OGL and ORC; A Marriage made in Heaven?

Remathilis

Legend
So in light of Paizo's announcement of ORC and WotC backing down some on the OGL 1.1, lets engage in some "What If..."

WotC has blinked. The majority of the 3pp community got WotC to back down somewhat. Yet trust is lost, and WotC is still confident they can replace 1.0a with an updated license, even one that isn't as draconian. However, Pazio has partnered with others to create an alternative license that is system neutral and irrevocable. While WotC still feels 1.0a might be revokable (or at least, they may force new content under the new OGL) that might not be a problem as ORC can be used to pick up that slack. And I don't recall anything saying that you can't use OGL on one product and different license on another. Hence, what might potentially come about.

1.0a becomes a dead/legacy license. Old stuff that used it remains, but no new stuff comes from it.
OGL 1.x becomes the way forward FOR D&D COMPATIBLE PRODUCTS.
ORC becomes the way forward for everything else.

So, Kobold Press can make a product for its Black Sails system using ORC, and it can make a different product (or perhaps a different version of the same product?) using OGL for 1D&D. All their eggs are no longer in one basket. Companies who still wish to get into 1D&D can use OGL, but they have additional options using ORC. If WotC ever goes Stupid Greedy again, they simply stop making 1D&D products and keep with their home system (or adopt a different system if they don't have an in-house).

Paizo can make a 1D&D compatible AP using OGL while still making Pathfinder APs using ORC. Kobold could make a campaign guide to Primeval Thule for Black Sails under ORC, but then release a "Player's Guide" for 1D&D using OGL as a sort of conversion guide. If WotC tries this again, KP and Paizo stop producing the D&D-compatible products but keep making their own stuff. Existential threat no longer is a concern, and WotC will have to accept they are a leader among peers, not a King among vassals.

Of course, the biggest problem is that you now have to design for two systems: D&D and your home system. And I don't forsee companies wanting to sink double R&D into both systems. But it's possible something like what Goodman does (DCC has its own line and 5EF for separate products that are 5e compatible released semi-regularly) might be an option. KP could do a D&D related product or two per year while sinking much of its work into BS products. Fluff is system neutral, so really it's only using D&D specific expressions of crunch that might require work.

It may come that companies don't have to choose between D&D support and survival. They might be able do both. Obviously, we won't know until both licenses are finalized. But we may yet be able to live in harmony between both licenses. Time will tell.

Unless I missed something utterly obvious, of course. IANAL and all that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ECMO3

Hero
I don't think this will happen. I do not think a significant number of 3PP will publish material under the new OGL.

As far as D&D content, I think the most likely scenario is someone publishes 5E content using OGL 1.0a into the ORC while 1.0a still exists and then groups pivot off of this publication to publish their own 5E D&D material.

It could get tricky, but I think the key is to publish parts of the 3E SRD and 5E SRD mechanics in another document licensed both under the OGL 1.0a and ORC while that avenue is still available.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Can you simultaneously license the same material under 2 different licenses, especially if those licenses have very different views of access and obligation? I don't know.
The SAME product? Probably not. Two similar products tailored for different systems? I don't see why not.

I guess my point is that companies don't have to choose between one or the other. They can have different products for both. That way, they don't lose the D&D audience while also doing their own thing. They don't have to tell WotC to GDIAF, nor do they have to be utterly at their whims. Diversification might be the true path out of this.
 

Reynard

Legend
The SAME product? Probably not. Two similar products tailored for different systems? I don't see why not.

I guess my point is that companies don't have to choose between one or the other. They can have different products for both. That way, they don't lose the D&D audience while also doing their own thing. They don't have to tell WotC to GDIAF, nor do they have to be utterly at their whims. Diversification might be the true path out of this.
Interesting. I wonder if anyone will try it.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Can you simultaneously license the same material under 2 different licenses, especially if those licenses have very different views of access and obligation? I don't know.
Insofar as whether or not it's possible to publish a product under two difference licenses, we know that the answer to this is an unambiguous "yes." That's because we've seen it before, many times: during the d20 era, a lot of products were published under the Open Game License as well as the d20 Standard Trademark License (this latter license having the publishers agree to additional restrictions in exchange for being able to use the white-and-red d20 logo).

But the d20 STL was specifically made to be used in conjunction with the OGL, so it might not be the best test case. It's hard to say if the ORC License will be usable with any iteration of the OGL, especially since we don't know what the final version of WotC's revised OGL will look like.
 

Insofar as whether or not it's possible to publish a product under two difference licenses, we know that the answer to this is an unambiguous "yes." That's because we've seen it before, many times: during the d20 era, a lot of products were published under the Open Game License as well as the d20 Standard Trademark License (this latter license having the publishers agree to additional restrictions in exchange for being able to use the white-and-red d20 logo).

But the d20 STL was specifically made to be used in conjunction with the OGL, so it might not be the best test case. It's hard to say if the ORC License will be usable with any iteration of the OGL, especially since we don't know what the final version of WotC's revised OGL will look like.
Also doesn't FATE publish under both OGL and Creative Commons?
 

Reynard

Legend
Insofar as whether or not it's possible to publish a product under two difference licenses, we know that the answer to this is an unambiguous "yes." That's because we've seen it before, many times: during the d20 era, a lot of products were published under the Open Game License as well as the d20 Standard Trademark License (this latter license having the publishers agree to additional restrictions in exchange for being able to use the white-and-red d20 logo).

But the d20 STL was specifically made to be used in conjunction with the OGL, so it might not be the best test case. It's hard to say if the ORC License will be usable with any iteration of the OGL, especially since we don't know what the final version of WotC's revised OGL will look like.
I don't think the d20STL gave access to the SRD, just the compatibility logo. I think anything under the d20STL had to be an OGL product, if I recall.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I don't think the d20STL gave access to the SRD, just the compatibility logo. I think anything under the d20STL had to be an OGL product, if I recall.
Sure; no one suggested that you needed to use the d20 STL to use the SRD (and you didn't; lots of products used the SRD without using the d20 STL), though I do think that the d20 STL wasn't something that could be used (in any meaningful way) without also using the OGL. But your question was if a book could be released under two licenses simultaneously, and the slew of OGL/d20 STL products that we got make it very clear that such a thing is entirely possible.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top