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'.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm actually kind of impressed (and sad) to see how well the anchoring seems to have worked. Lots of folks up in arms a week ago seem to be conceding.

I quite like that the vitriol is temporarily calmed down while folks try to work out what it really means. I am paying close attention to the lawyer thread.

 

[Ondath]

I'm actually kind of impressed (and sad) to see how well the anchoring seems to have worked. Lots of folks up in arms a week ago seem to be conceding.

I mean, they are walking HUGE steps back on several important things (D&D core mechanics being in a safe harbour, royalty scheme, VTT exclusivity - partially -). Are you really surprised this has satisfied some people?

Personally, I'm not sure where I stand yet — but I am definitely more favourable to WotC than I was a few hours ago.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah.

I had a meeting so not sure if anyone has called this out.

56-104 - Basic mechanics
104 = Spell Lists.
254-260 - Monster definition, not specifics.
358-359 - Conditions definitions.

So, yeah. The rules are there, but everything else is being protected and withdrawn.

And offered back under the OGL 1.2. Which is pretty good. As someone else said, these are your options:

1. Want to make your own game w/ 5e rules: us the CC rules
2. Want to make 5e adventure or supplement: OGL 1.2
3. Want to use WotC IP: use DMs Guild

That seems reasonable to me. Just need to clean up the OGL 1.2 a bit.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, is it still a question for the courts Ref: PF1/2?

I would guess so (IANAL). Paizo can continue to keep the already published PF books in print, but the next Adventure Path would likely have to be under the new license, I think, which might mean content or naming changes. I don't think it'd be a hassle-free change.

 

[Haplo781]

Just reading the SRD right now. So we have core mechanics (leveling up, hd, proeficiency, etc) but no classes, the rules about monster stats, but no monster, and the conditions.

If they add previous editions to this then I, as a player, will be very happy.

Protections for 3pp need to be taken care of as well.

 

[Scribe]

And offered back under the OGL 1.2. Which is pretty good. As someone else said, these are your options:

1. Want to make your own game w/ 5e rules: us the CC rules
2. Want to make 5e adventure or supplement: OGL 1.2
3. Want to use WotC IP: use DMs Guild

That seems reasonable to me. Just need to clean up the OGL 1.2 a bit.

Yeah, I dont want to, I want 3.5/PF1, so in that regard, fine, I guess.

1.2 is a total non-starter anyway to me those terms are unacceptable even as poorly (or because of how poorly?) they define them.

Regardless, its interesting.

Not good enough, but interesting.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I mean, they are walking HUGE steps back on several important things (D&D core mechanics being in a safe harbour, royalty scheme, VTT exclusivity - partially -). Are you really surprised this has satisfied some people?

Yeah, all they really cared about was shutting down 1.0. They seem to be ready to give up everything but that.

 

[Haplo781]

I would guess so (IANAL). Paizo can continue to keep the already published PF books in print, but the next Adventure Path would likely have to be under the new license, I think, which might mean content or naming changes. I don't think it'd be a hassle-free change.

Introducing Golarion's first Crisis event...

 

[mamba]

If future management is a bunch of homophobes, this language is broad enough to say that mentioning the existence of LGBT NPCs could be enough to say a work is obscene.

yes, and if Martians ended up controlling WotC with their mind rays, then maybe playing a human becomes offensive.

My concern about both scenarios is about equal

 

[Reynard]

I mean, they are walking HUGE steps back on several important things (D&D core mechanics being in a safe harbour, royalty scheme, VTT exclusivity - partially -). Are you really surprised this has satisfied some people?

Personally, I'm not sure where I stand yet — but I am definitely more favourable to WotC than I was a few hours ago.

The thing that matters most, perhaps the only thing that matters, is still happening.