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.

 

[JEB]

Can you share what 3rd party's are concerned. Not being snide just interested, all I've seen is a few YT videos.

I'm referring to folks generally, not companies. And the rumor had been mentioned on these boards and elsewhere before the YouTube video, but @darjr's earlier thread linked others who expressed concerns. Feel free to Google the question if you want more examples...

 

[kenmarable]

I'm referring to folks generally, not companies. And the rumor had been mentioned on these boards and elsewhere before the YouTube video, but @darjr's earlier thread linked others who expressed concerns. Feel free to Google the question if you want more examples...

Then what concerns is the post below referring to then?

If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of third parties' concerns.

 

[JEB]

Then what concerns is this referring to then?

"If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of concerns over continued third-party support."

Does that rewrite satisfy you?

 

[Clint_L]

The question we have here, and the one that's relevant in terms of the OGL is: will OneDandD be like 3.5 or Essentials for 4E. If it's 3.5, it largely breaks compatibility but if it's Essentials it keeps it. None of us know what the final product is going to be.

No, that's not the "question we have here." That might be the question you have here, but I am very open to the possibility that there are more than two options. Especially because WotC has explicitly stated that they are not going for either of those options.

 

[Clint_L]

"If nothing else, the statement indicates an awareness of concerns over continued third-party support."

Does that rewrite satisfy you?

He specifically asked what third-party designers have expressed concerns. Not whether the usual "the sky is falling" crowd who don't actually have skin in the game have expressed concerns. Like, has a single 3rd party provider gone on record that they are worried about the OGL/SRD? Can anyone provide a citation? Because otherwise, let's call this what it is: click-bait and hand-wringing from folks who read ill-intent into everything.

 

[Hussar]

So everyone who's expressed concerns about Wizards dropping third-party support is a liar?

What concerns?

Again, I'm asking here. What concerns? Other than a totally unsubstantiated "inside man" rumour, there aren't any concerns being voiced.

Can you please point to any evidence whatsoever that WotC is going to repeat another GSL debacle? Where have they even given the merest whiff that they aren't going to continue doing things exactly the way they have been for eight years?

 

[JEB]

He specifically asked what third-party designers have expressed concerns. Not whether the usual "the sky is falling" crowd who don't actually have skin in the game have expressed concerns. Like, has a single 3rd party provider gone on record that they are worried about the OGL/SRD? Can anyone provide a citation?

That's what he asked, but I'm not only counting business owners' concerns as valid.

But to answer your question, here's a 3PP concerned about changes to the OGL under One D&D, from three months ago: One DnD: OGL Going Away in 6e

 

[JEB]

What concerns?

The concern that Wizards may change their support to third parties under One D&D into a form less favorable to third parties (and by extension, consumers) than it is now. As has been expressed by multiple sources at this point.

If you're trying to say the concern isn't valid, that's a different thing from whether or not the concern has been voiced, because it very clearly has been voiced. Unless you're arguing those voicing the concern are all liars, and aren't actually concerned at all?

 

[Hussar]

The concern that Wizards may change their support to third parties under One D&D into a form less favorable to third parties (and by extension, consumers) than it is now. As has been expressed by multiple sources at this point.

If you're trying to say the concern isn't valid, that's a different thing from whether or not the concern has been voiced, because it very clearly has been voiced. Unless you're arguing those voicing the concern are all liars, and aren't actually concerned at all?

Please stop trying twist what I said.

I'm saying that the concerns are entirely baseless. The concerns voiced on the Youtube video were completely baseless and @Morrus showed how baseless they were.

Just because someone "voiced a concern" doesn't mean anything. And, frankly, considering that the "concerns" were unsubstantiated and WRONG, I'm not sure I'd say they were lying, but, they sure as heck weren't telling the truth.

 

[SteveC]

No, that's not the "question we have here." That might be the question you have here, but I am very open to the possibility that there are more than two options. Especially because WotC has explicitly stated that they are not going for either of those options.

Well, I'll just say "right back at'cha" as far as what you're interested in and believe. I said the question "we" have as in the question, one of many, that are being raised in this thread. I consider it to be quite important.

I get it. You are a "everything will be fine" person. I've been through all of the edition changes, and much like new Doctors on Dr. Who, you have people who are great with the change and trust it will be fantastic, and those that don't. For me, Jon Pertwee for life. I'm not honestly sure what that equates to in D&D editions.

Ahem. I don't know which will be the case. Will it be a new game, or will it just be a continuation of 5E? Don't know. And neither do you, or anyone else in this thread.

What I'm saying, with regards to this thread, is that the statement by WotC was poorly written and used corporate speak, which has spawned controversy, like this thread. Continued support for the OGL matters based on if OneDandD is going to be it's own game or if it's largely a continuation of 5E, much like Essentials was a continuation of 4E. If it's a continuation, we can keep on playing the 5E Doctor Who game and use the new stuff too. See! I even managed to bring that tangent around.

And I know that Wizards has been saying it will be a continuation, but they have said things like that before which weren't always true in the end. It is in their financial interest to say so. I was told I would totally be able to convert my 3X character to 4E. Are they lying? I don't think so, since I don't believe that OneDandD is set in stone yet. But it will be in the not too distant future.

So we have this thread, which I'm participating in to say "the post from WotC was badly written and has created controversy." Which, we have this thread for, well, as proof. You (and anyone) can disagree but let's not try and make any more of it than that.