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]

A small concern about the CC licence, which makes me suspect it might not be the gift it appears to be...


That's part of the requirements to use the CC-BY licence. I'm not quite sure how this would work in the context of RPG products, which often adapt fragments here and there from the source material, re-arranging and re-phrasing things quite liberally. If we imagine as a thought experiment that the 3.5e SRD had been CC-BY and Pathfinder (1st edition) had been required to provide such an annotated list of every change from the source document, it would have been quite unwieldy.

Is a single-sentence blanket statement for the entire product suitable for this purpose, or are we required to document it more fully (and if so, how much more)?

Yes, I suspect using OGL1.0a going forward is still going to be more convinient than using CC. OGL is after all tailored to be convinient for our kind of use- which CC is not.

However the CC is still highly significant. That means that wizards will be unable to stop any serious competition by messing up 1.0a, as that serious competition would have the resources to pivot over to CC (even tough inconvinient). It is hence a very significant move as it basically ensures 1.0a.

(I can add that for the most common use, which is not making a full competing RPG, CC-BY is likely perfectly convinient enough to use)

 

[Parmandur]

A small concern about the CC licence, which makes me suspect it might not be the gift it appears to be...


That's part of the requirements to use the CC-BY licence. I'm not quite sure how this would work in the context of RPG products, which often adapt fragments here and there from the source material, re-arranging and re-phrasing things quite liberally. If we imagine as a thought experiment that the 3.5e SRD had been CC-BY and Pathfinder (1st edition) had been required to provide such an annotated list of every change from the source document, it would have been quite unwieldy.

Is a single-sentence blanket statement for the entire product suitable for this purpose, or are we required to document it more fully (and if so, how much more)?

My Google Fu looking into concrete examples of how derivative citations work suggest that this isn't actually any more onerous or complex than the standard OGL mechanisms.

 

[Mistwell]

So, in your opinion as a lawyer, does CC 5E (and motes if the older SRDs get released) basically make ORC a redundant effort?

I don't know what will be in ORC. It could be ORC will be so well tailored for RPG publications that it will just be easier to deal with it that way. The biggest drawback of course is they won't be able to use 1.0a or CC content in it, unless they also include those licenses. In which case, it's a bit messier because then the benefits of "not-WOTC" and "independent non-profit" are overridden by "still bound to WOTC."

 

[Azzy]

So, in your opinion as a lawyer, does CC 5E (and motes if the older SRDs get released) basically make ORC a redundant effort?

Not a lawyer, but no. Other game companies will be able to release their own (non-WotC SRD-based) game systems under ORC.

 

[Maxperson]

I imagine it depends on the retroclone, since the 1974 OD&D is a very different beast from Unearthed Arcana-style AD&D 1E. That said, it's important to remember that it's not just a question of rules mechanics per se. The 3.5 SRD has more spells than the 5.1 SRD has spells; the 3.5 SRD has more magic items than the 5.1 SRD has magic items; the 3.5 SRD has more monsters than the 5.1 SRD has monsters.

And more classes. And more subclasses(prestige classes). And more feats. And bloodlines from the UA. And skills. And, and, and, and...

 

[Maxperson]

So, in your opinion as a lawyer, does CC 5E (and motes if the older SRDs get released) basically make ORC a redundant effort?

Even if it is, it should still be done. What having both would do is make shenanigans less likely. WotC could engage in shenanigans and declare it is withdrawing its license from CC, causing uncertainty and discord again. Paizo could start shenanigans with ORC 8 years down the road. With both, though, what would be the point. Why would WotC do that if everyone could and would just shift to ORC and continue along their merry way. Same with Paizo and ORC.

 

[Parmandur]

Even if it is, it should still be done. What having both would do is make shenanigans less likely. WotC could engage in shenanigans and declare it is withdrawing its license from CC, causing uncertainty and discord again. Paizo could start shenanigans with ORC 8 years down the road. With both, though, what would be the point. Why would WotC do that if everyone could and would just shift to ORC and continue along their merry way. Same with Paizo and ORC.

WotC cannot remove anything from Creative Commons: that's legally rock solid and permanent. WotC has no card to play with a third party license.

It just strikes me that I wanted to publish a 5E derivative and promote open gaming, I don't know what tools ORC could provide that Creative Commons doesn't already give.

 

[Maxperson]

WotC cannot remove anything from Creative Commons: that's legally rock solid and permanent. WotC has no card to play with a third party license.

That's not the point. If they declare it so, it will cause an effect as will the looming possibility of having to defend against a giant, even if you are solidly in the right.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not the point. If they declare it so, it will cause an effect as will the looming possibility of having to defend against a giant, even if you are solidly in the right.

Hasbro cannot take on the Creative Commons organization.

 

[Maxperson]

Hasbro cannot take on the Creative Commons organization.

They won't have to.