Open RPG Creative (ORC) License Draft Published

​

Paizo Publishing and Azora Law have published the initial draft of the Open RPG Creative license (ORC) for public feedback. This license was concieved of during January's Open Gaming License (OGL) controversy and was designed as an independent, irrevocable replacement for that license. Also available is an FAQ, or the 'Answers & Explanations" (AxE) which explains the structure.

Commentary can be left until April 21st, and the intention is to finish the license by the end of April.

So what is ORC? It's an open license which can be used by any creator to 'open' their game up so that other creators can use it. It is independent and irrevocable, and cannot be updated or revised.

paizo.com - Community / Paizo Blog

 

[EthanSental]

Interesting to see they ended up registering the license at the Library of the Congress instead of leaving the license's control to a neutral organisation. The license doesn't seem that different from what the OGL 1.0 set out to do, let's see if the large number of adopters makes a difference!

Large number? Kobold and cubicle 7 making their game under Orc or the 5e Creative Commons? Seems like once that happened with Creative Commons, this lost some energy and bigger names that were initially tied to it.

 

[Parmandur]

What is the benefit of continuing with this license as opposed to using Creative Commons?

Yeah, I'm curious to see the lawyers and publishers here weigh in...

 

[Parmandur]

Large number? Kobold and cubicle 7 making their game under Orc or the 5e Creative Commons? Seems like once that happened with Creative Commons, this lost some energy and bigger names that were initially tied to it.

Yeah, Chapsium is putting out BRP with this, and presumably future Paizo stuff will use it...but I'm not sure there is a business case to use this over CC, given that the market leader and rules lingua franca is already in CC.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah, Chapsium is putting out BRP with this, and presumably future Paizo stuff will use it...but I'm not sure there is a business case to use this over CC, given that the market leader and rules lingua franca is already in CC.

Well, that might change if WotC ever decides to put the 5E SRD out under the ORC License. I'd say the odds of that are virtually nil, but I'd have said the same thing about them releasing it under Creative Commons, so who knows?

 

[Michael O'Brien]

We have launched the new edition of Basic Roleplaying today as an ORC release: the final version of the ORC will govern the BRP Universal Game Engine, as an example of an open RPG license that anyone can use.

Note, the way the ORC license works, there is no need for an SRD. The entire BRP text is in effect the SRD, so you can use the whole book - minus the product identity elements (all artwork, illustrations, and graphic design/trade dress, and all trademarks.)

Release - [Chaosium] Create. Explore. Play. BRP’s Universal Game Engine is available royalty-free for personal and commercial use under the ORC license.

Create. Explore. Play. BRP’s Universal Game Engine is available royalty-free for personal and commercial use under the Open RPG Creative license, aka ORC license. Basic Roleplaying (BRP) is a system of core rules for tabletop roleplaying. Whether you’re a seasoned roleplaying veteran or new...

www.enworld.org

 

[kenmarable]

Fascinating. I don't have either of those, so I wasn't aware. Given that the OGL Section 1(d) says that Open Game Content includes game mechanics – albeit limited "to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity" – and that Section 1(e) says that Product Identity "specifically excludes the Open Game Content," then presuming that the mechanics in question aren't considered to be derivative material (as per Section 1(b)), then the implication is that those mechanics do embody Product Identity...which strikes me as a very hard row to hoe, given how what constitutes Product Identity is rigorously defined in Section 1(e).

Though I doubt we'll ever see a court case clarifying it.

Plus, back in the early days of the OGL the general consensus among publishers was that content derived from OGC was automatically OGC. So if you made a d20 monster stat block or a prestige class, they had to be OGC since they were derived from the d20 SRD rules for those. (You could claim the name and flavor text as Product Identity, of course).

Unfortunately, as those publishers left the industry, and WotC never bothering to enforce even blatant OGL violations, etc. that consensus faded into history, and some publishers started seeing the OGL as a one-way street of using others’ content but actively working to prevent others from using theirs. (Which aside from whether it’s an OGL violation or not, it just plain rude and greedy, in my opinion.)

Thankfully, ORC is trying to be clear about that up front. All game mechanics (not even just derived game mechanics, but ALL game mechanics) are apparently ORC content automatically, if I’m understanding it right - which sounds great to me!

So it’s more like CC-Share-Alike but with a carve out.

 

[Parmandur]

Plus, back in the early days of the OGL the general consensus among publishers was that content derived from OGC was automatically OGC. So if you made a d20 monster stat block or a prestige class, they had to be OGC since they were derived from the d20 SRD rules for those. (You could claim the name and flavor text as Product Identity, of course).

Unfortunately, as those publishers left the industry, and WotC never bothering to enforce even blatant OGL violations, etc. that consensus faded into history, and some publishers started seeing the OGL as a one-way street of using others’ content but actively working to prevent others from using theirs. (Which aside from whether it’s an OGL violation or not, it just plain rude and greedy, in my opinion.)

Thankfully, ORC is trying to be clear about that up front. All game mechanics (not even just derived game mechanics, but ALL game mechanics) are apparently ORC content automatically, if I’m understanding it right - which sounds great to me!

So it’s more like CC-Share-Alike but with a carve out.

Well, I mean, people will probably still use it that way if they can: that's just market forces at work.

 

[MGibster]

Interesting to see they ended up registering the license at the Library of the Congress instead of leaving the license's control to a neutral organisation. The license doesn't seem that different from what the OGL 1.0 set out to do, let's see if the large number of adopters makes a difference!

I think there are two things that need to be addressed here. The first is that registering the license with the Library of Congress doesn't mean the Library of Congress controls it. At least I don't think that's what it means. The LoC is just the library congress uses and is also considered to be the national library. Second, what makes you think the LoC isn't neutral? They're not in the business of publishing RPGs and as an organization they're likely to be around for as long as the United States is still in business so long as Mrs. Greene doesn't get the national divorce she's been asking for.

 

[overgeeked]

Unfortunately, as those publishers left the industry, and WotC never bothering to enforce even blatant OGL violations, etc. that consensus faded into history, and some publishers started seeing the OGL as a one-way street of using others’ content but actively working to prevent others from using theirs. (Which aside from whether it’s an OGL violation or not, it just plain rude and greedy, in my opinion.)

Yeah. That one really bugs me. It’s about the only complaint I have about Goodman Games and DCC RPG. Standing on the shoulders of giants then actively preventing anyone else from standing on yours is a real jerk move. Admittedly, GG does an infinitely better job advocating for and promoting 3PP than anyone in the industry. But it’s hypocritical that their game is locked down as tight as it is.

 

[overgeeked]

Also looking forward to all those Call of Cthulhu ORC clones.