What's All This About The OGL Going Away?

This last week I've seen videos, tweets, and articles all repeating an unsourced rumour that the OGL (Open Gaming License) will be going away with the advent of OneD&D, and that third party publishers would have no way of legally creating compatible material. I wanted to write an article clarifying some of these terms.

I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable to legally publish homebrew content" and that WotC may be "outlawing third-party homebrew content". These claims need clarification.

What's the Open Gaming License? It was created by WotC about 20 years ago; it's analagous to various 'open source' licenses. There isn't a '5E OGL' or a '3E OGL' and there won't be a 'OneD&D OGL' -- there's just the OGL (technically there are two versions, but that's by-the-by). The OGL is non-rescindable -- it can't be cancelled or revoked. Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license -- which includes the D&D 3E SRD, the 5E SRD, Pathfinder's SRD, Level Up's SRD, and thousands and thousands of third party books -- remains OGC forever, available for use under the license. Genie, bottle, and all that.

So, the OGL can't 'go away'. It's been here for 20 years and it's here to stay. This was WotC's (and OGL architect Ryan Dancey's) intention when they created it 20 years ago, to ensure that D&D would forever be available no matter what happened to its parent company.

Open Game License v1.0a

What's an SRD? A System Reference Document (SRD) contains Open Gaming Content (OGC). Anything in the 3E SRD, the 3.5 SRD, or the 5E SRD, etc., is designated forever as OGC (Open Gaming Content). Each of those SRDs contains large quantities of material, including the core rules of the respective games, and encompasses all the core terminology of the ruleset(s).

When people say 'the OGL is going away' what they probably mean to say is that there won't be a new OneD&D System Reference Document.

System Reference Documents

System Reference Documents (SRDs) are compilations of Open Gaming Content, usually released under the terms of the Open Gaming License (OGL).

www.enworld.org

Does That Matter? OneD&D will be -- allegedly -- fully compatible with 5E. That means it uses all the same terminology. Armor Class, Hit Points, Warlock, Pit Fiend, and so on. All this terminology has been OGC for 20 years, and anybody can use it under the terms of the OGL. The only way it could be difficult for third parties to make compatible material for OneD&D is if OneD&D substantially changed the core terminology of the game, but at that point OneD&D would no longer be compatible with 5E (or, arguably, would even be recognizable as D&D). So the ability to create compatible third party material won't be going away.

However! There is one exception -- if your use of OneD&D material needs you to replicate OneD&D content, as opposed to simply be compatible with it (say you're making an app which has all the spell descriptions in it) and if there is no new SRD, then you won't be able to do that. You can make compatible stuff ("The evil necromancer can cast magic missile" -- the term magic missile has been OGL for two decades) but you wouldn't be able to replicate the full descriptive text of the OneD&D version of the spell. That's a big if -- if there's no new SRD.

So you'd still be able to make compatible adventures and settings and new spells and new monsters and new magic items and new feats and new rules and stuff. All the stuff 3PPs commonly do. You just wouldn't be able to reproduce the core rules content itself. However, I've been publishing material for 3E, 3.5, 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder 1E for 20 years, and the need to reproduce core rules content hasn't often come up for us -- we produce new compatible content. But if you're making an app, or spell cards, or something which needs to reproduce content from the rulebooks, you'd need an SRD to do that.

So yep. If no SRD, compatible = yes, directly reproduce = no (of course, you can indirectly reproduce stuff by rewriting it in your own words).

Branding! Using the OGL you can't use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" (you never could). Most third parties say something like "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game" and have some sort of '5E' logo of their own making on the cover. Something similar will no doubt happen with OneD&D -- the third party market will create terminology to indicate compatibility. (Back in the 3E days, WotC provided a logo for this use called the 'd20 System Trademark Logo' but they don't do that any more).

What if WotC didn't 'support' third party material? As discussed, nobody can take the OGL or any existing OGC away. However, WotC does have control over DMs Guild and integration with D&D Beyond or the virtual tabletop app they're making. So while they can't stop folks from making and publishing compatible stuff, they could make it harder to distribute simply by not allowing it on those three platforms. If OneD&D becomes heavily reliant on a specific platform we might find ourselves in the same situation we had in 4E, where it was harder to sell player options simply because they weren't on the official character builder app. It's not that you couldn't publish 4E player options, it's just that many players weren't interested in them if they couldn't use them in the app.

But copyright! Yes, yes, you can't copyright rules, you can't do this, you can't do that. The OGL is not relevant to copyright law -- it is a license, an agreement, a contract. By using it you agree to its terms. Sure WotC might not be able to copyright X, but you can certainly contractually agree not to use X (which is a selection of material designated as 'Product Identity') by using the license. There are arguments on the validity of this from actual real lawyers which I won't get into, but I just wanted to note that this is about a license, not copyright law.

If you don't use the Open Gaming License, of course, it doesn't apply to you. You are only bound by a license you use. So then, sure, knock yourself out with copyright law!

So, bullet point summary:

• The OGL can't go away, and any existing OGC can't go away
• If (that's an if) there is no new SRD, you will be able to still make compatible material but not reproduce the OneD&D content
• Most of the D&D terminology (save a few terms like 'beholder' etc.) has been OGC for 20 years and is freely available for use
• To render that existing OGC unusable for OneD&D the basic terminology of the entire game would have to be changed, at which point it would no longer be compatible with 5E.

 

[Von Ether]

Thank you @Morrus

Here's the real danger of having a 10-year old game folks! All of your ttRPG* commentator eventually run out of good content and have to eventually comment on any rumor - even if they know it's not true - for the views and the weekly output.

*Tangent:
This is what ttRPG commenter should be shaking their fists over. Can we finally drop the "tt" off of RPG?

Not only is tabletop is the grand daddy of computer RPGs but many developers inspire themselves by playing tabletop for research and just for fun, so it should not be the one that needs a designation. Put the "C" back on CRPGs. It's even one less character to type.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I guess what I'm worried about is if they go heavily in the digital direction (100% playing in the Beyond sandbox) and don't give 3rd party developers a way to be a part of that.

Is that a realistic scenario?

Kind of:

Edit: Oops, see you already talked about that. Thanks!

But only if you think that DMsGuild is so trivial in WoTC calculations that they can abandon it and take the hit in goodwill still gain more by taking everything in house.
The problem is that D&DBeyond is nowhere near capable of replicating DMsGuild. It does not have the tools at the user side or at the creator side and these are not trivial to provide. D&DBeyond cannot incorporate Wizards own Unearthed Arcana playtest material into its system much less accept material from a third party.

D&DBeyond is pretty neat but it needs a lot more before it can seriously become a campaign management tool and I think it need that kind of functionality if it is to become dominant in the digital space for DMs and this is aside from the capabilities of any proposed VTT.
The combination of good campaign management and VTT would be a killer combo but it will have to offer more than mere content hosting.

 

[Dreamscape]

How would a D&D adjacent game have zero SRD content?

I'm a bit slow responding so this has already been answered by others. I don't want to give specific examples because I don't want to give the impression that those authors are mistaken on using the OGL. Instead, this is the basic principle:

You don't need the SRD for adventures or supplements, because you're not including the rules content - adventures generally have no rules and supplements will only have new ones. In spite of this there are lots of books filled with nothing but original random tables, yet published under the OGL. Even many full retroclones didn't use the text from the monsters, spells, or magic items from the SRD because they're emulating older editions where those things had totally different rules, so they could have avoided the OGL if they had been willing to write their own text instead of pasting in bits from the SRD. A lot of D&D-adjacent/not-clones did completely their own thing and had even less reason to do it under the OGL because not only did they not use the SRD text, they didn't even have to be compatible with "the world's most popular roleplaying game".

This brings up another common point of confusion, copyright and trademark. Individual terms such as "fighter" aren't copyrighted, you would use a trademark - and not that many D&D terms are trademarked (certainly not anything as generic as "fighter" or "hit points"). So you don't need to use the SRD just because you want to include a spell like Bless. Of course you'd have to write your own original text for it, but that's not hard and if you're producing a clone you're probably changing the spell effects anyway.

Hmm, at this point I should probably do the 'I am not a lawyer' thing for the benefit of anyone actually planning to publish something ...

 

[bedir than]

I don't know about zero content, but Mutants and Mastermind has just a skeleton of d20 rules and then offers no classes and turns levels from advancement into levels of power (and it's a character point build system.) It probably has even less d20 content because I think they got rid of feats in one edition. It also has no hit points because it invented a "Damage Save" that produces new conditions. Geez, how old is M&M now?

It's not D&D though

 

[Deadstop]

It was made under the OGL and originally used D&D-derived terms and mechanics, though it has increasingly moved away from even those similarities.

The point is that M&M was most definitely a game (at least originally) that meant to advertise itself as easier to understand for people familiar with D&D or other D20 System games, even though it was a big departure from D&D in other ways.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm a bit slow responding so this has already been answered by others. I don't want to give specific examples because I don't want to give the impression that those authors are mistaken on using the OGL. Instead, this is the basic principle:

You don't need the SRD for adventures or supplements, because you're not including the rules content - adventures generally have no rules and supplements will only have new ones. In spite of this there are lots of books filled with nothing but original random tables, yet published under the OGL. Even many full retroclones didn't use the text from the monsters, spells, or magic items from the SRD because they're emulating older editions where those things had totally different rules, so they could have avoided the OGL if they had been willing to write their own text instead of pasting in bits from the SRD. A lot of D&D-adjacent/not-clones did completely their own thing and had even less reason to do it under the OGL because not only did they not use the SRD text, they didn't even have to be compatible with "the world's most popular roleplaying game".

What I'm not sure about is whether even just using the name of a spell or ability - without the full write-up - can be problematic, particularly if it has a specific D&D-related character name in it e.g. Leomund's Tiny Hut, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc. I know there's a list of creature names you can't use, and those are easy enough to (literally and figuratively!) re-skin and re-present; but I wouldn't want to have to build "new" versions of a whole bunch of spells just to put out an adventure that features an enemy caster or three and lists what spells they can cast.

I've also never been clear about how - or even if - the OGL applies to non-WotC-era D&D; but that there's so much D&D-adjacent OSR material being published seemingly without issue is a good omen.

 

[Morrus]

What I'm not sure about is whether even just using the name of a spell or ability - without the full write-up - can be problematic, particularly if it has a specific D&D-related character name in it e.g. Leomund's Tiny Hut, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc. I know there's a list of creature names you can't use, and those are easy enough to (literally and figuratively!) re-skin and re-present; but I wouldn't want to have to build "new" versions of a whole bunch of spells just to put out an adventure that features an enemy caster or three and lists what spells they can cast.

I've also never been clear about how - or even if - the OGL applies to non-WotC-era D&D; but that there's so much D&D-adjacent OSR material being published seemingly without issue is a good omen.

If you’re using the OGL, it answers those questions in its own text.

If you’re not, you’re relying on copyright law, and should ask an IP lawyer.

 

[Von Ether]

It's not D&D though

Exactly.

Or if you need something more apples to apples. M&M offered up a fantasy spin on their rules Warriors & Warlocks - Green Ronin Publishing | Mutants & Masterminds | DriveThruRPG.com
So d20 fantasy with little to no SRD content. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by "D&D" in this context? 3e? 5e? SRD? Something OSR?

 

[Von Ether]

What I'm not sure about is whether even just using the name of a spell or ability - without the full write-up - can be problematic, particularly if it has a specific D&D-related character name in it e.g. Leomund's Tiny Hut, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc. I know there's a list of creature names you can't use, and those are easy enough to (literally and figuratively!) re-skin and re-present; but I wouldn't want to have to build "new" versions of a whole bunch of spells just to put out an adventure that features an enemy caster or three and lists what spells they can cast.

I've also never been clear about how - or even if - the OGL applies to non-WotC-era D&D; but that there's so much D&D-adjacent OSR material being published seemingly without issue is a good omen.

In the SRD there is tiny hut, so you can use the same spell without the IP name.

 

[Reynard]

I've also never been clear about how - or even if - the OGL applies to non-WotC-era D&D; but that there's so much D&D-adjacent OSR material being published seemingly without issue is a good omen.

If I recall correctly, when the first retroclones appeared, some gamers who were also lawyers set up companies (Necromancer Games, maybe? It's been a long time) to produce them. The argument was that because so much of the terminology is the same, and since the OGL says anything derived from OGC is also OGC, rebuilding AD&D as OSRIC was perfectly within the bounds of the OGL. And once OSRIC was OGC, other retroclones could follow because they, too, were derived from OGC.

However, not everything in the OSR is released under the OGL. But that's where the copyright thing comes in.

One thing I find frustrating is people and companies that use the OGL but then try and hold back any innovations as "product identity." I feel that goes against the spirit of the OGL.