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

@UngainlyTitan and @Reynard What if my content includes a cleric and I want to create their stat block? This is going to get back to what "backwards compatible" means, but without an updated SRD, I can't stat up a 5.5 cleric while staying within the safe harbor. The class table is different. The class abilities are different. I can't just stat up my guy with Divine Spark and claim it's using SRD v5.1. I mean, I can, but I'm well outside the safe harbor if I do.
So the 5.5 cleric has as class features: Channel Divinity, Spellcasting, Holy Orders, Cleric Subclass (features), Feat, Smite Undead, Blessed Strikes, Divine Intervention( and Greater D.V.), and Epic Boon.
The 5.1 Cleric has Spellcasting, Divine Domain, Channel Divinity, ASI/Feat, Destroy Undead, Divine Intervention, and Divine Intervention Improvement.

Now you cannot copywrite (Not a Lawyer) mechanics but only the expression of those mechanics. This gives some leeway.

The Cleric Subclass is the replacement for Divine Domain and I do not see why you are prevented for inventing your own Divine Domains that match the structure of the 5.5 subclasses. That is what Solasta has done with 5.1 where the reproduce the base 5.1 subclasses and then add a whole bunch of new ones that follow that pattern but are not mechanically identical to any other existing WoTC subclass.

You need a replacement for Holy Orders, Smite Undead, Blessed Strikes and Epic Boon appears in the DMG not sure about it being in the SRD.
Smite Undead actually exists in the SRD but under Channel Divinity and Blessed Strikes are in there as Domain features.
That leaves Holy Orders, again you could cover it as a new class feature or Domain features. It is kind of there already as Domain features as far as I remember.

What did I miss? People that do this for a living please comment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

@UngainlyTitan and @Reynard What if my content includes a cleric and I want to create their stat block? This is going to get back to what "backwards compatible" means, but without an updated SRD, I can't stat up a 5.5 cleric while staying within the safe harbor. The class table is different. The class abilities are different. I can't just stat up my guy with Divine Spark and claim it's using SRD v5.1. I mean, I can, but I'm well outside the safe harbor if I do.
I'm assuming you are making a monster stat block and not a pre-gen PC.

You can get away with a lot by just referencing the core books. For example, "spiritual weapon" on the NPCs spell list is fine because the rules of the spell aren't in the stat block, they are in the PHB and it doesn't matter if it's the 2014 or 2024 version of the spell. The same thing is fine if you say the npc can turn undead. If you're really concerned, create a similar ability called "castigate undead" that closely mirrors the ability you want. NPCs don't have to match what the PC classes do, so anything you want can be justified.

Now it might get a little trickier with something like a subclass since the levels of a subclass might be a hangup. You can probably get away with making a compatible sub as long as again you reference the rules rather than reprint them.

The only real problem I can see would be references to things that are new to 1D (like ardling) or utterly new systems (bastion vs downtime) but I think even if we don't get an updated 1D SRD, most prior people will be able to make new subclasses, classes, feats, spells, species, monsters and NPCs.
 

What did I miss? People that do this for a living please comment.
I did this for a living for six years. The 3.5 core books used to have this disclaimer on the copyright page:

This Wizards of the Coast(r) game product contains no Open Game Content. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

[bold added for emphasis]

As far as I know, they don't even bother with this anymore because they don't have to. The OGL and SRDs are well defined. Now, if you want to "get away with a lot" because "mechanics can't be copyrighted," you can absolutely do that. You could do this even if there were no OGL or SRD. You can publish your own Monster Manual, change the names, and see what happens. You can do that. However, you will not be operating within the safe harbor created by the OGL.

That's all I have to say about that. I haven't seen any credible sourcing behind these rumors, and I don't think Wizards is going to start taking action against small third party publishers even when they're very obviously operating outside the safe harbor defined by the license. I suspect their strategy includes walling more content within their gardens (D&D Beyond, VTT, DMs Guild), but even if that suspicion is true, I have no idea what tactics they would use to accomplish it.
 

Edit: Apologies Greg, I didn’t necessarily mean you. Though your posts prompted this one.
No worries. I spent much of my time at FFG dealing with this sh*t. Not just the OGL -- we had "gray areas" with everything from the TCG patent (we don't "tap" cards, we "kneel" them!) to Chaosium's claims to the Cthulhu Mythos. I'll just choose not to get bent out of shape about people explaining it to me.
 


I did this for a living for six years. The 3.5 core books used to have this disclaimer on the copyright page:



[bold added for emphasis]

As far as I know, they don't even bother with this anymore because they don't have to. The OGL and SRDs are well defined. Now, if you want to "get away with a lot" because "mechanics can't be copyrighted," you can absolutely do that. You could do this even if there were no OGL or SRD. You can publish your own Monster Manual, change the names, and see what happens. You can do that. However, you will not be operating within the safe harbor created by the OGL.

That's all I have to say about that. I haven't seen any credible sourcing behind these rumors, and I don't think Wizards is going to start taking action against small third party publishers even when they're very obviously operating outside the safe harbor defined by the license. I suspect their strategy includes walling more content within their gardens (D&D Beyond, VTT, DMs Guild), but even if that suspicion is true, I have no idea what tactics they would use to accomplish it.
Ok Then I am genuinely confused. If I am interpreting your posts correctly then you are not disputing that a designer can still build on the 5.1SRD after the One D&D release, why cannot that that designer create a subclass (Divine Domain ) where the features come online at levels 3, 6, 10 and 14 instead of the existing pattern of levels 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17?
 

I just got an email update from a Kickstarter I backed ("Historica Arcanum: Empires of the Silk Road" by Metis Creative). It's not exactly a Matt Colville or Critical Role level of a KS, but it did back over $200K. Apparently, they were concerned enough to send this email...

Announcement Regarding the State of the OneD&D and OGL
Hello everyone,

We wanted to release an update to explain our stance regarding the troubling news on OneD&D and OGL.

For your information, Wizards of the Coast has previously generously provided the community with the OGL, the Open Gaming License, which allows 3rd party content creators like us to develop games for the 5th edition with a few limitation. As Wizards of the Coast is preparing for another edition, the situation of the OGL has been brought to debate - especially since Wizards of the Coast, and their parent company Hasbro, has called for "increased monetization".

If it ever comes to that, that WotC completely blocks the way for us to create Historica Arcanum for 5th edition or beyond, we will decide on the future of this IP, and what system will be powering it, with you, our community. Our design philosophy has always been Historica Arcanum first, 5e (or any other system) second.

From our individual experience as people who love tabletop rpgs, we believe that our hobby has benefitted massively from being creator friendly - and we were blessed with swathes of custom and well designed content for our tables. We hope that this game remains OPEN for all as it evolves over time.

Please do let us know what you think of this policy change by WotC and Hasbro. All our team, including our legal counsel will be keeping a very close eye on all the news.

All the Best,

Metis Creative
 

Ok Then I am genuinely confused. If I am interpreting your posts correctly then you are not disputing that a designer can still build on the 5.1SRD after the One D&D release, why cannot that that designer create a subclass (Divine Domain ) where the features come online at levels 3, 6, 10 and 14 instead of the existing pattern of levels 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17?
You could.* You couldn't stat up an NPC and give them Divine Spark or Holy Order, unless those abilities are included in the SRD. Now, if they're not included in the SRD but you still want your NPC to be "1D&D compatible," you have some options:

  • You could say "screw it, I don't care about any 'safe harbor,'" and include Divine Spark and Holy Order anyway.
  • You could say, "This looks like a gray area, let's see what I can get away with," and change the name "Divine Spark" to "Godly Gewgaw" and have it otherwise work the same.
  • You could say "I don't want to be sued," and just replace those non-SRD abilities with completely new ones, tolerating any perceived deviance from "compatibility."

One of those options would be operating within the safe harbor.

ETA the *: I think you could. If Wizards didn't include the 1D&D class table in the SRD and you used it to create your stat block, maybe their lawyers could come back and say, "This content was created using a table that is not in the SRD (see Exhibit A) and therefore violates the terms of the Open Gaming License, which means it is a violation of our copyright." If they did this, it's not so much about nuances of copyright law, it's that you're being sued by Hasbro, which, of course, is why a safe harbor is a nice place to be. In reality, they'd almost certainly send you a C&D before suing, since their lawyers don't charge as much for those.
 
Last edited:

You could. You couldn't stat up an NPC and give them Divine Spark or Holy Order, unless those abilities are included in the SRD. Now, if they're not included in the SRD but you still want your NPC to be "1D&D compatible," you have some options:

  • You could say "screw it, I don't care about any 'safe harbor,'" and include Divine Spark and Holy Order anyway.
  • You could say, "This looks like a gray area, let's see what I can get away with," and change the name "Divine Spark" to "Godly Gewgaw" and have it otherwise work the same.
  • You could say "I don't want to be sued," and just replace those non-SRD abilities with completely new ones, tolerating any perceived deviance from "compatibility."

One of those options would be operating within the safe harbor.

Yes and what is the problem?

I am not buying third party stuff for a reproduction on what I can get from WoTC in the first place. I am buying it for interesting twists on that baseline.
 

You could.* You couldn't stat up an NPC and give them Divine Spark or Holy Order, unless those abilities are included in the SRD.
Unless either of those things is listed as PI, that's just not true. You can put those names of things in the statblock. You can even restate their effects. You can't put copyrighted text in your publication.

I just did a pretty big project doing exactly this for 3PP KS project. The biggest issue is how much you want to restate, versus how much you want to leave the buyer to find out where to find stuff. I erred on the side of getting as much useful info in the statblocks as possible so I did a lot of concise restating.

Now one place I was very conservative was leaving out any campaign setting specific species names. No, that NPC is not a kalashtar (or whatever). It was a weird case of backers of a certain tier getting to put their favorite character as an NPC in the book and hoo boy those people don't give a whit about legalities.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top