Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It's not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

​

 

[Charlaquin]

Sexism is a major reason why Lorraine Williams is/has been so reviled.

We don’t yet know who is driving this new campaign, beyond Hasbro/WOTC writ large.

For some reason my notifications are insisting that you quotes me in this post…?

 

[kenada]

The feats reference was more about how it might not be possible to streamline PF2 too much given how intricate it's design is.

This argument doesn’t make sense to me. The point of using a base system like PF2 in this case is it provides a safe harbor for certain terms and mechanics. It’s open content, so you can adapt that content to your needs without worrying about whether that violates someone’s copyright. Look at retroclones. They adapt 3e to classic editions without using its feat or skill systems. Why would a game that built on PF2 to recreate something simpler like 5e have to use its class customization or feat progression? The goal isn’t to make something compatible with PF2; it’s to recreate that (or create a new) experience.

 

[Reynard]

This argument doesn’t make sense to me. The point of using a base system like PF2 in this case is it provides a safe harbor for certain terms and mechanics. It’s open content, so you can adapt that content to your needs without worrying about whether that violates someone’s copyright. Look at retroclones. They adapt 3e to classic editions without using its feat or skill systems. Why would a game that built on PF2 to recreate something simpler like 5e have to use its class customization or feat progression? The goal isn’t to make something compatible with PF2; it’s to recreate that (or create a new) experience.

Why would you need PF2's SRD for that?

 

[kenada]

Why would you need PF2's SRD for that?

For the safe harbor. It provides protection that you don’t get from doing it on your own (and having to potentially argue that the mechanics you are copying are not expressive enough to be copyrighted). I believe that’s why @S'mon has been suggesting still using the OGL 1.0a even though the situation is pretty uncertain right now.

Edit: I should add that I am assuming Paizo is able to disentangle PF2 from the OGL and WotC’s SRD. There have been a few posts here suggesting PF2 was released under the OGL to make Paizo’s relationship with 3PP easier, so maybe.

 

[Haplo781]

But Baskin-Robbins always finds out.

Coldstone knows not to ask questions it doesn't want the answers to.

 

[Riley]

For some reason my notifications are insisting that you quotes me in this post…?

I think I may have accidentally added you to a “multi quote” while scrolling with my thumb, then edited my reply to remove you after discovering the extra quote at the top of my post?

I don’t remember doing that to you specifically, but I do remember editing messages in that manner, for that reason twice today.



Apologies for that, or whatever caused such an unintentional error on my part.

 

[Reynard]

For the safe harbor. It provides protection that you don’t get from doing it on your own (and having to potentially argue that the mechanics you are copying are not expressive enough to be copyrighted). I believe that’s why @S'mon has been suggesting still using the OGL 1.0a even though the situation is pretty uncertain right now.

But a new core SRD would be an even safer harbor, since PF2 was released under the OGL 1.0a with the 3.5 SRD in its section 15, a tacit admission it is derived from WotC's copyrighted property.

 

[Yaarel]

Why would you need PF2's SRD for that?

In this scenario, the gaming community abandons all things Hasbro-WotC, including the OGL that has turned into a headache.

"PF3" creates a new "OGL". Lets call it the "POGL".

The gaming community will now use the POGL, instead of the OGL.

Because no one wants the OGL, they reject the SRDs that come with OGL.

Therefore, the PF3 PRD is the new go-to for common gaming terms and mechanics.

The gaming community can borrow from this PRD in any way the want, but it still serves as a common reference point.

 

[kenada]

But a new core SRD would be an even safer harbor, since PF2 was released under the OGL 1.0a with the 3.5 SRD in its section 15, a tacit admission it is derived from WotC's copyrighted property.

I added something to address that in an edit because I didn’t see your post at the time. I agree that it’s risky, and I think including the 3e SRD unnecessarily was a mistake.

 

[Tazawa]

This argument doesn’t make sense to me. The point of using a base system like PF2 in this case is it provides a safe harbor for certain terms and mechanics. It’s open content, so you can adapt that content to your needs without worrying about whether that violates someone’s copyright. Look at retroclones. They adapt 3e to classic editions without using its feat or skill systems. Why would a game that built on PF2 to recreate something simpler like 5e have to use its class customization or feat progression? The goal isn’t to make something compatible with PF2; it’s to recreate that (or create a new) experience.

You can make a simplified, yet fully compatible version of Pathfinder by making feat and other features preselected in a small number of simplified classes. Choose those feats that provide a constant, static benefit if you want to make it even more user friendly.

When people are comfortable with the system and ready for something more complex, they can switch to the full version of Pathfinder.