Statement on OGL from WotC

Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement regarding the ongoing rumors surrounding OneD&D and the Open Gaming License. In a short response to Comicbook.com, the company said "We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time."

Dungeons & Dragons Clarifies Support for Third-Party Material as New Edition Draws Near

Wizards of the Coast has responded to rumors of changes to the Open Game License and System [...]

comicbook.com

It's not clear what WotC means when they say that the OGL will 'continue to evolve' -- while there have been two versions of the license released over the years, each is non-rescindible so people are free to use whichever version of the license they wish. Indeed, that is written into the license itself -- "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

During the D&D 4th Edition era, WotC published a new, separate license called the Game System Licence (GSL). While it was used by third party publishers, it was generally upopular.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They definitively stated that they're not willing to make a definitive statement.

If you want to read it that way. You could take it as face value and read: we will keep it, but don't know if and how we need to upgrade it, because we are still playtesting the rules...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean that there is no .5 edition of 5e. WotC have been crystal clear that they do not want to continue the editions model. They are keeping the 5e chassis and just offering small changes and adjustments over time. Like Monsters of the Multiverse, in other words, where they updated the material from two previous 5e books (that have now ceased print) without making any changes that interfere with backwards compatibility. I was using Volo's and Mordenkainen's in my campaign and now I am using MotM, and nothing really changed. In a few cases, I decided I wanted to keep using the old spell lists for some creatures, so I did, and that works fine too.

What we've seen of OneD&D thus far does not look any more challenging for 5e than did MotM or Xanathar's or Tasha's. If those texts did not cause problems for 3rd party producers or the OGL/SRD, then what makes us think the next book will?

WotC does not get to rewrite the corebooks after a multi-year open playtest and then decide for everyone that, "no, it's not really a new edition". The fans make that decision. We know only a few of the proposed changes so far, and some of that, like the critical rule and the mandatory feats, will already change play. So the fans may very well make a separation that WotC officially won't.

Personally, I'd prefer far more of a separation, so 5e, like the editions before it, can be looked at and worked with by 3pp as a separate entity. Iterative changes are a pain in the butt to keep up with for 3pp, and I care about their well-being far more than WotC's, as in my opinion 3pp is doing better work.

 

[Umbran]

Not sure how to take it. It’s not exactly reassuring there.

Most of us cannot reliably predict much about what our lives will be like two years in advance. What'll be the state of the economy in two years? What job will you have? Will you hit any health issues between now and then? Get married, or divorced, or married then divorced? Have a new kid? Major life changes can happen in two years.

It isn't a lot different in business. While they have plans and move forward, many things can move and shift in two years. Asking for specific commitments now on the details seems premature.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you want to read it that way. You could take it as face value and read: we will keep it, but don't know if and how we need to upgrade it, because we are still playtesting the rules...

Why would you take a press release from a for-profit, publicly traded company at face value? You don't have to assume they're lying necessarily, but you do have to assume that they think whatever they're saying will help them make more money. Understandable to read into it through that lens.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think there are 2 reasons (probably more, but 2 that I can see) why people may be a bit leery of this announcement, ie why there is a lack of trust.

First, there is what happened in 4e with the significantly more restrictive rules which squeezed out 3rd party producers. Did WotC learn its lesson, or will whatever corporate instinct behind that blunder rear its head again?

Second, 5e writing style has revealed that the opening piece of fluff may have very little to do with the the "crunch" - the actual details, how the rules are applied. For example, Paladins can "detect evil", and by detect evil WotC actually means detect fiends, undead, celestials etc, and not detect evil at all.

I am hopeful that WotC will do the right thing. But people are sceptical because of what WotC had done

 

[Umbran]

You don't have to assume they're lying necessarily, but you do have to assume that they think whatever they're saying will help them make more money.

In this case, especially, where we are asking for details about business decisions and positioning likely before those details have been finalized.

Of course they're going to give a non-specific response. From their perspective, the answer to these inquiries isn't needed for a long time yet, but we want it NOW!!!1!

 

[Micah Sweet]

In this case, especially, where we are asking for details about business decisions and positioning likely before those details have been finalized.

Of course they're going to give a non-specific response. From their perspective, the answer to these inquiries isn't needed for a long time yet, but we want it NOW!!!1!

Well, it's understandable that they may not be prepared to give an answer now, but the open question definitely affects 3pp now and until an answer is forthcoming.

 

[Umbran]

Second, 5e writing style has revealed that the opening piece of fluff may have very little to do with the the "crunch" - the actual details, how the rules are applied. For example, Paladins can "detect evil", and by detect evil WotC actually means detect fiends, undead, celestials etc, and not detect evil at all.

I am hopeful that WotC will do the right thing. But people are sceptical because of what WotC had done

What? I hope this is a joke that landed poorly. The people who write the game fluff are not the people who write the licenses and contracts!

If you are going to arbitrarily decide bits of game text are reasonable ways to interpret how corporate business policy is conducted, there is precious little reason for them to say anything, because you will be able to twist it around any darn way you want.

 

[Reynard]

This announcement is a Rorschach test.

 

[Umbran]

Well, it's understandable that they may not be prepared to give an answer now, but the open question definitely affects 3pp now and until an answer is forthcoming.

It would be far worse for the 3pp if they gave an answer now, and then found they had to change it in a year and a a half because we rushed them.

Not to mention that 3pp are already allowed to use the core of D&D's creative product for free. Now... the complaint is that they aren't being assured of rights to more free stuff fast enough?