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'.

 

[Matt Thomason]

And offered back under the OGL 1.2. Which is pretty good. As someone else said, these are your options:

1. Want to make your own game w/ 5e rules: us the CC rules
2. Want to make 5e adventure or supplement: OGL 1.2
3. Want to use WotC IP: use DMs Guild

That seems reasonable to me. Just need to clean up the OGL 1.2 a bit.

Want to make a VTT that includes the SRD and has animated tokens+effects, or an SRD-based computer game?

Absolutely fine under 1.0a with a promise from them that it would be fine forever. Not fine now.

 

[Ondath]

Yeah, all they really cared about was shutting down 1.0. They seem to be ready to give up everything but that.

Agreed. And many people were concerned about OGL v1.0a shutting down if it meant D&D-like independent games could not be published anymore. If the core engine is released under CC, that problem also gets solved.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, all they really cared about was shutting down 1.0. They seem to be ready to give up everything but that.

Which leads me to wonder, can we get the 3.5 SRD (minus spell list and monster list) in the CC.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

Introducing Golarion's first Crisis event...

Someone doesn’t know about the death of Aroden and the fall of lastwall

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I mean, the real problem there is, why would they ever agree to that? That would require adjudication in a court of law, which this license goes super far out of its way to avoid except in the specific case of "you can actually prove that we knowingly and intentionally stole your content." Which, as I think most people who know anything about law would know, is a really really high burden of proof.* They don't want to have it dragged into the light of day in open court for the judiciary to hammer out. They want to have control over that, and that's precisely why it's a problem. Even if I trusted the WotC of today to use this power wisely (and I sure as hell do not), I cannot trust that the WotC of 20 years from now will continue to do so.

Because, y'know. 23 years of open license, and now they're de-authorizing. They've proven it can happen, and other places have proven that exploiting this sort of power for incredibly unacceptable purposes is a real risk.

*I'm okay with that, if and only if things swing both ways--if WotC has to prove that 3PP folks knowingly and intentionally stole material too, and can only sue for monetary damages, then fair is fair.

 

[Reynard]

And offered back under the OGL 1.2. Which is pretty good. As someone else said, these are your options:

1. Want to make your own game w/ 5e rules: us the CC rules
2. Want to make 5e adventure or supplement: OGL 1.2
3. Want to use WotC IP: use DMs Guild

That seems reasonable to me. Just need to clean up the OGL 1.2 a bit.

Want to include a monster from Tome of Beasts or write a subclass for the Illrigger? Get bent.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

yes, and if Martians ended up controlling WotC with their mind rays, then maybe playing a human becomes offensive.

You don't read enough non-D&D news, in that case.

 

[Alzrius]

And offered back under the OGL 1.2. Which is pretty good. As someone else said, these are your options:

1. Want to make your own game w/ 5e rules: us the CC rules
2. Want to make 5e adventure or supplement: OGL 1.2
3. Want to use WotC IP: use DMs Guild

That seems reasonable to me. Just need to clean up the OGL 1.2 a bit.

What about PF1 content? What about OSR content? What about Mutants & Masterminds content?

There's been an idea put forward that you can reverse-engineer the OSR stuff, at least (and maybe 3.5) via the 5.1 SRD. I'm not convinced, but even if that's the case, there's still a lot of cross-pollination (i.e. third-parties who made Open Game Content built off of other third-parties' Open Game Content) that's going to be lost, and won't be able to be recreated at all.

There are large swaths of games derived from the 3.5 SRD that are essentially shut down by the OGL v1.0a's de-authorization. That is not acceptable collateral damage.

 

[Ondath]

The thing that matters most, perhaps the only thing that matters, is still happening.

The thing that matters the most to you. The reason the change garnered so much negative reaction was that it touched a lot of things that a lot of people cared (OSR people cared about OGL's safe harbour, Pathfinder and Level Up cared about being released in OGL v1.0a, people who make 5E supplements cared about the royalty scheme, FoundryVTT cared about being a VTT that uses 5E, Zak S cared about being an OGL publisher with questionable political views...). Now that WotC has walked back the majority of these changes, some of these people are now fine with things.

Mind you, I'm not sure where I stand exactly. But several of my major worries have been answered. So I'm trying to be charitable and try and see what that means for the future of the game without holding onto my pitchfork.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Want to include a monster from Tome of Beasts or write a subclass for the Illrigger? Get bent.

Yeah, the extent to which folks can share content is something I want to hear more about from folks who understand this stuff better than I do.