WOTC offered a proposed draft of their Open Gaming License replacement. They’re supposedly listening to our feedback, so it’s worth talking about what still needs to be fixed to make it usable for third party partners. Read this post and then take the survey.
Short version: a lot needs to be fixed.
They offer basically two options: use a Creative Commons license of a limited set of game mechanics, or else OGL 1.2, which is less permissive and offers more stuff. Let’s examine both options and see if you can use them as a D&D third party creator.
1: The Creative Commons option.
WOTC is proposing putting a chunk of rules material under a Creative Commons license, which means it can’t be revoked. If you chose to use this approach, what could you do?
The CC rules material would be the game’s core mechanics – roll a die and add a modifier – the levelling process, nonmagical equipment, backgrounds, stuff like that. None of D&D’s meat is in this list. No classes, or the class structure needed to create 3pp subclasses. No monsters, so the license doesn’t let you write an adventure and say, with confidence, “this area contains two archmages” or whatever. No magic items, so the license doesnt let you give out a +1 sword. No spells, so you can’t say what spells a mage can cast.
Sure, you might be able to use all the things above through fair use and copyright, and so on. But you could just do that without the license. The license gives you almost nothing you can use to create a 3pp product, except for d&d game rules or mechanisms – and game rules and mechanisms can’t be copyrighted anyway, so they’re giving us stuff we already have! Arguably maybe they’re giving us Inspiration and Alignment, which, quite frankly, I don’t even want. Really CC makes it very difficult to make D&D content. I might be able to use it to make a space game or a superhero game using a d20 system. MCDM or Kobold Press might be able to use it to make a D&D competitor. But as a good-faith would-be WOTC partner, it doesn’t let me do what I need to do.
2. OK, then why can’t I just use the OGL 1.2?
OGL 1.2 (presumably) will have all the monsters, magic items, and so on we’d need. But it has some dealbreakers in it.
Number one with a bullet: it’s not irrevocable. Irrevocability was the poison pill that killed 4th Edition’s GSL license and sent Paizo on to make Pathfinder, and it’s the #1 poison pill in all the proposed 6e replacements to OGL1. If WOTC can revoke the license at any time and leave you with lost investments in an upcoming product, you can’t really run a serious business (or even a hobby business).
Sure, WOTC claims it’s irrevocable! In the accompanying article, it says “OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license” but that’s not what the language of the license says.
As I understand it, an irrevocable license is, simply, a license that can’t be revoked. Now let’s look at the proposed 1.2 license. The language of the license says that it is “irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license).” They redefine irrevocable here to a lesser meaning. All it means is, if you manage to get the license on your product, they can’t remove the license after the fact. But they’re perfectly capable of revoking the license at any time, preventing it from applying to any FUTURE products. In other words, exactly what they’re trying to do to 1.0 right now. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Besides that, 1.2 has a clause where if they deem your product, or your behavior, are hateful or harmful, they can revoke the license. That’s solely their decision and you waive any recourse. Now I only plan to do squeaky-clean products so I shouldn’t be worried right? Well, if there’s no recourse they could really abuse this. For instance, what does harmful mean? It’s not defined in the contract. Is Paizo harmful because it harms WOTC? It’s fine to have some protections against hate speech, but if so, a third party should do it, not WOTC which may have a vested interest in eliminating certain competition (and has a long, bad history itself with hateful content).
Then finally there’s some anti-competitive language targeted at virtual table-tops, potential D&D Beyond competitors, and stuff, that is not good either, but I can’t speak to with much expertise. Check out what others say on that. I’d say that the license should be able to cover web apps.
Also there was kerfuffle in the previous leaked license about really high royalties. In 1.2, WOTC claims they’ve removed royalties. But the language of the license doesn’t confirm that! For comparison, 1.0 gives you “a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license”. The new one says “This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license).” They specifically removed the words “royalty-free”, so technically they could probably claim that they could add royalties at any time without modifying the license. (and even if they couldn’t, who cares – since it’s revocable, they could just end the license at any time, with no notice, and institute a version 1.3).
In other words, OGL 1.2 still has the poison pills that made 1.1 unpalatable. The pills are better hidden, that’s all, and in the accompanying article, WOTC is wrong (or lying) about what the license says.
So here’s your homework:
Give feedback on the proposed 1.2 license, both online and in the survey they eventually put up. Say:
1) In CC, there needs to be, at the least, lists of D&D classes, species, magic items, and spells that third parties can use safely, otherwise good-faith third party D&D creation is nearly impossible
2) The 1.2 license has to be truly irrevocable (remove that parenthetical statement that redefines irrevocable)
3) The 1.2 license should specify that it is royalty-free
4) In 1.2, any hate speech clause should be defined better or administered by an outside group
5) The licenses should be allowed to cover VTTs and web apps, otherwise it’s anticompetitive and monopolistic
and finally
6) the effort to revoke the OGL 1.0 is in bad faith, on shaky legal ground, and also monopolistic. Just don’t do it at all.