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

 

[teitan]

At this time, 3.x and 5 were the only ones that were open, and I am not asking to open other versions of the game that were never open. (Although I wouldn't mind--but that's not really the point). The point is, publishers been given a promise that OGL1.0a will be there forever, the same promise the community got in 2000-2022, and we can see where that led. The 5 SRD has been sent to CC which shouldn't (can't as far as I know) be rolled back, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to trust them. Some decisions have to be made IMO.

My opinion shouldn't be taken too seriously though. I'm just going to ride this wave into new territory and stop default to D&D, maybe stop playing it entirely. It's a good excuse to branch out and try new things.

They have no control over a Creative Commons license. They essentially handed it to a third party.

 

[Ashtagon]

You mean exactly what basically happens now minus the step of putting it in the published product itself?

Sure, that's what happens with new books (though whether it gets wikified by in-house or by fans possibly varies by publisher; switching to CC would force it to be done in-house).

Updating the OGL to 1.0b is about future-proofing the legacy content, at least as much as enabling new content. Defunct legacy publishers don't have the resources to do the full line-by-line check that current publishers may have to ensure their books can be valid under CC.

 

[Cadence]

I don’t see any such requirement on the Creative Commons site.

It felt clear to me that you couldn't try and set it up where the attribution to what you adapted could be done away with by future adaptors.

And the chart on adapting in the CC FAQ explicitly shows releasing your adaptation under that or a more restrictive CC license.

It does not explicitly say that your derivative product could be copyright protected (as long as DRM doesn't flag the original), but I have never found anything saying otherwise and it feels like there are things that have incorporated CC-BY material that are not under CC.

 

[Cadence]

So it is still extra work and therefore an impediment to open gaming.

Too many people are only thinking of this situation from the perspective of a consumer who just wants a shiny new 5E book. This is about creators, and it is also about Open Gaming as a culture and philosophy.

It is definitely extra work. For the big ones like PF and A5E, do they already have an SRD? For the others, I'm trying to imagine how hard it is to snip out the product identity parts. If you can list the PI easily in the 1.0a disclaimer, does that mean it would be easy to search out?

 

[ThorinTeague]

They have no control over a Creative Commons license. They essentially handed it to a third party.

I know.

3 weeks ago, I "knew" that OGL 1.0a could never be deactivated. I "knew" WoTC could change anything they want, because if the community didn't like it they wouldn't switch to the changed license. I "knew" WoTC would never try this course of action again because what they did in 2008 spawned their biggest competitor.

So yes, they have no control over a CC license. Also black is white, up is down, and short is long. I tripped and fell into an alternate reality apparently.

 

[teitan]

In a technical sense, sure, they've left open the possibility of a future attempt at deauthorization.

But the brilliance of the CC release is that, while it has not taken away the possibility, it has annihilated the incentive. Even if you totally dismiss all benefits to Wizards from open gaming, there is no longer any conceivable profit for them in attacking the OGL. In the long run, I think that's a better shield than any legalese.

Also what I’ve been trying to point out to people. There is no incentive or reason to do anything with 1.0a now that they have released the 5.1 to CC for a handful of reasons.

1: you can tweak those rules how you see fit according to the CC license as long as you attribute your source

2: rules can’t technically be copyright just their artistic expression

3: altering the 1.0a is impossible. It would no longer be the 1.0a but a new license that would require anyone who published and wants the irrevocable to republish everything they put out under the OGL under this new OGL. This would be a new license with new terms and some of those materials are in limbo.

4: what incentive does WOtC have to shut down the OGL now? With the Cc release covering the things they were targeting with 1.1 and 1.2 versions, which were VTTs, essentially removing their ability to target them, they have no incentive to alter it. Competitors we always assumed was about Paizo and co. We were wrong in hindsight.

All of WOTC language and red lines dealt with the VTT and things that could impact the VTT and D&D Beyond. The fan policy has minor impact, it was all very weird but all essentially boiled down to digital tools and what VTT could do with the OGL. The competition they were targeting was other VTT and Demiplane.

Their number, 20%? That was based on DDB subscribers and average campaign sizes. 5 people, 1 dm and 4 players. Dm buys everything and shares across the campaign. No incentive for players to buy anything. It’s Netflix password sharing in their eyes. They want to incentivize players making purchases and not just groups sharing a singular account for the campaign and sharing books.

It was all more about D&D Beyond and never about physical media which tells you how big DDB is to their future plans and how quickly it grew during the pandemic and much like Netflix how they were trying to corner a market to keep their user base by getting to control complete access to the D&D experience, which, honestly, is their right.

How it impacted 3rd party publishers physical media, nor the shift to in person gaming post pandemic, since they don’t have a working VTT launched yet and people are still using DDB for their characters and campaigns, didn’t occur to them. They didn’t want to have the experience of Xbox or PS4 on their service, they wanted a Nintendo Seal of Approval, for content for people who remember that so they could advertise a family friendly space.

Physical publishing was never a concern. All Kickstarters essentially promised VTT integration, tokens, etc. if they cornered D&D content with the OGL they needed to control that.

5: they’ve lost that incentive with regards to the OGL. It will atrophy in their eyes in favor of CC. They’ve given everything over, even VTT development.

6: but what’s the catch, there is a catch. It’s going to be D&D Beyond access and their VTT. You will have to comply with their standards to get the creator badge and logo and access to the platform including the online store. Sure you can use Roll20 but it won’t have 3D minis and tiles or official support outside of the CC license. And that would be fair.

7: so the OGL? They don’t have any reason to even bat an eyelash at it. It’s old content they don’t support. The OSR? They don’t care about “us (I play DCC”). They need their platform to succeed. They’re putting their eggs in the wrong basket though. VTT isn’t the future unless they can figure out how to invest in TV tables with hooks up for tablets and cell phones and make them affordable for people! Lol

 

[teitan]

I know.

3 weeks ago, I "knew" that OGL 1.0a could never be deactivated. I "knew" WoTC could change anything they want, because if the community didn't like it they wouldn't switch to the changed license. I "knew" WoTC would never try this course of action again because what they did in 2008 spawned their biggest competitor.

So yes, they have no control over a CC license. Also black is white, up is down, and short is long. I tripped and fell into an alternate reality apparently.

No, legally they can’t. At all. 5.1 is out there, irrevocable. They don’t have control of that. It’s in Creative Commons hands. This isn’t a question. It’s the foundation of software development and technology even. It’s not black is white. It’s watching a movie with Dahmer.

 

[Reynard]

It is definitely extra work. For the big ones like PF and A5E, do they already have an SRD? For the others, I'm trying to imagine how hard it is to snip out the product identity parts. If you can list the PI easily in the 1.0a disclaimer, does that mean it would be easy to search out?

One value of the OGL was that you could just state what was and wasn't open content. You did not have to set it aside in your work.

I wasn't suggesting it was an insurmountable problem, just one that acts as an impediment to the free flow of open gaming among and between creators.

 

[teitan]

Sure, that's what happens with new books (though whether it gets wikified by in-house or by fans possibly varies by publisher; switching to CC would force it to be done in-house).

Updating the OGL to 1.0b is about future-proofing the legacy content, at least as much as enabling new content. Defunct legacy publishers don't have the resources to do the full line-by-line check that current publishers may have to ensure their books can be valid under CC.

So you’re going to pay for all that stuff to get reissued and all the work?

 

[Alzrius]

The better legal view, I think, is that these changes to the text of the OGL would not actually change its legal operation. Or in other words, if you'd be comfortable with an OGL with the words you suggest, it's not clear to me why you shouldn't be comfortable with the current one.

Or to put it a slightly different way: if the real worry is WotC throwing its weight around, changing the text of the OGL in the way you suggest doesn't seem like it will stop that happening.

In that case, what changes to the text of the OGL would change its legal operation to the point of preventing WotC from throwing its weight around (ideally while making as few other changes as possible)?