Paizo Announces ORC License

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Yeah, she get's it wrong in that Paizo's stated intention is not to own the ORC, rather have it placed in the care of a nonprofit, but I think her point at the end is interesting, look forward to her video about the "D&D box".
Yeah I'm seeing a lot of what I want to call willful ignorant comments that Paizo will own ORC in comments in Discord, Reddit, YouTube. I'm calling it willful because they aren't even bothering to read what's being put out for that one.
 
Yeah I'm seeing a lot of what I want to call willful ignorant comments that Paizo will own ORC in comments in Discord, Reddit, YouTube. I'm calling it willful because they aren't even bothering to read what's being put out for that one.
But for the record as I posted above that isn’t applicable to DiceQueen Di
 
But for the record as I posted above that isn’t applicable to DiceQueen Di
I still kinda think it is. Her post you shared basically states that she doesn't believe the points she read after reading them. To me a lot people who post like that are sticking their fingers in their ears and saying " I don't want to listen to you".

I get it, I don't trust corporations either, but I'm reacting to the information being presented and not continuing down the path that ignores that information.
 
I still kinda think it is. Her post you shared basically states that she doesn't believe the points she read after reading them. To me a lot people who post like that are sticking their fingers in their ears and saying " I don't want to listen to you".

I get it, I don't trust corporations either, but I'm reacting to the information being presented and not continuing down the path that ignores that information.
I believe in trust but verify and until we see the fine print and know who the guardian of ORC will be a little skepticism is healthy in my mind.
 
I believe in trust but verify and until we see the fine print and know who the guardian of ORC will be a little skepticism is healthy in my mind.
Right, but often that's not the message being put out by many. I agree, I approach this with skepticism and definitely say that reading the fine print is the route to go.
 
If Azora Law puts the ORC in a non-profit then it should be safe from any of those hundreds of creators from changing it. Also, the fact that many people are going to be involved using the ORC is a good thing. It will help keep it on the up and up.
 
From my experience watching the development of a new open source license there are dozens of ways to fuck it up. And you won't know until you see the actual text and proposal for the non-profits to deal with it. If everything is on the up and up, there will be distractors from the get-go due to their pet peeve not being incorporated into the license.
 
Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it
They are going to try like hell to change it now but if they fail they probably won’t try it again at all. If this is taken to court, it’s very risky for them. The other side just needs one judge somewhere to say it’s irrevocable.
 
Every comment she made on her Youtube video in response to someone bringing it up in chronological order until she made her sticky post + a twitter post at the end claiming she knew the entire time:

View attachment 54785

Nothing in there says she didn't know man.

When someone says "I hear you, I hear that" and "I appreciate the information", that seems pretty crystal clear to me, so I don't know what you're looking for.

I guess she didn't apologize or abase herself in any way to your satisfaction.
 
What’s the big deal really? It’s like one video out of nearly thousands on the subject. Not everybody in every video is going to get every fact correct. Especially if you don’t keep up with what’s going on 24/7.
 
It's not a big deal at all. I'm just agreeing with Acme that it isn't a very good video because it gets some things wrong, and then it seemed like the creator tried to cover over that they got things wrong.

Tristram is the one who seems to be coming after me for having that opinion *shrug*.
Maybe it's indeed his favourite 5e vtuber:grin:?


P.S.: Sorry, Endless Flight Endless Flight I guess we were typing at the same time?
 
ORC has mayo on it? This is grave news indeed!
Indeed it is...


"WotC says they can repeal the OGL 1.0a. Paizo says this is in fact impossible. But also, fuck WotC, we're building our own OGL called ORC, with blackjack and hookers. And by that we mean Green Ronin, Kobold Press, Chaosium and a bunch of other companies. This new license will be owned by first the law firm that helps us make it but we want to find a home for it with a nonprofit with a history of open source values (such as the Linux foundation) to own it."

… in this scenario, is Green Ronin the blackjack? And if so, are KP and Chaosium the hookers?
...you know, that was the first question to pop up in my mind as well:grin:!


I'm still waiting on an organized crime era Vegas but with Fantasy races/magic 5e clone called Blackjack & Hookers.
Given that it would then be shortened to BJ&H, that idea actually has (long) legs:devil:!
 
I believe in trust but verify and until we see the fine print and know who the guardian of ORC will be a little skepticism is healthy in my mind.
The thing is when you have multiple corporations working on it the one thing you can count on is it not having things in it that they think can be used to bludgeon them into submission.
What I expect this license to do is contain language guaranteeing that non of the companies involved will sue you for things they probably couldn't sue you for anyway. It's going to look a lot like patent licensing in tech where all the big guys license things to each other so none of them end up in endless litigation where no one can do anything. The difference will be this time the little guy will get included because frankly there isn't so much money at stake for any of these guys to worry about screwing over mom and pops.
 
The thing is when you have multiple corporations working on it the one thing you can count on is it not having things in it that they think can be used to bludgeon them into submission.
What I expect this license to do is contain language guaranteeing that non of the companies involved will sue you for things they probably couldn't sue you for anyway. It's going to look a lot like patent licensing in tech where all the big guys license things to each other so none of them end up in endless litigation where no one can do anything. The difference will be this time the little guy will get included because frankly there isn't so much money at stake for any of these guys to worry about screwing over mom and pops.

It could also be a kind of situation like the UN security council with permanent members. The permanent members have veto power. So the license could explicitly give them some kind of immunity, but more restrictions and vulnerability for others.

The other option is the restrictions are agreeable to all of them, but may be unpalatable to some other developers. Like saying you can't have nudity in the artwork if you're using ORC. You could say that isn't a big deal, having everyone with a certain degree of clothing in the depictions, but if you're a Naturist and don't believe there is anything wrong with nudity, that puts a limit on your creative freedom, and it also means certain - particularly American with this example - values are getting enshrined in the license.
 
It could also be a kind of situation like the UN security council with permanent members. The permanent members have veto power. So the license could explicitly give them some kind of immunity, but more restrictions and vulnerability for others.

The other option is the restrictions are agreeable to all of them, but may be unpalatable to some other developers. Like saying you can't have nudity in the artwork if you're using ORC. You could say that isn't a big deal, having everyone with a certain degree of clothing in the depictions, but if you're a Naturist and don't believe there is anything wrong with nudity, that puts a limit on your creative freedom, and it also means certain - particularly American with this example - values are getting enshrined in the license.
I do hope that the companies involved in this realize that content restrictions are stupid and unnecessary. If it’s an open license and neither Paizo nor any of the others own it, they can’t be held responsible for anything published under it by someone else.
 
Yeah I'm seeing a lot of what I want to call willful ignorant comments that Paizo will own ORC in comments in Discord, Reddit, YouTube. I'm calling it willful because they aren't even bothering to read what's being put out for that one.
Are they coming from the same accounts that are still claiming that the text of the OGL 1.1 was made up and leaked by Hasbro's "competitors"?
 
Are they coming from the same accounts that are still claiming that the text of the OGL 1.1 was made up and leaked by Hasbro's "competitors"?
lol That's not a bad question. heh. Honestly I just feel that some are debating from a disingenuous self deluded state of mind. Gets old. Even if I don't like someone or like the fact, it doesn't mean I still don't want to hear it or understand it. Some folks just come off like knee jerk responsive fools.
 
I do hope that the companies involved in this realize that content restrictions are stupid and unnecessary. If it’s an open license and neither Paizo nor any of the others own it, they can’t be held responsible for anything published under it by someone else.
I'd be stunned if any were included, given it's a license and not even an SRD.

Of course, things being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if certain people try to make a stink about their not being one.
 
I see Runehammer is signing up with ORC, an interesting decision on their part.
 
I'd be stunned if any were included, given it's a license and not even an SRD.

Of course, things being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if certain people try to make a stink about their not being one.
Given that was a stinky part of the OGL 1.1 that gave WotC an easy excuse to terminate your license for any reason, at their discretion, you would expect Paizo to have explicitly addressed that and say they're not doing it. Their silence on it is mildly concerning, although perhaps they do feel that talking about that before it's final will just give them headaches they don't want to deal with.
 
Given that was a stinky part of the OGL 1.1 that gave WotC an easy excuse to terminate your license for any reason, at their discretion, you would expect Paizo to have explicitly addressed that and say they're not doing it. Their silence on it is mildly concerning, although perhaps they do feel that talking about that before it's final will just give them headaches they don't want to deal with.
I don't think they have any reason for them to rule out doing something we have no good reason to think they would intend to do.

In fact all it might do is to encourage people to think maybe they should.

This thing will almost certainly have drafts put out for review. We can look at it then as see if there's something worth objecting to included.

I'd point out that certain culture warriors making videos about how Paizo will put in such a clause because of how woke they are have very little to lose.
- If Paizo doesn't put in such a clause they're spreading the idea that it's a culture war issue which will encourage the opposite side to think they should. And there's no danger of losing credibility when you don't have any.
- If Paizo does (I still think unlikely) then there's more grist for the culture war mill.

Remember the key fact about anyone who makes money from culture war is that they when they lose they win.
 
Last edited:
Given that was a stinky part of the OGL 1.1 that gave WotC an easy excuse to terminate your license for any reason, at their discretion, you would expect Paizo to have explicitly addressed that and say they're not doing it. Their silence on it is mildly concerning, although perhaps they do feel that talking about that before it's final will just give them headaches they don't want to deal with.

They've stated that the ORC is going to be similar to the original OGL with explicit language for things like it being irrevocable. Since the 1.0/1.0a is what they're intending to mimic and improve upon, it makes sense that what they say would be in reference to that license and not the 1.1 license that is honestly irrelevant to what they're doing(except for it being the reason this is happening, of course; I just mean content-wise).

I seriously doubt there will be any restrictions on type of content beyond what is disallowed by law already. What I think gave people the impression that this is how the OGL worked is the separate d20 logo license that WotC also had in the 3.x era. If you used OGL content, but didn't use the d20 logo itself, you could publish literally anything (legal) that you wanted. But if you wanted to use that particular logo to indicate general system compatibility, then there were restrictions you had to abide by. For a time, at least early on, the d20 logo did make it a lot more likely someone would give your product a shot, so a lot of creators found it to be a fair trade. Eventually, some companies began making and using their own "OGL" logos to indicate compatibility instead of using the d20 logo. I don't recall anything really being in danger - the only product I ever recall WotC going after was The Book of Erotic Fantasy - but even back then they didn't want to run the risk of WotC making them recall their product because of unauthorized use of their trademarked d20 logo(or however the process works; I'm not a lawyer).

I think things will work much the same way. Most people who release product under the ORC will fill out the section detailing the IP stuff they retain exclusive rights to, from settings and characters to trademarked symbols that appear in the product. Then if you want to use the rules stuff they released under the ORC, no restrictions. Go wild. But if you wanted to use someone's IP, you would have to do so under a separate license, and that second license would likely have certain restrictions. But the ORC alone? I imagine no restrictions.
 
They've stated that the ORC is going to be similar to the original OGL with explicit language for things like it being irrevocable. Since the 1.0/1.0a is what they're intending to mimic and improve upon, it makes sense that what they say would be in reference to that license and not the 1.1 license that is honestly irrelevant to what they're doing(except for it being the reason this is happening, of course; I just mean content-wise).

I seriously doubt there will be any restrictions on type of content beyond what is disallowed by law already. What I think gave people the impression that this is how the OGL worked is the separate d20 logo license that WotC also had in the 3.x era. If you used OGL content, but didn't use the d20 logo itself, you could publish literally anything (legal) that you wanted. But if you wanted to use that particular logo to indicate general system compatibility, then there were restrictions you had to abide by. For a time, at least early on, the d20 logo did make it a lot more likely someone would give your product a shot, so a lot of creators found it to be a fair trade. Eventually, some companies began making and using their own "OGL" logos to indicate compatibility instead of using the d20 logo. I don't recall anything really being in danger - the only product I ever recall WotC going after was The Book of Erotic Fantasy - but even back then they didn't want to run the risk of WotC making them recall their product because of unauthorized use of their trademarked d20 logo(or however the process works; I'm not a lawyer).

I think things will work much the same way. Most people who release product under the ORC will fill out the section detailing the IP stuff they retain exclusive rights to, from settings and characters to trademarked symbols that appear in the product. Then if you want to use the rules stuff they released under the ORC, no restrictions. Go wild. But if you wanted to use someone's IP, you would have to do so under a separate license, and that second license would likely have certain restrictions. But the ORC alone? I imagine no restrictions.

Yeah, that would be encouraging if they have two separate licenses. One being the ORC that is the OGL 1.0 with the word irrevocable and anything else the lawyers can think of, and another one is a Pathfinder Compatible license, that lets them have more control over the type of content that is associated with them. And in that case it is once again a fair trade.

And if you want to make your Book of Erotic ORC Fantasy... well, we know that will certainly find an audience.
 
Just think, when it eventually comes out without a morality clause he can claim it was because of his preemptive strike. Prove it wasn't!
And he'd be taken as seriously as WotC when they put themselves among the winners...because it was all about the NFTs, anti-bigotry, and protecting their brand, dontchaknow:shade:?

In other words, no it wasn't, all of these were at best tangential to the true intent of OGL 1.1 and we all know it:gunslinger:!
 
It's amazing to me that we have folks stubbornly clinging to some nefarious plot on the part of Paizo, Chaosium etc in regards to ORC. Whether here or on Twitter its gone from amusing to sad, to frustrating. Need a fucking wrecking ball to puncture that cognitive dissonance bubble to get through.
 
It's amazing to me that we have folks stubbornly clinging to some nefarious plot on the part of Paizo, Chaosium etc in regards to ORC. Whether here or on Twitter its gone from amusing to sad, to frustrating. Need a fucking wrecking ball to puncture that cognitive dissonance bubble to get through.
The only nefarious plot there is “let’s ensure that this model of open source publishing that we believe in and have hitched our wagons to can continue with as little fuss as possible, while also scoring a huge PR coup and probably getting a lot of business that would have otherwise gone to WotC”.
 
The only nefarious plot there is “let’s ensure that this model of open source publishing that we believe in and have hitched our wagons to can continue with as little fuss as possible, while also scoring a huge PR coup and probably getting a lot of business that would have otherwise gone to WotC”.
I can't believe that Pazio are hoping to sell more RPGs. I am shocked and appalled.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top