# Paizo How will OGL 1.1 affect Pazio, PF1 and P2?



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

I haven’t heard much discussion on Ze world, but I’m concerned. What does the proposed OGL change mean for Pazio? From the look of it, it undermines all versions of PF and invalidates them. What are your thoughts and concerns?


----------



## Alzrius

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I haven’t heard much discussion on Ze world, but I’m concerned. What does the proposed OGL change mean for Pazio? From the look of it, it undermines all versions of PF and invalidates them. What are your thoughts and concerns?



My concern is that third-party companies currently keeping PF1 alive won't be able to do so anymore. A week ago, I picked up a copy of Legendary Games' _Legendary Companions_ (affiliate link), a book released more than three years after Paizo discontinued their support of PF1. It's an excellent book, and I'm very happy with my purchase, and I liked that more content was coming out for a game that, quite frankly, I'm not done playing. But now, it sounds like that might be going away because of WotC, and I'm a sad panda.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I haven’t heard much discussion on Ze world, but I’m concerned. What does the proposed OGL change mean for Pazio? From the look of it, it undermines all versions of PF and invalidates them. What are your thoughts and concerns?



That would be my thought also.


----------



## Retreater

Yeah, my understanding is if the new OGL stands, Paizo will be in violation and can be sued by WotC (or sign the license and pay 25% - which would be terrible financially.)
So I expect this is the end of Pathfinder and all other OGL compatible content unless they come out with a 3E that doesn't use the OGL.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Retreater said:


> Yeah, my understanding is if the new OGL stands, Paizo will be in violation and can be sued by WotC (or sign the license and pay 25% - which would be terrible financially.)
> So I expect this is the end of Pathfinder and all other OGL compatible content unless they come out with a 3E that doesn't use the OGL.



Or they fight it and win or they negotiate and gain concessions


----------



## JThursby

If Paizo can survive the Pandemic, an edition change, a union, freelancer strike, and Jessica Price drama _all at the same time_, they can survive ripping the OGL 1.0a out of their future products and using some new license.  Worst case scenario, they can't call Magic Missile that name any more in future products and reprints, big deal.  I would be much more worried for the smaller teams and companies out there that may not survive having to distance themselves from D&D.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Retreater said:


> Yeah, my understanding is if the new OGL stands, Paizo will be in violation and can be sued by WotC (or sign the license and pay 25% - which would be terrible financially.)
> So I expect this is the end of Pathfinder and all other OGL compatible content unless they come out with a 3E that doesn't use the OGL.



Personally I feel the current suits in charge of WotC are wrong and hope 3PP fight them. I think they can bring down the house of cards the OGL 1.1 is built on.

I’m not sure Paizo is the one to do it. They have to e most to loose, but I think this can be solved legally for the betterment of  all 3PP.


----------



## Morrus

I’m sure Paizo is having a lot of meetings with lawyers. 

What they do matters. Most of us small OGL publishers are looking to them right now. They’re the standard bearer, whether or not they want to be. If anybody can stand up, they can.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Morrus said:


> I’m sure Paizo is having a lot of meetings with lawyers.
> 
> What they do matters. Most of us small OGL publishers are looking to them right now. They’re the standard bearer, whether or not they want to be. If anybody can stand up, they can.



I also feel really small publishers could do it. I’m trying to convince my DM to publish something with the hope he gets sued. He doesn’t have anything to loose - literally!


----------



## Morrus

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I also feel really small publishers could do it. I’m trying to convince my DM to publish something with the hope he gets sued. He doesn’t have anything to loose - literally!



Well some of us have mortgages and employees who also have mortgages.


----------



## darjr

Morrus said:


> I’m sure Paizo is having a lot of meetings with lawyers.
> 
> What they do matters. Most of us small OGL publishers are looking to them right now. They’re the standard bearer, whether or not they want to be. If anybody can stand up, they can.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Morrus said:


> Well some of us have mortgages and employees who also have mortgages.



Yes, but you are not a really small publisher! I’m talking about one person publisher, self representing, etc.


----------



## Morrus

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Yes, but you are not a really small publisher! I’m talking about one person publisher, self representing, etc.



I assure you I’m a small publisher.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Morrus said:


> I assure you I’m a small publisher.



well I was thinking $5000k or less in revenue type small. On person, one Kickstarter type small.


----------



## Morrus

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> well I was thinking $5000k or less in revenue type small. On person, one Kickstarter type small.



I mean sure you can define ‘small publisher’ however you like, I guess.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

It would appear to me that if the OGL is not defended then it has failed of its original purpose. If Paizo and all the indi OGL games start operating on licences other than the OGL  then OGL has failed.


----------



## Art Waring

I asked this same question in the lawyer thread, and didn't get an answer, but it is a very important and difficult question for Paizo right now.

They have the most on the line, because their entire catalog of content is published under the 1.0a OGL, including video games that I think use the OGL as well.


----------



## Morrus

Art Waring said:


> I asked this same question in the lawyer thread, and didn't get an answer, but it is a very important and difficult question for Paizo right now.



I don't think Paizo's priority right now is rushing a considered legal strategy to Art Waring on the interent.


----------



## Art Waring

Morrus said:


> I don't think Paizo's priority right now is rushing a considered legal strategy to Art Waring on the interent.



Oh for sure, I know I'm pretty insignificant, I may have chosen my words poorly, as I only meant that it's an important question, and I am sure Paizo are working on it as we speak. 

Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## Scribe

Retreater said:


> Yeah, my understanding is if the new OGL stands, Paizo will be in violation and can be sued by WotC (or sign the license and pay 25% - which would be terrible financially.)
> So I expect this is the end of Pathfinder and all other OGL compatible content unless they come out with a 3E that doesn't use the OGL.




I just cannot accept this. It makes me irrationally angry.


----------



## payn

Get ready for the WotC tariffs. Be a shame if anything were to happen to our Pathfinder materials...


----------



## darjr

I'm not a fan of PF2. But I stopped by my FLGS to pick up a copy. They were sold out. They didnt' have a ton of them, but there was a rush on sales.


----------



## Scribe

darjr said:


> I'm not a fan of PF2. But I stopped by my FLGS to pick up a copy. They were sold out. They didnt' have a ton of them, but there was a rush on sales.




Yeah, I'm heading into my local (not really local but closest!) shop tomorrow to see what PF stuff I can buy.


----------



## payn

darjr said:


> I'm not a fan of PF2. But I stopped by my FLGS to pick up a copy. They were sold out. They didnt' have a ton of them, but there was a rush on sales.






Scribe said:


> Yeah, I'm heading into my local (not really local but closest!) shop tomorrow to see what PF stuff I can buy.



Nice, Paizo also has an online shop if you want to hit them up directly.


----------



## darjr

payn said:


> Nice, Paizo also has an online shop if you want to hit them up directly.



I'll go thru my FLGS. Thanks though!


----------



## Scribe

payn said:


> Nice, Paizo also has an online shop if you want to hit them up directly.




Yeah, its hard enough to keep the local shop open, but if there's nothing or not enough to buy there I'll for sure pick up something direct.


----------



## Retreater

My wife wanted to send drinks to the Paizo staff. I suggested maybe purchasing their products would be just as good?


----------



## delericho

I wouldn't place too much hope in Paizo launching a big fight back.

Here's how I see things: WotC's big goal at the moment isn't about money per se (the OGL is small fry) - the main thing they want is to end Open Gaming as a concept. That means getting people to stop using the OGL 1.0 and, ideally, avoiding a challenge in the courts. They know that Paizo are the company best placed to launch that challenge, and also the ones with the most to lose.

Meanwhile for Paizo this is an existential threat - their existing games are too bound to the OGL to carry on as they are, and a court case would be at best highly expensive and very risky.

If I were WotC, therefore, I would offer Paizo a license to continue using anything and everything in the 3e and 5e versions of the SRD, royalty and reporting free, for X years - long enough for them to see out the current editions of Starfinder and Pathfinder. In return, they'd sign away their ability to use the OGL, and the new editions when they come would need to be new enough to avoid the need for an ongoing license.

And that way they both get what they want: Paizo carry on without legal headaches or risks, and WotC nullify their biggest risk. (It also explains their radio silence - negotiations are likely ongoing at how many years they need.)

And if that is the case, I absolutely couldn't fault Paizo for taking the deal. As I said, it's an existential threat, and they have too many people depending on them not to at least consider it strongly.


----------



## QuentinGeorge

delericho said:


> I wouldn't place too much hope in Paizo launching a big fight back.
> 
> Here's how I see things: WotC's big goal at the moment isn't about money per se (the OGL is small fry) - the main thing they want is to end Open Gaming as a concept. That means getting people to stop using the OGL 1.0 and, ideally, avoiding a challenge in the courts. They know that Paizo are the company best placed to launch that challenge, and also the ones with the most to lose.
> 
> Meanwhile for Paizo this is an existential threat - their existing games are too bound to the OGL to carry on as they are, and a court case would be at best highly expensive and very risky.
> 
> If I were WotC, therefore, I would offer Paizo a license to continue using anything and everything in the 3e and 5e versions of the SRD, royalty and reporting free, for X years - long enough for them to see out the current editions of Starfinder and Pathfinder. In return, they'd sign away their ability to use the OGL, and the new editions when they come would need to be new enough to avoid the need for an ongoing license.
> 
> And that way they both get what they want: Paizo carry on without legal headaches or risks, and WotC nullify their biggest risk. (It also explains their radio silence - negotiations are likely ongoing at how many years they need.)
> 
> And if that is the case, I absolutely couldn't fault Paizo for taking the deal. As I said, it's an existential threat, and they have too many people depending on them not to at least consider it strongly.



Yep, that’s 100% what WotC will do. Neutralise Paizo, cut off access to DrivethruRPG and they’ve basically won already.


----------



## delericho

QuentinGeorge said:


> Yep, that’s 100% what WotC will do. Neutralise Paizo, cut off access to DrivethruRPG and they’ve basically won already.



We're at the end of the first day in "Independence Day". The leaker is Jeff Goldblum. And the aliens are about to blow up the White House.

Anyone good with Morse Code?


----------



## Nikosandros

delericho said:


> And if that is the case, I absolutely couldn't fault Paizo for taking the deal. As I said, it's an existential threat, and they have too many people depending on them not to at least consider it strongly.



Yes, it is easy for us to say that we'll burn bridges with WotC (or, conversely, that we don't care what happens with the OGL), but it is another matter entirely when the survival of your company depends on it.


----------



## ReshiIRE

delericho said:


> If I were WotC, therefore, I would offer Paizo a license to continue using anything and everything in the 3e and 5e versions of the SRD, royalty and reporting free, for X years - long enough for them to see out the current editions of Starfinder and Pathfinder.



I don't see Paizo doing that. Like. At all.

That puts a set shelf life on their products - _especially online_. They still sell (I assume) the vast majority of their books for Pathfinder 1e online. They probably still get some sales, which they don't depend on - but I imagine it helps, AND it keeps the Pathfinder 1e community on side.

Plus, it leaves a very open question - what happens to Archives of Nethys in that case? Wouldl it be forced to go down since it would be in violation? That would render all of Paizo's current games very difficult to play.

Paizo would only go for an option that basically gets WoTC to _politely_ go away and leave them alone. Not something that will affect them in a few years, ruins their plans for continued Pathfinder and Starfinder support, breaks apart promises they've had from the beginning - and still allows WoTC some way to jerk them around later.

Because _why would you even trust them to give you x years at this stage?_


----------



## delericho

ReshiIRE said:


> I don't see Paizo doing that. Like. At all.
> 
> That puts a set shelf life on their products - _especially online_. They still sell (I assume) the vast majority of their books for Pathfinder 1e online.



They may find themselves with a choice:

On the one hand, a very generous license agreement that guarantees them several years of sales, after which they have to move away...

Or they take their chances with a very expensive years-long court case, with no guarantee of winning and, very likely, an injunction that stops them selling anything _new_ immediately.

The thing is that unless WotC make a massive climbdown (which is possible, of course), the OGL can now no longer be considered a safe harbor for development. Unless someone wins a case to prove that it is irrevocable the next editions of Starfinder and Pathfinder will have to move to be OGL-free anyway.



ReshiIRE said:


> Because _why would you even trust them to give you x years at this stage?_



Because the license agreement would be vetted by the lawyers on both sides. Besides, WotC want the OGL to go away - it's in their interests not to violate an agreement that achieves that.


----------



## Morrus

Retreater said:


> Yeah, my understanding is if the new OGL stands, Paizo will be in violation and can be sued by WotC (or sign the license and pay 25% - which would be terrible financially.)



Indeed. For a small company which manages a hit a million dollars on Kickstarter it's a hefty sum. For a company like Paizo, that initial $750K is almost irrelevant -- they'd be paying 25% of millions.


----------



## ReshiIRE

delericho said:


> Because the license agreement would be vetted by the lawyers on both sides. Besides, WotC want the OGL to go away - it's in their interests not to violate an agreement that achieves that.



Considering that WoTC is doing this in the first place when everyone else understood the revocation to be impossible and lawyers (who, to be fair, haven't seen the documents) are disagreeing on all sides - and there have been clear cases in the past where corporate lawyers have done what they have bene told, not necessarily the law - I _really_ don't think you'd want to trust WoTC to have a legally tight agreement and that they wont' later try to naughty word it up.

As for your other points, as Morrus said if Paizo try to hammer out an agreement they could run into an issue with the royalty bollocks WoTC wants and could find it impossible to get an agreement anyway. Because they will glady spend any of that potential royalty money on a court case. Especially if there isn't an injection, which seems highly unlikely to be granted since it would make zero bloody sense.


----------



## Nilbog

darjr said:


> View attachment 271598
> View attachment 271602




Whatever you think of PF2E, the man has fine taste in whisky


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> I'm not a fan of PF2. But I stopped by my FLGS to pick up a copy. They were sold out. They didnt' have a ton of them, but there was a rush on sales.



I just started a Starfinder campaign and ordered books.


----------



## S'mon

If I were WoTC, determined to destroy Open Gaming, and thinking evil-rational, I would indeed be offering VERY generous (NDA'd) bespoke licence terms to Paizo, Kobold Press, and other major players. It would be worth spending millions of $ now to neutralise them as opponents. 

That's what the rational Evil Overlord would do. But it's a funny thing, even IRL, few villains act with that kind of cold rationality. Everything I'm hearing indicates that WoTC leadership is thinking more like Gollum when Bilbo took the Ring. They think Paizo "stole their IP" and they are "out for blood". Apparently this kind of seemingly deranged attitude can actually impress investors, at least until the consequences become clear. They seem much more Putin 2022 than Putin 2012, to use a political analogy.


----------



## S'mon

Re injunctions, this does not look at all like the kind of case where an injunction would be obtainable here in England. I know in the USA you can do forum shopping for an amenable judge, and I've seen weird interim injunctions granted, but they don't tend to last long at all. I find it hard to believe WotC could get a blanket injunction to stop sales under the OGL pending trial.


----------



## Retreater

There's also Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous video games that would go away, so Owlcat is involved.
I can't imagine a world where they let this pass peacefully.


----------



## Reynard

S'mon said:


> If I were WoTC, determined to destroy Open Gaming, and thinking evil-rational, I would indeed be offering VERY generous (NDA'd) bespoke licence terms to Paizo, Kobold Press, and other major players. It would be worth spending millions of $ now to neutralise them as opponents.
> 
> That's what the rational Evil Overlord would do. But it's a funny thing, even IRL, few villains act with that kind of cold rationality. Everything I'm hearing indicates that WoTC leadership is thinking more like Gollum when Bilbo took the Ring. They think Paizo "stole their IP" and they are "out for blood". Apparently this kind of seemingly deranged attitude can actually impress investors, at least until the consequences become clear. They seem much more Putin 2022 than Putin 2012, to use a political analogy.



I think that is exactly what they will do. They are going to shore up partnerships with the most consequential 3PPs (and probably other content creators) and thus be able to claim they aren't killing Open Gaming when they are. You really can't blame a company like Kobold for getting on board, either, given the vast majority of their revenue is generated from 5e compatible OGL content.


----------



## Reynard

Retreater said:


> There's also Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous video games that would go away, so Owlcat is involved.
> I can't imagine a world where they let this pass peacefully.



Obviously those games are based on Pathfinder and pretty true to the tabletop systems so they are descended from the OGL, but I have never looked to see if either game actually carries the OGL.


----------



## ReshiIRE

Retreater said:


> There's also Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous video games that would go away, so Owlcat is involved.
> I can't imagine a world where they let this pass peacefully.



That's an interesting question to raise.

Surely _they_ cannot be affected, right? Because that could bring the wider game industry into the mix. Which could affect WoTC's own licensed titles?


----------



## FormerLurker

delericho said:


> I wouldn't place too much hope in Paizo launching a big fight back.
> 
> Here's how I see things: WotC's big goal at the moment isn't about money per se (the OGL is small fry) - the main thing they want is to end Open Gaming as a concept. That means getting people to stop using the OGL 1.0 and, ideally, avoiding a challenge in the courts. They know that Paizo are the company best placed to launch that challenge, and also the ones with the most to lose.
> 
> Meanwhile for Paizo this is an existential threat - their existing games are too bound to the OGL to carry on as they are, and a court case would be at best highly expensive and very risky.
> 
> If I were WotC, therefore, I would offer Paizo a license to continue using anything and everything in the 3e and 5e versions of the SRD, royalty and reporting free, for X years - long enough for them to see out the current editions of Starfinder and Pathfinder. In return, they'd sign away their ability to use the OGL, and the new editions when they come would need to be new enough to avoid the need for an ongoing license.
> 
> And that way they both get what they want: Paizo carry on without legal headaches or risks, and WotC nullify their biggest risk. (It also explains their radio silence - negotiations are likely ongoing at how many years they need.)
> 
> And if that is the case, I absolutely couldn't fault Paizo for taking the deal. As I said, it's an existential threat, and they have too many people depending on them not to at least consider it strongly.



Paizo was burned by WotC when they pulled Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and then again when WotC didn't let them preview the 4e rules. They won't tie their company to a license that WotC could yank again at any time. 
Paizo will fight.
Paizo will almost certainly launch a GoFundMe or some equivalent, tapping the entire gaming community for funds to fight. And likely ask for an injunction blocking the 1.1 OGL until the trial is complete, so they can continue selling in the meantime.

Similarly, WotC doesn't want competition. That's part of the point of pulling the 1.0a license. They'll know if Pathfinder goes away the #3 game (or #4 as 3PP were #3) will be an insignificant threat.
They're not going to bother with an olive branch when they're getting what they want. Especially when PF2 could be around for another six or seven years.

As for why there's silence... Paizo likely knows this is not a set deal yet. The D&D team and the Paizo team are actually pretty close. There's a lot of former Paizo workers in the D&D team. There's probably a lot of quiet "off the record" chatter. Paizo knows not to start a fight now and push WotC into an early reactive response when the fan community and public backlash might be working. 
If Paizo stirs up their fans, the outrage seems manufactured and based around non-D&D fans. WotC management can more easily dismiss it as the competitors customers. If Paizo is silent and neutral, then WotC can be more uncertain and worried about lost sales.


----------



## Retreater

ReshiIRE said:


> That's an interesting question to raise.
> 
> Surely _they_ cannot be affected, right? Because that could bring the wider game industry into the mix. Which could affect WoTC's own licensed titles?



OGL 1.1 specifically calls out video games as not being compatible with that license.


----------



## Staffan

S'mon said:


> Re injunctions, this does not look at all like the kind of case where an injunction would be obtainable here in England. I know in the USA you can do forum shopping for an amenable judge, and I've seen weird interim injunctions granted, but they don't tend to last long at all. I find it hard to believe WotC could get a blanket injunction to stop sales under the OGL pending trial.



My understanding of injunctions (which admittedly mainly comes from watching Legal Eagle videos) in particular is that injunctions are a tool for preventing possible "irreparable harm", which is almost never of a financial nature.

For example, let's say I'm Pentex. I run an industry that creates a lot of toxic waste, and I want to dump it into the nearby river. Someone sues me to stop me from doing that, and let's say that the laws are a bit muddy on the issue of whether I can dump this particular type of toxic waste in the river. The court could very well find that my toxic waste could kill off a lot of wildlife in that area, and serve me with an injunction stopping me from dumping things until we get this whole thing sorted.

But if I'm publishing a book that might infringe on someone else's copyright. The only harm to them would be financial. The court would be unlikely to grant an injunction preventing me from publishing the book. If I eventually lose the suit, the damages will probably be higher if I went ahead and published it, because at that point I've made actual money from it.


----------



## darjr

I don’t know if they need to fight. Just change the license going forward and change what’s in new products.

Whatever whoever at WotC thought they were doing it seems they made a thing people do not want and can walk away from. The desired thing is to just ignore WotC now.


----------



## Reynard

Just for my own clarity: if WotC does come out with something that effectively stops Paizo from publishing OGL 1.0a material,  it would be incumbent on WotC itself to sue to stop Paizo, not Paizo having to sue to keep publishing, right? And in that case couldn't Paizo (and everyone else) keep publishing for years until it was sorted?


----------



## Retreater

Reynard said:


> Just for my own clarity: if WotC does come out with something that effectively stops Paizo from publishing OGL 1.0a material,  it would be incumbent on WotC itself to sue to stop Paizo, not Paizo having to sue to keep publishing, right? And in that case couldn't Paizo (and everyone else) keep publishing for years until it was sorted?



They could, but it would be financially risky to continue with business as usual after receiving a Cease and Desist. They could be liable for millions of dollars worth of damages.


----------



## Reynard

Retreater said:


> They could, but it would be financially risky to continue with business as usual after receiving a Cease and Desist. They could be liable for millions of dollars worth of damages.



I imagine we will get something from Paizo when the new OGL drops, and not before.


----------



## Morrus

FormerLurker said:


> Paizo will almost certainly launch a GoFundMe or some equivalent, tapping the entire gaming community for funds to fight.



They almost certainly will not!


----------



## FormerLurker

Morrus said:


> They almost certainly will not!



What's your reasoning?

They'll need money for a protracted legal battle with Hasbro lawyers. They might not be able to sell existing products, and any "fundraiser" items would have production costs to make, reducing the total funds available for lawyers. 
Collection donations from the fans seems like the best way, either on an existing platform (GoFundMe) or setting up something on their own website.


----------



## Morrus

FormerLurker said:


> What's your reasoning?
> 
> They'll need money for a protracted legal battle with Hasbro lawyers. They might not be able to sell existing products, and any "fundraiser" items would have production costs to make, reducing the total funds available for lawyers.
> Collection donations from the fans seems like the best way, either on an existing platform (GoFundMe) or setting up something on their own website.



Paizo is a multi-million dollar company with over 100 employees. They don't run fundraisers for legel fees.


----------



## FormerLurker

Morrus said:


> Paizo is a multi-million dollar company with over 100 employees. They don't run fundraisers for legel fees.



Right. _Over a hundred employees. _
Paizo likely has some decent cash reserves. Probably stretched after the shippocalypse and due to the pandemic. But they can probably coast for a few months. But six? A year? All while paying for office space in Redmond, Washington and the full salaries & benefits of its unionized employees.

The next three or four months of Paizo products are likely already locked in, at various production stages of printing or shipping. Including the big hardcovers _Starfinder Ports of Call, _the _Fists of the Ruby Phoenix _collection, and like three special editions. Plus the monthly adventure paths. All of which would be in the red, and would hurt Paizo if they had to just sit in a warehouse. 
They _might_ be able to have some employees strip away the mechanics for later releases and do system neutral adventures and campaign books, but getting those books to fans would be months away. 

Then add expensive lawyer fees on top, in a protracted legal battle that might last a year. 

Either they crowdfund lawyer fees or they cut most of their staff.


----------



## Morrus

FormerLurker said:


> Right. _Over a hundred employees. _
> Paizo likely has some decent cash reserves. Probably stretched after the shippocalypse and due to the pandemic. But they can probably coast for a few months. But six? A year? All while paying for office space in Redmond, Washington and the full salaries & benefits of its unionized employees.
> 
> The next three or four months of Paizo products are likely already locked in, at various production stages of printing or shipping. Including the big hardcovers _Starfinder Ports of Call, _the _Fists of the Ruby Phoenix _collection, and like three special editions. Plus the monthly adventure paths. All of which would be in the red, and would hurt Paizo if they had to just sit in a warehouse.
> They _might_ be able to have some employees strip away the mechanics for later releases and do system neutral adventures and campaign books, but getting those books to fans would be months away.
> 
> Then add expensive lawyer fees on top, in a protracted legal battle that might last a year.
> 
> Either they crowdfund lawyer fees or they cut most of their staff.





I'm willing to place a sizeable wager? That's how sure I am that Paizo will not launch a GoFundMe for legal fees.


----------



## JThursby

I don't understand the commentators saying that Paizo's only remaining move is to roll over and die.  Do people think they are some mom-and-pop shop with no money whatsoever?  That they had never once considered the possibility that the OGL may come under attack and have no plan, no response?  The vast majority of their product is already legally distinct from D&D now, they can just rip out the OGL and replace it with something else going forward if they really have to.


FormerLurker said:


> Either they crowdfund lawyer fees or they cut most of their staff.



In what universe is a single legal battle (assuming one is fought at all) going to be harder to withstand than the entirety of the Pandemic?  If the company was so fragile and on a razor's edge of going kaput, Covid would have killed them first.  There's also the ability to just run a big sale if they need quick capital.  Or they can get a loan.  Lots of possibilities out there without just declaring defeat without a fight.


----------



## Morrus

I've seen some speculation that PF2E is far enough away from the 3E SRD that it doesn't actually need the OGL, and that they can simply strip the OGL from the book and use some other license to allow their 3PP commubity to produce for it. I don't know how valid that is.


----------



## JThursby

Morrus said:


> I've seen some speculation that PF2E is far enough away from the 3E SRD that it doesn't actually need the OGL, and that they can simply strip the OGL from the book and use some other license to allow their 3PP commubity to produce for it. I don't know how valid that is.



I couldn't find the original reddit post, but this image was shared by Rise of the Rulelords on Twitter, which has a quote from Michael Sayre of Paizo management on why 2e is still using the OGL.  TL;DR, it didn't really have to, but did anyways because they estimated it would have been less of a headache for 3pp.


----------



## Morrus

Yeah, from that is sounds like - for Paizo at least - simply not using the OGL is a possibly viable route out of this.


----------



## John R Davis

Morrus said:


> Yeah, from that is sounds like -for Paizo at least - simply not using the OGL is a possibly viable route out of this.



The kicker for them is though PF2 is steps away from OGL stuff; starfinder isn't. It may mean they need to accelerate SF2 which may be very inconvenient.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Retreater said:


> Yeah, my understanding is if the new OGL stands, Paizo will be in violation and can be sued by WotC (or sign the license and pay 25% - which would be terrible financially.)
> So I expect this is the end of Pathfinder and all other OGL compatible content unless they come out with a 3E that doesn't use the OGL.




 More likely Pathfinder sues WotC for various things wins and OGL 1.1 is scrapped (even more likely is it never gets released).


----------



## JThursby

Morrus said:


> Yeah, from that is sounds like - for Paizo at least - simply not using the OGL is a possibly viable route out of this.



I imagine most publishers are thinking along similar lines, assuming that it's open as a possibility for them.  Even if the 1.1 OGL draft forever remains a draft, Wizards has opened the Pandora's box by introducing the possibility that OGL 1.0a can be ended and they can peruse legal action against you.  Previously, a game leaving the OGL would have been a killer headline; "Paizo abandons open gaming for it's 2nd edition!" would have be a PR nightmare.  Now, leaving the OGL is simply the prudent thing to do, and nobody would fault anyone for taking refuge from potential litigation.


----------



## Retreater

Wonder if they could just reprint the core book without the OGL? Since they've already been using it, that could show Hasbro's lawyers that PF2 was actually using it.


----------



## Retreater

Henadic Theologian said:


> More likely Pathfinder sues WotC for various things wins and OGL 1.1 is scrapped (even more likely is it never gets released).



I think you underestimate the war chest of Hasbro's legal team. And Paizo is likely their enemy #1 in making OGL 1.1.


----------



## FormerLurker

JThursby said:


> I don't understand the commentators saying that Paizo's only remaining move is to roll over and die.  Do people think they are some mom-and-pop shop with no money whatsoever?



Do you know the best way to make a small fortune in tabletop gaming?
Start with a large fortune.

They're not some mom-and-pop but they're also not a huge corporation with $100 million just collecting dust in the vaults. Employees cost money. Staff salaries alone likely cost Paizo half-a-million monthly. Plus office space. Plus the printing runs for a half-dozen hardcover books: $10 to print, times 200,000 copies is a couple million per book. 
They can't just sit around and burn money for six months or a year. Heck, they couldn't even stop selling PF1 books while building to PF2 and needed to sell playtests to recoup development costs.


JThursby said:


> That they had never once considered the possibility that the OGL may come under attack and have no plan, no response?  The vast majority of their product is already legally distinct from D&D now, they can just rip out the OGL and replace it with something else going forward if they really have to.



But they didn't. And the old product still uses it. 
They'd have to go through and re-edit all their old PF2 books to make sure they're non-OGL compliant. 


JThursby said:


> In what universe is a single legal battle (assuming one is fought at all) going to be harder to withstand than the entirety of the Pandemic?  If the company was so fragile and on a razor's edge of going kaput, Covid would have killed them first.  There's also the ability to just run a big sale if they need quick capital.  Or they can get a loan.  Lots of possibilities out there without just declaring defeat without a fight.



How can you run a big sale if the majority of your content can't be sold?
Loans are an option. But require collateral. And if they lose the legal fight, they'll never be able to repay the loan.
And as you imply, the pandemic would have also hurt them hard. Shrunk their reserves. This could be the one-two punch that takes them down.
It's not like larger gaming companies haven't folded...


----------



## Reynard

John R Davis said:


> The kicker for them is though PF2 is steps away from OGL stuff; starfinder isn't. It may mean they need to accelerate SF2 which may be very inconvenient.



Weird. I think Starfinder is as far away as PF2 (as a user and someone who has done a dab of freelance for it).


----------



## Reynard

Henadic Theologian said:


> More likely Pathfinder sues WotC for various things wins and OGL 1.1 is scrapped (even more likely is it never gets released).



This is pure fantasy.


----------



## Morrus

FormerLurker said:


> $10 to print, times 200,000 copies is a couple million per book.



Paizo doesn't pay $10 to print a book. Even ENP doesn't pay anywhere near that, and our economies of scale are literally orders of magnitude lower than Paizo's. When you're printing that many books the cost per unit is tiny. Trust me, I do this for a living.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> I've seen some speculation that PF2E is far enough away from the 3E SRD that it doesn't actually need the OGL, and that they can simply strip the OGL from the book and use some other license to allow their 3PP commubity to produce for it. I don't know how valid that is.



The one thing that concerns me about that is if they do that, and WotC files suit against them on the grounds that PF2 infringes on 3.5 D&D (since that's the SRD that it uses) – which I don't think is likely, but then again I didn't think it was likely that WotC would try to kill the OGL v1.0a entirely – then Paizo might be in an awkward position if WotC asserts that them (Paizo) using the OGL and 3.5 SRD in PF2 is a tacit admission that its game mechanics are based off of D&D. (That quote above says otherwise, but I wonder how convincing a judge would find that.)


----------



## JThursby

Alzrius said:


> then Paizo might be in an awkward position if WotC asserts that them (Paizo) using the OGL and 3.5 SRD in PF2 is a tacit admission that its game mechanics are based off of D&D.



They would need to proffer a specific, compelling instance of a breach of the OGL 1.0a terms.  They can't just say that using the Open Game License is in and of itself an admission of intent to breach copyright, that would be cartoonish and absurd.


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> The one thing that concerns me about that is if they do that, and WotC files suit against them on the grounds that PF2 infringes on 3.5 D&D (since that's the SRD that it uses) – which I don't think is likely, but then again I didn't think it was likely that WotC would try to kill the OGL v1.0a entirely – then Paizo might be in an awkward position if WotC asserts that them (Paizo) using the OGL and 3.5 SRD in PF2 is a tacit admission that its game mechanics are based off of D&D. (That quote above says otherwise, but I wonder how convincing a judge would find that.)



For me the worry is more that if they do, they aren't the ones who will fight this for us.


----------



## Alzrius

JThursby said:


> They would need to proffer a specific, compelling instance of a breach of the OGL 1.0a terms.  They can't just say that using the Open Game License is in and of itself an admission of intent to breach copyright, that would be cartoonish and absurd.



I don't think you understood what I was saying; I was purporting that if Paizo released PF2 _without_ using the OGL, putting forward the idea that the game is different enough from D&D that it stands on its own as an independent product, then the fact that it previously used the OGL could potentially undercut that claim.


----------



## JThursby

Alzrius said:


> I don't think you understood what I was saying;



Let me see if I understand correctly then.


Alzrius said:


> The one thing that concerns me about that is if they do that, and WotC files suit against them on the grounds that PF2 infringes on 3.5 D&D (since that's the SRD that it uses)



This is what you think Wizards would sue Paizo over: their current product line being a copyright infringement on their IP.  The evidence they would bring is that Pathfinder used to be an OGL product, and then re-released as a re-tooled version without the use of the OGL anywhere.  The argument being that because Pathfinder originally depended on the OGL it as a product is inextricably linked to D&D, and making an OGL-less version is a breach of copyrighted material because of that previous association.  I do not think that has any merit.


----------



## CapnZapp

I would very much like to be able to just profess general encouragement and to offer vaguely well-meaning hopes for the best. 

But I can't. I found the PF2 rules so excruciatingly ill fitted for their purpose that I can't turn away from the realization that if this here OGL debacle prompts Paizo to switch to another set of rules to use for their future Golarion adventures, that'd be a good thing.


----------



## Alzrius

JThursby said:


> Let me see if I understand correctly then.
> 
> This is what you think Wizards would sue Paizo over: their current product line being a copyright infringement on their IP.



You missed the part where I said "if they do that." The "do that" in question was in reference to Morrus' post about stripping the OGL out of PF2 and publishing it that way (albeit with a different license to let third-parties publish compatible material). 

Their _current_ product line is the one that right now is under the OGL, which hasn't been revoked yet, and so isn't an infringement. Publishing it as it is, _without_ the OGL, though? That might be.


JThursby said:


> The argument being that because Pathfinder originally depended on the OGL it as a product is inextricably linked to D&D



No, that because Pathfinder was originally dependent on the OGL _and the 3.5 SRD_, releasing a version of it that was identical to the one they're currently making, save for stripping out the OGL, would be potentially an infringement on WotC's copyright. Or rather, that WotC could potentially push that claim.


----------



## Morrus

CapnZapp said:


> I would very much like to be able to just profess general encouragement and to offer vaguely well-meaning hopes for the best.
> 
> But I can't.



I'm sorry to hear that.


----------



## JThursby

Alzrius said:


> Their _current_ product line is the one that right now is under the OGL, which hasn't been revoked yet, and so isn't an infringement. Publishing it as it is, _without_ the OGL, though? That might be.



From the Paizo management quote I posted earlier, it appears that Paizo believes 2e is distinct enough that it could have been published without the OGL (probably with some minor alterations to some spell and creature names).  They've already done their homework and do not depend on the old SRD.


----------



## Alzrius

JThursby said:


> From the Paizo management quote I posted earlier, it appears that Paizo believes 2e is distinct enough that it could have been published without the OGL (probably with some minor alterations to some spell and creature names).  They've already done their homework and do not depend on the old SRD.



That's the claim they're making; it's far from inconceivable that WotC would refute that idea, and whether or not they're correct would be up for a judge to decide.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Retreater said:


> I think you underestimate the war chest of Hasbro's legal team. And Paizo is likely their enemy #1 in making OGL 1.1.




 It's not always about the the size of war chests, it's sometimes is the Juice Worth The Squeeze?


----------



## FormerLurker

Morrus said:


> Paizo doesn't pay $10 to print a book. Even ENP doesn't pay anywhere near that, and our economies of scale are literally orders of magnitude lower than Paizo's. When you're printing that many books the cost per unit is tiny. Trust me, I do this for a living.



Ballparking based on the "20/20/20/40" rule where you spend 20% on printing, 20% on distribution, and the store/ retailer gets 40% with the publisher getting 20% to offset costs. Because it's a good baseline. With a $50 book that's $10 to Paizo and $10 to the printer. 
Not precisely accurate, at Paizo also sells directly so they also get a taste of the retailer money. And there's also now shipping costs from the printer to factor in, which have gone up and up. 
But it's a good rule of thumb and starting point for back-of-the-envelope math.
It's not like anyone is sharing more precise numbers...

Of course, the number I threw out was just printing and didn't take into account the other production costs: art, writing, editing, layout. And since Paizo doesn't collect from crowdsourcing, that would all have been paid in advance.

Take what it cost you to do a Level Up core book then triple the art budget and that's how much they might be in the whole. For three or four books.


----------



## Morrus

FormerLurker said:


> Ballparking based on the "20/20/20/40" rule where you spend 20% on printing, 20% on distribution, and the store/ retailer gets 40% with the publisher getting 20% to offset costs. Because it's a good baseline. With a $50 book that's $10 to Paizo and $10 to the printer.



Again, as somebody who publishes books, I assure you that Paizo doesn’t pay $10 to print a book.


----------



## Alzrius

Morrus said:


> Again, as somebody who publishes books, I assure you that Paizo doesn’t pay $10 to print a book.



Your best guess, then: what _do_ they pay?


----------



## FormerLurker

Morrus said:


> Again, as somebody who publishes books, I assure you that Paizo doesn’t pay $10 to print a book.



That's nice.
But unless you're willing to add any information to the conversation, such as the actual cost of printing & shipping, then that doesn't really further the discussion. You're basically just saying "_nuh-uh._"


----------



## Morrus

Alzrius said:


> Your best guess, then: what _do_ they pay?



We pay less than half that for a standard hardcover with a print run of a few thousand. The cost per unit drops _massively_ as the quantity rises.


----------



## Lord Shark

FormerLurker said:


> They can't just sit around and burn money for six months or a year. Heck, they couldn't even stop selling PF1 books while building to PF2 and needed to sell playtests to recoup development costs.



While I agree with your larger point, this isn't correct. The PF2E playtest was free. They did print and sell some hardcover copies of the playtest rules, but those were aimed at collectors and completists; you didn't have to buy one to participate in the playtest. I seriously doubt they sold enough to cover anywhere near the development costs.


----------



## Umbran

So, I don't know if anyone else noticed this...

Back on _Thursday, January 5th_, I got an e-mail from Paizo, noting that the PDF of the core rulebook had been updated to the 4th printing.

The timing of that seems... very much a coincidence.  Almost like Paizo going, "Hey, folks, download it now, just in case," or something.


----------



## Sonny

Umbran said:


> So, I don't know if anyone else noticed this...
> 
> Back on _Thursday, January 12th_, I got an e-mail from Paizo, noting that the PDF of the core rulebook had been updated to the 4th printing.
> 
> The timing of that seems... very much a coincidence.  Almost like Paizo going, "Hey, folks, download it now, just in case," or something.



That does seem a bit odd, and makes me wanna purchase a copy of their pdfs just in case. 

Also, you're on the 12th already? Where do I get the 2023 fastpass at?


----------



## Justice and Rule

Umbran said:


> So, I don't know if anyone else noticed this...
> 
> Back on _Thursday, January 12th_, I got an e-mail from Paizo, noting that the PDF of the core rulebook had been updated to the 4th printing.
> 
> The timing of that seems... very much a coincidence.  Almost like Paizo going, "Hey, folks, download it now, just in case," or something.




Maybe, but they also put out a release about how they were going to do be doing errata more consistently than they have been in the past. Might be part of that? Also they did their whole ancestry boosts change recently.

Not that it couldn't be something more, but I get the feeling that it's probably coincidence.


----------



## Sonny

Good point, I forgot about the errata change and the Ancestry boosts.


----------



## Umbran

Sonny said:


> Also, you're on the 12th already? Where do I get the 2023 fastpass at?




Do not ascribe to the wonders of time travel that which can be suitably explained by embarrassing oneself reading the wrong week on the calendar.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Wouldn’t tha


Morrus said:


> Indeed. For a small company which manages a hit a million dollars on Kickstarter it's a hefty sum. For a company like Paizo, that initial $750K is almost irrelevant -- they'd be paying 25% of millions.



Wouldn’t that push them to fight this in court then? Pay 25% in fees forever or take an own time court / lawyer hit. Seems simple math to me.


----------



## Maxperson

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Wouldn’t tha
> 
> Wouldn’t that push them to fight this in court then? Pay 25% in fees forever or take an own time court / lawyer hit. Seems simple math to me.



Paizo has other avenues it can travel down.


----------



## JmanTheDM

Morrus said:


> They almost certainly will not!



IANAL.  and I am not a US Citizen - so, what do I know?

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm not following all the discussions, like at all.
but isn't this entire issue (if its true), purpose built for a class action suit (assuming it can certify)?  Paizo may need to take a lead to try and certify this - but then, unlike a gofundme or other sources of funding, a consortium of 3PP's, content creators, small publishers, video games publishers et. al. can join this one class action and spread costs across all parties and have a single representative voice when confronting WotC?

Cheers,

J.


----------



## nevin

If i were planning to avoid this mess, i'd scrub PF 2e and make sure it has no OGL content.

Then i'd stuck up a share and post all my companies OGL content (pf1e) stuff for free giving people all the 1E lots of content that competes directly with DND  under old OGL and then make my own OGL for publishers and try to grow PF2E  by giving all the 3rd party publishers a better place to go. 

almost none of the DND branded material is the best content.  Paizo and other publishers regularly make better content than DND.


----------



## Reynard

nevin said:


> If i were planning to avoid this mess, i'd scrub PF 2e and make sure it has no OGL content.



How many millions of dollars do you think that would cost?


----------



## nevin

less than 25% perpetually


----------



## amethal

nevin said:


> If i were planning to avoid this mess, i'd scrub PF 2e and make sure it has no OGL content.
> 
> Then i'd stuck up a share and post all my companies OGL content (pf1e) stuff for free giving people all the 1E lots of content that competes directly with DND  under old OGL and then make my own OGL for publishers and try to grow PF2E  by giving all the 3rd party publishers a better place to go.



Are you familiar with Archive of Nethys?


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Reynard said:


> How many millions of dollars do you think that would cost?



I would guess less than 1million actually. PF2 doesn’t need to much scrubbing IMO


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

JmanTheDM said:


> IANAL.  and I am not a US Citizen - so, what do I know?
> 
> I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but I'm not following all the discussions, like at all.
> but isn't this entire issue (if its true), purpose built for a class action suit (assuming it can certify)?  Paizo may need to take a lead to try and certify this - but then, unlike a gofundme or other sources of funding, a consortium of 3PP's, content creators, small publishers, video games publishers et. al. can join this one class action and spread costs across all parties and have a single representative voice when confronting WotC?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> J.



Can you do a class action as a defendant?


----------



## Reynard

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> I would guess less than 1million actually. PF2 doesn’t need to much scrubbing IMO



It was previously published under the OGL. That would hurt them trying to put out an edition that search replace "Armor Clas" for "Defense Class."


----------

