This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Big Developments in the ORC License  (Read 6816 times)

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #150 on: January 21, 2023, 05:49:46 PM »
Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World… which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.

Again, that's fine and great if you want to do a setting like that - there have been plenty of fantasy settings published without "planes".

But if the OSR is trying to replicate the classic D&D experience in some meaningful way, well, planes have been an element of D&D for a long time. I don't think you can just let them go that easily.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #151 on: January 21, 2023, 05:55:29 PM »
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

It's hard to say how far that can go, even the D&D planes are highly derivative of middle age texts like Dante's Inferno, Kaballah, Greek and Norse myth and the like. Certainly there are parts of it that could be protected, but I'm reasonably certain that you could rip a great deal of it if done intelligently and they'd have no basis for a claim.
Yeah, D&D certainly took a lot of influence from mythology but it’s not the same thing as that mythology. D&D put enough of a spin on it that it falls into the “exty points of similarity” trap.

9 alignments split along 2 axes of law/chaos and good/evil
At least 1 afterlife plane for each alignment
Each plane has at least 1 race of specific anthropomorphic personifications
Each plane has petitioners who are the transformed souls of individuals with that alignment who have forgotten their mortal lives
Worshippers of gods get to live on that god’s estate, even if it’s a different alignment
Angels form their own race native to all upper planes
3+ upper planes inhabited by 3+ races of “celestials” (not!angels)
3+ lower planes inhabited by 3+ races of “fiends” (not!demons)
A plane of order inhabited by robot people
A plane of chaos inhabited by amphibian/reptile people
A plane of neutrality inhabited by… those neutral people from Futurama
Etc

I’m pretty sure that crosses into copyright infringement without the OGL. In fact, I don’t think the original SRD even included any outer planes

Altho WotC never tried suing Paizo even when they invented their own great wheel without SRD basis so it’s unclear if they really have an enforceable claim

As for the inner planes... fey and elementals shouldn't be distinct creature types imo, especially since the idea of elementals was originally codified by Paracelsus and meant to classify fairies (and quite frankly you could apply an elemental association to any magical monster). I think fairies can exist as their own thing distinct from angels and demons, personifying the natural worlds that arose as the result of the conflict between order and chaos, altho obviously the specifics can vary by setting. The inner planes I'd reimagine as Fairyland, roughly divided into the Summerlands for the Seelie Court and Winterlands for the Unseelie Court. The actual environments could replicate any of the absurd locations from the original elemental planes, such as volcanic wastelands inhabited by fire nymphs, undersea kingdoms peopled by merfolk, cloud cities full of winged folk, underland peopled by anthropomorphic playing cards, primeval forests ruled by beast lords and plant lords, dark shadowlands haunted by shadow fey and specters, etc.

I mean, that's the NeverNever from The Dresden Files pretty much to a T.

Still, as much as I've grown to hate the sort of soulless high-fantasy comic book/anime gonzo mishmash that has become D&D in the last couple decades, which might end up the subject of a post of it's own, I don't wanna go back to some sort of primordial pre-Fantasy fantasy. Along the same lines as the discussion about the arcane/divine magic divide... and I say this as a person who adores settings like Harn and such that try to be more grounded/low fantasy settings... I think a certain amount of the charm and staying power of D&D is some of the weirdness like elementals and a multitude of planes. You don't have to copy how D&D does it precisely, or even all that close if you don't want to, but... I don't think we need to, or even should try to, purge them entirely. Unless its for your own specific setting, sure, then do whatever, but if we're talking about some sort of platonic OSR-y form of the game, I think those things kind of have a place, even if they are hallowed bovines.
I’m suggesting it more as a way to avoid potential copyright claims based on D&Disms

If you prefer all that idiosyncratic OCD nerd stuff, then don’t let me stop you

I mean, that's the NeverNever from The Dresden Files pretty much to a T.

Still, as much as I've grown to hate the sort of soulless high-fantasy comic book/anime gonzo mishmash that has become D&D in the last couple decades, which might end up the subject of a post of it's own, I don't wanna go back to some sort of primordial pre-Fantasy fantasy. Along the same lines as the discussion about the arcane/divine magic divide... and I say this as a person who adores settings like Harn and such that try to be more grounded/low fantasy settings... I think a certain amount of the charm and staying power of D&D is some of the weirdness like elementals and a multitude of planes. You don't have to copy how D&D does it precisely, or even all that close if you don't want to, but... I don't think we need to, or even should try to, purge them entirely. Unless its for your own specific setting, sure, then do whatever, but if we're talking about some sort of platonic OSR-y form of the game, I think those things kind of have a place, even if they are hallowed bovines.
Honestly, I question the need for Otherworlds at all. The use of Otherworlds in fiction is typically to bring someone from the mundane world into a place where magic and fantasy things exist.

That’s called the “prime material plane” in just about every campaign I’ve ever run. Wizards, dragons, fairies, giants, volcanoes spewing endless rivers of lava, vast underground realms, islands floating in the sky.

In Greek mythology Olympus wasn’t on another plane; it sat upon that particular mountain over yonder.

So that’s pretty much what I did. There’s a planar cosmology (called the Heliocentric Planar Model by Arcanists and Eggheads), but it’s entirely theoretical in the way every real religion’s positioning of Heavens and Hells is because… here’s where it gets good… only spirits (divine, damned or dead) can go there.

All those conflicting religions in the setting? What happens after you die? You have to take all of those things on faith, just like real people do. Which means people have to behave more like how we understand people to behave (where all those questions are open and depend on faith) versus how they would when the answers to life, the universe and everything are just a plane shift spell away. Even agnostics and atheists are plausibly possible.

Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World… which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.
Oh, totally. If you’ve been consuming it for years then it seems normal, but D&D is quite frankly bizarre when compared to its historical, religious, folkloric and literary inspirations. It’s become its own self-iterating genre divorced from what came before it.

I’m not a fan of sacred cows. It’s long ago crossed the appeal to tradition fallacy. Fans maintain this stuff because that’s how its always been, rather than because it has any practical reason to be maintained. They just take it on faith without thinking about it.

That’s fine. But what really irks me is when nerds refuse to acknowledge that they are using the appeal to tradition fallacy. It’s an excuse to uncritically consume approved media and hate on anything that doesn’t toe the party line for petty trivial reasons (i.e. the worst parts of edition wars). It’s a religion that strangles creativity and I despise it.

Instead all the wilder elements you go to the other planes for are found in the Mortal World… which is itself the Otherworld for our imaginations.

Again, that's fine and great if you want to do a setting like that - there have been plenty of fantasy settings published without "planes".

But if the OSR is trying to replicate the classic D&D experience in some meaningful way, well, planes have been an element of D&D for a long time. I don't think you can just let them go that easily.
What has the OSR done with planes? I seem to recall that PF is the only game that actually has the full gamut of points of similarity. Every other OSR game either ignores the planes or simplifies them even further.

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #152 on: January 21, 2023, 07:05:05 PM »
If you prefer all that idiosyncratic OCD nerd stuff, then don’t let me stop you

We're roleplayers. Every single person here is concerned about "idiosyncratic OCD nerd stuff".


Oh, totally. If you’ve been consuming it for years then it seems normal, but D&D is quite frankly bizarre when compared to its historical, religious, folkloric and literary inspirations. It’s become its own self-iterating genre divorced from what came before it.

I missed where "historical, religious, folkloric and literary inspirations" weren't, you know, inspirations and not a step-by-step set of instructions. Our elves, dwarves, and dragons don't have much in common with most of those things either, at least until Tolkien basically created the modern conception of such things.

It's as normal as "warp drive" in science fiction settings, or strangely unlocatable secret bases in major population centers are in superhero settings.

I’m not a fan of sacred cows. It’s long ago crossed the appeal to tradition fallacy. Fans maintain this stuff because that’s how its always been, rather than because it has any practical reason to be maintained. They just take it on faith without thinking about it.

That’s fine. But what really irks me is when nerds refuse to acknowledge that they are using the appeal to tradition fallacy. It’s an excuse to uncritically consume approved media and hate on anything that doesn’t toe the party line for petty trivial reasons (i.e. the worst parts of edition wars). It’s a religion that strangles creativity and I despise it.

Or people like what they like. I don't play these games to give random people writing books an outlet for their creativity. If they get it, that's great, but I'm not going to play a game that doesn't interest me jut because it's "creative" or "different" or "innovative" or something.

Forgive me if I'm coming across like an ass, and I know I'm some low-post-count nobody around here, but I have very little patience for "you're having fun wrong" rhetoric. I'm here - by which I mean in the hobby - to have fun.

What has the OSR done with planes? I seem to recall that PF is the only game that actually has the full gamut of points of similarity. Every other OSR game either ignores the planes or simplifies them even further.

I'm not saying you can't simplify them. And I'm certainly not arguing you have to have the full billion-and-one-planar-themepark cosmology that Forgotten Realm and such use. Hell, I've *never* used the "great wheel" cosmology, at least not actively... I've ran games in published settings that theoretically had it, I guess, but it's never come up, and the cosmology of my normal homebrew setting is a bit different.

Again, I've never said what you should do with your own original IP. But you also don't have to completely chuck the concept - and some of the rules associated with it - if you're trying to great some sort of nu-OGR-SRD-y thing, which has been what a lot of the talk recently has seem to suggest people are thinking about.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #153 on: January 21, 2023, 07:49:55 PM »
Sorry if I come across as an elitist not-like-other-nerds a*hole. That is not my intent.

I just feel like D&D and derived fantasy has accumulated a lot unnecessary cruft that is only kept for the sake of tradition rather than because it adds much to the experience. And by rpg standards D&D is very lenient about this, as it provides a plethora of options for campaign settings across the editions. It has genuinely become its own genre, while most other genre-defining rpgs from the 80s and 90s remain firmly stuck in single setting ruts.

And I'm not saying that new is good while old is bad. I think pretty much every class after the original mage fighter thief trio is basically a variation on or combination of those three.

I'm less interested in innovation than I am in cleanup and streamlining of what already exists. Like, I love Spheres of Power. Not because it is innovative, but because it's a toolkit that makes it easier for you to customize magic to your campaign setting and fixes genuine problems like the martial-caster utility disparity. I love 13th Age because it solves a number of mechanical problems with the D&D rules, not because it's "innovative" or "creative". Altho I do think it is more efficient at making use of D&Disms. I love Fantasy Craft because it solves a lot of mechanical problems.

But the fluff? The fluff can be whatever you want it to be. I just don't like fluff from a particular implied campaign setting to become the default for every setting. The SRD has a fair amount of fluff baked into the rules, which leads to a lot of awkward reverse-engineered worldbuilding in 3pp campaign settings. Even PF has this with stuff like the idiosyncratic positive/negative energy rules that 5e has already discarded, or oddities like centaurs being classified as "beasts" and not "humanoids" (monster taxonomies are one of the few mechanics that I absolutely despise with a passion, because they're always applied arbitrarily and inconsistently).

It's a lot harder to change baked-in D&Disms yourself than to use rules that don't have them baked-in by default.

DocJones

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • theofascist
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #154 on: January 21, 2023, 09:40:03 PM »
And I'm not saying that new is good while old is bad. I think pretty much every class after the original mage fighter thief trio is basically a variation on or combination of those three.
The original classes were fighting-men, magic-users and clerics.
And of course the race as class thing.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2023, 09:49:48 PM by DocJones »

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #155 on: January 21, 2023, 10:01:06 PM »
And I'm not saying that new is good while old is bad. I think pretty much every class after the original mage fighter thief trio is basically a variation on or combination of those three.
The original classes were fighting-men, magic-users and clerics.
And of course the race as class thing.
Sorry, my memory is imperfect. The original quartet of fighter, mage, cleric and thief (however they were named) set the standard and everything since is either a variation or a combination thereof. 4e even introduced four explicit roles based on that original quartet. There has been so much class and subclass bloat.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48043
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #156 on: January 22, 2023, 12:10:26 PM »
Good video.

I pretty much called it in the last video thread... Paizo, Green Ronin, etc. would ultimately have to release an actual open license simply because its in their own best financial interests.

I agree if all you're doing is releasing a product for others to buy, you absolutely don't need to use any OGL. However, another reason to use a OGL type license you missed was "because you want other people to be able to make content for your system." That's the particular boat I'm in and I think a lot of the people behind the close kin to D&D systems are kidding themselves about how quickly they'll be able to actually strip the things WotC could claim as legitimately copyrighted elements (i.e. not mechanics, but protectable concepts and ideas)

For examples;
- chromatic/metallic dragons (particularly the big five of white, black, green, blue and red) and Tiamat as a 5-headed dragon goddess and Bahamut as a benevolent platinum dragon.

- reptilian kobolds

- the arcane/divine casting divide

- the specific set of eight schools (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion, necromancy, transmutation + universal) particularly in conjunction with a slot-based nine-level casting structure and/or D&DVancian style spell preparation with VSM components, key spells at the same level and under the same schools as they're found in D&D (invisibility as 2nd level illusion, fireball as 3rd level evocation, etc.) ... basically the closer you get to actual structure of casting system the closer you get to where WotC could claim infringement on their unique expression of a magic system.

- the specific descriptions of various PC races. Sure, you can use elves and dwarves... but when they're described exactly like they are in WotC material (almond shaped eyes, 600 year lifespan, etc.) you're stepping into "specific expression" territory.

- all the spell flavor text a lot of them mostly cut and pasted out of the SRD rather than having write hundreds of spells from scratch.

- The same for monster flavor text.

There's a LOT more they're going to need to either change or bank on WotC either not caring enough to go after them or that someone will step up and successfully defend the OGL 1.0a so they don't HAVE to change all that much.

I've spent nearly 2/3 of my development having stripped out all the OGL material so I could be free and clear of it so I'm basically just waiting on artwork to get done... others might have a lot of work they're scrambling to do to actually get a non-OGL version of their system out the door.

This is definitely a shock to the entire OGL-part of the ttrpg ecosystem and I expect a lot of "retcon events" as the main settings get updated.

OK, first off, your specific points are mostly CORRECT in terms of things WotC could claim is specific expression. I would point out that the description of demihumans would need to be EXTREMELY specifically like D&D in certain very particular respects for that one to count. Arcane/divine casting divide would have to again be very specific in the sense of using the D&D spell system to start with, and that the division not be significantly different from standard D&D. Aside from those two you're totally spot on.

My games don't check a single point on your list. Neither do a lot of OSR games that aren't Clone products. The spells are the trickiest bits for most OSR designers.

But not for me!

LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48043
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #157 on: January 22, 2023, 12:17:06 PM »
The issue of the Arcane/Divine divide is that what makes D&D so notable it not that there is the division, but that other than the division of what spells each class gets, the magic system is itself the same. That's the weird part.

Because in the historical authentic context the arcande/divine divide was not "what type of stuff can you do". Saints could heal the sick, magicians could heal the sick. Saints could cause an earthquake, magicians could cause an earthquake. The difference was HOW it was done. One had to do it by prayer and intense devotion, the other by a structured ritual format.
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Bruwulf

  • Dwarf Fanboy
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #158 on: January 22, 2023, 12:56:35 PM »
The issue of the Arcane/Divine divide is that what makes D&D so notable it not that there is the division, but that other than the division of what spells each class gets, the magic system is itself the same. That's the weird part.

Offhand, Shadowrun is basically the same. You have "mages" and "shaman", but there is little (and I think in current editions no) difference between them mechanically, at least when it comes to spellcasting rules.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 2749
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #159 on: January 22, 2023, 12:58:37 PM »
OK, first off, your specific points are mostly CORRECT in terms of things WotC could claim is specific expression. I would point out that the description of demihumans would need to be EXTREMELY specifically like D&D in certain very particular respects for that one to count. Arcane/divine casting divide would have to again be very specific in the sense of using the D&D spell system to start with, and that the division not be significantly different from standard D&D. Aside from those two you're totally spot on.

My games don't check a single point on your list. Neither do a lot of OSR games that aren't Clone products. The spells are the trickiest bits for most OSR designers.

But not for me!
Regarding demihuman expressions, I had just prior come from reading Paizo’s PF2 SRD because I had been curious just how much their “we included the OGL in PF2 only as a formality” was truth and how much was bluster.

It was ALL bluster (or they literally didn’t understand what copyright means) because their version of elves and dwarves and halflings was practically word from word aligned with WotC’s version down to trivialities like a races lifespan (ex. 600 years for elves instead of saying 500 years or 1000 years or immortal… it was exactly the same as D&D along with every other part of the description of elves… almond shaped eyes, trance instead of sleep, immune to paralysis, etc.).

Even with the update to PF2, the wizard was still the same specialist schools and restrictions, the same level-based slots and prep system with basically the same spells at the same levels in their cantrips + nine spell levels list.

That is NOT “the OGL was a formality” territory and without the OGL that is something they’d have to address. The trick is, much of PF’s appeal is it being offbrand D&D, and without the OGL it’s going to have to make changes such that they won’t be expressly offbrand D&D anymore.

So for these close copies it’s going to be a balancing act of determining what is critical to keep to appease their fans and what they have to change to evade copyright infringement.

As a purely design/sociological experiment seeing what answers they’ll each come up with is the part that I find fascinating.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48043
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #160 on: January 22, 2023, 01:15:24 PM »
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

People are welcome to use my planes from World of the Last Sun:

LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5483
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #161 on: January 22, 2023, 01:31:16 PM »
Another widely used concept that can fall under fire: outer planes. A plane for each alignment, along the axes of law/chaos and good/evil, with its own race of anthropomorphic personifications, with additional races of petitioners. The concept is detailed enough that WotC probably has a valid copyright claim, and Pazio can't avoid this just by reducing the number of planes from 18 to 9.

People are welcome to use my planes from World of the Last Sun:

Wisconsin? And it's not Earth? Now I HAVE to buy the book just find out why, and also to thank you for the planes, I assume there's rules to travel between yes?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12550
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #162 on: January 22, 2023, 03:12:03 PM »
OK, first off, your specific points are mostly CORRECT in terms of things WotC could claim is specific expression. I would point out that the description of demihumans would need to be EXTREMELY specifically like D&D in certain very particular respects for that one to count. Arcane/divine casting divide would have to again be very specific in the sense of using the D&D spell system to start with, and that the division not be significantly different from standard D&D. Aside from those two you're totally spot on.

My games don't check a single point on your list. Neither do a lot of OSR games that aren't Clone products. The spells are the trickiest bits for most OSR designers.

But not for me!
Regarding demihuman expressions, I had just prior come from reading Paizo’s PF2 SRD because I had been curious just how much their “we included the OGL in PF2 only as a formality” was truth and how much was bluster.

It was ALL bluster (or they literally didn’t understand what copyright means) because their version of elves and dwarves and halflings was practically word from word aligned with WotC’s version down to trivialities like a races lifespan (ex. 600 years for elves instead of saying 500 years or 1000 years or immortal… it was exactly the same as D&D along with every other part of the description of elves… almond shaped eyes, trance instead of sleep, immune to paralysis, etc.).

Even with the update to PF2, the wizard was still the same specialist schools and restrictions, the same level-based slots and prep system with basically the same spells at the same levels in their cantrips + nine spell levels list.

That is NOT “the OGL was a formality” territory and without the OGL that is something they’d have to address. The trick is, much of PF’s appeal is it being offbrand D&D, and without the OGL it’s going to have to make changes such that they won’t be expressly offbrand D&D anymore.

So for these close copies it’s going to be a balancing act of determining what is critical to keep to appease their fans and what they have to change to evade copyright infringement.

As a purely design/sociological experiment seeing what answers they’ll each come up with is the part that I find fascinating.

I suspected as much. Hopefully Paizo will stick with the (still entirely valid) OGL 1.0, as defending a "We don't need no stinking OGL!" position potentially opens them up to a world of hurt.

Fheredin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #163 on: January 22, 2023, 05:51:24 PM »
While I think having an OGL is completely extraneous legally, I think it wound up being a wonderful sniff test. And there's no getting around how it's death here sounded major public alarm bells on WotC being a bad actor.

I am going to wait and see what the ORC provisions are before I make up my mind on if I'm going to use it. If it's great, I don't see why not. If it isn't, I'm going to release an SRD under creative commons. It's that simple.

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Big Developments in the ORC License
« Reply #164 on: January 22, 2023, 06:43:56 PM »
The provisions for product identity can be useful if you want to distinguish between genericized content and content specific to your campaign setting. With CC you can't do that because it covers the entirety of the text and the entirety of any derivative text. You give up your right to make a profit and have to rely on the charity of customers or patreon. The OGL has been used much more widely than CC ever has before on products intended to make profit, so trying to replace OGL with CC will open publishers to all sorts of unforeseen issues.