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.

 

[darjr]

Note for everyone else. I did nothing of the kind. They can keep repeating it but it doesn’t make it true.

 

[darjr]

I think folks are talking past one another and putting different definitions in the same rhetorical space, which can't turn out well. If one person thinks the definition of a new edition is defined entire by what is printed on the cover or designated by the publisher, and another thinks is is a matter of content and compatibility regardless of what the Publisher says, those two people aren't ever going to be able to agree and discussion is pointless.

wait. Who is saying an edition is entirely defined by the cover?

 

[Umbran]

They literally put 3.5 on the cover.

This is getting ridiculous.

....and a sidebar just inside the front cover saying "it's not a new edition, honest!" But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of insulting me. Again.

Mod Note:
It is time for you two to lay off each other. Thanks.

 

[Reynard]

wait. Who is saying an edition is entirely defined by the cover?

You literally did that.

 

[carmachu]

Most of us cannot reliably predict much about what our lives will be like two years in advance. What'll be the state of the economy in two years? What job will you have? Will you hit any health issues between now and then? Get married, or divorced, or married then divorced? Have a new kid? Major life changes can happen in two years.

It isn't a lot different in business. While they have plans and move forward, many things can move and shift in two years. Asking for specific commitments now on the details seems premature.

Actually it IS a lot different in businesses. Many corporations make plans years in advance.

It doesn’t mean those time tables don’t get moved up or pushed back, but looking around at my work and company I really can buy what your selling here in the business world.

We have seen Wotc release the the OGL with 3.5 in relative same time as edition release. We have also seen them make promises and fail to deliver with 4e/gsl fiasco

So yes they could Make plans

 

[darjr]

You literally did that.

No I didn’t. I countered someone who said they tried to hide that it was a new version with the fact that they printed it on the cover.

That’s the opposite of hiding something.

I didn’t make any argument if that actually makes it any different at all.

 

[Umbran]

Actually it IS a lot different in businesses. Many corporations make plans years in advance.

It is the prediction that isn't much different. They don't have oracles, or anything like that.

Sure, they make plans. But if they are good at it, they also change or abandon plans frequently, as their understanding of things change. This makes them not fit for public consumption

If they announce a plan, and then have to change it, possibly several times, how do you think that goes over with the consumers? Answer: about as well as breaking wind at a formal dinner.

 

[innerdude]

There's more to it as well than to just what is licensable from the actual rules text and fluff.

If it's a digital platform, are they going to make some areas extensible for third-party programmers? What pieces of the code? How must third-party code that extends D&D One be licensed? What pieces of the platform are off limits? What's the connection between how the platform runs and how content is stored? How must third-party content be integrated into the data storage format? How will art, stored digitally, be protected, correctly attributed, and either included or excluded from image generation AI platforms, should WotC choose to use one for certain creative endeavors?

There's a mountain of legal and licensing concerns that frankly dwarf how the exact wording of a particular feat looks in the new license.

And let's be frank too, there's a portion of WotC's audience that will be displeased and vocalize that displeasure even if WotC were to give away every inch of the IP for nothing.

Is a more open license more preferable than something that is not open? Of course.

Does it make financial sense for WotC to evaluate how previous licensing agreements worked for them, and determine if a different licensing model is in fact in their best interest? Of course it does.

It's frankly not WotC's job to try and suss out just exactly how productive one version of a license versus another is for hundreds of third-party producers; that's the 3pp's job. Should WotC consider 3pp input when doing the consideration? Yes, if they're interested in being a good long-term business partner. But they're certainly not obligated to in any cosmic moral sense.

Getting burn back now, 2 years ahead of whatever the final product release ends up being, is nuts.

If I own a retail store that sells fresh fish, I can't really be angry if my local fisherman decides he/she is better off selling tuna to Fishmongers United instead of selling tilapia to me (assuming all contractual obligations are otherwise met).

 

[MockingBird]

I think it's an act of good will that they took the time to say something.

 

[Hussar]

....and a sidebar just inside the front cover saying "it's not a new edition, honest!" But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of insulting me. Again.

huh... I just looked at my 3.5 PHB and I can't find that sidebar anywhere. Maybe I got a different printing?

And, as someone who was there for the 3e to 3.5 changeover, I certainly don't recall anything saying that this wasn't a new edition. That was the big change with Essentials - that it actually wasn't meant as a new edition. There was no sense of backward compatibility with 3.5. That's why they rereleased virtually everything printed for 3e in 3.5 - all the feats, spells, PrC's, everything got rereleased.

There was no sense that you were supposed to use 3e material with 3.5.

This time around, they're repeating, over and over again, very, very clearly that things will be backward compatible and that this is absolutely not a new half edition. Granted, again, as usual, there's the standard crowd who wouldn't believe WotC if they claimed that rain was wet no matter how much good will WotC has built up over the past ten years.

-----

Edit to add

I mean, sure, we're going to get a new Core 3 - fair enough. After ten years, that's not really too much of an ask. But, from everything WotC has said, and, fair enough, that might not be true, I could run Horde of the Dragon Queen in 2025 using the new rules and it would work with no problems. I should be able to play a Forge Priest in OneDND without too much difficulty. Sure, some of the specific spells and whatnot might be a bit different, but, at the end of the day, they have stated pretty clearly that things will be backward compatible.

However, what backwards compatible means is NOT "This will be identical to what we did ten years ago".