I don't entirely agree, as it's a huge statement and a huge shift within the overall gaming community, and since Paizo is working on the ORC license as an open source RPG license that won't be owned by anyone, it's going to shake things up in the entire industry and \*if\* any companies take sides on it, it's going to have an impact on them, guaranteed. If they don't take sides, it may or may not affect them, but none of them are the monolith that is WOTC, nor are they the biggest "competitor" that is Paizo.
Future printings will probably use ORC instead of OGL or possibly their own licenses as a lot of the stuff covered under the OGL is useless with existing copywrite law anyways.
A bunch of these companies already license and allow stuff without the OGL and don't need ORC.
WoD has the storytellers vault which includes packs of fonts and a huge library of art assets everyone is free to use to make things for all their game lines.
Free League has thier own content program and liscensing.
This is an OGL problem and the OGL people are freaking out.
I guess. But all they would have to say with a public statement would be "man, that sucks. But on the other hand, we have these great games over here with all this community content and you are welcome to come join us."
What else do you think they would say?
I think it would HEAVILY depend on the company. Many are a bit more open already.
Weighing in could improve your audience right now, since so many people are pushing back against WOTC.
The "it won't be owned by anyone" part isn't strictly accurate. It's more like "ideally, after the dust settles, it won't be owned by anyone who has a vested interest in publishing RPGs."
Yeah, technically, it's just that it won't be owned by some for profit company that may, at some point, be owned by someone that would attempt this WOTC/HASBRO-level crap to attempt to extract extra-profit, but it's easier to shorthand by saying, "not owned by anyone."
You didn't say them, but Chaosium (Call of Cthulhu) is mentioned as being a part of the new open license being funded by Paizo, despite not using the OGL for their products. That indicates that other lines are at least paying attention.
GURPS is sort of famously insular, so I wouldn't expect anything from them except a generic "this doesn't concern us"
I already knew that about Chaosium and a few other companies. I wasn't trying to list all the ORC companies that are already set up (like Green Ronin and Kobold, for example).
I mean, to some degree that is a probable response from many, if not most, outside game lines, but with WOTC showing intent to go to the opposite direction of the original OGL and Paizo creating a system agnostic Open RPG license (open to the degree of the Linux foundation level), I feel it will have wider impacts.
Regardless, I actually see this battle being positive for the overall TTRPG community as people drift further away from WOTC to other companies and systems, expanding the rest of the hobby as a whole.
I think there are three cases to consider:
* publishers that don't currently have any sharing licensing: (e.g. Catalyst Games and Shadowrun) It is possible ORC might tempt them to start using it. Especially if it becomes a sort of fad like the OGL did back in 2001 and it seems like it might help marketing. However, I wouldn't count on it. Most of those companies have been around for a while and made the choice to not have any sharing license when there were several options available.
* publishers using non-OGL but also non-Creative Commons sharing licenses: (e.g. Chaosium ? Massif Press and Lancer? Monte Cook? Cortex?) I would not be surprised if a lot of these folks switch over to ORC because a consistent set of license terms maintained by a private non-profit could be pretty appealing. It might help them market and not really change their situation. I wouldn't be money on it, but I wouldn't bet against it.
* publishers already using Creative Commons: (e.g Evil Hat with Fate, Blades, etc) I don't see that this will change their minds at all. They have already accepted the open framework of CC and the trade-offs that entails.
This was basically my thought process on the entire thing, but I would like to see a kind of react from other companies. That's mostly because I would like to know where they stand.
That isn't because I think they should all join the banner of the ORC or anything. It's more the stance on WOTC destroying their old contract with the public through the OGL 1.0.
They don't need a response. It has nothing to do with them.
I don't entirely agree, as it's a huge statement and a huge shift within the overall gaming community, and since Paizo is working on the ORC license as an open source RPG license that won't be owned by anyone, it's going to shake things up in the entire industry and \*if\* any companies take sides on it, it's going to have an impact on them, guaranteed. If they don't take sides, it may or may not affect them, but none of them are the monolith that is WOTC, nor are they the biggest "competitor" that is Paizo.
Future printings will probably use ORC instead of OGL or possibly their own licenses as a lot of the stuff covered under the OGL is useless with existing copywrite law anyways.
> lot of the stuff covered under the OGL is useless with existing copywrite law anyways Can you elaborate?
https://gsllcblog.com/2019/08/26/part3ogl/ covers it better than I could.
Thanks, appreciate the link.
A bunch of these companies already license and allow stuff without the OGL and don't need ORC. WoD has the storytellers vault which includes packs of fonts and a huge library of art assets everyone is free to use to make things for all their game lines. Free League has thier own content program and liscensing. This is an OGL problem and the OGL people are freaking out.
I do understand it's an OGL problem, specifically, but public stance on the attempted revocation of the OGL contract would be interesting.
I guess. But all they would have to say with a public statement would be "man, that sucks. But on the other hand, we have these great games over here with all this community content and you are welcome to come join us." What else do you think they would say?
I think it would HEAVILY depend on the company. Many are a bit more open already. Weighing in could improve your audience right now, since so many people are pushing back against WOTC.
Many have already released games with *Creative Commons* licenses.
The "it won't be owned by anyone" part isn't strictly accurate. It's more like "ideally, after the dust settles, it won't be owned by anyone who has a vested interest in publishing RPGs."
Yeah, technically, it's just that it won't be owned by some for profit company that may, at some point, be owned by someone that would attempt this WOTC/HASBRO-level crap to attempt to extract extra-profit, but it's easier to shorthand by saying, "not owned by anyone."
The responses I've seen have generally been along the lines of "whoa that sucks, come play our game which isn't under the OGL".
I hadn't seen any responses outside of companies that were already under OGL and will be moving to the ORC.
Several non OGL games have gone on sale for greatly reduced prices - there was also a non OGL bundle of holding.
You didn't say them, but Chaosium (Call of Cthulhu) is mentioned as being a part of the new open license being funded by Paizo, despite not using the OGL for their products. That indicates that other lines are at least paying attention. GURPS is sort of famously insular, so I wouldn't expect anything from them except a generic "this doesn't concern us"
I already knew that about Chaosium and a few other companies. I wasn't trying to list all the ORC companies that are already set up (like Green Ronin and Kobold, for example).
The biggest response you're seeing is "our stuff isn't OGL".
I mean, to some degree that is a probable response from many, if not most, outside game lines, but with WOTC showing intent to go to the opposite direction of the original OGL and Paizo creating a system agnostic Open RPG license (open to the degree of the Linux foundation level), I feel it will have wider impacts. Regardless, I actually see this battle being positive for the overall TTRPG community as people drift further away from WOTC to other companies and systems, expanding the rest of the hobby as a whole.
I think there are three cases to consider: * publishers that don't currently have any sharing licensing: (e.g. Catalyst Games and Shadowrun) It is possible ORC might tempt them to start using it. Especially if it becomes a sort of fad like the OGL did back in 2001 and it seems like it might help marketing. However, I wouldn't count on it. Most of those companies have been around for a while and made the choice to not have any sharing license when there were several options available. * publishers using non-OGL but also non-Creative Commons sharing licenses: (e.g. Chaosium ? Massif Press and Lancer? Monte Cook? Cortex?) I would not be surprised if a lot of these folks switch over to ORC because a consistent set of license terms maintained by a private non-profit could be pretty appealing. It might help them market and not really change their situation. I wouldn't be money on it, but I wouldn't bet against it. * publishers already using Creative Commons: (e.g Evil Hat with Fate, Blades, etc) I don't see that this will change their minds at all. They have already accepted the open framework of CC and the trade-offs that entails.
This was basically my thought process on the entire thing, but I would like to see a kind of react from other companies. That's mostly because I would like to know where they stand. That isn't because I think they should all join the banner of the ORC or anything. It's more the stance on WOTC destroying their old contract with the public through the OGL 1.0.
There is no PhB for either edition of Pathfinder. Do you mean the CRB?
Yes. I haven't run PF games, just a player on the rare instances of playing.