Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jerik" data-source="post: 8897925" data-attributes="member: 7039785">I don't.&nbsp; The sooner the ORC gets started, the sooner it gets finished and it's useable.&nbsp; (And there's little point in not doing it publicly; the more public it is, the easier it is to get other producers to sign on.)And why wait?&nbsp; After that initial leak, even if Wizards of the Coast had made an announcement saying they were taking it all back and there wasn't going to be a new OGL and the OGL 1.0(a) was still fully authorized and they were really, really sorry... I'm pretty sure Paizo and other companies would have wanted a new license anyway, because even if Wizards of the Coast relented this time, they'd made it clear the OGL was in unsafe hands.&nbsp; There was no reason to wait for the final license before starting on the ORC, because they'd want something like the ORC to exist regardless of the terms in that final license.(And really, Paizo has been moving away from using Wizards' Open Game Content for some time.&nbsp; They've already renamed and/or redesigned a lot of monsters from the D&amp;D SRD—in Pathfinder, troglodytes are now xulgaths; sahuagins are sea devils; etc.—and while there are still some distinctive D&amp;D monsters left in Pathfinder (xorns, otyughs, etc.), that just means the process of divorcing Pathfinder from D&amp;D wasn't complete yet; they were already moving in that direction.&nbsp; Maybe they wouldn't have bothered spearheading the creation of a new license if WotC hadn't announced they were trying to torpedo the OGL, but this isn't something they were completely unprepared for.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jerik, post: 8897925, member: 7039785"] I don't. The sooner the ORC gets started, the sooner it gets finished and it's useable. (And there's little point in [I]not[/I] doing it publicly; the more public it is, the easier it is to get other producers to sign on.) And why wait? After that initial leak, even if Wizards of the Coast had made an announcement saying they were taking it all back and there wasn't going to be a new OGL and the OGL 1.0(a) was still fully authorized and they were really, really sorry... I'm pretty sure Paizo and other companies would have wanted a new license anyway, because even if Wizards of the Coast relented [I]this[/I] time, they'd made it clear the OGL was in unsafe hands. There was no reason to wait for the final license before starting on the ORC, because they'd want something like the ORC to exist regardless of the terms in that final license. (And really, Paizo has been moving away from using Wizards' Open Game Content for some time. They've already renamed and/or redesigned a lot of monsters from the D&D SRD—in Pathfinder, troglodytes are now xulgaths; sahuagins are sea devils; etc.—and while there are still some distinctive D&D monsters left in Pathfinder (xorns, otyughs, etc.), that just means the process of divorcing Pathfinder from D&D wasn't complete yet; they were already moving in that direction. Maybe they wouldn't have bothered spearheading the creation of a new license if WotC hadn't announced they were trying to torpedo the OGL, but this isn't something they were completely unprepared for.) [/QUOTE]

Verification