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'.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Owlcats > Owlbears

 

[Henadic Theologian]

The mechanics are, yes.

D&D-y things like owlbears will be OGL 1.2.

And they're officially deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.

Correction they will try and fail to deauthorize 1.0a, and when they fail, they **** One D&D in the process.

 

[dave2008]

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.

That's fine, but I will say this proposal of CC + OGL1.2 is quite possibly better than simply continue with OGL 1.0a. I don't really care to much about how they got, but the got here.

 

[Reynard]

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.

It looks like the publisher needs to license it separately and can only do so under the listed conditions.

 

[Enrahim2]

"The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (...)"
This is not in the legalese, and actually seem to map nicely with the interpretation that wizards revoke the offer for new licenses under OGL1.0a for their SRD content. In that case that do not say anything about the possibility to use open gaming content contributed by others. They might want to make it sound like that is not possible either to deter that, but then on the other hand that seem like a quite bad PR move..

 

[teitan]

They will have a very hard time defending some things as IP like owl bear because they will have to prove it in court and a lot of 3pp companies even before the OGL were using owlbears and similar things from D&D in their products or offerings without license for years. Reaper Miniatures and Games Workshop, Grenadier, etc all have had unlicensed owlbears in their ranges for example. So proving those and Umber Hulks as IP and protected will be difficult. That’s why the list was so small in the original FAQ of what was IP because the rest was questionable in their ability to defend it in court due to common usage arguments. While owlbears are identifiable AS D&D they aren’t exclusive to Wizards of the Coast because they failed to defend the IP, even TSR couldn’t make that case. It will be like GW when they tried to trademark Ork.

 

[Blue]

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

There are a large number of games under the OGL 1.0a. Some of which have no D&D DNA in them, but picked it as tghe biggest Open Gaming License to release under.

So yes, there's a lot.

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

Because that's what Open Licenses are? They are well known, especially in the open source field. They are long settled legal contracts; you lack of knowledge about them does not constitute that they should no longer work. It would literally be disasterous in the open source software department if you could deauthorize them - do you know how much is built on works of others that have been freely released via open licenses there?

 

[mamba]

At the same time, it's all starting to make sense as to what they're actually after and willing to burn their house down over: all the monsters and spell names we were all shocked were in the SRD back in the day.

they will still be in the SRD

 

[rknop]

Looking at the text of the new license, there is no reason to keep using 1.0 unless you want to put hate speech in your product. That's the only real change there.

False. For MANY reasons.

Among other things, look at 1. (c) (ii)

If you want to publish something under the "O"GL 1.2, it must include some of their content.

In other words, this is in NO WAY an open game license. It's a D&D system license.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Me too. But hey, if we get the core mechanics under Creative Commons, and 1D&D under a generally reasonable OGL 1.2, and somebody succeeds in swatting down "de-authorization" in court, that's about as comprehensive victory as one could ask for.