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 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.

Open Game License v1.0a

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.

System Reference Documents

System Reference Documents (SRDs) are compilations of Open Gaming Content, usually released under the terms of the Open Gaming License (OGL).

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[Faolyn]

Sure, but wanting to share something you made for fun in your spare time is not "a life's work", and you would not be whining about potentially having to share a portion of the profits unless you where hoping to make a substantial profit.

...

OK, people who are serious about selling their work aren't doing it in their "spare time." It's literally their job. They're spending hours upon hours each day into this product. I spent probably hundreds of hours on my first published book, and that was just a collection of new heritages and cultures with black-and-white art, not an entire world. And it wasn't "made for fun." I enjoyed working on my book, but it was literally work.

You are seriously devaluing the amount of time and effort needed to produce a book

You are also ignoring that WotC isn't taking money off the profit. They are going to take it off the revenue. I did almost all the non-playtest work on my book myself--the writing, the art, design, and the layout--and my mother volunteered/demanded to do the proofreading. But for a big book, a lifetime's work sort of book, it's almost guaranteed that you will need to hire likely multiple artists, designers, editors, proofreaders, and even consultants, most or all of whom need to be paid. And that's not even taking printing into consideration--my book was pdf only, but lots of people want print books, and not just print-on-demand.

What this means is, with WotC taking money off the revenue, if you were lucky enough to sell enough to make over $750k through kickstarter or your sales, there's a good chance you're actually going to lose money because of WotC now. Which means that in the future, people aren't going to be putting out the big books that we've gotten used to.

 

[Morrus]

You are also ignoring that WotC isn't taking money off the profit. They are going to take it off the revenue.

In all fairness, I've never seen a licensing agreement based on profit. They're all based on revenue. Of all the things in that license, that particular item is pretty much standard (though the rate is very high).

 

[rcade]

Believe it or not, this seems unclear... or at least, I don't see what the difference is.

At least, if 'all content published under it' means only 'open content', I don't see how this differs from what they can do today, if they still have to follow the OGL requirements.

Almost nobody using OGL 1.0 releases the entire work as open game content. The norm is for only a small portion to be OGC. For this reason, OGL 1.1's "Hasbro gets to use your whole work nom nom nom" is extremely different than OGL 1.0's "anyone gets to use the portion of your work designated as OGC that isn't Product Identity."

(I only know of a few products from the early days where the entire text was OGC -- the first Green Ronin Freeport supplement and AEG's Good and Evil supplements.)

 

[Steel_Wind]

Several places have explicitly said that the leaked 1.1 "O"GL allows WotC to reproduce all content published under it, at any time, for any reason, as often as they like, in whole or in part, for free.

Essentially, if you use the 1.1 OGL, you are giving up any ability to control your work. Ever. WotC gets absolute control over your work and doesn't have to pay you a dime.

It is not the fact of this statement that struck me as odd -- it was the indignation behind it.

Stepping back, how is this an unjust result? Somebody else could do any of this under the 1.0a OGL anyways (other than protected content). Why is it unjust or seen as wrong for WotC to do this?

I could see how WotC might want to allow for this on any VTT it might implement. Why is that result something gamers in the hobby would not want?

While I remain open to being persuaded that this is an unjust or unwise result, I'm not there yet. Let me be VERY CLEAR about that: I am not at all initially persuaded that this outcome is not in the average gamers' interest.

And given that we are talking about an OGL, that is not a small point.

 

[Morrus]

At least, if 'all content published under it' means only 'open content', I don't see how this differs from what they can do today, if they still have to follow the OGL requirements.

Yup. I believe it's functinally similar to the rights granted by the current OGL, albeit with some nuances.

 

[Art Waring]

Sure, but wanting to share something you made for fun in your spare time is not "a life's work", and you would not be whining about potentially having to share a portion of the profits unless you where hoping to make a substantial profit.

Don't worry, you've convinced me.

Going forward I will be creating my own system built from the ground up without the OGL, and without being beholden to anyone else.

I will be taking a considerable loss, both in time already invested in my previous 5e-adjacent project, sunk business costs, and a the prospect of potentially not having anyone even interested in playing a game that isn't at all related to the current top dog in the industry.

I already said this before. I am not in this for the money, I am trying to create something that will last. I guess that will take more time but I am willing to put in the effort if it means that I get to own my work completely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is not the fact of this statement that struck me as odd -- it was the indignation behind it.

Stepping back, how is this an unjust result? Somebody else could do any of this under the 1.0a OGL anyways (other than protected content). Why is it unjust or seen as wrong for WotC to do this?

I could see how WotC might want to allow for this on any VTT it might implement. Why is that result something gamers in the hobby would not want?

While I remain open to being persuaded that this is an unjust or unwise result, I'm not there yet. Let me be VERY CLEAR about that: I am not at all initially persuaded that this outcome is not the average gamers' interest.

And given that we are talking about an OGL, that is not a small point.

Have you ever thought about publishing a setting book?

If you were to use the 1.1 "O"GL license to get baseline D&D mechanics (e.g. the Fighter class), then literally every single thing you ever wrote for that setting book would belong, in perpetuity, to WotC. They could republish, rewrite, or reuse any and all of it, at their leisure, without asking you for permission or paying you anything, ever. Doesn't matter whether 99.9% of the book is setting material--because you used the "O"GL at all, for any portion of the work, the entire work is now freely usable by WotC whenever they want, for whatever they want, as often as they want.

 

[Morrus]

Have you ever thought about publishing a setting book?

If you were to use the 1.1 OGL license to get baseline D&D mechanics (e.g. the Fighter class), then literally every single thing you ever wrote for that setting book would belong, in perpetuity, to WotC. They could republish, rewrite, or reuse any and all of it, at their leisure, without asking you for permission or paying you anything, ever. Doesn't matter whether 99.9% of the book is setting material--because you used the OGL at all, for any portion of the work, the entire work is now freely usable by WotC whenever they want, for whatever they want, as often as they want.

That is not how I understand the info we've heard. I am sure it refers to the OGC. The Gizmodo article refers to 'content created under the OGL', which to my understanding would be that content delineated as OGC (thus the new stricter dilineation requirements). We don't have a quote from the license containing the words 'entire work' or anything similar.
This is all we know from Gizmodo--

WotC also gets the right to use any content that licensees create, whether commercial or non-commercial. Although this is couched in language to protect Wizards’ products from infringing on creators’ copyright, the document states that for any content created under the updated OGL, regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will have a “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”

It also has that odd "regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator" line, but as I pointed out elswhere, there's nothing that, say, Cubicle 7 could sign with anybody which would grant them the power to sublicense the BBC's Doctor Who IP.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Have you ever thought about publishing a setting book?

If you were to use the 1.1 "O"GL license to get baseline D&D mechanics (e.g. the Fighter class), then literally every single thing you ever wrote for that setting book would belong, in perpetuity, to WotC. They could republish, rewrite, or reuse any and all of it, at their leisure, without asking you for permission or paying you anything, ever. Doesn't matter whether 99.9% of the book is setting material--because you used the "O"GL at all, for any portion of the work, the entire work is now freely usable by WotC whenever they want, for whatever they want, as often as they want.

No, I haven't thought about publishing a setting book.

And to be more focused on the point, WotC hasn't thought about publishing your setting book, either. And it's not going to do so now - or in the future. So what are you really going on about now, in practical terms?

I appreciate that your indignation is still evidently exposed and quite raw at the prospect of this. I get it.

Nevertheless, I am not moved. I can well appreciate that you do not see this to be in your interest. Fine. I get it. Still, I am not persuaded that it isn't in gamers' interest, generally, no matter how aggrieved you might personally be about it.

Maybe you should step back, have a coffee and think about this some more?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is not how I understand the info we've heard. I am sure it refers to the OGC. The Gizmodo article refers to 'content created under the OGL', which to my understanding would be that content delineated as OGC (thus the new stricter dilineation requirements). We don't have a quote from the license containing the words 'entire work' or anything similar.

I can only say what others have reported, and others have explicitly said that that is the result of the new document. Perhaps they are wrong. To have heard it from multiple sources who claim to have seen the document, however, makes me think they are not.