Statement on OGL from WotC

Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement regarding the ongoing rumors surrounding OneD&D and the Open Gaming License. In a short response to Comicbook.com, the company said "We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time."

Dungeons & Dragons Clarifies Support for Third-Party Material as New Edition Draws Near

Wizards of the Coast has responded to rumors of changes to the Open Game License and System [...]

comicbook.com

It's not clear what WotC means when they say that the OGL will 'continue to evolve' -- while there have been two versions of the license released over the years, each is non-rescindible so people are free to use whichever version of the license they wish. Indeed, that is written into the license itself -- "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

During the D&D 4th Edition era, WotC published a new, separate license called the Game System Licence (GSL). While it was used by third party publishers, it was generally upopular.

 

[vecna00]

I'm waiting for the videos to start showing up in my recommended list on YouTube now...

 

[Clint_L]

I think he means Tasha’s and monsters were the stealth .5 edition of 5e. Or something similar.

If you agree about the above or not 5e did indeed survive it.

I mean that there is no .5 edition of 5e. WotC have been crystal clear that they do not want to continue the editions model. They are keeping the 5e chassis and just offering small changes and adjustments over time. Like Monsters of the Multiverse, in other words, where they updated the material from two previous 5e books (that have now ceased print) without making any changes that interfere with backwards compatibility. I was using Volo's and Mordenkainen's in my campaign and now I am using MotM, and nothing really changed. In a few cases, I decided I wanted to keep using the old spell lists for some creatures, so I did, and that works fine too.

What we've seen of OneD&D thus far does not look any more challenging for 5e than did MotM or Xanathar's or Tasha's. If those texts did not cause problems for 3rd party producers or the OGL/SRD, then what makes us think the next book will?

 

[see]

As I recall, the 3.5e SRD was released nigh-simultaneously with the 3.5e core books.

Upon a careful search, you're right; the 3.5 SRD was released no later than July 22nd (per the date of a forum post linking to the release), while the 3.5 core rules show up for the first time on the July 24th USA Today bestseller list (meaning they went on sale some time the previous week).

I "remembered" a longer gap, but, well, it's been almost twenty years.

Early 3.5e was probably the height of OGC support at Wizards, both with the immediate release of the SRD and slightly later with the release of most of the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Unearthed Arcana as OGC (plus epic and divine rules from late 3.0). Late 3.0 was also when they allowed Necromancer Games to create Tome of Horrors, thereby dragging a whole lot of "classic" D&D monsters into the OGC canon – some of which have seen use as recently as PF2's Impossible Lands.

Yep, that was definitely the peak of WotC support.

(Which is kinda ironic because the release of 3.5 is what definitively burst the original D20 bubble, as even retailers who hadn't consciously noticed trouble moving 3PP stock before then realized they now had a huge backstock of stuff that was written for an older edition.)

 

[Alby87]

Well, they official haven't stated anything about the SRD. They said that it will be a possibility that will be updated. Now I'm asking myself: are they not opening wide that door because they fear "something", or is classic corporate "better say less than say much?".

I don't know, maybe they want to be sure that every 3PP product compatible with OneD&D is also compatible with their VTT? A lot of data about 3PP can be put on softwares via XML or JSON editing, and maybe the simplest of the information can be inserted via a Graphical User Interface. Just speaking because I can speak, not worried about the future or pointing fingers against anyone or any company.

 

[delericho]

"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."

Indeed. But is this the time when 3.5e was released, WotC promised to support third-party providers, and gave us a new SRD; or is this the time when 4e was released, WotC promised to support third-party providers, and then pulled the Dragon, Dungeon, and Dragonlance licenses, cancelled the d20 license, and gave us the GSL instead?

I don't think this statement from WotC really answers anything. But, equally, it's in response to a rumour that also had no real evidence behind it. So I guess we'll see. My gut feeling is that WotC won't mess with a good thing... but stranger things have happened.

 

[Bagpuss]

The key bits being supporting 3rd parties with the release of OneD&D.

Yeah but DM Guild technically is supporting 3rd parties. Doesn't really say much of anything.

 

[dave2008]

They are?

WotC claimed the recent monster changes they have discussed and implemented in MotM are to match the '24 changes. This covers both monsters and player races.

 

[Bolares]

I don't know what people expect. One D&D got two playtest documents as of right now, it's waaaay to early to expect wizards to have a defined plan for an SRD.

 

[Umbran]

Big corporation not willing to make definitive statements about what they will do two years from now. Film at 11.

Pretty much. Not really surprising.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Big corporation not willing to make definitive statements about what they will do two years from now. Film at 11.

They definitively stated that they're not willing to make a definitive statement.