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'.

 

[Kai Lord]

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.

Yep. "Oh I'm sure they'll only exercise that right if it's something really bad like Nu-TSR."

NO. They've shown their cards. They can NEVER be trusted to not use ANY legal loophole they have to shut someone else down at a moment's notice. The loophole must simply not be given to them, period.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. The similarity clause sound ok, since there are lawsuits around, where a jury decides the outcome of such trials without any background knowledge. Haing an injunction filed against a major release could be very damaging.

2. No hateful content seems clever. I thinj however that they need some neutral judge to decide, not them.

So I am very optimistic that we might get a good OGL 1.2., which is open enough to warrant the name.

 

[Scribe]

This line of thinking seems to eschew any acknowledgment that reasonable people can have wildly different ideas as to what constitutes bigotry (or other aspects of what is and is not moral, acceptable, hateful, etc.), and that when that happens there is no moral absolute by which to judge who's "right" or "wrong."

Is it racist to assign fantasy races negative ability score modifiers? What about assigning positive modifiers to specific ability scores? What about using the term "race" for non-human creatures at all? These are areas where there is no widespread consensus, and a lot of room to be for or against them without it being an issue of bigotry.

It is patently false to say that the answers to these questions, questions which have never been clear or easy, are in any way obvious, self-evident, or otherwise uncomplicated. Which is why WotC's heavy-handed, unnuanced, absolutist take on this issue is unsatisfying for so many, especially since there's no recourse for those targeted as having made "hateful" content.

This right here, is why I'll never give Wizards another dollar, or sign on to 1.2.

Its been my line for as long as since Tashas.

 

[Xohar17]

I cant seem to find the actual documents, is anyone else having the same problem? I only find one pdf which is kind of like an introduction, but none of the substance.

Edit: specifically the srd, thats thw one I cannot find.

 

[Incenjucar]

A very specific risk I see is WotC deciding that cartoons are for kids and dubbing any cartoony adult RPGs - like something based on Helluva Boss - as in violation. There is a LOT of adult cartoony stuff out there these days that has to deal with a lot of outdated assumptions about cartoons and animation.

 

[God]

WotC can still suck it.
("it" being a giant bag of dic...e)

 

[The Scythian]

I DO publish OSR stuff though, which has used both 3.5 SRD AND 5.1 SRD. It's totally possible to keep putting out 3.5 stuff in the same way us OSR publishers have been doing for 2 decades. I'm not sure why this keeps getting missed.

If you publish OSR stuff, then you probably know that there are a lot of classic (A)D&D monsters that aren't in any SRD and became Open Game Content through the original Tome of Horrors monster book. A lot of OSR rules and adventures use them. If WotC revokes 1.0a, then they will no longer be OGC.

There are also a lot of monsters, spells, magic items, and other things that OSR-publishing parties that are not WotC have released as OGC that will no longer be OGC if WotC revokes 1.0a.

 

[Lanefan]

The new license only covers the 5.1 SRD. What does this mean for people publishing material for older editions e.g. 1e or 3e? Are those editions now locked in the vault?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This right here, is why I'll never give Wizards another dollar, or sign on to 1.2.

Its been my line for as long as since Tashas.

So you are a lost cause anyway for them.
We know that. But this should not stop you from taking the survwy and tell them, this clause at least needs to change to have some kind of neutral judge called out.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The new license only covers the 5.1 SRD. What does this mean for people publishing material for older editions e.g. 1e or 3e? Are those editions now locked in the vault?

Hmmh. Correct. Maybe those should also be released under creative commons. They are abandoned anyway.