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'.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Well that's quite clearly not true.

You can also keep using the OGL v1.0a because you're using content that you don't believe is hate speech, but think that WotC might.

Like, say, having a race that assigns static ability modifiers to particular ability scores.

Indeed. I don't think WotC is setting out to screw creators with the "sole discretion to decide what is bigotry" thing. But, if a Twitter mob is out for the blood of someone whose product inelegantly tried to deal with a sensitive topic, will WotC deliver that blood? Or if some future million dollar kickstarter 3rd party project looks like it will be a serious competitor to a similar WotC product coming out at the same time will they suddenly become very concerned about some trumped up "hate speech"?

One need not even be concerned about 2023 WotC to be concerned about what 2028 or 2033 WotC might do with absolute discretion to render someone's work unsaleable and brand them a bigot in the process.

 

[overgeeked]

Is this true, they took away all of 3.5 SRD and only left 15% of the 5.1SRD?

Yeah. People are discussion that aspect over here

OGL - WotC To Give Core D&D Mechanics To Community Via Creative Commons

Wizards of the Coast, in a move which surprised everbody, has announced that it will give away the core D&D mechanics to the community via a Creative Commons license. This won't include 'quintessentially D&D" stuff like owlbears and magic missile, but it wil include the 'core D&D mechanics'.

www.enworld.org

 

[dave2008]

It's not an open license at all.

It's a license for using D&D content in other products.

It's extremely disingenuous for them to call it the "O"GL, because it's not that at all. Either (a) they don't understand the OGL, and thought it was just a license for using D&D all along and nothing else, or, more likely, (b) they're cynically calling this the "O"GL to make it seem legitimate for them to try to de-authorize the actual OGL.

I agree with that. I don't mind this draft, but it is not an OGL. Call it a GSL and update the morality clause and I'm on board.

 

[Enrahim2]

See section 5.

Wait, so you can in compliance with 1.2 publish your content under the terms of 1.0a?

 

[rknop]

Not for me personally. I will mention in the survey that this is the clause that needs work. Just remove themselves from determine what is hateful and I am basically good with it.

...so then who gets to decide?

What is obscene, offensive, harrassing, etc., is very much in the eyes of the beholder, and very much culturally dependent. It's not an absolute. So who gets to decide what's allowed and not?

This kind of clause doesn't belong in an open license.

It's fine in a license for one company to say what of their stuff other people can use. The big problem here is WotC claiming that this is somehow an open license.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Wait, so you can in compliance with 1.2 publish your content under the terms of 1.0a?

I would say that legally there is absolutely no problem with that. I still want to see it in writing from WotC that they understand that.

 

[mhd]

Do I see that correctly, all the sections regarding monsters and spells are out of the CC'd part of the SRD? That will make CC-only gaming (or 'cloning) quite hard to do.

 

[Pedantic]

This is certainly a way less abusive and miserable licensing deal than what WotC started with and honestly quite generous as an open offer from a company, but it's fundamentally not the open license we had before they attempted any change.

I liked the world gaming built on open licensing more, and I would prefer that continue to be the norm. I have not been sold on a reason change is necessary, nor on why this change is so necessary it should violate the 20 years of established expectations.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I imagine just picking off some of them for ones game is fine. But I can imagine them coming out guns blazing against a full clone with a lawyerly version of:

"This large set of spells, species, monsters, and classes define the unique stories of the worlds of Oerth and Faerun and all of their associated literature as presented in hundreds of novels. The combination of them distinguishes the default stories of Dungeons and Dragons from various fantasy video game, film, and literary franchises. Their changing the names of some of them but keeping the full set largely intact is not just using game mechanics, it is using WotC stories and is a violation of WotC copyright."

Maybe, but these conventions have also influenced decades of books, games, films and television shows, starting with Colossal Cave (ask your grandparents, kids). At this point, a lot of this stuff is just "fantasy."

I think we have passed the horizon, where what was once associated with a specific product is now used for a generic category, like ping pong, bubble wrap, taster, hula hoop, thermos, onesie, plexiglass, dumpster, roller blades and aspirin are.

There's a lot of stuff WotC will definitely be able to defend -- I would expect beholders and even mind flayers to be defensible -- but invisibility deactivating when one attacks is now how most invisibility works in fiction, a certain boy wizard with way too many magic items for his level aside.

 

[guachi]

This highlights again what I and others have been saying. The real end game for Hasbro is digital. They have to destroy any VTT or digital competition and Hasbro really, really, really wants your $5/mo.

I don't buy the part about having to deauthorize 1.0a to eliminate harmful content. That's a red herring to make themselves look better.

It's about digital. It's about subscriptions. It's about $$$.