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.

 

[codo]

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

Well, what we have to note is that, with 5e, WotC has intentionally keep the publishing rate slow. It was shown that the firehose of content they'd done in previous editions was not sustainable, so they chose to take the sustainable route.

And, weirdly, that seems to have earned them more money, than if they chose the content firehose.

This is a point that seems to get lost on a lot of people. The splatbook churn business model that D&D followed from 2nd to 4th editions is destructive and unsustainable. The problem with trying to make money churning out splatbooks as quickly as possible is that each book tends to sell fewer copies than the last one.

It takes a large staff to produce a book a month. The problem with a large staff and diminishing returns on sales is that eventually you are not making any money, and you need to reduce staff. Remember WotC's tradition of annual Christmas layoffs? That is a inevitable result of diminishing sales. This leads to fewer writers, working on the same number of books, which inevitably leads to rushing and a loss of quality.

Eventually your start loosing money and you need to throw everything out and start over with a new edition.

There seems to be some people that just can't under stand that for 5E, WotC deliberately chose to break the cycle to spat churn and go in a different direction. The deliberately went with a smaller staff and a slower release rate. They also deliberately broke the cycle of new editions that invalidate all of your old books with a new edition.

The designers keep telling us over and over again that all of your old 5e adventures and supplements with work with the new version of 1D&D, but people keep on not believing them, and assuming they are lying, because they are stuck in the old model and can't even comprehend a different one. For close to a decade now I keep seeing people who are certain that any day now WotC is going to open the floodgates, drowning us under a torrent of new content, despite the designs deny it over and over. I don't how long they need to keep saying something before some people actually believe them.

 

[dave2008]

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...

Spoiler: Metis Creative Statement Regarding the OGL

Announcement Regarding the State of the OneD&D and OGL

Spoiler: Metis Creative Statement Regarding the 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

It seems like they don't understand the OGL either. If they are making a setting/supplement compatible for 5e with the OGL, it will be good now and forever. Whether or not it is compatible with '24 remains to be seen. From what WotC has said, the answer is yes. We have to wait and see of course.

 

[Clint_L]

As a miniatures enthusiast, I have long noted that WotC is pretty generous with letting folks play in their sandbox, but there are what seem to me very reasonable parameters. For example, Reaper miniatures makes versions of almost all the classic D&D monsters, even though they don't have a specific licence like, say, Wizkids. For example, I just painted up their "Fathom Tyrant," which is very obviously an Eye of the Deep with two extra eye stalks. So it deviates a bit from the official art and doesn't get to use the copyrighted name, but we all know what it is, and WotC is fine with it.

WotC have traditionally been supportive of third-party content providers, and I see no reason why they would not continue to be so. That said, they may well intend to strengthen their core brand in ways that could pose greater challenges. For example, if the movie is huge and they therefore decide to really start emphasizing the Forgotten Realms as the default setting for the game so that they can build up the strength of that IP, that could create less demand for non-FR material from third parties.

The other thing is that D&D is not a product like, say, Disney, in the sense that its IP is not nearly as integral. D&D is rooted in individual imaginations; every player and every table is to some degree unique in how they interpret the game. This is why it is such a rich source for third-party creators, because if they come up with something cool then their creation still gets to be part of D&D insofar as it is up to each player to decide what counts and what doesn't. Fathom Tyrants are now part of my D&D universe because I have a really cool miniature, and there's not really anything WotC can do about that. Not that they care to try.

 

[Umbran]

...but people keep on not believing them, and assuming they are lying, because they are stuck in the old model and can't even comprehend a different one.

This discussion will go much more smoothly if you don't assert what other people, who you know only from a few posts on the web, can and cannot comprehend.

 

[Greg Benage]

Unless either of those things is listed as PI, that's just not true.

If that were true, they would have just listed their PI and skipped the SRD. You are only licensed to use Open Game Content. Wizards identifies what is Open Game Content by publishing it in an SRD. You are not licensed to use anything they've published that isn't in that document. That's why the document lists its PI, then says: "All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

Example: If you stat up a pregen in a published adventure and give them the Elven Accuracy feat, you have used content that is not designated as Open Game Content, even though "Elven Accuracy" is not listed as PI.

 

[dave2008]

Example: If you stat up a pregen in a published adventure and give them the Elven Accuracy feat, you have used content that is not designated as Open Game Content, even though "Elven Accuracy" is not listed as PI.

Yes, but you can just rename the feat. 3PP produced 5e content before there was an updated OGL and 5e SRD. The big issue, IIRC, was the advantage / disadvantage mechanic. They just had to come up with a different name for it. There are work arounds.

I hope they update the SRD for '24 D&D, but I suspect it will be largely unnecessary for 3PP.

 

[Reynard]

If that were true, they would have just listed their PI and skipped the SRD. You are only licensed to use Open Game Content. Wizards identifies what is Open Game Content by publishing it in an SRD. You are not licensed to use anything they've published that isn't in that document. That's why the document lists its PI, then says: "All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

Example: If you stat up a pregen in a published adventure and give them the Elven Accuracy feat, you have used content that is not designated as Open Game Content, even though "Elven Accuracy" is not listed as PI.

Again, copyright protects specific expressions of an idea, not the idea itself. Since "elven accuracy" is composed of words in common usage, you can certainly call an ability "elven accuracy." You can't reprint, verbatim, the book entry for Elven Accuracy, and you can't reference that book, but you can put the name "elven accuracy" in the stat block all day long. You can even put an "elven accuracy" ability in your book -- as long as you wrote it.

 

[Reynard]

Elven Accuracy: creatures with the elf creature type never miss using ranged attacks.

There -- I made an elven accuracy ability. Now what?

 

[Greg Benage]

Yes, but you can just rename the feat.

Yes, you can give your pregen "Awesome Elven Aim" and assume the reader knows what you're talking about. Or you can create a new feat that reproduces the mechanical effect. I feel we're going in circles, here.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

now that is an interesting question... if changing something as small as when the subclass effects come in changes this?