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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If I had to guess, WotC isn't going to try and kill the OGL or even pull licenses for other VTTs. They are more likely just to make their platforms the place where you get the most D&D of experiences. Rather than deny access to DDB to well known 3rd Parties, they would want to bring them into that ecosystem, because it brings (probably) paying subscribers with them.

I think this is reasonably likely, and likely to be contentious because what I think is unlikely is WotC just opening the DDB to all 3PPs. Opening it up to "selected partners" would likely be at least a minor boon to sales for everyone involved (WotC probably taking a 50% or higher cut as per DM's Guild), and potentially helps WotC out even by offering more diverse adventure offerings.

However, I think this is likely to be highly curated, both in terms of which companies are invited, and which products are brought into the DDB (adventures would be an obvious yes, likely monsters too, but I wonder if they'll allow classes, subclasses, species, etc.).

And it's likely to attract criticism from companies and fans of companies which get excluded. Not without reason, either.

As an aside it might also cause some havoc with the current DDB homebrew database as I suspect WotC would want to ban stuff that replicates material from the 3PPs it's working with, just as they ban material that replicates WotC stuff (with automated detection and so on as they already have). Right now loads of stuff of people are operating with a ton of 3PP material from various companies as homebrew.

It'll be interesting if nothing else, if it happens!

 

[Alzrius]

That seemed to be part of the 4e GSL strategy, to get people to contractually agree to give up using the OGL in return for using the GSL.

Section 6 of the June 17th 2008 version of the 4e GSL:

6. OGL; Conversion
6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”). Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL. Licensee may continue to distribute and sell-off all remaining physical inventory of a Converted OGL Product Line after the corresponding Conversion is published, but will, as of such date, cease all publication, distribution and sale (and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale) of any element of a Converted OGL Product Line in any electronic downloadable format. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL; and (b) this Section 6.1 will survive termination of this Agreement.
6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.

As I recall, wasn't that the "poison pill clause" that WotC excluded from a later iteration of the GSL, due to how unpopular it was?

 

[Burnside]

I think this is reasonably likely, and likely to be contentious because what I think is unlikely is WotC just opening the DDB to all 3PPs. Opening it up to "selected partners" would likely be at least a minor boon to sales for everyone involved (WotC probably taking a 50% or higher cut as per DM's Guild), and potentially helps WotC out even by offering more diverse adventure offerings.

Minor point, but WotC's cut of DMsGuild products is less than 50%. Creators get 50%; the other 50% is split between WotC and DriveThruRPG (I don't think the breakdown of that split has ever been made public).

 

[Burnside]

That seems far fetched to me. I know they want their VTT to be king, but tying it directly to Beyond will do that for them (if it does, i mean). Denying Roll20 and FG licenses won't engender any good will, and it isn't like they don't get either a licensing fee or a cut of every book sold on those platforms anyway, with other people doing the work for them.

I don't think that they'd pull licenses from Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds - they're just two more revenue streams, and it'll create bad will.

However, I do think you'll get additional perks if you buy stuff on WotC's proprietary VTT instead (such as the two-week-earlier access to the Dragonlance book DNDBeyond users just got if they purchased the bundle, or perhaps additional exclusive content/tokens/perks that aren't otherwise available).

 

[overgeeked]

A document asking for transparency from WotC that had no signatories...

Yes, the lack of signatures is not a good look, I agree.

Yeah weird anonymous document.

Some of the people (Ted claimed) currently work for WotC, are big name 3PP, under NDA, and are various other industry insiders. We also know WotC keeps a blacklist so wanting to stay on their good side while being beholden to them for your livelihood and/or not wanting to face legal action isn’t some weird incomprehensible thing. At a guess, it’s also why that other thread disappeared.

 

[Morrus]

Some of the people (Ted claimed) currently work for WotC, are big name 3PP, under NDA, and are various other industry insiders.

Uhuh…

We also know WotC keeps a blacklist so wanting to stay on their good side while being beholden to them for your livelihood isn’t some weird incomprehensible thing. At a guess, it’s also why that other thread disappeared.

It disappeared because @darjr chose to remove it. I’m sure he has his reasons.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think that they'd pull licenses from Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds - they're just two more revenue streams, and it'll create bad will.

I don't think they'll go back and pull anything currently on those platforms.

I would be unsurprised if they just didn't licence anything for 1D&D to them though. However I don't think that'll happen unless WotC can get their VTT ready to roll before 1D&D releases. But equally I don't think that's super-likely.

However, I do think you'll get additional perks if you buy stuff on WotC's proprietary VTT instead (such as the two-week-earlier access to the Dragonlance book DNDBeyond users just got if they purchased the bundle, or perhaps additional exclusive content/tokens/perks that aren't otherwise available).

I think this is most likely, yes. It'd be easy to see how it might even become a month or more of "early access" in some cases.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

nerd immersion is again saying things are going to get worse... I don't know why people who have never used the OGL/SRD/DMsguild are rumoring so hard....

 

[Voadam]

That seemed to be part of the 4e GSL strategy, to get people to contractually agree to give up using the OGL in return for using the GSL.

Section 6 of the June 17th 2008 version of the 4e GSL:

6. OGL; Conversion
6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”). Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL. Licensee may continue to distribute and sell-off all remaining physical inventory of a Converted OGL Product Line after the corresponding Conversion is published, but will, as of such date, cease all publication, distribution and sale (and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale) of any element of a Converted OGL Product Line in any electronic downloadable format. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL; and (b) this Section 6.1 will survive termination of this Agreement.
6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.

Does anyone know if there were different versions of the 4e GSL without the section 6 parts?

I have Kobold Press's Midgard Bestiary for 4e which is published under the GSL as well as their OGL Pathfinder Midgard Bestiary and both PDFs are still for sale and Kobold has a bunch of later OGL 5e Midgard product line stuff. The GSL does not require publishing the terms of the GSL in its products the way the OGL does so I can't say whether Kobold used the same June 2008 version I downloaded from WotC or whether Kobold has a separate agreement.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

nerd immersion is again saying things are going to get worse... I don't know why people who have never used the OGL/SRD/DMsguild are rumoring so hard....

They are rumouring so hard because the YouTube algorithm rewards that kind of behaviour.