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

Voadam

Legend
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)
Only to the extent it drove companies like Kobold Press or EN Publishing to switch to other games instead of D&D. If you only buy and use WotC direct stuff and DM's Guild stuff then OGL stuff one way or another would not be a direct impact as a D&D player.

If you were looking for an upcoming OneDnD Creature Codex type thing then that would be the potential loss to you as a consumer/player.

Depending on how this hypothetical sunsetting of OGL worked, access to buying older published stuff could potentially be impacted as well.
 

dbolack

Adventurer
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.

I would say you are wrong, though that might be an individual difference of opinion on whether something is a direct or indirect benefit. :)
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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)
Yes, absolutely. Because it would encourage (force) 3pp to create content the way WotC wants them to, and if you as the consumer liked content as it was, too bad.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
We don't have to guess why the OGL was developed and implemented in the first place. It is all well documented and Dancey was perfectly explicit.

We don't have to wonder why might happen if WotC decides to develop and implement an alternative to the OGL for their new edition. It was tried once already.

I don't understand why folks want to go in circles trying to suss out these two particular points when we know the answers already.
 

glass

(he, him)
We don't have to guess why the OGL was developed and implemented in the first place. It is all well documented and Dancey was perfectly explicit.
When Ryan Dancey was EDIT: originally talking about the OGL he was speaking as a corporate officer, so we must assume his statements included a certain amount of spin.
 
Last edited:


glass

(he, him)
He’s spoken about it many times since. I’ve interviewed him about it more than once.
I should have said "originally talking about it"; edited.

Nonetheless, people's reasons for doing things are complex and often poorly understood by even the people themselves, so I would not be too quick to take anyone statements on the matter entirely at face value. Particularly in the case of the OGL, where there were lots of people involved who presumably had different (if overlapping) intentions.

For example, do you really think that Dancey presented it to WotC senior management in the presented way he sold it to the D&D-playing public (as in, exactly the same terms, with identical emphasis and nuance)? Because I don't.
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
For example, do you really think that Dancey presented it to WotC senior management in the presented way he sold it to the D&D-playing public (as in, exactly the same terms, with identical emphasis and nuance)? Because I don't.
What's your point? Are you suggesting Dancey lied about his intent?
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top