Paizo Announces New Irrevocable Open RPG License To Replace the OGL

​

Paizo, the maker of Pathfinder, has just announced a new open license for use with RPGs. The license will not be owned by Paizo - or by any TTRPG company, and will be stewarded by Azora Law, a company which represents several tabletop gaming companies, until it finds its home with an independent non-profit. This new license is designed to be irrevocable.

We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.

The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

Read more on Paizo's blog.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Their website is down, so I can't see if there's been an answer, but I asked on Paizo's website if there's any way that the ORC License could have a provision so that Open Game Content from the OGL v1.0a could be used under it? That way, twenty-plus years of compatible materials could be easily ported over to the new license (including the 5.1 SRD).

Any of the lawyers here on EN World want to chime in as to whether or not this is a feasible idea?

Likely, yes, assuming ORC does nothing to explicitly prohibit it..

There's nothing which prevents dual licensed material under the OGL 1.0a. This was canvassed in the "Lawyer heavy thread" earlier this week. In fact, as I recall, a few companies have already done this.

 

[payn]

Yes, you did. Especially in Foundry. There is substantially less math with PF2 in Foundry VTT than there is with 5e. By a LOT. It's noticeable as you run it. PF2 in Foundry VTT is exceptionally well implemented.

Yes, seriously.

 

[Charlaquin]

pf2 does have several categories of modifiers - but it has significantly fewer then 3e/4e. it's got item, status, and circumstance, and (aside from permanent stuff you should just have on your sheet like your ability modifiers and proficiency bonuses) that's it. you can have penalties or bonuses of either on a roll, but good luck getting bonuses and penalties from all 3 on the same roll. i think you can also have nested bonuses (so you can have an item bonus to strength and an item bonus on a weapon that uses your strength and be able to add both to the roll), but again at least one of those will typically just be something that should be on your sheet and not thought about mid-session.

Right, that’s definitely less than you had in 3e and PF1 (I think it’s actually the same as you had in 4e), but it’s still a lot more than in 5e. Three possible sources of modifiers is a lot more cognitive load than advantage, disadvantage, or no modifier.

i'll give you the bounded accuracy thing, though, even if pf2e does have a proficiency without level variant (i've not played with that - i'd be curious if anyone else has to see how it plays).

Oh, cool! I had been a strong advocate for such a variant during the playtest, so I’m glad to hear they did end up adding it. I’ll definitely be using that if I run PF2.

and there are other ways pf2e is more complicated then 5e - mainly just that there's a lot more rules in general. it's a much more mechanically defined game then 5e is. which i like, because i like having a base to go off of when i'm trying to judge or do something - but i can definitely see that being stifling. my point wasn't that there's no good reason not to want to play pf2e or think it's more complicated then 5e or anything (which i don't think you think it was, i just want to clarify), but rather that on the specific point that was brought up, pf2e isn't really that complicated.

My experience with the PF2 playtest is that it looks more complex than it actually is. And funny enough I think 5e is kinda the opposite, being actually more complex than it looks. But despite that, PF2 is still the more complex game overall. Still, I think the modifier bloat, while certainly cut down from PF1, is still the biggest turn-off for the average 5e fan.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

So this seems to solve some problems but leaves a lot up in the air. Everything made under the 1.0 OGL is still under the cloud of the deauthorization as to whether there are rights to use it under the new license.

The new ORC license will make things under the new license a safe harbor, but only if people have the rights to the things they want to put under ORC.

So for Pathfinder which uses the SRD under the 1.0 OGL, and all the 3e, 5e, and OSR OGL stuff it is still undetermined whether they can be used at all to put under the new license. Most everything hinges still on the actual effect of deauthorization.

It is good to hear their declaration on deauthorization though.

Deauthorisation is not a thing as I understand it (@S'mon , or @pemerton care to comment) the best that WoTC can do is recind their standing offer made in the OGL. Anyone who has it, has it and to attempt to take it off of them WoTC would have to go to court.
The best they can do is stop future take up of the offer made in the OGL.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yes, you did. Especially in Foundry. There is substantially less math with PF2 in Foundry VTT than there is with 5e. By a LOT. It's noticeable as you run it. PF2 in Foundry VTT is exceptionally well implemented.

Is that a PF2 thing, or a VTT thing? We play 5e on Roll20 and there's, like, no math. You click buttons. That's not because there's "no math" in 5e, though, it's because the software is doing it all.

 

[mamba]

Their website is down, so I can't see if there's been an answer, but I asked on Paizo's website if there's any way that the ORC License could have a provision so that Open Game Content from the OGL v1.0a could be used under it? That way, twenty-plus years of compatible materials could be easily ported over to the new license (including the 5.1 SRD).

Any of the lawyers here on EN World want to chime in as to whether or not this is a feasible idea?

I do not think this is even remotely possible, but IANAL

 

[Alzrius]

Likely, yes, assuming ORC does nothing to explicitly prohibit it..

There's nothing which prevents dual licensed material under the OGL 1.0a. This was canvassed in the "Lawyer heavy thread" earlier this week. In fact, as I recall, a few companies have already done this.

To expound on this, would it require any action on the part of publishers who've previously put out OGL v1.0a materials? I ask because over the course of twenty-plus years, some have retired or are otherwise no longer active. If they need to proactively release (or even declare) that their OGL v1.0a Open Game Content is licensed for use with ORC, then a lot of material won't be moved over; conversely, if the ORC License has a clause that says something to the effect of "all Open Game Content from the OGL v1.0a is considered Open Content [or whatever term they use] with this license," that would make things much easier and more expansive.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’d have to dive back into PF2 to refresh myself on what its math looks like, but I actually don’t think it would be too hard to “bind” its accuracy if you wanted to. Shift circumstance bonus to the back-end by rolling it into DC calculation, replace status modifier with an advantage/disadvantage type mechanic, and you’re left with just ability, proficiency, and item. Use the proficiency without level variant if you want to keep the proficiency number from inflating, and you’re in about the same place as 5e in terms of modifier management.

 

[Yaarel]

A product can use both ORC and OGL 1.0a.

There problem is later. When Hasbro-WotC officially (tries to) end the OGL 1.0a, it will start throwing lawsuits around. For those unable to fight Hasbro-WotC in court, they would need to remove all the SRD content that depended on the OGL 1.0a.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Right, that’s definitely less than you had in 3e and PF1 (I think it’s actually the same as you had in 4e), but it’s still a lot more than in 5e. Three possible sources of modifiers is a lot more cognitive load than advantage, disadvantage, or no modifier.

except that's...not really what you get in 5e. you get advantage and disadvantage...and then you get a whole lot of possible situational things like bless, bane, guidance, bardic inspiration, battlemaster maneuvers, haste, cover, etc. that, in pf2e, is all covered by item/status/circumstance. and i think that leads into what you say later.

Oh, cool! I had been a strong advocate for such a variant during the playtest, so I’m glad to hear they did end up adding it. I’ll definitely be using that if I run PF2.

yeah, it's in the GMG. it's as simple as it sounds - if a roll or DC adds the creature's level, it no longer does. ironically enough, they actually use basically the exact same table as 5e's DCs table for how DCs should work with the variant (i.e. 5/10/15/20/25/30 with difficulty names). the only thing i can think of that a DM might need to look at would be the assurance feat.

My experience with the PF2 playtest is that it looks more complex than it actually is. And funny enough I think 5e is kinda the opposite, being actually more complex than it looks.

i agree - and i think what i mentioned earlier is one reason why. 5e appears to handle all its bonus modifiers with advantage/disadvantage...until it doesn't.

But despite that, PF2 is still the more complex game overall. Still, I think the modifier bloat, while certainly cut down from PF1, is still the biggest turn-off for the average 5e fan.

yeah, i do think the appearance of having more modifiers (and the reality of having them pop up more often) is definitely the biggest turn off for people coming from 5e. it was for me.