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

"I don't have the level of influence I want, so I will be nasty," isn't a great take in a customer, or a business associate.
Oh come on. Trying to characterise the stuff that was going on as "trying to be nasty" is just beyond misrepresentation.

At worst, cynical "looking 4 clix" is about what you can say, but denying that a significant amount of the concern, certainly the vast majority, was genuine, is itself cynical and ridiculous. I don't think I've seen any which was "being nasty", and the idea that YouTuber with like 30k subs can "be nasty" to a corporation with a turnover in the billions is just shenanigans of the silliest pants-on-head kind.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

gban007

Adventurer
Absolutely they created it!

The idea that they didn't relies on pretending to be so pathetically naïve about both human nature and the internet that it defies belief, frankly.

Any adult human being of normal intelligence and who is reasonably worldly, not some Dickens-esque naïf knows perfectly well that, if you invite a bunch of people to "secret meetings" about an issue (the OGL in this case), after repeatedly dodging questions about the issue, you're going to create some significant concern, and that's not "entitlement", I mean for goodness sake!

Good lord lol. There's little worse that treating naivete as a virtue, rather than a form of ignorance, but one of the things that is worse is defending faux-naivete from a significant corporate entity who absolutely know better. The best you can say for WotC here is that this was probably a "whoopsie" moment rather than anything intentional (that's certainly my belief - as I stated before the statement was even issued, the handling of the whole situation seems like the result of a lot of people from MS and similar backgrounds making decisions about a very different product).

Merry Christmas! ;)
I could be wrong, but didn't it start more or less out of nowhere, with a youtuber saying they heard the OGL was going away, before any time of questions being raised to WOTC for them to dodge - it was only after the video came out that people started asking WOTC questions.
 

I could be wrong, but didn't it start more or less out of nowhere, with a youtuber saying they heard the OGL was going away, before any time of questions being raised to WOTC for them to dodge - it was only after the video came out that people started asking WOTC questions.
Not as far as I know, unless that video was a VERY long time ago. When was it? (I'm not a big YouTube guy)

People had been talking about this since 1D&D was announced, speculating whether the OGL would be changed (including on these boards, I think). That was what, in the summer? August I think. People on social media I follow had been fairly concerned that the OGL might be going away for, I'd have to check Twitter and some Discords, but I'd say at least a couple of months on and off.

There's sort of annoying anti-D&D bunch of people on Twitter who I follow for other reasons (mostly because they've got good memes), who have a real Tsundere relationship to D&D and they'd been increasingly worried about the OGL for quite some time. And sure a bunch of them are doomsayers and couple act like they'd be happy if D&D went away (but again see Tsundere), but the concern was there.

WotC themselves made a non-statement statement about the OGL being something they were thinking about what seems like a couple of weeks or more back, but perhaps someone could correct me on that. I'm guessing the video was less than a month ago? Maybe less than two weeks ago? My impression was that there was some video fairly recently that was merely cynically capitalizing on what was already a common sentiment, in order to get them clicks, likes and subscribes, and maybe this finally pushed the issue high enough that WotC noticed, but like, it was already an issue (hence WotC's previous non-statement).

EDIT FOR EXAMPLE, here's a guy talking about the OGL for 1D&D September 1st: JBE One D&D Blog

Literally speculating there might not be an OGL and they could fix that by releasing one.

That was 115 days ago. Nearly 1/3rd of a year. Absolutely not "out of nowhere". That's not the only post, just one that was easy to find. That's like, what, not even 2 weeks after 1D&D was announced.

EDIT 2: Here's entire-ass article speculating about the OGL going away a SINGLE WEEK after 1D&D was announced! One DnD: OGL Going Away in 6e

So yeah we can conclusively say:

A) No, this didn't "come out of nowhere".

and

B) It ain't because of that video.
 
Last edited:

gban007

Adventurer
Not as far as I know, unless that video was a VERY long time ago. When was it? (I'm not a big YouTube guy)

People had been talking about this since 1D&D was announced, speculating whether the OGL would be changed (including on these boards, I think). That was what, in the summer? August I think. People on social media I follow had been fairly concerned that the OGL might be going away for, I'd have to check Twitter and some Discords, but I'd say at least a couple of months on and off.

There's sort of annoying anti-D&D bunch of people on Twitter who I follow for other reasons (mostly because they've got good memes), who have a real Tsundere relationship to D&D and they'd been increasingly worried about the OGL for quite some time. And sure a bunch of them are doomsayers and couple act like they'd be happy if D&D went away (but again see Tsundere), but the concern was there.

WotC themselves made a non-statement statement about the OGL being something they were thinking about what seems like a couple of weeks or more back, but perhaps someone could correct me on that. I'm guessing the video was less than a month ago? Maybe less than two weeks ago? My impression was that there was some video fairly recently that was merely cynically capitalizing on what was already a common sentiment, in order to get them clicks, likes and subscribes, and maybe this finally pushed the issue high enough that WotC noticed, but like, it was already an issue (hence WotC's previous non-statement).

EDIT FOR EXAMPLE, here's a guy talking about the OGL for 1D&D September 1st: JBE One D&D Blog

Literally speculating there might not be an OGL and they could fix that by releasing one.

That was 115 days ago. Nearly 1/3rd of a year. Absolutely not "out of nowhere". That's not the only post, just one that was easy to find. That's like, what, not even 2 weeks after 1D&D was announced.

EDIT 2: Here's entire-ass article speculating about the OGL going away a SINGLE WEEK after 1D&D was announced! One DnD: OGL Going Away in 6e

So yeah we can conclusively say:

A) No, this didn't "come out of nowhere".

and

B) It ain't because of that video.
My view is probably coloured by only getting D&D news from Enworld, and reading community posts there.

So what I saw initially was this:


From 11th November, with a lot of speculation as to whether WOTC would respond or not.

This thread we're in at the moment then followed shortly after, and states at the beginning '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' which suggests that the 11th November onwards stuff seemed to be the ones making most noise, rather than the ones from earlier in the piece that may have slid by more.

Then WOTC responds on 22nd November, with that vague statement, but timing seemed to be in response to the initial thread / video from 11th November.


So it seemed to me the 11th November was one that initiated the responses from WOTC, and seemed to have come out of nowhere for me as the other bits has passed me by, and potentially many others including WOTC.
 

So it seemed to me the 11th November was one that initiated the responses from WOTC, and seemed to have come out of nowhere for me as the other bits has passed me by, and potentially many others including WOTC.
Yeah if you stick to ENworld, your view of a situation will be very different to if you have a lot of other D&D-related info sources, so it's understandable.

However, the blog I linked was in an ENworld post on that very date - August 25th. So even looking solely here, if you read the boards too much like me, you'd have seen this being discussed from literally 1 week after 1D&D was announced.

The 11th November video was after the people I follow had started really beginning to seriously discuss whether there might not be an OGL for 1D&D. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people initially just assumed there would be an OGL, and that articles like the one I linked were probably not worth really considering.

But over time this issue got discussed more and more. I certainly think various stuff post November 11th further increased the visibility of the issue, but it was a highly predictable issue, and nothing unexpected.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Absolutely they created it!

The idea that they didn't relies on pretending to be so pathetically naïve about both human nature and the internet that it defies belief, frankly.

Any adult human being of normal intelligence and who is reasonably worldly, not some Dickens-esque naïf knows perfectly well that, if you invite a bunch of people to "secret meetings" about an issue (the OGL in this case), after repeatedly dodging questions about the issue, you're going to create some significant concern, and that's not "entitlement", I mean for goodness sake!

Good lord lol. There's little worse that treating naivete as a virtue, rather than a form of ignorance, but one of the things that is worse is defending faux-naivete from a significant corporate entity who absolutely know better. The best you can say for WotC here is that this was probably a "whoopsie" moment rather than anything intentional (that's certainly my belief - as I stated before the statement was even issued, the handling of the whole situation seems like the result of a lot of people from MS and similar backgrounds making decisions about a very different product).

Merry Christmas! ;)
Calm down.
 

glass

(he, him)
No, I answered it with "I mean. I have my opinions. And I’ve spoken over the years to many of those involved in-depth, often in-person. And I’ve used the OGL since it was created 20+ years ago. So yes, I think those people have represented themselves honestly to me, including their characterisations of the inner machinations of the company. Some of those conversations are on video or audio, others are written down, others were just conversations."
Emphasis mine. I asked a (highly rhetorical) question. You answered in the affirmative. I asked you to clarify. You said you had not said yes, and then immediately quoted yourself saying "yes". I am now very confused.

I think we're having two different conversations. :)
That much is certainly true.
 


Kurotowa

Legend
So a bunch of people that hate WotC have been banging the ogl drum for a while, echo chamber style, until they repeat it enough times that it becomes a thing that WotC feels compelled to comment about.

That about sums it up no?
Pretty much. Clickbait rumormongering kicked up enough FUD that WotC felt they had to issue an official statement. But because it had to get rushed out early the details are still thin, so people inclined to look at it in the worst light are free to continue to do so.

What we know for sure is thin. That uncertainty isn't helped by amateur lawyers yelling about the legal meaning of this or that. And everyone's going to forget that the people who started the whole mess were peddling lies and BS from the start.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top