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'.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

this seems far fetched

They've already shown they're bad at detecting racism, and stamp down hard on anti-capitalism, and I have no doubt that they'll get mad about some LGBTQ+ thing sooner or later.

I take you'll apologise to me for calling it far-fetched when it happens, right lol?

 

[Langy]

its not my first chp\oice but if it puts all of this behind us keeps level up and PF going and dosn't derail playtest...i can live with it

(FYI that one is ANOTHER WotC choice i disagreed with but at the time i found out about it no one was keen on helping me rail against it)

I want to be clear here: As written, WOTC is trying to prevent Level Up and Pathfinder from publishing anything. WOTC explicitly has stated that their goal with this change is to prevent competitors, and since WOTC is giving themselves unchecked veto authority over any products released, and making it be retroactive, there is nothing in the OGLv1.2 that indicates that Level Up or Pathfinder will be able to keep publishing. This gives publishers basically no rights at all.

Pathfinder especially can't keep publishing with the OGLv1.2 as released since Pathfinder doesn't use the 5.1 SRD.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

except you're not compromising. you're falling for a trap.

no, im not. i am accepting something you dont like.
that is okay, i am not asking you to change your mind

 

[Justice and Rule]

this seems far fetched

I mean, it's literally already happened. Look up what happened to "Curse the Heart" and "Eat the Rich" on DM's Guild.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean it appears open to me.

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Specifically this trap, or "compliance technique" as it's called.

Door-in-the-face technique - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the key part is

more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request, than if that same request is made in isolation

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

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Yeah. The ORC with immediate or near-immediate SRDs from Paizo and a few others with be the nail in the coffin of the OGL. The mechanics are different enough and with parts of the 5.1 SRD going into CC…it’ll be a few days at most before anything “important” that WotC tried to block off will be back as open content. Add to that the legal education a lot of 3PP are getting we’ll likely see more compatible content rather than less.

 

[Parmandur]

It's still unclear to me how they intend to invalidate the previous license. I assume by a trojan horse clause in the new license? But that's not in the draft legalese presented here.

And I don't think I'm ever going to accept their new terms anyway. So I guess they'll have to sue me over this "deauthorization" nonsense in regards to OGL 1.0(a)?

The OGL specifies thst an authorized version can be used. They can publicly announce a new version as the only authorized version. This isn't something they are making up.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They've already shown they're bad at detecting racism, and stamp down hard on anti-capitalism, and I have no doubt that they'll get mad about some LGBTQ+ thing sooner or later.

I take you'll apologise to me for calling it far-fetched when it happens, right lol?

IK am very confused... can we discuss this or not? I thought we got red text back like 12ish pages ago saying no more discussing this.