[ORC] Vision for one or more ORC systems: convert the entire OGC archives from the start, using a massive team of converters

[Dungeonosophy]

Hi, I realize this will seem like unrealistic 'pony wishing'...

But as the new de-OGLed versions of PF2, AGE, BRP, A5E, DCC, etc. arrive in the coming weeks and months, one truly unprecedented jumpstarter would be:

1) For one or some of those systems to tap into their network of freelancers and expert fans, and arrange for a quick and massive conversion of every scrap of material in the existing SRD archives (3.5e d20 Modern, and 5.0e, with IDs filed off) and other Open Game Content archives (e.g. PF1 and PF2 (including especially PF 3PP), d20 Hero, d20 Anime, and other Open archives at the Open Gaming Network), so that it's all available from the start. Or at least in a roll-out of months, rather than years.

If even only one ORC-aligned game system converted nearly all of the existing OGC which is posted at those existing archive sites, it would be such an unprecedented foundation. Not even PF2 has done that.

That would be huge foundation for receiving a massive influx of rebel ORCs who are coming out of the gigantic D&D Empire. The fully-converted system would serve as a very robust resource for converting all their wild and wonderful species and class features, feats and spells which they'll be bringing over from DMs Guild, D&D Beyond Homebrew, etc.

If there are concerns that the massive army of convertors might not convert things in a totally balanced way, then the material could be considered 'provisional', and not yet compliant for organized play, until fully vetted by each company's in-house design team, over time.

2) Beyond that one fully-converted system, it would be a wonderful camaraderie-building feature for two or more ORC systems (e.g. PF2, AGE, BRP, DCC, and A5E) to have also converted all the stuff, and for their online archive pages to be hyperlinked to each other, for each feature, on a page-by-page basis. So as to aid in easy character conversion between systems.

In the ORC age, it could become customary to convert our characters into and out of multiple game systems at the drop of the hat. So that we are equipped to jump in and play at any ORC-allied tables. Once it is all lined up page-by-page, someone (or the companies themselves) could feasibly produce multi-system converter apps, for converting characters, monsters, spells, etc.

This would be a realization of the Envoy vision of WOTC founder Peter Adkison, for which in an previous dark age, he suffered attack.

 

[DMZ2112]

Instant Acrimonious Lawsuit;
just add WotC.

This proposal feels like dismantling the railroad tracks when you can hear the whistle in the distance.

Don't get me wrong, I love the passion, and you are describing in broad terms where I hope the ORC ends up someday. But it's one thing to acknowledge that Wizards' SRDs are a lot of hot air trading accepted free-use rights for a promise of freedom from spurious litigation, and entirely another to assert it with an industry-wide initiative!

There's no way this would not engender the strongest possible response from the rights holder. The ORC developers need to fly casual. Personally, I'm still hopeful we can get out of this mess without it ever seeing the inside of a courtroom; there's no need to counter scorched earth with scorched earth.

 

[overgeeked]

Many of the people who own those games are onboard with ORC. They will likely be releasing their own game systems under ORC when it arrives. They’ll get there. That’s step 17. We’re on step 2.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Don't get me wrong, I love the passion, and you are describing in broad terms where I hope the ORC ends up someday.

Thank you! agreed. I'm just a voice for 'soon' rather than 'someday.'

But it's one thing to acknowledge that Wizards' SRDs are a lot of hot air trading accepted free-use rights for a promise of freedom from spurious litigation, and entirely another to assert it with an industry-wide initiative!

I only meant that the ORC versions would have to cover everything which is contained those SRDs, but with different names and formatting, not traceable to the SRDs per se. And also: that "not WotC" stuff would just be anonymously interspersed within all the other stuff which would be converted from the PF1 and PF2 archives.

But well, okay, then if the WotC SRDs were left out of it, even if one or more ORC games "only" converted the entire contents of the PF1 d20 archive (including 3PP OGC) and the PF2 archive, that would be a gigantic start. Let's start with a full-blown foundation, instead of trickling it out via slowly updated splatbooks over the course of years and decades.

 

[DMZ2112]

I absolutely agree that there is an element of urgency to having at least one complete SRD released under the ORC, preferably two.

This is a major topic of conversation amongst the Wizards apologists on D&D Beyond, that if the ORC can't put up it should shut up. Disappointing but true.

 

[aco175]

I know everyone is screaming for now, now, NOW in todays world, but sometimes things need to be slow. I think the now response to the OGL1.1 was needed and done what it needed to, but now I think we need to chill for a few weeks to let cooler heads prevail. If the new OGL coming out is still crap, then things should roll faster. I know companies need to plan for their year and for things like Christmas shopping and such.

 

[Matt Thomason]

1) For one or some of those systems to tap into their network of freelancers and expert fans, and arrange for a quick and massive conversion of every scrap of material in the existing SRD archives (3.5e d20 Modern, and 5e, with IDs filed off) and other Open Game Content archives (e.g. PF1 and PF2 (including especially PF 3PP), d20 Hero, d20 Anime, and other Open archives at the Open Gaming Network), so that it's all available from the start. Or at least in a roll-out of months, rather than years.

This is similar to one of my first thoughts on the ORC announcement, but by having publishers do blanket "Everything we ever produced under the OGL, you also have our permission to redistribute under ORC" announcements. Its just the very, very complicated (and risky) task of filing off the serial numbers for the underlying SRD that would get in the way.

That task becomes even more complicated and risky if you don't have the permission of the publisher in question and also have to file their serial numbers off. And somewhat risky for anyone down the line who decides to use that version because they need to be confident the converter did the job thoroughly enough to avoid copyright infringement.

I don't want to be a downer on this, because I'm also unhappy that moving to the ORC license means saying goodbye to a lot of OGL OGC we will no longer have the rights to use, and truly love the idea we might be able to do something about that. Just trying to be realistic about the amount of work involved and the real risks attached to both doing it and reusing it.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

If even only one ORC-aligned game system converted nearly all of the existing OGC which is posted at those existing archive sites, it would be such an unprecedented foundation. Not even PF2 has done that.

The ORC license doesn't even exist yet. Of course no one has released anything under it. Maybe give Paizo and their lawyers some time to actually write the thing first.

 

[Yaarel]

Hi, I realize this will seem like unrealistic 'pony wishing'...

But as the new de-OGLed versions of PF2, AGE, BRP, A5E, DCC, etc. arrive in the coming weeks and months, one truly unprecedented jumpstarter would be:

1) For one or some of those systems to tap into their network of freelancers and expert fans, and arrange for a quick and massive conversion of every scrap of material in the existing SRD archives (3.5e d20 Modern, and 5.0e, with IDs filed off) and other Open Game Content archives (e.g. PF1 and PF2 (including especially PF 3PP), d20 Hero, d20 Anime, and other Open archives at the Open Gaming Network), so that it's all available from the start. Or at least in a roll-out of months, rather than years.

If even only one ORC-aligned game system converted nearly all of the existing OGC which is posted at those existing archive sites, it would be such an unprecedented foundation. Not even PF2 has done that.

That would be huge foundation for receiving a massive influx of rebel ORCs who are coming out of the gigantic D&D Empire. The fully-converted system would serve as a very robust resource for converting all their wild and wonderful species and class features, feats and spells which they'll be bringing over from DMs Guild, D&D Beyond Homebrew, etc.

If there are concerns that the massive army of convertors might not convert things in a totally balanced way, then the material could be considered 'provisional', and not yet compliant for organized play, until fully vetted by each company's in-house design team, over time.

2) Beyond that one fully-converted system, it would be a wonderful camaraderie-building feature for two or more ORC systems (e.g. PF2, AGE, BRP, DCC, and A5E) to have also converted all the stuff, and for their online archive pages to be hyperlinked to each other, for each feature, on a page-by-page basis. So as to aid in easy character conversion between systems.

In the ORC age, it could become customary to convert our characters into and out of multiple game systems at the drop of the hat. So that we are equipped to jump in and play at any ORC-allied tables. Once it is all lined up page-by-page, someone (or the companies themselves) could feasibly produce multi-system converter apps, for converting characters, monsters, spells, etc.

This would be a realization of the Envoy vision of WOTC founder Peter Adkison, for which in an previous dark age, he suffered attack.

Actually, the request is realistic.

The Pathfinder 2 Reference Document is already a "de-OGL-ed" SRD. It just needs doublechecking for any accidental imports.

 

[dave2008]

I absolutely agree that there is an element of urgency to having at least one complete SRD released under the ORC, preferably two.

This is a major topic of conversation amongst the Wizards apologists on D&D Beyond, that if the ORC can't put up it should shut up. Disappointing but true.

Personally I am more concerned about the legal language of ORC than I am about SRDs that will be included. Those will come, if the document is good. I think the time to blindly assume ORC is a good document without seeing should have passed. Let's get to step 1 first!

If they build it well, they will come!

 

[dave2008]

Actually, the request is realistic.

The Pathfinder 2 Reference Document is already a "de-OGL-ed" SRD. It just needs doublechecking for any accidental imports.

The request was for every 3PP to be converted to ORC. That doesn't seem realistic to me.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

The request was for every 3PP to be converted to ORC.

No, that’s not true.

In my OP, I call for “conversion of every scrap of material in the existing SRD archives” (e.g. the materials hosted at the Open Gaming Network).

It’s true that much of that Open Game Content is from Third Party Publishers (i.e. not WOTC). My request does not include all the OGC which is embedded in 3P books which never got stripped out and posted on an OGC archive site.

And the way you worded your false recap of my OP was ‘naughty’ … because the way you worded it, it sounded as if i were “requesting that all present-day Third Party Publishers ‘convert’ to (i.e. join) the ORC Alliance and ORC License.”

Which has nothing to do with my OP.

 

[dave2008]

No, that’s not true.

In my OP, I call for “conversion of every scrap of material in the existing SRD archives” (e.g. the materials hosted at the Open Gaming Network).

It’s true that much of that Open Game Content is from Third Party Publishers (i.e. not WOTC). My request does not include all the OGC which is embedded in 3P books which never got stripped out and posted on an OGC archive site.

And the way you worded your false recap of my OP was ‘naughty’ … because the way you worded it, it sounded as if i were “requesting that all present-day Third Party Publishers ‘convert’ to (i.e. join) the ORC Alliance and ORC License.”

Which has nothing to do with my OP.

Got it - I misunderstood. Still not something I'm pushing for, but I'm not going to get in your way!

 

[Alzrius]

The Pathfinder 2 Reference Document is already a "de-OGL-ed" SRD. It just needs doublechecking for any accidental imports.

Is it? I'm hearing people put forward this idea that Pathfinder 2 was never really derivative of 3.5, and only used the OGL for the sake of making it easy for third-parties to make compatible supplements (though that makes it a bit awkward why they didn't just post it under the OGL without listing the 3.5 SRD in their Section 15), but I find it rather hard to believe.

It's certainly a different game, but not at all derivative? While not completely identical, their chill touch looks a lot like the 3.5 chill touch. Their talisman of the sphere looks a lot like the 3.5 talisman of the sphere. Their babau demon looks a lot like the 3.5 babau demon, etc.

I know a lot of people talk about various system processes in the game engine (e.g. things like actions in combat, attack and damage rolls, saving throws, etc.) as being central aspects of determining whether or not PF2 is derivative of 3.5, but while I think that debate is far from settled, the number of things unique to 3.5 which PF2 uses isn't few; if they want to change all of the names that they use from the 3.5 SRD (at the very least), then they have their work cut out for them.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Is it? I'm hearing people put forward this idea that Pathfinder 2 was never really derivative of 3.5, and only used the OGL for the sake of making it easy for third-parties to make compatible supplements (though that makes it a bit awkward why they didn't just post it under the OGL without listing the 3.5 SRD in their Section 15), but I find it rather hard to believe.

It's certainly a different game, but not at all derivative? While not completely identical, their chill touch looks a lot like the 3.5 chill touch. Their talisman of the sphere looks a lot like the 3.5 talisman of the sphere. Their babau demon looks a lot like the 3.5 babau demon, etc.

I know a lot of people talk about various system processes in the game engine (e.g. things like actions in combat, attack and damage rolls, saving throws, etc.) as being central aspects of determining whether or not PF2 is derivative of 3.5, but while I think that debate is far from settled, the number of things unique to 3.5 which PF2 uses isn't few; if they want to change all of the names that they use from the 3.5 SRD (at the very least), then they have their work cut out for them.

will be interesting to see what terminology Paizo settles on—as that will be what most other Open fantasy rules-sets then follow.

Paizo’s lawyers will have gone thru it with a fine-toothed comb, ready to defend the results in a court of law.

A5E / EN Publishing have retained the same lawyers as Paizo…Azora Law.

 

[Yaarel]

Is it? I'm hearing people put forward this idea that Pathfinder 2 was never really derivative of 3.5, and only used the OGL for the sake of making it easy for third-parties to make compatible supplements (though that makes it a bit awkward why they didn't just post it under the OGL without listing the 3.5 SRD in their Section 15), but I find it rather hard to believe.

It's certainly a different game, but not at all derivative? While not completely identical, their chill touch looks a lot like the 3.5 chill touch. Their talisman of the sphere looks a lot like the 3.5 talisman of the sphere. Their babau demon looks a lot like the 3.5 babau demon, etc.

I know a lot of people talk about various system processes in the game engine (e.g. things like actions in combat, attack and damage rolls, saving throws, etc.) as being central aspects of determining whether or not PF2 is derivative of 3.5, but while I think that debate is far from settled, the number of things unique to 3.5 which PF2 uses isn't few; if they want to change all of the names that they use from the 3.5 SRD (at the very least), then they have their work cut out for them.

Yes.

The general idea is, Pathfinder 2 designers made a point to write the game from scratch. Generally, there is no copy-paste from 3.5 SRD, and this helps for copyrighting Pathfinder 2. In the D&D 3.5 SRD, both the rules system itself and the public domain folkbelief themes are uncopyrightable. So simply avoiding copy-paste usually is enough to keep Pathfinder 2 independent.

That said, there are specific examples (such as the ones you mention), where specific phrasing permeates into the Pathfinder rules. But even these are debatable. For example, "Chill Touch", a touch that causes icy damage? That doesnt seem especially copyrightable. But maybe? But in the sense of a ghostly "chill" causing damage? Still probably not? But in any case, the debatable stuff probably does well to change the wording to avoid issues.

Paizo (such as Erik Mona) has said, they can de-OGL-ify the P2 RD. But to do it properly, would take alot of work, and they would rather not at this time. But if forced to because of Hasbro-WotC bad faith, they will.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Paizo (such as Erik Mona) has said, they can de-OGL-ify the P2 RD. But to do it properly, would take alot of work, and they would rather not at this time. But if forced to because of Hasbro-WotC bad faith, they will.

is this a recent quote? ryan dancey’s recent interview (two days ago) suggested that paizo is definitely moving on: “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.”

 

[Alzrius]

But even these are debatable. For example, "Chill Touch", a touch that causes icy damage? That doesnt seem especially copyrightable. But maybe? But in the sense of a ghostly "chill" causing damage? Still probably not? But in any case, the debatable stuff probably does well to change the wording to avoid issues.

I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that there's a certain point where even if you avoid using the exact wording, you can still have enough similarities to where it becomes a potential infringement. For instance, take a look at the two versions of chill touch. Leaving aside the identical names, both are a 1st-level spell, both are tagged as being necromancy, both have somatic and verbal casting components, both are touch-range, both call for a "Fortitude" saving throw, both deal "negative" (or "negative energy" for the 3.5 version) damage to living creatures, both cause undead creatures to flee, etc.

But that's really a microcosm of the issue, which is that Paizo's looking to get away from publishing under an area of uncertainty, and I'm not sure that there is one. My understanding is that there is no ironclad pre-trial litmus test that you can put a work through to determine whether or not it's infringing on something else; a judge or jury is the ultimate arbiter.

To that end, Paizo's choices are essentially to try and de-OGL-ify their works (which potentially includes everything they want to reprint) and hope that WotC thinks that there's no infringement, or that it's at least not worth going to court over, or to stick with the OGL v1.0a anyway since WotC doesn't seem likely to try to yank it again (and that there's a strong chance WotC would lose on the merits if they tried and it went to court).

Either way offers some uncertainty. My concern is that de-OGL-ifying their work would be a huge process, one that's long and costly and ultimately doesn't end with them being any more certain of avoiding a court battle than they would if they'd just stuck with the OGL to begin with.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that there's a certain point where even if you avoid using the exact wording, you can still have enough similarities to where it becomes a potential infringement. For instance, take a look at the two versions of chill touch. Leaving aside the identical names, both are a 1st-level spell, both are tagged as being necromancy, both have somatic and verbal casting components, both are touch-range, both call for a "Fortitude" saving throw, both deal "negative" (or "negative energy" for the 3.5 version) damage to living creatures, both cause undead creatures to flee, etc.

But that's really a microcosm of the issue, which is that Paizo's looking to get away from publishing under an area of uncertainty, and I'm not sure that there is one. My understanding is that there is no ironclad pre-trial litmus test that you can put a work through to determine whether or not it's infringing on something else; a judge or jury is the ultimate arbiter.

To that end, Paizo's choices are essentially to try and de-OGL-ify their works (which potentially includes everything they want to reprint) and hope that WotC thinks that there's no infringement, or that it's at least not worth going to court over, or to stick with the OGL v1.0a anyway since WotC doesn't seem likely to try to yank it again (and that there's a strong chance WotC would lose on the merits if they tried and it went to court).

Either way offers some uncertainty. My concern is that de-OGL-ifying their work would be a huge process, one that's long and costly and ultimately doesn't end with them being any more certain of avoiding a court battle than they would if they'd just stuck with the OGL to begin with.

What makes this situation different is, most of the stuff in the SRD cannot be copyrighted in the first place.

Game rules. Public domain.

Reallife folkbeliefs. Public domain.

is this a recent quote? ryan dancey’s recent interview (two days ago) suggested that paizo is definitely moving on: “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.”

My info is from over a week ago.

Your info is most recent.

So, Paizo now feels it is worth the effort. Cool.

 

[Alzrius]

What makes this situation different is, most of the stuff in the SRD cannot be copyrighted in the first place.

Game rules. Public domain.

Reallife folkbeliefs. Public domain.

I'm pretty sure most of the stuff in the SRD can be, and is, copyrighted, since it's an expression of those game rules; at the very least it's ambiguous, since the line between uncopyrightable rules and copyrightable expressions has never been defined for a tabletop RPG. In that regard, I suspect that the expansive nature of Pathfinder works against it if it ever came down to a court battle. For instance, having a die roll to avoid a combat effect is probably not copyrightable; calling it a "Fortitude saving throw" probably is.

Likewise for the issue of real-life mythology and beliefs. Having a monster named a "babau" isn't copyrightable by itself. Having it be a demon that's covered in acid and has a "sneak attack" that deals 2d6 extra dice of damage, telepathy out to 100 feet, etc. probably is.