WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[MoonSong]

Or you know, you use the 3.5 SRD.

Or want to sypoort fudge, openquest, or pathfinder.

 

[Scribe]

So you are a lost cause anyway for them.
We know that. But this should not stop you from taking the survwy and tell them, this clause at least needs to change to have some kind of neutral judge called out.

Correct, all I can do is what I've been doing.

Calling them out for what they actually are, in the hopes that people begin to see it.

 

[Nikosandros]

If you publish OSR stuff, then you probably know that there are a lot of classic (A)D&D monsters that aren't in any SRD and became Open Game Content through the original Tome of Horrors monster book. A lot of OSR rules and adventures use them. If WotC revokes 1.0a, then they will no longer be OGC.

There are also a lot of monsters, spells, magic items, and other things that OSR-publishing parties that are not WotC have released as OGC that will no longer be OGC if WotC revokes 1.0a.

Excellent point, I wasn't thinking about it, but it's a lot of monsters.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you publish OSR stuff, then you probably know that there are a lot of classic (A)D&D monsters that aren't in any SRD and became Open Game Content through the original Tome of Horrors monster book. A lot of OSR rules and adventures use them. If WotC revokes 1.0a, then they will no longer be OGC.

There are also a lot of monsters, spells, magic items, and other things that OSR-publishing parties that are not WotC have released as OGC that will no longer be OGC if WotC revokes 1.0a.

Not familiar with a Tomb of Horrors monster book. I'm assuming it was a 3PP book that replicated some AD&D monsters? I guess my answer would be: still no difference. Just create a monster with the new SRD the same way it was created the first time. If an AD&D monster was created using the 3e SRD, you can do the same with 5.1 SRD--in both cases you're only using some terms but are creating a stat block and abilities and name different than what is in the SRD you used to emulate what first appeared in AD&D. Note: No SRD ever allowed you to use IP that wasn't part of the SRD, so you couldn't use the 3e SRD to create a clone of unique monster in AD&D using the same name regardless.

 

[EthanSental]

Late to the game with 23 pages already…..but this is a giant step in the right direction compared to where we were at previously. Some will still throw a wet blanket on it but some also complain about onions being on a free hamburger.

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly a pretty good article here finally. If they had just led with this, they honestly could have entirely avoided the past week+ firestorm.

That said, while I love the concept of the CC choice, I'm a bit wary of the fact that they didn't directly post that nor what content will be under it, so I do have to reserve judgment there until they actually show us.

They did. If you read the linked draft, it says what pages of the 5.1 SRD are being licensed under CC. Short version: it includes the rules you need to play the game like leveling, multiclassing, ability scores and checks, skills, combat, spellcasting downtime, etc., but no races, classes, spells, monsters, or magic items.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Correct, all I can do is what I've been doing.

Calling them out for what they actually are, in the hopes that people begin to see it.

Or better: to see what you see...
or want them to see...
as if people can't make up their minds themselves. Seems a bit patronizing to me.

 

[Deadstop]

The number of non-D&D games I play that use the OGL, including many with no D&D DNA but using it as an open gaming license, make this really still a huge deal.

Yeah, but THOSE publishers can easily release under the ORC or another, non-WotC license, since WotC only cares about clamping down on D&D IP. Having to do so is an annoyance, but not nearly the problem that the "de-authorization" is for D&D 3PPs.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Slave Space Monkies.

Yeah. And they immediately changed that. Remember?

Yep. all is good here. Just trust those guys on the west coast and how they view the world.

How about, no. How about not tarring people that do not trust WoTC as racists and being less inclusive when 20 years ago Thirsty Sword Lesbians might have been offensive enough that Hasbro wanted it pulled. How about recognizing that it is not just the content but a broad list of actions outside of the content that can be judged. How about giving the examples of this terribad hate content released under the existing and probably still valid 1.0a that would lead to the need for such a clause.

I suspect that they continue to lead with this because of the ability to make such arguments in bad faith.

Or, maybe they are engaged in litigation with nuTSR, and they still have to deal with people that complain that their inclusivity is “political.”

Given everything I’ve seen, I’m having a lot of trouble buying that these arguments are in good faith.

ETA- to be clear, I’m not saying that this is okay for an open license. What I am saying is that I don’t buy the argument that certain people are suddenly concerned that WoTC is going to crack down on representation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Late to the game with 23 pages already…..but this is a giant step in the right direction compared to where we were at previously. Some will still throw a wet blanket on it but some also complain about onions being on a free hamburger.

To be fair: if it was not advertised and you are allergic to onions, this could be troublesome...