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'.

 

[mamba]

I still hope someone just either sues WotC for trying to de-authorize 1.0a, or releases a product under 1.0a so that WotC is forced to sue them... just so our court system can end this ridiculousness once and for all.

you are free to do so, not sure Paizo will bother at this point

 

[Clint_L]

I'm very irritated that WotC is trying the line of "We have to de-authorize the OGL 1.0a, because to not do so would be racist."

They're trying to pull an inverse-Godwin thing here, by attaching their cause to the cause of being against bigotry and discrimination. As many have pointed out, this is not a real concern. The folks at Hasbro might be worried about potential lawsuits that come from stuff derived from their stuff having things in it that people object to. But, really, I strongly suspect this is a cynical way to claim a cause they know many people will jump on in order to justify their attempting to destroy the open nature of all their previous SRDs.

This is possible. But they actually are currently involved in litigation with a legitimate Bad Actor in this regard (nuTSR). And they have a major motion picture coming out and other entertainment properties which have the potential to raise D&D visibility and make it more of a target for additional bad actors.

I think they should compromise on this clause by having violations determined by an arbitration panel including WotC and, say, two other OGL stakeholders.

 

[overgeeked]

They're taking one from politicians and Hollywood: masking economic/power reasons with social/activist reasons.

Plus, the whole concept of "harmful content" is highly nebulous and subjective.

Exactly. Present it as "reasonable" after heavy anchoring with the earlier "draft" and get people on board. Just ignore that WotC gets to define obscene however they want.

 

[mhd]

I'm fully expecting to avoid most of this, but I look forward to someone making both spell and monster sections that are CC and avoid stepping too close to the previous/OGL'd ones. Maybe Monte Cook can CC his Arcana Unearthed as a first step

 

[Reynard]

Could an OSR clone rebase upon a CC 5e base? Instead if a 3.0/3.5 one?

I feel less and less sure as time goes on that an OSR clone needs any license at all, as long as it is in the author's won words.

 

[Matt Thomason]

You can't do that becasue this OGL 1.2 draft says the ONLY material you can (actually, MUST) include is some of their SRD information and your stuff. You couldn't, for example, make an adventure using Tome of Beasts monsters.

Presumably, my adventure is using statblock layouts and references to other game terms fromthe OGL. I wonder how much material is enough?

 

[Alzrius]

you are free to do so, not sure Paizo will bother at this point

I'm not either, but I really hope they do. They're our best hope on that front.

 

[Mercurius]

Exactly. Present it as "reasonable" after heavy anchoring with the earlier "draft" and get people on board. Just ignore that WotC gets to define obscene however they want.

Maybe I'm being overly hyperbolic, but does this mean that if Wolfgang Baur makes a "harmful" joke in the office and WotC catches word, they can revoke the OGL from Kobold? I know, it is ridiculous and wouldn't happen, but it seems like it keeps the door open for some ridiculousness.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is possible. But they actually are currently involved in litigation with a legitimate Bad Actor in this regard (nuTSR). And they have a major motion picture coming out and other entertainment properties which have the potential to raise D&D visibility and make it more of a target for additional bad actors.

I think they should compromise on this clause by having violations determined by an arbitration panel including WotC and, say, two other OGL stakeholders.

Also, why are people acting so surprised that WoTC wants to make sure that the Owlbear remains protected ...

I feel like the people on this website haven't actually watched the D&D Movie trailers!

 

[Enrahim2]

I think this is close.

• Clarify that it is only the offer of direct use of wizard's SRDs under 1.0a that is "no longer authorized" - so no effect on use of third party open gaming content for new projects (including content that might be interpreted as modifications of SRD content).
• Remove the clause about waiving right to contest hateful definition.
• Put that section into the 30 day notice bucket.
• Remove the waiver of class action clause

With these changes it seem like a contract that does what likely is most important to them, while I guess possibly being competitive enough that some quality creators might consider it (if they can forgive wizards for what they tried to do).

The VTT policy is an obvious trap though, as there is absolutely nothing that indicate that that policy can't be changed at will, once the VTT segment can no longer rely on the combined effort of the entire community to protect them via the 1.0a outrage.