95% of you didn't need the OGL and you don't need ORC

[Reynard]

That only means it uses the license, not that it is derived from the SRD

There is a lot of new stuff in Starfinder, certainly, but it's foundation is the 3.5 SRD. You can see it in the ability scores and the feats and the saves and such. Whether that is enough for a judge is another matter, of course, and we can't really know.

 

[pemerton]

I love how everyone is declaring this now, as if it is so blindingly obvious that only a simpleton wouldn't realize it. Where, I wonder, were all these sages 3 or 7 or 12 years ago?

Frylock: Loremaster Article: To GSL or not to GSL?

 

[Art Waring]

The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.

Despite the fact that the DMsguild doesn't use the OGL, but a completely different license?

Not to mention, that the OGL pre-existed the guild by what, more than a dozen years?

 

[Sir Brennen]

There is a lot of new stuff in Starfinder, certainly, but it's foundation is the 3.5 SRD. You can see it in the ability scores and the feats and the saves and such. Whether that is enough for a judge is another matter, of course, and we can't really know.

Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.

(I’m fully prepared to be proven wrong on this point. I haven’t followed Paizo products close enough to be sure of the timeline.)

Including the OGL for PF2, to my understanding, was basically a CYA move, as it couldn’t hurt. The license is perpetual, right? Plus it then allows people to create content based on their own PF2 SRD.

Now even if SF is 3.5 SRD derived (and therefore using the OGL 1.0), Paizo could still remove the license from it, establish the ORC license, then create their own SF SRD and offer it using the new license.

It’s possible WotCbro might go after them for copyright infringement at that point (or maybe breach of contract if the OGL 1.0 is still standing then? I dunno, IANL), which might get interesting.

 

[Reynard]

Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.

Starfinder predates PF2 by 2 years.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.

(I’m fully prepared to be proven wrong on this point. I haven’t followed Paizo products close enough to be sure of the timeline.)

Including the OGL for PF2, to my understanding, was basically a CYA move, as it couldn’t hurt. The license is perpetual, right? Plus it then allows people to create content based on their own PF2 SRD.

Now even if SF is 3.5 SRD derived (and therefore using the OGL 1.0), Paizo could still remove the license from it, establish the ORC license, then create their own SF SRD and offer it using the new license.

It’s possible WotCbro might go after them for copyright infringement at that point (or maybe breach of contract if the OGL 1.0 is still standing then? I dunno, IANL), which might get interesting.

Nothing is as simple as you want to believe unfortunately. You have to remember that an SRD included rules mechanics (not copyright able) and expressions (copyright able). The OGL allows you to use both. PF, SF, and PF2 all have some items that could potentially infringe on WotC’s expressions.

However, they could all likely be revised to exist without the OGL, but it would take some work (more for PF1 and much less for PF2 with SF likely somewhere between). Then only these revised versions could be made ORC I think.

This of course also depends on a court (if it goes to court) determining what is and is not a game mechanic, which hasn’t been done for an RPG yet. They could decide that rolling dice are the only “mechanics” and everything else is an expression and therefor copyright of WotC. We don’t know. That is why the OGL was a safe harbor as we don’t know what lurks in the dark and dangerous waters without it.

Also, SF predates PF2 by a few years.

 

[MockingBird]

Seems to be glossed over or I missed it but, DMsguild is frozen at the moment?

 

[Staffan]

Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.

Starfinder is, I believe, in a situation similar to Star Wars SAGA edition. SWSaga was based on 3e (or more properly, d20 Modern), but explored some areas of game design that were considered for 4e, and some of those got included in 4e as well (e.g. static defenses instead of saves). Similarly, Starfinder explored some game design paths that got included in PF2, such as backgrounds and class talents/feats. But it's still rooted in PF1, which in turn is rooted in 3.5e.

 

[gamerprinter]

Just a quick follow up. I mentioned previously my current attempt at publishing a series of custom Spelljammer ships, a couple monster races and Wild Space System that I planned to offer at the Dungeon Master's Guild. I read over what is allowed and disallowed from WotC regarding anything sold at the DMG - my stuff seems to fall between the cracks. So I contacted DM's Guild support last night, got a response this morning...

"For what you've described I don't believe you should have any issues publishing on DMsGuild, your product sounds like it should fall within our guidelines."

So it looks like I'm good to go, now I need to wrap up the stat blocks and do the final layout and release this thing!

 

[clearstream]

Telling people they never needed OGL and they can do whatever they want as long as they don't reproduce word for word is dangerous advice. It completely ignores just how much of something can be called derivative work (which is mentioned in the very video you link but seem to have forgotten about).

I agree with you. Whether a court will judge a work is derivative or not seems to me hard to predict. Adventures and bestiaries that invoke the D&D mechanics seem particularly at risk.