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. I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable...

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Faolyn

(she/her)
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.
Again, the words "wizard" and "mage" are not protected by the SRD.

Here's a list of the things you can't say:
  1. Forgotten Realms
  2. Faerûn
  3. Proper names attached to spells and magic items (Heward's handy haversack, Leomund's tiny hut, Bigby's hand, etc.; but you can say tiny hut and that's cool)
  4. Underdark
  5. Red Wizard of Thay
  6. the City of Union
  7. Heroic Domains of Ysgard
  8. EverChanging Chaos of Limbo
  9. Windswept Depths of Pandemonium
  10. Infinite Layers of the Abyss
  11. Tarterian Depths of Carceri
  12. Gray Waste of Hades
  13. Bleak Eternity of Gehenna
  14. Nine Hells of Baator
  15. Infernal Battlefield of Acheron
  16. Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus
  17. Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia
  18. Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia
  19. Twin Paradises of Bytopia
  20. Blessed Fields of Elysium
  21. Wilderness of the Beastlands
  22. Olympian Glades of Arborea
  23. Concordant Domain of the Outlands
  24. Sigil
  25. Lady of Pain
  26. Book of Exalted Deeds
  27. Book of Vile Darkness
  28. beholder
  29. gauth
  30. carrion crawler
  31. tanar’ri
  32. baatezu
  33. displacer beast
  34. githyanki
  35. githzerai
  36. mind flayer
  37. illithid
  38. umber hulk
  39. yuan-ti
I'm pretty sure you can write and publish a ton of stuff without using any of those 39 terms. Lots of people on this board, including myself, have successfully put out 3pp without getting sued. And the folks at DriveThruRPG will actually look through the works of first-time publishers to make sure they haven't made any mistakes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


So they're like "We wrote 1500 pages of stuff, and you can use and reproduce it how you like, but please don't use these 12 words".

And your life has been affected by your inability to use the word 'beholder' in an adventure published for D&D how?

I have little patience for anybdy who turns that into a conspiracy theory. It's just boring at this point, after 20 years. I mean, I'm a long way from a WotC shill but I can't fault them here.
Of course, I haven't been affected personally in any way, since I don't publish any gaming products, OGL or otherwise :) But that doesn't prevent me from discussing the matter.

If someone has 0 use for those 1500 pages of text, but would really like to reference beholders, then being pressured to accept the OG anyway under the threat of likely frivolous lawsuits is going to feel pretty intimidating, and as has been referenced earlier in this thread, that was WotC Dancey's intent. If that's a "conspiracy theory" then I don't know what to say. There's no conspiracy here, it's all plain in daylight.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
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.
That's strange.

Final Fantasy (the video games) keeps using coeurl (and mind-flayers, and some others) in their game. I wonder why they get a free pass from WotC.
 


Bolares

Hero
If someone has 0 use for those 1500 pages of text, but would really like to reference beholders, then being pressured to accept the OG anyway under the threat of likely frivolous lawsuits is going to feel pretty intimidating
Wait, but you can't use beholders either way... "Being pressured to accept the OG" doesn't let you use beholders.
 


S'mon

Legend
Well this is governed by copyright law, which is tricky and uncertain. The OGL is nice and clear, as Morrus has pointed out.
Eg In the UK we have decisions that stormtrooper helmets are not copyright protected, but Del Boy Trotter is apparently a copyright work. Few lawyers could have predicted either of those decisions.
 

Reynard

Legend
Eg In the UK we have decisions that stormtrooper helmets are not copyright protected, but Del Boy Trotter is apparently a copyright work. Few lawyers could have predicted either of those decisions.
This is an important note: different countries have different rules. I've always assumed that the OGL was applicable in places other than the US but now that I think about, I have no clue. I assume there are treaties about such things (not the OGL specifically, but intellectual property law in general).
 

Wait, but you can't use beholders either way... "Being pressured to accept the OG" doesn't let you use beholders.
You absolutely can use the word "beholder" in your gaming products. Maybe not in the title due to trademark rules, but in the main text there are no legal restrictions. But if publish a product under the OGL, you agree to not say "beholder" and some other terms in exchange for being allowed to use all the SRD content.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top