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]

I can only imagine how bad it must have been at WOTC for this concession to be agreed to.

Like going through Seramorphosis?

 

[gamerprinter]

Well it doesn't seem to meet every need, but as a 3PP, I'll continue to publish using OGL 1.0a, perhaps ORC too, even currently doing a Community Content Agreement with the GM's Guild to play in all the waters as I can, and see what happens.

 

[teitan]

True they do deserve that tiny bit of a token of hand clapping, but you know the old saying "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" we weren't fooled. So shame on them, not on me (I also got into DnD after 4E so I wasn't burnt before, but I heard the stories. I supported those who like myself love creativity and being able to do whatever they want to with what they bought, that like my other passion Model Railroading is "it's my railway and I jolly well can do what I want with it.")

There wasn’t really a burning with 4e. That’s greatly exaggerated in largely 3.x communities. There was a larger burn from going from 3e to 3.5 where they promised backwards compatibility and then just before release said “sorry, we tried but it’s not really”. Some argue 3.5 is still compatible but really if you do a deep dive the little changes amounted to a LOT of changes that meant a fine tooth comb to convert those materials.

4e they were very up front about it being very different including preview books, in the marketing openly discussing changes, the GSL was released and they didn’t try to revoke the OGL. The GSL wasn’t a burn as much as a bad idea.

 

[Yaarel]

There remains the issue that they think they have the option to deauthorize in the future.

Yeah. It is more like Evil went into dormancy, but might try again. Heh.

That said, moving the whole of the D&D 5.1 SRD into the CC, means a solid version of D&D is unequivocally beyond the control of any corporation. So, it becomes pointless for a corporation to try control the gaming community in this way again.

So, there is a real victory for the gaming community.



My takeaways from the ordeal is:

• I can finally go back to appreciating the 5e designers, without this feeling complicated.
• Mearls, Crawford, and other have my support.
• I will never again take the Open Gaming community for granted. They rose to the occasion in this crisis.
• I see products by independent publishers in a new light. I will make more effort to enjoy them.
• I use more indy products when playing any game, rather than rely on a single corporation.

 

[ssvegeta555]

If they really want my trust back, WotC need to beef up the content of the original v.3.5 SRD to include more of the rulebook options.

Imagine if they released the entirety of 3.5 under CC? That'll be amazing! WotC, free Magic of Incarnum and more, you cowards!

I do hope they release 3.5 (and 3.0 and Modern) SRDs to CC.

 

[Plokman]

There wasn’t really a burning with 4e. That’s greatly exaggerated in largely 3.x communities. There was a larger burn from going from 3e to 3.5 where they promised backwards compatibility and then just before release said “sorry, we tried but it’s not really”. Some argue 3.5 is still compatible but really if you do a deep dive the little changes amounted to a LOT of changes that meant a fine tooth comb to convert those materials.

4e they were very up front about it being very different including preview books, in the marketing openly discussing changes, the GSL was released and they didn’t try to revoke the OGL. The GSL wasn’t a burn as much as a bad idea.

I see, though I wouldn't say it wasn't adaptation proof it seems close for the average player. But that is coming from a person with the DM Guide and Monster Manual only, like I said I only got into the game (due to that old 80s misunderstanding about DnD and its "under tones" if you take my meaning) at the tail of 4E just as the 5E books started coming out.

I got the 3E books I have cause I had wanted to play DnD with a friend. That never panned out though I still plan to play, I even had a decent time playing with some friends. Heck I want to use 5E to make a ReBoot Cyberspace game for a campaign and I will probably need help on that front. But I guess that People like Dungeon Dad are going to keep expanding it in ways I haven't thought of.

Still 3.5 has some cool Ideas, main reason I don't try Pathfinder is just like the Illithids there are more monsters I can't stand (Mainly the 3rd fiend faction) but I still like it as a option.

 

[see]

Now, if they released an OGL 1.8.4q that was as permissive as CC-BY, that would be very interesting chaos, because then everyone else's OGC would be usable under those terms. That's not something I had considered, that WotC potentially has the power to completely unlock all OGC.

However, those of us who were involved in the licensing discussions back in 2000 did consider it, among a whole lot of other scenarios for what WotC could do with the update provision. General consensus was simply that people should be careful about what they released under the OGL if they were worried about controlling what other people could do with it, because the limits of the original OGL could always be circumvented by a later one, if WotC decided changing the limits was in their interest.

Granted, it was seen as more likely that WotC would, say, give themselves the right to use someone's OGC in a WotC-licensed computer game than to release all OGC under a more-permissive license, but the update clause was understood to be a huge grant of power.

(That's also why we insisted on a right to always revert to an older version of the license. The idea that "any authorized version" could be interpreted to mean "those versions WotC is authorizing right now" as opposed to "any verison WotC ever authorized" did not occur to us, unfortunately, or this last month would have been a lot less annoying.)

 

[Yaarel]

So... think this means they'll change 6e/One to be just different enough to not be compatible with 5e like they had originally planned?

That thought crossed my mind too.

I am unsure how Hasbro-WotC will proceed.

On the one hand, with 5.1 out in the wild, they would want a full on, less compatible, 6e that they can control.

(Heh, just had visions of Princess Leah warning the Empire, that the tighter the grip, the more will slip thru their fingers.)

On the other hand, there is now a surge of interest in Open Gaming content, many of whom will probably use the 5.1 under the CC. So, Hasbro-WotC can − ironically − ride this wave of 5.1 popularity to make a compatible 5.5 even more successful.

 

[Yaarel]

Is there a particular reason you would use ORC? I personally don't see a point for it now - though it hasn't been released, so maybe there will be.

Yes, I am strongly looking forward to the ORC. I expect it to be a superior license for the needs of the gaming community, both publishers and hobbyists. The ability to control what is and isnt released to the public Open Content is vital for businesses, brand recognition, and an economically sustainable creative community. And at the same time, welcomes Open Content users and adapters.

I want to see the ORC. I will also be checking out the companies that use ORC.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's probably a practical limit to what a "license update" under Section 9 can actually do (hopefully someone with legal knowledge will chime in.) Most likely it can only change the way the license itself works, such as amending how various clauses operate or adding an additional restriction (e,g that the licensor now has no way to terminate or deauthorise it) . I'd be very surprised if it could forcibly relicense someone's copyrighted work under a completely different unconnected license without their permission.

As long as both parties agree it should theoretically be possible. -not a lawyer.