Brian Lewis, original legal drafter of the OGL, speaks out

[dave2008]

That would be very good for the hobby, indeed.
In other news, at this point I believe we have enough clues to predict that Paizo will NOT be signing a custom agreement with WotC. Far from it!

Yes, I think that is the most important take away. This, more than anything, could force WotC to back off.

 

[J.Quondam]

Isn't there already an Open Gaming Foundation?

Yes, but it seems defunct.

OPEN GAMING FOUNDATION

 

[darjr]

They are talking a bit about Brian. One of the Architects of the Original OGL, Ryan Dancey, Discusses Its Cr... via @YouTube

 

[Composer99]

I think the Open Gaming Foundation would need to dust out a lot of cobwebs, but it, or an organisation like it, would be a natural choice to be the custodian of a genuine open RPG licence.

(Apropos of the acronym ORC, I thought of creating a homebrew game line called Open Game Roleplaying Engine, or OGRE. I know Open Roleplaying Game Engine is technically more accurate, but I felt like the natural acronym for that is... well, shall we say, off-colour.)

 

[payn]

Interesting.

 

[rcade]

Yeah, but it's never actually done anything, to my understanding. I'm not sure it has the administrative infrastructure to fill the role. But maybe it does -- I don't know.

The Open Gaming Foundation did a few things in the formative years of the open gaming movement.

It published the Open Gaming License, hosted the OGF-L and OGF-d20-L mailing lists where the OGL and open gaming movement were born, kept a list of game licenses it considered open, and maintained a registry of open games.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, but it seems defunct.

OPEN GAMING FOUNDATION

Ryan updated it just last week.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you could get Paizo and the other major 3pps to agree on a "mere fantasy" framework for a not-d&d srd, and a truly open game licence, that would be huge. It would help mitigate some of the loss of network effects from D&D being cut off.

the problem is that pathfinder itself (and every time I see a house rule) shows that you when recreating want to 'fix' somethings and when they disagree on what needs to be fixed there will be splits.

 

[Dire Bare]

The last time Hasbro threatened the OGL, Paizo became the #1 selling tabletop RPG company and made a lot of money.
Maybe history is poised to repeat itself?

Not quite. The 4th Edition GSL did push Paizo into doing what they were already planning on doing, create their own Pathfinder game. And it was a very successful game. However, Pathfinder sales didn't eclipse D&D sales until AFTER 4th Edition stopped publication and WotC wasn't producing ANY D&D content for a while. As soon as they started up with 5th Edition, Pathfinder slipped back down to second place.

Still, your point stands . . . WotC's open license shenanigans during the 4th Edition probably did have a lot to do with making Pathfinder the success it was. And their current shenanigans with the new "OGL" is already pushing publishers to create their own systems and new, truly open, licenses. The situation isn't identical, but history does seem to be repeating itself . . . .

 

[Langy]

I think the Open Gaming Foundation would need to dust out a lot of cobwebs, but it, or an organisation like it, would be a natural choice to be the custodian of a genuine open RPG licence.

(Apropos of the acronym ORC, I thought of creating a homebrew game line called Open Game Roleplaying Engine, or OGRE. I know Open Roleplaying Game Engine is technically more accurate, but I felt like the natural acronym for that is... well, shall we say, off-colour.)

OGRE as the name for a roleplaying game, while cool, is probably a little too close to OGRE the name for a board/war game about giant sentient tanks.

 

[mhd]

OGRE as the name for a roleplaying game, while cool, is probably a little too close to OGRE the name for a board/war game about giant sentient tanks.

Also, there's already O.G.R.E.S., Jason Vey's OSR-adjacent game (which just went slightly obfuscated in light of OGL 1.1.)

(I think there's a "ORC" game, too. IIRC the "Tibet RPG" used that as its engine)

 

[Yaarel]

Not quite. The 4th Edition GSL did push Paizo into doing what they were already planning on doing, create their own Pathfinder game. And it was a very successful game. However, Pathfinder sales didn't eclipse D&D sales until AFTER 4th Edition stopped publication and WotC wasn't producing ANY D&D content for a while. As soon as they started up with 5th Edition, Pathfinder slipped back down to second place.

Still, your point stands . . . WotC's open license shenanigans during the 4th Edition probably did have a lot to do with making Pathfinder the success it was. And their current shenanigans with the new "OGL" is already pushing publishers to create their own systems and new, truly open, licenses. The situation isn't identical, but history does seem to be repeating itself . . . .

Even as a 4e player, I heard from others that Pathfinder made good adventures. 4e generally lacked enough high quality adventures.

It would have been easy for Pathfinder to publish some (or all) of its adventures for the 4e gaming engine, make a profit for Paizo, and making 4e more successful.

 

[J.Quondam]

Ryan updated it just last week.

Yes, to say the site hadn't been maintained in 20 years, with an OGL1.1 update TBD.
Should've said "recently de-defunct," i guess.

 

[Reynard]

Even as a 4e player, I heard from others that Pathfinder made good adventures. 4e generally lacked enough high quality adventures.

It would have been easy for Pathfinder to publish some (or all) of its adventures for the 4e gaming engine, make a profit for Paizo, and making 4e more successful.

Many folks hoped they would support 5E, which surely would have been very lucrative, but they had their own game to support. Obviously in just the last year or so they started to dip their toe in that, but that is certainly over before it really got started.

 

[Yaarel]

They are talking a bit about Brian. One of the Architects of the Original OGL, Ryan Dancey, Discusses Its Cr... via @YouTube

LOVE!

Getting coffee ready, to watch this thru.

 

[Yaarel]

Many folks hoped they would support 5E, which surely would have been very lucrative, but they had their own game to support. Obviously in just the last year or so they started to dip their toe in that, but that is certainly over before it really got started.

It is more than Pathfinder has a fanbase. Pathfinder 2 offers a gaming style that 5e doesnt. PF2 provides a service to the gaming community.

 

[Composer99]

Even as a 4e player, I heard from others that Pathfinder made good adventures. 4e generally lacked enough high quality adventures.

It would have been easy for Pathfinder to publish some (or all) of its adventures for the 4e gaming engine, make a profit for Paizo, and making 4e more successful.

Apropos of this, Paizo has published a few 5e-compatible products recently - paizo.com - Pathfinder Kingmaker Bestiary (5E) for instance - so if WotC had published a 4e SRD under the old OGL, who's to say they wouldn't have decided to also produce 4e content at some point? (Whereas it was an easy decision not to adopt the restrictive GSL.)

 

[John R Davis]

Open
Roleplaying
Community
System

 

[overgeeked]

Apropos of this, Paizo has published a few 5e-compatible products recently - paizo.com - Pathfinder Kingmaker Bestiary (5E) for instance - so if WotC had published a 4e SRD under the old OGL, who's to say they wouldn't have decided to also produce 4e content at some point? (Whereas it was an easy decision not to adopt the restrictive GSL.)

The folks at Paizo hated 4E. That’s literally why they made Pathfinder.

 

[Composer99]

The folks at Paizo hated 4E. That’s literally why they made Pathfinder.

So what of that? Tastes and personnel can (and do) change, and money talks.