The Paranoid's Guide: Brief Thoughts on the Recent Timeline of the OGL

[Steel_Wind]

Paizo releases very little content for 5e (there's the stuff for Kingmaker and I think that's it?) and if I had to guess who the "large corporations" WOTC is angry at are, I'd guess Paizo tops the list. So I'm not at all sure that they had the kind of privileged access to info that this thread is suggesting, except insofar as they may have been told about it by other industry players.

To the extent that WotC has competition, Paizo is certainly the largest. To be sure, Paizo has played a more effective role as a competitor in the marketplace in the past than they are right now. Still, Paizo isn't giving up.

Abomination Vaults for 5e, as well, would be the next most important product from Paizo. It's coming out this June, 2023.

The Kingmaker 5e version was authorized long ago and caught up in development hell during covid. AV is much more recent. In both cases (and especially with AV), what Paizo is doing is trying to get the best of its products into the hands of a great many entirely NEW players and DMs of 5e who are unfamiliar with Paizo products. And to do so with a relatively inexpensive one volume hardcover (which is what AV promises to be)

Most users of ENWorld are well aware of Paizo (though I do think many 5e fans here think they know more about PF2 and its products than they actually do).

Still, ENWorld grognards are NOT the main target market here. New 5e players brought in by Critical Role and MCDM, et al would be far more likely to be the target market for these marketing efforts.

You can say what you want about 5e vs PF1 or PF2 rule systems. But the one thing which WotC copied from Paizo (and not as well, imo, other than reducing the overall length) is Paizo's approach to Adventures.

Adventures are in Paizo's wheelhouse. Pathfinder Adventuire Path is their flagship product line - always has been. They do them better than anybody else, including WotC, imo. Paizo's production values are very high and there are a lot of new players who entered the hobby to play 5e who likely don't know that.

Paizo thinks (translation: Erik Mona thinks) that if they can get their best adventures into the hands of new players (Abomination Vaults Vol 1 would definitely fulfill that plan), then Paizo might get some new permanent business out of it - and maybe entice customers away from 5e to PF2.

If not, they create brand awareness and increase their good will --- and sell some books, the artwork for which is already a sunk cost. Win-Win.

To be clear, I think Abomination Vaults, Vol 1, is one of the best adventure products of the past 20 years. It's an excellent adventure written by James Jacobs, who is a master of his craft. (Sadly, Vol 2 isn't up to the same standard, imo). I express no opinion on Vol 3 by Stephen Radney-McFarland as I have not run it yet nor read it with the granular level of detail required for a truly in depth assessment.

Vol 1 though? :Chef's kiss!: You should get it for just that first part of the adventure. It's GREAT.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I highly suspect that Paizo knew the OGL 1.1 was coming and what were seeing now is all the stuff they had prepared for that. Dont see why they would bother leaking it though. The backlash (from the public and 3pp) was gonna be terrible whether it was leaked or announced.
To my mind the most likely scenario is Paizo just had to speed up plans they've had in motion for a while.

There are a lot of ex-WotC people at Paizo (at all levels, literally from the top down) -- and now a lot of ex-Paizo people at WotC, too. These staffers have worked together, and many of them are friends outside of work, Some don't see each other outside of GenCon or other industry cons, once a year. Some see each other on the weekends in each other's home campaigns. A few remain room-mates.

All of that, plus how connected these business people are with one another in a very small hobby would lead me to conclude that Paizo certainly heard about 1.1 from 3pp who had been contacted, even if they may not have seen documents until Roll for Combat and Gizmodo did.

No, I do not believe Paizo "leaked it".

Yes, you can tell from my comments that I am suspicious AF of the practical efficacy of NDAs, especially in a business as small and downright gossipy as this one is.

 

[Malmuria]

For the same reasons Ryan Dancey and Brian Lewis didn't use a CCL for the OGL to begin with -- there's a lot of Creative Commons Licenses, and some are more restrictive while others are more open. Using any of the alphabet soup licenses comes with the risk of misinterpretation (innocent or otherwise) that the license used is the least restrictive one. Couple this with the fact that CC Licenses aren't good for separating parts of work to protect as IP while allowing other parts of the work to be used as open content. There's a lot less give in a CC license if you're trying to use it with a valuable trademark.

 

[The Stray]

Nothing about that tweet invalidates the thought processes that went in to the ORC and the OGL instead of using a CCL, since I'm not the one you need to convince of this. I'm going by what Ryan Dancey himself has said about why his team elected not to use a CCL. Take it up with him.

 

[Staffan]

Now, I'm not saying anyone was plotting here. Heck, everyone can (and should) make rational business decisions. But I have written that history doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes. When Hasbro moved to 4e, Paizo made the decision to release Pathfinder, and IIRC they sent people to playtest 4e and evaluate it even while they advancing their own game system. Which was a rational corporate decision for them.

You make it sound like some kind of industrial espionage on Paizo's part. Based on the stories told by Lisa Stevens and Jason Bulmahn here, it's more like:

1. Wizards announces 4e.
2. Fall 2007: Freelance work for Jason Bulmahn dries up, leaving him time to work on a set of rules mods for 3.5e. Had history gone differently, this would probably have ended up being something similar to Trailblazer – an interesting curiosity but nothing that changed the industry.
3. Early 2008: Paizo start getting antsy because of the lack of info, and decide to do their fall 2008 AP for 3.5e. Jason brings his house rule document up, and gets told to start working on that full time as a backup plan.
4. Shortly thereafter, Paizo sends Jason to a convention where they are demoing 4e. He returns with his report on how it works, and the folks at Paizo decide that regardless of how the coming licensing regimen will work, they're not interested in doing that. The backup plan now becomes plan A.
5. Paizo announces the Pathfinder RPG in spring 2008 along with an alpha test. The beta test is released simultaneously with GenCon 2008, and eventually the "real" version comes out at GenCon 2009.

For the same reasons Ryan Dancey and Brian Lewis didn't use a CCL for the OGL to begin with -- there's a lot of Creative Commons Licenses, and some are more restrictive while others are more open. Using any of the alphabet soup licenses comes with the risk of misinterpretation (innocent or otherwise) that the license used is the least restrictive one. Couple this with the fact that CC Licenses aren't good for separating parts of work to protect as IP while allowing other parts of the work to be used as open content. There's a lot less give in a CC license if you're trying to use it with a valuable trademark.

I think the main reason Ryan and Brian didn't use Creative Commons was that they didn't have a time machine. The OGL was released in 2000, and the first Creative Commons licenses were released in 2002.

The information I can find on Creative Commons' site is also not very helpful about whether CC-BY-SA (the one closest to the OGL) can be used on partial works (in order to have the same differentiation the OGL does between OGC and PI), and if so how that works for downstream licensees.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You make it sound like some kind of industrial espionage on Paizo's part.

We can discuss the timeline (I talked about in the other thread), but the basic point, which you don't disagree with, is that Paizo was already developing their own internal game system while they were play testing 4e.

Whether they want to say that the play testing gave them confidence to fully go ahead with their own system, made them comfortable "going with plan B," or allowed them to see what the competitor would be releasing and understand that they'd be better off with their own project ... there's a number of ways to put it! Right?

None of that is industrial espionage (which is a term you are using)- it's rational self interest. AFAIK, they weren't under any contractual agreement not to release a competing game system.

To the bigger point- the competitive actions we ascribe to corporations, good, bad, in-between, are often the product of our biases. Heck- I was just looking at the responses to the Critical Role announcement, which was the biggest zero of an announcement possible, and was amusingly unsurprised to see CR fans tie themselves into knots reading it as some sort of clever attack, or come up with fictional accounts of what's really happening "behind the scenes."

 

[Malmuria]

I don't think there's any legal or practical reason for a ttrpg company to use ORC vs creative commons. In fact, if I were publishing something I'd feel a lot more confident long term using creative commons, since I don't know what this supposedly neutral non profit setup with ORC is going to look like. The idea that CC licenses are too numerous or confusing doesn't really hold up (plenty of games use CC just fine), nor does the oft-cited idea that you can't section off IP under creative commons (which is what the previously quoted tweet dispenses with).

The main thing OGL gave people was a sense of being part of the d20 ecosystem. There's a similar "branding" effect going on with ORC. Ultimately it probably won't be harmful, but it's also not necessary.

 

[Greg Benage]

The main thing OGL gave people was a sense of being part of the d20 ecosystem. There's a similar "branding" effect going on with ORC. Ultimately it probably won't be harmful, but it's also not necessary.

Only try to see the truth: There is no ORC. Like, it doesn't exist yet. Right now, it's a rallying flag, which probably serves a good purpose. Before it was #OpenDnD but this has big publishers behind it. It's fine.

 

[Orius]

It just seems like Paizo more accurately predicted the shitstorm that was going to come out of this and positioned themselves to take advantage of it.

 

[MarkB]

Whether or not Paizo had anything to do with the leak, they would certainly have been among the companies to have received the new OGL earliest, the ones being offered the sign early to be screwed slightly less than your competitors deal. So they'd know well in advance that their industry was about to implode, and that they'd need to move fast to put a new system in place that cut WotC out of the equation.

Organising ORC was a smart response whether or not it let them look like the cavalry riding to the rescue of the industry. They needed it for themselves, being able to offer it to others in exchange for getting good publicity out of WotC's bad publicity was just gravy.

 

[Steel_Wind]

It just seems like Paizo more accurately predicted the shitstorm that was going to come out of this and positioned themselves to take advantage of it.

Honestly? No, I don't think so.

The decision to proceed to litigation, if required, may have been discussed notionally before starting ~10 days ago when the Gizmodo story came out, but the ORC stuff was made up on-the-fly during the course of this week, largely as a result or Erik Mona seeing so much horror and dismay expressed by so many 3pp -- the vast majority of which could not afford legal counsel. He was the prime mover of that aspect of things, aimed at helping 3pp, especially smaller ones.

I do know there was a large staff meeting on Monday at Paizo, where Mona spoke and rallied the Paizo staff. They cheered him on -- but what they cheered him on about was not mentioned. Nevertheless, that there was some meeting -- and that they were cheering about it -- surfaced in vague references on FB on Monday the 9th. You have to put it together after the fact, but now? It fits.

ORC was cobbled together quickly, likely over the course of ~3 days, between Monday and Thursday when Paizo made its announcement on its blog/twitter/FB. I am not certain of this, but because of some public (and a few private) comments from Mona? Along that timeline, yes.

All of this stuff took place and came together very rapidly over that timeline. There wasn't all THAT much planning involved, not much time to do it. This was the result of reaction in the moment over that timeline, imo.

tl;dr: they were just doing the best they could in the circumstances, in the moment.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Whether or not Paizo had anything to do with the leak, they would certainly have been among the companies to have received the new OGL earliest, the ones being offered the sign early to be screwed slightly less than your competitors deal.

No. I do not believe Paizo was ever offered that deal. Paizo has hundreds and hundreds of products in its PF1/PF2 catalog. Only one of them -- out of all of those products, is a 5th edition book (the Kingmaker 5e Bestiary) . The idea that they would "certainly" be among those companies is wrong-headed.

Paizo aren't in the 5e products business; they would never agree to those terms - and there was no reason to expect they would. WotC would know that before it even asked (which is why they didn't). To the extent that WotC has a competitor? Paizo is it. WotC had NDAs signed so that Paizo would be one of those who didn't find out until it was a fait accompli.

 

[MarkB]

No. I do not believe Paizo was ever offered that deal. Paizo has hundreds and hundreds of products in its PF1/PF2 catalog. Only one of them -- out of all of those products, is a 5th edition book. The idea that they would "certainly" be among those companies is wrong-headed.

Paizo aren't in the 5e products business; they would never agree to those terms - and there was no reason to expect they would. WotC would know that before it even asked (which is why they didn't). To the extent that WotC has a competitor? Paizo is it. WotC had NDAs signed so that Paizo would be one of those who didn't find out until it was a fait accompli.

How many of their products are 5e compatible is irrelevant. De-authorising the existing versions of the OGL wouldn't only affect 5e products, it would affect all products published under those licenses, going right back to those based upon 3e. That includes most Pathfinder products. Under those circumstances they'd still need to sign up to the replacement OGL in order to keep those products on the shelves.

 

[Steel_Wind]

You make it sound like some kind of industrial espionage on Paizo's part. Based on the stories told by Lisa Stevens and Jason Bulmahn here, it's more like:

1. Wizards announces 4e.
2. Fall 2007: Freelance work for Jason Bulmahn dries up, leaving him time to work on a set of rules mods for 3.5e. Had history gone differently, this would probably have ended up being something similar to Trailblazer – an interesting curiosity but nothing that changed the industry.
3. Early 2008: Paizo start getting antsy because of the lack of info, and decide to do their fall 2008 AP for 3.5e. Jason brings his house rule document up, and gets told to start working on that full time as a backup plan.
4. Shortly thereafter, Paizo sends Jason to a convention where they are demoing 4e. He returns with his report on how it works, and the folks at Paizo decide that regardless of how the coming licensing regimen will work, they're not interested in doing that. The backup plan now becomes plan A.
5. Paizo announces the Pathfinder RPG in spring 2008 along with an alpha test. The beta test is released simultaneously with GenCon 2008, and eventually the "real" version comes out at GenCon 2009.

This misses out over what Paizo explained at the time. They came out with Pathfinder AP for 3.5 because they had not other choice; they needed a product line and Mona didn't want to fire anybody who worked for Paizo. During the course of that initial 9 months, they were asking WotC to provide the terms of its GSL. WotC said it was coming -- then delayed -- then delayed again.

The real problem by that time was that Paizo was releasing Pathfinder AP for 3.5 -- and 3.5 had gone out of print and new books were vanishing in the marketplace. WotC's delay in providing the GSL was what pushed Paizo's hand -- they came out with the PF1 beta at the next Gencon. PF1 CRB would take further time.

 

[Staffan]

This misses out over what Paizo explained at the time. They came out with Pathfinder AP for 3.5 because they had not other choice; they needed a product line and Mona didn't want to fire anybody who worked for Paizo. During the course of that initial 9 months, they were asking WotC to provide the terms of its GSL. WotC said it was coming -- then delayed -- then delayed again.

The real problem by that time was that Paizo was releasing Pathfinder AP for 3.5 -- and 3.5 had gone out of print and new books were vanishing in the marketplace. WotC's delay in providing the GSL was what pushed Paizo's hand -- they came out with the PF1 beta at the next Gencon. PF1 CRB would take further time.

That was prior to this. When Paizo lost the licenses to Dragon and Dungeon, they pivoted to making adventures and a campaign setting of their own, branded Pathfinder (to allude to their popular Adventure Paths from Dungeon magazine), and leveraged their unique position with a large mailing list of people who already were predisposed to like their stuff and to whom they owed money. But at that point, they were still expecting to make "off-brand D&D" stuff, whatever that happened to be.

At the start of 2008, they had to make the call that the fall 2008 AP (first part released at GenCon 2008) would still be for 3.5, because they still didn't have the 4e rules or any information about licensing. This was seemingly pretty scary to them, but necessary. But at this point they had not yet committed to anything else about the future, which is why they had Jason Bulmahn develop his house rules into something bigger. That's where we get to item 3 on the timeline.

 

[MockingBird]

Paizo pretty much came out of this looking like Robin Hood. If Paizo has savvy business people then they have been tracking this from the first kernel of a rumor ever dropped. It's a smart move and a play they have played before with great success.

 

[Steel_Wind]

How many of their products are 5e compatible is irrelevant. De-authorising the existing versions of the OGL wouldn't only affect 5e products, it would affect all products published under those licenses, going right back to those based upon 3e. That includes most Pathfinder products. Under those circumstances they'd still need to sign up to the replacement OGL in order to keep those products on the shelves.

What ARE you talking about? The point was simple: WotC is most unlikely to have presented a contract under NDA to Paizo. They had no need to - Paizo was not one of the 3pp making products for them (which is what the 1.1 OGL was about - in the sense of why one would ever sign it). Paizo was their main competitor they were trying to hide all of this from until it was a done deal (hence, the NDAs to others).

As far as de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a, Paizo was never going to agree to sign that, right? WotC knew that - we know that. You could wake most of us, dead drunk at 3:30 a.m. and most of us would get that one right.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If we're going to advance baseless conspiracy theories: No one's heard a thing from Mattel in all this.

Think about it, won't you?

Everyone's talking about the OGL, but not the Barbie for Preschoolers.

 

[MarkB]

What ARE you talking about? The point was simple: WotC is most unlikely to have presented a contract under NDA to Paizo. They had no need to - Paizo was not one of the 3pp making products for them (which is what the 1.1 OGL was about - in the sense of why one would ever sign it). Paizo was their main competitor they were trying to hide all of this from until it was a done deal (hence, the NDAs to others).

As far as de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a, Paizo was never going to agree to sign that, right? WotC knew that - we know that. You could wake most of us, dead drunk at 3:30 a.m. and most of us would get that one right.

WotC's ability to estimate what people would or would not be prepared to do seems to have been entirely absent in this debacle.

 

[wingsandsword]

Oh, I think that from Hasbro's side this has been developing for a while! If this hadn't been fully vetted and run through multiple decision-making processes (NOT TO MENTION MULTIPLE PASSES THROUGH LEGAL) I would consider that beyond imbecilic.

Also, interestingly. . .the Internet Archive entry for the OGL FAQ on the WotC site shows it was up until November 2021. The FAQ where they promised that if WotC ever released a new version of the OGL then people could always use older editions. Then. . .it was quietly taken down without any announcement.

This has been in the making for a while. I suspect that November 2021 was when they decided to find a way to claim they legally cancelled the OGL. Maybe someone hadn't invented this whole "de authorization" nonsense yet, because it certainly wasn't in the original intent or something that is normally done with copyleft licenses. . .until someone invented the idea. Once they had the idea, they just waited until closer until the release date for 6e to put it out, because they wanted to just drop it on everyone as a surprise.