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


log in or register to remove this ad





My TOTAL SPECULATION HERE.

1) The new SRD released under the OGL 1.1 will not itself be called "Open Game Content", to avoid all question of whether you can use the new SRD content under older versions of the OGL. There'll be some new designation, and rules on combining Open Game Content with the new stuff.

2) The new SRD released under the OGL 1.1 will have not just revised versions of the current SRD5, but more content, in order to encourage people to use it rather than go along using existing Open Game Content under the OGL 1.0a. (Since the new content is under a new name, they can restrict it more than OGC to avoid the "Print your own PHB clone" problem.)

This, again, is TOTAL SPECULATION HERE. It seems reasonable to me, but I know nothing. I note the release mentions nothing about "Open Game Content" by name; I do not know if that's significant.

I'll also note that if they're putting out drafts of the OGL 1.1 in 2023, before the release of the new revision of the game, this bodes well for taking community feedback. Hasbro/WotC won't magically give up what they see as their interests here, and we have no idea how they'll react to feedback, but it does indicate they intend to at least listen. That's a definite step up from what was the 4e/GSL process.
 

Kickstarter will give some numbers, but I can't think of any Kobold Press, Green Ronin, EN Publishing, Frog God Games, type of companies who even have stuff on DM's Guild. Some of their people individually do, but I can't think of any company products from them there.
The design team is on pretty good terms with a lot of the large 3PPs. A lot of them are either currently working with, or have worked with WotC in the past. Many of them are also run by former WotC employees. WotC just had a meeting with a bunch of 3PPs to discuss this very issue with them. There is a good chance they just asked them.
 

I'll also note that if they're putting out drafts of the OGL 1.1 in 2023, before the release of the new revision of the game, this bodes well for taking community feedback. Hasbro/WotC won't magically give up what they see as their interests here, and we have no idea how they'll react to feedback, but it does indicate they intend to at least listen. That's a definitive step up from what was the 4e/GSL process.
I agree about them releasing the v1.1 OGL ahead of the release of 1D&D. While we likely won't see a 1D&D SRD until at least a year later (when they release the full edition), this does allow for feedback to be taken into account ahead of time where the OGL is concerned. It's worth remembering that WotC did revise the GSL in response to all of the negative feedback it received, though by that point it was too little too late.
 

The design team is on pretty good terms with a lot of the large 3PPs. A lot of them are either currently working with, or have worked with WotC in the past. Many of them are also run by former WotC employees. WotC just had a meeting with a bunch of 3PPs to discuss this very issue with them. There is a good chance they just asked them.
Another failure of specificity, where "the design team" and "WotC" should be made more explicit. Who on the "design team" is senior enough to have relationships with the owners of the large, third-party publishers, and be on "good terms" with them? Crawford? Perkins? My impression of those two is that they keep to themselves and aren't going out to dinner with their third-party counterparts at GenCon. Other designers who are lower on the masthead might have better relationships that sprang from freelancing, but without the clout to steer WotC's policies. So, at best, they'd be using their own credibility with their contacts to vouch for Crawford and Perkins. This strikes me as incredibly unlikely.

Is there anyone above Crawford and Perkins in the D&D organization who has these relationships on "good terms" with third-party publishers? It can't be Rawson, the new D&D SVP who just came off a job at Microsoft and used to work at Amazon. The guy who replaced Winniger? He's never worked on a D&D product before being put in charge of the entire D&D design team. (They could have promoted Crawford or Perkins to the job, people with experience making D&D products, but didn't. Let that fact sink in.) Does that guy have a professional network among third-party D&D publishers? Maybe, but I don't see any evidence of it.

So who at "WotC" met with the third-party publishers? Probably the business development guys, the folks responsible for revamping the OGL so that it works harder for WotC. These are the lawyers and MBA-types, not the D&D designers. Again, not people with real professional networks or experience in D&D publishing.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top