4 ms·

Paizo now might be able to, but Paizo wouldn't be what they are with a) the OGL and b) WotCs backing. I can't believe any scenario where WotC goes to D&D 4th ed

by mhd 4y ago

Paizo now might be able to, but Paizo wouldn't be what they are with a) the OGL and b) WotCs backing. I can't believe any scenario where WotC goes to D&D 4th edition, and some company just makes a continuation of 3rd edition the way Pathfinder did while sticking to legally distinct but compatible. The game would either be way to close legally, or read too different. But, of course, IANAL. What Paizo would or could do now is a different matter. They might say that PF 2E is distinct enough, especially if some 2.5E thing would remove some remaining verbiage or direct lifts from old OGL material. They might also just do a deal with WotC. Gates and Jobs at Tanagra.

trynewideas 4y ago
They never should have OGL'd PF 2E. There was no reason. If they were making a breaking system update, they could've made the changes to do without it. WotC doesn't have a copyright on using a 20-sided die or else no game would exist. Dumbest decision I've seen Paizo make since the last one.
- Macha 4y ago
  I mean, I think they were probably genuinely thinking about their own origin and not closing that off for others. Or it could be just that it's good PR to appear as much. So they kept with the license that'd let them mix with the existing OGL ecosystem where it made sense. In retrospect if that was their goal, it would have made sense to use a different copyleft license for the open content that did not include a clause that paints Wizards as the body to update the license, especially given the mechanics of using PF 1E content in 2E requires subjective decision making compared to the relatively automatic 3.5 -> PF1E or PF1E -> SF compatibility.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    Making breaking changes to the OGL-covered system defeats the purpose of making the succeeding content OGL-compatible. If PF2E content required conversion anyway, and they were writing an entirely new core rulebook for those new rules, there was no reason to retain the OGL.
    - Macha 4y ago
      I think the concern was if someone had released the fluff for a adventure or class or something under the OGL, then if you went and did a conversion of that for 2E and wanted to release it you'd have to do it under the OGL, but presumably you'd also want to use content from the PF 2E rulebook which would require you to use its open license, which would be a problem if that wasn't OGL. It's basically like the problem with GPL-incompatible open source licenses.
- dmonitor 4y ago
  The purpose for keeping the OGL with pf2e was: 1. simplify things for 3rd party publishers. rather than worry about multiple licenses, just publish under the same one as pathfinder 1e, 3.5e, and 5e, that they already know like the back of their hand 2. save costs. writing a new license is expensive. it apparently would have delayed release of the pf2e system and significantly increased the cost 3. cover their ass just in case WotC thinks pf2e is still too similar to d&d there’s really no way they could have foreseen a rugpull like this. everyone thought the OGL was ironclad until yesterday. hindsight is 20/20 though.

by mhd 4y ago

trynewideas 4y ago

They never should have OGL'd PF 2E. There was no reason. If they were making a breaking system update, they could've made the changes to do without it. WotC doesn't have a copyright on using a 20-sided die or else no game would exist. Dumbest decision I've seen Paizo make since the last one.

Macha 4y ago
I mean, I think they were probably genuinely thinking about their own origin and not closing that off for others. Or it could be just that it's good PR to appear as much. So they kept with the license that'd let them mix with the existing OGL ecosystem where it made sense. In retrospect if that was their goal, it would have made sense to use a different copyleft license for the open content that did not include a clause that paints Wizards as the body to update the license, especially given the mechanics of using PF 1E content in 2E requires subjective decision making compared to the relatively automatic 3.5 -> PF1E or PF1E -> SF compatibility.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  Making breaking changes to the OGL-covered system defeats the purpose of making the succeeding content OGL-compatible. If PF2E content required conversion anyway, and they were writing an entirely new core rulebook for those new rules, there was no reason to retain the OGL.
  - Macha 4y ago
    I think the concern was if someone had released the fluff for a adventure or class or something under the OGL, then if you went and did a conversion of that for 2E and wanted to release it you'd have to do it under the OGL, but presumably you'd also want to use content from the PF 2E rulebook which would require you to use its open license, which would be a problem if that wasn't OGL. It's basically like the problem with GPL-incompatible open source licenses.
dmonitor 4y ago
The purpose for keeping the OGL with pf2e was: 1. simplify things for 3rd party publishers. rather than worry about multiple licenses, just publish under the same one as pathfinder 1e, 3.5e, and 5e, that they already know like the back of their hand 2. save costs. writing a new license is expensive. it apparently would have delayed release of the pf2e system and significantly increased the cost 3. cover their ass just in case WotC thinks pf2e is still too similar to d&d there’s really no way they could have foreseen a rugpull like this. everyone thought the OGL was ironclad until yesterday. hindsight is 20/20 though.