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.

audit-3929140_960_720.jpg

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.


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.


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Telling us the release schedule for the next year is marketing. That's not the kind of transparency people are asking for in regards to the OGL.
I could be wrong, but I think what @darjr is getting at is that this was the first time they have given us a whole years worth of planned products a head of time. That is new "transparency" as in they are being more transparent on what they are working on than what they have done previously, despite what you and @Ruin Explorer seem to think.

That being said, they have not become more transparent about the OGL, of course they were pretty opaque about it before the 5e SRD, OGC, and DMsGuild announcements too. And those worked out well.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Telling us the release schedule for the next year is marketing. That's not the kind of transparency people are asking for in regards to the OGL.

Someone who signed the NDA shared the details of the meeting that was covered by the NDA? Which discord?
No. They used to keep all this secrets. It wasn’t that long ago.

No. Someone who got the email about the meeting and the nda shared the email. The email telling them about the NDA.
 

Don't be a narc lol.

Also TBF they may have got the basic meeting info without signing anything. I've seen that before.

No. They used to keep all this secrets. It wasn’t that long ago.

No. Someone who got the email about the meeting and the nda shared the email. The email telling them about the NDA.
Yeah the email isn’t covered under the NDA, if course.
 

I could be wrong, but I think what @darjr is getting at is that this was the first time they have given us a whole years worth of planned products a head of time. That is new "transparency" as in they are being more transparent on what they are working on than what they have done previously, despite what you and @Ruin Explorer seem to think.
Right. And that's marketing. Not the transparency people are talking about in a thread about rumors the OGL is going away. Transparency about the future of the OGL is the transparency people are talking about.
That being said, they have not become more transparent about the OGL, of course they were pretty opaque about it before the 5e SRD, OGC, and DMsGuild announcements too.
Exactly. And that's the transparency people are talking about, not their marketing.
And those worked out well.
Here's to hoping.
No. They used to keep all this secrets. It wasn’t that long ago.
Right. And that's marketing. Not the transparency people are talking about in a thread about rumors the OGL is going away. Transparency about the future of the OGL is the transparency people are talking about.
No. Someone who got the email about the meeting and the nda shared the email. The email telling them about the NDA.
Gotcha.
 

I could be wrong, but I think what @darjr is getting at is that this was the first time they have given us a whole years worth of planned products a head of time. That is new "transparency" as in they are being more transparent on what they are working on than what they have done previously,
On this subject in particular: I wonder if they discovered a downside to rampant speculation. Like, maybe it turned out that if a good number of potential buyers were convinced that it was a certain book but then found it wasn't, it was bad for sales?
 

Right. And that's marketing. Not the transparency people are talking about in a thread about rumors the OGL is going away. Transparency about the future of the OGL is the transparency people are talking about.

Exactly. And that's the transparency people are talking about, not their marketing.

Here's to hoping.

Right. And that's marketing. Not the transparency people are talking about in a thread about rumors the OGL is going away. Transparency about the future of the OGL is the transparency people are talking about.

Gotcha.
Regarding the release schedule, that is marketing. However, the choice to release that schedule early is above marketing. That is a cultural change within the D&D team to be more transparent. Will that lead to more info about the OGL? I don't know, but I bet it will once they have more to share.
 

On this subject in particular: I wonder if they discovered a downside to rampant speculation. Like, maybe it turned out that if a good number of potential buyers were convinced that it was a certain book but then found it wasn't, it was bad for sales?
It’s because they want to make it clear that 5E is fully supported in the run up to 1DnD and avoid the new edition sales drop off.
 

It’s because they want to make it clear that 5E is fully supported in the run up to 1DnD and avoid the new edition sales drop off.
Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Commence speculation all those books are going to be low effort dross with recycled art.
 

@overgeeked the point was also about openness in general and why and how that’s changed.

The openness of the products TBA has changed. Drastically.

Please dint just repeat your post again again. If we disagree so be it.
 

@overgeeked the point was also about openness in general and why and how that’s changed.

The openness of the products TBA has changed. Drastically.

Please dint just repeat your post again again. If we disagree so be it.
Then we're simply talking past each other because I couldn't care less about them marketing next year's line of books. I am concerned about the future of the OGL, however.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top