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.

 

[Umbran]

but of course that relies on any such hypothetical 3pp being able to fight WotC in court on the matter.

How many 3pp would be affected? If it is a score to dozens, then class action suit would become a possibility, making the thing easier to fund in aggregate.

But honestly, given how much the fanbase typically hates large corporations pushing small creators around... this would be stupid. And not so stupid it is actually genius. It'd be just stupid.

Stupid is a possibility, but maybe not the first guess we should make.

 

[JEB]

Well the easiest way to pull that off is make 6E OaGL 1.1 only.

Can they retroactively invalidate the old OGL that's the ?

An option that could minimize chances of a court case would be:

• OGL 1.0/1.0a remains available, but Wizards ceases support for it. As @Sacrosanct says, 3E and 5E would remain available but no other Wizards edition. 3PPs can still operate under the old OGL rules, but it means going their own way.
• OGL 1.1 explicitly deauthorizes OGL 1.0/1.0a's terms and requires 3PPs to strictly abide by 1.1, but gives you access to 2024 edition rules (and likely other incentives). Plus you can still publish older 3E/5E/etc. OGC under 1.1 (though now under requirements for reporting income, etc.).

This still represents a disincentive for 3PPs to sign up for 1.1, since there's no going back, but it wouldn't create the firestorm that actually revoking 1.0/1.0a would.

EDIT: I am curious under this scenario how Wizards would respond to someone trying to use OGL 1.0a and the 5E SRD to replicate 2024 edition rules, just as folks used the 3.5 SRD to replicate 5E rules before the 5E SRD. Because I'm sure someone would.

 

[Nylanfs]

Here's the problem I have with them attempting to "deauthorize" v1.0 or v1.0a. IF they thought they could do this, why didn't they attempt it with the 4e GSL debacle? Once they saw where Pathfinder was going they would have had no issue doing that then. And plus the "leak" is, badly worded is a VAST understatement IMO so I'm not trusting anything till we get more details from WotC.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's the problem I have with them attempting to "deauthorize" v1.0 or v1.0a. IF they thought they could do this, why didn't they attempt it with the 4e GSL debacle? Once they saw where Pathfinder was going they would have had no issue doing that then. And plus the "leak" is, badly worded is a VAST understatement IMO so I'm not trusting anything till we get more details from WotC.

1. They didn't think of it.
2. Legal precedent since then.
3. Thinking the GSL/4E would be popular.
4. New legal team.
5. New corporate leadership willing to go nuclear.
6. Monetization


Etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

How many 3pp would be affected? If it is a score to dozens, then class action suit would become a possibility, making the thing easier to fund in aggregate.

But honestly, given how much the fanbase typically hates large corporations pushing small creators around... this would be stupid. And not so stupid it is actually genius. It'd be just stupid.

Stupid is a possibility, but maybe not the first guess we should make.

I also think Tech would have a good probability of joining in on the fight as any rulings about the OGL could also affect open source software licenses. So funding a lawsuit becomes even easier if that happens.

 

[humble minion]

How many 3pp would be affected? If it is a score to dozens, then class action suit would become a possibility, making the thing easier to fund in aggregate.

But honestly, given how much the fanbase typically hates large corporations pushing small creators around... this would be stupid. And not so stupid it is actually genius. It'd be just stupid.

Stupid is a possibility, but maybe not the first guess we should make.

I suspect that if these rumours are founded in reality, WotC as it currently is don't intend to use the powers they're claiming on a routine basis. They look like a nuclear option, to ensure future WotC has an option to shut down, for instance '5e RAHOWA' from using the OGL, or to nip in the bud any future attempts at Pathfindering should an OGL-based competitor start to become a genuine threat to WotC.

However, that doesn't make them any less of a threat. Corporate intentions can change over time, after all, and any 3pp accepting a licence under the rumoured terms would be basically allowing WotC to switch off their livelihood at a whim.

As for the class action - again, IANAL but I doubt it. You can only bring a court case against concrete actions, can't you? The most likely course of events would be something like, I guess, a 3pp publishing something yuk (the aforementioned RAHOWA 5e, for example), WotC lawyering up to kill the project, the 3pp ignoring the cease and desist (or whatever), and the whole thing heading courtwards from there. So most likely WotC would be the plaintiff and the 3pp would be the defendant. While I'm no expert, it's pretty hard to see, for instance, Kobold Press and MCDM and Green Ronin and Necromancer etc etc all voluntarily putting their own heads on the block to side with the defendant in a case like this. I'm not sure how you'd construct standing for an alliance of 3pp to proactively issue a class action against WotC. You'd need to demonstrate loss first.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, this is why it would be a really interesting case. The OGL and the FAQ don't cover a process for deauthorization, but it does include the concept that versions of the OGL can be authorized/approved, which implies they can also not be authorized/approved. I would guess Wizards could argue they can deauthorize because they own the license and it doesn't say they can't, but 3PPs could argue that without an explicit mechanism you can't deauthorize at all. I have no idea which argument would prevail.

Mind, OGL 1.1 could have language built into it that explicitly deauthorizes prior versions of the license, making the question moot if you sign up for 1.1. The open question would be for those that don't.

I would say publishing SRD 5.1 or 6.0 or whatever under a specific OGL version authorizes that content under that specific OGL version. However, the license has no mechanism for deauthorizing any OGL version. Couple that with the fact that the license itself makes the license offer and by the license terms must be included for any OGC distributed by a licensee and it would be legally hard for WOTC to make the case that they stopped making the OGL 1.0a offer or deauthorized that version as you said. It's an argument they can 'make'. It's just not one I would expect to go well for them.

Regarding signing up for 1.1 and then afterwards using the OGL 1.0a license to distribute material licensed under OGL 1.0a. Worst case that would be a breach of the license terms of OGL 1.1 which would likely mean the OGL 1.1 license simply terminates. It's not clear what mechanism they could use to enforce you to never use OGL 1.0a again - possibly something tied to the termination clause of the OGL 1.1 license, like if this license terminates you agree not to use OGL 1.0a again? But are they including anything like that. I think until we get the full text it's probably too hard to say for sure here.

 

[FrogReaver]

As for the class action - again, IANAL but I doubt it. You can only bring a court case against concrete actions, can't you? The most likely course of events would be something like, I guess, a 3pp publishing something yuk (the aforementioned RAHOWA 5e, for example), WotC lawyering up to kill the project, the 3pp ignoring the cease and desist (or whatever), and the whole thing heading courtwards from there. So most likely WotC would be the plaintiff and the 3pp would be the defendant. While I'm no expert, it's pretty hard to see, for instance, Kobold Press and MCDM and Green Ronin and Necromancer etc etc all voluntarily putting their own heads on the block to side with the defendant in a case like this. I'm not sure how you'd construct standing for an alliance of 3pp to proactively issue a class action against WotC. You'd need to demonstrate loss first.

The original assertion was WOTC yanking the OGL 1.0a out from under 3pp. If WOTC makes a statement saying they are going to do that then 3pp could lose investors, get less favorable financing deals, have to spend more on recruiting and retention due to the perceived risk of working for a company that may be about to have the rug pulled out from under them. That's harm. Possibly deceptive in nature as well due to the early statements WOTC made about the OGL (the early FAQ's). I think there's alot of ways to get to a potential class action suit in this kind of scenario.

 

[Kurotowa]

I was an avid World of Warcraft player for over a decade. What I learned in that time is that most "leaks" are clickbait spun by trolls to prey on the hopes or fears of the audience. They look reasonable because they chew up everyone's best speculation and spit it back at you. And the few leaks that are real, tend to be a summery of a recap of an incomplete draft, passed along in a game of telephone and stripped of the context needed to fully understand them.

In other words, it's probably fake and if it's not fake it's nothing suitable to genuine analysis and action.

 

[Azzy]

Going with exact words... Wizards (or its agents) could de-authorize 1.0/1.0a. You could no longer use it to publish OGC. But you could sign up for 1.1, and then use it to publish OGC that was available under "any version", meaning 1.0 or 1.0a. However... you'd now be under the terms of 1.1.

That's talking about updating the license, not authorizing/unauthorizing the existing licenses.