WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons.

So, what's happened?

• The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a which most of the D&D third party industry relies on, will be left untouched for now.
• The whole of the D&D 5E SRD (ie the rules of the game less the fluff text) has been released under a Creative Commons license.

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

WotC has a history of 'disappearing' inconvenient FAQs and stuff, such as those where they themselves state that the OGL is irrevocable, so I'll copy this here for posterity.

When you give us playtest feedback, we take it seriously.

Already more than 15,000 of you have filled out the survey. Here's what you said:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

These live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
The feedback is in such high volume and its direction is so plain that we're acting now.

1. We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.
2. We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
3. You choose which you prefer to use.

This Creative Commons license makes the content freely available for any use. We don't control that license and cannot alter or revoke it. It's open and irrevocable in a way that doesn't require you to take our word for it. And its openness means there's no need for a VTT policy. Placing the SRD under a Creative Commons license is a one-way door. There's no going back.

Our goal here is to deliver on what you wanted.

So, what about the goals that drove us when we started this process?

We wanted to protect the D&D play experience into the future. We still want to do that with your help. We're grateful that this community is passionate and active because we'll need your help protecting the game's inclusive and welcoming nature.

We wanted to limit the OGL to TTRPGs. With this new approach, we are setting that aside and counting on your choices to define the future of play.
Here's a PDF of SRD 5.1 with the Creative Commons license. By simply publishing it, we place it under an irrevocable Creative Commons license. We'll get it hosted in a more convenient place next week. It was important that we take this step now, so there's no question.

• SRD 5.1-CC

We'll be closing the OGL 1.2 survey now.

We'll keep talking with you about how we can better support our players and creators. Thanks as always for continuing to share your thoughts.

Kyle Brink
Executive Producer, Dungeons & Dragons

What does this mean?

The original OGL sounds safe for now, but WotC has not admitted that they cannot revoke it. That's less of an issue now the 5E System Reference Document is now released to Creative Commons (although those using the 3E SRD or any third party SRDs still have issues as WotC still hasn't revoked the incorrect claim that they can revoke access to those at-will).

At this point, if WotC wants anybody to use whatever their new OGL v1.x turns out to be, there needs to be one heck of a carrot. What that might be remains to be seen.

Pathfinder publlsher Paizo has also commented on the latest developments.

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

Over 1,500 Publishers Support Paizo's Upcoming Open RPG Creator's License

Paizo has revealed some of the 1,500+ tabletop RPG publishers who have expressed an interest in their new Open RPG Creator's License (ORC), describing the group as the 'ORC Alliance'. The license itself is still being worked on, so these 1,500 publishers have not actually seen it or signed...

www.enworld.org

 

[dave2008]

Paizo said they welcome WotC's moves, but they're going forward with ORC:

Cool, I will keep an eye on it, but WotC's announcement has really reduced my interest in ORC.

Of course I've always preferred gnolls for my standard villains.

 

[overgeeked]

This is wonderful news. Almost all the credit to the fans and the media on this one, by making it big news and by making our voices heard, they understood and changed track. The fans read the fine print, knew what was at stake (better than WotC did!) and told them what we wanted. I'm happy they listened.

A little credit has to go to WotC for being willing to change track. That ain't easy, and I hope they take it as an opportunity to start rebuilding that trust that they lost, where possible. They've done some irreparable damage, but they've at least stopped the bleeding. Maybe they can build on from this in a healthy way going forward.

It's worth repeating that WotC isn't a monolith. It's not just one person up in Renton calling the shots.

The scheme to kill the OGL likely came from Chris Cao. When the news broke and the industry united against WotC it's quite likely that people above Cao in Hasbro stepped in to stop him. The bad PR was costing WotC and Hasbro real money. They needed to stop the bleeding. This helped. But there's still a wound. We'll see how it goes going forward.

 

[Jer]

Paizo said they welcome WotC's moves, but they're going forward with ORC:

Good. There's a need for a license that sits between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA to cover the space that the OGL covers. A share-alike license that allows you to mark out what you intend and do not intend to share is one of the things that is kind of unique to gaming and I personally think it's been a good thing for getting folks who might be skeptical of open licensing to buy in.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think WotC decided to cave on all fronts simply out of pure desperation, they must have figured out that their business plans for 1D&D still work even if they have to share the D&D mindspace with 3rd party publishers.

Slaying the OGL is was likely to be an attempt at creating a chilling effect to corral people into a contract and hedge out competition.

And then they found out the chilling effect wasn't working and the whole thing was convincing people to make more competition.

Kobold revealing they were ready for playtesting almost immediately was probably the thing that finally made them flip the switch. What they thought was months of years for the community to forget became a month and suddenly the winning strat wasn't.

 

[dave2008]

Paizo said they welcome WotC's moves, but they're going forward with ORC:

Did they say anything about the move to CC. That, to me, is bigger than keeping the OGL.

 

[Ashtagon]

No. Revenge does not help.
Also: don't waste corporate chuckheads that already learned their lesson...

Exactly. We just spent the last couple of weeks training these ones. You don't call for someone to be fired immediately after making a big and successful effort of training them.

 

[Solauren]

Part of me wonders if this is a response to all those legal opinions floating around saying the OGL is and always was unnecessary. Like, did they do this in order to avoid a court case that would have tested their ability to actually control who makes D&D compatible material?

That probably has something to do with it. All they need is one judge to rule against them, and the floodgates would open. They can't risk losing control of the brand like that.

 

[Dausuul]

So: are the publishers and games created under the OGL actually safe now?

My trust for Wizards is low; I would like to know that the CC for 5.1e would preclude them from trying this again next year?

In principle, they could try this again, but in practice... I can't imagine why they would. They have seen over the past couple weeks exactly how much they have to lose; and now, with 5E out under a CC license, there is nothing to gain. They can't kneecap rival VTTs. They can't forestall a future Pathfinder. They can't lock down control over their brand or suck up money from OGL-based Kickstarters.

All they could do now is beat up on people using the 3E SRD, and what does that get them? It's not like there's much money to squeeze out of those folks. (Well, except Paizo, but Paizo has the resources to fight back, and they're moving off the OGL anyway.) I wouldn't be surprised if the 3E SRD ends up in Creative Commons as well, as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[dave2008]

Slaying the OGL is was likely to be an attempt at creating a chilling effect to corral people into a contract and hedge out competition.

And then they found out the chilling effect wasn't working and the whole thing was convincing people to make more competition.

Kobold revealing they were ready for playtesting almost immediately was probably the thing that finally made them flip the switch. What they thought was months of years for the community to forget became a month and suddenly the winning strat wasn't.

Yes, from what I've heard KP has been working on Black Flag for a long time. So this kinda worked our for them, at least initial. I know I have become immensely less interested in black flag now. Might was well stick with standard 5e and A5e.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Can I be in a good mood now?

We need to take this OGL as a win, a huge step forward, and send a message that we can walk forward together.

At this point, I really don't want to be adversarial to anyone. I want to be in a good mood. We still need assurances regarding VTTs, but I'm done with being angry.