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.

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.

Open Game License v1.0a

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.

System Reference Documents

System Reference Documents (SRDs) are compilations of Open Gaming Content, usually released under the terms of the Open Gaming License (OGL).

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And you seem to be in the minority...

Your point being?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is totally bollocks. As if sustainable money can be done with short term cash grabs.

Short term cash grabs are often very attractive, especially if your highest priority is trying to keep investors happy.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Your point being?

That your comment made no sense in that context.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Short term cash grabs are often very attractive, especially if your highest priority is trying to keep investors happy.

Not if your whole system depends on the long term investment of people.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, it's not good game design if no one wants to play it. Game design that isn't fun, isn't good

Game design that's fun and good isn't always game design that sells.

If we look at the history of RPGs that's pretty clear. A lot of astonishingly well-designed games have laboured in relative obscurity, where real clunkers and mediocrities have often done extremely well. I'm not going to name names so we can have a nerd slap fight about them, but they're out there.

This is because, historically, what game people play is more a matter of, let's say "gaming culture" than any real analysis of whether the game is fun, and furthermore, because roleplaying itself is fun, especially with a good group/DM, the right people can make even a deeply mediocre game feel fun, hell even an actively bad game.

And there's the "not knowing any better" issue - we're absolute freaks of nature here because most of us have played quite a few RPGs. Most people haven't. Most people have just played one or two, and have no real critical ability to evaluate the quality of a game. Even when you've played more, you often have to play several sessions to get a real feel for a game (not always admittedly), and even then, a good adventure or DM can really push up a game, and a bad one can drag it down massively.

The reason most people play D&D isn't because D&D is "the best". It's undoubtedly a well-designed and relatively accessible game, but it's nowhere the best-designed or most accessible or most inherently fun RPG, it's succeeding for cultural reasons and marketing, because it's the best-known brand.

So absolutely people "want to play" games with bad game or mediocre design due to marketing and culture. Monopoly is still a thing for god's sake (and don't even try to pretend that's well-designed - it even fails at its original mission of proving capitalism sux). D&D right now isn't bad or mediocre, but it's easy to foresee a situation where WotC, who see D&D as a lifestyle brand, were happy to let sacrifice design if it meant they could sell more or price higher.

 

[bedir than]

Game design that's fun and good isn't always game design that sells.

If we look at the history of RPGs that's pretty clear. A lot of astonishingly well-designed games have laboured in relative obscurity, where real clunkers and mediocrities have often done extremely well.

This is because, historically, what game people play is more a matter of, let's say "gaming culture" than any real analysis of whether the game is fun, and furthermore, because roleplaying itself is fun, especially with a good group/DM, the right people can make even a deeply mediocre game feel fun, hell even an actively bad game.

And there's the "not knowing any better" issue - we're absolute freaks of nature here because most of us have played quite a few RPGs. Most people haven't. Most people have just played one or two, and have no real critical ability to evaluate the quality of a game. Even when you've played more, you often have to play several sessions to get a real feel for a game (not always admittedly), and even then, a good adventure or DM can really push up a game, and a bad one can drag it down massively.

The reason most people play D&D isn't because D&D is "the best". It's undoubtedly a well-designed and relatively accessible game, but it's nowhere the best-designed or most accessible or most inherently fun RPG, it's succeeding for cultural reasons and marketing, because it's the best-known brand.

So absolutely people "want to play" games with bad game or mediocre design due to marketing and culture. Monopoly is still a thing for god's sake (and don't even try to pretend that's well-designed - it even fails at its original mission of proving capitalism sux). D&D right now isn't bad or mediocre, but it's easy to foresee a situation where WotC, who see D&D as a lifestyle brand, were happy to let sacrifice design if it meant they could sell more or price higher.

That seems like the analysts that call it fun and good are out of touch with the audience. They'd be the same type of people who consider popular TV/movies/music bad, while those movies do very well. Then they try to make their own, stomping their feet in anger when no one pays attention.

Analysts who are out of touch with audience should be ignored.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That seems like the analysts that call it fun and good are out of touch with the audience. They'd be the same type of people who consider popular TV/movies/music bad, while those movies do very well. Then they try to make their own, stomping their feet in anger when no one pays attention.

Analysts who are out of touch with audience should be ignored.

All I'm saying is that the focus should not always be on what's most popular. I thought I heard people saying WotC wants everyone to use their stuff and buy their being. That means you have to offer more than one option, even if that option is what "most" people think they want.

 

[Morrus]

That seems like the analysts that call it fun and good are out of touch with the audience. They'd be the same type of people who consider popular TV/movies/music bad, while those movies do very well. Then they try to make their own, stomping their feet in anger when no one pays attention.

Analysts who are out of touch with audience should be ignored.

I cannot agree with the suggestion that people who do not hold the majority opinion should be ignored.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All I'm saying is that the focus should not always be on what's most popular. I thought I heard people saying WotC wants everyone to use their stuff and buy their being. That means you have to offer more than one option, even if that option is what "most" people think they want.

Ok. If you say it that way, it makes more sense.
But still they should also do the thing for the majoroity, otherwise they soon have a problem with monetizing and getting cash.

Or if you want: if they can get more money out of the najority, they are actually free to also deliver something only a few people want without tearing big holes in their budget.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok. If you say it that way, it makes more sense.
But still they should also do the thing for the majoroity, otherwise they soon have a problem with monetizing and getting cash.

Or if you want: if they can get more money out of the najority, they are actually free to also deliver something only a few people want without tearing big holes in their budget.

Options. That's always what I want. The more options out there, the more people have something they want and the more stuff is available to be adapted to different people's tables. It's better for me, for other consumers, even for WotC. Not doing that is part of why 4e wasn't as popular as it might have been, IMO. Providing more ways to play back in the 80s helped draw in people who weren't on board with the old ways. Back then though, they didn't expand into new areas at the expense of old ones. That's what I'm concerned about now. The new edition seems to be pushing a playstyle, posdibly at the expense of others.