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.

audit-3929140_960_720.jpg

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.


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.


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've also never been clear about how - or even if - the OGL applies to non-WotC-era D&D;
It doesn't, because the only WotC-released SRDs were for 3rd, 3.5, and 5th.
but that there's so much D&D-adjacent OSR material being published seemingly without issue is a good omen.
That material has three things going for it:
  1. The 3rd edition SRD (in particular) had a lot of text that was unchanged or lightly changed from AD&D 2e.
  2. Copyright protects expression, not ideas.
  3. None of it is selling enough to be worth the bad PR to WotC for WotC to crack down on it.
The exact balance of #2 and #3 for any given OSR product differs depending on the product in question and the opinion of the lawyer you consult. It's not safe to assume that just because WotC has not cracked down on a given product that it doesn't as a legal matter infringe a WotC copyright; unlike trademarks, there is no "defend it or lose it" rule for copyrights.

The closer a publisher dances to the line of reproducing WotC material (excepting only SRD material in a product that uses the OGL), the closer they dance to legal liability. The more successful a publisher is, the more likely it will draw legal attention from WotC.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Does anyone know if there has been a significant change of leadership or culture at the company. The highly restrictive GSL of the 4E era was a direct response to the success of things like Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed, but led to the "even worse" (from WotC's perspective) Pathfinder. I don't feel like the 5E era 3rd party environment has a revealed a threat to WotC, so it would be weird for them to turtle up.
 

Any examples? It seems to me it would be hard to do a product of any significance and not use some of the SRD. The SRD does cover quite a lot.

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

there's no Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric?
I would say you would make something similar to the RoleAids line of rpg adventures and supplements for AD&D by Mayfair. There were warriors, priests, magicians I think rogues instead of thieves, hits to kill (HTK), &c. There were a lot of supplements published. Eventually there was some legal skirmishing, but it came down to Mayfair agreeing to closing the RoleAids line rather than both sides spending a lot of money on an ambiguous case.

Fortunately, with the OGL and the 3e SRD we can make rules and supplements without much effort in making a McDougal's instead of a McDonald's.
 


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.
Matt Finch, one of the authors of OSRIC, is indeed an attorney. OTOH, Clark Peterson from Necromancer Games (who is a judge), was quite skeptical about the legality of OSRIC.
 

I would say you would make something similar to the RoleAids line of rpg adventures and supplements for AD&D by Mayfair. There were warriors, priests, magicians I think rogues instead of thieves, hits to kill (HTK), &c. There were a lot of supplements published. Eventually there was some legal skirmishing, but it came down to Mayfair agreeing to closing the RoleAids line rather than both sides spending a lot of money on an ambiguous case.
I think that ended with TSR buying them out and then burying the product line. That's how you got some TSR 2e stuff like the Shamans sourcebook that was originally written for Mayfair's Role Aids line.

I would really like to see WotC sell the old AD&D Role Aids line as legal PDFs.
 

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.
I've refused to buy certain licensed products that are built on the 5E OGL for this reason. Presumably, the concern is that the IP is product identity, but the rules can certainly contribute to the open source movement!
 

I've refused to buy certain licensed products that are built on the 5E OGL for this reason. Presumably, the concern is that the IP is product identity, but the rules can certainly contribute to the open source movement!
I remember certain third-party companies during the d20 days who would release the absolute minimum amount of material they could as Open Game Content, making things like monster names and descriptions of magic items all Product Identity. That eventually earned the moniker "crippled content," and it was quite deserved!
 

One important thing that got put into the OGL with 5e that wasn't there before: dragonborn. Prior to 5e, because of the debacle with the GSL (an unequivocally stupid decision from the 4e era), dragonborn were in a limbo--you could do stuff that obliquely referenced them, but you were taking a risk. Now, however, no matter what WotC does, "dragonborn" are in the OGL and can be used by fan works freely. This is, as I'm sure most of you already know, somewhat important to me personally; I had long worried that the licensing issues might result in dragonborn being the "lost" race, popular but too legally questionable to support. I am thankful WotC made them OGL content.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top