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

And the tie in that the OGL is modeled after quite a few other Open Source licenses, which themselves haven't really been tested in court, these are indeed "interesting times".
however someone in 1 of the 30 threads said those have all been updated when the wording error was found around 2007 and the OGL never was... it is based on an outdated open license.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Assuming that leak on Gizmodo is true, Wizards seems pretty clear about their intentions: they want to alter the rules of the OGL ecosystem to be much, much more in their favor than they are now.


This is definitely true, though. If that leak is genuine, and they really do try to use OGL 1.1 to kill OGL 1.0, this is going to court. And none of us can be quite sure how that will turn out.
The new agreement has effectively no impact on the vast majority of publishers. Even when it does, it seems reasonable to me that someone getting significant amounts of money from WOTC's IP should be paying for riding on their coattails. If you're making that kind of money, you probably shouldn't be relying on the OGL in the first place.

The big bugaboo is the ability to revoke the license, but even that makes sense to me given what trash some companies like nu-TSR publish. I wouldn't want my name associated with anything like that either.

I know this is shocking, that a company that relies on selling what boils down to ideas about how to play a game would want to actually get some of the money back when others make significant profit off of those ideas. But unlike some open software projects, WOTC is responsible for the lion's share of the core concepts and continues to be responsible.
 

The big bugaboo is the ability to revoke the license, but even that makes sense to me given what trash some companies like nu-TSR publish. I wouldn't want my name associated with anything like that either.
yeah in the years... wait decades, plural?! since the book of erotic fantasy was seen as 'too bad taste' (by the company that then made book of vile darkness no less) we have seen a rise in worse and worse 3pp content. THe Nu TSR is just the newest. Imagine if someone took some of the ideas from FATAL, and made a d20 system and put it out what that would do to D&D's family image.
 

Voadam

Legend
yeah in the years... wait decades, plural?! since the book of erotic fantasy was seen as 'too bad taste' (by the company that then made book of vile darkness no less) we have seen a rise in worse and worse 3pp content. THe Nu TSR is just the newest. Imagine if someone took some of the ideas from FATAL, and made a d20 system and put it out what that would do to D&D's family image.
I would think nearly nothing.

The original FATAL was put out online. I have no idea how close to D&D it was at the time but I believe it was a fantasy RPG like D&D (I remember references to ogres in discussions about it) and I do not think it impacted D&D's family image.

I don't think the Nu TSR stuff has impacted D&D's family image. I don't think the more extreme out there OGL and non-OGL fantasy RPGs have really impacted D&D's family image. I don't think the existence of the Book of Erotic Fantasy seriously impacted D&D's family friendly image.

Seeing the erotic fantasy book in print in some stores that chose to carry it might have impacted the image for those who came across it when looking for stuff for their kids, I think WotC putting out the Book of Vile Darkness with a cover advisory and the Dragon/Dungeon issues with similar stuff for BoVD support stuff probably had a similar impact. I think the impact was minor at most though.

If Stranger Things and Big Bang Theory and Community and such had turned their portrayals of D&D into dark horrific stuff with serious bad consequences in their story lines instead of portrayals of it as actually a fun group activity, that might have affected D&D's family friendly image.
 


jgsugden

Legend
There is also a real danger that several groups could come together and create a real rival product for WotC/Hasbro. Imagine if Pathfinder, Critical Role, Kobold Press, Raging Swan, Monte Cook Games, Dimension 20, etc... brought together a team of known names like Matt Mercer, Monte Cook, Andy Collins, Rob Heinsoo, Brandon Lee Mulligan, Jeff Grubb, Joe Manganiello, Skip Williams, Dan Harmon, James Wyatt, Richard Baker, Richard Garfield ... some brought together for their skill, some just for marketing value - but any and all participating providing a real credibility in the popular eye to the new game designed to compete with D&D. Would W/H really want to alienate the 3P world enough to encourage such a rival product existing? Imagine if Campaign 4 of Critical Role, Dimension 20, and many other streaming games all made the switch to this competing product at once ... Is there anyway any way they want to risk another 4E/Pathfinder type schism?
 

FallenRX

Adventurer
There is also a real danger that several groups could come together and create a real rival product for WotC/Hasbro. Imagine if Pathfinder, Critical Role, Kobold Press, Raging Swan, Monte Cook Games, Dimension 20, etc... brought together a team of known names like Matt Mercer, Monte Cook, Andy Collins, Rob Heinsoo, Brandon Lee Mulligan, Jeff Grubb, Joe Manganiello, Skip Williams, Dan Harmon, James Wyatt, Richard Baker, Richard Garfield ... some brought together for their skill, some just for marketing value - but any and all participating providing a real credibility in the popular eye to the new game designed to compete with D&D. Would W/H really want to alienate the 3P world enough to encourage such a rival product existing? Imagine if Campaign 4 of Critical Role, Dimension 20, and many other streaming games all made the switch to this competing product at once ... Is there anyway any way they want to risk another 4E/Pathfinder type schism?
All those people have very different visions of what they want from dnd, that sounds like too many chefs in the kitchen.
 

Oofta

Legend
Wizards of the Coast can update the license or its agents. Perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable
Depends on who you ask, different lawyers have come down on either side of this. The basic concept is that it is perpetual [edit]and irrevocable[/edit] because it's mutually beneficial. If WOTC really pushes this (who knows?) it will end up in court.

As far as the people saying the small 3PP can't afford lawyers, I sincerely doubt WOTC cares about them, the will only go after the big fish. If they go after anyone at all and are just doing a bit of CYA.
 
Last edited:

Voadam

Legend
As far as the people saying the small 3PP can't afford lawyers, I sincerely doubt WOTC cares about them, the will only go after the big fish. If they go after anyone at all and are just doing a bit of CYA.

I think that depends. If they want to establish a legal precedent and/or scare third party publishers into dropping 1.0 OGL I think they would want to go against a little guy in court as opposed to a company like Paizo that has financial resources and presumably a legal team (whether in house or a firm they can call on). Even if it does not go to a trial conclusion, they can probably get a settlement that will be to their advantage that would be a warning and deterrent to little guys.
 

jgsugden

Legend
All those people have very different visions of what they want from dnd, that sounds like too many chefs in the kitchen.
Yes - but I doubt you'd get all of them. You'd get a subset that do have alignable visions - and likely a process that has one person at the top that is the eventual decision maker.

Regardless, Pathfinder is plenty of evidence that this type of thing can happen ... and honestly, if Matt Mercer wanted to sell a Critical Role rule set and use it as a go forward, even if it was flawed* it would sell and be a contender that WotC would really fear.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top