# Brian Lewis, original legal drafter of the OGL, speaks out



## Sacrosanct (Yesterday at 5:41 PM)

I found this very interesting.  This is from Brian Lewis, who was on the legal team that drafted the original OGL.

"I could use your help. Our firm believes that it is crucial to our industry that it have an agnostic open source style license that provides designers and publishers clarity on what they can readily use from a publisher’s game without having to pay lawyers to research or defend that use.  The mere threat that the OGL, a tool that has widely been perceived as working toward that goal, could be unilaterally be modified or withdrawn casts a chilling specter of doubt and uncertainty on the gaming industry. As the person that came up with the legal framework behind the OGL, and as an invested custodian of our industry, I feel a powerful desire to drive a project to create the OpenRPG License which is envisioned as a truly independent open source license (of the kind that did not exist in 1996 when I started conceiving of this).  Ultimately, this needs to be in the hands of a recognized and respected independent open source community hub that functions like Linux. - 

Today we would like to announce this effort and create a hub for socializing and refining the OpenRPG License.  I am hoping that you can help by letting me know if you support this, and if so, if you would be willing to share a message on your social media platform(s) roughly along the following lines: I believe our industry needs a new Open RPG License that will be system and publisher independent. My friends at Azora Law (OpenRPG@azoralaw.com), an intellectual property law firm that represents several game publishers, came up with the legal framework for the original OGL over 20 years ago. I trust and support them in shepherding a broad effort to create an agnostic open source style license that provides designers and publishers clarity on what they can use from a participating publisher’s game without having to pay lawyers to research or defend it.  They will also find an appropriate independent, non-profit home for the new Open RPG License. If you are an interested publisher or designer, I encourage you to join the effort and provide input and feedback on drafts of this license. Please sign up by using this form (Thank you!).
Thank you!


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 5:43 PM)

Sacrosanct said:


> I found this very interesting.  This is from Brian Lewis, who was on the legal team that drafted the original OGL.
> 
> "I could use your help. Our firm believes that it is crucial to our industry that it have an agnostic open source style license that provides designers and publishers clarity on what they can readily use from a publisher’s game without having to pay lawyers to research or defend that use.  The mere threat that the OGL, a tool that has widely been perceived as working toward that goal, could be unilaterally be modified or withdrawn casts a chilling specter of doubt and uncertainty on the gaming industry. As the person that came up with the legal framework behind the OGL, and as an invested custodian of our industry, I feel a powerful desire to drive a project to create the OpenRPG License which is envisioned as a truly independent open source license (of the kind that did not exist in 1996 when I started conceiving of this).  Ultimately, this needs to be in the hands of a recognized and respected independent open source community hub that functions like Linux. -
> 
> ...



I assume this came by email? Is there a press release we can link and reference?


----------



## Morrus (Yesterday at 6:06 PM)

That links to Paizo.com. Are they involved with this?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Yesterday at 6:19 PM)

Reynard said:


> I assume this came by email? Is there a press release we can link and reference?



This was posted on the Kobold Press discord.  That's where I found it.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Yesterday at 6:20 PM)

Morrus said:


> That links to Paizo.com. Are they involved with this?



I don't want to assume, but it seems that way.  This is the text at that link (which is Paizo domain)


----------



## dave2008 (Yesterday at 6:22 PM)

Then would the SRDs for these games be Open RPG Content: *ORC*?


----------



## Morrus (Yesterday at 6:28 PM)

I don’t have any objection to Paizo being involved, but I’d like some clarity on if. Transparency is very key at the moment!


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 6:29 PM)

Morrus said:


> I don’t have any objection to Paizo being involved, but I’d like some clarity on if. Transparency is very key at the moment!



If they are involved they are probably waiting to announce after WotC does something official?


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 6:34 PM)

dave2008 said:


> Then would the SRDs for these games be Open RPG Content: *ORC*?



I certainly hope so, cause that’s a great acronym!


----------



## DMZ2112 (Yesterday at 6:41 PM)

Morrus said:


> I don’t have any objection to Paizo being involved, but I’d like some clarity on if. Transparency is very key at the moment!



Yes, I saw that in the URL, and began to vibrate at an audible frequency.  What is happening.

EDIT: Bah, worthless post, sorry.  I tried to sign up but the button doesn't work.  Anyone else having any luck?


----------



## CleverNickName (Yesterday at 6:43 PM)

The last time Hasbro threatened the OGL, Paizo became the #1 selling tabletop RPG company and made a lot of money.
Maybe history is poised to repeat itself?


----------



## Greg Benage (Yesterday at 6:44 PM)

Brian Lewis is Paizo's attorney, which is ::chef's kiss::


----------



## overgeeked (Yesterday at 6:54 PM)

Oh. Here's to hoping.


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 6:56 PM)

CleverNickName said:


> The last time Hasbro threatened the OGL, Paizo became the #1 selling tabletop RPG company and made a lot of money.
> Maybe history is poised to repeat itself?



We can certainly hope.


----------



## Olrox17 (Yesterday at 7:00 PM)

Greg Benage said:


> Brian Lewis is Paizo's attorney, which is ::chef's kiss::



It also means he's not exactly an impartial third party in this dispute. Just something to keep in mind. 
I really hope the major 3pp manage to create a strong front against WotC's abuse.


----------



## Greg Benage (Yesterday at 7:02 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> It also means he's not exactly an impartial third party in this dispute. Just something to keep in mind.



It seems he's just trying to facilitate a handoff to an impartial third party.

"Ultimately, this needs to be in the hands of a recognized and respected independent open source community hub that functions like Linux."


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 7:03 PM)

Greg Benage said:


> It seems he's just trying to facilitate a handoff to an impartial third party.
> 
> "Ultimately, this needs to be in the hands of a recognized and respected independent open source community hub that functions like Linux."



Isn't there already an Open Gaming Foundation?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Yesterday at 7:03 PM)

If you could get Paizo and the other major 3pps to agree on a "mere fantasy" framework for a not-d&d srd, and a truly open game licence, that would be huge. It would help mitigate some of the loss of network effects from D&D being cut off.


----------



## Olrox17 (Yesterday at 7:04 PM)

Greg Benage said:


> It seems he's just trying to facilitate a handoff to an impartial third party.
> 
> "Ultimately, this needs to be in the hands of a recognized and respected independent open source community hub that functions like Linux."



That would be very good for the hobby, indeed. 
In other news, at this point I believe we have enough clues to predict that Paizo will NOT be signing a custom agreement with WotC. Far from it!


----------



## Greg Benage (Yesterday at 7:04 PM)

Reynard said:


> Isn't there already an Open Gaming Foundation?



Yeah, but it's never actually done anything, to my understanding. I'm not sure it has the administrative infrastructure to fill the role. But maybe it does -- I don't know.


----------



## dave2008 (Yesterday at 7:06 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> That would be very good for the hobby, indeed.
> In other news, at this point I believe we have enough clues to predict that Paizo will NOT be signing a custom agreement with WotC. Far from it!



Yes, I think that is the most important take away.  This, more than anything, could force WotC to back off.


----------



## J.Quondam (Yesterday at 7:06 PM)

Reynard said:


> Isn't there already an Open Gaming Foundation?



Yes, but it seems defunct.


			OPEN GAMING FOUNDATION


----------



## darjr (Yesterday at 7:07 PM)

They are talking a bit about Brian. One of the Architects of the Original OGL, Ryan Dancey, Discusses Its Cr...  via @YouTube


----------



## Composer99 (Yesterday at 7:22 PM)

I think the Open Gaming Foundation would need to dust out a lot of cobwebs, but it, or an organisation like it, would be a natural choice to be the custodian of a genuine open RPG licence.

(Apropos of the acronym ORC, I thought of creating a homebrew game line called Open Game Roleplaying Engine, or OGRE. I know Open Roleplaying Game Engine is technically more accurate, but I felt like the natural acronym for that is... well, shall we say, off-colour.)


----------



## payn (Yesterday at 7:25 PM)

Interesting.


----------



## rcade (Yesterday at 7:32 PM)

Greg Benage said:


> Yeah, but it's never actually done anything, to my understanding. I'm not sure it has the administrative infrastructure to fill the role. But maybe it does -- I don't know.



The Open Gaming Foundation did a few things in the formative years of the open gaming movement.

It published the Open Gaming License, hosted the OGF-L and OGF-d20-L mailing lists where the OGL and open gaming movement were born, kept a list of game licenses it considered open, and maintained a registry of open games.


----------



## Morrus (Yesterday at 7:46 PM)

J.Quondam said:


> Yes, but it seems defunct.
> 
> 
> OPEN GAMING FOUNDATION



Ryan updated it just last week.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Yesterday at 8:08 PM)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> If you could get Paizo and the other major 3pps to agree on a "mere fantasy" framework for a not-d&d srd, and a truly open game licence, that would be huge. It would help mitigate some of the loss of network effects from D&D being cut off.



the problem is that pathfinder itself (and every time I see a house rule) shows that you when recreating want to 'fix' somethings and when they disagree on what needs to be fixed there will be splits.


----------



## Dire Bare (Yesterday at 8:37 PM)

CleverNickName said:


> The last time Hasbro threatened the OGL, Paizo became the #1 selling tabletop RPG company and made a lot of money.
> Maybe history is poised to repeat itself?



Not quite. The 4th Edition GSL did push Paizo into doing what they were already planning on doing, create their own Pathfinder game. And it was a very successful game. However, Pathfinder sales didn't eclipse D&D sales until AFTER 4th Edition stopped publication and WotC wasn't producing ANY D&D content for a while. As soon as they started up with 5th Edition, Pathfinder slipped back down to second place.

Still, your point stands . . . WotC's open license shenanigans during the 4th Edition probably did have a lot to do with making Pathfinder the success it was. And their current shenanigans with the new "OGL" is already pushing publishers to create their own systems and new, truly open, licenses. The situation isn't identical, but history does seem to be repeating itself . . . .


----------



## Langy (Yesterday at 8:44 PM)

Composer99 said:


> I think the Open Gaming Foundation would need to dust out a lot of cobwebs, but it, or an organisation like it, would be a natural choice to be the custodian of a genuine open RPG licence.
> 
> (Apropos of the acronym ORC, I thought of creating a homebrew game line called Open Game Roleplaying Engine, or OGRE. I know Open Roleplaying Game Engine is technically more accurate, but I felt like the natural acronym for that is... well, shall we say, off-colour.)




OGRE as the name for a roleplaying game, while cool, is probably a little too close to OGRE the name for a board/war game about giant sentient tanks.


----------



## mhd (Yesterday at 8:48 PM)

Langy said:


> OGRE as the name for a roleplaying game, while cool, is probably a little too close to OGRE the name for a board/war game about giant sentient tanks.



Also, there's already O.G.R.E.S., Jason Vey's OSR-adjacent game (which just went slightly obfuscated in light of OGL 1.1.)

(I think there's a "ORC" game, too. IIRC the "Tibet RPG" used that as its engine)


----------



## Yaarel (Yesterday at 9:03 PM)

Dire Bare said:


> Not quite. The 4th Edition GSL did push Paizo into doing what they were already planning on doing, create their own Pathfinder game. And it was a very successful game. However, Pathfinder sales didn't eclipse D&D sales until AFTER 4th Edition stopped publication and WotC wasn't producing ANY D&D content for a while. As soon as they started up with 5th Edition, Pathfinder slipped back down to second place.
> 
> Still, your point stands . . . WotC's open license shenanigans during the 4th Edition probably did have a lot to do with making Pathfinder the success it was. And their current shenanigans with the new "OGL" is already pushing publishers to create their own systems and new, truly open, licenses. The situation isn't identical, but history does seem to be repeating itself . . . .



Even as a 4e player, I heard from others that Pathfinder made good adventures. 4e generally lacked enough high quality adventures.

It would have been easy for Pathfinder to publish some (or all) of its adventures for the 4e gaming engine, make a profit for Paizo, and making 4e more successful.


----------



## J.Quondam (Yesterday at 9:03 PM)

Morrus said:


> Ryan updated it just last week.



Yes, to say the site hadn't been maintained in 20 years, with an OGL1.1 update TBD. 
Should've said "recently de-defunct," i guess.


----------



## Reynard (Yesterday at 9:05 PM)

Yaarel said:


> Even as a 4e player, I heard from others that Pathfinder made good adventures. 4e generally lacked enough high quality adventures.
> 
> It would have been easy for Pathfinder to publish some (or all) of its adventures for the 4e gaming engine, make a profit for Paizo, and making 4e more successful.



Many folks hoped they would support 5E, which surely would have been very lucrative, but they had their own game to support. Obviously in just the last year or so they started to dip their toe in that, but that is certainly over before it really got started.


----------



## Yaarel (Yesterday at 9:07 PM)

darjr said:


> They are talking a bit about Brian. One of the Architects of the Original OGL, Ryan Dancey, Discusses Its Cr...  via @YouTube



LOVE!

Getting coffee ready, to watch this thru.


----------



## Yaarel (Yesterday at 9:08 PM)

Reynard said:


> Many folks hoped they would support 5E, which surely would have been very lucrative, but they had their own game to support. Obviously in just the last year or so they started to dip their toe in that, but that is certainly over before it really got started.



It is more than Pathfinder has a fanbase. Pathfinder 2 offers a gaming style that 5e doesnt. PF2 provides a service to the gaming community.


----------



## Composer99 (Yesterday at 9:09 PM)

Yaarel said:


> Even as a 4e player, I heard from others that Pathfinder made good adventures. 4e generally lacked enough high quality adventures.
> 
> It would have been easy for Pathfinder to publish some (or all) of its adventures for the 4e gaming engine, make a profit for Paizo, and making 4e more successful.



Apropos of this, Paizo has published a few 5e-compatible products recently - paizo.com - Pathfinder Kingmaker Bestiary (5E) for instance - so if WotC had published a 4e SRD under the old OGL, who's to say they wouldn't have decided to also produce 4e content at some point? (Whereas it was an easy decision not to adopt the restrictive GSL.)


----------



## John R Davis (Yesterday at 9:09 PM)

Open
Roleplaying
Community
System


----------



## overgeeked (Yesterday at 9:10 PM)

Composer99 said:


> Apropos of this, Paizo has published a few 5e-compatible products recently - paizo.com - Pathfinder Kingmaker Bestiary (5E) for instance - so if WotC had published a 4e SRD under the old OGL, who's to say they wouldn't have decided to also produce 4e content at some point? (Whereas it was an easy decision not to adopt the restrictive GSL.)



The folks at Paizo hated 4E. That’s literally why they made Pathfinder.


----------



## Composer99 (Yesterday at 9:20 PM)

overgeeked said:


> The folks at Paizo hated 4E. That’s literally why they made Pathfinder.



So what of that? Tastes and personnel can (and do) change, and money talks.


----------



## CleverNickName (Yesterday at 9:22 PM)

Dire Bare said:


> Not quite. The 4th Edition GSL did push Paizo into doing what they were already planning on doing, create their own Pathfinder game. And it was a very successful game. However, Pathfinder sales didn't eclipse D&D sales until AFTER 4th Edition stopped publication and WotC wasn't producing ANY D&D content for a while. As soon as they started up with 5th Edition, Pathfinder slipped back down to second place.



It took some digging around, but this is what I was talking about.  It's a graph of the top five TTRPGs over the years, from 2004 to 2019.  It shows D&D tied with Paizo in 1st place late around late 2010, when D&D Essentials was released.  Pathfinder then drops to 2nd place for a few months, before rising to the #1 slot for more than 3 years.

So, yep, that checks out:  Wizards of the Coast stopped publishing 4E material in 2010, and Pathfinder rose to #1 immediately thereafter.





Here's the other one I was looking for, also with the Top Five games over the years, but with key events (such as release dates) marked.



It's interesting to look at for a couple of reasons.

One, Pathfinder jumped to 2nd Place immediately as it was released, meaning it already had a huge fan base ready to support it.  A fan base at least as large and as active as the previous #2 slot (Warhammer 40K, which was considered at the time to be the "next-best-thing" to playing D&D.)  I'd wager that those fans are still there, with plenty of reinforcements...especially if *this ENWorld poll* is to be believed.

Two, D&D shot up from 6th place all the way to 1st place in just three months after 5E was just _announced, _allowing it to debut in 2nd place behind Pathfinder_._  I had been genuinely worried for the D&D brand, and things had been going poorly for them for years-- it was a relief to see so many players and third-party publishers return to D&D after all that time.  I wonder how much of that immediate resurrection was due to the less-restrictive OGL, and the influence of third-party publishers?  And how much of that was from 4E's fans, rushing to buy up the last of the 4E books before they were gone forever?


Dire Bare said:


> Still, your point stands . . . WotC's open license shenanigans during the 4th Edition probably did have a lot to do with making Pathfinder the success it was. And their current shenanigans with the new "OGL" is already pushing publishers to create their own systems and new, truly open, licenses. The situation isn't identical, but history does seem to be repeating itself . . . .



Yup, I agree.


----------



## overgeeked (Yesterday at 9:28 PM)

CleverNickName said:


> It took some digging around, but this is what I was talking about.  It's a graph of the top five TTRPGs over the years, from 2004 to 2019.  It shows D&D tied with Paizo in 1st place late around late 2010, when D&D Essentials was released.  Pathfinder then drops to 2nd place for a few months, before rising to the #1 slot for more than 3 years.
> 
> So, yep, that checks out:  Wizards of the Coast stopped publishing 4E material in 2010, and Pathfinder rose to #1 immediately thereafter.
> 
> ...



Also, importantly, I think…it was less crunchy than the leading alternative.


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 9:29 PM)

Composer99 said:


> So what of that? Tastes and personnel can (and do) change, and money talks.



Based on Eric Mona's comments on that Age of Worms stream earlier, it doesn't look like there's been any real change there.


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 9:34 PM)

Desdichado said:


> Based on Eric Mona's comments on that Age of Worms stream earlier, it doesn't look like there's been any real change there.



Maybe not for Eric Mona, but a lot of the folks working at Paizo now are former 4e writers. I’m sure at least some of them are fine with 4e, and you can see some noticeable 4e influence on PF2’s design.


----------



## Michael Linke (Yesterday at 9:55 PM)

Olrox17 said:


> It also means he's not exactly an impartial third party in this dispute. Just something to keep in mind.
> I really hope the major 3pp manage to create a strong front against WotC's abuse.



In this case, I don't think it matters.  They're not describing a means for Paizo to continue to have unfettered use of the 3.x SRD via OGL 1.0/a, they're describing drafting a new license so that original game systems can continue to operate on the open source model.  It doesn't directly benefit Paizo in anyway except in garnering good will.


----------



## Umbran (Yesterday at 10:03 PM)

CleverNickName said:


> The last time Hasbro threatened the OGL, Paizo became the #1 selling tabletop RPG company and made a lot of money.
> Maybe history is poised to repeat itself?






Dire Bare said:


> . However, Pathfinder sales didn't eclipse D&D sales until AFTER 4th Edition stopped publication and WotC wasn't producing ANY D&D content for a while.




*Mod Note:*
Folks,
We've seen this crop up before in the OGL threads - let us not get into arguments about who sold best, when.  It doesn't actually matter here, and tends to become acrimonious.


----------



## Yaarel (Yesterday at 10:12 PM)

Heh. Just so everyone knows. That obscure word "potation", relates to "potion", and means "the act of drinking".


----------



## Greg Benage (Yesterday at 10:13 PM)

Yaarel said:


> Heh. Just so everyone knows. That obscure word "potation", relates to "potion", and means "the act of drinking".



Actually, and surprisingly on-topic:


----------



## Desdichado (Yesterday at 10:24 PM)

Charlaquin said:


> Maybe not for Eric Mona, but a lot of the folks working at Paizo now are former 4e writers. I’m sure at least some of them are fine with 4e, and you can see some noticeable 4e influence on PF2’s design.



Eric was specifically talking about the values of Paizo and how much they value open gaming. He also said that they can't be expected to have a coherent response so soon when it impacts their business so deeply, but to expect an announcement soon, and that we'd REALLY hear it.
That's what I'm referring to. I don't expect Paizo to make a side deal.


----------



## Charlaquin (Yesterday at 10:26 PM)

Desdichado said:


> Eric was specifically talking about the values of Paizo and how much they value open gaming. He also said that they can't be expected to have a coherent response so soon when it impacts their business so deeply, but to expect an announcement soon, and that we'd REALLY hear it.
> That's what I'm referring to. I don't expect Paizo to make a side deal.



Oh! I totally misunderstood you initially. Yeah, I think you’re spot on here.


----------



## Staffan (24 minutes ago)

CleverNickName said:


> I wonder how much of that immediate resurrection was due to the less-restrictive OGL, and the influence of third-party publishers?



Likely none, as 5e wasn't released under the OGL originally. That didn't happen until early 2016 (at the same time as the DM's Guild launched), so a little over a year after the initial release.

As I recall, they did speak about it before that, saying essentially that they were going to publish an SRD but needed some time to figure out exactly how much to open it up.


----------



## Greg Benage (13 minutes ago)

Staffan said:


> Likely none, as 5e wasn't released under the OGL originally. That didn't happen until early 2016 (at the same time as the DM's Guild launched), so a little over a year after the initial release.



I mean, @RyanD makes an interesting argument that _Pathfinder_ retained customers that otherwise would have been irrevocably (heh) lost during the 4e years, and that could then be reclaimed by Wizards when 5e was released.


----------

