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.

 

[Hussar]

I never said anything about a new OGL, I said a new book or SRD.

For example, my homebrew setting contains a plane called The Dreaming. The Dreaming is also the name of a (different) plane in A5e's cosmology, and is declared as PI there. If I decided to write my homebrew setting up as a commercial product and release it under the OGL, and I wanted to include A5e in my s.15 for some reason, I would have to change the name of that plane (or I could ask @Morrus for a separate licence to use the name). If there was nothing I wanted from A5e OTOH, I could continue to use that name with impunity.

EDIT: So to continue your example, if WotC brought out a 5.5 SRD and declared "dwarves" to be PI, one could simply not use the 5.5 SRD, but one could not use the5.5 SRD and use dwarves (without a separate licence).

Unless I have misunderstood something.

Well, yes. If you wanted to include something that has the same name as someone else's PI AND you wanted to use that other company's OGL, then, sure, you'd have to change the name of your stuff.

Now, if you didn't use A5e, for example, then you could use the same name to your heart's content.

Seems pretty fair. Also seems to be a VERY corner case. And, none of it stops you from using material from an older SRD.

I think the problem here is that we're mixing a few different things. The D&D SRD is a pretty specific document in that it specifically doesn't include any PI. That's the point. Now you're talking about using someone else's product, that contains both open and closed content. That's a rather different beast altogether.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The "it's been 10 years" argument is in favor of WotC properly making a new edition that updates the game to what they think all their new players want, not the "not an edition change" half-measure they appear to actually be producing.

Nope. It is not. After 10 years, this seems exactly what is needed. Actually it was needed two years ago, but with the Anniversary right around the corner, this was implausible.

 

[Morrus]

I think the problem here is that we're mixing a few different things. The D&D SRD is a pretty specific document in that it specifically doesn't include any PI. That's the point. Now you're talking about using someone else's product, that contains both open and closed content. That's a rather different beast altogether.

We actually go the SRD route also with the Level Up SRD. Easier and clearer for the end user.

 

[Reynard]

Referencing an SRD or OGL product in your section 15 just means you can use the Open Content from that document. It doesn't require you to inude anything or prohibit you from including anything from a different (also referenced) document. It certainly doesn't stop you from creating your own content.

One mistake I see a lot in Product Identity statements is people designating mechanics as PI. You technically can't do that. Mechanics derived from OGC in an OGL document are automatically OGC per the OGL. The line is probably fuzzy where the exact line is, but if your complex travel system uses the PCs ability scores and skills to determine outcome, I would think that counts as "derived from" -- I'm looking at you, AiME.

 

[Art Waring]

One mistake I see a lot in Product Identity statements is people designating mechanics as PI. You technically can't do that. Mechanics derived from OGC in an OGL document are automatically OGC per the OGL. The line is probably fuzzy where the exact line is, but if your complex travel system uses the PCs ability scores and skills to determine outcome, I would think that counts as "derived from" -- I'm looking at you, AiME.

Yeah I agree, I also noticed that Mutants & Masterminds d20 states that specific mechanics are their IP [Edit: PI], like the tables for powers. Except, the powers aren't listed in the IP[PI*] because you can't copyright generic superhero powers.

Edit*: Oops, I meant PI (product Identity as stated in the OGL), not IP (intellectual property). Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah I agree, I also noticed that Mutants & Masterminds d20 states that specific mechanics are their IP, like the tables for powers. Except, the powers aren't listed in the IP because you can't copyright generic superhero powers.

Assuming you’re talking about the OGC declaration in the book, PI (not IP) is Product Identity, a label for a contractually agreed list of content. Copyright doesn’t come into it. It’s a license — contract law, not copyright law.

 

[Art Waring]

Assuming you’re talking about the OGC declaration in the book, PI (not IP) is Product Identity, a label for a contractually agreed list of content. Copyright doesn’t come into it. It’s a license — contract law, not copyright law.

Thank you for the clarification, my mistake I did mean Product Identity, not IP.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nope. It is not. After 10 years, this seems exactly what is needed. Actually it was needed two years ago, but with the Anniversary right around the corner, this was implausible.

I disagree, so we'll just have to see which of us is right.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I disagree, so we'll just have to see which of us is right.

We won't see who is right.
Because you feel that a revision is not in order, I do. Because there is no objective truth in that, there won't be anything to see.
What we might see is which feeling is prevalent in most people.

 

[SteveC]

This is a bit of amazingly bad PR. If OneDnD is going to be entirely backwards compatible, then it's based on open gaming content and people can continue to use the old content based on that version of the license. You can build your own classes, spell systems and what have you, based on what is previously there. And if it's a new thing ... well I was here for 4E. I loved the game in fact. But I also understand that the GSL was horrible and responsible for splitting the hobby. I don't see the upside for this discussion in any way.

This has all the look and feel of someone releasing a PR statement that was in comms rather than a gamer. Mrs. SteveC works in comms right now and there is a very good reason the things her agency releases have both a fact check and legal check process. "Is this right? Is it factually correct? Oh, and is it a legal thing to say or does it open up any liabilities?"