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

Kinda reminds of that poster who was talking about the last playtest before it became public (2011/12).

More than a few poo pooed it and then the D&Dnext playtest was announced.

So was the YouTuber wrong? Kinda but broadly speaking they were on the right track it seems.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah I think if we were going for maximum honesty they should have called it something other than an OGL, but I guess at a certain point one must balance honesty and marketing lol.

When someone is pressed into answering before they are ready, chiding them for not having their words exactly and precisely in line isn't exactly constructive.

The thing isn't done yet. Don't lean too heavily on minute details of language before it is done. That way likes misconception.
 


When someone is pressed into answering before they are ready, chiding them for not having their words exactly and precisely in line isn't exactly constructive.

The thing isn't done yet. Don't lean too heavily on minute details of language before it is done. That way likes misconception.
I'd broadly agree with this, but my view is that this isn't called OGL because they were under pressure (that they created!), this is called OGL because it's the only name which wouldn't do some kind of PR damage.
 

When someone is pressed into answering before they are ready, chiding them for not having their words exactly and precisely in line isn't exactly constructive.

The thing isn't done yet. Don't lean too heavily on minute details of language before it is done. That way likes misconception.

It is not done, but so far WotC's only statements on 1.1 OGL are that it will be a version of the OGL and not a separate license like the GSL. They could change directions and do a non-OGL license like they did with the GSL but so far their only statement is pretty explicit that this is intended to be a revised new version of the OGL.

From the Beyond statement:

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

"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"

"we’re updating the OGL"

"Bottom line: The OGL is not going away."
 

I'd broadly agree with this, but my view is that this isn't called OGL because they were under pressure (that they created!), this is called OGL because it's the only name which wouldn't do some kind of PR damage.
This presupposes that they BELIEVE that there would be some level PR damage beyond what they are not willing to navigate. I am... not convinced that is the case.

There is still plenty of time to pivot and slip whatever carrot and stick they were looking to slip into the updated OGL into an equivalent to the D20STL and/or the participation agreement for the platform and leave the OGL itself largely alone.
 

It is not done, but so far WotC's only statements on 1.1 OGL are that it will be a version of the OGL and not a separate license like the GSL. They could change directions and do a non-OGL license like they did with the GSL but so far their only statement is pretty explicit that this is intended to be a revised new version of the OGL.

From the Beyond statement:

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

"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"

"we’re updating the OGL"

"Bottom line: The OGL is not going away."
They also seem to have their own, potentially revisionist ideas of, "what the OGL was intended to do".
 


Well, they certainly wouldn't be the only ones...
Probably, yes. My understanding, however (and I admit I could be wrong), is that the OGL was not specifically, primarily intended to be a direct benefit to the corporation that authorized its release to the public. WotC seems to think that it was, and is doubling down on that aspect of it.
 

lets pretend for a moment that WotC could sunset the OGL, and force anyone to use this new OGL that has these limits (report income and at highest pay a royalty) would that effect us as end users? (Notice I am asking of the player base end user not the people selling 3pp supplements)
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top