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

 

[pemerton]

Can they do that if it's still derived from the 3.5 SRD?

Good question. The only answer I remember seeing over the past few weeks is this one:

Looking at UK cases on non-literal infringement such as Herbert v Ravenscroft The Spear case and the Baigent & Leigh v Random House (Dan Brown) Da Vinci Code case, I'd be fairly confident in saying that in UK Copyright Law Torchbearer definitely falls on the Da Vinci Code side of the line, non-infringing, whereas the retro-clones fall on the Ravenscroft side, infringing. Worse, if they still contain any actual 3e SRD text then without the OGL they are literally infringing. It may well be possible to publish a mechanical clone of D&D in the fantasy genre without infringing copyrights, using only non-protected ideas & mechanics, but that's a distinctly tricky operation. For a start I think you'd want to do a kind of white room operation where the game was written without any copies of D&D on hand, to avoid literal infringement. Even then you could well take too much of the structure and expression of a D&D version. I think you really need to start with a kind of clean text describing a fantasy world/genre, no rules stuff, then add in rules mechanics at the end. As an academic it would be very interesting to see the court judgement on that! But far from ideal when you have the OGL & SRD.

To the extent that OSRIC uses old SRD language, it might want to be updated to new SRD language (at a minimum) before stepping out from under the shelter of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.

 

[Jd Smith1]

?

There view will be what it was before, until/unless, the leadership (lol) changes its views or takes on knowledge from the last few weeks.

You think Wizbro is playing 4D chess here? They are clowns, and they look it.

Those clowns had the game industry wetting their pants with a rumor.

And they are still around. I don't have a stake in the matter, but if I did, I would see this as the end of round one.

 

[Greg K]

Their massive scars, and the memory of the beating they just took.

The problem is that there does not seem to be any institutional memory among Hasbro/WOTC leadership when new leaders come in. If there was, they would have recalled 1) the exodus of many 3pp after the removal of the d20STL which led many publishers to destroy products with the d20 logo and, for many to remove pdfs if they did not want to make changes logos fromd d20stl to OGL (and any other changes required by the change; and 2) they would have remembered how changes to tighten control of D&D with the 4e GSL led to Pathfinder. So, while current leadership might remember, there is no guarantee that the 1.0 OGL will not be attacked again in the future.

 

[Jd Smith1]

At a minimum they lost numerous DnDBeyond subscribers and certainly will lose some physical book sales. If their approach wasn't costing them significant amounts of money they would still be trying to eliminate the OGL. They definitely would not have put the 5e SRD into Creative Commons.

Chump change, especially with a new edition looming.

Unless they having something planned that you are unaware of.

I mean, I realize that D&D is not a thinker's game, but even D20 players should be thinking this all went a bit too easy and smooth.

I know that my players would never be this gullible.

 

[John Lloyd1]

How about the yet to be written OGl 1.0b saying that OGC can be published under CC-BY as well?

 

[Scribe]

Those clowns had the game industry wetting their pants with a rumor.

And they are still around. I don't have a stake in the matter, but if I did, I would see this as the end of round one.

Yes, its like the cartoons we watched as kids. The villain's do something villains would do, are defeated, and run off.

Tune in next week (quarter, year, decade) for them to do it again.

Thats all understood. It doesnt make the Villain any less of a clown. Wizbro has embarrassed itself, the executives are a laughing stock at this point, and a bunch of people yelling on social media, got them to apologize and release their golden goose, into the CC.

4D chess.

 

[teitan]

Can they do that if it's still derived from the 3.5 SRD?

Sure

 

[teitan]

As far as stocks being 'money' and 'real value', they lost yes.

That was definitely unrelated

 

[Scribe]

That was definitely unrelated

Probably? Could be? Maybe? Definitely?

 

[Alzrius]

Sure

How? If it uses WotC's copyright, I don't think they have permission to put copyrighted material they don't own under a CC license.