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'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It literally is not. That you think it is just suggests you have some wildly alternative definition of "open", that doesn't mean at all the same thing as "Open Gaming Licence" or "Open Source Code". There's no share-alike.

Okay you disagree got it

 

[Matt Thomason]

the key part is

so for this to be true you must admit this infact more reasonable.

Oh, 1.2 is certainly more reasonable than 1.1. Its just it still crosses some important red lines for some of us that we're willing to keep fighting for. I feel some of those red lines we may still be able to get them to give in on, but I feel there's also some which they never will and that the continued use of 1.0a needs to be argued in court in order to get to an acceptable position.

 

[mamba]

It's still unclear to me how they intend to invalidate the previous license.

no idea either, but that is for them to worry about. If we get a good 1.2 and it turns out they cannot revoke 1.0a, I can live with that

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay you disagree got it

No, you're factually wrong on what "open" means lol.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

LOL.

Offering to shoot someone in the foot rather than the face is "more reasonable", but "more reasonable" does not mean it is, on a basic level, reasonable or fair or honest.

I get it, you don't want any compromise, it is 100% your way or nothing as far as you are concerned. In what way do you think anything you say here is changing my mind?

 

[jerryrice4949]

Honestly, looking at the most recent ORC announcement, WotC is sitting in an empty building. From what I can tell, every major publisher except one and every middling publisher has jumped ship.Basically, WotC can put anything they want into the OGL 1.2, because apparently nobody will be using it. WotC seems to imply that magic missile or owlbear are something they have a copyright on. Looking at ORC, I would say WotC will have to prove that in court. At this point, fans getting agitated about OGL 1.2 is absolutely moot. This will be a license nobody is going to use. Everything publishers working on D&D-adjacent stuff require will most likely be released under ORC via Pathfinder 2. The only ones who will have to use OGL 1.2 are the publishers who want to cater to the upcoming OneD&D edition. At this point, WotC can try to legally battle in court, further losing sympathiy with the roleplaying community,. Or abandon the whole OGL 1.2 project in a last ditch effort to salvage the brand.

D&D was at it's peek three weeks ago. WotC themselves (not any competitor) managed to bring the house down. Yes, D&D will remain profitable. But will it ever again be as popular as in 2022? I highly doubt that. With the overwhelming support ORC is receiving by publishers, all WotC can try to do is salvage what little is left of the D&D brand reputation. OGl 1.2 is already moot before the survey is out. Best bet would be to publicly sincerly apologize and abandon the whole OGL 1.2 venture.

Maybe. Maybe not. Things change quickly. If OneD&D is wildly successful that creator badge could have real value.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I get it, you don't want any compromise, it is 100% your way or nothing as far as you are concerned. In what way do you think anything you say here is changing my mind?

You don't get it.

You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean, it's not less reasonable, it's just sort of the same request, which was plainly unreasonable to begin with. You just seem really, really desperate in all this to take whatever they give you.

Okay, that's fine. I argue with them when I disagree. It looks to me like the parts I had the biggest issue with have been addressed, and the single part I liked most is still there and several parts I was unsure or didn't have skin in, are there to one degree or another...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If OneD&D is wildly successful that creator badge could have real value.

That's a very big if.

I've honestly never expected 1D&D to be more successful than 5E. My natural expectation would be that it would be slightly less successful but still pretty big.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

The Southern Poverty Law Center or some other nonprofit civil rights organization should arbitrate questions of hateful content for everyone - including Wizards.

Yeah no thanks.

 

[mamba]

I read that as "you can combine your content with our content, and make a finished product out of it, and distribute it to customers" - not that "your content" becomes reusable by other creators under that license.

section 5 is better "You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The Southern Poverty Law Center or some other nonprofit civil rights organization should arbitrate questions of hateful content for everyone - including Wizards.

I could totally support that, they are one of my favorite groups, and I almost always agree with them. I could get behind useing them as an arbiter if there is a disagreement, THAT I might put in the survey.

Thank you

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah no thanks.

I mean, who would you suggest?

WotC are clearly incompetent when it comes to this stuff. They can't spot blatant racism in their own material. They reject mild anti-capitalist sentiment as "hateful conduct". They're a corporation so sooner or later they're going to freak out about some LGBTQ+ issue.

So who do you reckon?

 

[Matt Thomason]

That's a very big if.

I've honestly never expected 1D&D to be more successful than 5E. My natural expectation would be that it would be slightly less successful but still pretty big.

Same. I also look forward to seeing how successful the ORC-licensed games are, in the hope that the D&D alternatives end up with a bigger share than they do now. Personally, I do not want to have my livelihood 100% dependant on the whims of a single company, so the more baskets I can spread my eggs around, the better.

 

[Plokman]

"have to see the fine print"

At a certain point, you have to take "Yes," for an answer.

You might not be willing to compromise. But this is a company with a brand. They have reason to fear - especially recently (nuTSR) and especially with regard to their movie and other products coming out.

In the end, "But we have to force them to allow terrible racists products for D&D," may not be the hill you want to die on.

Very wise, still gonna use a electron microscope to find any fine print.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

no idea either, but that is for them to worry about. If we get a good 1.2 and it turns out they cannot revoke 1.0a, I can live with that

Depending on the specifics of it, that compatibility mark is the only real sweetener here (not interesting to me personally), but I'd say you're giving up way much for that right now.

 

[mamba]

WotC does not want a competing VTT which can offer those things. Foundry VTT can do those things RIGHT NOW.

I agree, my solution to this is to put into the OGL that the WotC VTT is restricted to the same limitations they have in their VTT policy. Solves that one for good

 

[Reynard]

Disney straight up steals from fairy tales in the public domain and claim it as their IP. What's your point?

I think maybe you should reconsider your statement.

 

[mamba]

That's not how the law works where I live.

Neverneverland ?

 

[Gradine]

Edit: Missed the mod note, apologies