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

 

[Plokman]

That was definitely unrelated

Stock are fickle they can change at the drop of a hat, and typically bad PR has made certain companies go bust (Blockbuster, Exxon, Ect) but I don't invest in stocks, I'll need a good accountant eventually for my own company but yeah I haven't ever invested in Stocks.

 

[Plokman]

How? If it uses WotC's copyright, I don't think they have permission to put copyrighted material they don't own under a CC license.

Copyright and Trademarks are different, CC means we can use the names of things, but we can't market it as Dungeons and Dragons. I asked earlier but to get around that and allow people to know the content of your book is DnD you mark it 5E compatible with a small stamp on the cover possibly.

That mark can be designed to look like a wax seal a coat of arms like badge or just a red (not sure if you can use a different color, most I know are red) circle with a rim of gold color. But you can't put Minsc and Boo: Guide to foul evil in need of kicked butt (I love those two characters, Jim Cummings does it so much justice it isn't funny. And I wouldn't want to have it any other way) for example. Minsc and Boo are trademarked, Berserk Warrior and Giant Space Hamsters (of all kinds including miniature ones) are CC and useable.

I think, like I said it is my current understanding of the agreement, feel free to give me any thing I got wrong.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Chump change, especially with a new edition looming.

Unless they having something planned that you are unaware of.

I mean, I realize that D&D is not a thinker's game, but even D20 players should be thinking this all went a bit too easy and smooth.

I know that my players would never be this gullible.

You have absolutely no idea how much money they lost, let alone that it was "chump change". Take your cheap insults elsewhere.

 

[Hex08]

Lots of pages, didn't read them.

I'm glad Hasbro/WotC backed off, but I wouldn't count on long term changes when it comes to their corporate philosophy. Just an example to keep in mind: I work for a major cell phone provider and many years ago they decided to charge customers who wanted to pay their bills over the phone with a care rep and the press and customers revolted so my employer reversed course and didn't charge the fee. Years later the fee was reintroduced and not a word was spoken by anyone and it has since been in place for years.

It's great the OGL is still in place and the 5E SRD is under creative commons. but eventually a new edition will be released and I am willing to bet good money that it will not fall under either.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Yes, its like the cartoons we watched as kids. The villain's do something villains would do, are defeated, and run off.

Tune in next week (quarter, year, decade) for them to do it again.

Thats all understood. It doesnt make the Villain any less of a clown. Wizbro has embarrassed itself, the executives are a laughing stock at this point, and a bunch of people yelling on social media, got them to apologize and release their golden goose, into the CC.

4D chess.

Bless your heart.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean, I realize that D&D is not a thinker's game, but even D20 players should be thinking this all went a bit too easy and smooth.

I know that my players would never be this gullible.

Mod Note:

Was it necessary to insult the D&D community? Nope.

Is it necessary for you to continue participating in this thread? Also nope.

 

[Horwath]

Battle for "OGL 5.1" is over.

Battle for "OGL 1D&D" is about to begin.

 

[GuyBoy]

The exact moment WOTC made this announcement, I didn’t actually notice because I was sat in a friend’s apartment, with four good mates, DM-ing a great 3PP adventure (shout out to Kobold Press and Scarlet Citadel) using 5e rules and playtesting the D&D1 stuff that’s been released already.
We had fun.
That’s what this game is about.
I didn’t see the announcement till Saturday morning.
Tonight, I’ll be playing Level Up on Roll 20 with Americans that I’d never have known without this hobby and who I’m now proud to call friends.

It’s a good feeling that the hobby seems pretty safe right now.

 

[Bupp]

Them releasing the SRD to CC almost has the feel of a petulant child saying "Fine, you can have it. I was done with it anyway!"

 

[glass]

I can't speak for Misty, but my understanding is a new OGL 1.0b, as you describe above, doesn't do anything for things already published under 1.0a. If you want the additional protections under 1.0b, you would have to reprint the work with the new license. I don't see were section 9 changes that. I could be misunderstanding again - I'm an architect, not a lawyer!

Funnily enough, I am also in architecture (although I am an architectural technologist, not an architect).

Anyway, the point is that WotC doing the 1.0b things and rereleasing their SRDs under it eliminates (or at least significantly reduces) the threat of their going nuclear lawfare on the OGL in the future. You are correct that it does nothing to prevent, say, Rogue Genius Games from doing that (unless and until they also republish their OGC under 1.0b), but that for me was never much of a concern in the first place.

1) this is more open than the 1.0a status quo. Don’t see how that’s “too little”

It is arguably more open with respect to the 5e SRD. Which is a rounding error in the total amount of OGC.

For everything else you cannot unring the bell. And WotC is not even trying particularly hard to unring the bell (notice that they said they are not deauthorising OGL 1.0a, not that they cannot, or even that they never will).

No matter what, to make 1.0a irrevocable, everyone would have to declare their usage of their products as being under whatever new license said that. No new license can amend or alter in any way the old license. That was the point. That's how it was built to be.

Creative Commons closes that loophole, better than anything WOTC lawyers could draft for their own home-made license (1.0a). I think people are getting stuck on "We must fix 1.0" and are not groking the meaning of a Creative Commons type license - which is better.

You contradict yourself here. If OGL 1.0b cannot fix the issues with 1.0a, then CC-BY 4.0 definitely cannot!

ETA: Missed a bit:

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.

Not exactly. OGL 1.0b would be compatible with OGL 1.0a and OGL 1.0, which AIUI CC-BY 4.0 is not. It would also, in this hypothetical, cover all the WotC SRDs not just the relatively tiny 5e SRD. And it would have the virality the ability to carve out PI, both of which CC-BY lacks.