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]

Or better: to see what you see...
or want them to see...
as if people can't make up their minds themselves. Seems a bit patronizing to me.

You can trust Wizards, if you like. Thats totally fine.

They are 100% being dishonest with the community and 3PP creators, but its within your rights to not care.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

WotC can still suck it.
("it" being a giant bag of dic...e)

Would you let them near your, ahem, "dice bag"? I certainly wouldn't.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I'm not convinced that is the case.

 

[Composer99]

I don't think this is really going to be enough in terms of protecting the vibrant 3pp community that the old OGL built up (which, as a reminder also created a great deal of additional value for WotC), but I'd like to see what Paizo, Kobold Press, EN Publishing, and other big and semi-big names have to say after they've given the proposed OGL a good read.

 

[MoonSong]

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, we don't. That's what the courts are for.

That's not a good enough reason, for me at least. They don't get to renege on their agreement because they've decided that they don't like it anymore.

I feel quite comfortable with that prospect, actually, save for the fact that I don't think I (we) will die here. Ensuring that the terrible racists can make whatever they want under the OGL is the only way I know for sure that everyone else can make whatever they want under the OGL; that's what makes it an open license.

Exactly, if it can't be used to lie, it can't be used to tell the truth. Because who are they to act as morality police and decide who gets in? Why does a group of mostly white guys -and American and privileged too to booth- gets to decide what is racist, sexist, and so on? Specially with a documented track record of sexism, racism and tokenism?

 

[guachi]

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

Hasbro wants the owlbear back as IP. Guess what monster is featured in the new D&D movie?

 

[mamba]

I'm not either, but I really hope they do. They're our best hope on that front.

I have not yet seen a case why 1.0a is even needed at this point, apart from the '1.2 does not like offensive stuff' one

 

[Retreater]

Yeah how scandalous for a for profit company uses the word under monetized. What monsters.

It's not scandalous ... but it's disrespectful.
But hey, it's clear that you love your corporate overlords and will happily take being treated as a subhuman. Enjoy that.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Huh. Improving.

But I'm thinking I don't like it because they are trying to put toothpaste back in the tube: taking formerly open content and trying to make it closed.

I think that's a no-go.

 

[dave2008]

Want to include a monster from Tome of Beasts or write a subclass for the Illrigger? Get bent.

I don't understand it as preventing that, but I guess it could be clarified. That is what the survey is for!