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'.

 

[Blue]

Oh, just caught 9(e):

"Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Class Action Waiver. This license and all matters relating to its interpretation and enforcement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and any disputes arising out of or relating to this license will be resolved solely and exclusively through individual litigation in the state or federal courts located in the county in which Wizards (or any successor) has its headquarters, and the parties expressly consent to the jurisdiction of such courts. Each party hereto irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action with respect to such a dispute."

Basically, several publishers can't band together to fight, which given the size of Hasbro Lawyers(tm) vs. the individual lawyer teams elsewhere, is a big deal. It also means that the EFF or someone can't join in if it looks like it might end up affecting open software rights.

 

[Matt Thomason]

So to clarify to those who don't want to parse the SRD themselves the page designations that are being made Creative Commons cover in the main part: leveling and multiclassing; the basic action economy; abilities, skills, advantage/disadvantage, etc.; basic 5e Armor weapons and equipment; the concept and mechanics of feats (but only the Grappler feat as an example); the concept and mechanics of backgrounds (though only the Acolyte as an example) and the spell mechanics (but none of the actual spells). The latter, shorter segments cover the general mechanics of monsters (but none of the specific monsters) and the conditions.

This is huge. Everyone wanting to make a 5e clone just has to focus on creating unique races, classes, spells, and monsters and doesn't have to worry that WotC will come down on them for having the basic mechanics look similar. While it is probably worth submitting to the OGL for a 5e compatible adventure, if you want to make one that does not reference WotC's spells, keeps to unique or uncopyrightable monsters, etc, it is very possible to do it under creative commons without any legal doubt. Making a 5e clone whose adventures and monster manual are fully cross-compatible with D&D products is much more achievable, once again, crucially, without legal doubt, as well.

The way I tend to differenate myself:

That's 100% of the D&D rules, and 0% of the D&D data. Which is perfect for anyone who wants to write a D&D-alike but for their own setting.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Everyone wanting to make a 5e clone just has to focus on creating unique races, classes, spells, and monsters

Given how much of D&D, even today, is just "stuff Gary Gygax saw in Bullfinch's Mythology, other people's fiction or a dictionary," a lot of this isn't -- cannot be -- WotC's exclusive property.

If I want to publish a book with an elf, a judge will beat a WotC lawyer to death with Lord of the Rings before they rule that wood and high elves belong to them.

 

[overgeeked]

This is basically a completely dupe.

The issue is this is still worse than the old deal, them asserting they and "deauthorize" is legally tenuous at best, and also the joke of giving a "irrevocable license" that they in their own terms and revoke for whatever reason, is peak legal arcanery.

This is just not good, im sorry to say, its just 100% a dupe, to try to tone back to response, when the correct answer is sitll.

Just. Not. Doing this.

The CCBY stuff is nice though. But its so little of the SRD, and on top of that, its fundamentally worthless because a good chunk of that is just stuff they couldnt really copyright anyway

Exactly. We're in the "say whatever it takes to shut them up" phase of WotC's response.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It actually seems mostly rather reasonable. My main worry would be the morality clause containing word "obscene." What is "obscene"? Americans thought that Janet Jackson's covered nipple was obscene, so I would be worried trying to publish any sort of sword and sorcery inspired game or anything relating to any adult themes under such a licence.

 

[Dausuul]

After looking at what we've got here, and what's covered under the CC license... I don't think it's where I could in good conscience support it yet. The CC material, while welcome, is definitely inadequate. But, at least based on a first reading, I feel like this is a workable framework.

The OGL 1.2 is significantly better than I expected. My main sticking point is the lack of recourse on the "harmful content" provision. Wizards can declare that your stuff is harmful or abusive or obscene, and simply shut you down, and you can't contest or challenge this determination.

What I would want to see to resolve this:

1. Provision 6(f) needs a way to appeal WotC's decision to some neutral third party*, who would have the power to reverse it and award reasonable compensation if Wizards is found to have abused its authority.
2. Provision 6(f) needs a whole lot more clarity on exactly what is and is not covered here. You want to shut down somebody whose game is openly promoting white supremacy and race war? Knock yourself out. You want to shut down a swords-and-sorcery game with some nudity in the art? We got a problem.

*Emphasis on "neutral." Binding arbitration, for instance, is notorious for being... shall we say... less than ideal in this respect.

 

[Xohar17]

Considering how PF was birthed from D&D, I say this is a fair assessment.

I wouldnt, owlbears for sure, but ive seen magic missile in a lot of fantasy fiction over the years, its nothing exclusive to dnd.

 

[Blue]

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

Eh, as pointed out by multiple lowyers, this law has only been tested with things like "roll a die and move ahead that many spaces". It could be that "game mechanics" portion is just "roll a die, add modifiers, and match/exceed a target number, and all the rest they could copyright. This part does what an open license is supposed to - removes doubt of getting sued.

 

[mamba]

WotC might be saying that this is a red line, but history suggests that the level of concern they have for this is unwarranted.

I agree that it is unwarranted, but I see little downside in adding it either. Fearing they will use it to terminate all kinds of contracts seems far overblown to me

 

[DEFCON 1]

I still hope someone just either sues WotC for trying to de-authorize 1.0a, or releases a product under 1.0a so that WotC is forced to sue them... just so our court system can end this ridiculousness once and for all.