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.

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

kjdavies

Adventurer
The new thing is that previously wizards didnt have an obvious way to exploit this open gaming content commercialy. With their aqisition of D&D beyond, and planned VTT, they have. Combined with an obvious effort to at least marginalise any potential competitors in the electronic space, they are now positioning themselves to monopolise the 1.0a content on a likely very lucrative market.
I've seen claims (haven't confirmed in the source) that v1.1 lets WotC take ownership... which is significantly different from just copying the open content (which is something any licensee can do).

Though yes, it seems that being able to build and market an integrated library could make the effort attractive enough to be worth the trouble, where it wasn't before.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I've seen claims (haven't confirmed in the source) that v1.1 lets WotC take ownership... which is significantly different from just copying the open content (which is something any licensee can do).

Though yes, it seems that being able to build and market an integrated library could make the effort attractive enough to be worth the trouble, where it wasn't before.
Several places have explicitly said that the leaked 1.1 "O"GL allows WotC to reproduce all content published under it, at any time, for any reason, as often as they like, in whole or in part, for free.

Essentially, if you use the 1.1 OGL, you are giving up any ability to control your work. Ever. WotC gets absolute control over your work and doesn't have to pay you a dime.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Several places have explicitly said that the leaked 1.1 "O"GL allows WotC to reproduce all content published under it, at any time, for any reason, as often as they like, in whole or in part, for free.

Essentially, if you use the 1.1 OGL, you are giving up any ability to control your work. Ever. WotC gets absolute control over your work and doesn't have to pay you a dime.

That and revoke your access with 30 days notice
 

kjdavies

Adventurer
Several places have explicitly said that the leaked 1.1 "O"GL allows WotC to reproduce all content published under it, at any time, for any reason, as often as they like, in whole or in part, for free.

Essentially, if you use the 1.1 OGL, you are giving up any ability to control your work. Ever. WotC gets absolute control over your work and doesn't have to pay you a dime.
Believe it or not, this seems unclear... or at least, I don't see what the difference is.

At least, if 'all content published under it' means only 'open content', I don't see how this differs from what they can do today, if they still have to follow the OGL requirements. If it allows them to copy all content from a publication that includes open content, that's different. If they don't have to include the OGL and Section 15 information, that's different too.

That is, OGL v1.0a means they could take my book "Draconic Bloodlines" and copy all the open content and publish it themselves, as long as they comply as a licensee of the OGL v1.0a (v1.1 not existing for real yet). This means copy and paste the text of the open content (but none of the product identity) and include the necessary OGL and Section 15 information. They can do that today. Without paying me a dime, and apart from the Section 15 they are required to not name my book as the source.

If v1.1 does the same thing. I'm not concerned because they already can do that.

If v1.1 means they can take the product identity as well, or don't need to include the OGL with Section 15 information, that's a different matter.
 

kjdavies

Adventurer
That and revoke your access with 30 days notice
Previously I don't believe they had that on the OGL. I've seen mention of Valar Project's Book of Erotic Fantasy, which led to a change to the d20 STL (i.e. could no longer use the d20 logo, but was still OGL compliant).
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Previously I don't believe they had that on the OGL. I've seen mention of Valar Project's Book of Erotic Fantasy, which led to a change to the d20 STL (i.e. could no longer use the d20 logo, but was still OGL compliant).

I'm talking about the new one. They can reproduce your stuff, lock you out and you can't sue them.

If true of course.

Reading multiple forums, reddit, YouTube it seems contracts with those terms were sent out so the leaks seem plausible and accurate enough.

And a lot of internet assumptions would need to be tested in court if WotC got nasty.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
If v1.1 means they can take the product identity as well, or don't need to include the OGL with Section 15 information, that's a different matter.
That's what several of the most concerned people have explicitly said, yes. They allege ANYTHING you publish under the 1.1 "O"GL would be COMPLETELY under WotC's control to publish as they see fit--whether it's "open" game content or not.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Sure, but wanting to share something you made for fun in your spare time is not "a life's work", and you would not be whining about potentially having to share a portion of the profits unless you where hoping to make a substantial profit.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges in your original criticism. If @Art Waring wanted to create a great set of RPG rules as their life's work and based it on 5e, then you might have a slight case to make.

What if they consider their life's work to make a great RPG setting that GMs and players could use and enjoy, but had no desire to make a rules system? In that case I would say using an existing (and currently most popular) RPG system makes sense, and does not lessen the creative value of the work.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
That's what several of the most concerned people have explicitly said, yes. They allege ANYTHING you publish under the 1.1 "O"GL would be COMPLETELY under WotC's control to publish as they see fit--whether it's "open" game content or not.
I mean, presumably you only publish the OGC under the OGL. Thus the clear delineation requirements.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I mean, presumably you only publish the OGC under the OGL. Thus the clear delineation requirements.
The understanding I got was, if you use this new "O"GL, literally 100% of the content in the book is reproducible, at any time, for any reason, by WotC without permission and without paying you.

You aren't allowed to have copyrighted (edit:) product identity content. Only WotC would be.

Edit: To put this in perspective? Literally every component of Golarion is Paizo product identity. The gods, the lands, the mechanics, everything. By the new 1.1 "O"GL terms, WotC would be able to republish literally every single word of Golarion, at their pleasure, or to remix and reuse it in any way they see fit, without paying a dime.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top