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

They are attempting to have thier cake and eat it, while making money on it. Hasbro has declared the brand is under monetized and they want a piece of all the successes like critical roll and the big kickstarters.

If they arent careful they may boost another Dnd Clone if all the freelance content creators decide being successful under the new open license is too expensive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As a reminder: the OGL was built to allow WotC to off load "not-profitable-enough" work onto 3rd parties -- to control and monetize the Role Aids market. 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, especially after testing the waters with the GSL and finding it full of sharks. WotC doesn't want to hobble 3rd parties because they don't want to pay staff to create 32 page adventures or run magazines, even though they know these things feed the D&D machine.
I mean, this is what we in the trade call "wild optimism".

People have made bigger screw-ups, and changing the OGL, especially in a way that seems to be saying "Wait, maybe the not-profitable-enough work IS profitable enough!" indicates a profound change in thinking. So what may have held true for "decades" doesn't necessarily have to continue to hold true. What's especially concerning is they both say "Only 20 companies would impacted", yet see this as some kind of priority. It obviously can't seriously positively impact their bottom line, given how few companies it impacts, can it? Yet they're willing to take the PR hit and potential damage to those 3PPs just to say they're eking out a few more pennies from them. Does seem like smart long-term-ism to you?

WotC's leadership now is completely different to WotC's leadership in 2014. Chris Cocks didn't arrive until 2016, and has gradually onboarding more and more Microsoft people. They got rid of the one leader who had significant RPG design experience (but also significant corporate experience) when they ditched Ray Winninger, and effectively replaced his role with a more powerful one, and a guy with absolutely zero games (of any kind) experience, but a ton of experience "converting people to digital subscriptions".

If you think "nothing has changed" for WotC, and I'm not saying you do, but it's the impression your posts gives, well, I don't think that's right.

The GSL thing happened in 2008, too. And what they're doing here is very similar to the 2008 strategy, except it's actually more far-reaching and aggressive.

Before any puerile peanut gallery responses about "doomsaying" pop up, let me stress, I'm not saying that WotC screwing this up completely is necessarily even likely. I think there's ample time for them to course-correct, or equally they could just not go all-in on the worse potential aspects of this. But I think it's very optimistic to think there's "no way" they'd screw up the OGL and so on. Rather I'd say there's a reasonable chance.
Look it is possible these people are greedy evil twits, but I'm inclined to think maybe we don't have all the information yet and they are probably trying to balance profits with customer satisfaction because that's the route to sustainable growth.
The issue for me is I am wholly unconvinced any of the people in the genuine leadership positions at WotC really have any concept of what "customer satisfaction" means in the context of a tabletop roleplaying game, and I strongly suspect they aren't very interested in running a tabletop roleplaying game, but rather a digital subscription service - with microtransactions - that happens to theoretically relate to what was once regarded as a tabletop roleplaying game.
 
Last edited:

Look it is possible these people are greedy evil twits, but I'm inclined to think maybe we don't have all the information yet and they are probably trying to balance profits with customer satisfaction because that's the route to sustainable growth.
If you look at the current state of MtG, they absolutely threw out sustainability along with the bathwater for short-term profit. Their stocks are down by 40% because of this fact.
 

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.
That's essentially it. The book trade - at least at the time - would buy books and expect to be refunded for volumes not sold, which they would destroy. I do not remember any specific shenanigans regarding print run size, but I do remember some book trade downsizing was a big contributor and as a result, they had a lot of debt due to returns. I would not be surprised if both were the case.
 





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:

But, there isn't one "the Open Game license". There are several very similar licenses, with different terms.

We laymen ought to be careful when reading legal English. I interpret what it says differently, in a way that seems more sensible in terms of a company that expected that, some time in the future, they'd want to change what license they offer material under. To wit:

"By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

Which license is "this license"? A license is a contract, and it is not meaningful out of a particular contract context. Any open content, each SRD, is (and must be) published with a copy of a license. So, "this license" refers to whichever one is with the SRD you just picked up. If WotC offers the OneD&D with OGL v1.1, "this license" is v1.1. You must accept those terms to use (copy, modify, distribute) the material in the particular SRD.

Section 9 is telling you that your own material doesn't have to be bound by the same conditions as WotC is asking for. If WotC requires royalties, you don't also have to require royalties.
 
Last edited:

But, there isn't one "the Open Game license". There are several very similar licenses, with different terms.
Well, there are (currently) two, with terms that are near-identical; the only difference between v1.0 and v1.0a that I'm aware of is that the Section 7 is different, where the former talks about "trademark" the latter refers to "trademark or registered trademark." v1.1 has yet to be released, so at this point it's more of an idea than anything.
"By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

Which license is "this license"? A license is a contract, and it is not meaningful out of a particular contract context. Any open content, each SRD, is (and must be) published with a copy of a license. So, "this license" refers to whichever one is with the SRD you just picked up. If WotC offers the OneD&D with OGL v1.1, "this license" is v1.1. You must accept those terms to use (copy, modify, distribute) the material in the particular SRD.

Section 9 is telling you that your own material doesn't have to be bound by the same conditions as WotC is asking for. If WotC requires royalties, you don't also have to require royalties.
Well, as noted, I'm interpreting Section 9 differently than you are: that as written, it allows people to use "any authorized version of this License" (such as the OGL v1.0a) to "copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content" (such as the 1D&D SRD) that was "originally distributed under any version of this License" (such as the OGL v1.1).

As such, you could use any particular iteration of the OGL (or rather, you could use v1.0, v1.0a, or presumably v1.1, though that's still presumptive at this point) to copy, modify, or distribute any particular Open Game Content from any iteration of the OGL, and the one which you use it under then becomes "this license" for the purposes of Section 3.

Now, I can absolutely see that being less sensible for WotC, in terms of it doesn't give them the degree of control that they seem to want with regard to usage of the OGL v1.1, but that strikes me as being the intent of the wording in v1.0 and v1.0a; they're "future-proofing" Open Game Content from exactly that sort of restrictions.

But as noted, that's just my lay opinion. We might know more when v1.1 finally releases, but until then it's all speculative.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top