• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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


log in or register to remove this ad

GreyLord

Legend
Morrus has said that WotC doesn't like him, so I doubt he's being paid off.

Unless you were joking about that, in which case, sorry.

I HIGHLY doubt WotC doesn't like him. There may be someone there that doesn't prefer him over others, but I don't think the entire company views him badly. I think some may even be happy for his contributions to the RPG scene.

Overall, I think (IMO in otherwords) that WotC is by and large more of a neutral entity at this point towards others, except in the pursuit of advancing their own agenda.

As for a response by WotC...what would WotC even say in this? That they already have the OGL and SRD...it's up currently and can still be used and utilized?

What are people thinking, that the OGL will suddenly go away or be unable to be utilized at all?

Since when has that happened? Even with 4e there was still an OGL that was used, even if 4e wasn't the basis for it.

With ONE D&D being the same (relatively speaking, meaning the same in the eyes of some of those at Hasbro and being backwards compatible with the original 1 D&D...aka...5e) as it always was...I expect the OGL in effect today would still be fully compatible with what comes out in the future even if nothing changes.

So what are they to say in regards to that? What could they say?
 

And again the idea that WotC needs to address this is not going to help. No matter what they say it will be weaponized against them.
That's doomsayer hand-wringing nonsense, frankly.

A clear statement that they're keeping the OGL absolutely would shut these people up for the very simple reason that nerds love to be right on the internet. Everytime anyone tried to suggest the OGL was going away, they'd get stampeded by nerds trying to link them WotC's statement.

That's just how the internet works. @Umbran just mentioned it even - internet arguments aren't about finding the truth, for the most part, they're about being "right".

Of course that won't happen, but probably not because of EVIL PLANS FOR THE OGL (TM) lol, more likely because WotC's leadership just profoundly don't get that this is at all an issue with any consequences for them, if they're even aware of the issue, which they may well not be. The trouble is not doing anything for that reason looks exactly the same as not doing anything for EVIL PLAN (TM) reasons.

/shrug
It's almost like it's 2008 all over again.
If that were true, WotC would be in big trouble, because the main screw-up in 2008 was WotC's communications (of a variety of kinds). Maybe 4E was always going to lose some people, but it didn't have to lose as many as it did.

That's just more reason for WotC to think about their communications strategy.
There's no telling, some are looking at the play test packets and somehow seeing a whole edition change.
Because the changes are larger than the 3E to 3.5E changes, and looking to be about as big as 1E to 2E? Hell one of the changes is even essentially the same as a "major" 1E to 2E change lol! (The grouping of classes)

I mean, the problem here is that for half the people discussing it, "edition change" is limited to a huge change like 3.5E to 4E, and for the other half, it includes 1E to 2E. Neither is right or wrong, and acting like it can only possibly mean one or the other is a silly dance which no-one needs.
It may be a little harsh, but my attitude toward this group is along the lines of, "congratulations, you played yourself." They self-monetized their hobby and tied it to one specific corporate product (without, it seems, understanding the basics of the licensing agreement they were using). I keep seeing creators say they are going to move away from dnd if there is no updated srd and I'm like, but are you, really? This is a time of great 5e boom but with every boom there is a bust
I'm reminded of the d20 boom and how that basically wiped out a huge proportion of the industry, both from people abandoning their existing stuff to focus on d20, and because people only wanted (or claimed to only want) d20-based games, and the it all came tumbling down (and not even because of WotC).

I don't think I've seen any evidence to support your claim of "misunderstanding the licensing agreement" though. What I'm seeing is being who are freaking out because they do understand it, and they know WotC doesn't have to put out any 1D&D stuff under the OGL, nor a 1D&D SRD.

However I suspect people are correct that if 1D&D keeps the current level of changes, you could use the current OGL and 5E SRD to keep putting out material for it, just slightly more awkwardly - but nowhere near as awkwardly as the GSL made putting out stuff for 4E.
 
Last edited:

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I do wonder what it is people are seeing in the playtest docs that cannot currently be referenced using the existing SRD and OGL? I mean you never had to replicate the text of a subclass, for instance, you just referenced it. What's in this playtest people think they can't "use" by reference in their third party products using the existing licensing tools at hand?
Ardlings?
 

Clint_L

Hero
Sigh. Another day of the non-story being pushed by a few YouTubers pushing for clicks. I suppose every large enough fanbase will attract a toxic fringe and D&D is no exception. And pushing for (another) statement from WotC is not going assuage those types - they live off fear-mongering. It's like expecting a response to the latest nonsense from Alex Jones. The sensible thing to do is just ignore them.
 

If that were true, WotC would be in big trouble, because the main screw-up in 2008 was WotC's communications (of a variety of kinds). Maybe 4E was always going to lose some people, but it didn't have to lose as many as it did.

That's just more reason for WotC to think about their communications strategy.
As a HUGE 4e fan (like it is my fav version of D&D todate by a large margin) I have to agree the marketing for it and the PR around it sucked (It was far from the only flaw).
Because the changes are larger than the 3E to 3.5E changes, and looking to be about as big as 1E to 2E? Hell one of the changes is even essentially the same as a "major" 1E to 2E change lol! (The grouping of classes)

I mean, the problem here is that for half the people discussing it, "edition change" is limited to a huge change like 3.5E to 4E, and for the other half, it includes 1E to 2E. Neither is right or wrong, and acting like it can only possibly mean one or the other is a silly dance which no-one needs.
agreed
 

As a HUGE 4e fan (like it is my fav version of D&D todate by a large margin) I have to agree the marketing for it and the PR around it sucked (It was far from the only flaw).
Yeah like, I loved 4E, but I can see the design was divisive. A divisive design will always lose some people (it might pick up others, but w/e). However, the marketing and communication around 4E is exactly what I'd do if I was trying, intentionally, to sink a game on release. It was genuinely like a The Simpsons bit. Like every possible bad idea, they just rolled them out one after another. If I was a conspiracist I'd think it was intention, but I think one can be adequately explained by (admittedly extreme) stupidity rather than malice. A truly profound misreading of the zeitgeist.

I mean, it wouldn't be the first time it happened in TTRPGs. WW managed it on a much smaller scale with Revised.
 

Kurotowa

Legend
Looks like chatter on this topic has been loud enough that we've got an official statement on it.

We love the interest and passion the community has for D&D. We love D&D, too. So, when we see the D&D community concerned by rumors and misunderstandings, we want to clear the air and share the facts with you, even if it’s a bit earlier than our original plan. You all matter to us, and we want to provide transparency on how D&D will continue supporting third-party creators.

So, here are the facts:

1. Will One D&D include an SRD/be covered by an OGL?

Yes. First, we’re designing One D&D with fifth edition backwards compatibility, so all existing creator content that is compatible with fifth edition will also be compatible with One D&D. Second, we will update the SRD for One D&D as we complete its development—development that is informed by the results of playtests that we’re conducting with hundreds of thousands of D&D players now.

2. Will the OGL terms change?

Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property.

So, what’s changing?

First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

Will this affect the D&D content and services players use today? It shouldn’t. The top VTT platforms already have custom agreements with Wizards to do what they do. D&D merchandise, like minis and novels, were never intended to be part of the OGL and OGL 1.1 won’t change that. Creators wishing to leverage D&D for those forms of expression will need, as they always have needed, custom agreements between us.

Second, we’re updating the OGL to offer different terms to creators who choose to make free, share-alike content and creators who want to sell their products.

What does this mean for you as a creator? If you’re making share-alike content, very little is going to change from what you’re already used to.

If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:

  1. Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
  2. Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
  3. Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.

For the fewer than 20 creators worldwide who make more than $750,000 in income in a year, we will add a royalty starting in 2024. So, even for the creators making significant money selling D&D supplements and games, no royalties will be due for 2023 and all revenue below $750,000 in future years will be royalty-free.

Bottom line: The OGL is not going away. You will still be able to create new D&D content, publish it anywhere, and game with your friends and followers in all the ways that make this game and community so great. The thousands of creators publishing across Kickstarter, DMsGuild, and more are a critical part of the D&D experience, and we will continue to support and encourage them to do that through One D&D and beyond.
I don't know enough about the business side to parse everything, but some shots at Pathfinder with the royalty program, maybe? Or has PF2e diverged enough that it's clear of the OGL at this point?
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top