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

It occurs to me that it could be possible for WotC to persuade third parties to voluntarily waive their own ability to use the OGL in exchange for something else (such as access to a certain distribution platform).
Wait, how would that work? Does this mean that they could use the "certain distribution platform" but only for things that aren't OGL-related?
 

log in or register to remove this ad



The whole thing with the NDA could simply be about WotC wanting to give the option to certain 3PPs to have their material available on their VTT and D&D Beyond. The NDA is likely to keep details about the VTT (and possibly new features for Beyond) hush hush. I know this doesn't fit the sky-is-falling narrative, but it's possibility to consider.
 

The whole thing with the NDA could simply be about WotC wanting to give the option to certain 3PPs to have their material available on their VTT and D&D Beyond. The NDA is likely to keep details about the VTT (and possibly new features for Beyond) hush hush. I know this doesn't fit the sky-is-falling narrative, but it's possibility to consider.

Pure speculation of a charitable sort, but with Ray leaving perhaps they want a few of revised 5e's first adventures to be done out of house to give the in-house team more time to work on bigger projects and adjust to the work flow with their new bosses?

Not much more different than what they did at the start of 5e. The NDA could have been a good will meeting/ sales pitch to the 3PP they've worked with before (Green Ronin, Kobold, etc). Perhaps even demonstrating how a new VTT setup would work by using their old work for hire 5e projects as examples?

Until I learn more, I'm not panicking yet.
 
Last edited:

In all this I think that's the only thing we know for certain. WotC will absolutely push as hard as they can to make sure the new edition is as supported as possible.

If the new edition is backwards compatible (and what we've seen so far says to me it is, for these purposes) then they won't need to push much. Folks who publish for the 5e ruleset will be reasonably compatible with OneD&D anyway.

And those publishing for 3e or earlier really aren't a large enough chunk of the market to matter to WotC.

However, a meeting as described can have a really simple point: Get some trusted 3PP ready to publish for OneD&D quickly - perhaps, "sign the NDA and you'll get working copies of the rules as we go, so on Day 1, your work will be ready." Nothing nefarious about that.
 

However, a meeting as described can have a really simple point: Get some trusted 3PP ready to publish for OneD&D quickly - perhaps, "sign the NDA and you'll get working copies of the rules as we go, so on Day 1, your work will be ready." Nothing nefarious about that.

I was on a bit of a hiatus at the time, but isn't that basically what they did with the original 5th ed release? Kobold Press (I think) wrote Dragon Heist based on a working copy of the rules, but a whole lot of stuff changed late and it ended up being relatively poorly received, partially as a result?

If you're a 3pp and you get the chance to get in on the new edition early, you almost certainly do it, but I do wonder if some publishers might be a bit more circumspect, given past experiences.

Edit: Tyranny of Dragons, not Dragon Heist
 
Last edited:

If you're a 3pp and you get the chance to get in on the new edition early, you almost certainly do it, but I do wonder if some publishers might be a bit more circumspect, given past experiences.

Yeah, but that'd be more reason to be talking about it early, rather than less.

And sure, some might be more circumspect. But I don't think they're changing the underlying engine so much that this would be much of a concern.
 

Yeah, but that'd be more reason to be talking about it early, rather than less.

And sure, some might be more circumspect. But I don't think they're changing the underlying engine so much that this would be much of a concern.
Exactly. That makes me feel like my speculation has some weight to it. Lesson learned, so get your 3pp partners onboard even earlier this time. Early enough that the suits force you to agree to an NDA so they feel comfortable greenlighting the meeting.
 

Ah. Thanks. Not exactly the same, I guess. But a difference without a distinction?
Not quite.

Most WotC SRDs are Open Game Content, and most WotC Open Game Content was released in SRDs, sure.

But in addition to there being WotC-authored OGC that wasn't released in an SRD (the stuff in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana), there's also a WotC-released SRD that contains no Open Game Content (the "4th Edition System Reference Document", for use with the Game System License, which I believe was last updated on February 27, 2009).

Yeah, it's mostly just nitpicky. But only mostly.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top