Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8889843" data-attributes="member: 8461">I know that some are, but leaving aside questions of whether or not d20-based publishers (which can be a murky area, e.g. PF2) can just remove the OGL from their books and assert &quot;this was never really derivative of the d20 rules! We just used the OGL for convenience!&quot; (which strikes me as iffy), there are some games which are unquestionably derived from them, and so can't simply scrub the OGL and carry on. I play PF1, and liked that some publishers were still making PF1 supplements; they can't just keep doing that sans the OGL without exposing themselves to legal risk.Not to mention that companies which do go that route will need to draft new compatibility licenses if they want other publishers to make stuff using their rules, which is at best a chore, and at worst can potentially lead us right back here in who knows how many years.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 8889843, member: 8461"] I know that some are, but leaving aside questions of whether or not d20-based publishers (which can be a murky area, e.g. PF2) can just remove the OGL from their books and assert "this was never really derivative of the d20 rules! We just used the OGL for convenience!" (which strikes me as iffy), there are some games which are [I]unquestionably[/I] derived from them, and so can't simply scrub the OGL and carry on. I play PF1, and liked that some publishers were still making PF1 supplements; they can't just keep doing that sans the OGL without exposing themselves to legal risk. Not to mention that companies which [I]do[/I] go that route will need to draft new compatibility licenses if they want other publishers to make stuff using their rules, which is at best a chore, and at worst can potentially lead us right back here in who knows how many years. [/QUOTE]

Verification