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.

 

[Voadam]

So a bunch of people that hate WotC have been banging the ogl drum for a while, echo chamber style, until they repeat it enough times that it becomes a thing that WotC feels compelled to comment about.

That about sums it up no?

You missed the part about WotC's response saying that they do intend to revise the OGL. Which raises issues and speculation based upon what WotC has said they plan to do. Which is the situation now.

There are now people who were not worried about the rumors of WotC cancelling the OGL (as WotC can't under the terms of the license) who are concerned about what WotC's announced actions will entail and how they can complicate things going forward.

 

[Remathilis]

I heard Doctor Cornelius Evazan doesn't like him either.

He better watch himself, they have the death sentence on twelve systems.

 

[Umbran]

... pretending to be so pathetically naïve

Any adult human being of normal intelligence and who is reasonably worldly...

Good lord lol. There's little worse that treating naivete as a virtue, rather than a form of ignorance...

Merry Christmas!

Mod Note:
I know Morrus told you to calm down. I'm going to go a bit farther than that.

To repeatedly insult someone, and then say, "Merry Christmas" is not acceptable behavior for these boards. It has earned you a ticket out of this discussion.

Be better to your fellow humans.

 

[see]

Their statement about software never being part of the intent seems to be directly contradicted by WotC's old FAQ on the OGL which had some discussion of authorized OGC and software interaction.

I mean, yes and no?

Yes, the 1.0 FAQ responded to what was literally a Frequently Asked Question.

No, the OGL 1.0a was not intended to cover software, and its terms certainly have no accommodations for making it easy to avoid the whole program winding up under the OGL, which is why the [EDIT: 1.0 version of the] FAQ warns about the risk of "rendering your entire program a derivative work of Open Game Content" and thus requiring the distribution of the whole thing under the OGL, and how that's likely to conflict with any licenses for any third-party code.

Sure, it's at least theoretically possible to keep the derived-from-SRD parts in the code to what you're allowed to do under standard copyright law without a license, and then have separate OGL-licensed data files, and dynamically combine on load, while also making sure the presentation clearly marks what is OGC to the user. But few programmers are expert enough in copyright law to make that approach safe, and certainly the further you get from a simple character generator, the harder it gets to do things like properly mark all the OGC in your UI.

So, for example, it seems obvious to me that when Tactical Adventures announced it got a license to use the SRD, it in fact was announcing it got a separate, non-OGL license from WotC/Hasbro in order to use the SRD5 content the way they did in Solasta.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You missed the part about WotC's response saying that they do intend to revise the OGL. Which raises issues and speculation based upon what WotC has said they plan to do. Which is the situation now.

where I understand that people want others to calm down and take WotC word as intended not pulling it apart, I don't under stand where

So a bunch of people that hate WotC have been banging the ogl drum for a while, echo chamber style, until they repeat it enough times that it becomes a thing that WotC feels compelled to comment about.

That about sums it up no?

this idea comes from.

The people on my tic tok (called begger tok because they are begging people to try other systems) and my Youtube who are neutral or don't like WotC either ignore or just make fun of WotC, people raising concern have all been people who like WotC and D&D.

Now I am sure there is and always have been people who hate stalk WotC just to complain, but that isn't what I am seeing here. I am seeing people (who wrongly) think WotC can just end the OGL/SRD that brought so much of this to force (as much as you can) WotC to make a statement...

but now that statement instead of reassuring (and make no mistake it could have) the truth where not being the dumb "take away OGL" it is "more restrictions going forward" and people are now trying to sus out what that means.

 

[Remathilis]

The people on my tic tok (called begger tok because they are begging people to try other systems) and my Youtube who are neutral or don't like WotC either ignore or just make fun of WotC, people raising concern have all been people who like WotC and D&D.

Now I am sure there is and always have been people who hate stalk WotC just to complain, but that isn't what I am seeing here. I am seeing people (who wrongly) think WotC can just end the OGL/SRD that brought so much of this to force (as much as you can) WotC to make a statement...

There was a certain amount of people who were pushing the Open D&D hashtag that:

1.) Like D&D
2.) Dislike WotC (or the current direction WotC is going, blah blah blah)
3.) Have a vested interest in selling you 3pp products that replace WotC's offerings.

Which makes the panic-induction twofold. First, it reinforces the notion that WotC doesn't care about the game, only money (whereas I, the humble 3pp, care deeply about the game, buy my stuff) and second, it creates the panic that greedy WotC is going to FORCE you to buy its soulless, microtransaction-filled content while suppressing my heart-felt and lovingly crafted works of art. The call to action, of course, is to tell WotC to back off any changes to the OGL while simultaneously not buying their products and buying my stuff instead. Oh, and drop a like on this vid for the algothrim and support my patreon, thanks.

Now, I have nothing bad to say about people who make 3pp content and sell it. But I do think a select group of the people who have been whipping up the stir on Open D&D hashtags are using it to sell the "WotC bad, by MY stuff" line, which doesn't exactly make them neutral arbiters in the conversation. Convincing you that WotC is corporate and out-of-touch while they have the pulse of what the fans furthers their bottom line.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was a certain amount of people who were pushing the Open D&D hashtag that:

1.) Like D&D
2.) Dislike WotC (or the current direction WotC is going, blah blah blah)
3.) Have a vested interest in selling you 3pp products that replace WotC's offerings.

Which makes the panic-induction twofold. First, it reinforces the notion that WotC doesn't care about the game, only money (whereas I, the humble 3pp, care deeply about the game, buy my stuff) and second, it creates the panic that greedy WotC is going to FORCE you to buy its soulless, microtransaction-filled content while suppressing my heart-felt and lovingly crafted works of art. The call to action, of course, is to tell WotC to back off any changes to the OGL while simultaneously not buying their products and buying my stuff instead. Oh, and drop a like on this vid for the algothrim and support my patreon, thanks.

Now, I have nothing bad to say about people who make 3pp content and sell it. But I do think a select group of the people who have been whipping up the stir on Open D&D hashtags are using it to sell the "WotC bad, by MY stuff" line, which doesn't exactly make them neutral arbiters in the conversation. Convincing you that WotC is corporate and out-of-touch while they have the pulse of what the fans furthers their bottom line.

The funny thing is, I don't frequent YouTube and have no interest in social media beyond stuff like this site, but I also like D&D, dislike where WotC is going, and buy a lot of 3PP.

 

[Malmuria]

There was a certain amount of people who were pushing the Open D&D hashtag that:

1.) Like D&D
2.) Dislike WotC (or the current direction WotC is going, blah blah blah)
3.) Have a vested interest in selling you 3pp products that replace WotC's offerings.

Which makes the panic-induction twofold. First, it reinforces the notion that WotC doesn't care about the game, only money (whereas I, the humble 3pp, care deeply about the game, buy my stuff) and second, it creates the panic that greedy WotC is going to FORCE you to buy its soulless, microtransaction-filled content while suppressing my heart-felt and lovingly crafted works of art. The call to action, of course, is to tell WotC to back off any changes to the OGL while simultaneously not buying their products and buying my stuff instead. Oh, and drop a like on this vid for the algothrim and support my patreon, thanks.

Now, I have nothing bad to say about people who make 3pp content and sell it. But I do think a select group of the people who have been whipping up the stir on Open D&D hashtags are using it to sell the "WotC bad, by MY stuff" line, which doesn't exactly make them neutral arbiters in the conversation. Convincing you that WotC is corporate and out-of-touch while they have the pulse of what the fans furthers their bottom line.

Exactly. These 3rd parties are not interested in releasing stuff via OGL 1.0 nor, god forbid, create for other games. They specifically want access to the onednd market, whatever that ends up looking like, and they want to be able to market their products as compatible without signing up for a new license. I'm going to guess those who can will end up begrudgingly signing up for OGL 1.1, unless they make a disallowed product like NFTs.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, I tend to look at it like this.

The OGL was written in the 90's originally. Even the second swing at the cat was written in what, 2000? So much has changed since then. And, frankly, the license does need to reflect some of those changes. The fact that online content and non-print content isn't really clearly outlined is a reflection of the time it was written.

I seriously doubt that anyone in 2001 would have predicted smart phones capable of running entire D&D games or hundreds of thousands of gamers playing on VTT's. Never minding something like AI.

Imagine someone uses the OGL to bang out a AI program that generates modules. We've seen already that you can use stuff like AI Chat programs to make adventure outlines. It won't be that long before you can use it to generate an entire module, including art. We've had random dungeon generators for many years, but, this is a very large step forward.

If I've buy that program, what do I need WotC for ever again? I have an unlimited adventure generator that works. Does all the maps, art, room descriptions, possibly includes hyperlinking between stuff for ease of use. I feed a couple of parameters into it and poof, I have a professional quality module.

Now, is this a valid use of the OGL? Is this what WotC intended with the OGL? I would argue no. But, it's not that far away. And, I can kinda understand WotC wanting to raise some fences around it's game to stop, or at least slow down, that sort of thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There was a certain amount of people who were pushing the Open D&D hashtag that:

1.) Like D&D
2.) Dislike WotC (or the current direction WotC is going, blah blah blah)
3.) Have a vested interest in selling you 3pp products that replace WotC's offerings.

Which makes the panic-induction twofold. First, it reinforces the notion that WotC doesn't care about the game, only money (whereas I, the humble 3pp, care deeply about the game, buy my stuff) and second, it creates the panic that greedy WotC is going to FORCE you to buy its soulless, microtransaction-filled content while suppressing my heart-felt and lovingly crafted works of art. The call to action, of course, is to tell WotC to back off any changes to the OGL while simultaneously not buying their products and buying my stuff instead. Oh, and drop a like on this vid for the algothrim and support my patreon, thanks.

Now, I have nothing bad to say about people who make 3pp content and sell it. But I do think a select group of the people who have been whipping up the stir on Open D&D hashtags are using it to sell the "WotC bad, by MY stuff" line, which doesn't exactly make them neutral arbiters in the conversation. Convincing you that WotC is corporate and out-of-touch while they have the pulse of what the fans furthers their bottom line.

I am very happy that we have creators around here who are just not spreading panic.