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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I guess they're valuing their legal options themselves. Even just a "coat of paint" massive errata variant where you change "dexterity" to "agility" and "magic missile" to "arcane barrage" could be obnoxious and lose them customers.

If they lose customers over "agility," I'm not sure how much brand loyalty they had to begin with.

 

[Alzrius]

That image on the back does NOT make me think it would be a good idea to try to get into that van....

Hey, if you're trying to save the Oasis from the corporate overlords of IOI (which seems rather appropriate now), it's the ride of choice!

 

[Dungeonosophy]

View attachment 272466

darjr, since there was no link with this image, I thought you'd crafted it yourself. Then I later realized (after reading others' posts), that Goodman Game joined the ORC alliance! good news

 

[darjr]

darjr, since there was no link with this image, I thought you'd crafted it yourself. Then I later realized (after reading others' posts), that Goodman Game joined the ORC alliance! good news

Hey Gamers, Join Us In The ORC Van!|Goodman Games

goodman-games.com

I'll add it.

 

[mamba]

Its just a "Nice" RPG license, which is fine, but not really the point

there will be SRDs under it, multiple, this is just a matter of timing

 

[Dungeonosophy]

At this point it seems like what companies shouldn't be doing is getting together to release a Pathfiver (or whatever other name you want to give it). Because isn't that just acknowledging that all people really want is to just play D&D? They want to play "D&D" without playing actual D&D. Seems to me that is giving a whole bunch of advertising to the game and company that everyone is trying to break away from, isn't it?

At some point shouldn't people just make a clean break, rather than try and hang on to a vestigial limb of a game they now hate?

Didn't you post this exact same point in some other forum?

It's kind of like the people (carnivores) who say that people who choose to be vegetarians shouldn't eat tofu that is flavored like meat. And that they should just eat lettuce, since that doesn't taste savory like meat. As if savoring an aesthetic similarity is just the same as actually, materially patronizing something which we vegetarians view to be harmful: namely, conventional industrial animal farming.

What kind of abstract magical influence are you attributing to playing a game that provides the D&D experience we love (under a different name), but is not materially (monetarily) benefitting the evil untrustworthy corporation who happens to legally own the name "D&D"?

Every one of the persons who canceled their D&D Beyond account (including me) more or less loves the game which happens to be called "D&D," and which happens to be owned by an insane megacorporation. Canceling and severing that bond is some kind of sacrifice. Yet it has a real, actual result, of not materially (monetarily) support the backstabbing corporatist liars at Hasbro.

Are you so confused that you can't distinguish between claiming for ourselves the nourishing traditions of "D&D" (under another name: Pathfinder, Level Up, etc.), and the action of actually, monetarily patronizing a corporation which we view to be harmful?

If not, that's some weird kind of confused, unreal 'perfectionism' and magical thinking.

 

[mamba]

Sorry. It was all the crowing I saw going on after the announcement today. That plus the people like yourself claiming there is a watertight open/shut case. One person even said they should push for mandatory future OGLs for future editions.

First of all, I don't think I ever said it was a watertight case, in fact I have repeatedly agreed (and pointed out) that there is always a risk when going to court and getting a judge to hear the case is probably much too expensive for most 3PPs. That being said, I do believe that if a judge gets to rule, there is a very good chance that the license will be ruled irrevocable. We already have precedence in a similar case and plenty of testimony that this was the intent, WotC has money and excuses.

Second, I think people are justifiably happy that WotC has blinked. We are far from having a good outcome, they have reneged a little, but much too little for this to be any kind of victory.

Finally, making unreasonable demands (mandatory OGLs) is not something we started and one person out of many already shows you that this is a minority position, and even that person probably is just gloating and not demanding it from a position of (perceived) strength. Maybe you are not reading a different forum, but you are certainly twisting everything to your "WotC has been wronged, they deserve and have the right to do this' narrative.

 

[aboyd]

At this point it seems like what companies shouldn't be doing is getting together to release a Pathfiver (or whatever other name you want to give it).

Isn't the ORC license just a legal framework for ANY game? So isn't this just "we will make a license for any game you want" and then sci-fi RPGs and fantasy RPGs and western RPGs will all be able to use it, if they wish. It won't be "here is Pathfiver." It will be "here is a license, and here are 5 different games that use it." Right?

(PS: you got me to come out a 10 year retirement from EnWorld to post this. Yay. I probably should update my photo.)

 

[Ondath]

Isn't the ORC license just a legal framework for ANY game? So isn't this just "we will make a license for any game you want" and then sci-fi RPGs and fantasy RPGs and western RPGs will all be able to use it, if they wish. It won't be "here is Pathfiver." It will be "here is a license, and here are 5 different games that use it." Right?

(PS: you got me to come out a 10 year retirement from EnWorld to post this. Yay. I probably should update my photo.)

Welcome back! We're as argumentative as we've always been.

 

[Alzrius]

Welcome back! We're as argumentative as we've always been.

No, we're not!