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.

 

[Reynard]

Marketing copy. We'll see how it holds up to reality and the opinion of the fandom.

Trusted text says pretty clearly that this new edition of D&D will allow you to.use your 5E adventures and supplements while still being a new edition. Now, we don't know what parts of that will end up being true -- not because they like but because design goals change during the process. But WotC's own language intentionally and specifically designated OneD&D as something different-- a new edition, as it were.

 

[Clint_L]

Wizard's own language emphatically rejected designating OneD&D as a new edition. They could not have been more blunt about it.

It's some players who are having trouble giving up on the old "editions" paradigm, not WotC.

 

[JEB]

Trusted text says pretty clearly that this new edition of D&D will allow you to.use your 5E adventures and supplements while still being a new edition. Now, we don't know what parts of that will end up being true -- not because they like but because design goals change during the process. But WotC's own language intentionally and specifically designated OneD&D as something different-- a new edition, as it were.

They're pretty careful to avoid calling it a new edition, but they are pretty clear that 5E and One D&D are not the same thing, and that One D&D material will be backwards compatible with 5E (rather than it simply being one and the same as 5E).

Honestly, having looked at the verbiage they used in the 3.5 PHB, it's all sounding awful similar to how they described 3.5 vs. 3.0.

 

[Reynard]

Wizard's own language emphatically rejected designating OneD&D as a new edition. They could not have been more blunt about it.

It's some players who are having trouble giving up on the old "editions" paradigm, not WotC.

Source, please.

 

[Hussar]

Are you talking about 3.5? I only ever bought the 3.0 book once, so I don't know what they changed between that and 3.5.

No, I'm talking about the first printing and second printing of 3.0. There were significant differences between the very first two printings. Never minding the changes from 3e to 3.5. But, in any case, I seriously doubt that OneD&D will even be as much of a change as we saw from 3e to 3.5.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, I'm talking about the first printing and second printing of 3.0. There were significant differences between the very first two printings. Never minding the changes from 3e to 3.5. But, in any case, I seriously doubt that OneD&D will even be as much of a change as we saw from 3e to 3.5.

Fair enough. I only ever bought the first printing.

 

[Hussar]

They're pretty careful to avoid calling it a new edition, but they are pretty clear that 5E and One D&D are not the same thing, and that One D&D material will be backwards compatible with 5E (rather than it simply being one and the same as 5E).

Honestly, having looked at the verbiage they used in the 3.5 PHB, it's all sounding awful similar to how they described 3.5 vs. 3.0.

But, again, there is a significant difference here. How many player facing books were there for 3.0 from WOtC? Quite a few in the 2-3 years that 3e was the current edition. Splat books for every class, race, and a handful of others as well. Let's not forget three full monster books as well.

By my count, not including modules, there were twenty 3.0 books. IOW, there were three times as many books (again, not counting modules) for 3e as there are for 5e. And, within a couple of years, all of them had been replaced by 3.5 versions.

In 5e, you've got what, half a dozen non-modules? Modules aren't a big deal - you could certainly run a 3e module in 3.5 without any real difficulty. Nearly all the changes were on the player side. So, again, in 5e, we're not exactly replacing much of anything.

It really isn't a new edition.

 

[JEB]

Accidental post, never mind.

 

[delericho]

By my count, not including modules, there were twenty 3.0 books. IOW, there were three times as many books (again, not counting modules) for 3e as there are for 5e. And, within a couple of years, all of them had been replaced by 3.5 versions.

Well, apart from Monster Manual 2, Fiend Folio, the Book of Vile Darkness, the Stronghold Builder's Guide, the Hero Builder's Guidebook, Enemies and Allies, Deities and Demigods, the Epic Level Handbook, Book of Challenges, Oriental Adventures, the Arms and Equipment Guide, Ghostwalk, and Manual of the Planes. Selected parts of those received updates, but not the whole.

And they did continue to work just fine with the 3.5e books. Even the books that did receive updates continued to work with the 3.5e core. What do you think people did in the period before they were replaced?

I actually agree with the argument that 3.5e should have been considered a new edition. But the extent to which 3.5e was incompatible with 3.0e is vastly overstated. And it is also true that WotC stated, in much the same terms as they're using now, that it was not a new edition.

 

[Morrus]

I actually agree with the argument that 3.5e should have been considered a new edition. But the extent to which 3.5e was incompatible with 3.0e is vastly overstated. And it is also true that WotC stated, in much the same terms as they're using now, that it was not a new edition.

The word 'edition' in this context only has whatever meaning we attach to it.