Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License

Thursday, January 12, 2023


Open RPG logo over-layed over an image of pathfinder champion Seelah leading a battle


For the last several weeks, as rumors of Wizards of the Coast’s new version of the Open Game License began circulating among publishers and on social media, gamers across the world have been asking what Paizo plans to do in light of concerns regarding Wizards of the Coast’s rumored plan to de-authorize the existing OGL 1.0(a). We have been awaiting further information, hoping that Wizards would realize that, for more than 20 years, the OGL has been a mutually beneficial license which should not–and cannot–be revoked. While we continue to await an answer from Wizards, we strongly feel that Paizo can no longer delay making our own feelings about the importance of Open Gaming a part of the public discussion.

We believe that any interpretation that the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a) were intended to be revocable or able to be deauthorized is incorrect, and with good reason.

We were there.

Paizo owner Lisa Stevens and Paizo president Jim Butler were leaders on the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards at the time. Brian Lewis, co-founder of Azora Law, the intellectual property law firm that Paizo uses, was the attorney at Wizards who came up with the legal framework for the OGL itself. Paizo has also worked very closely on OGL-related issues with Ryan Dancey, the visionary who conceived the OGL in the first place.

Paizo does not believe that the OGL 1.0a can be “deauthorized,” ever. While we are prepared to argue that point in a court of law if need be, we don’t want to have to do that, and we know that many of our fellow publishers are not in a position to do so.

We have no interest whatsoever in Wizards’ new OGL. Instead, we have a plan that we believe will irrevocably and unquestionably keep alive the spirit of the Open Game License.

As Paizo has evolved, the parts of the OGL that we ourselves value have changed. When we needed to quickly bring out Pathfinder First Edition to continue publishing our popular monthly adventures back in 2008, using Wizards’ language was important and expeditious. But in our non-RPG products, including our Pathfinder Tales novels, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, and others, we shifted our focus away from D&D tropes to lean harder into ideas from our own writers. By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.

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).

Of course, Paizo plans to continue publishing Pathfinder and Starfinder, even as we move away from the Open Gaming License. Since months’ worth of products are still at the printer, you’ll see the familiar OGL 1.0(a) in the back of our products for a while yet. While the Open RPG Creative License is being finalized, we’ll be printing Pathfinder and Starfinder products without any license, and we’ll add the finished license to those products when the new license is complete.

We hope that you will continue to support Paizo and other game publishers in this difficult time for the entire hobby. You can do your part by supporting the many companies that have provided content under the OGL. Support Pathfinder and Starfinder by visiting your local game store, subscribing to Pathfinder and Starfinder, or taking advantage of discount code OpenGaming during checkout for 25% off your purchase of the Core Rulebook, Core Rulebook Pocket Edition, or Pathfinder Beginner Box. Support Kobold Press, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Roll for Combat, Rogue Genius Games, and other publishers working to preserve a prosperous future for Open Gaming that is both perpetual AND irrevocable.

We’ll be there at your side. You can count on us not to go back on our word.

Forever.

–Paizo Inc

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Community Paizo Paizo Staff Pathfinder Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
251 to 300 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@Paizo,

I haven't been active on the forums for a long time, but my group and I have been playing PF1e for a long time.

I have seen the news lately with OGL1.0 and Paizo's reply with ORC License. I just wanted to stop back by the Forums to show my support for your organization and your fight against the monopolization of TTRPG, back then with the launch of PF1e and again now with ORC. I can't wait to see it live and watch the 3pp content start flooding in.

Thank you!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup. Like WOTC, Paizo are a business. They have both made decisions for business reasons.


My thumbs up for ORC! Thank you PAIZO. I guess I won't spend money for WotC RPG products.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

thank you Paizo for your announcement to fight for the OGL if required.

after watching a couple of videos on this debate and looking at the monetizing plans of Hasbro I couldn’t help to get a „One China“ policy vibe on the „One D&D“ title… or a bit of Tolkien for that matter:

One D&D (by WOTC)
One OGL (2.0, the other de-authorized)

One Ring to find them all…
including the three made by the elves that the dark lord had never touched.


Genuine question - why ORC and not just publish rules under Creative Commons?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SlowFlake wrote:
Genuine question - why ORC and not just publish rules under Creative Commons?

the OGL was created to separate the rules (the precise wording of the rules) from the other IP.

„Floating Disk“ is OGL
„Tensers Floating Disc“ is IP
„a round, concave, floating force field“ is probably generic enough to not be copyrightable, but rather a mouth full.


DropBearHunter wrote:
SlowFlake wrote:
Genuine question - why ORC and not just publish rules under Creative Commons?

the OGL was created to separate the rules (the precise wording of the rules) from the other IP.

„Floating Disk“ is OGL
„Tensers Floating Disc“ is IP
„a round, concave, floating force field“ is probably generic enough to not be copyrightable, but rather a mouth full.

But when a game is released under OGL the creator chooses what to enter into OGL and what to keep as protected IP. Why not shift anything that would have been published under the OGL into CC instead?

For example - if I create a system, adventure, town, monsters etc. and I want to publish the system and monsters under OGL but keep the rest as my copyrighted IP, why not do exactly that, but under CC instead?
One could even go a step further and publish a new generic system, designed to be compatible with (but not only) 5e content and publish it under CC. Any third party content compatible with 5e would also be compatible with this system, and for any content that doesn't use other copyrighted content (such as 5e spells that are not in the SRD) this seems to solve the OGL mess entirely and forever, without the need to write a new license.
Am I missing something?


To be honest, I've never been completely sure how this worked. I know the basic results - like all the PF rules and monsters and spells and things are open while all the setting content isn't, including that rules that reference setting content are open but you need to strip out the reference, but where is that all spelled out on a book by book basis?

Back in the 3.x days, WotC put out the SRD which explicitly showed what was open (and that wasn't nearly all the rules content.) Are there officially such documents for PF & PF2e, but we just mostly ignore them because we know what kinds of content Paizo always opens? Or is it spelled out somewhere in each book published?


thejeff wrote:

To be honest, I've never been completely sure how this worked. I know the basic results - like all the PF rules and monsters and spells and things are open while all the setting content isn't, including that rules that reference setting content are open but you need to strip out the reference, but where is that all spelled out on a book by book basis?

Back in the 3.x days, WotC put out the SRD which explicitly showed what was open (and that wasn't nearly all the rules content.) Are there officially such documents for PF & PF2e, but we just mostly ignore them because we know what kinds of content Paizo always opens? Or is it spelled out somewhere in each book published?

I'm not positive but I think that's the official PRD.


thejeff wrote:

To be honest, I've never been completely sure how this worked. I know the basic results - like all the PF rules and monsters and spells and things are open while all the setting content isn't, including that rules that reference setting content are open but you need to strip out the reference, but where is that all spelled out on a book by book basis?

Back in the 3.x days, WotC put out the SRD which explicitly showed what was open (and that wasn't nearly all the rules content.) Are there officially such documents for PF & PF2e, but we just mostly ignore them because we know what kinds of content Paizo always opens? Or is it spelled out somewhere in each book published?

Besides “foundational” documents, like the SRDs for various games, One condition of the OGL is that you specify, in each book, what is open content and what is product identity. (In Starfinder CRB, for example they specifically called out the drift as PI - so if you make an OGL Starfinder product, you can’t reference the drift in it - that’s not open content. You have to say “hyperspace” or something like that).


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, moderation, I don't get the sense that emails are getting answered these days, so

*deep breath*

*deeeeep breath*

I am troubled by the recent moderation decision to delete a post that did nothing but express "I'm glad queer people are represented in this game that's suddenly getting so many new players, and I'm glad that bigots who openly hate us aren't made welcome here". I want to believe this was an accident, but this is the second time it's happened. This was a nonpartisan post that did not target anyone or invite any debate. It wasn't off-topic, either--it was a celebration of Paizo's action and of new players entering the community as a result of Paizo's action.

A later post I made was also deleted--this one was weird, since it had nothing to do with the argument and was just reminding everyone to be healthily critical of Paizo leadership despite all the current good press they're getting. It comes off very poorly to delete that, but it's not what's upsetting me right now.


Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:

To be honest, I've never been completely sure how this worked. I know the basic results - like all the PF rules and monsters and spells and things are open while all the setting content isn't, including that rules that reference setting content are open but you need to strip out the reference, but where is that all spelled out on a book by book basis?

Back in the 3.x days, WotC put out the SRD which explicitly showed what was open (and that wasn't nearly all the rules content.) Are there officially such documents for PF & PF2e, but we just mostly ignore them because we know what kinds of content Paizo always opens? Or is it spelled out somewhere in each book published?

Besides “foundational” documents, like the SRDs for various games, One condition of the OGL is that you specify, in each book, what is open content and what is product identity. (In Starfinder CRB, for example they specifically called out the drift as PI - so if you make an OGL Starfinder product, you can’t reference the drift in it - that’s not open content. You have to say “hyperspace” or something like that).

Ah, now I see it. It's in the fine print and in most cases it's not actually a list of things, but categories - like "names and artwork and ..."

Which brings us back to the Creative Commons license. I don't think you can do that with it. You might be able to publish all the open content separately as an SRD in addition to using it in your own works that include setting and adventure material, but I'm not sure and it would at least be a separate step.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Gosh, I'm excited about ORC.

Something I really love about Pathfinder is its huge focus on inclusivity. Golarion is full of queer and minority representation, from the lesbian polycule of Desna, Shelyn and Sarenrae to Sandpoint having a gay sheriff and everyone being okay with it. As a trans woman, I've always felt welcome here, and that meant a lot to me when I came out. It meant a lot to me to know that my identity wouldn't be treated as a subject of debate, that my safety and wellbeing would be prioritized just as much as the safety and wellbeing of every other poster here, that Paizo didn't consider me to be expendable. It was a safe space for me to come out to people, and that's awesome!

I'm so excited that now, as Pathfinder attains the spotlight thanks to this announcement, so many new queer players will be arriving and discovering a place that makes them feel welcome, too. It means a lot to know that the behaviors of bigots and homophobes are not welcomed here, that Paizo prioritizes the wellbeing of LGBTA+ gamers and prioritizes taking strides to make RPGs a more diverse and inclusive space as a whole.

I'm thrilled for this announcement, and I'm thrilled that so many gamers burnt out by WotC's various controversies will have the chance to discover so many great third-party publishers and game systems, even those outside of ORC itself--from Pathfinder to Thirsty Sword Lesbians to Blades in the Dark. I'm thrilled that ORC is going to be shaped so heavily by Pathfinder's inclusion!

If this post gets deleted, and no alternative explanation is offered, I'm going to comfortably assume it's because the statements expressed herein are no longer true.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

22 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Gosh, I'm excited about ORC.

Something I really love about Pathfinder is its huge focus on inclusivity. Golarion is full of queer and minority representation, from the lesbian polycule of Desna, Shelyn and Sarenrae to Sandpoint having a gay sheriff and everyone being okay with it. As a trans woman, I've always felt welcome here, and that meant a lot to me when I came out. It meant a lot to me to know that my identity wouldn't be treated as a subject of debate, that my safety and wellbeing would be prioritized just as much as the safety and wellbeing of every other poster here, that Paizo didn't consider me to be expendable. It was a safe space for me to come out to people, and that's awesome!

I'm so excited that now, as Pathfinder attains the spotlight thanks to this announcement, so many new queer players will be arriving and discovering a place that makes them feel welcome, too. It means a lot to know that the behaviors of bigots and homophobes are not welcomed here, that Paizo prioritizes the wellbeing of LGBTA+ gamers and prioritizes taking strides to make RPGs a more diverse and inclusive space as a whole.

I'm thrilled for this announcement, and I'm thrilled that so many gamers burnt out by WotC's various controversies will have the chance to discover so many great third-party publishers and game systems, even those outside of ORC itself--from Pathfinder to Thirsty Sword Lesbians to Blades in the Dark. I'm thrilled that ORC is going to be shaped so heavily by Pathfinder's inclusion!

If this post gets deleted, and no alternative explanation is offered, I'm going to comfortably assume it's because the statements expressed herein are no longer true.

Those statements are still true regardless of any one specific post being deleted or not. I can't speak to why previous posts were deleted but everything you talked about above is still very important to Paizo and to myself.

Please keep in mind that recent events have been among the most overwhelming and distracting and frightening and exciting things that Paizo has encountered, and that there's a lot going on and that we're trying to do our best while still keeping the train running so that we stay on schedule even though the train tracks ahead are increasingly complex.

But this thread being focused specifically on the still BRAND NEW ORC is the focus, and it's a complicated thing, so my guess is that folks are trying to keep it focused is all. Folks can always PM me or email me at james dot jacobs at paizo dot com if they wanna chat or have something they feel like they want to get into Paizo's head that threads the needle of "Not management, but also has been at Paizo for almost the entire time Paizo's been Paizoing" and I'll do my best to make sure those concerns are heard (while still concentratin on having to work at creating Adventures and directiing narratives, of course, which has to be the MAIN focus of my job here).


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you, James. I appreciate you saying that. I don't know what's going on, and I'm still concerned, but I trust you. I don't know leadership, though. I'm sort of trying to suspend my judgment until I know more. That said, I'm going to maybe take a few steps back from the forums for the time being. This community means a lot to me, and it takes a lot out of me to see the forums like this.

I have to confess that I have a heavy anxiety hidden beneath my more idealistic posts that those more socially conservative gamers disgruntled with WotC may now come here, and that Paizo's leadership will decide to pivot towards that audience--an audience that may care less about supporting the union or critiquing future missteps. I can't forget that this still is the company that fired Sara Marie. It's still a company with a bottom line, and I don't know how much I'm worth to that bottom line, in the end.

The forums have been rough lately, and radio silence makes it really hard to know what's going on. I know things have been difficult from your ends, too, which is why I've tried to avoid jumping to any conclusions up to this point. It's always important to me to assume good faith whenever possible.

That said, it would really help to have some explanation if a post like that gets deleted. The lack of any explanation is what's distressing here, and I understand that may just be new policy, but I don't think it's working. That's why I said, "and no alternative explanation is offered".

Before I go, I'll just say this to people: Make sure to look at the other 3PPs involved with ORC, too. They're smaller and more directly impacted by the OGL changes than Paizo, so they especially need a lot of support right now. This isn't one little guy standing up to the big guy, it's a lot of little guys teaming up to stand up to the big guy. We can't do this alone.

EDIT: Before the edit block comes up, I want to add that I'm sorry for getting alarmist and not taking more time before posting. I should say that much. See you all in a few. <3


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m pretty concerned that my post, which consisted of nothing but linking to official Paizo statements from the last two years supporting queer people, was deleted. What rule did that break? I wasn’t quoting anyone.

Paizo Employee Community and Social Media Specialist

10 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a long thread of posts that did not have to do with the ORC announcement. In an attempt to keep the conversation pertinent to the topic, they were removed. Thank you for playing our games. We heartily support the community enthusiasm for inclusion. If that conversation is something you would like to chime in about, please start a fresh thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SlowFlake wrote:
Genuine question - why ORC and not just publish rules under Creative Commons?

Ryan Dancey answered this one in one of the Roll for Combat videos. Basically, Creative Commons is not a single license with clear terms, and it is better designed for freely sharing discrete items (for example, images) rather than game content.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am very interested in the ORC license project. I want to support it. I would be very pleased if my players supported it as well. And, their players, and... yes. I look forward to it becoming a reality. Thank you for doing this for the hobby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The new draft of OGL 1.2 has been released.

They reserve the right to revoke the licence at their discretion.

This isn't compatible with free software as defined by the free software foundation.

I'm optimistic that the ORC will be much better than what Hasbro is willing to create.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

OGL 1.2 's morals clause says not just "content" but "conduct" which seems to imply to me that if you say the wrong thing on a message board and it gets tied back to you, they can shut you down.


Hell yeah, well done Paizo, well done


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:
OGL 1.2 's morals clause says not just "content" but "conduct" which seems to imply to me that if you say the wrong thing on a message board and it gets tied back to you, they can shut you down.

This is one of those things that I can see why they want to have it and how it could even be well-intentioned, but it's so incredibly broad that it's prohibitive.

It's likely based off standard clauses in more traditional licensing - like if you're making a licensing deal for a D&D movie, you don't want it turned into a porn flick. Or you want to be able to pull out if the director or lead gets caught up in a major scandal - sexual harassment or something. But with a deal like that, with serious money involved, there's strong incentive not to back out and the other side probably would sign on to anything that made it entirely up to the licensor anyway.

But this version basically says "we can shut you down for anything we claim is bad and there's no recourse for you to challenge it." No go. No one builds a business model off of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I said this in another thread, but Justin Roiland being arraigned on felonies doesn't mean that the Rick and Morty splat should be yanked from D&D Beyond and its remaining run pulped. And that principle extends to pretty much any TTRPG book I can think of that isn't otherwise violating the terms of a license.

If anybody's worried about people writing about awful things that they've done and putting it in a campaign setting, there are Son of Sam laws for that kind of thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

I said this in another thread, but Justin Roiland being arraigned on felonies doesn't mean that the Rick and Morty splat should be yanked from D&D Beyond and its remaining run pulped. And that principle extends to pretty much any TTRPG book I can think of that isn't otherwise violating the terms of a license.

If anybody's worried about people writing about awful things that they've done and putting it in a campaign setting, there are Son of Sam laws for that kind of thing.

I mostly agree. Though I wouldn't object if D&D Beyond wanted to drop it - I don't think the OGL obligates D&D Beyond to support anything.

Just that I can see where it's coming from. It's an echo of clauses that show up in more traditional licensing. I can see why lawyers who don't really get the OGL wanted it in there.


I'm neutral on morality clauses since Product Identity and Trademarks provide a lot of distance between the licensor and the licensees.

Only thing I can suggest is to have a basic ORC 1.0 and an ORC 1.0 (Content) or something that adds a content morality clause for publishers that want stronger control over revoking their work.

Certainly don't want things to get as complicated as Creative Commons is, but maybe these two versions would cover most scenarios.


I think the distance that comes from PI is easily enough. If you want a license to use the logo and other branding or the PI, that's an entirely different license category and can reasonably come with a lot more control over content.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Thinking a bit more about the morals clause.

Just having it in there puts WotC in more jeopardy. Currently someone can publish something nasty under the OGL and WotC can just go "Not associated with us. Not our problem." Once their license says they can block the publishing of objectionable content, anything they don't block is on them. It's by default something they approve of.


thejeff wrote:

Thinking a bit more about the morals clause.

Just having it in there puts WotC in more jeopardy. Currently someone can publish something nasty under the OGL and WotC can just go "Not associated with us. Not our problem." Once their license says they can block the publishing of objectionable content, anything they don't block is on them. It's by default something they approve of.

Yeah, this is something I've seen come up in similar threads on the subject, like over on GitP.

I really don't understand Wizards goals with all of these clauses. The overall purpose is clear (destroy the competition, make it difficult for anyone to challenge them again any time soon) but some of the specifics seem boneheaded.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a PR move from wotc to justify killing 1.0a. It's the big bad nfts and hate content that 1.0a allows that needs to be blocked.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been committed to PF1e and have not yet moved on to PF2e. However, I am exhausted with WotC licensing. Paizo, if with PF2e you can finally break us away that and use other licensing, I'm all in.

Please finally come into your own, Paizo. Stop the WotC insanity! Thank you for your efforts and rising to lead the RPG community to sensibility!

I've read OGL 1.2 "Play Test" and, honestly, I'm still very concerned about WotC. I don't trust them. I feel very boxed in with their VTT policy and restrictions not to use the monster images from the books you've bought and paid for in your own games. Good thing I only bought three 5e books to look at them. No way I could use 5e with that type of restriction. Time to move on.

Playing groups need to have flexibility to use the material they bought as long as they use it exclusively within their campaigns with a reasonable number of players in their group. Otherwise, there's no point buying the material.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still greatly prefer Pathfinder 1st Edition, so I'm still waiting to see what falls out for that (even if Paizo never makes anything more for it, somebody might do it, if only they won't be strangled by a horde of Hasbro lawyers).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still got all those AP's standing around, looking at me... if I ever get the ones done I want to play, I might be finally ready to change to 2E, if my groups are okay with it (and I know some players don't like the 2nd edition, either). It's not that improbable that by the time we get around to it, 3E will already have been announced. :p

Liberty's Edge

I still don't understand how NFTs could even apply to anything. It's just a boogeyman as far as I can tell, but a really outlandish one. They may as well say it also keeps tigers aways.


Coridan wrote:
I still don't understand how NFTs could even apply to anything. It's just a boogeyman as far as I can tell, but a really outlandish one. They may as well say it also keeps tigers aways.

SRM believes that a big part of the thrust and point of the NFT restrictions are squarely leveled at him personally given at this point he is one of the only major players in the market that are working on an RPG system that has the ability to leverage NFT and blockchain for their game.

I'll refrain from talking about my theories about the project as I am of two minds about it and to be quite honest my feelings about that work don't really vibe with much of the discourse surrounding web3.0 that is dominant around here but I will say that of all the creators in this space, on a personal level, I deeply relate to him, trust his creative drive, and think his ethics and worldview are among the most solid, centered, and relatable.

I don't know for a fact if WotC is intentionally taking aim at him and that project but he certainly seems to think that is the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I still greatly prefer Pathfinder 1st Edition, so I'm still waiting to see what falls out for that (even if Paizo never makes anything more for it, somebody might do it, if only they won't be strangled by a horde of Hasbro lawyers).

I do, too. However, the reality I'm seeing on Discord servers is that it is much harder to find PF1e players. Also, trying to build a PF1e campaign in Foundry VTT takes work because you've got to, more or less, build all your NPCs at least to the extent of importing statblocks and assigning images to the actors (aka tokens or pawns). I've got a better setup in MapTool with my own macros, but people seem to prefer Foundry VTT. Took me 1 1/2 years to develop that. When Paizo marginized PF1e immediately after announcing PF2e, they basically killed it and the PF1e community.

I'm not happy about that because I spent over $1000 on my PF1e material. Not sure I'll ever get much out of it.

All I can say is that it appears to be time to move on and hopefully Paizo does NOT do it that way to PF2e when PF3e comes out -- or at least that doesn't happen till the 10th anniversary of PF2e.

Sadly, PF1e became its most fun to play when it finally got to its 10th anniversary because it was finally finished. We finally had all the books -- most of which are still missing from PF2e.

Paizo is professionally maintaining a PF2e game system and now has prebuilt actors (tokens) with their images for Foundry VTT -- making it a very appealing VTT environment for game play. PF2e is becoming very hard to ignore and there appears to be a lot more players versus PF1e. I'm looking at the PF2e situation very seriously this weekend to evaluate switching to PF2e. Finally, going to learn the PF2e rules and character classes to help me make a decision. I can always use home rules to change a small number of things I don't like.


Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I still greatly prefer Pathfinder 1st Edition, so I'm still waiting to see what falls out for that (even if Paizo never makes anything more for it, somebody might do it, if only they won't be strangled by a horde of Hasbro lawyers).

I do, too. However, the reality I'm seeing on Discord servers is that it is much harder to find PF1e players. Also, trying to build a PF1e campaign in Foundry VTT takes work because you've got to, more or less, build all your NPCs at least to the extent of importing statblocks and assigning images to the actors (aka tokens or pawns). I've got a better setup in MapTool with my own macros, but people seem to prefer Foundry VTT. Took me 1 1/2 years to develop that. When Paizo marginized PF1e immediately after announcing PF2e, they basically killed it and the PF1e community.

I'm not happy about that because I spent over $1000 on my PF1e material. Not sure I'll ever get much out of it.

All I can say is that it appears to be time to move on and hopefully Paizo does NOT do it that way to PF2e when PF3e comes out -- or at least that doesn't happen till the 10th anniversary of PF2e.

Sadly, PF1e became its most fun to play when it finally got to its 10th anniversary because it was finally finished. We finally had all the books -- most of which are still missing from PF2e.

Paizo is professionally maintaining a PF2e game system and now has prebuilt actors (tokens) with their images for Foundry VTT -- making it a very appealing VTT environment for game play. PF2e is becoming very hard to ignore and there appears to be a lot more players versus PF1e. I'm looking at the PF2e situation very seriously this weekend to evaluate switching to PF2e. Finally, going to learn the PF2e rules and character classes to help me make a decision. I can always use home rules to change a small number of things I don't like.

Due to WotC's new OGL 1.2 "Play Test", I think it's likely that owners of OGL 1.0a material are safe with using it. What I don't know is when Paizo prints additional PF1E material, is that called publishing or printing. If it's publishing, Paizo will be able to use the new "Community Commons" license WotC is working on for that, instead of OGL 1.0a -- provided WotC does not pull a fast one. If it's not considered new publication because nothing was changed in the PF1e printings, then it appears they can continue to use OGL 1.0a (I think without a court battle).

Still, everything WotC is doing is confusing, changes almost daily, and could be potentially far reaching. You still can't get 5e PDFs of their books and other materials -- my preferred medium. That's why I like Paizo. Time to break away from WotC insanity!

251 to 300 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License All Messageboards