Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License | Hacker News Reader

Paizo Announces System-Neutral Open RPG License

paizo.com

220 pointsgavanwilhite75 comments

While I understand the desire to define things legally - both by those who want the games to be open and by those who want to control them - game mechanics and rules are NOT copyrightable. We never needed OGL to publish material compatible with D&D (or any other system) in the first place [0].

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-h...

compounded by, in D&D's case, the fact that most of their core material uses completely generic terms; fighter, cleric, strength, wisdom.

Excepting a few, most of their monsters are generic fantasy monsters too or random combinations of "let's stick this head on this body".

The stuff that is copyrightable they do a terrible job at monetizing (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberon, various planes, higher powers, etc.)

Funnily enough, a lot of iconic dnd monsters like rust monster and owlbear was Gary gygax buying bags of random plastic toys and giving them statblocks. So they were themselves just statblocks for others copyrighted works.

Even if this is the case, I don't think there are any companies in the space with deep enough pockets to go up against WotC and challenge it. Just the fear of legal reprisal is a huge problem and has a significant chilling effect that can't be ignored.

A new license is absolutely necessary in the context of the modern court system.

Even if you're certain you'd win a lawsuit, you'd still have to be able to afford that lawsuit. As we saw in the Google vs Amazon case of the Java API, such lawsuits can be long and complex, and most RPG publishers are tiny. WotC is probably bigger than the entire rest of the industry put together.

Even if technically game mechanics are fair use, where exactly to draw that line has never been tested in court, and in the past, well before the OGL, RPG developers publishing something that was intended to be compatible with someone else's game, have been sued over that. Including WotC itself in their early days.

So just that already gave WotC an incentive to want a more open license. And in the late 1990s, before they released the OGL, the RPG industry was shrinking, with each company on its own island, and no exchange of material between different systems. WotC reasoned that the value of an RPG comes primarily from how easy it is to find players to play the game with, and if all RPGs are built on the same core mechanics, they have a common player base and players can much more easily pick up a new game. That's why they created the OGL: to connect all the islands, create a common player base for everybody, make all RPGs more valuable as a result, and thereby make the entire industry bigger. A bigger pie, of which WotC got the biggest piece.

On top of that, they hoped that third party contributions would also improve D&D itself. Inspired by ESR's the Cathedral and the Bazaar.

But the real thing that convinced other publishers to contribute to this common OGL system, much more than any of the legalities, is the trust that WotC built. The OGL was a solemn promise that they would never sue anyone who stuck to the rules in the OGL. Instead of the vague complexities and grey areas of copyright law, there were now clear lines drawn about what you could and couldn't do. And that is what convinced other RPG publishers to go along with this. To trust WotC. And everybody benefited from it.

And now WotC destroyed that trust, and may never be able to repair that. Paizo is trying to rebuild a new similar agreement and the accompanying trust from the ruins of WotC's sudden idiocy.

WotC seems to be seeing the RPG industry as a zero-sum game, where any money made by someone else, is money not made by them. That's not how it works. WotC benefited enormously from the OGL. The biggest editions of D&D are those that used the OGL (3.x and 5), whereas 4 was significantly less popular, and at some point even outsold by Paizo's Pathfinder. RPGs have always been a community effort. 20 years ago, WotC understood that. Modern Hasbro leadership only thinks in terms of products and consumers, and that attitude is going to hurt D&D.

I think you mean Google vs Oracle for the Java API copyright lawsuit.

No, if precedent wasn’t a thing, then I’d be for Oracle vs Google. Google wanted to free-ride without contributing. If they could have they’d have made their own language from the beginning. Even then, they didn’t really support real Java but it’s evil twin brother Dalvik. When you are Google-scale you should pay. Noblesse oblige.

Uh, no. Hard no. Literally any legal principle in which Google has to pay for 20 lines of API declarations (which is the thing that Oracle was able to claim copyright over in court) means pretty much the end of software freedom, since reimplementation is how FOSS was bootstrapped. This means that Microsoft could sue Valve for offering Proton on the Steam Deck. GNU and BSD become legally radioactive. Ruffle survives only through detrimental reliance[0]. The entire console emulation community gets sued for hilariously large sums.

Oh, and Oracle now has to pay billions of dollars to Amazon for providing an S3-compatible storage API, completely ending their cloud ambitions and cementing the AWS monopoly.

[0] Adobe published documentation on SWF specifically to encourage browser vendors to reimplement.

> if precedent wasn’t a thing

It's the size of Google that I feel makes it lose rights. When you are a giant you should lose to compensate for all the power you have as a consequence to the natural accumulation of power. So that Google should pay, doesn't follow that a small start-up should. Unfortunately, the laws are not written that way.

If we're going to throw out the overly-literal interpretation of "equality under the law" that means "exact same rules regardless of socioeconomic status or other context", then why only do this for the very narrow case of API reimplementation? Why not just break up Google for the crime of being a threat to the sovereignty of its host government and people? If Google is powerful enough that we need to start "taking away rights" in order to create a level playing field, then we should start talking about killing Google, if only to minimize how many rights need to be taken away and for how long.

Furthermore, the underlying reason why we're making Google pay is still total bullshit. Remember: we're not arguing for "start-ups should get a pass on copyright infringement but Google should pay billions". We're arguing over 20 function signatures. Nobody should have to pay for that, and any copyright law that covers function signatures is unfit for purpose, even if it's a bill of attainder[0] that only applies to Google.

[0] A law that specifically prescribes a punishment to be applied to one person and one person alone. For example, if Congress were to pass a bill saying "Larry Page is guilty of copyright infringement for scraping the Internet and has no civil rights", that is a bill of attainder.

This is such an easily abusable process that the Constitution, unamended, forbids it.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread”

I think Google should have bought Sun when they could. But whatever your opinion on that case is, my point is that copyright is complex and has big grey areas, and having to fight this out in court is going to be way too expensive and risky for most parties involved.

I do indeed. I knew I mistyped that in a couple of places. No idea why. Oracle seems to have vanished from my brain.

One good example are Battletech's Unseen Mech models. The stats were ok, the drawings were owned by some folks in Japan. Liscense agreements were impossible, so instead of risking a law suit, Battletech switched Mechs. And that required an in-universe retcon of sorts to explain why the Mechs everybody used and inhereted from their great-great-grandparents weren't there anymore.

> We never needed OGL to publish material compatible with D&D

And we never needed Apple's permission to have overlapping windows. Alas…

There was a long history of C&D letters and outright lawsuits. Heck, up until recently one of the head honchos of WotC was working at one of the companies being targeted by TSR in the 90s for their "Role Aids". A detente where you didn't have to worry about that as a small time publisher or hobbyist was rather appreciated.

Never mind that "mechanics" isn't as clearly described as we engineer type of nerds would like. So I'm writing my third party D&D-ish adventure. The players encounter a bunch of Orcs lead by an Evil Wizard. "Wizard" and "orc" existing way before D&D, so we're good here. But now I need to provide stat blocks, with abilities, hit points, "magic missile" spells etc. How far can I go where we move beyond "mechanics" and into "trade dress" or whatever lies beyond that legal dimension door?

Never mind that from a usability POV, there's a big benefit of having your stats exactly as WotC did them.

I often get the feeling that people citing the "rules can't be copyrighted!" adage don't game or are one of those people with three binders full of house rules.

Magic missile by itself is questionable since that language never gets used outside of D&D references, but it is also suitably generic. If you also used Strength, Intelligence, Constitution, Charisma and Wisdom as stats, and had hit dice, and so on, that would be problematic. If you chose new names for everything but the rules were otherwise identical that would be completely safe.

Part of the problem is this is a gray area even in the law, just look at the kerfuffle around the Warhol prince print that is still ongoing.

> If you chose new names for everything but the rules were otherwise identical that would be completely safe

Reminds me of the Judges Guild "Universal System" where they had a lot of weird stats in their books, often with some made-up rules, just to avoid any issues with D&D at the time (late 70s/early 80s, I think).

Event went so far as to have three-digit stats, stating that the first two are the regular ones (to correspond on the D&D 3-18 range) and the last is "how often you can use it without having to roll for a stress test".

If you're going that unusable, you might as well write for your own or a non-litigious system and let the people convert it themselves. It's a lot of homework anyways…

Come on, this kind of "made up rules" is meant to be ignored, not followed. Normal players would have dropped and ignored that extra stat digit, either because they recognized it as a plausible deniability tool whose usefulness is limited to written material or because preferring D&D-like stats is an obvious corrective "house rule".

I think this is an easy conclusion to reach in this context of a licensing discussion but no player is going to, in the usual context, open a book they've never heard of and think all of the ridiculous rules were put there to avoid copyright issues.

Yeah, that rule was clearly just there for show. Just like the second digit on levels ("number of professions you've mastered").

There were some rather elaborate rules for constructing armor that didn't really map to D&D's armor class, though. Probably even more of a curve ball.

The hit points – sorry "hits to kill", my mistake – were either what you'd expect from a D&D character with the same (first digit) level or the sum of (the first two digits) of Constitution and Strength.

Don't remember much more than this…

I wonder how the ongoing dilution influences this.

For example, World of Warcraft has had the virtually identical Arcane Missiles spell for nearly twenty years now, and Terraria even had the identically-named Magic Missile for over a decade already.

In trademark law lack of enforcement can lead to the trademark becoming genericized, which is why words like Aspirin, Videotape, or Escalator are no longer trademarks but regular everyday words.

If you never enforce your IP rights despite being well aware of violations, and even actively promote use of it by third parties, at what point does it stop being IP and become common culture?

> [...] game mechanics and rules are NOT copyrightable. We never needed OGL to publish material compatible with D&D (or any other system) in the first place.

This is something that I've been seen written over and over again.

While the mechanisms themselves are not subject to copyright, the rules, as authored by Wizards of the Coast, are. That is the specific implementation of those mechanisms (e.g. the definition of a feat, skill, or spell) is subject to copyright.

The OGL and D&D SRD allowed limited republishing of copyrighted material by third party publishers.

If you aren't using the words from the D&D rulebook you can publish a game that's 100% compatible with D&D. You would also have to spend a lot of time reimplementing the spell, skill, feat, and weapon boilerplate.. Which is why the D&D SRD and OGL were created.

It's like a hash table. While you can't implicitly[0] protect the concept of a hash table you can copyright and implicitly protect your hash table. Someone else can create a hash table but they can't copy and paste the code from your proprietary implementation. It's yours.. Unless you give them a license to use and/or distribute it.

The death of/community moving away from the OGL and D&D SRD is a good thing.

The RPG world is a victim of the OGL and D&D SRD's success. How many games are based on the six attribute format? I've been playing games like that for 30 years and I've had enough. When I pick up a book and see dex/str/con/wis/int/cha my eyes glass over. I want D&D to fade, I want publishers to create new, entirely novel, systems, and I don't care what it means the status quo. The ideas haven't been there for many years now.

What's great about the OGL and D&D SRD is that it brought an open source mentality to game publishing. It created a framework for companies can collaborate on a system and made that the default way of thinking about the creation of RPG material. That isn't going to go away. We're just going to be getting more and, possibly, better systems.

It's going to cause fragmentation, turmoil, consumer confusion, and it's going to be great. We'll get a burst of creativity, followed by a plateau, and finally everyone will congregate around a new system in a decade or so.

[0]: Copyright is implicit, patents and trademarks are not.

> When I pick up a book and see dex/str/con/wis/int/cha my eyes glass over. I want D&D to fade, I want publishers to create new, entirely novel, systems, and I don't care what it means the status quo

The conclusion I've drawn from this is that the system doesn't really matter. The game rules are incredibly secondary to the concept of role-playing - the universe, the people, the motivations, the personalities etc.

We've got a system, it works and everyone knows how to use it. We've met the bar for a foundation we can build our universes on (until now, and this controversy).

That said, I don't think I've spent enough time playing other systems to really be sure of my feelings on this - the above is based on the situation we've got to. I've got Call of Cthulu on the shelves next to me and plan to run a game, partly because I want to answer that question: "does the different stat and mechanics system really bleed through and affect how you experience the world"?

> I've got Call of Cthulu on the shelves next to me and plan to run a game, partly because I want to answer that question: "does the different stat and mechanics system really bleed through and affect how you experience the world"?

In my experience, they do because of the sort of players they attract and the engagement required of them.

Complicated games with many source books attract rules lawyers, who dominate the group experience by way of using their knowledge of obscure rules to control the play.

Whereas overly simple games, like FATE, lack enough structure to guide more timid players through the experience, and so play becomes dominated by the prominent story tellers in the party.

The D&D combat system is high variance (single d20 rolls), and fundamentally flawed. DMs routinely have to fudge rolls and engage in divine intervention to prevent the night from ending early because the pack of gnolls that were supposed to be a filler encounter turned deadly with a streak of high rolls.

Wargame systems where combat is the focus and fudging is cheating tend to use more small dice so you end up closer to a normal distribution of values, rather than a uniform distribution. That avoids stuff that doesn't make sense like a shepherd rolling repeated natural 20s while a dragon rolls 1s - if the dragon is rolling 5 dice for an attack the floor of that is still above the shepherd's ability to defend.

I'm never sure whether this is a bug or a feature. When DMing, while I do very occasionally fudge things I try hard not to. The unpredictable aspect of the universe is a good thing and adds to the drama of an encounter. I do do some other things to make this work - I don't have a huge number of random encounters (also for game pace) and have some mechanism that softens player death a little. E.g. an NPC that can do a resurrection that they can earn, or an in-universe character re-roll.

Ironically, D&D's spin on Rule Zero, which is what you essentially describe in practice, isn't in any first-party SRD even though it's been arguably the foundational D&D rule as written in every published edition.[1]

It is, however, an OGL-covered rule in Pathfinder:[2]

> The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

1: https://theoutcastrogue.tumblr.com/post/685341001180741632/r...

2: https://pathfinder.d20srd.org/coreRulebook/gettingStarted.ht...

> Does the different stat and mechanics system really bleed through and affect how you experience the world.

Play "Warhammer Fantasy Role Play" and get back to me. How many fingers did your players have by the end?

Or Dungeon Crawl Classics.. How many level-0s made it through the meat grinder?

The randomness in other system leads to some interesting developments that you don't see in D&D. There's also the culture of the games. In modern D&D there's almost a contract between the players and DM that the players aren't to interfere with the DM's world building and the DM will not interfere with the grand destinies of the characters.

It's completely uninteresting to me. I want to play and play with as many different characters as possible so I can see different parts of the system and worlds. Playing the same characters from level 1 to godhood is dull. Character death should be frequent and glorious.

I also like Blood Bowl so.. I have a pretty high tolerance for nonsensical, dice driven, narratives. There are so many good story hooks if you just go with it.

> The conclusion I've drawn from this is that the system doesn't really matter. The game rules are incredibly secondary to the concept of role-playing

Damn, have I got, like, 20 years of blogs, 40 years of forum and BBS posts, and 60 more years of magazine, zine, and rambling manifesto articles for you.

> game mechanics and rules are NOT copyrightable.

Correct. This is where patents come into place.

For example https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242 and https://generalpatent.com/professor-s-company-wins-1-6-milli...

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3208754A/en is another fun one.

But lore and wording gets into trouble. Is "Magic Missile" copyrighted? How about Halfling ( https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/116283 )?

> A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.

> You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target. The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct them to hit one creature or several.

Without looking which one is D&D and which one is Pathfinder?

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/magic-missile/

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Magic%20Missile#content

Would the pathfinder version be considered a derivative work of the D&D version (well, not that D&D version since that was 5e... still).

This question is basically what the article linked in my comment above is all about.

Great point, but it seems like it would be a huge pain to have to change all of the spell and monster lists and D&D-specific terms from the SRD into generic equivalents.

On the other hand, claiming copyright or trademark on D&D terms and mechanics that have diffused throughout the RPG universe for nearly 50 years (experience points, hit points, ability scores, spell levels, character classes and levels, alignment, saving throws, initiative, etc.) seems like a fool's errand.

This is exactly the sort of thing I hoped to see from Paizo once news of WotC's new license leaked. Good to see it!

Really curious to see if the new license will be closer at all to something like Creative Commons or FOSS software licenses than the OGL was, or if it'll stay relatively close. My suspicion is Paizo will still want to keep control over their story/setting/etc so it'll likely lean towards the OGL in that way.

The new license will probably be very similar to the OGL, except in being more explicit about its irrevocability, and not controlled by a single entity; once its written, Paizo will have no more control over this license than any other publisher.

But other than that, the content will be very similar. An open gaming license like this will always have to account for protected property rights. People will want to make Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and Harry Potter games. That requires a clear separation between the shared mechanics and the protected property, and they have to be able to be published in a text where they are deeply integrated with each other.

> Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

I'm not sure if the Linux Foundation is just a relevant example here or an actual contender to be the steward.

I kind of hope it's the latter. TTRPG rules are close enough to code right? Structured instructions executed by humans with some flavor text at least.

Not really. That more applies to board-game rules; TTRPG systems are more like guidelines for GMs and players.

But regardless of that, open source licences have nothing to do with what the code is doing; they are about using certain specific code in other products. Code is not copyrightable, so you can take some closed-source code and replicate its functionality in a different way - using different language idioms, or a completely different language - completely legally.

Code is copyrightable, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

It might not be patentable, except it is under some jurisdictions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

You're right, I meant to write that the code behaviour is not copyrightable.

I dont think it really matters if it close to code or not, The Linux Foundation ceased being about Linux a long time ago.

They really should just rename it to "The Foundation Foundation"

Lots of other RPG publishers are joining in too so the license is definitely finding broad acceptance in the community. Curious to see WotC's next move.

WotC’s next move should be to go the way of TSR and the dodo.

In a way, I always knew this was coming. When lots of the people behind 3e left, I assumed that the OGL wouldn’t last forever, once there was enough money on the table. It took a decade longer than I thought, and I wasn’t expecting them to revoke the previous license, but instead remove the OGL from new versions. Either way, rent seekers gotta rent seek.

> and I wasn’t expecting them to revoke the previous license, but instead remove the OGL from new versions

Well, to be fair they did do exactly that with D&D 4e and the GSL. Which bombed spectacularly, as their audience continued to play 3.5 and Pathfinder which continued to use the OGL.

This is actually WotC learning from their mistakes. If they launched 5.5e with a regressive and user-hostile licence, people would just ignore it and splinter the community and hurt the new edition.

Instead — the way wotc is attempting here — they blow up the old editions entirely and shut down all their competition in one legal maneuver. Existing customers have little recourse, they still enjoy ttrpg with their friends and d&d has significant brand strength as well as being the only company left publishing. Nerds will whine but the company now is now well-positioned to be the sole competitor in the increasingly profitable digital future. They don’t have to spent 10 figures on the next dndbeyond, they can just sue them. They don’t have to built a better vtt than foundry, they just shut down foundry and theirs is better by default — tada!

They may have underestimated how loudly nerds like me are whining, and voting with our wallets. And perhaps also o overestimating how successful their legal shenanigans would be — I’m not a lawyer but so much I’ve read from legal analysis suggests wotc is in a dubious position and unlikely to succeed here.

I don’t think you understand the hobby at all. Every game master, without exception, is a content creator. Most of them want to try new systems just to see what they are like. If they decide to go to other systems, that’s it for D&D. They can make all of the movies and books they want, but that won’t make people DM it.

It doesn’t matter if they succeed in court or not. People will stop writing right now (and write for other systems), because who knows if the rug will get pulled under them in the future. Six months from now, maybe they decide the new license is that they get 100% of your revenue — we know they untrustworthy businessmen already. Hasbro pulling an Elon is not them “learning from their mistakes”, it’s just another offense.

It's definitely going to hurt D&D, and I can totally see D&D getting overtaken by other RPGs. But D&D is much more than just a game; it's a brand and cultural icon on par with Star Wars. Hasbro still has the name. They can merchandise the hell out of it. The game will exist, and even if much fewer people will play it, the rich history of D&D will still be attached to it.

> Hasbro pulling an Elon is not them “learning from their mistakes”, it’s just another offense.

They think they're learning, but they're learning the wrong lesson.

What they don't seem to realise is that the editions that used the OGL, are their most successful editions. And 4e that didn't, wasn't. Ryan Dancey (one of the creators of the OGL and VP at WotC at the time) even suggested that Paizo's Pathfinder system may have contributed to the success of D&D 5, because all the players who were disappointed with 4 could keep playing a game very close to D&D, and when D&D 5 came along, many of them switched back to D&D. Without Pathfinder, they might have strayed further and not have come back. Hasbro sees Pathfinder as the enemy, but it's not. You can be big together, and the OGL did make the RPG industry much bigger than it was before. I hope Paizo's new license will do the same.

Way too many Americans claim to play D&D, but in fact it's so far homebrewed it's a Theseus's Ship.

But D&D is synonymous for table-top roleplaying to Americans, that's what they have to do. Even the super famous podcasts where professional actors play "D&D" are barely using the official rules, they're more for flavour than actual mechanics.

I'm secretly hoping that this will actually push American players and GMs to consider other, better fitting, options for their games. If you want to play a sci-fi romp, maybe don't try to shoehorn it to D&D. Same with detective stories in a steampunk world.

My interpretation of ninth_ant's comment is not that they believe those things about this being A Great Idea on WotC's part, but that that's what WotC believes. And I think they're absolutely right.

WotC's (and, further up, Hasbro's) management has shown in several ways in recent years that they do not understand, respect, or like their core gaming customers. (In fact, there was another leak recently from someone purporting to be a Wizards insider [0] that claims they primarily see customers as "obstacles between them and their money".) Between the OGL 2.0, some of the other things they're doing with "One D&D", and many of the changes they've been making to Magic: The Gathering in recent years, I strongly suspect that they're effectively gutting their golden-egg-laying goose in hopes of getting even more gold out of it.

[0] https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1613576298114449409

They finally posted an official statement on the D&D Beyond website just an hour or so ago. (I'd link but corporate firewall means I can't find it right now.) They do think they are doing it with good intentions, including blocking NFT and web3 things trying to commercialize on D&D. It's skirted around in that post, but also implied that they want to make certain that OGL can't be used for film rights (because Hasbro has a growing film studio now) nor VTT rights (because D&D Beyond is a growing VTT). Both of those things to them add to their biased feeling that they are being the "good guys" in all of this and defending the OGL as a tool "just" for hobbyists and game players.

Yep, I saw that a couple hours ago, and it's now made it to the front page here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34370340).

I think WotC is starting to realize that they need their players waaaay more than we need them. If we want to just keep on playing with the same stuff we've got now, we can do that—if they want to make more money, they need to keep us happy one way or another.

It's unclear to me why CC-BY isn't sufficient for SRD material. I'm glad that Paizo is throwing off the yoke of Hasbro altogether, but I don't have a good understanding for what a new license will do that CC doesn't.

My guess is they want to keep the overall structure of the OGL while tearing out the parts that can make the license change at the whims of WotC. The ability to carve out portions of a product as trademark/non-reproducible while releasing he rest isn't something covered by creative commons. Without it I'd imagine many publishers would try to hack together similar language and you'd end up with a proliferation of different new licenses.

This discussion is also happening in publisher circles. I think the argument is that the ORC (Paizo's proposed license) will differentiate between reserved IP and open content. I'm not certain, though.

Source: I own a tabletop RPG publisher.

Then remove IP you want to protect from the CC BY-licensed SRD, publish the books under normal copyright terms, and add the rules content to the SRD?

I still don't understand the value of the OGL spelling out reserved IP. That's already protected if the only open-licensed part is the rules text, which (not a lawyer) happens with a CC BY SRD and any other copyright license on the derived works.

Wizards leaving reserved IP in their official SRD was a bug, not a feature. Back when Paizo still self-hosted Pathfinder 1E's SRD, they solicited pointers to and removed protected terms that they accidentally left in it so it'd be more ergonomic for publishers.

IANAL, but my understanding is that WotC is getting ready to revoke the old OGL on the basis that "perpetual" doesn't mean "irrevocable," and the main impetus for a new license is explicitly closing that loophole. The perpetual/irrevocable thing seems absurd to me as an outsider, but this article makes me worry that a court could disagree: https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragons-wizards-of-the-coast-f...

>According to several lawyers who have weighed in on the situation, if a document does not specifically say it is “irrevocable,” it can be revoked. While the old OGL uses the term “perpetual,” it does not use the word “irrevocable” in writing, and Dancey’s use of the word in interviews and emails may not be sufficient for the courts.

To my understanding CC was a consultant on the earliest OGL 1.0 development cycles. There's a bunch of complex interplays of different IP protections in tabletop roleplaying and so CC recommended building something from scratch for the same reason CC tries to remind people that CC is not an open source code license and you should use open source code licenses for software code.

Some specific troubles:

- Most game mechanics cannot be copyrighted they can only be patented. I believe CC recommended the OGL contain a patent grant similar to the one in the (software license) Apache License 2.0, though one directly as such did not make the final OGL. (There is something of an implied grant, but no specific clause and definitely not as well spelled out as Apache License 2.0.)

- Many elements are more subject to trademark laws than copyright laws. Things like the names of spells or skills or things like that. A TTRPG has to explicitly define which "vocabulary" is subject to trademark enforcement in a way that doesn't turn the trademarks into generics that puts them at risk of loss in a court case.

- The very nature of splitting an SRD from other game materials is somewhat unique to this TTRPG model. A lot of the OGL is legally trying to explain what an SRD even is and how it differs from any other book in the "same" RPG (so that it can then limit the scope of most things back to "just the SRD is open").

That said, there's a unique community of CC licensed games on itch.io especially and it certainly seems to work well when the entire game is licensed that way. Most of those authors and companies don't have a lot of trademarks to defend.

I could still see a usefulness in that community for some sort of easy to apply patent-grant license, though. (I was debating the other day if a dual-license situation where you did something like CC-BY/Apache License 2.0 could work if you have some way to add the legal language equivalent of "where and as these systems/rules define algorithms, those algorithms are considered to be open source under the Apache License 2.0" to try to broadly apply a patent grant.) I'm curious to see what Paizo does with ORC as maybe that's something their lawyers might help them address in a reusable way even for small RPGs.

Nice that the acronym for the Open RPG Creative License is also ORC.

Good on Paizo for this. It's been heartening to see them turn themselves around in recent months, as they got rid of some toxic management and unionized their workers, as well as putting out one of the better crunch-heavy TTRPGs in recent times (Pathfinder 2nd Edition).

This move will likely cement them for some time to come as the major tabletop gaming company that actually cares about their customers.

From where I sit, the only better outcome we could see from this OGL debacle is if some coalition of TTRPG designers could get together and come up with a fully open TTRPG in the same basic mold as D&D and Pathfinder.

I’d like to hear from Monte Cook Games or White White as well.

monte cook will probably stick to their CSOL. but they are looking to update the language to make it say irrevocable possibly and they are taking their paid fantasy setting book for Cypher and merging it into the SRD, effectively making 90% open and free

Is White White meant to be White Wolf?

They're basically defunct after the nazi scandal after Paradox bought them, Paradox licensed out their material for a few years and now has a new in-house team for World of Darkness.

Interesting, didn't know about that.

> In November 2018, as a result of backlash generated by material pertaining to "murder of gay Chechens" published in a Vampire: The Masquerade Fifth Edition source book as well as the inclusion of optional neo-Nazi aesthetic in the Brujah vampire clan,[7] it was announced that White Wolf would no longer function as an entity separate from its parent company, and would cease developing and publishing products internally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wolf_Publishing#Purchase...

https://archive.md/leaSw

I would also love to see cc / open source scenarios and stories, perhaps a bit like how scp functions?

Some great news comes out of the WotC OGL controversy, with Paizo announcing a new open license and taking a strong legal stand against WotC.

They will be looking towards groups like the Linux Foundation to own the license once developed.

(Site has been overwhelmed with traffic, thus archive.org)

Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34361591

I wonder if WoTC's mishandled this so badly that they get a shareholder class action or some other form of shareholder unrest.

Paizo's website has been hugged to death, so it's fair to say they're getting a lot of attention...

To be fair, their site is notoriously unstable and will break if fans look at it wrong.

It's fine to include archive links in the thread, for example if a server is overwhelmed, but please post the original source as the top URL.

"Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We've changed the URL from https://web.archive.org/web/20230112230330/https://paizo.com... now.

Thread merge request with the older but less popular https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34361591

You might want to bump this to the top as the site's been hugged and is 503ing.

Will keep in mind going forward. Thanks for the kind way you point out rules!

The original is down now and archive still lives.

Pathfinder is an even bigger, overly complex bloat than D&D. I don't get it why people don't make their own systems. It's not rocket science...

Would you mind linking to the RPG systems you've written lately? I would love to play some new ones with friends from someone who knows what they're doing.

Maybe you will... all I'm saying everyone is nuthugging these old, dinosaur like systems. Time to move on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com