• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Zardnaar

Legend
wait can they just "No longer authorize" the old OGL?!? I thought everyone said that was impossible?!!?

Well it's debateable bit theoretically possible apparently for moving forward.

Then it comes down to who wins in court if it goes that far (leak may not be accurate, work in progress etc).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
The intention is to replace OGL 1.0a with 1.1a, which would mean my license gives them that authorization. At least ostensibly.

Like Netflix changing their terms of service. You either accept the new terms, or your license runs out. Either I stop publishing, or I let them do what they want with it.
There's been a lot of discussion about this in the other thread on the topic, and while no one seems to know anything for sure, I don't think it works like that. If your book is currently published (under the OGL v1.0a), then I'm pretty sure it doesn't automatically get kicked over to the OGL v1.1 unless you (or rather, your book's publisher) deliberately republishes it under the new license. Even if you don't, I don't think that you have to cease selling it under the OGL v1.0a.

But I'm no lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt.

EDIT: If your book isn't already published when the OGL v1.1 comes out though, then you might be right about not being able to publish it under the OGL v1.0a if WotC "deauthorizes" it.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
The intention is to replace OGL 1.0a with 1.1a, which would mean my license gives them that authorization. At least ostensibly.

Like Netflix changing their terms of service. You either accept the new terms, or your license runs out. Either I stop publishing, or I let them do what they want with it.

Yeah, there's a thread for the kickstarter in the Level Up forum. It's 5e/A5e compatible material.

Have you watched Rules lawyers take on it?
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I can understand the possibility that this might be what they're thinking, but in reality, should WotC decide to give themselves an open right to crush anyone's licence for any or no reason, it clearly poses a titanic business risk for any 3pp publisher. 'Trust us, we'll only do it to the bad guys' isn't going to carry much water. If you're Kobold Press or someone, this is WotC saying that they can destroy your livelihood and your company at the stroke of a pen and you have no recourse. Just the possibility could be an unacceptable risk.
I agree. I was just trying to figure out the motives for this idea of theirs, and this was the "best" reason I could think of for them to even propose this.

I'm absolutely terrified that if this is true, they could try to use it to take Paranormal Power away from me to publish it, themselves. Just straight up "Oh, yeah, well. We own your work. So we're gonna sell it and give you nothing since you agreed to license it to us by using the OGL!"
While it's really unlikely they'll take your book since even if your system is the most brilliant psionics system ever, you're still too small for them to notice, the idea that they could say "good idea; it's mine now" (or "good idea, but we want people to use our system instead, so we're squashing this") to anyone is unnerving to say the least. I've actually been wondering if this is going to affect any LU stuff.
 


Remathilis

Legend
this is a great place for me to jump in.

I did payroll for a (small) business that let the workers just report "I worked X hours this week" and get a check by a supervisor agreeing... then I would do the payroll. The owners son came in and was 100% sure we were paying people for non work... so he instituted a punch system (electronic not a physical punch clock) where you had to enter each time you were or were not working... after 2 weeks of needing to adjust small punches, and me pointing out the system cost more then a month of payroll we ended up paying MORE for payroll.
The reason was people were UNDER reporting hours. "Oh I did work till like 4 15 instead of 4 and I did come in at 7 20 instead of 730" used to be rounded to "I did 8 hours" but with the new system it was 8 hrs 25 minutes, and the system flagged that as 1/2 hour of OT. Now 1/2 hour doesn't sound like much but 1 of the employees had his emails on his phone and would "Just do something quick" over weekends and never report it... but he had to now, and EVERYONE was coming in early and leaving late, and (especially that 1 guy) would work through there half hour breaks sometimes... people who were claiming 40hr checks in June were in August getting 44 hour checks... and we got not even a slight bump in productivity.
Said son tried to institute a rule about no nonpre approved OT... his mom and dad shut that down REAL quick... and they decided to give everyone a bonus as "since we can see you always put in extra work"

TLDR sometimes trying to make something MORE beneficial for your company can end up costing you more.
The same thing happened when we changed from ADP to Workday; we were getting emails about how our punches were costing OT and if we could face disciplinary action if we accrued OT without supervisor approval. So people who would start early out stay after or worked though lunch stopped and surprise surprise, productivity dropped.

Between that and the supervisors constantly fixing missed punches because the app wouldn't respond or everyone leaving for the holiday crashed the system, it's been a real upgrade for... someone.
 


JEB

Legend
Quoting @Sacrosanct from the other thread:

It's like people keep forgetting what the text of the OGL actually says

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
....
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

Which sounds good and reassuring, until you realize that "any authorized version" is the part that Wizards is allegedly going to pivot from.

The question seems to be, can Wizards - as the legal owner of the text of the OGL ("The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.") - simply declare that the old version is no longer "authorized" and functionally obliterate it in favor of 1.1?
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
Quoting @Sacrosanct from the other thread:



Which sounds good and reassuring, until you realize that "any authorized version" is the part that Wizards is allegedly going to pivot from.

The question seems to be, can Wizards - as the legal owner of the text of the OGL ("The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.") - simply declare that the old version is no longer "authorized" and functionally obliterate it in favor of 1.1?
I don’t think WoTC has a strong case even if you assume that. The license I (and others) agreed to (1.0) is perpetual, and allows use of anything designated as open content for ANY version of the OGL, including future licenses ( assuming a 1.1 version is a version of the OGL, which it is, cuz of the .1 designation…)

I can’t think of a single case where an owner licensed usage in perpetuity and later could just revoke it on a whim.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top