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'.

 

[Matt Thomason]

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.

The problem here is that there are (at least) two answers to this.

Legally, it's simply a matter of continuing to license non-WotC content under 1.0a.

The question is whether WotC are okay with this. Again, legally, it doesn't matter if they are or not, but it would be far easier for everyone involved if they stated they are, because otherwise we're back to people risking a court case that they can actually win but which costs them too much to particpate in.

 

[guachi]

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.

Under the new rules I can only use my stuff and Hasbro's stuff. I can't include someone else's stuff. It's an "Open" gaming license in name only.

And the Hasbro stuff I can include is far smaller than in the past. It's a D&D Gaming License. There's nothing "Open" about it.

 

[Ondath]

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

Could they kill it though? 3E's SRD was used to create retroclones of AD&D, B/X and the like and this was possible because the content released under the 3E SRD was enough to safely recreate the old game's mechanics, even though TSR-era D&D was never open content.

Can't you presumably do the same with 5E's chassis released with CC? It includes all the essential bits like the six ability scores, the ability check/attack roll/save distinction, combat rules including initiative, hit points and the like, Vancian casting, standard equipment tables and so on. Surely that should be enough to make a retroclone of any edition of D&D. You may need to remove previously OGC creatures such as owlbears, but finding non-infringing alternatives to them shouldn't be that hard.

 

[mamba]

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.

Have an attribute Constitution, done

 

[Uta-napishti]

At a certain point, you have to take "Yes," for an answer.

You might not be willing to compromise. But this is a company with a brand. They have reason to fear - especially recently (nuTSR) and especially with regard to their movie and other products coming out.

In the end, "But we have to force them to allow terrible racists products for D&D," may not be the hill you want to die on.

No, but "You can't revoke an open source license" is the hill I will die on. Sorry some of us have to be consistent in our lives.

 

[Reynard]

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 is a very strange take since nothing in the license talks about film. At all.

 

[Haplo781]

The problem here is that there are (at least) two answers to this.

Legally, it's simply a matter of continuing to license non-WotC content under 1.0a.

The question is whether WotC are okay with this. Again, legally, it doesn't matter if they are or not, but it would be far easier for everyone involved if they stated they are, because otherwise we're back to people risking a court case that they can actually win but which costs them too much to particpate in.

Not a lawyer but something like "the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a continue to be authorized for all Open Game Content not produced by Us" might work?

 

[Cadence]

Under the new rules I can only use my stuff and Hasbro's stuff. I can't include someone else's stuff. It's an "Open" gaming license in name only.

And the Hasbro stuff I can include is far smaller than in the past. It's a D&D Gaming License. There's nothing "Open" about it.

You can if those other people let you, right?

****

With 1.0a, could they just declare everything they didn't get from elsewhere as product identity? So it was kind of an opt-out of being open. This one is opt in?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am sure people hear that from their spouse all the time. Weird example.

A lot has changed in 20 years. Not only new leadership but a new push to make D&D into an entertainment brand far beyond a RPG. I think to somehow believe that the goals and aims of D&D and WoTC, and the license by extension, would never change seems silly to me.

The point of a perpetual license is that it doesn't change.

 

[timbannock]

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.

Precisely.

All PF2e books out today are fine. But if one published after this all goes into effect references the spell Magic Missile (a spell that exists in PF2e, to be clear), is it going on WOTC's radar to be dealt with in court or via C&D, or does it constitute a "sublicensed" product since it's referencing a version of a spell called Magic Missile that falls within an "approved" existing OGL 1.0a product (PF2e Core Rulebook)?

These sorts of edge cases will be a pain to deal with. There's a good chance WOTC won't care about those edge cases...but there's an equally good chance that if they don't deal with those edge cases, then somebody (maybe named Justin?) will build their entire business around living in those edge cases out of spite or ignorance, and bring down a future version of WOTC's wrath if it's not clarified sooner rather than later.