• 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

The risk is, again, quite small. If someone had tried to publish something akin to what nuTSR tried, I wouldn't want my brand to be associated with it either.

Not sure you’re understanding here. This is nothing to do with nuTSR or WotC potentially going after individual publishers based on offensive content. This is about the viability of the licence as a licence.

RPG products have long development and lead times. If a publisher commits to a product, writes, edits, commissions art, and prints, we could be looking at 18 months and tens of thousands of dollars in sunk costs. Now WotC seems to be claiming that they can change the licence at will at 30 days notice amd revoke all previous licences so you cant use one of those. That makes it impossible to know what the licence terms will be at publication time when you’re developing a product. You stand a real risk of getting stuck with unsellable books, or having to redesign/reprint at great expense.

Fundamentally, a licence is a kind of contract. It sets out the business relationship between parties so that both sides know where they stand and can plan their future moves accordingly. WotC is claiming the right to rewrite that contract, at will, for everyone, at any time. Many publishers will likely decide that’s not a business environment they can work in. This is peoples’ livelihoods we’re talking here, and WotC is suddenly asserting that the OGL will offer zero certainty going forward, and anyone relying on it for their business is building castles on sand.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer
The risk is, again, quite small. If someone had tried to publish something akin to what nuTSR tried, I wouldn't want my brand to be associated with it either.



That's the only real potential issue I see, but it only affects an incredibly small number of products.
You don't know what the risks are let alone that they are "small". Under the OGL 1.1 WotC could easily lower the threshold for royalties to something much less than $750,000, and the $50,000 reporting requirement leaves the door wide open to do exactly that. They can also raise the royalty rate as well as add even greater restrictions to what and how companies produce.

As for the notion that this will only affect "an incredibly small number of products" because it only applies to companies with revenues above $750,000 a year, what that misses is that those are the most popular products and so would seriously impact the large number of people who enjoy the products from those companies.
 

Art Waring

halozix.com
RPG products have long development and lead times. If a publisher commits to a product, writes, edits, commissions art, and prints, we could be looking at 18 months and tens of thousands of dollars in sunk costs. Now WotC seems to be claiming that they can change the licence at will at 30 days notice amd revoke all previous licences so you cant use one of those. That makes it impossible to know what the licence terms will be at publication time when you’re developing a product. You stand a real risk of getting stuck with unsellable books, or having to redesign/reprint at great expense.
This is exactly what has affected my ability to continue forward with my project.

I have been in development for years creating a 5e-adjacent rpg, spent several thousand dollars on art commissions, And have spent the last several years creating additional artwork myself to cut down on overall costs.

I was about a year away from my goal, then this happens, and I am now stuck trying to find out how to go forward with a project that has been the culmination of my life's work.
 
Last edited:


Art Waring

halozix.com
So, why didn't you create something original? I mean, I wouldn't want my life's work to be a rehash of something someone else has already done.
I am creating something original, a unique setting, new worlds, characters, and a dozen new core classes, and over 200 monsters using the ruleset I am most familiar with.

A ruleset that has had a precedent for two decades of being open gaming content under the OGL 1.0a (until these recent developments). A ruleset that they said would be open to everyone, and they have been saying that for the last 20 years until now.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
So, why didn't you create something original? I mean, I wouldn't want my life's work to be a rehash of something someone else has already done.
Not to speak for Art, but just because something is based on or related to other work it does not diminish the passion and value of the new work. This is a central point to the ideas around this issue: ideas should inspire and lead to new ideas.
 


Oofta

Legend
I think all of this is overstated. Whether they can revoke the old OGL is open to debate, the basic idea is that perpetual is irrevocable if both sides benefit from the contract. But I'll leave that up to the lawyers.

The new OGL we have is a draft, not the final version. If I were someone like Kobold Press I'd have my lawyers talk to WOTC and work something out. To be honest, I think WOTC should get some revenue from companies that make more than three quarters of a million dollars off their IP. If it ever even comes to that. A more likely result will be that Kobold Press (and the other handful of large companies) will work out a deal with WOTC to sell their products on DDB.

But small publishers? If WOTC took their property right now and made minor changes before publishing it as their own? Those small publishers probably couldn't afford the lawyers to fight it anyway. Even under the proposed OGL if WOTC didn't compensate the original publisher, the public backlash alone would not make it worth their while. They have a slow rate of publication for official material, I don't see that changing. Out of all the risks of publishing, WOTC stealing the idea would be way, way, way down the list.

Or maybe I'm all wrong and the sky is falling. I'd make some wagers that in a year we'll have pretty much forgotten about all of this, but that violates forum policy.
 


Arilyn

Hero
3pp are not leeching off WoTC and they are absolutely not encroaching on WoTC's profit. The open gaming license has allowed a flourishing symbiotic relationship which is helping to maintain the popularity of 5e. The most successful Kickstarters tend to be 5e products. This is all free advertising for WoTC as well as keeping fans playing their game.

The new license is a slap in the face and demonstrates that Hasbro does not understand how all of this has been working, or understands but now feels they're big enough to dump 3pp or gouge them.

I believe the "deauthorization" part will go away as WoTC will not want to face the public backlash of killing off most content creators out there. Not sure they could legally remove original OGL anyway. The horrible restrictions on One D&D however may very well stay and agreeing to 1.1 will definitely not let you bring stuff out under original OGL as well.

Ultimately, the fans have the power. Let WoTC know by not buying their products and let them know why. Support 3pp! Spread the word.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top