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]

You might be right, but I remain skeptical. The 5.1 SRD is far and away more limited than the 3.5 SRD, even overlooking the epic, psionic, and divine rules that the latter has. Some of that is the sheer volume of monsters, others are spells and magic items, but overall there's simply more to work with in the 3.5 SRD.

It's entirely possible that a 5E-derived OSRIC could be made, but it would require a lot more filling in of gaps for 1E content which has no 5.1 SRD equivalent. Maybe that could work for something recreating original 1974 D&D or Holmes Basic, but AD&D 1E seems like it would be much harder.

And that's just for the OSR; you're not going to be able to do that for other 3.5-inspired games such as Pathfinder 1E. As someone who still plays that game, I'd prefer to go a route which sees all of the old stuff be open, rather than just a particular segment of the market. And that means sticking with the OGL, because even if the 3.5 SRD is put into Creative Commons, that won't be enough for derivative works (particularly where the publishers of those derivative works have closed their doors).

For instance, Studio M— is a small publisher that releases content for the "akashic magic" subsystem of Pathfinder 1E. But that system (which is a "serial numbers filed off" verison of 3.5's Magic of Incarnum) was actually developed by Dreamscarred Press. Naturally, it relies upon PF1, which itself relies on the 3.5 SRD.

But Dreamscarred Press, as far as I know, hasn't been active since 2018.

So given that there's derivative "chain" of the 3.5 SRD -> PF1 -> Dreamscarred Press -> Studio M—, porting that stuff over to CC means that it has to go in that order, and any break in the chain (cue Fleetwood Mac) for whatever reason means that isn't possible.

And here's the thing: those chains are actually much, much harder to port over than the above example makes them look like, because they require that everything in a given work's SRD be ported over first. So if Pathfinder uses a book from Malhavoc Press (which it does: the Book of Experimental Might), then Monte Cook would need to dust off that company heading and release that title to Creative Commons before the Pathfinder 1E Core Rulebook could release its Open Game Content (which would need to be parsed into its own SRD-like document so they don't release their IP into the CC the way WotC just did) into the Creative Commons.

And given that I'm not sure how Creative Commons works anyway (what's a "share-alike" version of the license, and what's the significance of the fact that WotC didn't release the 5.1 SRD under it?), I'm not sure the recursive use of content that the OGL allows for could even be done there.

The entire thing, in other words, would be a mess.

I know I'm rambling at this point, and long since gone past the issue of the OSR and recreating AD&D 1E with the 5.1 SRD in CC, so I'll try and wrap this up:

I'm glad that WotC put the entire 5.1 SRD under Creative Commons. I think that's a good thing, in what it allows for, but the guarantee that it makes regarding the D&D 5E rules doesn't cover literally everything else that's been released under the OGL over nearly a quarter-century. For that, we need better protections for the OGL, and I'm still waiting for WotC to do that as part of their show of contrition and making amends.

I want to guarantee that the entire community is covered, or at least as much of it as possible, rather than any particular segment of it.

OSRIC IS an SRD. It’s not a game, it’s a reference document in and of itself. It was not meant to be used as a game but a reference document for publishers to use to publish games for 1e DMs to use. And it has its own license. They would just need to release the OSRIC rulebook into Creative Commons.

 

[CleverNickName]

"Need" in the sense that it is the only way to be sure that WotC will not try to pull this again five, ten, or twenty years down the road.

I'm not really following you. Publishers can still elect to use the SRD5.1, and it's now Creative Commons...and that's forever.

So if someone is concerned about Wizards of the Coast "pulling this again," they could publish under the SRD5.1 instead of the OGL. Right?

 

[teitan]

Those of you saying that "everything" is under Creative Commons, I can tell you a few things that are not: Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saving throws.
This is just one part of the engine that 3.x used - which Pathfinder (and other systems use). Those games are not based on 5e, and can be challenged at any time.
This is not a complete win. It's only a win if you're a 5e player. We need to stick together and not abandon those who play other systems to the whims of WotC.

Those can be easily recreated because rules are not copyrightable. Isn’t that what the whole argument has been for weeks now. “Wotc can’t do this because you can’t copyright rules but we need protections” well now they are there. Recreate and tweak 5.1.

The 3.x SRDs didn’t have the needed mechanics to recreate the older editions either and Finch & Marshall were able to do that with that SRD with no legal repercussions. Why do people have these brick walls about the 5.1? Why are you talking about other publishers work who might not even care about putting the work they own back out there because… they have copyright protections on it already. What can WOtC do to them? Nothing. Those spells, feats and power etc are new rules, new concepts and ideas. Divorced from any context from a WOTC book. They don’t need future proofed. What needed future proofed was future publishing. WOtC can retroactively damage publishers.

 

[teitan]

I get that, but is it automatic?

PF1 was published under OGL 1.0. If OGL 1.0b comes out, does PF1 automatically get the additional protections of 1.0b, or dies Paizo need to reprint/publish there books to include OGL 1.0b? I can't image it is automatic because 1.0b could have things you don't want, but maybe I am wrong.

Nope

 

[Uta-napishti]

Congratulations to WoTC for not choosing this hill to die on. I for one will gracefully accept their surrender, and simultaneously raise a toast to the crazy rebels who made this possible. We will not forget who stood by us in our hour of need.

 

[Uta-napishti]

So you're telling me I just wasted an hour being salty on the OGL survey just to get what I wanted anyway?!!

I think it was actually your comment that pushed us over the top - good job!

 

[Uta-napishti]

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

Their massive scars, and the memory of the beating they just took.

 

[Mistwell]

Isn't the point of section 9 of the OGL specifically to allow open gaming content previously published under 1.0a to be redistributed under a 1.0b without the original publisher having to do anything?

No? I mean yes you are allowed to publish under a new license, but it doesn't automatically put your content in a new license. Someone can use the new license to publish (newly) anything put in the old license, but it doesn't automatically retroactively happen unless someone actually publishes it that way with the new license.

 

[Mistwell]

Two questions. By your understanding...

If 1.0a is still authorized, can I republish your 1.0a things as my version of your 1.0a thing?

Yes.

If 1.0a is still authorized, can I republish anything I published under 1.0a under a mythical 1.0b that is also authorized?

Yes

 

[Cadence]

Yes.

Yes

Cool. So all the 1.0a stuff wouldn't automatically go to 1.0b, but someone sufficiently bored could do it for everything they had access to pretty easily... assuming 1.0a wasn't deauthorized before they finished.