WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[Alzrius]

Good luck with that.

I've met a lot of people who talk big about litigation. "It's about the principle!"

That usually lasts for about, oh, one ... maybe two bills.

Paizo has already committed themselves to that fight, so personally I'm hoping that they live up to their statements in that regard.

Actually, that's exactly why we have courts and attorneys. Because one side (or the other) wants to do something else. I mean ... I hope you never learn what "efficient breach" is.

Which doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do, even if they get it through via legal chicanery. Or that they think it's what's best for them. Trying to de-authorize the OGL v1.0a isn't just legally questionable, it's also unethical.

No one is going to die. I'm just saying that they have a reasonable concern, this is common for businesses, they can point to a recent real event that many people are familiar with, and given that they have retreated on everything else ... I don't think most 5e fans are going to be as supportive when the only thing remaining is, "Let's make sure they have no rights to defend the product against racists appropriating it."

But maybe I'm wrong. It happens all the time.

As I noted before, I question the reasonableness of that concern, and I think issues of commonality are misplaced, because open licenses like this aren't all that common. And those recent events don't involve open gaming either.

Personally, I hope that most 5E fans and companies refuse to be swayed by the idea of "we have to kill the OGL to save the OGL (from racists, who for twenty-plus years have been waiting to publish their OGL racist content)!"

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Arcane Missile it is then! lol

Yeah, changing the name of magic missile is a very small issue, IMO.

 

[CapnZapp]

Wizards: don't call it an open license if you reserve the "sole right" to terminate that license.
(In this specific case "only" for hateful content, but since WotC reserves the sole right to determine what's hateful, well...)

Please note that Creative Commons have zero language on terminating the license.

In other words, an open license does not "stop" hateful content, but it seems to work just fine anyway.

That said, had this been the very first draft, it would likely have been accepted by the community. Now the trust is gone, and I suspect people are going to point out that a license that only partly adheres to Creative Commons isn't really an open license.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Exactly.

I feel like there are a number of people who don't understand how retroclones and the OSR movement .... worked.

The problem becomes when you have a game that uses previously non-protected names that are now protected, I guess?

 

[Alzrius]

I am sure people hear that from their spouse all the time. Weird example.

Leaving aside the numerous jokes that can be made here...does that make it okay, in your opinion, for their spouses to do that?

 

[Retreater]

They've disintegrated every piece of goodwill they may have had with me through official statements that weren't even leaked (such as "undermonetized.")
I'll look at this OGL from someone who is invested in the TTRPG industry and give actual feedback, but I'm done supporting WotC and Hasbro as a customer.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Whats your point though, you had plans to release new material under OGL 1.0a ? Old material is fine.

Not sure why people think they deserve to release new material under an old license.

Because they've said for 20 years that it was irrevocable.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Ugh. If I've learned one thing from all this nonsense, at least, it's this: when it comes to corporations, never ascribe to stupidity what you can attribute to malice.

 

[overgeeked]

And there's the anchoring.

They started huge and stupid with their demands: report income, payment, license-back, at-will changes, morality clause, de-auth 1.0a.

Now they're down to: morality clause and de-auth 1.0a.

So their new set of demands look reasonable compared to their coo-coo banana pants earlier demands.

Both the morality clause and the de-auth of 1.0a are non-negotiable.

The morality clause is a no go because they will use it as a weapon to fight representation. We've seen big companies do this before.

"You just want to have hate speech!"

No, we just don't want to be told including gays and lesbians is somehow a violation of the morality clause and be booted from their license.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is that it? Is there much more of that in the 3.5 SRD than in the 5.1 SRD? Are they just clawing back some capitalized nouns?

It looks like.

I mean, let's look at the drilldown:

Royalties wasn't it.

Stealing Indie IP wasn't it.

Cracking down on non-TTRPG spaces wasn't it.

Now we know the 5e SRD wasn't it.

All killing OGL 1.0a actually gives them now is the 3e, 3.5 and Modern SRDs. They haven't touched Modern ever again, nor the d20 system writ large, so what's left aside from the monsters and spells accidentally'd into the SRDs?

Oh, and flashing their bright blue baboon rump at Pathfinder over and over, but that is more dessert than main course.