Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Even With New GSL, Paizo Not Supporting 4e

Just a quick update for all the GSL talk that's been going on around the gaming blogs and community. There's been some hopeful talk about which companies, aside from Necromancer, will be supporting 4e after the release of the revised GSL. It looks like you can count Paizo out of the mix. Per their Technical Director, Vic Wertz:

"You are correct, sir. This set of revisions to the GSL falls squarely into the categories of both "too little" and "too late" as far as addressing Paizo's concerns.

I do appreciate that it makes life easier for some other parties, though".

So, it sounds like that's it for that, at least for now. I'm sure they have a lot of work in store in preparing and supporting the release Pathfinder, so I can understand on that count.


Donny said...


Surprised to hear it from vic though, as opposed to eric or somebody in the actual product design team.

not surprised though, they made their bed, the rest follows.

I like 4E, even if WotC has really gone down the douchebag route...

Wyatt said...

Good. Don't need 'em. I'm starting to miss the days of the good ol' evil GSL where there was nary a 3pp product in sight. I was hoping we would get more interesting/systems neutral content coming out and less D&D Product Ghetto (then again the OGL is still around, so I suppose I should expect Pathfinder Sci-Fi, Steampunk, Erotic Fantasy and so forth...)

I was hoping 4e being seemingly unsuited to anything but epic fantasy would bring a little more focus, but already we're getting things like cyberpunk 4e. Sigh.

Red Jason said...

Antioch and myself have played many a Paizo adventure, from Age of Worms (for 2 years!) to Rise of the Runelords, and I've never been pleased with anything Paizo has done. Many of the encounters in Age of Worms were so broken.

Meh is right, who cares about Paizo.

Antioch said...

To be clear on my stance, I did like most of the stuff that I ran in Age of Worms, and most of the content in Savage Tide looked interesting though I never got around to running it.
When Paizo starting pushing out Pathfinder, I jumped on the wagon because I was expecting better things from them. Rise of the Runelords had a confusing layout, and a lot of the content smacked of text padding. After the path ran its course I canceled my subscription because over half the book was largely useless information. I think the main positive of Paizo is the artwork and some of their creativity. I dont much care if they inject a lot of real-world mythology into their subject matter: I want a fun GAME.

Questing GM said...

I am not surprised that even with the 'friendlier' GSL, Paizo is not going budge. This was the reaction that I expected.

I think Paizo wants to keep the OGL movement alive and no GSL as open as that is going to stray them from their path.

While I doubt we would get more 'official' word than Vic but I think he can represent a good deal of Paizo's sentiments.

No lost though. If you want 4E adventures, you've already good 3PP to back that up. Paizo can just go on making good Pathfinder modules and it would still be awesome.

Zachary The First said...

@ Donny, All: I wasn't really surprised, either. Things are a little too far gone for them to really reverse course, I thought. Still, seeing it official and all, I thought it would be of interest to folks.

@Wyatt: I still don't think the supplement ghetto for 4e will be as bad as it was for 3e. That said, I LOVE system-neutral stuff, and I'd love to see more of it.

@ Red Jason, Antioch: Keep up the great work on PoL! It doesn't sound like our experiences with Paizo jive, but happy gaming with 4e!

@QuestingGM: Right on. Paizo has their niche, and I see good things coming out of it. I'm sure some other companies will do some great things for 4e as well.

Questing GM said...

Btw, James Jacobs just replied in that thread and he has also confirmed a 'no' for Paizo.

Bret said...

It'll be nice to have two editions of "D&D" going simultaneously so more power to them.

Zachary The First said...

@Bret: I couldn't agree more. It's great to have a diversity in selection. Folks can just take the fork they're more comfy with, or sample both. The sooner more folks look at it that way and less like a holy war, the better off we'll be.