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.

 

[Nylanfs]

But then again I did not think they would do all of the stupid and self-destructive things they have done for the past month.

Technically it hasn't even been a month, publicly that is. It sure as hell feels longer though.

 

[TheSword]

But why? I have a different approach on this. I see ORC a wanna be big umbrella that will shelter many SRDs and many systems. We may have a d100 from Basic Roleplaying of Chaosium, a d20 based system on Paizo's Pathfinder and so on.
I think its purpose will based in diversity and in a multitude of systems than to a system that will antagonize dnd. The strength of such license will be the choices, the freedom that you can choose and play almost whatever system you like.
Is there something that I am missing? I see it wrong?

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.

 

[Von Ether]

without an inherent SRD, but i would guess that paizo and every publisher signing on is agreeing to use the ORC (when it's finished) to release SRDs for their stuff (pf2 in paizo's case, the black flag project for kobold press, etc).

My 2 cents:

Pro: We get an industry standard in an industry lacking many industry-wide standards.

Con: This means there is still a chance the industry will fragment into a lots of different games.

• You could Pro this into, "we now have healthy competition."
• With competition come an inherent lack of co-operation. You think it was hard to get your indie darling noticed now? Wait until everyone is a David and there's no single Goliath to poo-poo at.

 

[rcade]

Another one is companies that are defunct now, and so aren't in a position to create an SRD under the ORC License. For instance, my understanding is that West End Games, which created the OpenD6 system under the OGL, has since shut its doors. So anyone who wants to keep creating OpenD6 content, which relies on the OpenD6 SRD, has to stick with the OGL, since only West End Games could make a new OpenD6 SRD for the ORC License...and they're not around to do so.

The OpenD6 games aren't derived from the WOTC System Reference Document, so the only risk to future reuse under the OGL is if Hasbro claims no one can use its copyrighted license on anything anywhere. If it took that position in court it would be a threat to every open source license in software, likely provoking a vigorous response from entities like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

 

[Cadence]

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.

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.

Is this a fair take?

"Wording explanations and descriptions* just right is a lot of work. One aspect of copyright is that it covers the non-trivial wording of things, so something that makes you not need to make your own wording from scratch is a huge benefit."

* Say of spells or monster ecology or magic items or of how the combat mechanics work.

 

[eyeheartawk]

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.

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.

I understand and agree with the legal reasoning here. But that doesn't matter if Hasbro decides they don't have to and don't want to tolerate it. If they decide to take your non-5e SRD based Level Up and initiate lawfare to chill the market they absolutely can.

You can certainly make that argument in court and probably have a good chance of winning 4 years and 2 million dollars down the road.

If you use ORC and make a substantively similar game to Hasbro's mechanically it doesn't protect you from the above and is always going to be a Sword of Damocles hanging above your head.

 

[Von Ether]

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.

My 2 cents. This 1.1 was a big stick to get people to the table AND see what they could get away with. It wasn't very subtle or savvy.

I, for one, bless the over-reaction (and the D&DB cancellations) as it seems to be the wake up call that perhaps someone needed to switch from their "smartest guy in the room" attitude to actually engaging their smarts.

If I come off as a chip on my shoulder it's only because I've been at ground zero of similar situations and those who start it often get promoted out and don't stay around to clean up the mess or mend the bridges -- and miss on the teachable moment of living through their own consequences to only repeat it as they climb up the ladder.

 

[reelo]

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.

Well, I guess we can be sure that the "WizBro D&D" ecosphere will shrink somewhat. Maybe a lot, maybe a little. Whereas other systems, be they Chaosium d100, Paizo d20, or Kobold whatever, will all absorb some of the "refugees". Those smaller 3pp will all find a system that suits them.
So in the end, while Goliath shrinks, all the Davids are gonna grow. And I think when all the participants in the TTRPG ecosystem are rather equally-sized, it's all fair game. Everybody (meaning the players) are gonna find a system that appeals to them and there's LESS peer-pressure to play such-and-such game because it has market-dominance.


Heck I could even imagine WizBro scrapping the whole OGL idea, and releasing a future D&D SRD under ORC if it makes sense financially. But that's for them to work out in the end....

 

[Steel_Wind]

I think shifting course and making major changes for 1D&D would be a very risky maneuver for WotC -- especially if Kobold is sitting there waiting to take up Paizo's mantle. I don't imagine risk is something high on WotC's list right now.

Maybe, but WotC spent $146,000,000.00 for DDB (the sheer size of that cheque for a RPG web-portal is something that we have become WAY too blasé about). That's a lot of dough to have spent.

Perhaps the rational fall-back plan is to say: "we'll just rely on the strength of our product, and not the exclusivity of our VTT being the only place to play to make our Billions."

And if their DDB VTT is all that and a bag of chips? They should be able to do it. If they had just done that, it could have worked. It would not have been a Hail-Mary, not really.

The point everybody at WotC seems to have forgotten is that World of Warcaft made ~$12,000,000,000.00 in revenue by being the best MMO overall and delivering incredible value for $15 a month to millions of people over a ridiculously long period of time -- and not for any other reason. You make WoW money by EARNING IT through product quality. There are no short-cuts.

Problem: But now they have this stink surrounding their new game and self-inflicted trust issues. And the moment they take 5e off of the market, the ORC version of same will be there, enticing people with the same wine in a shiny bottle -- with tons of ORC 3pp licensees supporting it.

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.

Madness.

If only something like this had happened before, they might have been able to anticipate it. If only.

 

[Branduil]

Maybe, but WotC spent $146,000,000.00 for DDB (the sheer size of that cheque for a RPG web-portal is something that we have become WAY too blasé about) to not carry out that plan.

Perhaps the rational fall-back plan is to say: "we'll just rely on the strength of our product, and not the exclusivity of our VTT being the only place to play to make our Billions."

And if their DDB VTT is all that and a bag of chips? They should be able to do it. If they had just done that, it could have worked. It would not have been a Hail-Mary, not really.

Problem: But now they have this stink surrounding their new game and self-inflicted trust issues. And the moment they take 5e off of the market, the ORC version of same will be there, enticing people with the same wine in a shiny bottle -- with tons of ORC 3pp licensees supporting it.

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.

Madness.

If only something like this had happened before, they might have been able to anticipate it. If only.

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.