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

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't even need that, there's a clause in 1.0/1.0a that allows the use of any authorized version of the license for content made under any other version.

So yes, a 1.0(b) with "irrevocable and cannot be deauthorized" is all that's really needed, at that point any content from earlier versions can be used with that version.

That's not true, not that it really matters since WotC has no real reason to stop 1.0a or earlier versions.

This is what 1.0a says.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

If they make a 1.0b written like 1.0a only adding language to make it irrevocable, they could still attempt to deauthorize 1.0a and all prior versions potentially making them unusable by 1.0b.

 

[Cadence]

That's not true, not that it really matters since WotC has no real reason to stop 1.0a or earlier versions.

This is what 1.0a says.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

If they make a 1.0b written like 1.0a only adding language to make it irrevocable, they could still attempt to deauthorize 1.0a and all prior versions potentially making them unusable by 1.0b.

Would the following solve that: some Organization-X makes an "Organization X's copy of..." of everything under 1.0a but puts it out under 1.0b at some point while 1.0a is still authorized? Since it is then under 1.0b and 1.0b can't be de-authorized....

 

[Yaarel]

Ok, under your reading, "any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License" specifically means " any Open Game Content you have originally distributed under any version of this License". Is that correct?

My interpretation is that it means "any Open Game Content originally distributed by anyone under any version of this License".

I dont think that was the original intent.

But I understand better where you are coming from.

So, any future user of an OGL 2.0 can still modify and publish any Open Gaming Content that was released under OGL 1.0a.

So, there would be no "orphaned products".

In other words, the original creators of the Open Gaming Content would remain unbound by any new version of an OGL. But any user of the new OGL can still use the earlier Open Gaming Content.

I agree you can read the sentence this way.

 

[Maxperson]

Would the following solve that: some Organization-X makes an "Organization X's copy of..." of everything under 1.0a but puts it out under 1.0b at some point while 1.0a is still authorized? Since it is then under 1.0b and 1.0b can't be de-authorized....

I was just looking at OGL 1.0a and it may not even matter if they do deauthorize 1.0a. When you release under 1.0a you are agreeing that anything you release is OGC and is usable by people later, and you are including the license to do so in the product itself.

For instance, looking at the Lost Artifacts of Greyghast PDF I got last week I see this.

"Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity and are not
Open content: All trademarks, proper names (characters, locations, etc.), dialogue,
narratives, artwork, origins, variant rules, and item names.

Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity, the materials in this book
are Open Game Content and may be reproduced in any form without written permission."

I don't believe that permission for use goes away if 1.0a is revoked and has been required to be included with all 1.0a products released to date.

 

[Faolyn]

I think that's unlikely for a few reasons.
1) It's late to shift gears like that considering it's supposed to release next year.
2) That would set up a situation where someone could try to Pathfinderize 5e on them. Anyone trying to do so would lack one thing Paizo had that was crucial - a big list of subscribers. But someone might be able to overcome that obstacle through the wider reach of various online resources that have grown and developed in the meantime including wider YouTube networks and Kickstarter.
3) They'd be trying to replace the most successful RPG ever since playing house or cops and robbers and have a lot of inertia to overcome to get people to switch. Making the switch a minor speed bump is in their interest even though it's also in the interests of the 5e 3PP as well.

I don't know if it's too late. They've only done two playtests, and as I said elsewhere, it wouldn't be hard to tweak everything to make it just a bit too hard to use seamlessly. It doesn't have to be as radical a change as, say, between 2e and 3e, or between 3x and 4e and 5e. Even if it's mostly like 5e, just a bit is enough to make it so many people can't easily use the two editions together. Make monsters a bit more or less powerful to change the CR. Make spells have slightly different effects. They're already changing the class levels around somewhat.

People have "Pathfinderized" 5e--Level Up. It just lacks that big list of subscribers, but it got a boost due to WotC's shenanigans and while it may never become quite as popular as Pathfinder, sadly, it still exists.

And I had already seen people on reddit talking about how they were going to end their 5e games and move to One--not convert 5e characters and adventures to One, but end the old and start the new. I never really had the intention of buying One (since I already have 5e and Level Up) and don't need to replace what I already have, but if I did, that's exactly what I would have done as well. I have to imagine that many other people will do that as well. 5e might be the most successful RPG ever, but that doesn't mean people weren't going to ditch it in favor of a new edition.

Obviously, we don't know that One is going to be "just different enough" that it would take more effort than many people want to put out to use 5e material with it, but I would not be at all surprised if it was.

I still think their best bet is to put out some prestige collectors bits for OneD&D at premium price for the nerds who will spend $$ on a 50-year collector's edition, put out a few other retrospective/art books to capitalize on the anniversary and nostalgia, put out a regular set of books for OneD&D that update the art and the rule tweaks that they're play testing, go forward with their VTT plans in expanding the capabilities of D&D Beyond, and attract 3PP to support the new edition with the carrot of easy access via the VTT/DDB rather than the stick of killing the OGL (which they have substantially mooted).

I think they're going to put out some material that's only available through DBB and then reference that material heavily in the books they actually print.

 

[ThorinTeague]

No, legally they can’t. At all. 5.1 is out there, irrevocable. They don’t have control of that. It’s in Creative Commons hands. This isn’t a question. It’s the foundation of software development and technology even. It’s not black is white.

Best.

 

[Cadence]

Right they could do that, and now follow the path. So now there is a new license which is irrevocable, with an SRD of stuff. Which is EXACTLY what you get with the Creative Commons license.

And...and this is the super important part...nobody is covered by it until they publish using that new license. Which is EXACTLY what you get with the Creative Commons license.

It doesn't, in itself, retroactively fix anything. It can't. If you published under 1.0 or 1.0a, your stuff cannot be automatically and retroactively covered by a 1.0b. By the terms of the license you used, that's not allowed to happen. You would have to re-publish under the new license. Which is the same boat you'd be in for Creative Commons.

Which is why it's not accomplishing as much as you think it is. If you have to republish anyway, you might as well use the more protective and more certain license which does that (Creative Commons). Assuming, of course, they include the 3.0 and 3.5 and d20 Modern SRD in it too (which I think they will, let's see).

And you say nothing is proof against bad actors but I assure you a CC license is far more proof against bad actors than a new license drafted by the company that's the bad actor. CC is outside of WOTC and not under their control at all. You're calling for the wolves to make a new henhouse because it's the type of henhouse we're all used to.

Two questions. By your understanding...

If 1.0a is still authorized, can I republish your 1.0a things as my version of your 1.0a thing?

If 1.0a is still authorized, can I republish anything I published under 1.0a under a mythical 1.0b that is also authorized?

 

[Alzrius]

That's not true, not that it really matters since WotC has no real reason to stop 1.0a or earlier versions.

This is what 1.0a says.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

If they make a 1.0b written like 1.0a only adding language to make it irrevocable, they could still attempt to deauthorize 1.0a and all prior versions potentially making them unusable by 1.0b.

I don't think that would work. Remember, Section 9 only refers to "authorized versions" with regards to what you can use when putting out OGC yourself. For the part about where that OGC was "originally distributed," it just says "any version" of the license. So if a v1.0b came out, and v1.0a was declared to be de-authorized, you could still use v1.0a OGC in v1.0b.

 

[Greg Benage]

People have "Pathfinderized" 5e--Level Up.

I've said this before, but I think this does a disservice to Level Up. It's not just a "patched up" version of 5e. From what we've seen in the playtest, 1D&D is a lot closer to vanilla 5e than Level Up is.

I'd actually really like to see Wizards make a bigger change with 1D&D and for someone with a really good design house to "Pathfinderize" 5e. Maybe a really new 1D&D would be good! The way I see it, that would maximize my chances of winning: I'd be able to choose between a very different 1D&D, the cleaned up Pathfiver and tried-and-true vanilla 5e. This might be bad for the "D&D ecology" as it splits the audience three ways, but that's not my problem.

Anyway, I don't think I'm going to get my wish. I think we're going to get a 1D&D like we've seen in the playtests, with lots of little changes that don't add up to any real change in the play experience of 5e. And then there's not much space or incentive for a major publisher to do a cleaned-up version of 5e, and even if they do, there's not likely much of a market for it.

(If I'm right about 1D&D, while I don't consider Level Up a "Pathfinderization" of 5e, there should continue to be strong demand for it from people who want a "more advanced" or "more different" version of the game than 1D&D will provide.)

 

[lkj]

You cannot live in the modern world without trusting multiple corporations every day. The trick is that trust should never be absolute, and should be reassessed when a company does something as monumentally monstrous as what WotC attempted to do.

I would disagree that those interactions are trust relationships. Certainly, I am forced to rely on services from some corporations each day, whether I trust them or not. And I 'hope' that it is not in their interest to screw me if they want to keep me as a customer. And sure, I stop dealing with some companies when they act in ways I don't like. Much like I canceled my subscription for D&D until their behavior changed and they took actions that obviated the need for me to 'trust' them on certain issues. I certainly don't trust the illusory entity that is a corporation, whether that be wizards or Google or Apple or any other company that I do business with from time to time.

All that said, it is perfectly reasonable that you need more. I have no issue with that. And I have no debate with you about whether you can draw your lines in different places. Much the same as I don't expect companies to have the same lines as I do in terms of whether they'll deal with Wizards anymore.

AD