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

Reynard

Legend
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.
Except WotC told us, in a press release, that OGL 1.1 is pretty much exactly what the leaked document says. So it wasn't nothing.
 

kjdavies

Adventurer
I think all of this is overstated. Whether they can revoke the old OGL is open to debate, the basic idea is that perpetual is irrevocable if both sides benefit from the contract. But I'll leave that up to the lawyers.

The new OGL we have is a draft, not the final version. If I were someone like Kobold Press I'd have my lawyers talk to WOTC and work something out. To be honest, I think WOTC should get some revenue from companies that make more than three quarters of a million dollars off their IP. If it ever even comes to that. A more likely result will be that Kobold Press (and the other handful of large companies) will work out a deal with WOTC to sell their products on DDB.

But small publishers? If WOTC took their property right now and made minor changes before publishing it as their own? Those small publishers probably couldn't afford the lawyers to fight it anyway. Even under the proposed OGL if WOTC didn't compensate the original publisher, the public backlash alone would not make it worth their while. They have a slow rate of publication for official material, I don't see that changing. Out of all the risks of publishing, WOTC stealing the idea would be way, way, way down the list.

Or maybe I'm all wrong and the sky is falling. I'd make some wagers that in a year we'll have pretty much forgotten about all of this, but that violates forum policy.
Under OGL v1.0a WotC already can copy my open content without recompense... but they do have to give credit, if not explicitly, in that they must follow the OGL v1.0a (or 1.0, I suppose) to do so and the OGL v1.0a requires that they include my Section 15 declarations when they write their own.

"They can copy my stuff without paying me" has always been part of the OGL. It's an open license and WotC doesn't have to be only a contributor, they can be a licensee too.

In the last 22 years, I am aware of one instance where they used two monsters from a third party publisher: 3e's Monster Manual 2 included two monsters from Creature Collection... and they arranged special permission to do so, because they needed that in order to say specifically that the content was taken from Creature Collection. If they hadn't had that permission they could not have explicitly explained what they were doing.
 

Oofta

Legend
Under OGL v1.0a WotC already can copy my open content without recompense... but they do have to give credit, if not explicitly, in that they must follow the OGL v1.0a (or 1.0, I suppose) to do so and the OGL v1.0a requires that they include my Section 15 declarations when they write their own.

"They can copy my stuff without paying me" has always been part of the OGL. It's an open license and WotC doesn't have to be only a contributor, they can be a licensee too.

In the last 22 years, I am aware of one instance where they used two monsters from a third party publisher: 3e's Monster Manual 2 included two monsters from Creature Collection... and they arranged special permission to do so, because they needed that in order to say specifically that the content was taken from Creature Collection. If they hadn't had that permission they could not have explicitly explained what they were doing.
I think the bad press they would receive by using a significant amount of someone else's creation without permission would far outweigh any possible benefit.

They could do it now under OGL 1.0 and most authors couldn't afford to challenge it. I just don't see a huge risk. If they wanted to substantively copy someone's work they could file the numbers off. Change some imagery, rename a few things, maybe run it through an AI text modifier like a college kid plagiarizing an essay and it would be off to the races with a couple days of revisions.

They don't now because they don't need to. It's not like they're flooding the market with official content.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I think the bad press they would receive by using a significant amount of someone else's creation without permission would far outweigh any possible benefit.

They could do it now under OGL 1.0 and most authors couldn't afford to challenge it. I just don't see a huge risk. If they wanted to substantively copy someone's work they could file the numbers off. Change some imagery, rename a few things, maybe run it through an AI text modifier like a college kid plagiarizing an essay and it would be off to the races with a couple days of revisions.

They don't now because they don't need to. It's not like they're flooding the market with official content.
I've always viewed it like the old rule that show producers throw away any script submitted to them by fans without reading it. Not that they think they are all bad, but they can't legally use them and if they contain an idea that a writer later uses independently, they can't be sued for stealing it.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Even if WotC was blatantly stealing OGL stuff en masse and filing the serial numbers off that's still fair enough imho.

It's what everyone else has been doing last 22+ years. OGL goes both ways.

What they're doing isn't that though.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Even if WotC was blatantly stealing OGL stuff en masse and filing the serial numbers off that's still fair enough imho.

It's what everyone else has been doing last 22+ years. OGL goes both ways.
While that does seem logical and fair, every 3rd party publisher in the world is making far less money with the content they publish under the OGL than WotC is off of D&D. If I were to use something from the OGL in a product I made and republished it with some alterations, I would make at most a few hundred bucks for the entire product (there are others that make more, but that's normally what I make from my larger products). If WotC were to take something I published under the OGL and use it in an official product, they could theoretically make millions of dollars off of a book that included my content.
 


Zardnaar

Legend
While that does seem logical and fair, every 3rd party publisher in the world is making far less money with the content they publish under the OGL than WotC is off of D&D. If I were to use something from the OGL in a product I made and republished it with some alterations, I would make at most a few hundred bucks for the entire product (there are others that make more, but that's normally what I make from my larger products). If WotC were to take something I published under the OGL and use it in an official product, they could theoretically make millions of dollars off of a book that included my content.

Well you agreed to that using the OGL.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top