Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
[cross-posting this from another forum]
The more I think about this, the more I hope that Paizo finds a way to grandfather Open Game Content from the Open Game License v1.0a into the ORC License. I have no idea if that's possible at all, if they'd need WotC to be onboard somehow, or what it would otherwise entail, but there's just so much that can't (or likely won't) be able to make the jump from the OGL to the ORC if they don't.
Consider, for example, where the OSR falls in all of this. OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Old School Essentials, Castles & Crusades, etc., all work off of the 3.5 SRD. If there's no way to get the 3.5 SRD into the ORC License, then these systems – and the companies that are invested in their product lines – are going to be stuck with the OGL, regardless of how generous the ORC License is.
Another one is companies that are defunct now, and so aren't in a position to create an SRD under the ORC License. For instance, my understanding is that West End Games, which created the OpenD6 system under the OGL, has since shut its doors. So anyone who wants to keep creating OpenD6 content, which relies on the OpenD6 SRD, has to stick with the OGL, since only West End Games could make a new OpenD6 SRD for the ORC License...and they're not around to do so.
Even Paizo would be affected by this. I don't know if Pathfinder 2E really is different enough from the 3.5 mechanics that they could "deOGLify" it, but I sincerely doubt that Starfinder is. Unless they're prepared to jettison that entire RPG (or start rushing a Starfinder 2E into production), the loss of the 3.5 SRD will hit them fairly hard in that regard. And I've already mentioned that a lot of other companies will be forced to stop producing PF1 content if there's no PF1 SRD...which would also require the 3.5 SRD to be part of the ORC License.
Paizo, I love what you're doing; it's not an overstatement to say that the ORC License (and your courageous announcement that you'll take WotC to court to protect the OGL v1.0a from being revoked) has made you the saviors of the tabletop RPG community. But please, don't just stop at making a new, truly open and irrevocable license. We need this to be past-proof as well as future-proof; please please please find a way to get Open Game Content from the OGL v1.0a into the ORC License. Get WotC onboard if you have to; tell them that it will help rehabilitate their image (which it will), since they'll lose nothing by doing this and potentially gain back some of the goodwill they've lost.
This ORC needs to keep the Past In Esteem.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Sadly, I don't think Paizo can truly incorporate OGL into it. That is license owned by WoTC/Hasbro. They would need to get them on board... and That group will never get on board as long as they think they can win this fight... And until they drop attempts at 1.1, it means hasbro thinks they can win this fight.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Also to note there is very little in any of the SRD in Starfinder. Remember it isn't the game mechanics, but the actual copyrightable text that would be the issue. I expect it wouldn't be that hard for someone to make an OSR clone using the new license though.
Yeah the actual mechanics of PF 1e probably didn't need the vast majority of the OGL, and probably held them back more than anything.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If you apply a license to your work, no one else can change that license but you.
So, unless the person who owns the Intellectual Property rights from those defunct companies is around to re-issue the work under a new license, then the new license can't be applied to them.
Paizo can't control other people's propery. And they can't make changes to other people's copyrights, licenses, and private contracts.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Much like the "CreativeCommons or bust" crowd that are sabotaging the discourse other places this is just folks trying to justify to themselves (and to us) why they'll eagerly go along with OGL 2.0 in the end, by setting unreasonable expectations upon ORC.
Kobold Catgirl wrote: As a sidenote, I do cautiously hope that the ORC adopts language similar to the new OGL's about prohibiting blatantly abusive content. We don't need "Myfarog, ORC edition".
At the same time, I (perhaps vainly) hope the ORC avoids being overly restrictive around "messy" content, like BoEF-style Mature Audiences Only publications, publications that explore potentially traumatic subjects, and content that digs into "problematic" tropes to try to unpack their deeper meaning. I think a lot about how marginalized writers like Isabel Fall have been treated when trying to write about some edgy topics, and it's left me sort of more on the side of taking a light touch to this sort of thing. There's a difference between tackling a messy subject in good faith and writing actual Nazi propaganda, and I hope we can tell the difference.
As one example, I'm working on an ancestry right now that is closely linked to severe trauma as a key motif of its, well, existence. It's not the sort of thing everyone would be comfortable with, and parts of it might not be super kid-friendly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to exist provided it's correctly labeled.
I may be paranoid, but I guess I worry about new licenses ultimately emphasizing a squeaky-clean Disneyfied feel for new releases--less out of social conservativism so much as simple play-it-safe corporate caution. I've seen that trend in other industries, and I'm not a huge fan.
Oops, my sidenote went longer than my actual note.
I think I'd rather the license avoids any such prohibitions on content. It's really tricky to define in legal terms and likely easy to go wrong in both direction. I don't think there's been a lot of such abuse with the OGL - or at least it hasn't been prominent enough to be a huge problem. Subtler problematic issues have of course long been an issue, but I think it would be hard for any license to address most of those.
Myfarog, ORC edition will languish in obscurity just like Myfarog itself. It might even get more publicity if there's a big legal battle over trying to ban it.
I moved my post, because it's hard to work out which thread is appropriate but this one didn't seem like it. I generally agree, though! Just sorta had to piece my way through it to be sure.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Leon Aquilla wrote: Much like the "CreativeCommons or bust" crowd that are sabotaging the discourse other places this is just folks trying to justify to themselves (and to us) why they'll eagerly go along with OGL 2.0 in the end, by setting unreasonable expectations upon ORC. I doubt that, actually. I think that the "CreativeCommons or bust" crowd think they're being ideologically consistent, which comes at the expense of rationality.
I like Creative Commons a LOT as a license, it's got a lot to recommend it. But compared to a medium-specific open content license for tabletop roleplaying games, it's always going to be second-best.
Yeah, I think they'll stick to their obscure third party games that do use CC, and more power to them! I think their position is a little purist, but I respect the principles.
I'm not really up on the subtleties, but the issue with the Creative Commons license is basically that you can't exempt "Product Identity", right?
Paizo, to use them as the example, would have to separate open rules content and their setting content completely in order to keep control over Golarion.
Or am I wildly off base here?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ryan Dancey talked about it in a stream. Basically, it's mainly a problem of clarity and standardization. With the CC, you risk everyone wanting to customize their own unique version of the license, causing lots of confusion. The Creative Commons is extremely versatile, and you can make a version that's just as flexible as the OGL, I think, but it'd be really hard to make sure everyone's using the same version, and then you run into problems. Clarity is really important here, since most game devs aren't lawyers.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote: I'm not really up on the subtleties, but the issue with the Creative Commons license is basically that you can't exempt "Product Identity", right?
Paizo, to use them as the example, would have to separate open rules content and their setting content completely in order to keep control over Golarion.
Or am I wildly off base here?
ALL Creative Commons license derivations allow infinite reproduction. As we all know, Paizo watermarks their PDF's that you purchase and forbids their distribution. It's a non-starter for their business model.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
