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'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Owlbear, man. It’s all about the owlbear.

So it's the name of the monster that bugs you that is Your line?

Edit: and in your example you were not even useing the WotC owl bear but a third party one correct? I assume that would have it's own name... I beleive it was "Fey Owlbear" before in this example... is that still WotC IP?

 

[Jer]

This is specifically part of the truce that the original OGL set out to achieve.

Emphasized and bolded.

The whole reason that the OGL exists in the first place is because T$R was a notorious bad actor when it came to both other companies in the ttrpg sphere and fan content.

Part of representing themselves as good stewards for D&D was Wizards creating the OGL and the SRD. It was a way of saying "hey, even if we screw up and turn into T$R in the future, we can't take the D&D rules away from the community. They're yours now, forever."

Wizards wants to go back on that deal now because it's inconvenient for them and they can't make all of the money they think they can squeeze out of D&D because the OGL exists.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

"They Sue Regularly" The Many Lawsuits Of TSR - Prime

Back in the 80s and 90s, people joked that TSR stood for "They Sue Regularly" and when you look at their court history, you can see why.

www.belloflostsouls.net

 

[Scribe]

okay correct me if I am wrong (and I am honestly asking here, this is not some weird argument in the form of a question)
If Pathfinder and Level up (as I understand them) have classes of there own and Monsters and Spells of there own, what else is needed?

Fighter
Druid
Bard
Rogue
Paladin
Wizard
Sorcerer
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
Half Elf
Half Orc
Magic Missile
Fireball
Haste

And so on, and so on, and so on.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

So it's the name of the monster that bugs you that is Your line?

Edit: and in your example you were not even useing the WotC owl bear but a third party one correct? I assume that would have it's own name... I beleive it was "Fey Owlbear" before in this example... is that still WotC IP?

That would probably be considered a derivative work, yeah. If WotC could incontrovertibly claim copyright (and possibly a trademark) to the name and idea of the Owlbear, a Fey Owlbear seems derivative to me. I don't get to write the next Harry Potter book just by making him into a redhead -- or even a centaur.

 

[Velderan]

a company that is out of business for 25+ years and a company that has no steak (that I know of) in owl bears will sue for referencing a thersitical (not even real just in theory) out of print book by a publisher that isn't them that has gone out of business...

I'm sorry, I read this and immediately thought "owlbear steaks? How has WotC not tapped this licensing possibility with Outback Steakhouse?"

 

[Justice and Rule]

That would probably be considered a derivative work, yeah. If WotC could incontrovertibly claim copyright (and possibly a trademark) to the name and idea of the Owlbear, a Fey Owlbear seems derivative to me. I don't get to write the next Harry Potter book just by making him into a redhead -- or even a centaur.

Even if it was not derivative, Wizards is chilling things by already putting the idea out there that they could sue over such a thing. That will be enough for some people.

 

[Velderan]

again, if it is weaponized we just start this all over again

Or we just get it right this time so we don't have to start all over again. I'm sure publishers whose livelihoods depend on this license aren't exactly eager to go through this ever again.

 

[masdog]

This draft…isn’t as bad as I thought it would be. If they had led with this (and opened it for discussion and feedback instead of what they tried to do), it probably would have resulted in a massive shrug instead of “torches and pitchforks, storm the castle, etc” that we had.

That it took 3 tries to get to this point is far worse.

That said, my thoughts from skimming:
CC for core rules was unexpected. I’m hoping that they’ll be releasing anything that falls under CC as a separate document.

Pulling back on the IP that isn’t the mechanics of the rules is expected. I’m really not surprised here because they are trying to turn this into a multi-media franchise, and I think that requires showing clear ownership of the IP they’re trying to adapt.

Deauthorized is not in the license itself, but it’s still included in some of the materials. It only seems to be applying to WotC-owned IP That leaves a lot of questions for other game systems.

That VTT policy is kind of “WTF!” I get what they’re trying to do there. But it seems overly broad.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I see they keep circling back to the need for a morality clause.

Assuming this is not just a trojan horse clause to empower them to de-license anyone they want at will (which it currently is), is it possibly that their trademark case against NuTSR is actually going poorly? They know that those horrible people can seek refuge in the OGL 1.0(a) (but without any popular marketplace accepting their drivel), but is there a chance that they might be able to do so under the name TSR? WotC currently sells some PDFs under the TSR brand.