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.

 

[GreyLord]

You don't think these people did their due diligence and study the history of the massively profitable IP they have been tasked with making more profitable than ever. Lol. They aren't Musk.

Which people are we talking about?

The people at WotC, OR the people at Hasbro...and which people at Hasbro?

The stock holders who impact decisions (those who collectively own up to 75% of the company together)?
the CEOs, CFOs, COOs, other officers of the company..etc?
The Board?

Of those last three I can guarantee that you have those that DO study and watch and know all about the history of WotC and OTHER brands under the Hasbro umbrella, but I also guarantee there are those that do not go as in depth and are more concerned about the present than something that happened over a decade ago.

However, you should also see who runs the entire show...I'd say he has a little familiarity with D&D (little being a slight exaggeration, he has a lot more than a little with D&D and MtG).

Right now though, I think there are a FEW (meaning not most) people acting like chicken little rather than waiting to see what will actually be written. It probably won't be as bad as they all think, though there could be a chance that it is worse too. I really don't know. I think it's a wee bit too early to be able to say at this point.

And lest you think it is only WotC that makes decisions, they DO occasionally take orders from people above them at the main company.

Edit: Though most of this is probably being handled by their Legal department and some of the execs at WotC (IMO of course). This is probably also a BIG reason (or this is an extension of the start of the actions they are taking) of WHY they put who they did over the brands that they did just a short while back.

 

[codo]

This was one of Ryan's broad statements early on. He never presented data that I saw, but it was widely known that book trade returns were ultimately what killed TSR.

I think book returns didn't so much kill TSR, as they kept TSR's bloated corpse afloat for a few more months, before it crashed and exploded. It should have actually died quite a while before it actually did. TSR just used the book trade returns as a source of short term loans. The advance from each book was used to fund the next one. It was basically a pyramid scheme.

TSR was always kind of horribly mismanaged. It was either run by D&D nerds, who didn't know how to run a business, or business people who didn't understand the product they made. There was also plenty of pettiness, toxic behavior and greedy self-dealing, on all sides. It's actually kind of amazing that TSR lasted as long as it did.

 

[dbolack]

I think book returns didn't so much kill TSR, as they kept TSR's bloated corpse afloat for a few more months, before it crashed and exploded. It should have actually died quite a while before it actually did. TSR just used the book trade returns as a source of short term loans. The advance from each book was used to fund the next one. It was basically a pyramid scheme.

My memory of this is it was the fiction side of the house where this damage was done. One or more of the Big Booksellers going under ( Waldenbooks? ) was a big part of this as well. Though I am very fuzzy. It was a few sleeps ago now.

TSR was always kind of horribly mismanaged. It was either run by D&D nerds, who didn't know how to run a business, or business people who didn't understand the product they made. There was also plenty of pettiness, toxic behavior and greedy self-dealing, on all sides. It's actually kind of amazing that TSR lasted as long as it did.

Yes, it was. Frequent product decisions without oversight, etc. Products that cost more to make than they sold to distribution for. ( That boxed book set addiction, etc. )

 

[codo]

My memory of this is it was the fiction side of the house where this damage was done. One or more of the Big Booksellers going under ( Waldenbooks? ) was a big part of this as well. Though I am very fuzzy. It was a few sleeps ago now.


Yes, it was. Frequent product decisions without oversight, etc. Products that cost more to make than they sold to distribution for. ( That boxed book set addiction, etc. )

You may be right, it has been a while. From what I remember it was more that TSR was paid for their books in advance by the distributer and then TSR paid back a refund for books that didn't sell. When TSR got in financial trouble they started printing large print runs of books just for the advance, to cover basic expenses and payroll.

 

[glass]

@darjr my inerpretation of 'WotC granted us a license' was always 'we used the OGL'. Technically true. WotC grnated me a license too, and thousands of others!

I wondered if they meant that, but don't they refer to trademarks, which is a no-no under the OGL?

The DMsGuild

They obviously know exactly how much everyone who using DMsGuild is making from it, but since DMsGuild and the OGL are incompatible, none of that can be "OGL-related revenue". The latter could be zero, or 10000x DMsGuild revenue, or anywhere in between.

Which is another point actually - the OGL 1.0A is written to be short and clear (fits on one page, and AIUI the strict legal meaning of all the sections is as close as possible to the plain-English meaning). I do not see how they are going to define "OGL-related revenue" without getting into some serious legalese, and thereby losing that brevity and clarity.

It has worked amazingly for decades, helping D&D grow and diversify. There is no way on Earth they are going to throw that away

So, there was this goose, and it laid golden eggs....

 

[Alzrius]

I think I see the flaw in your interpretation.

Section 1g defines "use" of open content as in "what does it mean to "use" this stuff in the SRD?" Section 9 is talking about use of the license.

Well, it's talking about the use of the license to "copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License," which seems like a pretty straightforward declaration of what the license is being used for.

 

[EpicureanDM]

TSR was always kind of horribly mismanaged. It was either run by D&D nerds, who didn't know how to run a business, or business people who didn't understand the product they made.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

 

[Umbran]

Well, it's talking about the use of the license to "copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License," which seems like a pretty straightforward declaration of what the license is being used for.

So, again, there are two ways you interact with a license.
On one side you accept license terms for the OGL content you intend to copy, modify, and distribute.

On the other side, you publish under a license to elucidate terms under which others may accept to copy, modify, and distribute your derivative work..

These are not the same action.

I don't think you get to accept an SRD under whichever license you choose. I think you get to choose which license terms you offer to the next guy.

In the past, there's been no need for this distinction, given how similar v1.0 and v1.0a were. You offered the next person down the line the same terms you accepted. But now, there's a major difference. WotC may be big enough to demand that folks announce works to them, and take financial reports, but small publishers probably don't want to do that.

 

[Alzrius]

So, again, there are two ways you interact with a license.
On one side you accept license terms for the OGL content you intend to copy, modify, and distribute.

On the other side, you publish under a license to elucidate terms under which others may accept to copy, modify, and distribute your derivative work..

These are not the same action.

But Section 3 makes it clear that if you use Open Game Content in a work you publish, you're accepting the Open Game License:

3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.

The capitalization of "Using" indicates that it's put forward under the definition in Section 1(g), and the above Section defines that usage is indicative of acceptance of the license terms. You an argue that they're not technically the same action, but the above clause puts forward rather clearly that one signifies the other.

 

[Nylanfs]

You can have it - but not under the OGL. You need a separate licensing agreement with WotC to do them - like Roll20 and other VTTs already have, and will continue to have.

You can also do a combined method like PCGen does where the engine has a license (LGPL, Apache, etc), and the data that drives it is released as OGC under the OGL (which PCGen's lst files are).