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

 

[Azzy]

Wait... We won?

Holy naughty word, Batman! I wasn't optimistic that we could get this much of a concession, but here we are!

I guess I'll end my boycott of WotC, and buy a WotC book this coming month just to reward WotC for conceding. Guess I'll also go see the movie.

I will still support Paizo's ORC initiative and Kobold Press' Black Flag endeavor, as I feel that it's good for the community and in case future WotC tries this again in 10 years.

 

[Azzy]

Wait a minute… Wizards of the Coast are evil and hate players right? Why on earth would they do this…

Hmm, maybe it has to do with the community outcry and mainstream news attention that followed? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's it.

 

[kunadam]

This will be a test, if 5e users dont really care for 3e/OSR and there are enough 5e publishers that will continue to do business as usual they can finally get rid of any meaningful rivals. If not, they can know that releasing the 3.x into CC will do the trick of resetting the communities mood into "favorable".

While there might be some fear for 3e as it had its own SRD which can still be revoked (or at least they can try), but the OSR is safe. If they could derive it from the 3e SRD they can do the same from the CC lincensed SRD 5.1 too.

 

[Greg K]

Hmm, maybe it has to do with the community outcry and mainstream news attention that followed? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's it.

Which also caught the attention of at least one major shareholder.

 

[J.Quondam]

cohum Allow me to play devil's advocate. Now, if I was neutral evil and the responsible executive @hasbro, what would I do next? humm

1) Allow for some time to pass, they say "time heals all wounds", but they also say "out of sight, out of mind"
2) Lay of someone @wotc to be the fall guy/gal, place the Angra Mainyu label and everyone will happily throw a stone and be done with it.
3) After the movie has left theather's, whoever is in now in charge @wotc will try to rebuke ogl 1.0a. Why? Because what corporations hate the most is not their clients (they get their money after all), but rival companies that take money from the same client pool.
This will be a test, if 5e users dont really care for 3e/OSR and there are enough 5e publishers that will continue to do business as usual they can finally get rid of any meaningful rivals. If not, they can know that releasing the 3.x into CC will do the trick of resetting the communities mood into "favorable".
4) Profit!

gives die Now, roll for initiative >

I can't think why they'd bother at this point. The 5e and 3.x SRDs are like 80% overlapping anyway. The main difference, iirc, is in how well fleshed-out the classes are. The juicy bits like the monsters and magic items are now safely tucked away under CC. Really, I think a major part of this was just about having those words available; common D&Disms like "gelatinous cube" and "bag of holding" and "magic missile" and "tiefling" are in both SRDs, and now in CC via SRD5.1

I suppose WotC could cause some headaches for, eg, Paizo or OSE by yoinking OGL1.0. But that would just force some relatively limited rewriting, not the extinctional level event that many creators were facing before that material was opened for good. I can't imagine what WotC would really gain from that.

 

[see]

The potential holes in the OGL did not go away. The CC thing is welcome (along with its amusing leak of IP into the commons), but still doesn't directly protect the far larger library of 23 years worth of non-WotC Open Game Content released under the OGL.

I mean, yes, but . . . it's still a victory.

There's a limit to how much contract terms can bind things going forward. I've suggested some language for an OGL 1.0b to plug some holes, but if (say) someday Hasbro went into bankruptcy liquidation, the bankruptcy judge could clear that contractual encumbrance as part of the asset auction. And then the new private equity firm that bought the copyrights could come along and say, "The old contract has been voided by a bankruptcy court; you need a new deal to use our copyrighted material in new works going forward, and we're going to charge you for it."

What has happened with the CC-BY-4.0 release is that WotC/Hasbro can't stop the material that most directly substitutes for their new material and their licensing initiatives going forward by messing with de authorization claims. That done, what's the actual business case for Hasbro/WotC burning down the commons? It would create a bunch of bad publicity for them, without actually doing anything to stop a NaziQuest MMO that advertises itself as "based on the Dungeons & Dragons® rules!"

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Here's a Q?

Is there a path forward for a OneD&D that is extremely similar to 5e if 5e is ALL in Creative Commons?

Or does this mean One D&D has to take a hard turn to compete with 5e?

It likely means One D&D will also end up OGL 1.0a & CC.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

Jeremy Crawford...

... i also hope mike mearls os somewhere in the dungeons, far away from social networks and the internet in general designing...

As far as I know he's still working with Larian on BG3..

 

[Scribe]

I can't think why they'd bother at this point. The 5e and 3.x SRDs are like 80% overlapping anyway. The main difference, iirc, is in the how well fleshed-out the classes are. The juicy bits like the monsters and magic items are now safely tucked away under CC. Really, I think a major part of this was just about having those words available; common D&Disms like "gelatinous cube" and "bag of holding" and "magic missile" and "tiefling" are in both SRDs, and now in CC via SRD5.1

I suppose WotC could cause some headaches for, eg, Paizo or OSE by yoinking OGL1.0. But that would just force some relatively limited rewriting, not the extinctional level event that many creators were facing before that material was opened for good. I can't imagine what WotC would really gain from that.

There is, very little point I think.

I'm sure there are multiple reasons for them conceding this absolutely crushing landslide of their original position, but I think it at least partially is down to the fact they had a horde of people screaming at them, and they were factually gaining nothing, while they watched the narrative flock to the support of anyone NOT Wizards/D&D.

From their original offer to today?

Lets just say its not victory wine, they are drinking.

Was it the (correct btw) outcry over their behavior?
Was it their lies and obfuscation?
Was it their flat out arrogance and over reach?
Was it their factually flawed outlook on "IP" rules, and the D&D Brand Name?
Was it the fact someone said 'hey, why have we been devaluing our IP for years?"
Was it someone saying 'these are just mechanics, you want to go to court over 'Fighter' and 'Owlbear', which we lifted off some company in Japan? Ask GW how that went'.
Was it someone finally pointing out that the OGL was bringing the vast majority of the RPG space into Wizards house, and they were watching people literally RUN away from any association with Wizbro?

Hopefully, one day we find out.

 

[Composer99]

I think this sums up how I'm feeling about this: