Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

So why not just use Creative Commons or some such?

"open, perpetual, and irrevocable"

CC may be open, but the last two would be important for 3rd parties

Creative commons is irrevocable and perpetual.

> Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: [...]

And as for the term:

> This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here.

Meaning, the CC license ends when the work becomes public domain. Which is a more correct way of saying it's perpetual.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (same for the other variants)

The irony of it is Wizards is very clearly afraid of a second Pathfinder scenario, where their fans are pissed at an edition changes/changes and turn to third parties to keep playing the game they like after Wizards stops supporting it.

And all they've done is encourage people to do just that.

And it's baffling. I thought OneDnD was supposed to be 5E+ or something? If the new game is meant to be backwards compatible, then why would anyone turn explicitly to third parties? The game they have should still be viable if they want to keep playing it.

This is the second time in 2 years Wizards has somehow managed to have a message so mixed, it not only creates all their problems but makes them look super scummy because now I guess they were lying about their goals for OneDnD? Or not? IDK. Doesn't seem like they have any idea what they're trying to sell. They sure want to be the only ones selling whatever it is.

[removed]

It's not the right tool for the job. The original draftees of the OGL discussed using it back then also but wanted a specific, concise, tailor-made license. Many of those individuals are the same ones now making the ORC.

[deleted]

You mean like the OGL did before? Because it is totally legal to reprint most of the 3.x core rules and Pathfinder and even take money for it. The OGL is all about copying the SRD verbatim.

If they do what you say, they are going the same way as WotC: Offering a more restrictive license than the OGL before.

Also making expansions, modules and scenarios does not require a license at all.

Probably because this is better PR for them.