The ORC

[Diamond Spear]

Will Palladium be releasing its books under the ORC (Open RPG Creative License) going forward? If not, why not?

[NMI]

Palladium has never used an Open Gaming License of any kind and continues to avoid it. The "why's" are numerous.

[Diamond Spear]

You say the “whys” are numerous, can you expand on that please? OGLs have been the greatest thing for the industry since its creation. Without them it’s debatable if the hobby would be as big as it is today. And with respect to Palladium specifically, as much as we love it we all know what a mess their release schedule is. If third party publishers were able to put out product, interest in the game (and thus sales of both core books and back catalogue) would soar. By avoiding publishing under an OGL like the ORC Palladium is limiting its reach.

[NMI]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53080

[Diamond Spear]

That’s a link to a seventeen year old topic on why Palladium won’t do a D20 conversion. It has absolutely zero to do with the question about Palladium publishing under an OGL. Can you please explain the point you were going for? I can’t see it.

[NMI]

Your best bet to get an official answer is to either call or write a letter to the main office. I will though let them know of this topic via email and leave it up to them to respond.

[The Dark Elf]

They answered this in one of the weekly updates I almost sure. It was definitely this year, but you'll have to do the trawling.

[Glistam]

They answered this in one of the weekly updates I almost sure. It was definitely this year, but you'll have to do the trawling.

Sean and Kevin both made comments about the OGL and their commitment to avoid doing one themselves in the January 12, January 19, and January 20 updates in 2023. Those comments do not specifically address the Open RPG Creative (ORC) License which was announced by Paizo and rallied around by numerous other companies during WotC's proposed OGL updates.

One could read Palladium's comments about Open Gaming Licenses in those updates and infer that due to their stance and "pat on the back" foresight to never get involved with the original OGL, they will likely not even look into the ORC. While their main reason to avoid an OGL is not applicable to the ORC, they are committed to holding fast against against open gaming licenses in general and I do not expect they will look any further into the matter.

Instead they remarked in January that they were open to licensing their worlds to other games, similar to how they licensed to Savage Worlds, and remarked that they had (at that time) received inquiries from two companies about doing that.

[Killer Cyborg]

They answered this in one of the weekly updates I almost sure. It was definitely this year, but you'll have to do the trawling.

Sean and Kevin both made comments about the OGL and their commitment to avoid doing one themselves in the January 12, January 19, and January 20 updates in 2023. Those comments do not specifically address the Open RPG Creative (ORC) License which was announced by Paizo and rallied around by numerous other companies during WotC's proposed OGL updates.

People for nearly 2 decades:
Do you like dogs?

Palladium for nearly 2 decades:
No, we don't like dogs.

People, still:
But what about THIS dog? Do you like him?
Ain't he a cutie?

Why won't anybody answer me?

SOMEBODY answer me!?

Maybe THIS dog is different!!

[Curbludgeon]

ORC is rather more open than I think a lot of publishers would want to sign onto. PEG put out a couple of Test Drives (I think that's the name) which ain't a bad compromise. As licenses go I'm a fan of a CC-BY-NC-SA license, which is little different than the situation in most of the RPG social space save enforcing a tad more attribution.