I really don't think it should be called the "ORC license"

I think it works very well as an acronym and invokes fantasy right away (which they are trying to do). It also movies away from anything like "Dungeons" and "Dragons" so they are able to really separate it out. One issue might be that this license is going to be pretty expansive it looks like and will probably involve a lot of games where Orcs aren't even a thing. But I like orcs. I think a lot of people like orcs, and it will likely lead to a pretty cool logo. I think all the baggage and controversies with the term, are not really relevant to what they are doing here (that stuff is more about how orcs are handled mechanically and in the setting). Those are debates we can have for another day IMO
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jer

Legend
Supporter
ORC is a bad name because the hobby needs to move away from its blinding association and allegiance to fantasy games and tropes.
I agree, but I suspect that most companies looking for a replacement for the OGL is in the fantasy game space and therefore the name ORC as a marketing tool makes sense.

If they're going to use the name ORC I'd prefer to see a clean-room replacement base SRD named ORC let loose under a Creative Commons Share-alike license of some kind personally.

But I'd also like companies to be less precious about their game rules in general. Too many companies are just way overprotective of their rules and other people building on them in general.
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
But I'd also like companies to be less precious about their game rules in general. Too many companies are just way overprotective of their rules and other people building on them in general.
My fantasy heartbreaker rules engine's main resolution mechanic is putting cans of spray paint in the dryer and turning it on. The last guy to run out of the house wins D&D.

And then everyone stands around him in a circle claps and says "Now, you truly have become the Dungeons and Dragons".
 

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf
In my opinion, nicknaming the new open licensing effort the "ORC" just demonstrates the esteem the community has for the concept, and performs necessary pushback against the idea that it is intended to be hateful toward anyone, real or imagined.

But then I'm also totally fine with the "hegemony of fantasy," so your mileage may vary. There are tons of RPGs in a ton of formats across a ton of genres. The most successful are fantasy games, to the extent that broad public perception of our hobby is of people running around in the forest with foam weapons and fake pointed ears (which has never been a part of D&D, incidentally). It's fine.

In fact, out of respect for Erik Mona's wishes, I think I'll stop calling Pathfinder D&D and just start referring to 'supporting the hegemony of fantasy.'

"Hey, want to support the hegemony of fantasy this weekend?"

"Sure, I'll bring the Mountain Dew!"
 

Haplo781

Legend
I love Paizos and Kobold Press' work.

But it was pretty dumb to call it ORC.
Wizards already knocked the ORC prone with a creative commons license cantrip.
They are waiting for the right moment to dismiss it as the "racist license".
They can do that after they remove orcs from all their official material. Otherwise they're calling themselves racist.
 

gamerprinter

Mapper/Publisher
I can see the consideration that OGL doesn't have a non-abbreviation meaning, so is "neutral' to any given genre. Whereas ORC has a definitive genre definition, making it less 'neutral'.

Personally, for example, I've been veering away from pure fantasy in both the games I play and the games I develop, and why I went to Starfinder, but even my Starfinder game and supplements I publish for, is a bit harder sci-fi than the Starfinder venacular. I haven't used orcs in my games in quite a while, since none of my players choose orc or half orc has a player race.
 


Reynard

Legend
I think fantasy is the most prominent genre in roleplaying games because roleplaying games are fantasies, regardless of genre. Fantasy isn't just the most popular RPG genre -- it's the most popular genre genre. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Star Wars and the MCU are all fantasies of one stripe or another and they absolutely dominate popular culture genre entertainment.

Complaining that RPGs are dominated by fantasy is no different than lamenting that all the big summer movies are super hero movies.

There are lots of lesser known games that aren't fantasy. Go play one.
 



CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Im trying to, but nobody can really be largely successful doing it unless they reskin 5E. 🤷‍♂️
You say that like it's a bad thing. :cool: Esper Genesis , a 5E system, is one of the best sci-fi RPGs I've played (and I've played quite a few). It has the added bonus of a low learning curve for my existing gaming group, too.

The 5E SRD is a lot more versatile and customizable than people give it credit for, and I'm happy that it's headed toward the Creative Commons. Who knows what kinds of game genres we're going to see using the 5E SRD in the next few years?
 
Last edited:

Reynard

Legend
Im trying to, but nobody can really be largely successful doing it unless they reskin 5E. 🤷‍♂️
Why do they (the company I suppose you mean?) need to be "largely successful" for you to play a game.

Also there are more non D&D derivative games than there ever have been, from rules lite one page RPGs like Lazers and Feelings to massive complex crunch fests like HERO 6E.

Is it lamentable that D&D is so dominant? I guess. But there are so many games readily available that anyone who really wants to play something else can.

And sure, finding players can be hard. I empathize with that. I just struggled to put together a Starfinder group and it isn't even that far removed. But, on the upside, I now have 2 new friends to make because I needed butts in chairs!
 

payn

Legend
Why do they (the company I suppose you mean?) need to be "largely successful" for you to play a game.

Also there are more non D&D derivative games than there ever have been, from rules lite one page RPGs like Lazers and Feelings to massive complex crunch fests like HERO 6E.

Is it lamentable that D&D is so dominant? I guess. But there are so many games readily available that anyone who really wants to play something else can.

And sure, finding players can be hard. I empathize with that. I just struggled to put together a Starfinder group and it isn't even that far removed. But, on the upside, I now have 2 new friends to make because I needed butts in chairs!
The struggle is real thanks for the empathy.
 

In Georgia, we only have Coke and the person asks what flavor you want, and you would have to say Sunkist if you wanted some non-Coke.

Same with coffee when I go to Starbucks and they ask what flavor coffee. I should not have to specify coffee flavored coffee, black, hot, medium.
Ah, a fellow Georgian :) I've lived all over, and I still have to adjust when back in Georgia to making sure that I specify what type of soda I want (I only ever use Coke in the house or at my parents').

However, there's only one kind of tea here, and I'll die on that hill: If you ask for tea in GA, you're getting cold syrup. Anything else is by special request. Nothing irks me more than asking for sweet tea in other parts of the country and being told, "We have unsweetened iced tea, and I can give you a packet of sugar." Just say you don't have it. The sugar (or Splenda, which is what I use at home) has to be added when the tea is hot.
 

Why do they (the company I suppose you mean?) need to be "largely successful" for you to play a game.
Network effects. Right now it's really easy to get a group of gamers together to play D&D because, even with edition changes, everyone knows what hitpoints are and knows a dwarf fighter, human cleric, elf wizard, and halfling rogue makes a feasible party. They know a wizard deals out damage per second, a fighter protects the front line, a cleric heals, and a rogue disarms traps and opens doors. They know a dragon is more dangerous than an ogre, which is more dangerous than a goblin.

If you have four players and one GM, each of whom knows a different OGL system, it's a little trickier.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Ah, a fellow Georgian :) I've lived all over, and I still have to adjust when back in Georgia to making sure that I specify what type of soda I want (I only ever use Coke in the house or at my parents').

However, there's only one kind of tea here, and I'll die on that hill: If you ask for tea in GA, you're getting cold syrup. Anything else is by special request. Nothing irks me more than asking for sweet tea in other parts of the country and being told, "We have unsweetened iced tea, and I can give you a packet of sugar." Just say you don't have it. The sugar (or Splenda, which is what I use at home) has to be added when the tea is hot.

Why, you want unsweet tea? Bless your cotton socks. Let's see what we can rustle up.
 


eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
The struggle is real thanks for the empathy.
I also emphasize, I remember the old days where people played more different systems.

Though, I think the link between the name of the license somehow affecting the genre of the games that use it to be tenuous. Like, do most people read the OGL in the back of the book? Did the name "OGL" have any effect on the genres within it?
 
Last edited:

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
The struggle is real thanks for the empathy.

Speaking for myself only, I have found it relatively easy to get people to play one-shots (or short "campaigns" - that last no more than 3-4 sessions) of all sorts of games. It's why I've been able to explore so many rules-lite and one-page games, and have created a bunch of my own for home use. None of those is traditional fantasy.

But just like most people, I struggle to sell people on playing other games for anything more than that. Any campaign has to be D&D. I don't know what it is- obviously, it's not a "learning rules" issue because people are fine doing it just for a single game. I just can't get them to commit to a real campaign of anything that isn't D&D/fantasy.
 

payn

Legend
Speaking for myself only, I have found it relatively easy to get people to play one-shots (or short "campaigns" - that last no more than 3-4 sessions) of all sorts of games. It's why I've been able to explore so many rules-lite and one-page games, and have created a bunch of my own for home use. None of those is traditional fantasy.

But just like most people, I struggle to sell people on playing other games for anything more than that. Any campaign has to be D&D. I don't know what it is- obviously, it's not a "learning rules" issue because people are fine doing it just for a single game. I just can't get them to commit to a real campaign of anything that isn't D&D/fantasy.
I've had limited luck with this too. I say limited because often folks go all D&D in anything they play.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top