From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

Source: https://www.wargamer.com/pathfinder/license-changes-OGL-controversy

DnDrCOs top rival Pathfinder rolls back controversial license changes

Paizo, publisher of Dungeons and DragonsrCO alter ego RPG Pathfinder, has retconned planned changes to its game licenses after fan feedback.


Alex Evans
Dungeons and Dragons Pathfinder Starfinder

Pathfinder and Starfinder RPG publisher Paizo has rescinded a planned
change to its game license policies, after community members raised
concerns about fan-made publications and game tools being disallowed due
to copyright conflicts.

Paizo shared the decision in a blog statement on Thursday, telling fans:
rCLIn July, we terminated PaizorCOs long-standing Community Use Policy (CUP) and replaced it with a new Fan Content Policy (FCP). This was an error,
and werCOre taking steps to rectify that today.rCY

The 15-year-old CUP had previously allowed fans to publish their
tabletop roleplaying game projects using a wide variety of Paizo
intellectual property (IP) however and wherever they liked, so long as
they offered them for free, and followed a few minor rules and disclaimers.

But the FCP, announced and launched on July 22, changed that, permitting
fans certain new rights to make money from their own physical merch
creations using Paizo IP rCo but also preventing them from publishing RPG content (like rulebooks or adventure books) with Paizo lore in them,
unless they did it on PaizorCOs own, licensed rCyInfiniterCO storefronts.

PaizorCOs statement on Thursday, August 22 goes back on that by
reinstating the CUP alongside the new FCP, meaning independent creators
can continue publishing Pathfinder and Starfinder content using Paizo
lore under the old rules, so long as itrCOs free rCo the FCP will only apply if yourCOre looking to profit off your work.

rCLWe have not changed the permissions granted by the policy,rCY Paizo confirms in the statement rCo adding that rCLthis change will allow existing Community Use Policy projects to continue to operate as they have for
over a decade.rCY

And Paizo says itrCOs now working to ensure the FCP takes into account the various, complex issues that sprang up in the wake of the initial July
22 announcement: rCLWith the Community Use Policy restored, we can refine
the Fan Content Policy to more clearly define what commercial uses are
allowed under what conditions and using which elements of our
intellectual property.

rCLWe will make our intended revisions and updates to the Fan Content
Policy and let the community know when the new version is available.rCY

Paizo Director of Brand Strategy Mark Moreland has since posted on the
blog that rCLWe will be going into the FCP and making updates and
revisions now that it no longer needs to do (most of) what the CUP does
as well as the new things it does that the CUP never did.rCY

rCLOur priority was getting the CUP back up and in effect so that content creators didnrCOt have to worry about the fates of their existing
projects,rCY he adds.

PaizorCOs fans have known about the firmrCOs intention to bring all new fan-made rCyfinder RPG publishing into its own Infinite storefronts for months, part of the firmrCOs campaign to divest itself and its games from Wizards of the CoastrCOs now infamous DnD Open Game License.

The recent controversy came about more because of the additional
restrictions the plan placed on creators looking to keep publishing
projects for the previous, first editions of Pathfinder and Starfinder,
both of which include various materials still tied into the Dungeons and Dragons OGL.

In the initial July 22 announcement, Director of Brand Strategy Mark
Moreland said that, while all existing content would remain on their
platform, Infinite storefronts would no longer accept any new RPG
products referencing the OGL, starting September 1 rCo including the
majority of lore content from the first editions of both Pathfinder and Starfinder.

The apparent upshot? From September 1, fans would no longer be able to
publish content for Pathfinder 1e or Starfinder 1e through PaizorCOs
official marketplace, and (unless it was just for rCLpersonal userCY) they wouldnrCOt be legally allowed to publish them anywhere else, either rCo even for free rCo without breaching copyright.

And, without the CUP giving fans the right to publish their free
Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder 1e-derived content on third party
marketplaces like DriveThruRPG, the floodgates were opened for fansrCO panicked questions on which parts of the older gamesrCO lore belonged to Wizards under the OGL, which to Paizo, and which were original creations
rCo as well as what would happen to any creator found in breach.

Three weeks of spirited debate and constant questioning ensued on
PaizorCOs forums, with Mark Moreland fielding dozens of inquiries about exactly which lore elements rCo down to individual terms and uses rCo would still be allowed, and how various popular game tools and add-ons
published under the CUP would be affected.

Moreland also reiterated PaizorCOs motives, posting on July 23 that rCLthere are many reasons, but the primary one is that we do not want any new
content using our IP to be associated with the OGL,rCY adding: rCLWe have
seen what can happen when the fate of our games (and to a lesser extent settings) and therefore our livelihoods are inextricably linked to
another companyrCOs IP.rCY

rCLNow that we have a complete game (comprised of the four Remaster core books) for Pathfinder Second Edition, and a complete game coming next
year for Starfinder Second Edition, which we fully own, it is not in the
best interest of our brands to continue entangling our IP with the OGL,rCY
he said.

rCLIf there are creators who want to keep doing so, they can use the OGL
for their own releases the same as they always could, just not in a
product or on a platform that uses our non-OGL IP.rCY

By July 25, the Paizo forum thread on the license change announcement
had already seen over 200 comments, raising issues with the changes rCo including the potential impacts on translated versions of Pathfinder and Starfinder; integrations with virtual tabletops like FoundryVTT; and
more. Moreland clarified in several posts that all these issues were
being investigated and would be addressed in forthcoming FAQs for the
new license.

But, after Gen Con in the first week of August (and several hundred more
forum comments from worried fans) this translated into the decision to reinstate the CUP and further iterate the FCP instead rCo which has gained
an immediate positive reaction from fans.

Whether Paizo intends to change its mind about continuing to support
first edition Pathfinder and Starfinder content through its first-party Infinite storefront remains an open question, and is not mentioned in
its August 22 statement.

If yourCOre not too familiar with Pathfinder, itrCOs essentially DnDrCOs crunchier, more rules-intensive cousin rCo originally released in 2009 as
a kind of spin-off from Dungeons and Dragons 3.5e rCo read our Pathfinder
vs. DnD guide for the full breakdown. For a bit more in-game detail, try
our guides to the Pathfinder classes and Pathfinder races (a.k.a.
Ancestries).

And, if you havenrCOt already, check out our exclusive first look at the upcoming, magic school-themed Pathfinder expansion, Lost Omens: Rival Academies.

Alex Evans Alex is the gaming omnivore, clumsy escapist, and
award-winning nerd whorCOs captained the good ship Wargamer from its 2021 relaunch to now. He has a degree in Politics and a MasterrCOs in
International Journalism, but failed his cycling proficiency test twice.
He speaks (mostly) fluent German, believes all things are political, and
is tragically, hopelessly in love with Warhammer 40k. When not pressing buttons at Wargamer HQ, you can often find him impatiently painting miniatures; half-finishing strategy board games against himself; or
drinking lager in the bath with a Horus Heresy audiobook playing.
Previously Chief Germanist for Green Man Gaming. DnD alignment: Lawful
Good. He/Him.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 23:13:58 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

Source: https://www.wargamer.com/pathfinder/license-changes-OGL-controversy

DnDAs top rival Pathfinder rolls back controversial license changes

Paizo, publisher of Dungeons and DragonsA alter ego RPG Pathfinder, has >retconned planned changes to its game licenses after fan feedback.

The first thought that went through my head was that the WOTC lawyers,
having lost their job after the OGL fiasco, got hired at Paizo. I
mean, that's not what happened, but it was my first impression.

I mean, how else could Paizo make such a bone-headed move after
watching WOTC crash onto those same rocks?

Still, I get it. Paizo made it big largely as a result of D&D 4E's unpopularity. Their fortunes have been dwindling since 5E was
overwhelmingly welcomed by the fans. I've no idea how their finances
are, but from everything I can tell, they're nowhere near as popular
as in their heyday. And with decreasing sales and the threat of D&D 6E
on the horizon, I can imagine the C-levels are trying to stem the
bleeding.

So it doesn't surprise me if they look at their decreased book sales,
then look at the popularity of third-party Pathfinder book sales, and
a thought of 'hey, how about we tap into that market somehow' creeps
into their head. Which leads to ideas on how to force people onto the
Paizo marketplace, which leads to other ideas on how to restrict
developers from NOT using that marketplace, etc. etc.

What Paizo really needs to do is work to compete with WOTC and put out
a product people want to play more than 5E/6E. But too often games
publishers start seeing their own customers and supporters either as competitors or sources of additional revenue. It never works out well
in the long run for either group.

But at least Paizo backed down before things got too bad. Give them
that much, at least.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 8/25/2024 12:43 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 23:13:58 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

Source: https://www.wargamer.com/pathfinder/license-changes-OGL-controversy >>
DnDrCOs top rival Pathfinder rolls back controversial license changes

Paizo, publisher of Dungeons and DragonsrCO alter ego RPG Pathfinder, has
retconned planned changes to its game licenses after fan feedback.

The first thought that went through my head was that the WOTC lawyers,
having lost their job after the OGL fiasco, got hired at Paizo. I
mean, that's not what happened, but it was my first impression.

I mean, how else could Paizo make such a bone-headed move after
watching WOTC crash onto those same rocks?

Also my first thoughts.

Still, I get it. Paizo made it big largely as a result of D&D 4E's unpopularity. Their fortunes have been dwindling since 5E was
overwhelmingly welcomed by the fans. I've no idea how their finances
are, but from everything I can tell, they're nowhere near as popular
as in their heyday. And with decreasing sales and the threat of D&D 6E
on the horizon, I can imagine the C-levels are trying to stem the
bleeding.

So it doesn't surprise me if they look at their decreased book sales,
then look at the popularity of third-party Pathfinder book sales, and
a thought of 'hey, how about we tap into that market somehow' creeps
into their head. Which leads to ideas on how to force people onto the
Paizo marketplace, which leads to other ideas on how to restrict
developers from NOT using that marketplace, etc. etc.

It may be increasing as the WotC blunders, and the reaction of fans and previously huge supporters have left 5e/2024/25/6e/One (to in the
darkness bind them.)

But at least Paizo backed down before things got too bad. Give them
that much, at least.

So has WotC, though they keep repeating their blunders.

WotC had another blunder recently which deserves it's own post, but not
going to bother. D&D Beyond switching all spells and items to the
2024-25 D&D ones and getting rid of the previous versions completely,
then were going to be using the copyright/IP to block putting them back
in as custom/homebrew. They backed down on that, said, no really we
weren't doing that, and said they'r now going to have the option to
choose the edition of spells ect. you want to use.
--
-Justisaur

|+-|+
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
-|-4'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 8/27/2024 6:03 PM, Justisaur wrote:

On 8/25/2024 12:43 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 23:13:58 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

Source:
https://www.wargamer.com/pathfinder/license-changes-OGL-controversy

DnDrCOs top rival Pathfinder rolls back controversial license changes

Paizo, publisher of Dungeons and DragonsrCO alter ego RPG Pathfinder, has >>> retconned planned changes to its game licenses after fan feedback.

The first thought that went through my head was that the WOTC lawyers,
having lost their job after the OGL fiasco, got hired at Paizo. I
mean, that's not what happened, but it was my first impression.

I mean, how else could Paizo make such a bone-headed move after
watching WOTC crash onto those same rocks?

Also my first thoughts.

Still, I get it. Paizo made it big largely as a result of D&D 4E's
unpopularity. Their fortunes have been dwindling since 5E was
overwhelmingly welcomed by the fans. I've no idea how their finances
are, but from everything I can tell, they're nowhere near as popular
as in their heyday. And with decreasing sales and the threat of D&D 6E
on the horizon, I can imagine the C-levels are trying to stem the
bleeding.

So it doesn't surprise me if they look at their decreased book sales,
then look at the popularity of third-party Pathfinder book sales, and
a thought of 'hey, how about we tap into that market somehow' creeps
into their head. Which leads to ideas on how to force people onto the
Paizo marketplace, which leads to other ideas on how to restrict
developers from NOT using that marketplace, etc. etc.

It may be increasing as the WotC blunders, and the reaction of fans and previously huge supporters have left 5e/2024/25/6e/One (to in the
darkness bind them.)

But at least Paizo backed down before things got too bad. Give them
that much, at least.

So has WotC, though they keep repeating their blunders.

WotC had another blunder recently which deserves it's own post, but not going to bother.-a D&D Beyond switching all spells and items to the
2024-25 D&D ones and getting rid of the previous versions completely,
then were going to be using the copyright/IP to block putting them back
in as custom/homebrew. They backed down on that, said, no really we
weren't doing that, and said they'r now going to have the option to
choose the edition of spells ect. you want to use.

It's because the same people still are in charge and they still think
along the same lines, and they don't GET that people who are into
roleplaying games are not into this who stuff. Because video gamers are,
and aren't they the same?

(it's because they don't GET that there's a difference in the first place)

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2