Pathfinder 2E By prohibiting ORC licensing on Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite, Paizo is now a step closer to WotC's walled garden approach with dmsguild

[Yora]

Just sometimes, a Star Wars Prequel meme seems like the entirely appropriate response:

 

[Morrus]

They, and other publishers, explicitly PI'd new mechanics critical to the products as well. Whether that was allowed seems fuzzier since it depends on the definition of "derivative" ina way only a lawyer could love. But it is still a bad faith use of Open Content and I will never not bring it up.

I have to agree. As a strong advocate of open gaming, and, let's face it, an enormous donator to the library of open content, trying to close derivative mechanics is bad faith. I've seen older and more recent publishers trying to do this. I don't know what the solution is, but broadly speaking if your mechanic is derivative of the d20 system and you're using the OGL, and you're trying to claim that mechanic is closed, you're not using the license in the spirit it was intended. You don't get to take without giving back; that's the deal. That's what the OGL was for.

And if you legally can do it (debatable, but it can be argued either way), you certainly shouldn't do it.

 

[Timespike]

If you think Monte Cook is trying to lock their stuff down (and they appear to be), take a look at the entire page of Product Identity in the front of Flee, Mortals. It's a whole 'nother level of that. Which mystifies me, because Matt has said they're planning to make their in-house RPG open.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Has anyone with more industry knowledge than myself compiled a list of publishers that are using other creators' Open Content without contributing any of their own? (Paizo's not guilty of this, but some other publishers mentioned in this thread might be.) I would love to have that information so I can boycott every publisher who's doing this.

 

[TreChriron]

I am not a lawyer. Consult legal counsel for legal advice. This is just my understanding of it.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

• The DM's Guild = Pathfinder / Starfinder Infinite. These are Content Creator programs, protecting the originating company's IP.
• OGL = ORC. These are open licenses determining the legal uses of the open content declared under the licenses.

The rules for the Content Creator programs are designed so you can (as a creator) make things in those company's IP (aka settings). They are tightly controlled and frankly, have nothing to do with open content. You must abide by the rules in those programs strictly.

The rules for Open Content strictly forbid you from using ANYTHING protected by a specific declaration of product identity.

To summarize, you can publish a work using the ORC license to make a game powered by ORC open content. You could create a setting for PF2ER and adventures, etc. in your own original setting. You can use the rules not the setting stuff.

The terms of the DM's Guide / Infinite programs are 50/50 split. If you make your own games using ORC, you get a 30 / 70 split with DTRPG (do they still do the 20 / 80 split if you carry DTRPG exclusively?).

I imagine that once more material is available for PF2ER, Paizo will switch the Infinite program to using the Remastered rules, but with the same restrictions. I'm guessing they want the momentum of a "core set" of Remastered rules to outweigh the current rules. Likely to prevent confusion in that marketplace (which version does this work with??).

 

[Timespike]

The split for DTRPG is 35/65 for non-exclusive creators and 30/70 for exclusive ones.

 

[MerricB]

If you think Monte Cook is trying to lock their stuff down (and they appear to be), take a look at the entire page of Product Identity in the front of Flee, Mortals. It's a whole 'nother level of that. Which mystifies me, because Matt has said they're planning to make their in-house RPG open.

Here is Section 15 of Flee Mortals.

This is the part where you need to add the copyright declaration of your product. Guess what?

 

[Morrus]

This is the part where you need to add the copyright declaration of your product. Guess what?

Yeah, that's incorrectly written. The license requires the title of the product there.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, that's incorrectly written. The license requires the title of the product there.

Now imagine if someone quoted that in their OWN Section 15...

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Reynard]

Here is Section 15 of Flee Mortals.
View attachment 330891

This is the part where you need to add the copyright declaration of your product. Guess what?

Declarations of PI don't go in section 15.