Paizo Posts New Draft of ORC License

A second draft of the Open RPG Creative (ORC) license has been posted by Paizo, incorporating changes based on feedback on the first draft.

This second draft incorporates changes and suggestions from hundreds of participating publishers on the ORC License Discord community, adds significant clarity to key terms and definitions, substantially increases the size and scope of the project’s official FAQ, and introduces several basic quality-of-life improvements across the board.

You can download a copy of the ORC license and its associated FAQ/AxE (Answers and Explanations) document below. Our intention is to solicit “final” feedback on the ORC License Discord until the end of the day NEXT Monday, May 22nd. We intend for this wave of commentary to be the last round before presenting the truly final version of the license, which we plan to release by the end of May.

Our deepest thanks to all project participants. Your feedback has been invaluable in making the ORC License an ideal open gaming license that will serve the community long into the future.

A new era of open gaming is nearly here!

 

[kenmarable]

I think the biggest improvements are in the AxE (FAQ), and overall I'm certainly happy with both and very excited for them to be official soon!

There was a vocal minority in the ORC Discord that were pushing to have the viral aspects of the license removed, but I'm very glad Azora and Paizo made sure not to remove that (and even explicitly stated in the AxE "Maybe this license isn't for you").

 

[overgeeked]

I think the biggest improvements are in the AxE (FAQ), and overall I'm certainly happy with both and very excited for them to be official soon!

There was a vocal minority in the ORC Discord that were pushing to have the viral aspects of the license removed, but I'm very glad Azora and Paizo made sure not to remove that (and even explicitly stated in the AxE "Maybe this license isn't for you").

It’s kind of a silly argument to make. Legally, all game rules are fair game. As long as you don’t copy and paste the text, you can use the rules from any game for your own and run with it. The trouble is the company could still sue, even if they know it’s frivolous, and ruin you. The viral nature of the ORC is technically redundant, but it makes the safe harbor intent explicit.

 

[kenmarable]

It’s kind of a silly argument to make. Legally, all game rules are fair game. As long as you don’t copy and paste the text, you can use the rules from any game for your own and run with it. The trouble is the company could still sue, even if they know it’s frivolous, and ruin you. The viral nature of the ORC is technically redundant, but it makes the safe harbor intent explicit.

Yep! I agree 100%, and the ORC FAQ even explicitly mentions that as one of the motivations now.

Unfortunately, when some people want to debate on the internet, it doesn't matter whether it's a silly argument to make or not. Sometimes it seems the only "win" they are interested in is drowning out all other discussions and making it entirely about engaging with their argument. It's exhausting.

 

[overgeeked]

Yep! I agree 100%, and the ORC FAQ even explicitly mentions that as one of the motivations now.

Unfortunately, when some people want to debate on the internet, it doesn't matter whether it's a silly argument to make or not. Sometimes it seems the only "win" they are interested in is drowning out all other discussions and making it entirely about engaging with their argument. It's exhausting.

Exactly. It’s best to put those people on ignore and move on. It looks like Paizo did just that. Good for them.

 

[EthanSental]

I do feel the ORC license has lost a good bit of its momentum since the end of January as far as people discussing it, like this thread but it may be one of those things that slips into the background as a discussion topic as it becomes it’s own thing as only 3pp creators will be looking at what license it has so they can build off it…players will likely care even less if they like the system, OGL, cc, orc won’t matter as much as time goes by…imho.

 

[Retreater]

I think just the announcement of creating the ORC license did a lot to bring goodwill to Paizo during a time of uncertainty. Within my group of friends, many of whom had moved on from Paizo products over the years, they went out to buy the PF2 books just to show support for the company that was "saving D&D again."
At this point, ORC is for publishers. It's not really impacting fans and players (we already had the online content and 3PP).
To me, it's kind of like getting excited about a printing company saying they'll be able to start offering higher paper weight for our game companies. This is all behind the scenes stuff.

 

[kunadam]

I do feel the ORC license has lost a good bit of its momentum since the end of January as far as people discussing it, like this thread but it may be one of those things that slips into the background as a discussion topic as it becomes it’s own thing as only 3pp creators will be looking at what license it has so they can build off it…players will likely care even less if they like the system, OGL, cc, orc won’t matter as much as time goes by…imho.

It was always about the creators. As creators lost faith in the OGL as a safe harbour, there is a niche for a safe one.
I mostly just read gaming stuff, but I keep tab on the development of this license as I might need it in the future.

 

[Lucas Yew]

The FAQ alone is a great addition for those like me with legalese allergy.

And it definitely seems like a pure upgrade of the OGL...

 

[dbolack]

There was a vocal minority in the ORC Discord that were pushing to have the viral aspects of the license removed, but I'm very glad Azora and Paizo made sure not to remove that (and even explicitly stated in the AxE "Maybe this license isn't for you").

As one of those horrible people, it's nice to see desires continually misrepresented. I will not speak for others in the camp absolutely as I'm sure there are other motivations...

My view was that 1) The "mechanics are inherently open" was based on a ruling on a very simple rule rather than a complex system of rules and there is some doubt that a case involving complex rules might receive similar treatment. Given that a) other industries have similar ideas ( simple things are not protectable but novel combinations MAY be ) and b) courts have been tossing precedent and settled law left and right lately. And 2) That it is not unreasonable to - in a license - say "Yes, legally you probably can use this outside of this agreement but in this agreement, you agree not to unless otherwise permitted.

Eventually, it became clear that not only was this not a design choice for the license, but there was no room for voices that did not absolutely agree ( much like dealing with GPL zealots ), on our merry way we went. The general lack of respect for mechanics labor was also not endearing.

I hope the ORC does well for its audience. Some of us aren't the audience though we tried hard to be.