| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a very interesting piece about this over at the EFF.
It seems that the long and short of it is not that the OGL lets you use things like "Elf" and "Paladin" and "Dexterity" and "Longswords" because those things can't be copyrighted anyway, the OGL essentially served as a promise that WotC won't sue you for having a game where Elf Paladins can have a high Dexterity.
Since if they did sue you for your game mechanics, or class names, or some monster from folklore they would most likely lose. It's just that fending off lawsuits isn't necessarily inexpensive or easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Where do you think their orders come from?
Cynthia Williams
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, fans always have the option of a mass boycott of all Hasbro/WotC products. Corporations tend to listen when their bottom line starts taking a hit.Most ttrpg "fans" actually support WotC. There's a reason DnD overwhelms the rest of the table-top RPG market. Why would those folks boycott?
Do they support WotC?
That's why you get mad, post everywhere, raise a fuss.
We have news sites picking this up and youtubers with millions of followers talking about it.
A lot of people settle for 5e because it's "easy" - but if they're aware it's not the only option, it's not actually that hard to get them to move on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, fans always have the option of a mass boycott of all Hasbro/WotC products. Corporations tend to listen when their bottom line starts taking a hit.Most ttrpg "fans" actually support WotC. There's a reason DnD overwhelms the rest of the table-top RPG market. Why would those folks boycott?
Many, and I mean many, of those people were brought in by 3rd party products/streamers. People will follow their loyalties.
Some will stick to WotC out of loyalty, but my guess is, and this is just from taking the temp of the room since the leak, that the majority see a loyalty to the community more than the product. At least the vocal ones.
The reason it overwhelms is because of the relationship built with the community. Burn that bridge and a large portion of the community walks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really believe all the big developers like Paizo, Kobold, AAW, etc need to get together and build a new generic game system that anyone can use. And so they can divorce themselves from the SRD.
Unfortunately, this whole debacle has also proven that "we promise to forever play nice" is not something that can be relied on. That's going to lead basically every publisher with the means to do so to turn to solely rely on stuff that is already entirely under their control, like a proprietary game system. I don't think this is going to mean the end of open gaming in general, but to say that it's had a chilling effect on the concept is to commit grave understatement (Monte Cook has already commented on this element with regard to the Cypher open license).
Unfortunately, this whole debacle has also proven that "we promise to forever play nice" is not something that can be relied on.
Well, not really. The GPL has been doing that for longer than the OGL has been around.
The difference being that the GPL says that you must use the same version of the license the original work used or, optionally*, a later version.
*optionally because the copyright holder of that original work gets to decide if later versions of the GPL license are allowed or not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RollforCombat already spoiled it, but there's an email circulating from Brian Lewis urging developers interested in a new license to go sign up for a mailing list with a email.paizo.com domain.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo is going the route of its own Open license, I will be a Pathfinder player forever and never again go back to ANY Wizards product.
I really believe all the big developers like Paizo, Kobold, AAW, etc need to get together and build a new generic game system that anyone can use. And so they can divorce themselves from the SRD.Unfortunately, this whole debacle has also proven that "we promise to forever play nice" is not something that can be relied on. That's going to lead basically every publisher with the means to do so to turn to solely rely on stuff that is already entirely under their control, like a proprietary game system. I don't think this is going to mean the end of open gaming in general, but to say that it's had a chilling effect on the concept is to commit grave understatement (Monte Cook has already commented on this element with regard to the Cypher open license).
Even outside Cypher System, there's a whole world of games out there with more permissive licenses. FATE and Powered by the Apocalypse (and many of its own hacks-turned-full-games). Open gaming hasn't ever fully relied on WotC's generosity. Maybe its just time people learned more about the other options out there.
All this exist entirely outside the combination of WotC torpedoing their own environment and the games that have grown from its legacy and the lives of the people behind those myriad games being upended. That nonsense (as portrayed thus far) is pointlessly cruel to do in a game (money) they are already winning by a large margin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason I've ever picked up an EvilHat Productions game was to see what all the hype for Blades in the Dark was. Played it a few weeks. Thought it was okay. And put it down in favor of something that the writer put more effort into fleshing out.
It's a good (what we used to call) "beer and pretzels" game, but it's not Pathfinder. The CC License is just too permissive and disincentivizes really digging into the world.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo is going the route of its own Open license, I will be a Pathfinder player forever and never again go back to ANY Wizards product.
The lesson is "don't rely on any private company to do good long-term, especially in a position of market dominance." The lesson shouldn't be "find a new private company to be loyal to."
And there are certainly better and worse ways they could build a license. Build it with community input as an open license that explicitly states no single entity can claim dominance over it? Probably better. Build it with Paizo as the sole caretakers based on the hope that this business will be better? Maybe less good.
A lot of Paizo people rule, but businesses gonna business.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason I've ever picked up an EvilHat Productions game was to see what all the hype for Blades in the Dark was. Played it a few weeks. Thought it was okay. And put it down in favor of something that the writer put more effort into fleshing out.
It's a good (what we used to call) "beer and pretzels" game, but it's not Pathfinder.
For you, based on your single interaction. I've played campaigns of comparable length and complexity to Paizo APs using Fate and Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts andandand. Don't confuse market dominance for depth of play. Fine to not like it personally but you don't need to diminish its value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For you, based on your single interaction. I've played campaigns of comparable length and complexity to Paizo APs using Fate and Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts andandand. Don't confuse market dominance for depth of play. Fine to not like it personally but you don't need to diminish its value.
I'll keep my own counsel on my opinions, if that's alright with you because I don't need your permission. If you want people to just agree with you, maybe go post on EvilHat's forum?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For you, based on your single interaction. I've played campaigns of comparable length and complexity to Paizo APs using Fate and Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts andandand. Don't confuse market dominance for depth of play. Fine to not like it personally but you don't need to diminish its value.The only reason I've ever picked up an EvilHat Productions game was to see what all the hype for Blades in the Dark was. Played it a few weeks. Thought it was okay. And put it down in favor of something that the writer put more effort into fleshing out.
It's a good (what we used to call) "beer and pretzels" game, but it's not Pathfinder.
An open license that is irrevocable in the language for me to use Pathfinder SRD content? Yeah, no need for anything else. Your mileage may vary.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found this interesting. You know that WoTC is claiming 25% of all revenue above 750K (in this version; which also allows them to change the license unilateral whenever they want (30 days notice)).
Now, Kobold Press's "Project Black Flag" calls back to an old 18th Century warfare (or pirate) term that basically meant "No Quarter given".... no quarter.... ROFL>.. gotta love it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only parts of the OGL 1.1 that are of any relevance are that they are apparently claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized for any purpose and that they can change any terms of the new license with only 30 days notice. Other things in that license are just examples of the bad things they might do under the new license. In other words, the new license basically boils down to WotC saying "Trust us". Is anyone insane enough to do that now?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, this whole debacle has also proven that "we promise to forever play nice" is not something that can be relied on.Well, not really. The GPL has been doing that for longer than the OGL has been around.
The difference being that the GPL says that you must use the same version of the license the original work used or, optionally*, a later version.
*optionally because the copyright holder of that original work gets to decide if later versions of the GPL license are allowed or not.
That's not quite my point. I'm not saying that every such promise won't hold; just that there are some that will not, and you can't know in advance which will be which. That kind of uncertainty is extremely bad for business, and savvy publishers will be looking for ways to minimize that kind of uncertainty. The easiest way to do that is to just make your own system so the whole problem goes away.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only parts of the OGL 1.1 that are of any relevance are that they are apparently claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized for any purpose and that they can change any terms of the new license with only 30 days notice. Other things in that license are just examples of the bad things they might do under the new license. In other words, the new license basically boils down to WotC saying "Trust us". Is anyone insane enough to do that now?
I wouldn't have particularly cared if they had put out a new version of the OGL that was mustache twirlingly evil and utterly kneecapped themselves in regards to their new edition of DnD - if they want to cripple themselves, whatever, they can do them.
My issue is, as you said, entirely to do with them trying to burn 1.0a in the process. It's a wholly unnecessary and entirely evil attempt to burn the industry and community in an attempt to eliminate competition (since they apparently can't stomach the thought of providing a better product).
If they walk away from trying to deauthorize old versions of the OGL, whatever. It's their problem.
Though any content creator would be crazy to trust them going forward...
There's no trusting WotC Hasbro anymore. None.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo is going the route of its own Open license, I will be a Pathfinder player forever and never again go back to ANY Wizards product.The lesson is "don't rely on any private company to do good long-term, especially in a position of market dominance." The lesson shouldn't be "find a new private company to be loyal to."
And there are certainly better and worse ways they could build a license. Build it with community input as an open license that explicitly states no single entity can claim dominance over it? Probably better. Build it with Paizo as the sole caretakers based on the hope that this business will be better? Maybe less good.
A lot of Paizo people rule, but businesses gonna business.
A publically traded company is typically forced to focus on short term gains and share price over virtually all other considerations. The horizon for how far ahead you can look as a publically traded company is short, because regardless of how good your 5 year plan is, if three months in your share price tanks, you may well see the company out of business, bought out by a rival, or have its leadership replaced by people more focused on short term gains because that is what shareholders want.
Privately owned companies do not operate in the same way. They have a limited number of owners, and said owners are typically much more knowledgeable and engaged with the business than with public companies. A privately owned company can take a long-term view much more easily, and tend to much more stable fashion.
TL;DR: Publically traded companies tend to be short-sighted, fickle and frequently ruthless beasts. Private companies aren't automatically more altruistic (but they can be), but what they can be is more stable and able to operate on long-term goals.
While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.
I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so... but forming anything by committee is slow and expensive, and right now I doubt anyone really has the time or money to do so.
When it comes to Paizo: 20 years of consistent behaviour and integrity matters. Sure, we can't predict the future - maybe a giant legal battle with WotC will nuke their finances and force them to sell, and the new owner is a tyrannical maniac. Or a comet could land on the office. All of these could happen. But they aren't likely. If in the short term we had to put our money on one party to take over the role of custodian of the Open Gaming movement... Paizo would be a good candidate.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.
I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so...
So, a non-profit entity like the Free Software Foundation. Only for games.
Linus Media Group has picked up the story https://youtu.be/FvcMjWo7QjQ
So, a non-profit entity like the Free Software Foundation. Only for games.While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.
I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so...
Exactly.
But with the timeframe between publishers getting to know what the OGL 1.1 contains, and the date it takes effect, and the need for publishers to bring in revenue in order to keep the lights on... I doubt the practicality of that happening anytime soon.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.
But it all so says WotC can revoke it from new users using it. So old content would be safe, which is great for Paizo with a warehouse of inventory, but could stop new content creators from using OGL 1.0a
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.But it all so says WotC can revoke it from new users using it. So old content would be safe, which is great for Paizo with a warehouse of inventory, but could stop new content creators from using OGL 1.0a
But, that buys time and keeps revenue streams open long enough for a join collaboration of open gaming to have a chance. Making a non-dnd SRD would revitalize the market pretty quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.But it all so says WotC can revoke it from new users using it. So old content would be safe, which is great for Paizo with a warehouse of inventory, but could stop new content creators from using OGL 1.0a
That's not how it works, really. Anything released under OGL 1.0a is still covered under OGL 1.0a. The 5E SRD is still open even with OGL 1.1. I still have a copy of SRD 5.1. It was released under OGL 1.0a and I will use it under that license according to the terms of that license.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just noticed, everyone’s favorite pdf download store’s “Bestselling Titles” are all 2e and 3e from the company updating the ogl…
People starting to worry old material will soon disappear?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just noticed, everyone’s favorite pdf download store’s “Bestselling Titles” are all 2e and 3e from the company updating the ogl…
People starting to worry old material will soon disappear?
They've done it before, and demanded the items be removed from people's libraries.
I would think people not reward bad behavior and throw more money their way…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the idea of having an independent, no-one-party-controls-this license and SRD for the community to use may sound nice, I'm not sure how practical this is.
I suspect that for such a document and license to have any legal standing, it's going to need to be owned by someone. Maybe Paizo, Kobold Press and a bunch of other publishers could form some kind of joint legal entity in order to do so...
I'm not sure why. Licenses are just text. If two companies make a more traditional licensing agreement, we wouldn't say one of them owns the license, would we?
If a company releases its content with a license like the OGL 1.0a (but not actually Wizard's OGL and with improvements to block revocation), that content is released on those terms. Someone only needs to own it if they want to change it later (for good reasons or less good ones.)
To quote Ryan Dancey: "The value of the open gaming license is that it licenses D&D, not that it is a good license".
Basically, a license without a system - and most notably an extremely popular system/brand is of little value to the industry. Which is also why people are watching Paizo for their response, because while PF2 is dwarfed by 5E, it is bigger than anything else in the fantasy TTRPG field.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.
That's the problem: That's fundamentally true. Whatever Mr. Dancey believed in 2000 and/or wrote into a FAQ in 2004, the actual text of the license does NOT make that license irrevocable, only perpetual. A perpetual license just never EXPIRES, it's not a license that can't be revoked or modified (clause 9 of OGL 1.0a explicitly reserves the right to unilaterally modify the license to begin with).
Ryan Dancey's intention may have been that the license be irrevocable. The problem is that Wizards of the Coast, which is the legal entity that crafted that license, never made it so. And any contract that is not explicitly irrevocable is not irrevocable.
I'm not happy with the change. But it's not actually fraudulent and anybody going to court on the supposition that it is is going to get their ass handed to them. OGL 1.1 is damage and because of the size of Hasbro/WotC, we just have to route around it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.That's the problem: That's fundamentally true. Whatever Mr. Dancey believed in 2000 and/or wrote into a FAQ in 2004, the actual text of the license does NOT make that license irrevocable, only perpetual. A perpetual license just never EXPIRES, it's not a license that can't be revoked or modified (clause 9 of OGL 1.0a explicitly reserves the right to unilaterally modify the license to begin with).
Ryan Dancey's intention may have been that the license be irrevocable. The problem is that Wizards of the Coast, which is the legal entity that crafted that license, never made it so. And any contract that is not explicitly irrevocable is not irrevocable.
I'm not happy with the change. But it's not actually fraudulent and anybody going to court on the supposition that it is is going to get their ass handed to them. OGL 1.1 is damage and because of the size of Hasbro/WotC, we just have to route around it.
Not just Mr Dancey, but also the lawyer who wrote the license.
As well, perpetual licenses at that time were not, and had never been, explicitly stated as being irrevocable.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that the EFF statement got updated today, with a suggestion that the OGL 1.0a is NOT revocable.That's the problem: That's fundamentally true. Whatever Mr. Dancey believed in 2000 and/or wrote into a FAQ in 2004, the actual text of the license does NOT make that license irrevocable, only perpetual. A perpetual license just never EXPIRES, it's not a license that can't be revoked or modified (clause 9 of OGL 1.0a explicitly reserves the right to unilaterally modify the license to begin with).
Ryan Dancey's intention may have been that the license be irrevocable. The problem is that Wizards of the Coast, which is the legal entity that crafted that license, never made it so. And any contract that is not explicitly irrevocable is not irrevocable.
I'm not happy with the change. But it's not actually fraudulent and anybody going to court on the supposition that it is is going to get their ass handed to them. OGL 1.1 is damage and because of the size of Hasbro/WotC, we just have to route around it.
Not just Mr Dancey, but also the lawyer who wrote the license.
As well, perpetual licenses at that time were not, and had never been, explicitly stated as being irrevocable.
Of course they wouldn't have been. A perpetual contract is one with no set end date. An irrevocable contract is one that can't be terminated for any reason other than the violation of its terms.
The concepts of perpetuity and irrevocability in law are not and have never been interchangeable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem: That's fundamentally true. Whatever Mr. Dancey believed in 2000 and/or wrote into a FAQ in 2004, the actual text of the license does NOT make that license irrevocable, only perpetual. A perpetual license just never EXPIRES, it's not a license that can't be revoked or modified (clause 9 of OGL 1.0a explicitly reserves the right to unilaterally modify the license to begin with).Ryan Dancey's intention may have been that the license be irrevocable. The problem is that Wizards of the Coast, which is the legal entity that crafted that license, never made it so. And any contract that is not explicitly irrevocable is not irrevocable.
I'm not happy with the change. But it's not actually fraudulent and anybody going to court on the supposition that it is is going to get their ass handed to them. OGL 1.1 is damage and because of the size of Hasbro/WotC, we just have to route around it.
I have to agree with this.
In other news Paizo has entered discussions with other game publishers to create a new OGL, one that isn't under the tyranny of Hasbro. Not sure who is all involved, but it does involve the Azora Law Firm. That is the firm that includes Brian Lewis, one of the people involved in the creation of the original 1.0 OGL!|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem: That's fundamentally true. Whatever Mr. Dancey believed in 2000 and/or wrote into a FAQ in 2004, the actual text of the license does NOT make that license irrevocable, only perpetual. A perpetual license just never EXPIRES, it's not a license that can't be revoked or modified (clause 9 of OGL 1.0a explicitly reserves the right to unilaterally modify the license to begin with).Ryan Dancey's intention may have been that the license be irrevocable. The problem is that Wizards of the Coast, which is the legal entity that crafted that license, never made it so. And any contract that is not explicitly irrevocable is not irrevocable.
I'm not happy with the change. But it's not actually fraudulent and anybody going to court on the supposition that it is is going to get their ass handed to them. OGL 1.1 is damage and because of the size of Hasbro/WotC, we just have to route around it.
I have to agree with this.
In other news Paizo has entered discussions with other game publishers to create a new OGL, one that isn't under the tyranny of Hasbro. Not sure who is all involved, but it does involve the Azora Law Firm. That is the firm that includes Brian Lewis, one of the people involved in the creation of the original 1.0 OGL!
Because I was there, at the time, I remember that there was controversy at the time over whether Wizards of the Coast could possibly pull the rug out from under the whole open gaming thing by pulling D&D back in-house and revoking the OGL. I don't think it's a coincidence that Creative Commons licensing became a thing shortly afterward.
Because I was there, at the time, I remember that there was controversy at the time over whether Wizards of the Coast could possibly pull the rug out from under the whole open gaming thing by pulling D&D back in-house and revoking the OGL. I don't think it's a coincidence that Creative Commons licensing became a thing shortly afterward.
Yeah, I remember being excited about the OGL...but I knew that TSR sued anyone and everyone they could. There wasn't really an equivalent elsewhere I knew about.
Before the OGL, if you wanted to add something to the world of DnD you did the following:
Create a meticulously worded letter to the company describing your concept in exacting detail with enough fluff text to make it interesting.
Mail that idea to TSR, because email wasn't a thing yet.
Wait for 4-6 weeks for the prompt reply.
Realize they are never going to respond in any way, your work won't be published, and you wasted a few months.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because I was there, at the time, I remember that there was controversy at the time over whether Wizards of the Coast could possibly pull the rug out from under the whole open gaming thing by pulling D&D back in-house and revoking the OGL. I don't think it's a coincidence that Creative Commons licensing became a thing shortly afterward.Yeah, I remember being excited about the OGL...but I knew that TSR sued anyone and everyone they could. There wasn't really an equivalent elsewhere I knew about.
Before the OGL, if you wanted to add something to the world of DnD you did the following:
Create a meticulously worded letter to the company describing your concept in exacting detail with enough fluff text to make it interesting.
Mail that idea to TSR, because email wasn't a thing yet.
Wait for 4-6 weeks for the prompt reply.
Realize they are never going to respond in any way, your work won't be published, and you wasted a few months.
This, we didn't realize at the time, was because T$R was flat broke and couldn't afford to pay outside writers even if they took unagented submissions, which I doubt they did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even tiny publishers like me are having a decent January on drive thru.
On a new srd/OGL for 3PPCan we call it:
Open Roleplaying Community System!
|
|
That's the problem: That's fundamentally true. Whatever Mr. Dancey believed in 2000 and/or wrote into a FAQ in 2004, the actual text of the license does NOT make that license irrevocable, only perpetual. A perpetual license just never EXPIRES, it's not a license that can't be revoked or modified (clause 9 of OGL 1.0a explicitly reserves the right to unilaterally modify the license to begin with).Ryan Dancey's intention may have been that the license be irrevocable. The problem is that Wizards of the Coast, which is the legal entity that crafted that license, never made it so. And any contract that is not explicitly irrevocable is not irrevocable.
I'm not happy with the change. But it's not actually fraudulent and anybody going to court on the supposition that it is is going to get their ass handed to them. OGL 1.1 is damage and because of the size of Hasbro/WotC, we just have to route around it.
I have to agree with this.
In other news Paizo has entered discussions with other game publishers to create a new OGL, one that isn't under the tyranny of Hasbro. Not sure who is all involved, but it does involve the Azora Law Firm. That is the firm that includes Brian Lewis, one of the people involved in the creation of the original 1.0 OGL!
This is good news that publishers would come together to make a new OGL instead of everyone making their own. Do you have a link to this news?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to Paizo: 20 years of consistent behaviour and integrity matters. Sure, we can't predict the future - maybe a giant legal battle with WotC will nuke their finances and force them to sell, and the new owner is a tyrannical maniac. Or a comet could land on the office. All of these could happen. But they aren't likely. If in the short term we had to put our money on one party to take over the role of custodian of the Open Gaming movement... Paizo would be a good candidate.
Devil's Advocate: The only reason Paizo has been behaving "well" could be due to the OGL having set the terms of fairness to-date. We've never seen a Paizo without the OGL that set a certain level playing field across the industry. I don't think Paizo has ever been threatened in this manner either and may be prone to react in a protectionist manner as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to Paizo: 20 years of consistent behaviour and integrity matters. Sure, we can't predict the future - maybe a giant legal battle with WotC will nuke their finances and force them to sell, and the new owner is a tyrannical maniac. Or a comet could land on the office. All of these could happen. But they aren't likely. If in the short term we had to put our money on one party to take over the role of custodian of the Open Gaming movement... Paizo would be a good candidate.Devil's Advocate: The only reason Paizo has been behaving "well" could be due to the OGL having set the terms of fairness to-date. We've never seen a Paizo without the OGL that set a certain level playing field across the industry. I don't think Paizo has ever been threatened in this manner either and may be prone to react in a protectionist manner as well.
Paizo was not forced to use the OGL for PF2, they could have gone for something else if they wanted to be "less nice".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may have something to do with the fact that now the Hasbro CEO is former Microsoft, the president of Wizards of the Coast is former Microsoft and Amazon, and the VP now in charge of D&D is former Microsoft 365.
They're probably still with Micro$oft, considering this is pretty much exactly what M$ is trying to do with video games: take over and create a monopoly.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to Paizo: 20 years of consistent behaviour and integrity matters. Sure, we can't predict the future - maybe a giant legal battle with WotC will nuke their finances and force them to sell, and the new owner is a tyrannical maniac. Or a comet could land on the office. All of these could happen. But they aren't likely. If in the short term we had to put our money on one party to take over the role of custodian of the Open Gaming movement... Paizo would be a good candidate.Devil's Advocate: The only reason Paizo has been behaving "well" could be due to the OGL having set the terms of fairness to-date. We've never seen a Paizo without the OGL that set a certain level playing field across the industry. I don't think Paizo has ever been threatened in this manner either and may be prone to react in a protectionist manner as well.
A lot of senior people at Paizo are firm believers in the open gaming movement. They didn’t use the OGL purely because it was advantageous to them.