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.

 

[Morrus]

I can only say what others have reported, and others have explicitly said that that is the result of the new document. Perhaps they are wrong. To have heard it from multiple sources who claim to have seen the document, however, makes me think they are not.

Gizmodo has the document, and that text I quoted is what they reported. I'd be interested in seeing the contrary quotes? I mean, I could be wrong, but not based on that Gizmodo leak.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And to be more focused on the point, WotC hasn't thought about publishing your setting book, either. And it's not going to do so now - or in the future. So what are you really going on about now, in practical terms?

Why wouldn't they?

All they have to do is trawl through 3PP products for things they like. "Oh, that's a nice subclass, add it to the list. There's a cool species, throw it in the cart. Pile of fun feats here, we'll filter out the ones we like next week." Boom, instant publishable book, and all 100% legal, because that's what the license (allegedly) allows.

Why wouldn't they outsource their design work and then pay nothing for it? It's the same as what they've already been doing, but at effectively zero cost, rather than actually paying people for the work.

Gizmodo has the document, and that text I quoted is what they reported. I'd be interested in seeing the contrary quotes?

It was tweets. I don't know the specific authors and I'm not particularly inclined to go digging through my history to find tweets from handles I don't remember, sorry. "Content created under the OGL" reads, to my eyes, like literally any work licensed with the license, OGC or otherwise, so if you have something that explicitly says "Content created under the OGL refers ONLY to open gaming content and nothing else," then sure, I'll concede the point.

Edit: Having just re-read the Gizmodo article, it's right there.

WotC also gets the right to use any content that licensees create, whether commercial or non-commercial. Although this is couched in language to protect Wizards’ products from infringing on creators’ copyright, the document states that for any content created under the updated OGL, regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will have a “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”

 

[Morrus]

Edit: Having just re-read the Gizmodo article, it's right there.

That was literally in my post.

 

[Oofta]

Why wouldn't they?

All they have to do is trawl through 3PP products for things they like. "Oh, that's a nice subclass, add it to the list. There's a cool species, throw it in the cart. Pile of fun feats here, we'll filter out the ones we like next week." Boom, instant publishable book, and all 100% legal, because that's what the license (allegedly) allows.

Why wouldn't they outsource their design work and then pay nothing for it? It's the same as what they've already been doing, but at effectively zero cost, rather than actually paying people for the work.

Is there really anything to stop them from doing it now? Even if someone had it properly labeled as PI, do you think most people will have the money to pay for the lawyers to sue? If they want to steal ideas all they have to do is take the idea, rename it and tweak a few minor details. A whole lot of things in games are "inspired by" other people's work.

The biggest issue I see with the new OGL is the percentage seems high, then again it only starts after you meet the threshold and is on the amount over that threshold. I have no idea how that compares to other licensing agreements.

But how many publications will actually exceed the threshold in a given year?

 

[Steel_Wind]

Why wouldn't they?

All they have to do is trawl through 3PP products for things they like. "Oh, that's a nice subclass, add it to the list. There's a cool species, throw it in the cart. Pile of fun feats here, we'll filter out the ones we like next week." Boom, instant publishable book, and all 100% legal, because that's what the license (allegedly) allows.

Why wouldn't they outsource their design work and then pay nothing for it? It's the same as what they've already been doing, but at effectively zero cost, rather than actually paying people for the work.

This is starting to stray into tin-foil hat stuff now. I'm sorry, WotC just isn't going to do that in terms of writing material for their game.

What they are likely to do though is allow others to implement that within a VTT they operate and own and share that material (like, say, via the Homebrew collection on DDB) to other subscribers so that anybody can do it -- and they don't have to hear anything about it.

Do I think this is in gamers' interests, generally?

Yes. I do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That was literally in my post.

Soooo....what about "use that content for any purpose" doesn't mean "we can use any content you create for whatever we want"?

I'm sorry, WotC just isn't going to do that in terms of writing material for their game.

Given the errors WotC has made in recent years with MtG? Your confidence seems misplaced.

Even if they wouldn't do it, even the mere possibility that they could do it would be utterly outrageous.

 

[Morrus]

Soooo....what about "use that content for any purpose" doesn't mean "we can use any content you create for whatever we want"?

I'm sorry, I'm now very confused. We were discussing what 'that content' referred to, right? And I think it refers to the OGC. You think it refers to the entire book. Neither of us know, but I strongly feel my interpretation -- in the absence of seeing the actual document and the context of that one line -- is more likely. I don't really know what else to say.

 

[Umbran]

So, why didn't you create something original? I mean, I wouldn't want my life's work to be a rehash of something someone else has already done.

Mod note:
Yes, but if everyone did what you'd want, we wouldn't need you. You'd be entirely extraneous, as we'd have dozens of others doing it for us.

So, maybe don't judge other's creative efforts based on what you would want.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Soooo....what about "use that content for any purpose" doesn't mean "we can use any content you create for whatever we want"?


Given the errors WotC has made in recent years with MtG? Your confidence seems misplaced.

Even if they wouldn't do it, even the mere possibility that they could do it would be utterly outrageous.

Utterly outrageous? You haven't even talked me in to a partially and conditionally outrageous state of mind here. That's how far apart our emotional reactions and feelings of injustice are on this topic; the gulf here is vast and wide.

Seriously. There is an emotional disconnect here between the indignation and outrage you are evidently feeling -- and what I am 100% not feeling even in the slightest.

When there is such a disconnect, it's really HARD to understand why the other guy "isn't getting it".

 

[tomBitonti]

“nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”

Bold added by me.

Setting “that content” to mean content released under the OGL.

Would the uses be subject to the same limitations imposed by the OGL? That is, would their republication be only possible with the OGL still attached?

Removing that attachment seems big.

Second, are any uses allowed? That would give Hasbro many more rights to the work than the originator retains. That also seems big.

TomB