WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The morality clause is a no go because they will use it as a weapon to fight representation. We've seen big companies do this before.

"You just want to have hate speech!"

No, we just don't want to be told including gays and lesbians is somehow a violation of the morality clause and be booted from their license.

Given that WoTC has already had a long track record of increased representation in its products, and given that the majority of complaints regarding WoTC on-line come from people that are trying to make the game less inclusive ....


I would very much recommend against this line of argument, simply because it does seem disingenuous at this time.

 

[eyeheartawk]

We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action"

Ooof.

 

[rules.mechanic]

Interestingly, classes and races are Licensed Content but classes (not artificers of course) and a few class abilities are at least named in the Creative Commons game mechanics bits (via the Multi-classing bit) and race names via their languages. And looks like essentially all the SRD game mechanics are indeed in the Creative Commons bit. Could be that most current OGL games (e.g. level Up) will be good just using the creative commons bits...

 

[Cadence]

Oh that's big, good catch.

Virtually all of the OSR relies on OGL 1.0a for the 3.5 SRD.

Why not include the 3E SRD in this I wonder?

Suggesting the equivalent parts of 3.5 just went to my list of things to ask for in the feedback.

 

[schneeland]

All killing OGL 1.0a actually gives them now is the 3e, 3.5 and Modern SRDs. They haven't touched Modern ever again, nor the d20 system writ large, so what's left aside from the monsters and spells accidentally'd into the SRDs?

They do still have the restrictions on VTT stuff, but yeah, either it is an oversight or kicking out 3e stuff is quite important to them.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

.

 

[Princessmaker]

It looks like.

I mean, let's look at the drilldown:

Royalties wasn't it.

Stealing Indie IP wasn't it.

Cracking down on non-TTRPG spaces wasn't it.

Now we know the 5e SRD wasn't it.

All killing OGL 1.0a actually gives them now is the 3e, 3.5 and Modern SRDs. They haven't touched Modern ever again, nor the d20 system writ large, so what's left aside from the monsters and spells accidentally'd into the SRDs?

Oh, and flashing their bright blue baboon rump at Pathfinder over and over, but that is more dessert than main course.

The way the license draft is today, you won't be able to, as an example, create a new path for a class with just CC-BY, nor create any monster that has the use of spells or the like. All CC-BY content would (IANAL / any other not "i'm not a legal advisor" preamble I could use) probably fall under the "you can't copyright game rules", but they're keeping everything else.

 

[Reynard]

Another question: this license seems to say that for it to be valid, things published under it must include some SRD content and some of "your" content. That would suggest it is not a license for, say, Opend6. Is that correct?

Separately: on the subject of de-authorization: let's say I make a Starfinder adventure and put it up for sale, referencing Starfinder's Section 15. How can I be in violation of OGL 1.2 if I did not sign on to it? And how can I be in violation of OGL 1.0a if it is de-authorized? in other words, does WotC have any grounds to C&D me for a Starfinder (or Pathfinder or 13th age etc...) supplement?

 

[Alzrius]

That's what I'm saying. It has been done. For the past 20 years.

With the 3.5 SRD, not the 5.1. Given that the latter SRD is far less robust than the first one, I'm curious if it would work nearly as well. Does the 5.1 SRD make any mention of psionics, for instance? Not just the word "psionics" but phrases which could conceivably be copyrighted, such as "tower of iron will" or "wild talent"?

 

[pedr]

This doesn’t seem to be an open licence of the same sort as the OGL and open software licences. From what I can tell it isn’t written as a template for users of WotC open content to use to also license their own content and doesn’t have a viral effect on the openness of other parties’ content.