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 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.

Open Game License v1.0a

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.

System Reference Documents

System Reference Documents (SRDs) are compilations of Open Gaming Content, usually released under the terms of the Open Gaming License (OGL).

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[MockingBird]

Does anyone currently use the GSL? Just curious about it.

 

[Voadam]

I just noticed that Kuo Toa and Slaad are not on the list of PI in the 3.5 or 5e SRDs. With them not being in the SRDs I had assumed the list of things entirely not included in the 3.5 SRD would have been the same as the monster name PI designation they made. Weird discrepancy.

 

[S'mon]

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).

The OGL is a contract, it is NOT "intellectual property law" - it is governed by Contract Law. It appears to be a valid contract under English contract law, afaict (I teach Contract). It might not be valid in every jurisdiction but I don't see a problem with it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Does anyone currently use the GSL? Just curious about it.

not that I am aware of... For a few months after 5e came out we had hopes it would continue 4e in some way, by year 2 we gave up hope as our last 4e game ended

 

[Staffan]

WotC seems to care a lot about the "product identity". I'm not sure why, but it's pretty clear that they do, and from the sound of it they cared even more 20 years ago when the OGL was first introduced.

It looks like that now, but I think most of the protection of "product identity" is something of a side track in what was originally important to WotC when building the OGL – or at least, important to them. I'm certain it was important to many 3PPs who were thinking about publishing under the license without giving away rights to their settings and stuff, but given that WotC were in the position of publishing a separate SRD to form their OGC core instead of having it as part of their books, making certain concepts off limits doesn't seem like a high priority: they could just choose not to include those concepts in the first place (which is what they did with the first official SRD).

Back then, the important bit about product identity was probably this: "You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."

The OGL was originally intended to work in tandem with the d20 System Trademark License. This restricted what you could do by quite a lot. The big one was that you could not include instructions on how to generate or advance a character (you could have a new class in a book, but you couldn't provide instructions to the effect of "choose a race and class, roll/select stats..."), there was a long list of game terms you couldn't redefine, and eventually (after the Book of Erotic Fantasy) clauses were added about nudity and such as well. The d20 STL was also subject to change by Wizards in ways the OGL were not. The advantages for the 3PP publisher of the d20 STL was that it allowed them to put the d20 System Logo (which was also on all the D&D books) on the book, indicate that you need the PHB to use the product, and similar things.

That was the big ask of the OGL: "You get to use (some of) our stuff, but you can't use our name." Normally, there's nothing preventing you from indicating compatibility with another thing as long as you make it clear you do not own that thing. As an example, there are numerous companies making inserts for various board games, and they generally do not need the permission of the publishers of those games. The STL then went on to say "OK, you can use our name in these narrow circumstances."

 

[Umbran]

I'd be interested just to see a 'master' list of what is on the SRD as protected content.

For 5e? It is on the first page of the D&D SRD:

"The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content:

Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, EverChanging Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.

All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

 

[Bolares]

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.

ah, okay, I misunderstood you, sorry. You are saying that without the OGL you can reference beholders. That might be true, but will open you to litigation depending on how you make that reference.

 

[see]

I just noticed that Kuo Toa and Slaad are not on the list of PI in the 3.5 or 5e SRDs. With them not being in the SRDs I had assumed the list of things entirely not included in the 3.5 SRD would have been the same as the monster name PI designation they made. Weird discrepancy.

Yes, those two seem to have been an erroneous omission from 3.5, and then then when the PI was reviewed for 5th edition, they apparently worked from the 3.5 SRD list.

Notably, the PI declaration in the 3.5 book Unearthed Arcana added the slaad (and omitted some others), presumably prompted by the inclusion of the slaad bloodline in that work.

 

[Voadam]

Yes, those two seem to have been an erroneous omission from 3.5, and then then when the PI was reviewed for 5th edition, they apparently worked from the 3.5 SRD list.

Notably, the PI declaration in the 3.5 book Unearthed Arcana added the slaad (and omitted some others), presumably prompted by the inclusion of the slaad bloodline in that work.

Notably also there were OGC references to slaad in the summon monster spells in the 3.0 SRD even though they were not included in the monster section of the SRD.

 

[Voadam]

It looks like that now, but I think most of the protection of "product identity" is something of a side track in what was originally important to WotC when building the OGL – or at least, important to them. I'm certain it was important to many 3PPs who were thinking about publishing under the license without giving away rights to their settings and stuff, but given that WotC were in the position of publishing a separate SRD to form their OGC core instead of having it as part of their books, making certain concepts off limits doesn't seem like a high priority: they could just choose not to include those concepts in the first place (which is what they did with the first official SRD).

Back then, the important bit about product identity was probably this: "You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."

The OGL was originally intended to work in tandem with the d20 System Trademark License. This restricted what you could do by quite a lot. The big one was that you could not include instructions on how to generate or advance a character (you could have a new class in a book, but you couldn't provide instructions to the effect of "choose a race and class, roll/select stats..."), there was a long list of game terms you couldn't redefine, and eventually (after the Book of Erotic Fantasy) clauses were added about nudity and such as well. The d20 STL was also subject to change by Wizards in ways the OGL were not. The advantages for the 3PP publisher of the d20 STL was that it allowed them to put the d20 System Logo (which was also on all the D&D books) on the book, indicate that you need the PHB to use the product, and similar things.

That was the big ask of the OGL: "You get to use (some of) our stuff, but you can't use our name." Normally, there's nothing preventing you from indicating compatibility with another thing as long as you make it clear you do not own that thing. As an example, there are numerous companies making inserts for various board games, and they generally do not need the permission of the publishers of those games. The STL then went on to say "OK, you can use our name in these narrow circumstances."

I agree.

The 3.0 SRD had zero WotC PI designations, they did not show up until WotC released the separate 3.5 SRD and later the 5e SRD.

I expect they originally figured everything they cared about was trademarked and later figured it would be useful for brand identity purposes to have some more explicit differentiation between official WotC stuff and OGL 3rd-party stuff.

Also notably originally everybody was working off of the draft SRD which had the later excluded monsters, which is why you will find some early d20 modules with beholders, mind flayers, and carrion crawlers and such as monsters. I remember being fairly disappointed when the actual SRD came out later without the full monster set from the draft SRD/MM.

20 years later looking back I'd say the effect of the monster exclusions is a couple OGC replacements of various PI monsters, and a slight differentiation between OGL stuff and WotC official ones as most OGL worlds don't go with actual mind flayer and beholder stuff as part of their world mythos but have different behind the scenes villains Pathfinder's Golarion has a bunch of aboleth and serpentfolk history and some other different underdark stuff, for example. With the rise of DM's Guild stuff this mild differentiation was blurred even a bit more.