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

mamba

Legend
So, well, yes, WotC has always had the ability to take your OGC and use it themselves. They explicitly came out and said that more than two decades ago.
but for that I had to declare something to be OGC, the new one reads like they can take anything someone publishes under the OGL1.1

If this remains limited to the declared OGC, then there is little difference, agreed. Them being able to terminate but keep using the content seems like something that would not have been possible under 1.0 though
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Steampunkette

Rules Tinkerer and Freelance Writer
Supporter
Okay, from the OGL FAQ, as published on the WotC site on February 9, 2001:


Q: Does this mean that someone could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, and then put it in a product and sell that product to someone else?

A: Yes.

Q: To be clear: Does this mean that Wizards of the Coast could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, put it into a Dungeons & Dragons product and make money off it?

A: Yes.

Q: And they wouldn't have to ask my permission or pay me a royalty?

A: No.


So, well, yes, WotC has always had the ability to take your OGC and use it themselves. They explicitly came out and said that more than two decades ago.

Heck, at one point Ryan Dancey himself actually compared the situation of the small OGC producers in such cases to that of black musicians in the 1950s who saw white artists' covers of their songs become major hits. (I don't know where to find that statement now, but I was quite struck by it at the time, because I knew that those black musicians generally had sold the rights to their songs to record labels for a flat fee, and so saw not a dime of the royalties on the cover versions.)

And while under normal circumstances WotC only could take your OGC and use it under the terms of the OGL 1.0a like everyone else, every draft and version of the OGL had a Section 9 equivalent, which allows WotC to write new terms and then use the OGC under those new terms WotC just wrote. Pretty much the very first thing people said when we saw the update provision in the original discussion draft "OGL 0.1" was "Of course, WotC could use this provision to take OGC and then use it any way they like."
But they've never done it, to my knowledge. And certainly not for copywritten material marketed and sold. The fact that they're updating it in such an aggressive and overt manner, from the leak if it is true, indicates some sort of intention.
 

I also think Tech would have a good probability of joining in on the fight as any rulings about the OGL could also affect open source software licenses. So funding a lawsuit becomes even easier if that happens.
the problem is (as I a non lawyer understand it) that you have to be able to show you are affected, and WotC can argue that a computer OGL and a gaming OGL are different enough not to show "Harm"
and those tech companies big enough to engage hasbro law team most likely would not even notice this suit.
 

Voadam

Legend
Except mechanic's can neither be copyrighted nor OGC, the expression of them can (which is where the OGL cam into play) But the mechanic's themselves can't
Rules can be OGC. That is the primary intention of OGC. OGC is different from copyright. Rules that are OGC can also be not OGC. WotC put out the 5e rules in the 5e core books before there was a 5e SRD.
 

mamba

Legend
the problem is (as I a non lawyer understand it) that you have to be able to show you are affected, and WotC can argue that a computer OGL and a gaming OGL are different enough not to show "Harm"
and those tech companies big enough to engage hasbro law team most likely would not even notice this suit.
all they need to do is sponsor it, whether they think that threatens their open licenses is a different topic
 

delericho

Legend
But they've never done it, to my knowledge. And certainly not for copywritten material marketed and sold. The fact that they're updating it in such an aggressive and overt manner, from the leak if it is true, indicates some sort of intention.
The 3e "Monster Manual 2" contained two open monsters created by others. It is one of very few WotC books to contain any open material at all. (And I have no idea if they made any sort of a payment to the individual creators or to Necromancer Games.)
 

Dausuul

Legend
Okay, from the OGL FAQ, as published on the WotC site on February 9, 2001:


Q: Does this mean that someone could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, and then put it in a product and sell that product to someone else?

A: Yes.

Q: To be clear: Does this mean that Wizards of the Coast could take Open Game Content I wrote and distributed for free, put it into a Dungeons & Dragons product and make money off it?

A: Yes.

Q: And they wouldn't have to ask my permission or pay me a royalty?

A: No.


So, well, yes, WotC has always had the ability to take your OGC and use it themselves. They explicitly came out and said that more than two decades ago.

Heck, at one point Ryan Dancey himself actually compared the situation of the small OGC producers in such cases to that of black musicians in the 1950s who saw white artists' covers of their songs become major hits. (I don't know where to find that statement now, but I was quite struck by it at the time, because I knew that those black musicians generally had sold the rights to their songs to record labels for a flat fee, and so saw not a dime of the royalties on the cover versions.)

And while under normal circumstances WotC only could take your OGC and use it under the terms of the OGL 1.0a like everyone else, every draft and version of the OGL had a Section 9 equivalent, which allows WotC to write new terms and then use the OGC under those new terms WotC just wrote. Pretty much the very first thing people said when we saw the update provision in the original discussion draft "OGL 0.1" was "Of course, WotC could use this provision to take OGC and then use it any way they like."
Unless I am mistaken, the terms of the GSL 2.0 (I'm not going to indulge the fiction of calling it an OGL) allow Wizards to take anything that was published with a GSL 2.0 notice attached--including material which you have designated product identity, if that concept even exists in the new license. That is a huge change.

Furthermore, the wording suggests that Wizards retains this power even if they terminate your license, which they can do any time for any reason with 30 days' notice. In other words, if you use the GSL 2.0, Wizards can just say, "Starting one month from today, we're taking your book. You don't get to publish it any more. But we do, and we keep all the money."

Whether this would stand up in court -- and how expensive it would be to get that answer -- is a question I leave to the lawyers. But a lot of 3PPs wouldn't want to take that risk or bear that expense.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
As for the class action - again, IANAL but I doubt it. You can only bring a court case against concrete actions, can't you?

I'm not sure how you'd construct standing for an alliance of 3pp to proactively issue a class action against WotC.

I don't know where you got the idea that I expected this to be proactive.
 

Oofta

Legend
So a leak of wording that is obviously not written like a legal document has led people to speculate that WOTC will do things that they could have done for over a decade now. Not only that but people are freaking out over things that according to the initial post cannot happen. If they did shut someone down a publication (and since I'm not a lawyer specializing in this area of law I'm not going to speculate) it would likely be because the product was actively hurting the brand. Considering some of the things published by not-really-TSR, I'm kind of surprised this wasn't always a clause. They may get inspiration from others just like everyone. But they've always been able to copy anything produced under the OGL and have never simply copied another product so that's even less of an issue.

I see no cause for concern other than "all corporations are bad and will go out of their way to destroy their business". WOTC may be the 800 pound gorilla, but as past sales have shown, they are not a monopoly. There's no guarantee that they will maintain market leadership. If they abuse this license and destroy their brand, other companies can and will step in.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top