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.

 

[seebs]

There is no chance that the OGL is just a trick. It might not be a deal you might find compelling for whatever reasons, but having interviewed and spoken to the architects of the license many times over the decades, I can assure you that their motives were sincere. Nobody was trying to “trick” anybody.

I also spent a lot of time talking to Dancey about it, and he was very aggressive about asserting that they could absolutely sue anyone over things that are, so far as I could tell, completely okay under extremely well-settled law, and that the only way to be sure they wouldn't sue was to sign up for the OGL and accept its restrictions.

If all the case law says that you're allowed to do a thing and do not need permission or a license to do it, and some angry guy on Usenet says a multi-million dollar corporation might sue you if you do it and cost you many thousands of dollars to find out whether the courts still feel that way, in order to induce you to accept the agreement even if you're doing things you absolutely do not need a license to do, that seems to me at least the tiniest bit suspicious.

I'm not saying they weren't sincere in offering the license. I'm saying that they were pushing pretty hard to insist that people had to accept the license in order to do things which, so far as I could tell, absolutely did not require licensing or permission.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Kind of:

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.

I’m guessing that the general features engine they’ve been working on for over a year IIRC will streamline adding new features and content, and then it will be integrated with DMSGuild and form the backbone of their digital efforts going forward.

 

[aramis erak]

I also spent a lot of time talking to Dancey about it, and he was very aggressive about asserting that they could absolutely sue anyone over things that are, so far as I could tell, completely okay under extremely well-settled law, and that the only way to be sure they wouldn't sue was to sign up for the OGL and accept its restrictions.

If all the case law says that you're allowed to do a thing and do not need permission or a license to do it, and some angry guy on Usenet says a multi-million dollar corporation might sue you if you do it and cost you many thousands of dollars to find out whether the courts still feel that way, in order to induce you to accept the agreement even if you're doing things you absolutely do not need a license to do, that seems to me at least the tiniest bit suspicious.

I'm not saying they weren't sincere in offering the license. I'm saying that they were pushing pretty hard to insist that people had to accept the license in order to do things which, so far as I could tell, absolutely did not require licensing or permission.

Mongoose Traveller is just such a case - there was no reason it had to be OGL, and the rise of CE shows that it was not an ideal thing to do. Especially since, when they got cold feet, CE went from a pet project of Jason's to a published compatible game, taking the 3pp crowd mostly with it.
Not that their analogue to DM's Guild is doing poorly, but most of the 3PP who had been supporting MGT 1E are not visibly supporting MGT2e.

 

[S'mon]

I feel I should point out also: There are many things you can do which refer to or describe game rules which do not require a license in the first place, because the actual rules of a game (as opposed to one specific set of words describing those rules) have been declared uncopyrightable by US courts. No one knows exactly how far this does or doesn't go, and I personally wouldn't want to be on either side of a court case about it. But that said, there is at least some chance that the entire OGL is a trick -- it's trying to get you to agree to restrictions in exchange for permission to do a thing you never needed permission to do in the first place.

(I teach UK copyright & contract law) The OGL definitely does allow you to use in-copyright material you could not otherwise use, in the SRDs. In exchange you agree not to use stuff you could otherwise use to a limited extent, such as TMs and what they call Product Identity. Plus the clause about rectifying breaches is more generous than what you'd get without a contract.

If you know what you are doing, especially if you have or are an IP lawyer, you can certainly publish D&D material without using the OGL, and do stuff the OGL does not allow, such as putting "Compatible with D&D" on your product. Some have indeed done this, especially in the 4e era. But most people don't want to risk getting a cease & desist letter, and especially in litigant-friendly USA, most people definitely don't want to be sued, even if a good IP lawyer would win your case. For most publishers the OGL is a good deal IMO.

 

[S'mon]

I also spent a lot of time talking to Dancey about it, and he was very aggressive about asserting that they could absolutely sue anyone over things that are, so far as I could tell, completely okay under extremely well-settled law...

In the USA especially you can sue for pretty much anything, and the other side likely gets stuck with a big legal bill no matter what. That's how Patent Trolls operate. They don't need to be able to win a defended case to get most victims to pay up.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I’m guessing that the general features engine they’ve been working on for over a year IIRC will streamline adding new features and content, and then it will be integrated with DMSGuild and form the backbone of their digital efforts going forward.

That sounds like a very solid plan, I do not follow them closely enough to realise that they were working on it. I was under the impression that they did not have the staff to manage it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That sounds like a very solid plan, I do not follow them closely enough to realise that they were working on it. I was under the impression that they did not have the staff to manage it.

They’ve been talking about it for a while on dev update streams, mostly.

 

[Morrus]

I also spent a lot of time talking to Dancey about it, and he was very aggressive about asserting that they could absolutely sue anyone over things that are, so far as I could tell, completely okay under extremely well-settled law, and that the only way to be sure they wouldn't sue was to sign up for the OGL and accept its restrictions.

If all the case law says that you're allowed to do a thing and do not need permission or a license to do it, and some angry guy on Usenet says a multi-million dollar corporation might sue you if you do it and cost you many thousands of dollars to find out whether the courts still feel that way, in order to induce you to accept the agreement even if you're doing things you absolutely do not need a license to do, that seems to me at least the tiniest bit suspicious.

I'm not saying they weren't sincere in offering the license. I'm saying that they were pushing pretty hard to insist that people had to accept the license in order to do things which, so far as I could tell, absolutely did not require licensing or permission.

The flaw in all this is that WotC doesn't gain anything from you using the OGL. It's free. The conspiracy theory lacks a motive.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The flaw in all this is that WotC doesn't gain anything from you using the OGL. It's free. The conspiracy theory lacks a motive.

The OGL forces the user to respect WotC's "product identity" restrictions, which seems to be a big deal for them. There's the motive.

 

[dbm]

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

I guess it depends on a person’s definition of ‘D&D adjacent’. Sine Nomine’s Worlds Without Number is an OSR fantasy RPG with six stats, armour class and hit points but is not an OGL-based product.