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'.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

if the OGL was ever claimed to be irrevocable, that was either incompetence or a lie based on the document as they read it

"Hey, those well-liked and prominent creators are either boobs or liars" certainly is a tone choice for WotC to take.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You mean something like "This license permits you to combine Your Content with Our Licensed Content and distribute the resulting works as authorized by this license." because that is in there... and it doers not just mean you can include our content in your product, because that is a separate item ("You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license.")

No. I mean something like, "This license permits you to combine Your Content with licensed content created by others and distribute the resulting works as authorized by this license."

Paizo, for example, has created some genuinely new OGC under OGL 1.0a. Stuff that isn't present anywhere in 3.5e, but which Paizo themselves considers to be open content. They have explicitly declared it as such, allowing others to make use of that content. By my reading of the proposed OGL 1.2, that would be forbidden--OGC is only ever shared between "You" (individual creator) and WotC. Never between two distinct creators, each of whom is distinct from WotC. Any OGC created by Paizo could be used by only and exactly two entities: Paizo (and their representatives) and WotC, even though Paizo wants to share.

That's my problem.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There's a lot of people here saying it's impossible to decide if something is racist or not, despite Twitter, Facebook, Google, ENWorld, Kickstarter, Reddit, and endless other groups having policies on acceptable and unacceptable content.

This is a weird argument, because many people complain about those policies and about how they are poorly (or often hypocritically) enforced. The whole point of why people don't like this is because they have little trust that Wizards actually cares about the subject and are more interested in using it as a bludgeon against those they might see as a threat in their area of the market.

 

[Parmandur]

"Hey, those well-liked and prominent creators are either boobs or liars" certainly is a tone choice for WotC to take.

Not WotC, the Opening Argument Podcaster, who are outsiders to the scene. I recommend listening to it for an outsider perspective similar to what a Judge might bring to a case.

 

[mamba]

If your line was the OGL based on empathy for the people effected, they haven't reach it until the other SRD mechanics are also added to the CC and possibly the CC used be the Share Alike version.

There are a few things I will still push back on, but as a starting point it is better than I expected, we are in the ballpark at least

I asked earlier what from the 3e SRD is needed but got no answer, so nothing I can add at this point... Same for whether this means 1.0a material can simply be used under 1.2. To me personally the second one is important, I have no opinion on the first one as I have literally no idea if anything at all is needed.

 

[rcade]

To me, it looks like their concern isn't a second Pathfinder, but a third party making a "D&D movie" or another non affiliated media content with stuff like "owlbears and magic missiles". They want to be a multimedia titan, and the old OGL was a barrier to that.

It's ironic that people keep using the owlbear as something Hasbro is trying to lock down as its valuable IP. In the 1970s D&D ripped off the owlbear from a set of cheap plastic toys from Hong Kong that were UltraMan monster knockoffs. The pack also included what became the rust monster and bulette:

What's the inspiration for the owlbear?

The standard explanation for the owlbear in-universe is "A Wizard Did It." Which is fine, as far as it goes, because the trope of "madman tinkering with bizarre mutations" is part of our speculative

rpg.stackexchange.com

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It's ironic that people keep using the owlbear as something Hasbro is trying to lock down as its valuable IP. In the 1970s D&D ripped off the owlbear from a set of cheap plastic toys from Hong Kong that were UltraMan monster knockoffs. The pack also included what became the rust monster and bulette:

What's the inspiration for the owlbear?

The standard explanation for the owlbear in-universe is "A Wizard Did It." Which is fine, as far as it goes, because the trope of "madman tinkering with bizarre mutations" is part of our speculative

rpg.stackexchange.com

Disney straight up steals from fairy tales in the public domain and claim it as their IP. What's your point?

 

[Parmandur]

It's ironic that people keep using the owlbear as something Hasbro is trying to lock down as its valuable IP. In the 1970s D&D ripped off the owlbear from a set of cheap plastic toys from Hong Kong that were UltraMan monster knockoffs. The pack also included what became the rust monster and bulette:

What's the inspiration for the owlbear?

The standard explanation for the owlbear in-universe is "A Wizard Did It." Which is fine, as far as it goes, because the trope of "madman tinkering with bizarre mutations" is part of our speculative

rpg.stackexchange.com

Yes,but, they have added to thar over the years creat8ng something original.

 

[Fergurg]

Mod Note:

Since the news of the new OGL dropped, a lot of people have decided to rehash the issue of inadvertent/negligent/deliberate bigotry & racism in RPG products in many of the SIXTY+ threads on the topic. This after dozens of threads on that exact topic over the past couple years. Every time this has happened (that we know of), someone has issued a general warning to the thread. Some individuals have gotten personal warnings.

Apparently, that’s not working. A new thread pops up, more dogwhistles, more sealioning.

So now, it’s time to be a bit more direct. The time of issuing warnings about this is done. Consider bigotry in RPGs a “third rail” in the OGL discussions: I see it, you get threadbanned.

Repeat offenders will be given sitewide vacations.

Are we clear?

Honestly, no, you're not clear. Are we banned from debating what is bigotry, or banned from discussing the section in the new OGL that discusses banning harmful content?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Yes,but, they have added to thar over the years creat8ng something original.

And now I can't sell Cinderella dresses and toys without them breathing down my neck, even if they were original designs based on my imagination from reading the original fairy tales. See what I mean?