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

 

[see]

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?

They still could, theoretically, try to kill the OGL 1.0a in the future the same way.

However, killing the OGL 1.0a would not stop people from using the CC BY-released SRD5 to make 5e-compatible material -- including VTTs, software, and the like -- that they could even legally advertise as "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons".

Given that, there's no particular business advantage to burning down the OGL commons. So why would they go out and make people angry for no advantage?

 

[dave2008]

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?

IF a publishers switches to the CC SRD 5.1 they are golden - nothing WotC can do to revoke or alter that. In theory, OGL 1.0a is in the same place it was last week.

 

[dave2008]

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.

The CC doesn't limit anything, so any VTT using the 5.1 SRD is good to go. Nothing WotC can do about it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Agreed on all counts.

Frankly, the fact that they're putting the entire 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons is probably the single greatest, inarguable win we could ever get. It's almost worth the BS, even. Because with that in the Creative Commons, a ton of risk for creators has just been completely erased.

I can now write things containing "dragonborn" and not be constantly worried about a C&D ruining everything because I can't fight a winnable but expensive court case.

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?

If they actually literally release the 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons, which it seems they've already done, then it realistically doesn't matter. They don't control the CC, and once you release something into the CC, you can't take it back (as the creators of the CC-BY-SA intended), and not only that, but CC-BY-SA includes the requirement that the license is (and must be) transferable to others as well.

But in practice, likely they would need to issue a legal document explicitly recognizing that they not just won't, but can't try to mess with the OGL 1.0a.

 

[Scribe]

Frankly, the fact that they're putting the entire 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons is probably the single greatest, inarguable win we could ever get. It's almost worth the BS, even. Because with that in the Creative Commons, a ton of risk for creators has just been completely erased.

I can now write things containing "dragonborn" and not be constantly worried about a C&D ruining everything because I can't fight a winnable but expensive court case.

I was just thinking, your Dragonborn are free like my Tieflings now. Congrats.

 

[Alzrius]

If they actually literally release the 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons, which it seems they've already done, then it realistically doesn't matter.

Well, it doesn't matter for people who want to publish 5E-compatible materials via the SRD. It matters more for people who want to write and publish materials for RPGs that are derived from the 3.5 SRD.

This fight was always about more than just 5E.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Agreed on all counts.

Frankly, the fact that they're putting the entire 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons is probably the single greatest, inarguable win we could ever get. It's almost worth the BS, even. Because with that in the Creative Commons, a ton of risk for creators has just been completely erased.

I can now write things containing "dragonborn" and not be constantly worried about a C&D ruining everything because I can't fight a winnable but expensive court case.

You might still get sued by Bethesda for violating their Skyrim trademarks though

 

[Faolyn]

So farewell and have fun on your new journey. I think there are wonderful other systems from independant creators out there who need your money more than WotC.
I for my part will honor people who do know how to apologize correctly, even if it takes a while. The world is not getting better by denying people the right to correct their mistakes (and even make it better than it was before).

For me, Spelljammer was so poorly done that it made me leery of wanting to buy anything else from them anyway, and that was long before WotC started messing with the OGL and VTTs. Would the upcoming Planescape book evoke enough of the original feel, or at least provide new lore like VGR did, or would it lack the basic information needed in the same way Spelljammer lacked all of its 2e lore, didn't create new lore to replace the lore they removed, and didn't include ship combat? Would the giants book include interesting lore, or would it just be a collection of dull lair maps and "new" versions of existing giants (hill giant, hill giant club wielder, hill giant goblin squisher).

So sure, WotC apologized. But they haven't yet proved that their products are going to be worth the money. And considering their recent greediness, I don't think they're going to be spending the money to produce quality product. Not when they have tons of people flocking back saying "good job, all is forgiven!"

I have tons of non-D&D systems and I enjoy converting things from one system to another. I'm good to go. Hopefully the TTRPG board on this forum will getting more posts on it.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Wow. Complete back-down. And oh boy, those percentages in the survey are telling.

• 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.

I wouldn’t call it a complete back down. For that to happen WotC would need to amend the OGL to make it absolutely clear it is irrevocable, removing any doubt and uncertainty around the licence for the future.

This is pretty close to that though.

 

[BlueFin]

That's it then.

They're not updating the language of the OGL 1.0a, but we've won?

If I understand anything about wotc/hasbro now, isn’t it the case that we won … and they won? Apparently we shouldn’t be fooled by anyone who says that only we won?