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. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest 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...

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.


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'.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

and given all WotC has done to help promote inclusiveness over the past 20 years, I'll trust them to wield this power carefully.
It's not the WotC of the last 20 years that you need to consider as the arbiters of what is moral or right, but the WotC of 20 years in the future.

Given that the WotC of 20 years ago clearly stated that OGL 1.0a was intended to be irrevocable and the WotC of today is trying to revoke it, should give you serious consideration as to how this might be interpreted in the future.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is...better than I feared, but nowhere near good enough. Not yet.

That they're willing to put the mechanics in a Creative Commons license so they're genuinely out of WotC's hands forever is a gesture I didn't expect. That doesn't mean I trust them an inch, but...it's something concrete, for once.

A lot of the statements here still read like disingenuous corp-speak designed to deflect rather than address. I will definitely want to hear analysis from actual lawyers on the subject.

But....well, before I was mad and pretty well convinced it would take months of being mad in order to get something like this. My surprise is enough to make me think, and hope that that "it's making me think" reaction is not a calculated ploy. I definitely oppose the wishy-washy, content-gating aspect, because that could be abused to hell and back by any current or future license-holders in really, really, REALLY awful ways. Further, I'm not happy about the implicit lack of license iteration/transfer. If person A creates open content, and then person B creates open content, could person C create open content based off of the open content portions of those two? Could A employ open content from B? etc.

I am genuinely surprised to say, "this is a start." It is ONLY a start, and still has major problems. But I expected a slap in the face, and I got what seems like a genuine effort. Time to see what comes next.

Thank you for your patience.
 



They can’t keep 1.0a because as long as people can still use it, it really doesn’t matter what’s in 1.2. And that was the entire point of making 1.0a irrevocable. They were never supposed to be able to make a more restrictive license that could have any teeth.
Agreed. The only reason I would want a 1.2 is if they actually granted the community more/wider usage rights. The Creator Badge is step in that direction, but not of enough value to bother with all of this.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I mean, depending on what they mean by the core content exactly, callooh callay oh frabjous day!

But, shedding some darkness on that upbeat point, I would say that the particular examples of "Magic Missile" and "Owlbear" as things that belong to them are a little problematic. Owlbear is a straightforward chimera of bear and owl with a basic name. Magic Missile is an unerring missile of magic. I almost used the latter as an example a few days ago of something they would have a somewhat dubious claim to. In both cases I think you could safely use the thing under a different name, or the name for a different thing, and that it is only both having your chimera of owl and bear called "owlbear" that puts it in the danger zone.
Moreover, owlbear and magic Missile were just examples. They aren’t including any monsters, spells, traps, magic items, races, or classes in the CC license whatsoever.
 


Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
They really want to stop another Pathfinder--esque thing ever happening again with that "You have to include D&D stuff if you use this OGL", huh? Yeah, this still ain't an OGL. Call me when they actually make one

Also on those points about the morality clause, let's not forget that WotC didn't raise a finger against the "Actually infringing on copyright" book on the DMs guild that just had, mogwai and gremlins from, y'know, the movie, but entirely did feel it necessary to go after the male nipples and mention of anti-capitalism
 

If this was actually about being against biogtry they could refer concerns to binding arbitration, it's not really about that, it's about being able to take out competitor at anytime by declaring what they publish "harmful" not even hateful and they don't have to defend their reasoning before anyone.
Intent or not, this is the exact ability they are giving themselves. And it is unacceptable. If not for the WotC of today, but because it is very easy to consider someone else running the company tomorrow.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top