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'.

 

[jerryrice4949]

This idea of "things are different now, so perpetual agreements shouldn't be treated as perpetual" is reasoning that I find deeply unconvincing. WotC knew what it was doing when it made released the OGL into the wild back in 2000, and the idea that they can break their agreement because of some nebulous appeal to "things are different" doesn't hold up.

If you got married twenty-three years ago, and just found out that your spouse cheated on you, would them saying "twenty-three years is a long time! Things are different now! The world has changed dramatically!" at all make what they did less of a betrayal? And yes, this is an apt analogy, because in both cases there was an expectation that was clearly understood, and known to be perpetual.

I am sure people hear that from their spouse all the time. Weird example.

A lot has changed in 20 years. Not only new leadership but a new push to make D&D into an entertainment brand far beyond a RPG. I think to somehow believe that the goals and aims of D&D and WoTC, and the license by extension, would never change seems silly to me.

 

[Kinematics]

Oh, and yes, this is still a game system license, explicitly bound to Wizards of the Coast and D&D, and not an open gaming license. The naming remains deceptive and untrue, and using it to de-authorize 1.0a is questionable at best since it is not an update to the original license.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Are you suggesting that the 5.1 SRD can be used to retro-clone the 3.5 SRD?

It was used to create retro clones of AD&D and B/X. Because you're using an SRD doesn't mean you have to use everything in the SRD, and present it as such. So you can use the SRD for things like Classes, Races, Spell Names, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc, and have them mean something differently mechanically in the version you're creating. Just like every OSR clone has done for 20 years. The only thing you have to avoid is IP not in the SRD that might be in the edition you want to clone. In that case, just rename it. Like OSRIC did for Saving throws.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Hmm. The core mechanics are CC, but 1.2 replaces 1.0a. I just looked at the quick, but it's far more generous than I expected. WotC still gets its replacement of 1.0a, but not much else.

Yeah, that's always been what this is about. Everything else is just set dressing.

 

[Haplo781]

Well ultimately I don't really care about the nitty gritty. If they want to claw back owlbears, that probably doesn't matter too much. People can adapt, and frankly it's probably better creatively. What's important is that rules stay 100% open (and I'd like to see previous editions added to that since they clearly don't value them) and that they don't have any way to unilaterally change the terms.

 

[Dausuul]

If we get a full, functional SRD released to a Creative Commons license, that's a hell of a concession. I'd need a pretty compelling counter-argument to not be persuaded by that (I plan to spend a while reading these discussions to see if anyone has such a counter-argument).

If the "core mechanics" is not a full, functional SRD... well, then, that's less of a concession, and I am less persuaded.

As far as their OGL 1.2 goes, it is a very, very modest improvement. It is not a remotely adequate substitute for 1.0a. But Creative Commons is an adequate substitute and then some; so it really all depends (to me, at least) on where they put the split.

 

[jerryrice4949]

So, again and I'm sorry if I ask a stupid question.

If I take the 5.1 CC content, and then change the names on some items, I can recreate 3.5 as a CC SRD?

Yes.

 

[Princessmaker]

Just reading the SRD right now. So we have core mechanics (leveling up, hd, proeficiency, etc) but no classes, the rules about monster stats, but no monster, and the conditions.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It was used to create retro clones of AD&D and B/X. Because you're using an SRD doesn't mean you have to use everything in the SRD, and present it as such. So you can use the SRD for things like Classes, Races, Spell Names, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc, and have them mean something differently mechanically in the version you're creating. Just like every OSR clone has done for 20 years. The only thing you have to avoid is IP not in the SRD that might be in the edition you want to clone. In that case, just rename it. Like OSRIC did for Saving throws.

Exactly.

I feel like there are a number of people who don't understand how retroclones and the OSR movement .... worked.

 

[mhd]

Just like every OSR clone has done for 20 years

Well, as we're seeing, past decades are no predictor for the future.