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'.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Mod Note:

Disrespectful is dismissing someone’s contrary position as beholden to “corporate overlords” and fine with “subhuman” treatment.

You’re done in this thread. If we see similar rhetoric from you in any of the SIXTY+ other threads on this topic, a sitewide vacation will be a top option.

And just to be 100% clear, it’s likewise for ANYONE who persists in uncivil behavior in these volatile threads.

 

[Reynard]

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

As it stands, this draft says a compliant publication contains only WotC's content and your content.

 

[Gradine]

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.

They're not going to use this to take down any material that give Goblins ability score penalties, or make orcs evil. This is literally about the racist crap LaNasa's been trying to peddle with WotC-owned IP.

There are a lot of complicated issues that reasonable people can disagree about. There is nothing to disagree about with NuStar-Frontiers.

Literally don't be actively, forcefully hateful with someone else's toys and you have nothing to worry about.

Even if they overstep, they've already proven they can be cowed by public pressure.

Based policy, honestly.

 

[Scribe]

Even if they overstep, they've already proven they can be cowed by public pressure.

Indeed, the same public pressure that had ASI removed, and those who want ASI tied to species, labeled as racists?

 

[jerryrice4949]

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?

Some of these posters have hated WoTC and the general direction of D&D for years and this is cover to further their crusade. Not saying that is everyone. Some people have well reasoned legit concerns.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

Some people have different lines. I want 3pp to be able to keep producing works based on the existing SRDs without interference, you know, like everyone did for the last 20 years and reasonably assumed (due to written assurances from WotC) they could do in perpetuity until a couple weeks ago. Can they do that under this new license?

 

[FormerLurker]

Where's that happening?

There's a lot of people here saying it's impossible to decide if something is racist or not, despite Twitter, Facebook, Google, ENWorld, Kickstarter, Reddit, and endless other groups having policies on acceptable and unacceptable content.

 

[kjdavies]

Whats your point though, you had plans to release new material under OGL 1.0a ? Old material is fine.

Not sure why people think they deserve to release new material under an old license.

Because that's the license used by the game we're trying to support.

If I try to release a supplement for Pathfinder 1e, and Pathfinder 1e is licensed under OGL v1.0a, I am licensed to do so also under OGL v1.0a (or a different authorized version of the OGL). However, if OGL v1.0a is revoked, I am no longer licensed to release my new content because Section 9 of OGL v1.0a is no longer in effect to allow me to do so. As written, I'm pretty sure I can't unilaterally decide to change the OGL v1.2 because the license that let me do so is unauthorized.

In other words, I deserve to be able to because Paizo has licensed me to be able to do so, and I am required to do it that way.

This is why it's a problem.

 

[FormerLurker]

Neither of these can weaponize their policies against a competitor.

WotC doesn't have any real competitors.
Paizo is leagues beneath them. If WotC wanted to crush them, they wouldn't even need to use the OGL.
It's not a reasonable fear.

 

[Scribe]

There's a lot of people here saying it's impossible to decide if something is racist or not, despite Twitter, Facebook, Google, ENWorld, Kickstarter, Reddit, and endless other groups having policies on acceptable and unacceptable content.

Those things are platforms, not product license providers.

Its the typical "but my speech is free!" complaints as someone is banned off of a private forum. Its a forum, those are the rules, regardless on if those rules are (and they are) arbitrary. Thems the rules.

That doesnt make them right, it just makes them the rules.