Paizo Announces New Irrevocable Open RPG License To Replace the OGL

​

Paizo, the maker of Pathfinder, has just announced a new open license for use with RPGs. The license will not be owned by Paizo - or by any TTRPG company, and will be stewarded by Azora Law, a company which represents several tabletop gaming companies, until it finds its home with an independent non-profit. This new license is designed to be irrevocable.

We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.

The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

Read more on Paizo's blog.

 

[mamba]

Years later Paizo is bought by Amazon who immediately revokes it.

they cannot, as they intend to pass the license to a 3rd party

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yup, I'm kinda in the same boat at the moment. I put my hopes on KP, wishing real hard they dont go with a Pathfinder design mentality, because there's no way in hell we'd play a system as heavy as PF, sadly.

Why are you talking like PF2 is as "heavy" as PF1? They're completely different weights.

I like the name of your system though!

 

[Remathilis]

From a DM side, PF2 is slightly easier to run than 5E, I'd suggest. From a player side I think it eventually evens out but it does start a bit heavier than 5E.

PF1 is nightmarishly fiddly of course.

I played PF1 from its creation to 5e's drop. It was great at first, but quickly became a nightmare of math. Though to be fair, 3.5 was a nightmare too past 12th level.

I have not played PF2e, but I've looked at it and I wasn't a fan of it. Most of my players fell into the same boat; it seemed to be full of minutiae and demand a strong understanding of the mechanics (and of synergy) to work. And when half your players don't own a PHB, that sounds like a huge problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have not played PF2e, but I've looked at it and I wasn't a fan of it. Most of my players fell into the same boat; it seemed to be full of minutiae and demand a strong understanding of the mechanics (and of synergy) to work. And when half your players don't own a PHB, that sounds like a huge problem.

None of that is required with PF2 any more than 5E.

I'm not even a PF fan note.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why are you talking like PF2 is as "heavy" as PF1? They're completely different weights.

I like the name of your system though!

Because of my players...

we play 5e with PHB only, no feats, and spell cards and they still find a way to forget which die to roll to attack in-between turns and give me the dead-fish-eyes when I as if their spell require a save or a spell attack roll

So no way in hell I'd be able to push them though character creation without at least 2-3 of them jumping through a window or trying to slice their own throat with a spoon!

 

[Remathilis]

None of that is required with PF2 any more than 5E.

I'm not even a PF fan note.

When I hear things like "you only have a 60% chance of hitting unless your players know how to provide bonuses with their abilities that help modify your to hit" that sounds like a level of complicated that I'm not sure I want to deal with.

Again, nothing but respect for Paizo, but they make a game that is far more complicated than I want to play these days.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because of my players...

we play 5e with PHB only, no feats, and spell cards and they still find a way to forget which die to roll to attack in-between turns and give me the dead-fish-eyes when I as if their spell require a save or a spell attack roll

So no way in hell I'd be able to push them though character creation without at least 2-3 of them jumping through a window or trying to slice their own throat with a spoon!

Understandable in that case!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

we play 5e with PHB only, no feats, and spell cards and they still find a way to forget which die to roll to attack in-between turns and give me the dead-fish-eyes when I as if their spell require a save or a spell attack roll

Are you DMing my players behind my back?

"It's the d20. It's always the d20, whenever you want to try and see if you can do something. Yes, even now."

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Are you DMing my players behind my back?

"It's the d20. It's always the d20, whenever you want to try and see if you can do something. Yes, even now."

...and inevitably they grab the d12....

 

[Alzrius]

Their website is down, so I can't see if there's been an answer, but I asked on Paizo's website if there's any way that the ORC License could have a provision so that Open Game Content from the OGL v1.0a could be used under it? That way, twenty-plus years of compatible materials could be easily ported over to the new license (including the 5.1 SRD).

Any of the lawyers here on EN World want to chime in as to whether or not this is a feasible idea?