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'.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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?

Yeah. And you can still do that. use the 1.2 license for the new work you want, and make it completely compatible with the version you want.

Just
like
the
OSR
has
been
doing
for
20
years.

You can completely do everything you (and others) have been asking for without the 3.5 SRD. Terms like "saving throws", "classes", spell names, etc all exist in the new SRD. That's all that's needed. Any SRD with those terms. And if they didn't have those terms, just rename them. There is nothing in the new SRD that says you have to copy and paste it word for word. Just like the old SRDs that were used to create retroclones.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Intent or not, this is the exact ability they are giving themselves. And it is unacceptable. If not for the WotC of today, but because it is very easy to consider someone else running the company tomorrow.

that kind of power isn't acceptable for anyone to have, frankly.

 

[schneeland]

It's not the WotC of the last 20 years that you need to consider as the arbiters of what is moral or right, but the WotC of 20 years in the future.

If we look at how WotC has changed their attitude towards contracts in the past few years*, it might be bad enough already in 5-10.

*related Shannon Appelcline tweet:

 

[Haplo781]

 

[Nikosandros]

Or you want to reference the 3e SRD.

Or you don't trust WotC to be the judge of hate speech and conduct.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

How can the original OGL be "deauthorized" for future use but "perpetual" (and apparently irrevocable) for all prior published material? It seems like they're just making up a legal stipulation that needs to be all or nothing, ie permanently irrevocable OR null and void for even previously published material but not a weird and arbitrary hybrid of the two.

An immortal can still die if slain with a magic blade.

That might be how they are trying to frame the difference between [perpetual] and [irrevocable].

Eternal life versus invincibility.

 

[Alzrius]

It's also super easy to not be a horrific bigot, like you pretty much have to try and make it core to your identity (see: NuTSR), if you actually want to be even a halfway decent human being this isn't something you need to really worry about.

This line of thinking seems to eschew any acknowledgment that reasonable people can have wildly different ideas as to what constitutes bigotry (or other aspects of what is and is not moral, acceptable, hateful, etc.), and that when that happens there is no moral absolute by which to judge who's "right" or "wrong."

Is it racist to assign fantasy races negative ability score modifiers? What about assigning positive modifiers to specific ability scores? What about using the term "race" for non-human creatures at all? These are areas where there is no widespread consensus, and a lot of room to be for or against them without it being an issue of bigotry.

It is patently false to say that the answers to these questions, questions which have never been clear or easy, are in any way obvious, self-evident, or otherwise uncomplicated. Which is why WotC's heavy-handed, unnuanced, absolutist take on this issue is unsatisfying for so many, especially since there's no recourse for those targeted as having made "hateful" content.

That's not even getting into issues of what's considered bigoted changing (e.g. "sure, your content wasn't considered hateful five years ago, but it is now, so we're revoking your right to use the OGL"), and that this also applies to personal conduct as well as what you create.

Anyone saying that "decent people should have no problem with this" is being highly disingenuous.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah. And you can still do that. use the 1.2 license for the new work you want, and make it completely compatible with the version you want.

Just
like
the
OSR
has
been
doing
for
20
years.

You can completely do everything you (and others) have been asking for without the 3.5 SRD. Terms like "saving throws", "classes", spell names, etc all exist in the new SRD. That's all that's needed. Any SRD with those terms. And if they didn't have those terms, just rename them. There is nothing in the new SRD that says you have to copy and paste it word for word. Just like the old SRDs that were used to create retroclones.

This feels like actively trying to get someone to maneuver themselves into a situation where they can be sued.

There's a reason for the OGL and that's the safe harbor from TSR style SLAPP suits that's going away unless that material is made available.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

I know literally nothing about PF lore

That’s fine I was just joshin’ ya

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

But again, that's mechanics.