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

 

[Ondath]

So: are the publishers and games created under the OGL actually safe now?

The text of the OGL remains as is, and WotC's claim of being able to deauthorise a license has not been challenged. On the one hand, the company saw the PR disaster such a move creates, so one hopes they won't attempt something similar in the future. On the other hand, it has become clear that bad faith interpretations of OGL v1.0a can put the entire open gaming ecosystem it created at risk. Now that we know there is a chink in the armour, when so many 3PPs ditched the OGL and declared they'll design their own systems, there is no way things go back to January 3. So I'd say everything created so far in the OGL is safe, but I'm not sure that the license will be viable in the future.

 

[EthanSental]

Now I’m curious about the Orc thing, who would switch to a smaller market and audience and unproven game compared to 5e and future stuff? Some will for whatever reason but it is t because they think they could make more money on the other side of that rpg fence.

 

[wingsandsword]

So now they make One D&D completely incompatible with 5e and release no 3rd party license for creators for it. So they get their walled garden but by a different means. Cos this is all just about 5e and previous editions. They will move us all onto One D&D and then the cycle starts all over again.....

No, because many of us would reject a closed D&D.

We did for 4e, and the OGL controversy shows that a lot of fans now would still do the same today.

They can make a closed 6e, but they can't make everyone switch to it.

 

[The Scythian]

So: are the publishers and games created under the OGL actually safe now?

My trust for Wizards is low; I would like to know that the CC for 5.1e would preclude them from trying this again next year?

There are no changes to OGL 1.0a itself, so in theory, they could try this again two weeks, two months, or two years down the line. However, WotC went after OGL 1.0a because they wanted to remove the 5.1 SRD from it. Putting the entire 5.1 SRD out under a license that they do not control sends a strong signal that they will not try to de-authorize or otherwise revoke it in the future.

 

[dave2008]

So now they make One D&D completely incompatible with 5e and release no 3rd party license for creators for it. So they get their walled garden but by a different means. Cos this is all just about 5e and previous editions. They will move us all onto One D&D and then the cycle starts all over again.....

They could do that, and I would be fine with that if they did. However, that was definitely not their plan and they would have invest a lot more time and resources into making that possible. I doubt that is where this is going in the near-term ('24 D&D), but maybe over the long run - who knows,

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Good news. Now we just need some blood to be spilled (I suppose firing a couple of the corporate chuckleheads is an acceptable substitute) and then the healing can begin.

No. Revenge does not help.
Also: don't waste corporate chuckheads that already learned their lesson...

 

[guachi]

The optimistic side of me thought that there were people inside WotC who thought revocation of OGL 1.0a was bad idea but couldn't say it outright. So they used the cover of a survey to get what they wanted.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But in any case I used the survey to say my perception of WotC was low. That I was a longtime D&D fan with a bookshelf full of TSR/WotC product. The implementation of OGL 1.0a was great idea to regain trust in D&D after TSR. OGL 1.0a was great business for WotC because it stamps out competing systems. I had already bought hundreds of dollars of competing product in protest. I have no problem giving WotC my money in general. Sell me licensed owlbear plushies but keep OGL 1.0a!!!

I ended by saying goodwill and a good rules system was the D&D brand, imo. And they had lost the former.

I don't know if they read my comments but I have no regret in what I wrote.

 

[Ondath]

Now I’m curious about the Orc thing, who would switch to a smaller market and audience and unproven game compared to 5e and future stuff? Some will for whatever reason but it is t because they think they could make more money on the other side of that rpg fence.

Paizo said they welcome WotC's moves, but they're going forward with ORC:

 

[dave2008]

No, because many of us would reject a closed D&D.

We did for 4e, and the OGL controversy shows that a lot of fans now would still do the same today.

I don't think many fans rejected 4e because it was closed - it was just to different. I mean it is the edition that brought me back to D&D so I know that wasn't a factor for me.

They can make a closed 6e, but they can't make everyone switch to it.

I agree with this statement though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I still don't trust WotC, but I feel confident that at least for the near future, their interests and my interests are mostly aligned.

When dealing with a corporate homunculus, it's really the only reasonable strategy.

Some real warlock pact of the Brand stuff.