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

[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.