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'.

 

[Ondath]

Linda Codega has weighed in and they seem to like the Creative Commons release!


Ryan Dancey, on the other hand, still keeps deauthorisation as his red line. Which, given it's the license he created, it pretty understandable:

 

[Weiley31]

So: If ANYTHING already published under the OGL 1.0a is still licensed/covered under OGL 1.0a, does that mean stuff that were Kickstarter/on Kickstarter/and stuff still good? (Or how does that work?)

Like is Old School Essentials still safe? Deep Magic Volume 1+2, Kamon, Steinhardt's Guide to The Eldritch Hunter, and other pending/in development 5E kickstarters, yet to fullfill at the moment, safe/fall under OGL 1.0?

 

[Mercurius]

"We want our work to be shared by as many people as possible but we don't want horrific bigots to profit off of our work" is actually a pretty awesome stance, and exactly what I would try to do had I had my hands on any halfway decent property.

It's also super easy to not be a horrific bigot, like you pretty much have to try and make it core to your identity (see: NuTSR), if you actually want to be even a halfway decent human being this isn't something you need to really worry about.

Except it is not that simple or clear. It says they can decide what is "harmful" (etc), and you cannot contest it.

Meaning, it is a relatively easy backdoor way for them to revoke the license for someone whenever they choose.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I just realised: This license still can be understood by some as that they are free to publish things under OGL1.2 containing third party material published under 1.0a without attribution. After all, it could be seen as an authorized update to that OGL under section 9.

<sigh> That's just great, another clarification we need them to make.

Now, it's pretty clear to me that this is not an authorized update to a license between a third party and myself, because it states specifically that it is between WotC and myself. Therefore it can only apply to their OGC contributions, and does not affect any agreement between me and a third party. However, it is almost certainly not clear to everyone. When 1.0 first launched, there were all kinds of silly OGL mistakes made in published books over the next few months, so its bound to happen again without clear guidance.

 

[Uta-napishti]

Given that WoTC has already had a long track record of increased representation in its products, and given that the majority of complaints regarding WoTC on-line come from people that are trying to make the game less inclusive ....


I would very much recommend against this line of argument, simply because it does seem disingenuous at this time.

Hey, I don't want racists using D&D either, but let me tell you a story about what accepting "openess" means really. There once was a software lisence called the "No Evil" lisence. All it said was that you couldn't use the software for Evil. No problem right? Who could argue with that? Well, all of the open source people / free software people refused to say that was an open / free license. Why? Because you are defining what you can do in terms that have to be judged using some authority outside the license. You don't really have the rights given to you in the lisence definitely, because some person could come along and challenge you on the basis of whatever belief system they have adopted. We've been down this road a long long way in software lisencing and creative commons and it always ends badly. You have to take the bad with the good if you really want a lisence that doesn't require permission. Even if WoTC is on your side against racism at the moment, you have no guarantee they will always be the good guys. In 20 years WoTC's decrepit assets may have been bought by the Lich form of Jerry Fallwell and they may be banning your product because you have gay folks in it. Don't give them that power over you, embrace true openness.

 

[mamba]

Do I see that correctly, all the sections regarding monsters and spells are out of the CC'd part of the SRD? That will make CC-only gaming (or 'cloning) quite hard to do.

so what, you could not do it at all until an hour ago

 

[Uta-napishti]

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.

Dude that is awesome and pretty sweet! Now they just have to stop attacking the OGL 1.0a community that they promised to forever protect, and everyone can go celebrate together!

 

[TwoSix]

I feel quite comfortable with that prospect, actually, save for the fact that I don't think I (we) will die here. Ensuring that the terrible racists can make whatever they want under the OGL is the only way I know for sure that everyone else can make whatever they want under the OGL; that's what makes it an open license.

That's definitely going to be a continued sticking point. "I don't want WotC to unilaterally be able to stop a supplement from being published" is a perfectly tenable position; likewise, saying WotC should be able to stop "White Robes: the Grand Wizard's Handbook" from being published is also a completely valid position to hold.

It comes down to a question of trust; right now, a lot of us might not be willing or able to consider WotC as being able to be a good steward of the game. Maybe that will change over the next few months depending on how this process goes, we'll have to find out.

 

[G R (grizzyGR)]

If OGL 1.0 is still being de-authorized then I don't see how they will say this is irrevocable and expect anyone to believe them.

 

[mhd]

so what, you could not do it at all until an hour ago

But I can do it with OGL 1.0a, and I'm seeing the CC as the closer replacement for that than the OGL 1.2.