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.

 

[sigfried]

That was a nice summary for folks!

In my opinion, Ryan was rather a genius and visionary in creating the OGL. It was both an act of good business sense at the time, but an act of altruism that gave the D&D community, then and in the future, an avenue to participate in the game in a lasting way while still respecting the D&D brand and IP.

One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the idea that while you don't always have to use the OGL to publish compatible material, there are reasons you still may want to do so. Chiefly, participate in an overall community of mutual benefit where we openly state our intention that we want others to use our ideas and create their own based on what we share. Basically, saying things like, "Hey, if you like my feat, go ahead and use it and share it with others with my blessing!" While at the same time, we can protect the PI/IP elements of our work that we would like to reserve as strictly our own.

It's one thing to say, "Well, you can't copyright the rules, so I'm taking them." and another to say, "Let's share our innovations in game design with one another to make the overall hobby better." Or "Let's all share some rules systems, so it's easy for players to go from one table to the next without needing to re-learn everything."

 

[Dreamscape]

One thing I haven't seen discussed here is the idea that while you don't always have to use the OGL to publish compatible material, there are reasons you still may want to do so. Chiefly, participate in an overall community of mutual benefit where we openly state our intention that we want others to use our ideas and create their own based on what we share.

That's true, although there are less restrictive ways to share original work such as releasing it under Creative Commons or even directly into the public domain.

 

[Hussar]

Sorry, but, if I'm understanding things, the OGL was meant as a sort of "safe haven" for 3rd party producers. You could go the IP lawyer route and do it on your own. That's still true. But, the OGL was meant as an agreement between the 3rd party producer and WotC that basically said, "Ok, yes, you are using stuff that was created by WotC, but, we're not going to sue you or otherwise bother you so long as you abide by the terms of this agreement".

Is that a fair way to describe it?

Now, as far as the notion that OneD&D won't have an SRD, again, why on earth wouldn't they? It's such a huge part of marketing. Here's this free game, just a taste. You can play using the SRD, but, if you actually want the full thing, well, ya gotta buy da books.

I mean board games have been putting their rule books up on the net for free for decades now. To the point where it's pretty much expected that any new release board game will put up their rules before the game is even released just to basically generate buzz for the game. "Hey, look at the rules for THIS new board game - that's pretty cool. I want to buy that."

And, since the 3pp publishers haven't really been too keen to try to make new games using the OGL the way they did back in the early oughts, it's not like there's any real competition going on. Everyone has kinda settled nicely into their roles - 3pp using the OGL are making stuff for D&D (by and large). DM's Guild I think has had a big impact there. By becoming the one stop shop for all things 3rd party for D&D, it's really highlighted 3rd party content in a way that wasn't really possible before.

 

[EpicureanDM]

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.

It's gonna be wild in a few years when people figure out that WotC's being run today the way that Elon's running Twitter.

 

[TerraDave]

It's gonna be wild in a few years when people figure out that WotC's being run today the way that Elon's running Twitter.

Normally I am ok with attacks on the WotCs, but this is just so random and silly.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I don't think Dragonborn are "in" the OGL. If I understand correctly, they are in the 5e SRD which OGC under the OGL. This allows that name to be used with any content that uses the OGL, but there is no language in the OGL itself that references dragonborn.

EDIT: I just checked the OGL and I was correct. Look at this line from the OGL:

"The text of the Open Gaming License itself is not Open Game Content."

Text in the OGL is not OGC. The OGL in fact lists WotC "Product Identity" which is excluded from the OGL. Terms such as "beholder" and "yuan-ti."

What is in the OGL to be OGC:

"All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

So what is important is what is in the SRD, not the OGL.

 

[dave2008]

Now, as far as the notion that OneD&D won't have an SRD, again, why on earth wouldn't they? It's such a huge part of marketing. Here's this free game, just a taste. You can play using the SRD, but, if you actually want the full thing, well, ya gotta buy da books.

If you believe WotC and 1D&D is still 5e, then there is no need for a new SRD. The 5e SRD will still apply. As Morrus notes, you can still use the 3e SRD to publish 5e content (like 3PP publishers did before there was a 5e SRD). WotC should probably updated the 5e SRD to include things that have been added since 2016 (I think that is the last publish date of the 5e SRD) and cover new things that will be add in the 2024 updates, but it will not be required to publish 5e / 1D&D content.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think Dragonborn are "in" the OGL. If I understand correctly, they are in the 5e SRD which OGC under the OGL. This allows that name to be used with any content that uses the OGL, but there is no language in the OGL itself that references dragonborn.

EDIT: I just checked the OGL and I was correct. Look at this line from the OGL:

"The text of the Open Gaming License itself is not Open Game Content."

Text in the OGL is not OGC. The OGL in fact lists WotC "Product Identity" which is excluded from the OGL. Terms such as "beholder" and "yuan-ti."

What is included is as OGC:

"All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

So what is important is what is in the SRD, not the OGL.

Okay....so....

They're still usable. Right? They're explicitly available, as opposed to the uncertain limbo they used to be in.

Edit: Further, the OGL, "Open Gaming License," is the license under which OGC, "Open Game Content," is released. For something to be OGC, it is licensed under the OGL. To say that something "is OGC but not OGL" is patently (heh) ridiculous.

Yes, the license itself is not part of the open content. The license itself is a legal document. It isn't gaming content to begin with. But a common shorthand for "this thing is Open Game Content" is to say "this is OGL," by which one means formally, "This content is licensed under the Open Gaming License."

 

[see]

Sorry, but, if I'm understanding things, the OGL was meant as a sort of "safe haven" for 3rd party producers. You could go the IP lawyer route and do it on your own. That's still true. But, the OGL was meant as an agreement between the 3rd party producer and WotC that basically said, "Ok, yes, you are using stuff that was created by WotC, but, we're not going to sue you or otherwise bother you so long as you abide by the terms of this agreement".

Is that a fair way to describe it?

I would say so.

Now, as far as the notion that OneD&D won't have an SRD, again, why on earth wouldn't they? It's such a huge part of marketing. Here's this free game, just a taste. You can play using the SRD, but, if you actually want the full thing, well, ya gotta buy da books.

Well, I'd advise that they do, but I'm a fan (and occasional writer) who has three decades' perspective on the RPG market's ups and downs. I know that an updated SRD (particularly given how much was already released under the OGL in the 3rd, 3.5, and 5th SRDs) is worth a lot more in goodwill than what would be given away in it.

I'm not sure a given Hasbro executive will see it the same way. Fortunately, there's really not that much damage even the most misguided Hasbro exec can do to the 3PPs. Radically change the new edition to break compatibility, no new SRD, shut down the DM's Guild, lock third-party content out of D&D Beyond, and . . . meh. Creators at worst wind up in an environment that resembles 2008-2015.

 

[dave2008]

Okay....so....

They're still usable. Right? They're explicitly available, as opposed to the uncertain limbo they used to be in.

Correct. Dragonborn are in the 5e SRD, which is OGC. OGC is usable by anyone publishing with the OGL.

I didn't intend to insinuate that Dragonborn were not usable by 3PP. I was just trying to clarify the terminology as that is what this thread is all about.