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'.

 

[Scribe]

What about PF1 content? What about OSR content? What about Mutants & Masterminds content?

There's been an idea put forward that you can reverse-engineer the OSR stuff, at least (and maybe 3.5) via the 5.1 SRD. I'm not convinced, but even if that's the case, there's still a lot of cross-pollination (i.e. third-parties who made Open Game Content built off of other third-parties' Open Game Content) that's going to be lost, and won't be able to be recreated at all.

There are large swaths of games derived from the 3.5 SRD that are essentially shut down by the OGL v1.0a's de-authorization. That is not acceptable collateral damage.

This is the question. They are still trying (seemingly) to kill off an entire branch of the 'tree' of OGL rules.

 

[mamba]

I was thinking the other way. You can't apparently publish anything under OGL 1.2 that doesn't include WotC Open Content, if I am reading 1.c.ii correctly.

if you are not including anything, why do you use it. Use ORC. I assume that is because of the badge btw…

 

[Haplo781]

Someone doesn’t know about the death of Aroden and the fall of lastwall

I know literally nothing about PF lore

 

[Jolly Ruby]

To me, it looks like their concern isn't a second Pathfinder, but a third party making a "D&D movie" or another non affiliated media content with stuff like "owlbears and magic missiles". They want to be a multimedia titan, and the old OGL was a barrier to that.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I mean, the real problem there is, why would they ever agree to that?

I think that would depend on whether the problem of people deciding to just keep using 1.0a (or alternative ways around the problem) becomes a greater one than them being the sole arbiter of the morality clause. Their goal has include bringing people under their license, rather than pushing them away, because otherwise they lose control totally.

So the question is how big a problem does it have to be to get them to change their minds. Half a dozen minor 3PPs, they probably won't care. Most of the 3PP community, they probably will. The reality, unfortunately, is there's a big grey area inbetween the two extremes.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, the extent to which folks can share content is something I want to hear more about from folks who understand this stuff better than I do.

And thats why I've been asking, because at a fundamental level I dont have my hands in the guts of these things, and others here do.

"What about the whole line of 3.5/PF1/PF2 and OSR content."

This has not (I think) been answered officially.

 

[Cadence]

I'm waiting to see all of the cool things people do with their table top games (in regards to what the VTT policy says). Little directional laser on your wizard mini? Overhead panel of lights and filters to indicate who can see what? Already playing with real miniatures on a TV top that has some cool features? ...

 

[Mercurius]

To me, it looks like their concern isn't a second Pathfinder, but a third party making a "D&D movie" or another non affiliated media content with stuff like "owlbears and magic missiles". They want to be a multimedia titan, and the old OGL was a barrier to that.

This makes sense. They probably don't care what the OSR does - it is what other film studios do.

 

[Haplo781]

To me, it looks like their concern isn't a second Pathfinder, but a third party making a "D&D movie" or another non affiliated media content with stuff like "owlbears and magic missiles". They want to be a multimedia titan, and the old OGL was a barrier to that.

You know what? I don't begrudge them that. But they need to do it in a way that doesn't screw over 3pp.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So your argument is "I want to create a product that uses these rules, I just don't want to put in the work."?

Yeah, not a lot of sympathy here.

Perhaps the argument is, "I want to create a supplemental product for an OSR game that was creating using the 3.5 SRD". Did that occur to you?