It would have Ancestries instead of Races, Jobs instead of Classes, four to 8 values that would probably be named something other than Attributes or Abilities.
Interesting question would it keep a d20 or is that risking too much similarity?
It would likely drop hit points and so would you have stamina much like HP or would it need to have some mechanics other than damage reduces 'this value' until you get zero and you become unconscious.
How much can you make similar and how much do you have to change. Is it important that its predecessor came from d20 origins, so using a very similar mechanic might have been ok if developed independently, but as it 'came' from d20 you're still using d20 by using that mechanic by any name?
Having Attack Rolls and Saves. I think you might be able to get away with attack rolls... as so many games effectively have this. But having distinctly the combination of Attack Rolls and Saves might be problematic. They might need to drop the saves mechanic, or potentially involve another mechanic in it to show it being a different dynamic.
Armor Class, and DC terms will probably need to be revisited and renamed if not ideally restructured.
Also, potentially any species that Paizo might have had access to through OGL that were treated as part of their core, they might have to go through renaming and acquiring some unique and identifying aspects to them separating them from any past association with OGL species. That could affect the campaign setting information a little bit.
In the end however, I find it hard to believe that this OGL thing will be able to be found in WotC's favor save for anyone(publishers) who willingly (or unwittingly) signs in to join the new license agreement they create.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After watching 29 videos on the OGL 1.1 it sounds like the idea that game mechanics can't be copyrighted got tested in 2016 for the first time. In that case, a game used an exact copy of another game's mechanics, and the game using the copy won the case. So could come down to just changing some terms and ensuring the language describing the rules is different enough.
It might be hard for WOTC to copyright terms like Ancestries, race, or species because all living things have them.
For AC Starfinder already has EAC and KAC which helps.
I think OGL 1.1 is too much of an overreach by WOTC, and they will have to back it down some and hopefully won't be able to drop OGL 1.0a. But even so, it's still a big wake-up call that WOTC shouldn't be trusted.
Weird question but could they still use the Alignment system? I would guess yes, although they might have to change the names of the various alignments and call it something other than Alignment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weird question but could they still use the Alignment system? I would guess yes, although they might have to change the names of the various alignments and call it something other than Alignment.
I think the names are less of a problem. The concepts of good and evil are too generic to copyright as words, and you can't copyright game mechanics. The problem is Alignment is 99% description, not mechanics. Luckily Paizo did not copy the SDR text descriptions for the Alignments.
After watching 29 videos on the OGL 1.1 it sounds like the idea that game mechanics can't be copyrighted got tested in 2016 for the first time. In that case, a game used an exact copy of another game's mechanics, and the game using the copy won the case. So could come down to just changing some terms and ensuring the language describing the rules is different enough.
It might be hard for WOTC to copyright terms like Ancestries, race, or species because all living things have them.
For AC Starfinder already has EAC and KAC which helps.
I think OGL 1.1 is too much of an overreach by WOTC, and they will have to back it down some and hopefully won't be able to drop OGL 1.0a. But even so, it's still a big wake-up call that WOTC shouldn't be trusted.
Rolling a d20 to meet or exceed a target number would be easy to keep. Especially by not calling it *Class, so stuff like DC and AC could be easily dropped. Hell, EA and KA could be kept by just dropping class.
White Wolf/Onyx Path broke their stats down into a Power Stat (Physical, Mental, Social), a Quickness Stat (P,M,S) and a Resistance Stat (P,M,S) for nine total. Paizo could do something similar, even minus the social stats.
Even though there's nothing wrong with SF combat, PF2e changed their combat up enough that I'd like to see it in SF.
It sounds dirty to say "d20 system with the serial numbers filed off" but there's enough separate history in Starfinder to differentiate it easily.
Pathfinder might have to lay low for a while, but Games Workshop already proved that you can't copyright stuff like Elf, Dwarf, and Orc, so maybe it doesn't.
The Adventure Card Game used Force Missile in place of Magic Missile, so there exists an avenue to remove the D&D iconic descriptors.
Well by Paizo's statement yesterday regarding the OGL situation, their official stance is that an OGL free Starfinder would look exactly like Starfinder currently looks.
Their position is that Starfinder & PF2e are sufficiently different from WotC/Hasbro IP that they don't require the OGL to publish them, but rather, have been publishing them with the OGL so that third party publishes can continue to use it to make Starfinder/PF2e compatible works.