I'm curious whether Atlas has any rough timeline for decisions on open licensing that it could share with the community?
Nope, no timeline is set. It's basically just a "hey, we want to do this" kind of thing. Continuing to think about it and receive feedback here.
7 Likes
Concerning a future open license, some statement specific to what is allowed in VTT software like Foundry VTT or Roll20 would be a boon.
I had a private conversation with Michelle Nephew on the topic and one of the key points was that if the base software is paid for, it would exclude it as fan content/fair use (edit: to clarify, I got authorization to use the Ars Magica lingo and make the system public, but not as far as I would have liked, see below), even if the Ars magica system/extension for Foundry VTT itself is free and maintained by myself in my free time.
I would like to be able to include in the system what is already available for free on the website like the book of beasts and the grand grimoire of spells. And of course, more material if the future license allows it.
Thank you for reading me
2 Likes
I think I might be tempted to build a "Codex of Hermetic Magic" if/when Open Licensing comes out. A collection of all the TeFo Bases, with additional derived Bases (looking at you unnaturally shaped Ice) and expanded Modifiers. Since it would be a focused project it could devote more text to description and examples.
8 Likes
Yeah, I would fight for unnaturally shaped ice base with examples.
Christopher Allen made a compilation of them and kept updating it. You might find it useful to have a look at it.
You can find it in Atlas' website: https://www.atlas-games.com/pdf_storage/ArM5Guidelines.pdf
1 Like
Hi there!
The months have passed but, unfortunately, I see no news here. Have I lost something, or this topic is on a dead point?
Kind regards
1 Like
It's not dead, it's justā¦ resting.
Pining for the fjordsā¦
Seriously, we haven't had the time to look into it properly yet. It's a major, and irreversible, decision, so it needs to be carefully considered.
9 Likes
and if you consider it long enough its a non issue because the copyright will have expired. (note that is a very long time, don't anyone go chomping at the bit about that, its just hyperbole about how long it seems to be taking)
4 Likes
,,, possibly hyper-hyperbole. 
But it's worth noting that @Chaosium has produced a Revised Edition of their "Big Gold Book" Basic Roleplaying house-engine under the ORC license.
Fans have had the PDF for months; a few lucky bastards got hardcopies at Gen Con, and the rest of us are expecting our hard-copies via the slow-boat from... er... Poland, I think (but maybe China) by next month.
Just sayin' @Atlas Games ...
It's also worth noting that Paizo still have not produced the ORC version of Pathfinder.
Important decisions are not, and should not be, made on internet time.
8 Likes
Oh, yeah, Paizo not moving on this does seem odd. AFAIK, they don't even have a draft document out for review...?
And they are the ones who paid the law-firm to develop the license!
(edit to add: my understanding now is that PF2e was OGL1.0'd before the OGLpocalpse, but Paizo is reviewing the text to double-check that there are no revisions needed: they plan to replace OGL with ORC License for next printing).
Also worth noting is that Chaosium released their generic ruleset under the ORC license, not their main lines (CoC & RQ).
The generic version has always been a "small devoted following" book, not one of their big selling lines. Prior to WotC's OGLpocalypse, the official Chaosium position had been (roughly) "we'll probably push out a new edition, eventually... but it's not a priority and is not getting any developer-time at the moment."
Then, well...
IIRC (and I may well be wrong), from what I understand, the basics of the BASIC system was released as open way back when. I know I saw others use it back in the late 1980'ies. And that game was released in multiple countries.
Sure! I fully understand. Thanks for the update.
It's just that I'm impatient. 
Looking forward to get some cool news.
3 Likes
Paizo also has a long lead time between writing a book and putting it on a shelf. I wouldnāt expect any Paizo Pathfinder books using the ORC for another few months - theyāll need time to scrub all the D&D content, then do all the normal processes to produce a physical book, shipped according to their planned release schedule. Iād almost expect Starfinder material earlier, as it needs less effort to remove any OGL or classically D&D content, but itās going through its own upgrade in the base rules.
(I still believe that removing D&D content entirely is going to require getting rid of the beloved owlbear. It has zero previous historic or mythic existence, itās entirely an invention of the early D&D crew. Now imagine how many times an owlbear shows up in Pathfinder products, or even features heavily in the narrative - Kingmaker, Iām looking at you. Removing them and finding a suitable replacement is going to be brutal. And aboleths, which I think first showed up in the module included included in the old blue box, might be worse. Theyāre rarely encountered at the table, but they feature heavily in the lore.)
2 Likes
The core BRP system was (AFAIK) licensed to several European rpg-makers, but never formally "opened" in any way; the core mechanics were VERY popular in Norse countries. I think some people may have published games based on the pop-culture understanding of "you can't (c) the mechanics, only the words" (but I know of lawyers who find this understanding legally-fraught & inadequately tested in court (largely for lack of multiple big-money litigants to take it repeatedly to trial)).
Mongoose tried to SRD+OGL their version of RQ; but they were working on a license, not ownership, and screwed that up by trying to OGL the non-rules IP (Glorantha, etc); that SRD has been withdrawn.
Chaosium released a VERY minimal version of BRP a few years ago, under their own self-written OGL; but it never got much traction.
Another iron to throw onto the fire: a DTRPG-based "Community Content" program (D&D "DMs Guild" &c):
Atlas would (I hope) provide some document-templates, style sheets, etc. Pointers to good sources of free & cheap stock art; maybe even a few Atlas-commissioned bits for re-use. Add some guidance statements (e.g. "no overt porno" & "no ripping-off other owners' IP" & "only create for ArM 5e rules" & etc etc etc), and retain the ability to yoink anything that goes out of bounds.
I think the standard deal is that creators get 50% of revenue, DTRPG gets 30%, IP owner gets 20%.
WotC has been doing it for a good long time, and obviously finds it worth continuing; but I think several other publishers are also well-pleased (e.g. after CoC's "Miskatonic Repository" proved itself, the same publisher launched the "Jonstown Compendium" for RuneQuest, and then "Explorers Society" for 7th Sea).
This would be a quick and easy halfway house, and a way of testing the market. How many people want to write for ArM5? What sort of stuff might they produce? How many people might buy it? Set up a CCP and find out!
I've published one product under the Miskatonic Repository, and it was a pretty painless process. (In fact, pain comes from not having access to the usual publisher tools I use on my other stuff, like ads and print-on-demand). There's an active support network for writers, and standards are very high, with most of the products being of professional quality (one, Host & Hostility, deservedly won an Ennie this year).