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.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I think you're severely overestimating how difficult it is to make a 5e-compatible game without infringing copyright. I don't think WotC will have much of a case to say "Yeah we own having 6 ability scores and also the numbers 1-20"

Very true.

But then we go back to the original OGL conundrum. The value of the OGL wasn't that it allowed you access to the SRD (which is rules with the product identity stuff removed), which you could already do under existing law. You can't copyright game mechanics, only their expression. It was the OGL's explicit promise to allow it that made you feel safe to not get sued by a vastly larger actor.

If you use the new ORC license and make what you consider to be a non-SRD based 5e alike, even though by the letter of the law you'd probably be fine, there's nothing stopping Hasbro from suing you into the ground over it, right or wrong.

 

[Branduil]

Very true.

But then we go back to the original OGL conundrum. The value of the OGL wasn't that it allowed you access to the SRD (which is rules with the product identity stuff removed), which you could already do under existing law. You can't copyright game mechanics, only their expression. It was the OGL's explicit promise to allow it that made you feel safe to not get sued by a vastly larger actor.

If you use the new ORC license and make what you consider to be a non-SRD based 5e alike, even though by the letter of the law you'd probably be fine, there's nothing stopping Hasbro from suing you into the ground over it, right or wrong.

Well I guess we'll see if Hasbro is willing to truly burn the D&D brand to ashes, because I guarantee there will be multiple 5e-alikes as soon as ORC is finished.

 

[TheSword]

I feel that there is enough of a base to maintain interest in a a variety of smaller games as opposed to one monolithic one. Heck the market supports it now. Yes DnD is the 5000 lb gorilla in the room and is the attention hog of the community, but there are other games that are profitable that don't fit the same niche. Honestly I think breaking up the DnD hold will only help those lesser known systems thrive.

There have already been many many alternatives to 5e. Pathfinder has been an alternative to 5e for years. I don’t see that these announcements as signifying anything different to what has already been happening.

For me it’s a question of risk. People are valuing the risk of failure if they go it alone as lower than the risk of WOTC deciding to destroy them if they accept OGL 1.1 (which kinda defies the point of having a 1.1 license). Instead they could be building a relationship with WoTC that means they wouldn’t want to.

That risk of WoTC changing terms would be reduced if people worked with them. CR for instance has mutual self interest with WotC. They collaborate together extensively - even to the point of publishing together. That is a successful working relationship. Why else do you think CR have been sensibly silent on the matter.

Lots of folks are lighting the torches to burn the bridges and I’m not sure they are doing the right thing. Particularly something like Level Up whose product more than any other is 90% D&D 5e.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Well I guess we'll see if Hasbro is willing to truly burn the D&D brand to ashes, because I guarantee there will be multiple 5e-alikes as soon as ORC is finished.

I agree. I think we will.

Let's just say I don't think it would be a wise business decision.

You can't build a business around hoping that a 9 billion dollar company remains chastened forever and doesn't sue you and make an example to shut all that down whenever down the line. ORC doesn't change that reality if you make a 5e clone.

But yeah, I think we'll see that or near enough.

 

[FoolishFrost]

There have already been many many alternatives to 5e. Pathfinder has been an alternative to 5e for years. I don’t see that these announcements as signifying anything different to what has already been happening.

For me it’s a question of risk. People are valuing the risk of failure if they go it alone as lower than the risk of WOTC deciding to destroy them if they accept OGL 1.1 (which kinda defies the point of having a 1.1 license). Instead they could be building a relationship with WoTC that means they wouldn’t want to.

That risk of WoTC changing terms would be reduced if people worked with them. CR for instance has mutual self interest with WotC. They collaborate together extensively - even to the point of publishing together. That is a successful working relationship. Why else do you think CR have been sensibly silent on the matter.

Lots of folks are lighting the torches to burn the bridges and I’m not sure they are doing the right thing. Particularly something like Level Up whose product more than any other is 90% D&D 5e.

Well… Considering the circumstances? The other option it to shutdown.

Wizards just tried to hustle them, they can’t afford to trust them, and they like the jobs they have. What else are they going to do?

Give other options. I’m sure they would love to have them.

 

[TheSword]

IF EN Publishing De-OGL-ifies the Level Up System (which mostly involves renaming and stuff) AND joins the ORC License, then 3pp like me can use the ORC license to make Level Up content.

Which is A5e D&D by a different name.

So you'll be able to get your 5e D&D from EN Publishing without a single red cent going to WotC. Your already extant 5e Material? Works just fine in Level Up.

I get where you are coming from, but that leaves WotC no recourse but legal remedy. You are daring them to sue you/publishers of Level up/other 5e-likes. Which might work fine, but might end in tears. it depends on how much people have to lose vs how confident they are the law will favour them.

 

[Reynard]

I think you're severely overestimating how difficult it is to make a 5e-compatible game without infringing copyright. I don't think WotC will have much of a case to say "Yeah we own having 6 ability scores and also the numbers 1-20"

One thing to consider is that different kinds of products require different levels of potential copyright infringement to be compatible. Adventures are probably the least problematic: you can say there are 3 goblins in this room and a magic flaming sword in that chest and be done. Setting guides are similar in that: "Lady Marisu is a 111th level paladin"... A monster book is a bit more trouble potentially, especially if you use WotC's statblock layout, as would be a book full of classes built in the manner that WotC builds classes. All this depending on how some court might interpret mechanics vs expression, as we have debated ad finitum even though no one actually knows where the line is.

 

[TheSword]

Well… Considering the circumstances? The other option it to shutdown.

Wizards just tried to hustle them, they can’t afford to trust them, and they like the jobs they have. What else are they going to do?

Give other options. I’m sure they would love to have them.

Well no, there are a few options before that. 3pp would have been better served getting together and negotiating an alternative. We understand why you want to do it, but we think we can work with you to do it better. The law is uncertain and none of us want to go to court so let’s agree where we can move.

You want 20% royalties over $750k because you want a cut of successful products that use your IP then fine - it needs to be 5% above $750k increasing to 20% at $2m.

You want to be able to change the terms at any time - okay that doesn’t work for us. It needs to factor in minimum periods, protect existing products and allow for at least 12 months notice.

You want rights to use our work to avoid getting sued. Fine, but you also need to provide a system for arbitration where work is recognized and highlighted to ensure proper credit is given.

The negotiation may still happen (my gut feeling is it probably will, with at least some of the big players) and all this posturing is just each side shoring up their negotiating position. A chunk of the fan base having collective apoplexy is a pretty stark overreaction in those circumstances.

 

[overgeeked]

I for one look forward to the post-WotC RPG industry. D&D as a brand can burn.

 

[Steampunkette]

Very true.

But then we go back to the original OGL conundrum. The value of the OGL wasn't that it allowed you access to the SRD (which is rules with the product identity stuff removed), which you could already do under existing law. You can't copyright game mechanics, only their expression. It was the OGL's explicit promise to allow it that made you feel safe to not get sued by a vastly larger actor.

If you use the new ORC license and make what you consider to be a non-SRD based 5e alike, even though by the letter of the law you'd probably be fine, there's nothing stopping Hasbro from suing you into the ground over it, right or wrong.

Okay... lemme try to 'splain it this way:

I'm gonna make a book for Pathfinder 2e under the ORC or OGL 1.0a or whatever other license I am afforded by Paizo. I design some Rage Feats for their Barbarian Class. At no point do I include the full SRD Ruleset to explain what Rage Feats or Barbarians -are- in my product. I don't have to. Because of the ORC/OGL 1.0a I am -referencing- the concept of Rage Feats which are part of their Ruleset. Their SRD. My customers know this because I've advertised the game as a Pathfinder 2e 3pp sourcebook. And they have access to the Pathfinder 2e SRD so they can use both sources.

If I want to make Rage Feats -without- using Pathfinder 2e's SRD and the ORC or OGL 1.0a, I instead have to produce a book that provides context to what Rage Feats -are-. And gives them a purpose by creating my own Barbarian Class.

And those Rage Feats can do the same thing, because the mechanic isn't copyrightable, but it takes a TON more work, pages of text, and a lot of time and effort to put it into context without referencing Pathfinder's Barbarian or my Compatibility with that system, since acknowledging compatibility references someone else's Intellectual Property.

That's why Pathfinder initially used the 3.5 SRD so heavily. They literally copy-pasted most of it into their first books and then added changes where they wanted changes to make it their own thing. And they were allowed to directly "plagiarize" someone else's writing by the license itself. They were able to create a massive core rulebook off of someone else's work, essentially, due to the OGL.

I put plagiarize in scare quotes because while that's what it would be without the OGL, they were given permission to do so by the OGL.

I get where you are coming from, but that leaves WotC no recourse but legal remedy. You are daring them to sue you/publishers of Level up/other 5e-likes. Which might work fine, but might end in tears. it depends on how much people have to lose vs how confident they are the law will favour them.

Hasbro and WotC have no legal recourse if the writing is all new and under a different license. Even if the mechanics themselves are fundamentally the same, the words and the names don't belong to them.

See, when Level Up was being written in the first place, Morrus had everyone re-write everything. No copy-pasting from WotC's work, no plagiarizing, nothing. The only things that the OGL covered were names. Like "Green Slime". A specific WotC owned idea. But change the name to "Azure Sludge" and since the words after the name aren't taken from WotC, they have no claim to it at all.

Repeat ad-nauseum through 636 pages of the Adventurer's Guide, 367 pages of Trials and Treasures, and 530 pages of the Monstrous Menagerie.

At least that's the working theory that's got us all doin' stuff. But it's a sound enough theory that the EN Publishing Twitter posted about it publicly and all of us are in the word mines hammering out diamonds.