We Still Need ORC

[Greg Benage]

I totally understood ORC as a rallying flag. I totally don't get how people are convinced that a nonexistent license, with undetermined content licensed under it, is the solution for "real open gaming."

I think it would be pretty great if publishers big and small tossed the bespoke licenses in the garbage and started releasing SRDs under the Creative Commons licenses. (And don't be stingy: Most of this IP would have infinitely more value in the commons than it does under private ownership.) That would be great for open gaming. As someone who published for ten years and released dozens of books under the OGL, the idea that, having identified all your open content, you somehow can't create a CC-licensed reference document for that content is...not persuasive.

In any case, even if the actual ORC license that eventually materializes is great, it's just a license. It's real value will be in the safe harbor it provides to use game systems with a robust network of players. I don't know exactly what Paizo needs to do to get enough of the "D&D" out of PF2 to create a safe harbor for themselves and for licensees (neither does Paizo), but I remain concerned that the safer the harbor, the less robust the network of players will be. I know many people are convinced that we've entered a new golden age of non-D&D gaming, but the last 40 years of experience have made me extremely skeptical on that point.

 

[Clint_L]

IMO, ORC will thrive depending on how profitable it is for 3PP. WotC's reversal likely made it a lot less profitable.

Don't get me wrong, I think the reversal is good news for 3PP. A lot of folks who might have lost their business are breathing a sigh of relief. But it does allow D&D to continue sucking up an elephantine share of the RPG oxygen. Don't think that wasn't part of why Hasbro acceded. This was not done out of benign altruism.

 

[Reynard]

IMO, ORC will thrive depending on how profitable it is for 3PP. WotC's reversal likely made it a lot less profitable.

Don't get me wrong, I think the reversal is good news for 3PP. A lot of folks who might have lost their business are breathing a sigh of relief. But it does allow D&D to continue sucking up an elephantine share of the RPG oxygen. Don't think that wasn't part of why Hasbro acceded. This was not done out of benign altruism.

Except no changes were made to ensure they can't make another attempt next week or next year. Why would a company feel comfortable continuing to publish under OGL 1.0a?

 

[SoonRaccoon]

I totally understood ORC as a rallying flag. I totally don't get how people are convinced that a nonexistent license, with undetermined content licensed under it, is the solution for "real open gaming."

The ORC is being created by some of the same people that created the OGL, so it's likely it will be the spiritual successor to the OGL and serve the same purpose. It will also not be controlled by any of the people ultimately using it. The OGL and the biggest IP released under the OGL being owned by the same company is one of the major factors that allowed this whole fiasco to happen in the first place. That seems to suggest the ORC will be a viable solution for a lot of publishers.

 

[Clint_L]

Except no changes were made to ensure they can't make another attempt next week or next year. Why would a company feel comfortable continuing to publish under OGL 1.0a?

I don't think the OGL 1.0a will remain super relevant for new 3PP products when the guts of 5e are truly safe, forever, on the Creative Commons. By far the largest share of the marketplace can be reached through 5e. That's what I am saying - this continues to secure D&D as the primary playing field.

If I am a 3PP and I have written a campaign setting that I need to sell, what game do I want it to be compatible with? The one with 90% of the customers (or whatever it is), or someone else?

 

[Parmandur]

Except no changes were made to ensure they can't make another attempt next week or next year. Why would a company feel comfortable continuing to publish under OGL 1.0a?

So, the thing to take away from all this is that there are factions within Hasbro/WotC, which we can probably theoretically generalize as Pro-Open Gaming (OG), Anti-OG, and OG-Neutral. The Anti-OG faction just made their bid, probavly with the OG-Neutral nodding their heads that the restrictions seemed reasonable (we saw this play out out here I'm the Fandom, even). The Anti-OG crowed internally laot so hard that the OG-Neutral appear to have gone over entirely to the Pro-OG side.

What you haven't gamed out here is that...WotC or Hasbro can never again build an internal business case for going against the OGL, ever, under any administration. The three main sticking points listed in the survey were probably the real reasons that the internal Anti-OG team were using: NFTs and such, objectionable content getting too close to the Brand, and Pathfinder 5E rising. Now, those fears can never be avoided by any action. You can go mint Nazi D&D Erotic NFTs under Crestive Commons in perpetuity, and anyone can make Pathfinder 5E under Creative Commons. There is no business incentive to ever change the OGL, because it will always have to compete with the Crearive Commons. This is total victory for the OGL ecosystem, it removed any business interest.

What I suspect we will see next? A new d20 STL, with access to the Beyond marketplace. Gives then their trademark brand controls.

 

[Morrus]

I totally understood ORC as a rallying flag. I totally don't get how people are convinced that a nonexistent license, with undetermined content licensed under it, is the solution for "real open gaming."

They're not convinced. They hope.

 

[Greg Benage]

Except no changes were made to ensure they can't make another attempt next week or next year. Why would a company feel comfortable continuing to publish under OGL 1.0a?

There are no changes they could make to the license language that would prevent them from trying again next year. Instead of words, Wizards has taken an action that creates a powerful disincentive (combined with the PR bruises the company will wear for a while) to make another attempt next year. The harbor is as safe as it's ever been right now.

The real threat to publishers, as it always has been, is a claim of copyright infringement. If you're publishing a game that does not use D&D IP, you don't have to worry about Wizards bringing a claim of copyright infringement against you. If you're publishing a game that does use D&D IP, your contractual rights under OGL 1.0a remain your strongest possible defense against Wizards bringing a claim of copyright infringement against you. The disincentive to withdraw their offer under the OGL 1.0a that the company has created by releasing its current rules into the commons provides more security to publishers than any change of license language could.

If a publisher still deems the risk too great, I'd recommend not licensing another company's IP. For me, the worst-case scenario is this: (1) A bunch of 3PPs nestle under the wings of Paizo and their ORC license. (2) Paizo strips out a bunch of "D&D" from Pathfinder and releases a new SRD under ORC instead of the OGL. (3) Third parties begin publishing products using that SRD under ORC. (4) Someone at Wizards thinks there's still too much "D&D" in Pathfinder and brings a claim of copyright infringement. (5) A court agrees with Wizards. The second worst-case scenario is that Paizo takes enough "D&D" out of PF that many fewer people want to play it. It becomes a fantasy heartbreaker.

 

[Clint_L]

What I suspect we will see next? A new d20 STL, with access to the Beyond marketplace. Gives then their trademark brand controls.

You and I are very much on the same page. I've been arguing for awhile that WotC's way out of this mess was to see that DDB is where to create their walled garden. This is enhanced by what they just did in making 5e the permanent OS for fantasy RPG gaming, which will naturally funnel people towards DDB. Opening up DDB to 3PP through a licensing agreement gives them what they really wanted without all the kerfuffle.

I think folks just want to feel that Hasbro/WotC lost. That's not what happened. A faction within Hasbro/WotC lost, but that's not the same thing. At all. A different Hasbro/WotC faction won, and in doing so may have secured D&D's hegemony.

 

[Morrus]

Except no changes were made to ensure they can't make another attempt next week or next year. Why would a company feel comfortable continuing to publish under OGL 1.0a?

Exactly. Additionally, they've realised they don't need to revoke the license now; they've effectively talked the whole 3PP community into not using it. It may as well be revoked at this stage.