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.

 

[Deset Gled]

It could be: "We haven't really thought about it (as a group)".

Isn't that kind of a problem? I would have expected a corporation like Hasbro to be dealing with IP legalities/questions in the very early phases of a project.

 

[darjr]

Isn't that kind of a problem? I would have expected a corporation like Hasbro to be dealing with IP legalities/questions in the very early phases of a project.

Not if they intended to go OGL already, anyway. It might have been considered a dealt with question.

So dealing with the devilish details, like actually making the SRD, might just be on the back burner.

Maybe.

 

[Retreater]

They at least took enough notice of the concern to make a statement.

 

[darjr]

I gotta admit seems like a lot of folks think it leaves too much wiggle room.

I dint agree but that may not matter.

 

[Scribe]

I gotta admit seems like a lot of folks think it leaves too much wiggle room.

I dint agree but that may not matter.

Considering the erosion of trust Wizards is generating right now in the extremely online segment of the mtg community I'm not surprised.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Could the hesitation be about the digital interface? Surely not just modules. That train left the station in terms of community expectations.

 

[darjr]

Could the hesitation be about the digital interface? Surely not just modules. That train left the station in terms of community expectations.

I’m guessing, that and they probably want to wait till onednd is closer to dine.

I do believe the original 5e OGL/SRD delay was in part because of DMSGuild.

 

[Maxperson]

The key bits being supporting 3rd parties with the release of OneD&D.

Sure, but there's support and then there's SUPPORT. No way to tell which it is yet. Still, it's nice that they jumped on this to at least try to reassure people.

 

[Dausuul]

Big corporation not willing to make definitive statements about what they will do two years from now. Film at 11.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm curious how the OGL has "evolved." Hasn't the document itself remained pretty much the same since release?

There is the 1.0 and 1.0a, if I'm not mistaken.

That being said, it's pretty much a caveat for "we reserve the right to fix loopholes, but the plan is to keep things running as normal."