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]

It was used to create retro clones of AD&D and B/X. Because you're using an SRD doesn't mean you have to use everything in the SRD, and present it as such. So you can use the SRD for things like Classes, Races, Spell Names, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc, and have them mean something differently mechanically in the version you're creating. Just like every OSR clone has done for 20 years. The only thing you have to avoid is IP not in the SRD that might be in the edition you want to clone. In that case, just rename it. Like OSRIC did for Saving throws.

I question if that could be done as easily as you're saying, but it's certainly an interesting idea. I confess that I'd be very interested to see someone try that (and hope they'd succeed).

 

[Cadence]

Oh, gee. That's awesome. You can't copyright the core mechanics anyway. So...thanks for nothing.

Get to use the mechanics without rewording it with the CC, right? Without it, you get the mechanics (hopefully) but need to figure out how to express it so that it doesn't infringe, right?

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Why not both?

 

[Matt Thomason]

So if the VTT rules disallow stuff that doesn't work at a real table, I guess that means torches and maybe dynamic lighting are out, too?

And this is where we get into interesting loopholes used in many cases of someone wanting to publish an application with an open-source component.

If your VTT is licensed under the OGL/VTT license from WotC, then correct, they appear to be clamping down on the stuff that makes it "video-gamey". Automation of game rules is fine, but "features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling" (such as their example of an animated magic missile) are not.

However

What if your D&D integration isn't in your core software? What if it's in an seperate addon that can be added to your software?

Your VTT software does not include SRD elements, so does not need any license attached to it.
Your addon does not include animations. It just contains the SRD in an electronically-readable form that your VTT can interpret. It does need a license attached for the SRD content.

For extra protection, ensure your addon is not specific to your VTT, for example by making the file format public or using an existing one such as XML so you can claim your addon is usable by anything written to read it. An XML database of SRD content? That's just a static file of data, it doesn't do those nasty animations, or dynamic lighting.

 

[Blue]

I like the change to what they can change, as laid out in 7(a). It's much, much less intrusive.

I'm not a fan of 6(f), it's nastier than OGL 1.1. Bolding mine:

"No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action"

Basically it's a "we say it's bad (regardless if it is), you have agreed to suck it up and not try to get it changed in any way including legal actions." This is basically the same as OGL 1.1 to remove the license from anyone, with the additional poison pill of you can't even fight it legally.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Let’s face it for the majority of people on this forum nothing short of nothing will change. all will be the same forever is going to be ok. Not sure how fair that is though. Times change and 20 years is a long time. Much of the rest of the world has shifted dramatically in two decades. Perhaps adjustments aren’t a bad thing.

If ENWorld Publishing goes out of business, I suspect you will find yourself disadvantaged, @jerryrice4949.

This is not an "oops, oh well." People are going to lose their jobs. Some will lose their homes. Some will declare bankruptcy or get divorced (money issues are the top driver of divorces).

This is not "adjustments."

 

[Kennon1st]

Honestly a pretty good article here finally. If they had just led with this, they honestly could have entirely avoided the past week+ firestorm.

That said, while I love the concept of the CC choice, I'm a bit wary of the fact that they didn't directly post that nor what content will be under it, so I do have to reserve judgment there until they actually show us.

 

[jerryrice4949]

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.

Yeah how scandalous for a for profit company uses the word under monetized. What monsters.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Keep selling PF1/LevelUp/OSR stuff, but...nothing new?

Keep selling everything that's been published prior to the license going into effect. Your line ends there, though, unless it uses the new license.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I question if that could be done as easily as you're saying, but it's certainly an interesting idea. I confess that I'd be very interested to see someone try that (and hope they'd succeed).

That's what I'm saying. It has been done. For the past 20 years.