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...

1673564461522.png

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Reynard

Legend
I think that’s problem. They want to continue doing what they do without any change. Better Being open to the idea of doing most of what they want in a symbiotic relationship rather than a demanding it and it getting nothing.
I'm not sure why you think WotC should have a say in how they conduct their business once WotC has decided to end their relationship by burning the OGL 1.0a.
 


Maybe. But that shared verbage will eventually have to be adopted by everyone in their core rules, or else one company's rules will become the new lingua franca. Perhaps several years and at least a few new editions later, the major publisher rulesets will begin speaking with one another. Until then, there will be competing standards and terminology will be all over the map.
yeah even if Green Ronin, Necromancer and Piazo all went with "Force Bolt" and put that out in teh new ORC, and lets say 25 small publishers use it... how long would it take for Force Bolt to catch on?

If Green Ronin goes with Force Bolt, Necromancer goes with Missile Barrage, and Piazo goes with 'unaring bolt' that would be bad enough... but imagine if force missile required an attack and the other two didn't, and only missile barrage kept 1d4+1 per missile the other two went 1d6...
 

<raised eyebrow> That... Was stepping a toe over the edge of appropriateness. Perhaps take a moment to consider how that sounded?
I mean, I see how that was rude but I have to agree. If none of th big boys go to try to negotiate better terms that is on them... if the do (or already did) and WotC said no or made it clear it was this or nothing, then it is on wotc
 




More corporate nonsense. They’re saying this with their PR face while there are leaks of more BS OGL changes with the other face.
as long as they keep the hate speech part in I will be happy with no royalties... however I kind of like the no NFT stuff too
 


Okay, did, or did WotC not, send out the contract and request signatures by the 13th? If so, then they acted in bad faith. If this information is incorrect, then it might have been negotiable.
I mean sending out an alpha or beta of a contract as a first step of negotiation doesn't seem like they acted in bad faith... now the leakers used us (the customers) as pawns to get better deals... I'm not even sure THAT is bad faith.

You ever see 'The Greatest Showman'? its a really fun musical if you ignore the major issues of the true story being much more brutal and evil. There is a song/scene where the main character (I wont name cause he is nothing like his real life insperation) starts at 7% and the other character says he wants 15% and they sing down to 10%... a middle ground. Asking for 15% and offering your hand to shake (or a contract to sign) isn't bad faith even if you end up with 10%

and have we ever been told WHAT that contract was or if it was just and NDA (many people broke)? Cause the OGL even 1.2/2.0 doesn't need signatures...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top