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

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's just not transparency though, it's pure marketing. They literally put it in a marketing presentation. Not sure how this is hard lol.

Transparency is when Ray Winninger was talking about them working on upcoming settings, and how not every setting makes it and so on. Information that didn't come through marketing and doesn't really benefit the company except in terms of informing people about what's going on.
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.
Exactly. Showing 2023 isn't just "being transparent" or something, it's a matter of making it clear that they're supporting 5E, which is a fundamentally a marketing point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's just not transparency though, it's pure marketing. They literally put it in a marketing presentation. Not sure how this is hard lol.

Transparency is when Ray Winninger was talking about them working on upcoming settings, and how not every setting makes it and so on. Information that didn't come through marketing and doesn't really benefit the company except in terms of informing people about what's going on.

Exactly. Showing 2023 isn't just "being transparent" or something, it's a matter of making it clear that they're supporting 5E, which is a fundamentally a marketing point.
As I noted in another post, the decision to release that information is above marketing and appears to signify a culture change of more transparency. Now, maybe that has gone out the window with Ray, IDK. Not sure how this is hard lol.
 


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.
The OGL is now and forever. There is nothing to be concerned about there. I think you are concerned about whether or not WotC releases a new SRD / OGC. Which they haven't done since 2016. So technically anything new* released since that date has the same issue '24 does. If you were not worried about content and 3PP material from 2016 - 2022, then you probably don't need to worry going forward either.

*new as in content not already released as OGC.
 

So, we've had another round of fearmongering from a YouTuber exploiting ignorance of how the OGL works to gather clicks? Wonderful.

The worst case scenario here remains simply that there's no new SRD. As a practical matter, given what we've seen in the playtest, that's the next thing to meaningless; it's trivial to make playtest-compatible content under the OGL based on existing Open Game Content. Even if we saw a hard turn away from the playtest documents to a 4e-like break, the result would be a repeat of some 3PP (like, say, EN Publishing, which already has published Level Up!) doing a "Pathfinder".

Sure, some 3PPs might possibly form contractual relationships with WotC that involve non-OGL content. This has already happened in several forms during the 5e era, ranging from the DM's Guild to the contract where Green Ronin wrote the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. If somehow these contracts result in all the major 3PPs winding up inside a restrictive (but presumably well-remunerated) WotC ecosystem to the detriment of consumers, that just leaves the field of serving those consumers open to new 3PPs that use the existing OGL and existing Open Game Content.

The OGL is explicitly perpetual. The OGL language was based on open source software licenses now depended on by many very large companies. Yeah, sure, Hasbro's a Fortune 500 company -- down at rank #496. It's huge compared you, or me, or any other RPG publisher; it's a minnow compared to the companies that need perpetual copyright licenses to remain valid. Somebody spins you a theory as to how Hasbro could break the OGL, ask them why the same approach wouldn't break the GPL. Then ask them how, say, Alphabet (Google) would react to someone breaking the GPL, and thus undermining the legal basis of the Android operating system.
 


So, we've had another round of fearmongering from a YouTuber exploiting ignorance of how the OGL works to gather clicks? Wonderful.
I don't know what is going on in Youtube even if I knock out the occasional video, but a lot of content creators whose content I like and often watch have jumped on this particular band wagon and I find it somewhat exacerbating.

The worst case scenario here remains simply that there's no new SRD. As a practical matter, given what we've seen in the playtest, that's the next thing to meaningless; it's trivial to make playtest-compatible content under the OGL based on existing Open Game Content. Even if we saw a hard turn away from the playtest documents to a 4e-like break, the result would be a repeat of some 3PP (like, say, EN Publishing, which already has published Level Up!) doing a "Pathfinder".

Sure, some 3PPs might possibly form contractual relationships with WotC that involve non-OGL content. This has already happened in several forms during the 5e era, ranging from the DM's Guild to the contract where Green Ronin wrote the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. If somehow these contracts result in all the major 3PPs winding up inside a restrictive (but presumably well-remunerated) WotC ecosystem to the detriment of consumers, that just leaves the field of serving those consumers open to new 3PPs that use the existing OGL and existing Open Game Content.

The OGL is explicitly perpetual. The OGL language was based on open source software licenses now depended on by many very large companies. Yeah, sure, Hasbro's a Fortune 500 company -- down at rank #496. It's huge compared you, or me, or any other RPG publisher; it's a minnow compared to the companies that need perpetual copyright licenses to remain valid. Somebody spins you a theory as to how Hasbro could break the OGL, ask them why the same approach wouldn't break the GPL. Then ask them how, say, Alphabet (Google) would react to someone breaking the GPL, and thus undermining the legal basis of the Android operating system.
Yep, which was the whole point of the damn thing. I am pretty sure you could rebuild 5e from the 3.x SRD if you really had to.
 


I keep meaning to go back and look at the stuff from Unearthed Arcana that was added to the SRD and see what kind of Frankenstein's Monster you could create with it.
Unearthed Arcana wasn't ever added to the SRD (despite what the people at www.d20srd.org would have you think, since they put it alongside actual SRD content); that book actually has portions of its material declared Open Game Content.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top