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

 

[MoonSong]

ITT is C

I stand corrected. I expected at least 1.0b to make it explicitely irrevocable. I guess CC works too.
If I understand it correctly, I like it even better, because if you use CC, you have to share your own stuff too. And it is not owned by wotc, so everyone is on the same level.

Now lets go on with the normal playtest and watch the movie with joy.

PS: they took my begging in the survey to heart and stopped the division of the community before it is too late (i hope).

It is CC BY not CC BY SA.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Not really. And 100% they will push some false narratives in the near future about something that 'could have been prevented, if not for the 1.0 OGL'.

We warned you about racist Owlbear porn, but you wouldn't listen!

 

[Scribe]

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

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Yeah, it's a clear sign that not only did they collectively change their mind, the new dominant faction is the one actively in favor of open content.

 

[Umbran]

I had a look at the CC SRD they released.
It specifically applies to that version of the 5.1 SRD.
Unlike the OGL it has no language about also applying to later versions of the SRD.

Because that's not how putting a document under a license works. That's not how the OGL works, either.

 

[Haplo781]

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.

Curiouser and curiouser. Makes me even more convinced they want to use MtG IP.

 

[Staffan]

I will not be surprised if, after a while, they also release the 3.x SRD to CC as well, covering that gap.

That closes the gap for things that only rely on the SRD. But take something like Night of Frozen Shadows (part 2 of the Jade Regent AP), which in addition to the SRD uses Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary, Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors III, as well as three monsters (separately credited) from Tome of Horrors, Revised.

Tome of Horrors and its later-edition versions would likely be a particularly sticky point. I don't know what Necromancer Games' deal with Wizards was regarding the monsters in it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they (and their successor Frog God Games) don't have the rights to release it under CC even if they wanted to.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

You're going to hear people say that we won, and WOTC lost because making our voices heard forced them to change their plans.

Those people will only be half right. We won—and so did they.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I think for OneD&D he will go through sage advice and change everything where his rules interpretations are obviously dumb but RAW, so that the good ruling is actually RAW.
He knows that some interpretations are not good.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

I'll wait to see the final result to be sure, but I think that was actually a compromise in their eyes. It gives us what we wanted (an irrevocable license to use at least one SRD) without actually admitting that the original OGL couldn't be revoked or deauthorized.