• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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


log in or register to remove this ad

The-Magic-Sword

Small Ball Archmage
If it's real, I'm sure it's paraphrased to some extent for brevity, but assuming Stephen and Mark are genuine (and I absolutely would, personally), they had no question in their minds that their sources would have the access.
 

Ondath

Hero
It's obviously a joke.
We're discussing it in the other thread now, but it seems like this might be legit. The people who leaked this are field veterans with one of them being a Paizo game designer, and third-party content creators like Griffon's Saddlebag have recently expressed considerable worry about the OGL's future. The text is clearly an informal summary of the spirit behind OGL v1.1, but I'm inclined to believe that these new terms are quite possibly real.
 


mamba

Legend
We're discussing it in the other thread now, but it seems like this might be legit. The people who leaked this are field veterans with one of them being a Paizo game designer, and third-party content creators like Griffon's Saddlebag have recently expressed considerable worry about the OGL's future. The text is clearly an informal summary of the spirit behind OGL v1.1, but I'm inclined to believe that these new terms are quite possibly real.
yeah, one KS I funded decided to rush out a rough alpha under the OGL 1.0a before 1.1 hits just to be on the safe side OGL wise. They too said that their sources tell them that WotC will be very aggressive about this, so far I dismissed that mostly, but it might turn out they nailed it
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Grain of salt, but apparently there was a leak of the 1.1, posting it here because I think Seifter probably isn't lying about the reliable source.

The vod is of a stream, apparently they receive it partway through the show.

Edit: The 39-minute mark is when they start talking about it.

edit: View attachment 271288

Actual lawyer breaking it down.


If legit they can revoke the licence with 30 days notice and in essence your stuff becomes theirs as the revocation is one sided.

And they can also modify the agreement with 30 days notice and it's open ended to what they can do after that.

Also a clause that claims the original OGL is no longer authorized but doesn't seem to go as far as saying it's no longer valid.

But 6E may not be OGL. They can't revoke the original but don't have to make 6E OGL.
 
Last edited:

Faolyn

(she/her)
If legit they can revoke the licence with 30 days notice and in essence your stuff becones theirs as the revokation is one sided.

And they can also modify the agreement with 30 days notice and it's open ended to what they can do after that.

Also a clause that claims the original IGL is no longer authorized but doesn't seem to go as far as saying it's no longer valid.

But 6E my not be OGL. They can't revoke the original but don't have to make 6E OGL.
OK, so then. Assume this is true. How much of a risk is there that WotC would yoink an individual's license? And, are we thinking they would do this to squash material they don't want out there, or to take it for themselves?

Edit: Because if it's the former, it might be them trying to prevent another Star Frontiers: New Nazi event from happening and thus they'll never do it unless somebody tries to produce something bigoted.
 


Edit: Because if it's the former, it might be them trying to prevent another Star Frontiers: New Nazi event from happening and thus they'll never do it unless somebody tries to produce something bigoted.
I can understand the possibility that this might be what they're thinking, but in reality, should WotC decide to give themselves an open right to crush anyone's licence for any or no reason, it clearly poses a titanic business risk for any 3pp publisher. 'Trust us, we'll only do it to the bad guys' isn't going to carry much water. If you're Kobold Press or someone, this is WotC saying that they can destroy your livelihood and your company at the stroke of a pen and you have no recourse. Just the possibility could be an unacceptable risk.
 

JEB

Legend
OK, so would Wizards declaring OGL 1.0/1.0a no longer "authorized" actually have any legal effect? I though 1.0/1.0a couldn't be revoked. Wizards can certainly say they no longer support OGL 1.0/1.0a, but that wouldn't mean people couldn't use it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top