Yeah.No, it's not ideal, but I can't really blame WoTC, and I can't really blame any of the OGL publishers regardless of which way they go. If they're sure they can get something good in time to take it to Gen Con, then they can recoup the fee this year. If not, well, it's probably not worth it. Money is tight these days, especially in this business.
And that's all I am going to say about that for the moment ;) .
Sword and Sorcery has not a single thing on their site concerning 4e. You would think with the partnership of companies they would be interested.
I hope the companies don't copy the 3ed path releasing feats classes spells monsters, and this time around stick to settings, and adventure paths.
Malhavoc press sounds like they are out. Monte has from what it sounds like a 2ed player complaining about 3rd. Even though his own friends are designing it.
Sword and Sorcery has not a single thing on their site concerning 4e. You would think with the partnership of companies they would be interested.
Nobody who's been paying attention of late would be surprised by either of these things. (I just reread that and it's not meant to sound as insulting as it might come across!) Malhavoc has been out of the scene since Ptolus came out, for all practical purposes, and never indicated the slightest interest in 4E. I haven't heard of S&S, as distinct from its various imprints, doing much of anything lately either, and in any event that would be a decision made at a fairly high level of White Wolf; they weren't in on the big conference call last week, that I know.
As part of a small group of designers that love putting out quality d20 material I very much want to be able to put out 4e material asap. Unfortunately, as a small group that does this in our spare time, we're not really making money at it yet (although issue 10 of Claw / Claw / Bite is selling quite well), and certainly can't afford $5k.
But at least they're making noises about releasing it to the general public in a year. It gives us plenty of time to convert our adventures to 4e before we can put them out, too, so there's a little silver lining there.
I have debated not saying this at all, but I am highly opposed to this marketing plunge of doom. If the general public knew that this kind of corporate stinginess was happening openly in front of them (especially us web nerds who are just so involved in this kind of stuff that it hurts), they would not condone it whatsoever.
I understand the corporate policies at Hasbro, and I am completely opposed to their external business ethics.
Let's talk about Scrabble and Scrabulous, shall we?
Please see www.scrabulous.com. Now also be aware that this game pulls in over 500,000 unique users a day on Facebook.com alone. This little online device (nothing more than some data on a machine) has deserved these two Indian developers not fame - but infamy. They are now being outright sued by Hasbro and Mattel (the co-owners of national/international rights to the Scrabble line) for what could have been a major marketing investment made on their part. Intellectual Property law aside, this was the opportunity for a major corporation (or two) to step up to the plate, and give these guys the creative credit they deserve. Not only did they not embrace - in a proactive approach - the possibilities of success within this project; instead of acting like civilized human beings and trying to work out some sort of system for the application to continue being successful, we take the less work-oriented route: we'll sue the living snot out of their indie butts. Good job, Hasbro. Great Marketing there, Mattel. Feel good about that, do ya?
This is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, but let me state openly that my background is in multinational design business, and I have learned the ins and outs of what constitutes good business ethics well enough to know that I oppose these companies' actions.
Now that we have established that they like to squash the little guys in favor of a profit margin, let's inspect our own investment in their company over these last few decades...
How much money have you spent in d20 or D&D products? How about Magic cards? How about board games? Have any good memories of playing?
Good. Because it's not about that anymore. It's about one good thing: our little green papers.
http://elftown.com/~xido (diary entry about my views).
Now, let's get one thing straight here: I AM that little guy. I am in the process of getting together material that I have been planning out for ten years to self-publish our content, and maybe make enough funds to produce a cool multimedia product that would be coordinated with D&D material. Good idea, right? Great plan for a blooming entrepreneur, I would think...
Apparently I have to have been born a rich man. I shelled out $100 to NewFuntiers.com to have them review my content in 2006, only to be told that Wizards was not in any way looking for new material... Why? 4th edition, of course. Understandable, but harsh.
Now 5,000 bones?!?!?! DUDE...!?!?!
So my dreams of becoming a professional should be shattered because Wizards wants me to PAY them and HASBRO for the rights? They're lucky I don't do it all by myself, and not tell them at all, in my opinion. I just so happen to be one of the people out there in the growing business world with morals, so help me God. Pirating in the name of ethics is still piracy, but damn, dude, what's a guy gotta do in a ransacked global economy like ours? Bow to the man? Is that right in any form? Why? Why should we accept this level of drudgery in the creative field?
In my opinion, this fee is not only rude, it is a complete hypocrisy, and a statement about our value to the people at Hasbro, Inc.
As an RPGA member, I was astounded to know that my edition of D&D would soon be moot, and that I would have to completely re-invest my money to save my games. Now this?
Please.......
Wizards.com, tell Hasbro they can shove it!
And what do the original D&D creators think of this BS? What are their stances in this fiasco? What are their views?
I am sickened to know that only a week and a half ago, I heard back from Wizards Corporate, and they expressed a light interest in my ideas. Now the two Agarwallas are getting sued, when they should be rolling in dough? This is what IP law has led us to... Andy Warhol, hear our plea.
Sorry, I cannot accept that as ethically responsible. I simply can't.
Best wishes to you all,
-will, WFR Guild Lead Moderator and Organizer
http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/xidoravenstudios
http://elftown.com/_xidoraven%20studios
http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/wfrguild
2. Phase 1: I hope then to see your works, in I believe January, when the fee is no longer required.
Having said that, Scrabulous is a pretty blatant use of another company's IP. I realize game rules aren't copyrightable, but that is by no means the end of the matter - the board layout, for example, can legitimately be both copyrighted and trademarked as far as I can see (IANAL and all that, of course). It's at least not obvious that suing over it is in any way illegitimate.
I am a creative designer, and a business major in online schools. This is a highly controversial matter, I agree, and I am sure that my own credibility may be at stake with these statements, but as a human being, and someone who does not have an extra five grand to shell out at Wizards' whims, I find this highly disrespectful to me as a consumer.
Bad enough to put us as gamers in a bad position, but now they have to have a monopoly on a market that they created and evolved? And what about marketing tactics? Just because Mattel and Hasbro share IP on a product, that means that they can turn their backs on us as independent designers, simply because it's not on THEIR agenda?
I'm sorry, I just don't find that pleasing to think about as a long-time consumer of Hasbro products. It's bad business ethics to put money above opportunity to gain a market presence and consumer trust. Ask Coke and Tylenol, they'll tell you the same thing. It's been proven in the past.
Sorry if I've slandered your thread. Please let me know where this content can be moved, so as not to impose.
Thanks and best wishes to you all,
-will
The Topic is Who's On Board, and Here's someone who actually wants to do what Many of Use have dreamed of Doing for Years. Being a Published D&D Author, talking out about whats stopping them from Doing So.
New Blood into the Accessories Market keeps D&D alive, Not Ruleook after Rulebook. After All Accessories are what save DMs from Having to do Everything else in the Game.
Rulebooks don't provide Towns, People, Encounters. They just define the Process for Doing so in Game Mechanics
I Own Dundjinni and CCPRO and CC3, yet I still Use Maps Created for Adventures from Publishers and Fellow Cartographers because If I spent all my time mapping I would not have time to Play.
I Use Artwork from Books and Publishers Because I suck as an Artist. Yet I still like to give Faces to Noteable NPCS and Magic Items do appear different from Time to Time. Monsters need to be shown once in Awhile
I'm sorry if I seemed to be thread-crapping. That was not my intention.
I am a creative designer, and a business major in online schools. This is a highly controversial matter, I agree, and I am sure that my own credibility may be at stake with these statements, but as a human being, and someone who does not have an extra five grand to shell out at Wizards' whims, I find this highly disrespectful to me as a consumer.
Bad enough to put us as gamers in a bad position, but now they have to have a monopoly on a market that they created and evolved? And what about marketing tactics? Just because Mattel and Hasbro share IP on a product, that means that they can turn their backs on us as independent designers, simply because it's not on THEIR agenda?
I'm sorry, I just don't find that pleasing to think about as a long-time consumer of Hasbro products. It's bad business ethics to put money above opportunity to gain a market presence and consumer trust. Ask Coke and Tylenol, they'll tell you the same thing. It's been proven in the past.
Sorry if I've slandered your thread. Please let me know where this content can be moved, so as not to impose.
Thanks and best wishes to you all,
-will
Just a couple of comments as someone who has worked with several game designers over the years.
First, this is about designers , not the end customer. This move is actually better for WotC and their customers. It's the small designers that are chaffing, and these folks would be better served by waiting for the free access to the licensing.
Second, WotC made a revolutionary move by opening up parts of their IP to independent developers for 3.0. This had never been done in the RPG industry. In fact, it's still not doesn't in most of the industry.
Most other companies require your to obtain (purchase) a license for the IP, before you can develop and release. Honestly WotC and Hasbro are still being VERY generous with their IP. (Track down anyone who has used a licensed IP and ask them about cost and IP owners controls over their products.)
Also, lets take a look at the 3.0 launch. Another company that will remain nameless actively tried to compete with WotC directly and released a Monster Manual before the 3.0 Monster Manual was released. Also there ended up being a glut of poorly thought out products, and some just bad products. Some companies actually went under (or nearly did) trying to get onto the D20 bandwagon without taking it very seriously.
The $5k has been openly stated as a deterrent for development companies who are not serious about releasing quality product at release. In reality, this also deters companies who may not have the initial capital to commit to a full release of a product. If a company can't scrape $5k in licensing costs, how are they going to afford printing, distribution and advertising?
Finally, the $5K is only for releasing products this year. In summer (believe) the OGL becomes public and designers will be able to release product in January. This gives small companies with little capital to view the market to see if their financial risk will be worthwhile.
From a business perspective, the $5K makes a lot of sense. Unfortunate most RPG designers (not including you or myself) lack business savvy. This can cause a lot of problems for the designers themselves, and indirectly (and for a short period) the industry as a whole.
Also, lets take a look at the 3.0 launch. Another company that will remain nameless actively tried to compete with WotC directly and released a Monster Manual before the 3.0 Monster Manual was released.
No need for them to remain nameless. That makes it sound like we did something bad, which we absolutely didnt do. It was me. It was the Creature Collection. I produced it for Sword and Sorcery Studios (White Wolf's division for making D&D products).
Yes, we beat the official MM to game stores. It was a huge success. Done with the absolute permission of Wizards, by the way. Steve Wieck of WW talked to Ryan Dancey about it before its release.
AND IT WAS HERALDED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SUCCESS OF THE OGL by Ryan Dancey. He paraded around the Wizard's offices showing the thing off saying "see, the OGL is working."
For goodness sake, the OGL got a long time competitor (White Wolf) to make a product supporting Wizard's industry dominating game! It was amazing. It was genius by Ryan and it was brilliant by us to be there and to be poised to do something at launch.
And guess what, Wizards didnt sell ANY FEWER copies of the official Monster Manual as a result of our book. Not one. In fact, it helped generate interest in the game and broadened its appeal. Remember, like with 4E, there were a lot of people back then saying they would never play 3E (sound familiar?). The third party publishers, by doing things a bit different and offering a bit different flavor, brought more people to the 3E launch.
Please keep that in mind. I know. I was there.
Clark Peterson
Necromancer Games.
Another company that will remain nameless actively tried to compete with WotC directly and released a Monster Manual before the 3.0 Monster Manual was released.
By the way, its not "competing" when you are a licensee. We were making products that supported D&D.
We were permitted to make products under the license. In fact, the "gentleperson's agreement" that Ryan sent out and that we operated under for over a year before the OGL was finalized was addressed to me personally and specifically gave us permission to make products. Yes, Ryan Dancey, the head of D&D at the time. He authorized it. He liked it. Just ask him.
Competing is what White Wolf does with Vampire/World of Darkness and other games that try to take market share from Wizards and D&D by making players buy and play those games as opposed to games made by Wizards. Yet, the genius of the license was to convert competitors of Wizards to supporters. Ryan is a visionary, and a forceful personality.
By the way, I have a great relationship with Wizards (Scott, Linae, etc) and I am 100% convinced they are behind third party support and that they will help the third party publishers support D&D.
I cant wait to see what the GSL does. I think some changes were in order and I think they are making the right ones.
Clark
Paizo.com
Was the SRD made available recently, because Paizo's site has been overrun by little green men with torches; it's sort of how I envisioned a 4E decision process, really. :D
Paizo.com
Apparently Paizo has decided to largely remain with D&D 3.5 as they are launching an open playtest of the Pathfinder RPG that will proceed in stages (final release will be next year). They will support 4E thru products made by their partner Necromancer Games.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG
the 4EOGLGSL (as it will now be called)
I just started seeing this change in terminology, and I recently saw this post by Erik Mona on the Paizo boards:
I've seen this repeated a few places, and I wanted to step in and clear something up. No company has actually paid the $5000 up-front fee. Many of us have let Wizards know we would like to do so, but shortly after it was announced the OGL became the GSL and then vanished back on the drawing board.
So no company is out the $5000 up-front fee, because no company paid it.
--Erik
(The quoted post appears in this thread.)
I recall seeing an article posted on the WotC site a while back (ah, yes, here it is) explaining the process, but nothing since then about any changes. Could someone fill me (and the rest of us) in on what's going on?
The 4E OGL article that was posted back in January said this:
Phase One
The first phase of the 4th Edition developer materials release will be marked by the January 2008 availability of the OGL Designer’s Kit. This kit is designed for independent publishers looking to obtain early access to 4th Edition rules in order to develop compatible products to release just after the 4th Edition launch. These publishers will pay a one-time fee of $5,000.00 USD for access to the OGL Designer’s Kit, which includes first looks at the 4th Edition rulebooks, the SRD, final galleys and more.
The OGL Designer’s kit includes:
Pre-publication versions of the 4th Edition rulebooks:
4th Edition Player’s Handbook
4th Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide
4th Edition Monster Manual
Pre-publication version of the System Reference Document (SRD)
Open Gaming License (OGL)
License Guide
FAQ
Registration Card
Updated documents as the rules are finessed and finalized
Final galleys including typeset text and artwork
Advanced copies of the finished core rulebooks
Developers purchasing the OGL Designer’s Kit will receive updated pre-publication versions of the 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons core rules through the time of launch. They will also receive the right to publish OGL products on August 1, 2008, five months earlier than the general public.
Parties interested in the OGL Designer’s Kit must possess a business license and execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to contract communications.
Judging by Erik Mona's comments, quoted above, I gather that the OGL Designer's Kit was NOT released in January, as planned. And, also, that the OGL has undergone changes. Do we know any more than that?
I just started seeing this change in terminology, and I recently saw this post by Erik Mona on the Paizo boards:
(The quoted post appears in this thread.)
I recall seeing an article posted on the WotC site a while back (ah, yes, here it is) explaining the process, but nothing since then about any changes. Could someone fill me (and the rest of us) in on what's going on?
The 4E OGL article that was posted back in January said this:
Judging by Erik Mona's comments, quoted above, I gather that the OGL Designer's Kit was NOT released in January, as planned. And, also, that the OGL has undergone changes. Do we know any more than that?
You've just given pretty much all the information that is currently available, to the best of my current knowledge. No-one knows what the current delay is about, and everyone's POed about it, including, to the extent they can comment, those WotC people who've had to deal with the results.
There is much speculation on ENWorld that the GSL is being deliberately killed, but personally I'm very much of the "cockup before conspiracy" mentality; or in other words, never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. (For one thing, if they wanted to kill it they could do so just by announcing that it was dead. There'd be no need for whatever legal nonsense is currently going on.) I would assume they just noticed at the last moment that they'd messed up the license in some respect or other, possibly due to Hasbro either getting involved, or having been involved from the get-go but not having understood RPGs.
It still sucks, though, and it still doesn't reflect well on WotC/Hasbro; it's not like this just snuck up on them one day.
Thanks for the info! One more thing, though: what does GSL stand for? That's one little tidbit that I still haven't found.
Game System License
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218095
The informed speculation over at EN world is that WoTC will be wording the GSL so that 3rd party publishers cannot produce whole games under the license that don't require use of the 4e PHB, DMG etc. Indeed, I think Scott Rouse has specifically stated this; they want to suppress things like the alternate PHBs that came out under d20/OGL etc.
I just hope they don't also stop 3rd party companies making supplements or enlarging the rules as well, because these are the profitable parts of the RPG publishing industry; making adventures is not very profitable according industry insiders posting on EN world.
The change in name from OGL to GSL suggests a significant change to the agreement; so that no-one can pretend that there is any connection between them. So GSL is probably not going to be a slightly tweaked OGL.
The informed speculation over at EN world is that WoTC will be wording the GSL so that 3rd party publishers cannot produce whole games under the license that don't require use of the 4e PHB, DMG etc. Indeed, I think Scott Rouse has specifically stated this; they want to suppress things like the alternate PHBs that came out under d20/OGL etc.
I just hope they don't also stop 3rd party companies making supplements or enlarging the rules as well, because these are the profitable parts of the RPG publishing industry; making adventures is not very profitable according industry insiders posting on EN world.
Is this aimed more at things like Arcana Unearthed and Iron Heroes or Paizo's upcoming Pathfinder RPG?
I also think that CHhead could be right about the printers issues; it could just be a **** up.
It looks like GSL is indeed aimed at stopping things like Pathfinder/arcana evolved etc. And maybe other stuff as well. I would be willing to bet that d20 standalone games will certainly be out under GSL. What else will be disallowed, only time will tell.
I was drawing a distinction between Pathfinder and Arcana Evolved, though maybe there really isn't one. Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes were alternate player's handbooks that co-existed with 3.0/3.5 on the shelves, and didn't necessarily preclude people from buying WotC's other D&D stuff, since they were all (at least theoretically) compatible. Now, though, a company is using the OGL to breathe life into a product that WotC has decided to kill, thereby perpetuating in the market a competing product that is incompatible with 4E D&D. For that reason, I can see Pathfinder as being more nettlesome than the earlier products. But did that distinction play any part in the decision to change the license?
I was drawing a distinction between Pathfinder and Arcana Evolved, though maybe there really isn't one. Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes were alternate player's handbooks that co-existed with 3.0/3.5 on the shelves, and didn't necessarily preclude people from buying WotC's other D&D stuff, since they were all (at least theoretically) compatible. Now, though, a company is using the OGL to breathe life into a product that WotC has decided to kill, thereby perpetuating in the market a competing product that is incompatible with 4E D&D. For that reason, I can see Pathfinder as being more nettlesome than the earlier products. But did that distinction play any part in the decision to change the license?
PRobably not since Paizo isn't going to use the new license for Pathfinder and the old license is non-revokable.
It's much more likely WotC ran into trouble with Hasbro executive/corporate legal team. By trouble I mean maddening delays and requirements for changes which are taking days and weeks rather than minutes and hours.
PRobably not since Paizo isn't going to use the new license for Pathfinder and the old license is non-revokable.
It's much more likely WotC ran into trouble with Hasbro executive/corporate legal team. By trouble I mean maddening delays and requirements for changes which are taking days and weeks rather than minutes and hours.
But that's what I mean. They didn't want a repeat of this, so they wanted to make sure the 4E license was much more limited. But what I wonder is how much is included in the "this" that they wanted to prevent: ALL alternate player's handbooks, or just the ones that can keep a previous system alive after WotC has decided to abandon it?
But what I wonder is how much is included in the "this" that they wanted to prevent: ALL alternate player's handbooks, or just the ones that can keep a previous system alive after WotC has decided to abandon it?
I'm not a legal expert, but this is how I see it: Any systems using the previous OGL can continue to do so, as SillyRobot said, the OGL is non-revokable. Which means that some companies could continue to produce 3.5 materials if they elected not to upgrade to the GSL. As to whether the new GSL is going to be aimed at preventing 3rd party 'core' books remains to be seen.
Personally, I will have to be waiting until Phase 2 to get involved with development due to unforseen circumstance that were beyond my control, but hopefully by then I'll have the resources available to produce some quality accessories for D&D 4e!
But that's what I mean. They didn't want a repeat of this, so they wanted to make sure the 4E license was much more limited. But what I wonder is how much is included in the "this" that they wanted to prevent: ALL alternate player's handbooks, or just the ones that can keep a previous system alive after WotC has decided to abandon it?
For that we'll have to wait until the GSL is finally ready. The speculation is the GSL will be limited to prvent the creation of all alternate game systems, but it is just speculation.
I thought I'd clear something up; you say that it is speculation that GSL will prevent alternate player's handbooks, but on the EN World Forums, Scott Rouse specifically admits in a post that the GSL IS being designed to do this.
The speculation is about how much other stuff they will restrict, especially the DDI and other digital tech.
Also, the idea that the standalone d20 games "don't bother WoTC" is not true; they did not want this kind of product being made under OGL and the sales did affect or in some way irritate them (we don't know why they cared but they did).
Hi SillyRobot,
I thought I'd clear something up; you say that it is speculation that GSL will prevent alternate player's handbooks, but on the EN World Forums, Scott Rouse specifically admits in a post that the GSL IS being designed to do this.
The speculation is about how much other stuff they will restrict, especially the DDI and other digital tech.
Also, the idea that the standalone d20 games "don't bother WoTC" is not true; they did not want this kind of product being made under OGL and the sales did affect or in some way irritate them (we don't know why they cared but they did).
So far as I know, the most restrictive thing said regarding the GSL is tbe folowing:
The new version of the OGL isn’t as open-ended as the current version. Any 4e OGL product must use the 4e PHB as the basis of their game. If they can’t use the core rule books, it won’t be possible to create the game under this particular version of the OGL.
Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, may make certain games possible where they weren’t before.
That threatens a level of additional restriction, but the effect of that restriction won't be known until the license is available for view. The version WotC had in January is probably different than their current draft.
Don't get me wrong; I expect a more restrictive license with stipulations preventing the construction of alternative rulesets, interactive material, and character generators. I just recognise I'm speculating until such time at WotC manages to release a document they promised would be complete in January.
[SIZE="3"]
- Paizo is OUT. They will be releasing a Pathfinder role-playing system of their own, under the old OGL, and mostly backwards-compatible with 3.5.
Paizo continuing to work on Pathfinder does not necessarily mean that they are out. They fixed their Pathfinder line (the adventure path products) to their Pathfinder game, but didn't declare something about their other lines.
My gut feeling is that we will see Paizo products under the 4e GSL, but they won't use the Pathfinder label.
---
Huldvoll
Baron von Bomberg
Paizo continuing to work on Pathfinder does not necessarily mean that they are out. They fixed their Pathfinder line (the adventure path products) to their Pathfinder game, but didn't declare something about their other lines.
My gut feeling is that we will see Paizo products under the 4e GSL, but they won't use the Pathfinder label.
---
Huldvoll
Baron von Bomberg
Not to be rude but I haven't the slightest interest in anyone's "gut feeling". Do you know of an official announcement (or other solid information) to this effect? This question is especially pressing in light of the recent discussions (so far, neither confirmed nor denied by WotC, but I haven't read everything yet) to the effect that using the GSL may exclude a company from using the OGL. If true, that would push Paizo and Green Ronin right out of the GSL market as well as put Nick Logue's newly announced imprint in a whole new light.
Not to be rude but I haven't the slightest interest in anyone's "gut feeling". Do you know of an official announcement (or other solid information) to this effect? This question is especially pressing in light of the recent discussions (so far, neither confirmed nor denied by WotC, but I haven't read everything yet) to the effect that using the GSL may exclude a company from using the OGL. If true, that would push Paizo and Green Ronin right out of the GSL market as well as put Nick Logue's newly announced imprint in a whole new light.
Well ... I, too, will try not to be rude.
I haven't the time to post a link for you, but I have read posts by Paizo employees (Mona, Jacobs, one other) on the Paizo forum stating that they remain very interested in publishing 4E material. But not under their Pathfinder line.
Will they move into 4E? Like anyone with a modicum of intelligence, they will wait to see the GSL, both versions, first.
Never mind!! After reading just a bit further in this very sub-forum ... it's starting to look like you can go 3E or 4E but not both. It appears some interesting things are embedded in these new GSLs. It may be (if what I read elsewhere here is correct) that publishing even ONE 4E-compatible product will remove your right to ever publish 3E-compatible material again.
Well ... WOTC is a company after all. And Hasbro is a corporation. This isn't really surprising. Is it??
Not to be rude but I haven't the slightest interest in anyone's "gut feeling". Do you know of an official announcement (or other solid information) to this effect? This question is especially pressing in light of the recent discussions (so far, neither confirmed nor denied by WotC, but I haven't read everything yet) to the effect that using the GSL may exclude a company from using the OGL. If true, that would push Paizo and Green Ronin right out of the GSL market as well as put Nick Logue's newly announced imprint in a whole new light.
Any official announcement would've been invalidated by now. I was replying to your statement that Paizo is out, because they release their own ruleset. At the time when I was writing my post that was just faulty logic.
But anyway, you're of cause welcome to put me on Ignore...
Baron von Bomberg
Any official announcement would've been invalidated by now. I was replying to your statement that Paizo is out, because they release their own ruleset. At the time when I was writing my post that was just faulty logic.
No, it absolutely wasn't. You're forgetting the original context of that statement. At the time, there was a much sharper distinction between being in on phase 1 and not being in on phase 1 (hence original point of this whole thread); it made the difference between being able to release products in August and not being able to release products until 2009. To take full advantage of the former would have required having products ready for August and on Paizo's development schedule, that simply wasn't realistic anymore. At the time that was written, it absolutely was the case that Pathfinder represented a decision not to be an early adopter of the GSL.
At the time that was written, it absolutely was the case that Pathfinder represented a decision not to be an early adopter of the GSL.
Where did they say this?
That seems to be the case. My hopes for publishing KQ with both 3E and 4E content seem to be crushed completely.
Now I need to figure out whether OD continues with 3E, shifts to 4E at some point, or stops entirely. I'll be announcing the next Open Design on May 1, which seems a fine time to gauge the level of support for various options.
I don't know. This deliberate fracturing of the RPG market pisses me off. It's good for WotC, and bad for gamers.
(source:Open Design LiveJournal