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'.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is past my line in the sand, so if anything, they are conceding, at least from where I stand. Some people are unable to recognize a victory when it is staring them in the face it seems

If your line was the OGL based on empathy for the people effected, they haven't reach it until the other SRD mechanics are also added to the CC and possibly the CC used be the Share Alike version.

 

[demoss]

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

IANAL, but "unerring" and "1d4+1" seems squarely in the "you can't copyright rules, only specific expressions of rules".

Have fun with your unerring Spell Arrow doing 1d4+1 damage, I would expect.

 

[Jaeger]

The new license only covers the 5.1 SRD. What does this mean for people publishing material for older editions e.g. 1e or 3e? Are those editions now locked in the vault?

As I read it; Yes.

As the AD&D retro clones were based on reverse engineering from the original OGL/SRD I don't see how all they would survive without litigation if 1.2 goes into effect...

Late to the game with 23 pages already…..but this is a giant step in the right direction compared to where we were at previously. Some will still throw a wet blanket on it but some also complain about onions being on a free hamburger.

Still revoking the 1.0a OGL.

Poisoned Pill "morality clause" is still in effect.

Sometimes there are just no dry blankets to be had...

 

[Scribe]

INAL, but "unerring" and "1d4+1" seems squarely in the "you can't copyright rules, only specific expressions of rules".

Have fun with your Spell Arrow.

 

[Xohar17]

That was helpful. Here's a quote from the end:

But id does say that it is irrevocable in the text of the license doesnt it?

 

[dbolack]

Looking at the text of the new license, there is no reason to keep using 1.0 unless you want to put hate speech in your product. That's the only real change there.

This is poorly i.plemented sarcasm, yes?

 

[Xohar17]

INAL, but "unerring" and "1d4+1" seems squarely in the "you can't copyright rules, only specific expressions of rules".

Have fun with your unerring Spell Arrow doing 1d4+1 damage, I would expect.

Im partial to force missiles myself.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Im partial to force missiles myself.

what about Burst Missile Launcher - Universal?

...wait, wrong spell level.

 

[FormerLurker]

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.

It's funny that people are so against WotC now that "defending literal bigots" has now become a hill they will die on.

Yeah, there's fuzzy stuff that WotC has decided is unacceptable or not desirable for their books but that some people like. But then there's actual hate speech in books like nu-TSR's Star Frontier's product.

You're here on EnWorld. You've seen the people Morrus and co have had to ban. You've seen the stuff spewed onto the internet. Should those people be allowed to make games? Should those people be allowed to create D&D content with a badge and advertisement on DnDBeyond if they can get enough Proud Boys to buy their PDF.

EnWorld has an "acceptable content" policy. Kickstarter has a policy preventing "Projects that promote discrimination, bigotry, or intolerance towards marginalized groups." These aren't new policies. Why should the OGL be any different?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Yeah. And they immediately changed that. Remember?



Or, maybe they are engaged in litigation with nuTSR, and they still have to deal with people that complain that their inclusivity is “political.”

Given everything I’ve seen, I’m having a lot of trouble buying that these arguments are in good faith.

ETA- to be clear, I’m not saying that this is okay for an open license. What I am saying is that I don’t buy the argument that certain people are suddenly concerned that WoTC is going to crack down on representation.

Oh look, first they trying to fight against the bad non-inclusiveness people. Bad bad. See, they fixed their own issue but they have the hammer to completely destroy others when they just fixed it in new printings but they can terminate the license which make those other guys, not the Slave Space Monkeys guys subject to worse than the goody goody guys who recently wrote about Slave Space Monkeys. And, wink wink, nod nod, that older stuff, just slap a disclaimer on it and keep selling it but ban hammer those other bad non-inclusive guys.

And lets toss in NuTSR who is NOT USING THE OGL and whose questionable actions are about trademarks and direct IP/copyright violations as the example to show how bad bad those other guys are which means they need to have this new shiny license that they are proposing in draft form. Not the other non-draft and worse form that was just presented, nope here is a real draft.

I remain unconvinced by your argument.