What's All This About The OGL Going Away?

This last week I've seen videos, tweets, and articles all repeating an unsourced rumour that the OGL (Open Gaming License) will be going away with the advent of OneD&D, and that third party publishers would have no way of legally creating compatible material. I wanted to write an article clarifying some of these terms.

audit-3929140_960_720.jpg

I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable to legally publish homebrew content" and that WotC may be "outlawing third-party homebrew content". These claims need clarification.

What's the Open Gaming License? It was created by WotC about 20 years ago; it's analagous to various 'open source' licenses. There isn't a '5E OGL' or a '3E OGL' and there won't be a 'OneD&D OGL' -- there's just the OGL (technically there are two versions, but that's by-the-by). The OGL is non-rescindable -- it can't be cancelled or revoked. Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license -- which includes the D&D 3E SRD, the 5E SRD, Pathfinder's SRD, Level Up's SRD, and thousands and thousands of third party books -- remains OGC forever, available for use under the license. Genie, bottle, and all that.

So, the OGL can't 'go away'. It's been here for 20 years and it's here to stay. This was WotC's (and OGL architect Ryan Dancey's) intention when they created it 20 years ago, to ensure that D&D would forever be available no matter what happened to its parent company.


What's an SRD? A System Reference Document (SRD) contains Open Gaming Content (OGC). Anything in the 3E SRD, the 3.5 SRD, or the 5E SRD, etc., is designated forever as OGC (Open Gaming Content). Each of those SRDs contains large quantities of material, including the core rules of the respective games, and encompasses all the core terminology of the ruleset(s).

When people say 'the OGL is going away' what they probably mean to say is that there won't be a new OneD&D System Reference Document.


Does That Matter? OneD&D will be -- allegedly -- fully compatible with 5E. That means it uses all the same terminology. Armor Class, Hit Points, Warlock, Pit Fiend, and so on. All this terminology has been OGC for 20 years, and anybody can use it under the terms of the OGL. The only way it could be difficult for third parties to make compatible material for OneD&D is if OneD&D substantially changed the core terminology of the game, but at that point OneD&D would no longer be compatible with 5E (or, arguably, would even be recognizable as D&D). So the ability to create compatible third party material won't be going away.

However! There is one exception -- if your use of OneD&D material needs you to replicate OneD&D content, as opposed to simply be compatible with it (say you're making an app which has all the spell descriptions in it) and if there is no new SRD, then you won't be able to do that. You can make compatible stuff ("The evil necromancer can cast magic missile" -- the term magic missile has been OGL for two decades) but you wouldn't be able to replicate the full descriptive text of the OneD&D version of the spell. That's a big if -- if there's no new SRD.

So you'd still be able to make compatible adventures and settings and new spells and new monsters and new magic items and new feats and new rules and stuff. All the stuff 3PPs commonly do. You just wouldn't be able to reproduce the core rules content itself. However, I've been publishing material for 3E, 3.5, 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder 1E for 20 years, and the need to reproduce core rules content hasn't often come up for us -- we produce new compatible content. But if you're making an app, or spell cards, or something which needs to reproduce content from the rulebooks, you'd need an SRD to do that.

So yep. If no SRD, compatible = yes, directly reproduce = no (of course, you can indirectly reproduce stuff by rewriting it in your own words).

Branding! Using the OGL you can't use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" (you never could). Most third parties say something like "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game" and have some sort of '5E' logo of their own making on the cover. Something similar will no doubt happen with OneD&D -- the third party market will create terminology to indicate compatibility. (Back in the 3E days, WotC provided a logo for this use called the 'd20 System Trademark Logo' but they don't do that any more).

What if WotC didn't 'support' third party material? As discussed, nobody can take the OGL or any existing OGC away. However, WotC does have control over DMs Guild and integration with D&D Beyond or the virtual tabletop app they're making. So while they can't stop folks from making and publishing compatible stuff, they could make it harder to distribute simply by not allowing it on those three platforms. If OneD&D becomes heavily reliant on a specific platform we might find ourselves in the same situation we had in 4E, where it was harder to sell player options simply because they weren't on the official character builder app. It's not that you couldn't publish 4E player options, it's just that many players weren't interested in them if they couldn't use them in the app.

But copyright! Yes, yes, you can't copyright rules, you can't do this, you can't do that. The OGL is not relevant to copyright law -- it is a license, an agreement, a contract. By using it you agree to its terms. Sure WotC might not be able to copyright X, but you can certainly contractually agree not to use X (which is a selection of material designated as 'Product Identity') by using the license. There are arguments on the validity of this from actual real lawyers which I won't get into, but I just wanted to note that this is about a license, not copyright law.

If you don't use the Open Gaming License, of course, it doesn't apply to you. You are only bound by a license you use. So then, sure, knock yourself out with copyright law!

So, bullet point summary:
  • The OGL can't go away, and any existing OGC can't go away
  • If (that's an if) there is no new SRD, you will be able to still make compatible material but not reproduce the OneD&D content
  • Most of the D&D terminology (save a few terms like 'beholder' etc.) has been OGC for 20 years and is freely available for use
  • To render that existing OGC unusable for OneD&D the basic terminology of the entire game would have to be changed, at which point it would no longer be compatible with 5E.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
I'm pretty sure the OGL was Wizards' response to the issues created by TSR's policy of suing homebrewers frequently and sometimes with great malice. They earned the nickname "They Sue Regularly." Ryan Dancy wanted to create something that would be picked up by a lot of people so they could occupy "mindshare" in the gaming populace, and creating a "safe space" for homebrewers, which the OGL took care of. It also allowed WotC to specify something for other companies to use so that the product line would grow even without Wizards' direct involvement.

It had unintended side effects from the very start, though -- Wizards thought they'd create the PHB, MM, and DMG, and other companies would basically create scenarios and setting materials, but then Sword & Sorcery Studios got their 3.0E-compatible Creature Collection out at the same GenCon where the 3.0E PHB premiered. But the OGL worked as intended through the 3.0E and 3.5E eras, and seems to be doing the same job during 5.0E.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

darjr

I crit!
WotC has made a statement

Thread here

 


see

Pedantic Grognard
It's still super-weird what they do and do not claim as their own. The list of things you can't use includes displacer beasts but not flumphs, the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus but not modrons, and the Lady of Pain but not Elminster. I'd love to know what sort of legalities are behind these decisions.
Well, the choices of monsters was pretty historically contingent. Basically, the criteria for those was:
  1. Is the monster in the 3rd edition Monster Manual?
  2. Does Ryan Dancey/WotC in 2000-2001 think the monster has any economic value in non-game contexts, like on T-shirts or the like?
  3. Is Ryan Dancey/WotC in 2000-2001 under the impression that the monster originated with a TSR publication?
If the answer to all three was yes, then it was kept out of the officially-released 3rd edition SRD, which otherwise had the rest of the 3rd edition Monster Manual. And if the monster was kept out of the officially-released 3rd edition SRD, it then got named as Product Identity in the "Legal.rtf" file included with the 3.5 revised SRD. (The original SRD legal file does not have a PI declaration in it, and I can't find any other in my checking with the Wayback Machine on either the Open Gaming Foundation or Wizards of the Coast sites.)

The PI declaration on monsters, as best I can tell, was to clean up the fact that early SRD drafts released and used by third parties under the wild and woolly "gentleman's agreement" terms before the OGL and SRD were finalized in fact included those not-offically-released monsters, and so there was published 3PP material out there that included those monsters in what those products declared was Open Game Content. Thus the PI declarations were putting people on notice that WotC never officially released them as OGC and did not want those monsters used by third parties.

[Now, why the 3.5 "Legal.rtf" file PI declaration explicitly included the Lady of Pain while apparently leaving every other character handled as "character names (including those used in the names of spells or items)"? I have no idea. But they seemed to be really interested in locking down Planescape material, didn't they?]
 



JEB

Legend
It's still super-weird what they do and do not claim as their own. The list of things you can't use includes displacer beasts but not flumphs, the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus but not modrons, and the Lady of Pain but not Elminster. I'd love to know what sort of legalities are behind these decisions.
Flumphs and a large number of other then-lesser-known monsters got released under the OGL via the 2002 Tome of Horrors, since the publisher got direct permission from Wizards to do so. My guess is at the time, Wizards didn't intend to make use of many or any of those monsters again.

Well, they stole displacer beasts froma novel, so wouldn't that count as scrying into another plane of reality?
Funny enough, Paizo went back to the original novel for their analogue, the coeurl (which is now OGL).

EDIT: The coeurl is not OGL, Paizo got permission from the author's estate to use it.
 
Last edited:


antiwesley

Unpaid Scientific Adviser (Ret.)
I don't actually understand what is being said here. Are you unhappy that you can't create a 5E compatible game with a class called "swordmaster" or whatever? Because you certainly can.
Well, I'm not even touching 5E. The way things are worded sometimes make it hard to differentiate between what is acceptible, and what isn't. The way things are worded, to me, is that if the word exists in the SRD, it can't be used. But I have come to understand that it's more specific terminology, really. You can't use a monster named a 'Beholder' unless it is so radically different from the SRD Beholder, which is protected by product identity. (Witness "Big Eye Chungus" recently done for DCC/MCC)
Thus, my concern that naming someone who channels some kind of thaumaturgical energy can't be called "Wizard" or "Mage" because it may be a product ID.
I'd be interested just to see a 'master' list of what is on the SRD as protected content.

The way someone explained it to me is that as long as it doesn't contain the description of the protected content as described in the SRD, it's good to use.
 

Hussar

Legend
Well, I'm not even touching 5E. The way things are worded sometimes make it hard to differentiate between what is acceptible, and what isn't. The way things are worded, to me, is that if the word exists in the SRD, it can't be used. But I have come to understand that it's more specific terminology, really. You can't use a monster named a 'Beholder' unless it is so radically different from the SRD Beholder, which is protected by product identity. (Witness "Big Eye Chungus" recently done for DCC/MCC)
Thus, my concern that naming someone who channels some kind of thaumaturgical energy can't be called "Wizard" or "Mage" because it may be a product ID.
I'd be interested just to see a 'master' list of what is on the SRD as protected content.

The way someone explained it to me is that as long as it doesn't contain the description of the protected content as described in the SRD, it's good to use.
Huh.

So, twenty years, literally tens of thousands of OGL products, and you still think that WotC is going to sue you for using the OGL?

I'd point out that it's my understanding that nothing in the SRD is protected content. That's why it's in the SRD.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top