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

see

Pedantic Grognard
I seriously doubt that anyone in 2001 would have predicted smart phones capable of running entire D&D games
The Palm VII (1999) was for all practical purposes a smartphone. A primitive one by even eight-years-later standards (2007's the year the original iPhone was introduced), but it was clearly the future, and we all expected them to get better. (Though not to be called "phones", any more than we'd have expected them to be called "cameras".)

or hundreds of thousands of gamers playing on VTT's.
Let me quote the May 2000 EnWorld:

"The Master Tools will NOT ship with any kind of online-play capability. That is a feature which Peter A[dkison of WotC] (among others) has put forward as the ultimate goal of a D&D electronic product."

Seriously, there's pretty much no feature of a VTT that wasn't already in either the 1991 Neverwinter Nights (an online MMO based on the Gold Box series of AD&D computer games) or the 1993 Unlimited Adventures (the "adventure-construction kit" of the Gold Box series of AD&D computer games). The combination at that point (1993) was obvious and predicted, and many of us in 2001 were mostly astonished that it hadn't already been shipped in a form that would be usable by hundreds of thousands at some point during the previous eight years.

From the perspective of 21 years later, in both the smartphone and VTT cases, the clear issue of mass adoption for both was not either the ideas nor technological capability; the only issue was flailing around until someone got the basic elements of the UI right for mass adoption.

Never minding something like AI.
Now, this is absolutely true. In the depths of the second AI winter, "reasonable" people predicting modern AI would have said "in fifty years", not twenty.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nylanfs

Adventurer
Seriously, there's pretty much no feature of a VTT that wasn't already in either the 1991 Neverwinter Nights (an online MMO based on the Gold Box series of AD&D computer games) or the 1993 Unlimited Adventures (the "adventure-construction kit" of the Gold Box series of AD&D computer games). The combination at that point (1993) was obvious and predicted, and many of us in 2001 were mostly astonished that it hadn't already been shipped in a form that would be usable by hundreds of thousands at some point during the previous eight years.
OpenRPG was in beta in 2000's, & Fantasy Grounds was launched in 2004. So it WAS coming. And it was kinda baffling that Hasbro didn't see it coming and want to capitalize on it. Of course there is also their track record (or lack there of) with any type of inhouse controlled software attempt.
 

OpenRPG was in beta in 2000's, & Fantasy Grounds was launched in 2004. So it WAS coming. And it was kinda baffling that Hasbro didn't see it coming and want to capitalize on it. Of course there is also their track record (or lack there of) with any type of inhouse controlled software attempt.
they kind of did... I was running 4e darksun on a prototype gaming table made for/by WotC. It was part of the 4e subscription module that didn't work out... the fact that it never got out of Beta was a shame.
 

Remathilis

Legend
they kind of did... I was running 4e darksun on a prototype gaming table made for/by WotC. It was part of the 4e subscription module that didn't work out... the fact that it never got out of Beta was a shame.
People tend to forget that WotC tried twice before that; once in the Master Tools era (I distinctly remember they had a blog post about monster sound effects, which people at the time couldn't figure out why it was needed in a database/chargen tool, until they said "syke, it's also a vtt") and again in 4e (the original 4e tools had a portrait/mini generator like Hero forge, a vtt, plus the chargen/database tools, until the unfortunate incident that scrapped those plans). Even Project: Morningstar had ambitions of virtual play.

WotC wasn't blind sided by the rise of virtual play, they just kept finding bad partners who couldn't make it work.
 

Mirtek

Hero
they kind of did... I was running 4e darksun on a prototype gaming table made for/by WotC. It was part of the 4e subscription module that didn't work out... the fact that it never got out of Beta was a shame.
Looked very much like Fantasy Grounds and was even integrated with the web based character builder. I played a couple of LFR games on it. Too bad none of the screenshots I made have survived to this day
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
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:



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.
I’m just jumping back in here. Can you summarize the disagreement?
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I’m just jumping back in here. Can you summarize the disagreement?
I suppose the best summary would be to say that there was an idea put forward that "accepting" and "using" the OGL were two different things, and I was pointing out that while that might be technically true, Section 3 ties them together to the point where there's virtually no practical difference.
 

mamba

Legend
"I don't have the level of influence I want, so I will be nasty," isn't a great take in a customer, or a business associate.
at no point did I say we should be nasty, as far as I am concerned all I said was that in the absence of information there will be speculation
 

mamba

Legend
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?
I cannot speak to whether the guys like or hate WotC, but either way, there were discussions about whether 1DD would be under the OGL or not and then WotC dropped the ball by first not responding at all, which is never a good sign (if WotC intended for things to stay the same they could have come out and said so) and then dropped the ball a second time with their non-denial denial in which they lied about the OGL 1.0a, cleared up exactly nothing, and only confirmed what were close to the worst fears of those speculating up to that point. They would have been better off keeping their mouths shut.
 
Last edited:

Hussar

Legend
I cannot speak to whether the guys like or hate WotC, but either way, there were discussions about whether 1DD would be under the OGl or not and then WotC dropped the ball by first not responding at all, which is never a good sign (if WotC intended for things to stay the same they could have come out and said so) and then dropped the ball a second time with their non-denial denial in which they lied about the OGL 1.0a, cleared up exactly nothing, and only confirmed what were close to the worst fears of those speculating up to that point. They would have been better of keeping their mouths shut.
But so long as we're not being nasty. :erm: "lie" "non-denial denial" "confirmed worst fears"

But, sure, you're being all open minded about this.

Good grief, I just had a youtube video pop up on my news "WotC wants Critical Role to PAY!" Yeah, no hyperbole, clickbait feeding there at all.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top