• 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

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Regardless, Pathfinder is plenty of evidence that this type of thing can happen ... and honestly, if Matt Mercer wanted to sell a Critical Role rule set and use it as a go forward, even if it was flawed* it would sell and be a contender that WotC would really fear.
That's the thing I think people don't quite get. Most 3PP are dependent on WotC and 5E (or whatever the current edition is), but the folks at CR are independent of that. They can play whatever and will not lose their following. But if they put out their own system and play that, they're instantly one of the top 3 RPG companies.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
I think that depends. If they want to establish a legal precedent and/or scare third party publishers into dropping 1.0 OGL I think they would want to go against a little guy in court as opposed to a company like Paizo that has financial resources and presumably a legal team (whether in house or a firm they can call on). Even if it does not go to a trial conclusion, they can probably get a settlement that will be to their advantage that would be a warning and deterrent to little guys.
I guess I just assume that WOTC isn't trying to use FUD to discourage 3PP because to me it makes no sense to do so. But ... I'd suggest you take a look at this post which summarizes a bunch, or this post which is from a lawyer which basically states that a lot of people are probably overreacting and assuming the worst.

I don't see a lot of upside to WOTC being like TSR and going after every perceived infraction. Time will tell of course but until then I'm just going to refer back to the summary of posts by actual lawyers.
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
I think that depends. If they want to establish a legal precedent and/or scare third party publishers into dropping 1.0 OGL I think they would want to go against a little guy in court as opposed to a company like Paizo that has financial resources and presumably a legal team (whether in house or a firm they can call on). Even if it does not go to a trial conclusion, they can probably get a settlement that will be to their advantage that would be a warning and deterrent to little guys.
The Rules of Court or other Rules of Civil Procedure in most common law jurisdictions recognize that when the interpretation of a contract in issue would impact the rights of another party, that affected non-party has a substantive right to intervene in the action in which it has not been named to be added as an intervening party (this is different than intervening merely on an amicus brief as a friend of the court). In most jurisdictions, intervenor status under those circumstances is a substantive legal right, not a discretionary one that the court may choose to refuse.

Were the validity of the OGL -- or the right to shelter under a sub-license based upon a derivative work licensed by the OGL -- to come up in any litigation, it is all but certain that Paizo Inc. would seek to intervene in that litigation if it came to its attention. If that relief to be added as intervenor was requested, it is all but certain that it would be granted by the court as Paizo Inc. would meet every branch of the test to be added as an intervenor (if it wanted to be and made the request.)

While it is true that any plaintiff would prefer to pick its opponent and battle on the grounds most favorable to it, in a case involving the validity of the OGL itself, that preference is unlikely to be accommodated by other, better positioned parties without a good reason to do so. Paizo Inc. has too much at stake to likely permit that without a good reason to do so.

[Corporate/Commercial litigation is what I do for a living. I've been a practicing lawyer for 28 years now.]
 
Last edited:



Steel_Wind

Legend
At first glance, I was wondering why there are (apparently) a lot of lawyers who play D&D.

Then I thought about it some more, and it all made sense.
Most gamers are very good at complicated rules. Some of us decided to turn that into a career.

It's not like we lawyers have a huge presence among gamers, it's more a case that after nearly 50 years, there are just a lot of gamers.

It's a big hobby and so you get people from all walks of professional life engaged in it. Anecdotally, I think IT is the most over-represented in the hobby; lawyers are probably under-represented, tbh.
 

Most gamers are very good at complicated rules. Some of us decided to turn that into a career.

It's not like we lawyers have a huge presence among gamers, it's more a case that after nearly 50 years, there are just a lot of gamers.

It's a big hobby and so you get people from all walks of professional life engaged in it. Anecdotally, I think IT is the most over-represented in the hobby; lawyers are probably under-represented, tbh.
Yeah, I might just be seeing more of them because of this whole kerfuffle, but still, it's a amusing observation.
 


Oofta

Legend
Most gamers are very good at complicated rules. Some of us decided to turn that into a career.

It's not like we lawyers have a huge presence among gamers, it's more a case that after nearly 50 years, there are just a lot of gamers.

It's a big hobby and so you get people from all walks of professional life engaged in it. Anecdotally, I think IT is the most over-represented in the hobby; lawyers are probably under-represented, tbh.

Well some DM's have many inspirations, including Shakespeare. Maybe they take "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." a little too seriously? ;)
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top