WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons.

So, what's happened?

• The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a which most of the D&D third party industry relies on, will be left untouched for now.
• The whole of the D&D 5E SRD (ie the rules of the game less the fluff text) has been released under a Creative Commons license.

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

WotC has a history of 'disappearing' inconvenient FAQs and stuff, such as those where they themselves state that the OGL is irrevocable, so I'll copy this here for posterity.

When you give us playtest feedback, we take it seriously.

Already more than 15,000 of you have filled out the survey. Here's what you said:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

These live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
The feedback is in such high volume and its direction is so plain that we're acting now.

1. We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.
2. We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
3. You choose which you prefer to use.

This Creative Commons license makes the content freely available for any use. We don't control that license and cannot alter or revoke it. It's open and irrevocable in a way that doesn't require you to take our word for it. And its openness means there's no need for a VTT policy. Placing the SRD under a Creative Commons license is a one-way door. There's no going back.

Our goal here is to deliver on what you wanted.

So, what about the goals that drove us when we started this process?

We wanted to protect the D&D play experience into the future. We still want to do that with your help. We're grateful that this community is passionate and active because we'll need your help protecting the game's inclusive and welcoming nature.

We wanted to limit the OGL to TTRPGs. With this new approach, we are setting that aside and counting on your choices to define the future of play.
Here's a PDF of SRD 5.1 with the Creative Commons license. By simply publishing it, we place it under an irrevocable Creative Commons license. We'll get it hosted in a more convenient place next week. It was important that we take this step now, so there's no question.

• SRD 5.1-CC

We'll be closing the OGL 1.2 survey now.

We'll keep talking with you about how we can better support our players and creators. Thanks as always for continuing to share your thoughts.

Kyle Brink
Executive Producer, Dungeons & Dragons

What does this mean?

The original OGL sounds safe for now, but WotC has not admitted that they cannot revoke it. That's less of an issue now the 5E System Reference Document is now released to Creative Commons (although those using the 3E SRD or any third party SRDs still have issues as WotC still hasn't revoked the incorrect claim that they can revoke access to those at-will).

At this point, if WotC wants anybody to use whatever their new OGL v1.x turns out to be, there needs to be one heck of a carrot. What that might be remains to be seen.

Pathfinder publlsher Paizo has also commented on the latest developments.

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

Over 1,500 Publishers Support Paizo's Upcoming Open RPG Creator's License

Paizo has revealed some of the 1,500+ tabletop RPG publishers who have expressed an interest in their new Open RPG Creator's License (ORC), describing the group as the 'ORC Alliance'. The license itself is still being worked on, so these 1,500 publishers have not actually seen it or signed...

www.enworld.org

 

[Jer]

WotC could also release the 3e and 4e SRDs to CC. They talked about that in their FAQ from earlier in the week.

The 3e SRD should be released to CC-BY as well. The overlap with the 5e SRD is substantial already and it's already been through the process of SRDing.

The 4e SRD, on the other hand, would have to be constructed before it could be released. The SRD that they actually released had no game rules in it, just formatting guidelines, ways to refer to pages and tables in the 4e PHB, and many, many, many lists of names from the book that you were allowed to use under the GSL (it's 84 pages long and mostly it's just lists of names of powers, monsters and magic items). I strongly doubt that they'd put the effort into constructing an actual SRD just to release it to what is practically-if-not-actually public domain.

 

[The Sigil]

This almost makes me think they intend this to be the last SRD version they release, and that whatever DnD One will become it would not have a SRD.

And all along, everyone asking for the OGL 1.0a to be left alone agreed that WotC would be perfectly within their rights to do that. Whether or not that's a good idea for WotC is open for debate.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So here's something interesting: the CC release of the 5.1 SRD makes mention of the terms "beholder" and "mind flayer" (albeit with no stats for either), as per pages 216 and 254. No stats, but also no Product Identity listing declaring those terms off-limits.

Thank god. I'm running the 5E version of Monte Cook's Banewarrens right now and having to figure out which product identity monsters the new names they made up refer to is sometimes hard.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah nothing was ever going to satisfy you, you had make that point clear for a while now.

Mod Note:
Can we please, in this moment, not drop to the petty level of making it personal?

Thanks.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's it then.

They're not updating the language of the OGL 1.0a, but we've won?

We double-won lol. SRD 5.1 into CC is like we won the war and then they just handed us a border province we didn't even ask for.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

I just wanted to say that this whole tidal wave of community unrest could not have happened without the risks taken by the original leaker, and the WotC whistle-blowers. We owe a lot to them.

 

[Alzrius]

I just made a thread about this...

Courtesy link for anyone who wants to talk more about this:

OGL - Someone at WotC is going to lose their job: Beholder and Strahd in CCBY4

In the 5.1 SRD that got slapped into the CCBY4 is a bunch of IP. Count Strahd von Zarovich is referenced. The Feywild. The Shadowfell. The City of Brass, Palace of Dispater, Street of Steel, Gate of Ashes, and the Sea of Fire are -all- referenced in a single passage. The BEHOLDER is...

www.enworld.org

 

[Lichbeard]

I honestly feel like WOTC fixed all my issues now. Unless something is hidden that I find out about later, I am more than happy with this move.
It's been a rough few weeks for them and everyone else but in the end, it looks like we are got to a good place.

I still think taking a hostile stand against third party for D&D 1 is a bad move but I 100% agree with them that it's THEIR move to make.

 

[Dausuul]

How can you leave behind 5e woth an edition that is very similar?
I do trust some people at WotC to actually be honest. Jeremy Crawford always seemed like someone who cared about the community and 5e as his game.

Yes. I may give Crawford endless grief about his Sage Advice rulings (not that he knows or cares what I think), but I have no doubt of his devotion to the community and to D&D.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Right? Remember when all those people were saying it was over? I feel like Luke just nailed the Deathstar lol.

NO ONE AT WOTC SHOULD TAKE THIS MOMENT TO KISS THEIR SISTER