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'.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

So to clarify to those who don't want to parse the SRD themselves the page designations that are being made Creative Commons cover in the main part: leveling and multiclassing; the basic action economy; abilities, skills, advantage/disadvantage, etc.; basic 5e Armor weapons and equipment; the concept and mechanics of feats (but only the Grappler feat as an example); the concept and mechanics of backgrounds (though only the Acolyte as an example) and the spell mechanics (but none of the actual spells). The latter, shorter segments cover the general mechanics of monsters (but none of the specific monsters) and the conditions.

This is huge. Everyone wanting to make a 5e clone just has to focus on creating unique races, classes, spells, and monsters and doesn't have to worry that WotC will come down on them for having the basic mechanics look similar. While it is probably worth submitting to the OGL for a 5e compatible adventure, if you want to make one that does not reference WotC's spells, keeps to unique or uncopyrightable monsters, etc, it is very possible to do it under creative commons without any legal doubt. Making a 5e clone whose adventures and monster manual are fully cross-compatible with D&D products is much more achievable, once again, crucially, without legal doubt, as well.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Most OSR stuff is defined by the relatively light amount of rules they have, compared to 3.5,

Clearly you haven't seen AD&D rules (which is the version I did clone--a hybrid of 1e and 2e)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

They've disintegrated every piece of goodwill they may have had with me through official statements that weren't even leaked (such as "undermonetized.")

Minor point, but that wasn't a leak. That was a public communication for investors.

 

[schneeland]

I have used the 5.1 SRD to create a retroclone. Just rename the things you need to. It's not that hard.

It is still work that would be unnecessary if the 3.5 SRD was kept open in the same way it was before, or released under CC-BY like the 5.1 SRD. And it's not clear to me how keeping the status quo is an unreasonable demand.

 

[dave2008]

Arguably, the core mechanics aren't protected anyway.

That' the caveat though. We don't know how courts will view "mechanics" in terms of TTRPGs. They could conclude rolling dice and writing down you scores is not protected, but everything else is!

 

[mhd]

I don't quite understand on what basis creating distinct 3E elements from a 5E basis would be more solid than the usual "game mechanics can't be copyrighted". If I make a "Power Attack" feat that isn't in 5E, with the 3.5E mechanics, can't they say that I'm using material from now deauthorized SRDs or copyrighted rulebooks? What does 5E get me there? (Assuming there's no 5E Power Attack feat, if there is, pick anything else)

Yeah, they didn't do that before. Is that security enough?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That' the caveat though. We don't know how courts will view "mechanics" in terms of TTRPGs. They could conclude rolling dice and writing down you scores is not protected, but everything else is!

That's why the safe harbor of the CC license is important!

 

[rooneg]

I think people need to actually look at what they're talking about putting under the Creative Commons license. It doesn't include Races, Character Classes, Spells, or Monsters. It includes the core game rules, but nothing else. This is enormously less than is actually in the SRD today.

 

[Alzrius]

If we get a full, functional SRD released to a Creative Commons license, that's a hell of a concession.

Don't get your hopes up. Here's what the proposed license actually says in that regard:

The core D&D mechanics, which are located at pages 56-104, 254-260, and 358-359 of this System Reference Document 5.1 (but not the examples used on those pages), are licensed to you under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). This means that Wizards is not placing any limitations at all on how you use that content.

So out of an SRD that's just over four hundred pages, they're granting Creative Commons sixty-six pages or so, which is roughly 15% of the 5.1 SRD.

 

[mamba]

Owlbears were open content previously, so they're trying to claw back IP. Any bloating about "protecting the brand from hateful content" is just a smokescreen.

they are still open content, they just are not in the CC part