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.

 

[overgeeked]

Because, simply put, the frog does not want to let the scorpion ride on it's back again.

Listen, a willingness to negotiate is great. On the other hand, the other side has to do so in good faith. I have had dozens of utterly silly contracts tossed at me by people who used boilerplates or didn't understand what the contract said. I advise them, to amend, why, and what's wrong with them. They either change them, or not.

But Wizards is not some noob who just grabbed a contract of the net. They created this thing, agreed to it, and released it for signature. This contract is not a thing to negotiate from, it was an extinction level event that Wizards HAD to know was going to crush companies. It's designed to crush them. It's bad faith.

So no. Negotiation is really not an option. No contract that sounds like "Gimmie 25% and let me punch you in the face any time I like!" is a starting point.

Exactly. “Gimme 25% of your revenue, let me freely copy and distribute all your content, and give me the right to destroy your business at will.” Is not a good-faith position.

 

[payn]

This goes back to my original point about divide and conquer. I just can’t see multiple disparate systems only linked by a legal document carrying weight.

I don’t see the leverage in these negotiations.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I get what people are saying here. Not sure how it works elsewhere, but being in the right is just step 1 in our legal system. Being capable of weathering the SLAPP and affording a lawyer who can out maneuver the other guys' is step 2.

 

[Reynard]

This goes back to my original point about divide and conquer. I just can’t see multiple disparate systems only linked by a legal document carrying weight.

You seem to be under the impression that they companies want to "beat" WotC/D&D. That's not it. They want a safe license so they can continue to do what they do without worrying about some entity shutting them down on a whim, because some jerk got installed as CEO or whatever. Businesses rely on stability and predictability. Uncertainty is the antithesis.

 

[Greg Benage]

Right. There are any number of existing games that could fill the void if all people wanted was a fantasy RPG that isn't too terribly complicated. But people don't want that. They want 5E.

I'd say they want D&D 5e. It's both: the familiar sacred cows I mean mechanics and design space and also the weird gonzo fantasy subgenre that makes D&D unique. Move too far away from either and you get (best case), "It's a good game, very tight design, but it's not D&D."

 

[Von Ether]

A rational long-term business owner might accept half a pie here. But short-term professional management, gambling with other people's money and using other people's assets trying to strike it rich to earn World of Warcraft money -- and secure life-altering short-term bonuses, might be tempted to convince themselves that they can roll the dice, fish for a crit, and still pull it off.

LOL!

At the tabletop ...
Player: I seduce the dragon!
GM: Suuuure. You'll need a nat 20.
Player rolls a nat 20: Yes!
GM: Sigh. Of course.

In RL ...
Arrogant Suit: I'll just swagger in here and disguise my GSL/royalty plan/OGL shut down license as a "OGL 1.1."
God: Suuuure. You'll need a nat 20.
Arrogant Suit rolls a nat 1: naughty word! Why are they over-reacting?!? What's an ORC?! Who can I scapegoat!
God shrugs shoulders.

On that note, if you are trying to make your document do more than one thing, you are grave danger of sending mixed messages.

 

[Reynard]

I'd say they want D&D 5e. It's both: the familiar sacred cows I mean mechanics and design space and also the weird gonzo fantasy subgenre that makes D&D unique. Move too far away from either and you get (best case), "It's a good game, very tight design, but it's not D&D."

I agree that's the subgenre created by D&D, but it isn't unique to D&D anymore.

 

[Steampunkette]

You take a step forward with a smile. He takes a step back off the cliff.
"I don't think we can meet in the middle anymore." you say.

... oh I love that.

 

[rcade]

The fundamental dilemma is this:

• The more D&D-like your game is, the more likely Hasbro comes after you and the stronger their case
• The less D&D-like your game is, the less likely it is to compete for D&D customers

While this is true, D&D has also conditioned players to accept that the game's rules can undergo substantial changes in each new edition while it still remains D&D. As a player going all the way back to the time of the First Ones, I have six D&Ds in my brain. That greatly expands the definition of what I'd consider "D&D-like."

 

[Greg Benage]

While this is true, D&D has also conditioned players to accept that the game's rules can undergo substantial changes in each new edition while it still remains D&D. As a player going all the way back to the time of the First Ones, I have six D&Ds in my brain. That greatly expands the definition of what I'd consider "D&D-like."

Well, I think Wizards of the Coast itself has experience with changing the rules and design approach sufficiently that a large segment of their audience said, "That's not D&D." And they weren't even working under the constraint of simultaneously protecting themselves from copyright infringement complaints.

But as my bullet points suggest, it's a spectrum. The farther you move the slider toward "safe from Hasbro," the farther it moves away from "that's D&D!"