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'.

 

[mamba]

Okay, people smarter than me: why did they go with CC for the "core mechanics"?

stronger protection from interference by WotC, I see no downside

 

[Remathilis]

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

Bolts of magic are certainly generic, but a collection of unerring force darts doing 1d4+1 damage is pretty D&D..

 

[Matt Thomason]

depends on the person, I’d say at least 50% of that never heard of the D&D monster…

Most likely nowadays, the word "owlbear" makes people think of Moonkin from World of Warcraft before they think of D&D

 

[Alzrius]

Reading this over again...am I missing something, or is there nothing in here that allows you to use the content of other third-parties who use this license? (They seem to have scuttled the term "Open Game Content" in favor of "Our Content" and "Your Content," apparently.)

Because looking at this right now, if someone hypothetically makes a really cool product under the OGL v1.2, I can't see any provision where I'd be able to use it in my hypothetical OGL v1.2 product. It looks like you can only use the 5.1 SRD.

EDIT: Okay, so I think Section 5(b) deals with this, but it seems like it's basically affirming that you can strike deals to let other people use your work and/or vice versa, i.e. make independent agreements with other publishers. It doesn't look like any sort of universal provision for sharing work the way Open Game Content was (presuming I'm reading this correctly).

 

[J-H]

As with other posters, the "if you do/say things we don't like, we can yank your license" is something I strongly dislike.

This isn't GITP, so I can be a bit more detailed, but I also don't want to generate a derail into faith and morality. In the interests of avoiding that derail, I'll just say I believe the Bible, and all parts of it. Some people call some parts of the Bible discriminatory or hateful in their view, because of its teachings on what is and is not sinful. Given the current climate, any online discussion by someone who believes as I do could cause a license to be yanked under the terms.
Some of the same views are held by a couple of billion other people, at least officially, although I suspect enforcement is limited to "people who play RPGs" and "people who speak English."

Leaving an open ticket to cut out the license for anyone who doesn't believe as the license-holders believe is a recipe for all sorts of....ironically enough...discrimination.

 

[mamba]

If I was a publisher, I couldn't run my business with this Sword of Damocles hanging over my head.

what are you publishing…

 

[ReshiIRE]

While I think private companies hosting and distributing things should have policies against hate and other awful content (something I have claimed that Valve, for example, does not handle well), etc. - in this case Wizards is not hosting the content or distributing. They're only licensing. And because of the viral nature of the license, sub licenses of sub licenses could cause trouble.

How is Wizards going to handle people not distributing awful stuff with this? Imagine if trolls decide, day 1, to release product somewhere without good checking that uses OGL 1.2 that has awful content in it.

How is Wizards going to handle that?

I firmly believe governments should have hate speech laws and be good about enforcing them. Let them handle awful, hateful content being distributed Wizards. Let the community work on it too.

Because considering what Wizards has allowed, I really don't want there to be a kerfuffle if a sexy LGBTQIA+ thing gets released under OGL 1.2 and Wizards decides to intervene, if they decided it's not content they want under 'their' license. The damge that will cause can already be seen elsewhere.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

saving face

probably. god, what an L.

 

[Matt Thomason]

stronger protection from interference by WotC, I see no downside

Indeed, the CC part is the most surprising of the lot, given that it really does come with zero obligations beyond attribution and making a copy of the original work available to your audience. You don't even have to open anything of your own work through CC to use it.

 

[mamba]

ORC is just a license. Somebody will have to create a non-infringing SRD which clones that rules and then release it under ORC.

you can start with WotC’s CC part