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

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now the question is whether all those who said their trust in WotC was irrevocably broken and that they were forever done with WotC-owned D&D actually follow through and never play it again?

 

[Greg K]

Is there anything preventing WOTC to attempt deauthorizing the OGL v1.oa in the future?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

You all can keep believing the fantasy all you want, but in the end it will not be compatible with 5e. It may say it, but it will be like trying to convert from Pathfinder 1e to Pathfinder 2e.

Maybe wait and see, cause things currently seem compatible. I expect it to be more like the jump from 1e to 2e.

 

[Steampunkette]

However, if you release your content under CCBY4, can't anyone use it? I guess I am just not understanding the value of ORC at the moment. Of course I don't actually have ORC to review.

The intention of the CCYB4 is to use content, but it doesn't typically create a sublicensable structure like the OGL does or the ORC intends to do. At least not the last time I checked, but also IANAL....

 

[This Effin’ GM]

To me, it's more about taking a stand. They screwed up. I'm leaving. I'm not coming back just because they apologized, because I can't trust that they're sincere. Especially since we know they apologized because they were losing money, not because they really accept that they screwed up.

Personally I’ll happily go with a company that (1) apologizes and (2) sees that we can f*ck with the money if they piss us off enough and reacts accordingly.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, when you're making a massive bet on a product, you don't want to completely sour your potential audience years before you release it.

I do wonder if the damage is already done, though.

Not all of those Pathfinder 2 books and Call of Cthulhu boxed sets are going to sit unused. I suspect there's going to be at least a dip in play and sales.

But this has probably limited the damage to the 2024 edition.

 

[Staffan]

 

[jgbrowning]

Is there anything preventing WOTC to attempt deauthorizing the OGL v1.oa in the future?

Not that I can see. I'd like them to legally address the "unauthorize" issue as well as the "revocable" issue, but given what they just went through, realistically, I don't see them trying to mess with the 1.0a in the future, especially considering that everything was Creative Commons'ed anyway.

joe b.

 

[Cadence]

The intention of the CCYB4 is to use content, but it doesn't typically create a sublicensable structure like the OGL does or the ORC intends to do. At least not the last time I checked, but also IANAL....

Is the easy thing there for everyone who wants sublicensability to make an SRD of their new additions that they put out by CCBY4?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

To me, it's more about taking a stand. They screwed up. I'm leaving. I'm not coming back just because they apologized, because I can't trust that they're sincere. Especially since we know they apologized because they were losing money, not because they really accept that they screwed up.

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