What's All This About The OGL Going Away?

This last week I've seen videos, tweets, and articles all repeating an unsourced rumour that the OGL (Open Gaming License) will be going away with the advent of OneD&D, and that third party publishers would have no way of legally creating compatible material. I wanted to write an article clarifying some of these terms. I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable...

This last week I've seen videos, tweets, and articles all repeating an unsourced rumour that the OGL (Open Gaming License) will be going away with the advent of OneD&D, and that third party publishers would have no way of legally creating compatible material. I wanted to write an article clarifying some of these terms.

audit-3929140_960_720.jpg

I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable to legally publish homebrew content" and that WotC may be "outlawing third-party homebrew content". These claims need clarification.

What's the Open Gaming License? It was created by WotC about 20 years ago; it's analagous to various 'open source' licenses. There isn't a '5E OGL' or a '3E OGL' and there won't be a 'OneD&D OGL' -- there's just the OGL (technically there are two versions, but that's by-the-by). The OGL is non-rescindable -- it can't be cancelled or revoked. Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license -- which includes the D&D 3E SRD, the 5E SRD, Pathfinder's SRD, Level Up's SRD, and thousands and thousands of third party books -- remains OGC forever, available for use under the license. Genie, bottle, and all that.

So, the OGL can't 'go away'. It's been here for 20 years and it's here to stay. This was WotC's (and OGL architect Ryan Dancey's) intention when they created it 20 years ago, to ensure that D&D would forever be available no matter what happened to its parent company.


What's an SRD? A System Reference Document (SRD) contains Open Gaming Content (OGC). Anything in the 3E SRD, the 3.5 SRD, or the 5E SRD, etc., is designated forever as OGC (Open Gaming Content). Each of those SRDs contains large quantities of material, including the core rules of the respective games, and encompasses all the core terminology of the ruleset(s).

When people say 'the OGL is going away' what they probably mean to say is that there won't be a new OneD&D System Reference Document.


Does That Matter? OneD&D will be -- allegedly -- fully compatible with 5E. That means it uses all the same terminology. Armor Class, Hit Points, Warlock, Pit Fiend, and so on. All this terminology has been OGC for 20 years, and anybody can use it under the terms of the OGL. The only way it could be difficult for third parties to make compatible material for OneD&D is if OneD&D substantially changed the core terminology of the game, but at that point OneD&D would no longer be compatible with 5E (or, arguably, would even be recognizable as D&D). So the ability to create compatible third party material won't be going away.

However! There is one exception -- if your use of OneD&D material needs you to replicate OneD&D content, as opposed to simply be compatible with it (say you're making an app which has all the spell descriptions in it) and if there is no new SRD, then you won't be able to do that. You can make compatible stuff ("The evil necromancer can cast magic missile" -- the term magic missile has been OGL for two decades) but you wouldn't be able to replicate the full descriptive text of the OneD&D version of the spell. That's a big if -- if there's no new SRD.

So you'd still be able to make compatible adventures and settings and new spells and new monsters and new magic items and new feats and new rules and stuff. All the stuff 3PPs commonly do. You just wouldn't be able to reproduce the core rules content itself. However, I've been publishing material for 3E, 3.5, 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder 1E for 20 years, and the need to reproduce core rules content hasn't often come up for us -- we produce new compatible content. But if you're making an app, or spell cards, or something which needs to reproduce content from the rulebooks, you'd need an SRD to do that.

So yep. If no SRD, compatible = yes, directly reproduce = no (of course, you can indirectly reproduce stuff by rewriting it in your own words).

Branding! Using the OGL you can't use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" (you never could). Most third parties say something like "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game" and have some sort of '5E' logo of their own making on the cover. Something similar will no doubt happen with OneD&D -- the third party market will create terminology to indicate compatibility. (Back in the 3E days, WotC provided a logo for this use called the 'd20 System Trademark Logo' but they don't do that any more).

What if WotC didn't 'support' third party material? As discussed, nobody can take the OGL or any existing OGC away. However, WotC does have control over DMs Guild and integration with D&D Beyond or the virtual tabletop app they're making. So while they can't stop folks from making and publishing compatible stuff, they could make it harder to distribute simply by not allowing it on those three platforms. If OneD&D becomes heavily reliant on a specific platform we might find ourselves in the same situation we had in 4E, where it was harder to sell player options simply because they weren't on the official character builder app. It's not that you couldn't publish 4E player options, it's just that many players weren't interested in them if they couldn't use them in the app.

But copyright! Yes, yes, you can't copyright rules, you can't do this, you can't do that. The OGL is not relevant to copyright law -- it is a license, an agreement, a contract. By using it you agree to its terms. Sure WotC might not be able to copyright X, but you can certainly contractually agree not to use X (which is a selection of material designated as 'Product Identity') by using the license. There are arguments on the validity of this from actual real lawyers which I won't get into, but I just wanted to note that this is about a license, not copyright law.

If you don't use the Open Gaming License, of course, it doesn't apply to you. You are only bound by a license you use. So then, sure, knock yourself out with copyright law!

So, bullet point summary:
  • The OGL can't go away, and any existing OGC can't go away
  • If (that's an if) there is no new SRD, you will be able to still make compatible material but not reproduce the OneD&D content
  • Most of the D&D terminology (save a few terms like 'beholder' etc.) has been OGC for 20 years and is freely available for use
  • To render that existing OGC unusable for OneD&D the basic terminology of the entire game would have to be changed, at which point it would no longer be compatible with 5E.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
But you copy material released under any version of the OGL in products released under any version of the OGL, so it still shouldn't matter.

So, given how useless that makes revision of the license, I think that's not what it means. It has to date not been really relevant, because v1.0 and v1.0a are so similar.

But, section 9 says you may "use" the license. When I take content from WotC, I am accepting the license. When I release content, I use the license. I don't get to choose the terms WotC offers their content to me. I get to choose the terms I offer content to others.

Basically, Section 9 is telling us that we cannot use WotC's material to create closed content. If I am using WotC's open content, my resulting content must also be open. This is absolutely the intent of open software licensing, and it echoes much of what Ryan Dancey said about the purpose of the OGL - so that D&D could never be closed off by any company - so I think it applies here. The OGL requires content to be open.

So, if WotC releases OneD&D under OGL v1.1, I must abide by the terms of that license if I use that content. I must also offer my own material under v1.0, v1.0a, or v1.1, my choice.

If someone then takes my game, the WotC content is still WotC's, and licensed from them using v1.1, while my added content may be under v1.0a, for example.
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
yes it can, but again not knowing gaming costs specifically but understanding business' in general I can guarantee you this will change some peoples equations on what is and is not worth it.

Of course it will. But, specifically for kickstarters, there's a really easy way to deal with that - cut off your kickstarter at orders that total less than $750,000 dollars.
 

Of course it will. But, specifically for kickstarters, there's a really easy way to deal with that - cut off your kickstarter at orders that total less than $750,000 dollars.
I mean, that works, but that is a great way to make a lot of people very very very angry. Maybe not the most reasonable people but still, people who spend a lot of money on KSes are often not that reasonable.

Still so long as the royalties are know beforehand, and aren't completely insane, they should be able to be factored in without destroying the profitability of most KSes.
 

It is 100% unclear because they use the terms revenue and income seemingly interchangeably, but they're actually not interchangeable.

The fact that they use revenue at all, and never use profit (which is more interchangeable with income) suggests they mean revenue, but it's hard to say.

I will say that revenue would make it more straightforward as to whether a product was required to report/pay royalties and were I WotC I'd use revenue on that basis.
Revenue is usually gross income.
Profit is usually net income. (After expenses)
Those are the accounting terms.
I'd imagine the royalties/commission is worked out on gross income (revenue) as profit can be "played" with.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
One important thing to remember is that the OGL doesn't just apply to WotC's SRDs. It's a general use open license.

Evil Hat released a Fate SRD under the OGL 1.0a for example. And third parties used that OGL 1.0a to create third party Fate material. Atlas Games released Over The Edge under the OGL. Again, nothing to do with D&D or WotC. OpenD6. Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System (which powers Call of Cthulhu and other games). Pathfinder, Starfinder, obviously (although those are d20 derived). So many companies, so many games.

What do you think happens if WotC tries to 'deauthorize' Fate and Call of Cthulhu 3PPs? It'll be a mess.
 
Last edited:

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
So, given how useless that makes revision of the license, I think that's not what it means. It has to date not been really relevant, because v1.0 and v1.0a are so similar.

But, section 9 says you may "use" the license. When I take content from WotC, I am accepting the license. When I release content, I use the license. I don't get to choose the terms WotC offers their content to me. I get to choose the terms I offer content to others.

Basically, Section 9 is telling us that we cannot use WotC's material to create closed content. If I am using WotC's open content, my resulting content must also be open. This is absolutely the intent of open software licensing, so I think it applies here.

So, if WotC releases OneD&D under OGL v1.1, I must abide by the terms of that license if I use that content. I must also offer my own material under v1.0, v1.0a, or v1.1, my choice.

If someone then takes my game, the WotC content is still WotC's, and licensed from them using v1.1, while my added content may be under v1.0a, for example.
That's an interesting hypothesis. Maybe, at some point, someone versed in IP law could chime in?

@S'mon
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I mean, that works, but that is a great way to make a lot of people very very very angry. Maybe not the most reasonable people but still, people who spend a lot of money on KSes are often not that reasonable.

Well, they can spend on lots of KSs. But some content creators may cap their projects to avoid the royalties. The buyers will just have to spread themselves around more, instead of concentrating on the big kickstarters.

Weirdly, this is actually in line with the original intent of Kickstarter, which was to support smaller, risky projects, not big, reliable ones.

Still so long as the royalties are know beforehand, and aren't completely insane, they should be able to be factored in without destroying the profitability of most KSes.

WotC notes that there's only 20 creators so far that it would apply to. So, no, it won't apply to "most kickstarters". Most kickstarters are too small to have this concern.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top