• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

As I noted in another post, the decision to release that information is above marketing and appears to signify a culture change of more transparency.
I don't think so mate.

It doesn't signify any "culture change" at all.

It signifies the very basic strategy, that as @Morrus explained, they don't want people to wonder if there was going to be full support for 5E on the run-up to 1E. They actually got there before many people were asking that question too, which was pretty pro.

Also lol yeah most serious marketing is driven by management decision, that doesn't make it "not marketing" lol. Jeez my firm's entire identity-driven push we were doing before the pandemic was from management, but it was entirely marketing in terms of what the activity was.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow, there are quite a few panicky, misinformed comments about this on Twitter. Some of them even border on intentional disinformation.

Now, considering that Ray Winninger, before leaving, had talked about WotC working on two brand-new settings still to come out, assuming nothing happens to can them, maybe this NDA stuff is not for the new rules in general, but for one, or both, of these two new settings, giving those willing to get on board, advance knowledge and the chance to produce some material for these new worlds, to have ready for release shortly after the new setting/s release? Sure, the original teases for them was for release as early as 2023, but if they are held until 2024, to go with the updated rules, it would make sense. Remember when DMs Guild still had the Adept program, so that the chosen ones could work in advance on extra material in advance of the hardcover adventure releases? They had NDAs preventing them from talking about the projects until after they were released. Maybe that is all this is, except for a new setting instead.
 

Just read this interesting blog post (from a few years ago). The author questions whether the OGL is enforceable at all


Ergo, WotC is licensing nothing with the OGL. They claim to license something they have no right to license (OGC), and anything that requires such a license is explicitly excluded (PI). Moreover, they don’t even want third parties to mention their game system. Once again, in plain English: “We’re licensing to you what we have no right to claim as ours, and not licensing you anything we can claim as ours, and are thus giving you nothing.” Even if a third party signed this agreement (probably no one has; there’s no signature line), or if a court bound the third party to its terms because it was printed in a book as instructed in paragraph 10 (“You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.”), there’s no consideration, so there’s no legally enforceable agreement.

Assuming WotC genuinely believes the OGL is enforceable, this appears to be a setup. It appears that they’re using ambiguity to encourage third parties to use copyrightable material, only to then use the quoted preamble text to justify claims of infringement or punish other legal behavior they simply don’t like (such as publication of one-stop stat blocks, henceforth “OSSBs”). If WotC realizes that this isn’t an enforceable agreement, then at the very least, the ambiguity is used to confuse and intimidate third parties into not republishing material, self-censoring any use of uncopyrightable material just to avoid a costly lawsuit they’re uncertain they can win.
 

Clint_L

Legend
All these people with no skin in the game offering their hot takes on the OGL just want attention. WotC has had amicable relations with legit third party creators, may of whom have done very well through the OGL and SGR. All WotC are doing is defending their intellectual property (i.e you can make a 5e-compatible adventure if you like, but you aren't including Beholders without their permission). Which is what any responsible organization would do.

This is all just a tempest in a teapot that is not being driven by anyone who matters with regards to this issue. Anyone can make a blog post or a tweet or a Youtube video.
 

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Just read this interesting blog post (from a few years ago). The author questions whether the OGL is enforceable at all

That particular source might be a bit... sketchy? IANAL, so not sure.
Fwiw, there was a big thread discussing exactly that post here on ENWorld a few years ago, in fact:

 




see

Pedantic Grognard
Just read this interesting blog post (from a few years ago). The author questions whether the OGL is enforceable at all
His basic premise is that game mechanics are not protected by copyright. This is not unreasonable. Game rules are procedures, procedures per se are not subject to copyright, and the simplest way of describing a procedure in English often has no particular creative expressive content beyond the creativity in inventing the procedure and thus cannot be copyrighted.

(Do not run out and freely reprint anything you happen to think is a procedure on the basis that I just wrote that. I am not a lawyer, that is not legal advice even in general, and it in particular is not specific legal advice for your specific situation.)

But, then, he pushes it to the idea that pretty much all the specific expression of a set of mechanics, and any specific arrangements of those mechanics, can't be copyrighted because they are functional, and, well, no. I'm pretty sure he's jumped off a cliff with that one. (Either that, or he didn't quite understand that you can, in fact, use Open Game Content verbatim under the Open Game License. Based on my reading of him, I can't really tell.)

Now, it's perfectly understandable how he jumped off that cliff; there is no easy bright line anywhere in the law that tells you when the combination of uncopyrightable elements crosses the line into creative expression. Start with the entirely true proposition that individual words can't be copyrighted, and add the the entirely true proposition that ideas can't be copyrighted, and it can seem like an obvious conclusion that it's legal to freely reprint and distribute the latest NYT bestseller because it's all uncopyrightable ideas expressed with uncopyrightable words.

(For those who might be confused, no, it is not legal to do so. That's the fundamental activity that copyright law most strenuously prohibits.)

If the situation is even slightly more ambiguous than that, it's obviously easier to convince oneself that what one wants to do is allowed by copyright law. And thus his assertion that the OGL gives no one any rights whatsoever to do anything they couldn't legally do anyway.

Well. Like I mentioned, I'm not a lawyer. But I do have some not-actually-legal-just-common-sense advice for you; if you're going reprint, or sail close to reprinting, D&D text without adhering to the terms of the Open Game License, get the advice of a good copyright lawyer first, rather than trusting that guy's analysis.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top