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

 

[Enrahim2]

They could do it again next month. They really needed to make OGL 1.0b(or whatever numbering) and include true irrevocability language. I don't know that this is going to be enough for the creators. We will have to see how they respond.

Not needed. CC is the lifeline for 1.0a. There are just no conceivable way trying to revoke 1.0a can be beneficial for them now. New projects should likely use orc unless needing third party ogc though (or can use cc due to no need to declare product identity)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As a few noted, this does not cover ONE DND. I fully expect a separate usage license for it. I wonder if they think the immense player base will shift to it and leave 5e behind relatively swiftly. There's more to this than just ending the fight over the OGL.

Well, One D&D is coming out next year. Unless they change a lot and very quickly, it's going to be compatible enough with 5E that one can use the 5E CC content to write for it indefinitely.

The question is what 7E looks like. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and realize that everyone can get fat together, rather than trying to starve out everyone who doesn't live in the palace with WotC.

 

[Alzrius]

Roll For Combat is covering this live with Linda Codega (who left the stream right as I posted this ).

 

[Cadence]

It would be absolutely irrelevant if they did so, as they have already released the same content under Creative Commons. All anyone would have to do to repair their work was change the license they released it under.

For the 5.1 stuff like A5e, not for the 3.5 stuff like PF 1e, right?

 

[dave2008]

They could do it again next month. They really needed to make OGL 1.0b(or whatever numbering) and include true irrevocability language. I don't know that this is going to be enough for the creators. We will have to see how they respond.

They could, but all of SRD 5.1 is now CC, so what does it matter (for 5e at least)?

 

[Umbran]

I seriously thought killing OGL 1.0a was their line in the sand.

Ironically, they kind of killed it anyway. The OGL 1.0a is now the appendix of gaming licenses. It is still there, but unnecessary, obsolete.

 

[dave2008]

For the 5.1 stuff like A5e, not for the 3.5 stuff like PF 1e, right?

Well, before this turn around they had promised to release more editions to CC, so maybe they will do for 3e and 4e what they did for 5e?

 

[Steampunkette]

What parts of your (absolutely backed on KS) psionics book would you want to be reusable by others vs. not? Is that the same as asking which parts you marked as 1.0a under product identity and which parts you left for open game content?

I'm trying to picture how much would be hard to pull out.

Shifting products, in a campaign setting it feels like one could pull the spells, classes, and monsters out fairly easily from the NPCs and places, for example.

For Paranormal Power there's nothing that I reserved as strict IP. I didn't use any names or designations that lock people out of anything.

But if I did release a Campaign setting, or included a short-story or poetry within a release, or had specific named characters in blurbs and excerpts... Those I would want to retain, most likely. So I could either designate those things as IP, or set aside all the game mechanics in a separate document put into CCBY4/ORC/Etc.

One would probably take more effort (Removing a bunch of extraneous information) than the other (Noting that names of characters, the short story, and the poem are protected IP) in a licensing agreement.

Ultimately it really depends on the actual work which would be easier.

 

[SAVeira]

It will be interesting to see who, if anyone exits from Hasbro/WotC in the next couple of months. Would show how much a power struggle happened inside the company.

 

[Scribe]

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

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'.