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'.

 

[eyeheartawk]

With the 3.5 SRD, not the 5.1. Given that the latter SRD is far less robust than the first one, I'm curious if it would work nearly as well. Does the 5.1 SRD make any mention of psionics, for instance? Not just the word "psionics" but phrases which could conceivably be copyrighted, such as "tower of iron will" or "wild talent"?

I think that's it.

They decided the 3.5 SRD gives away too much house money.

 

[Cadence]

@Sacrosanct

Would the no offensive content thing have changed anything you put in your recent Twilight Fables?

 

[teitan]

Hmm. The core mechanics are CC, but 1.2 replaces 1.0a. I just looked at the quick, but it's far more generous than I expected. WotC still gets its replacement of 1.0a, but not much else.

No royalties either.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No, ORC doesn't include a WOTC divorced substitute for the 3.5 SRD, or any SRD for that matter.

Yet. Project Black Flag is apparently going to be a 5E SRD, based on my reading of the Tome of Magic II FAQs over on Kickstarter.

 

[Sacrosanct]

With the 3.5 SRD, not the 5.1. Given that the latter SRD is far less robust than the first one, I'm curious if it would work nearly as well. Does the 5.1 SRD make any mention of psionics, for instance? Not just the word "psionics" but phrases which could conceivably be copyrighted, such as "tower of iron will" or "wild talent"?

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

 

[Matt Thomason]

Also, it seems that only the latest SRD is released. The 3rd edition one is out.

The 3e SRD was under OGL 1.0a, which states any authorized version of the OGL can be used. I'd take that as a clear sign we can take any 1.0a content (including the earlier SRDs) and re-release it under 1.2 (possibly with adjustments made to fit 1.2's extra requirements)

I do see some problems with 1.2, but this is not one of them.

 

[Reynard]

Get to use the mechanics without rewording it with the CC, right? Without it, you get the mechanics (hopefully) but need to figure out how to express it so that it doesn't infringe, right?

That stuff seems like it would not be generally common to reiterate anyway. If you are selling a 5E supplement or adventure, you aren't likely to be explaining carrying capacity or attack rolls.

 

[Nikosandros]

The 3e SRD was under OGL 1.0a, which states any authorized version of the OGL can be used. I'd take that as a clear sign we can take any 1.0a content (including the earlier SRDs) and re-release it under 1.2 (possibly with adjustments made to fit 1.2's extra requirements)

I do see some problems with 1.2, but this is not one of them.

That's an interesting point.

 

[Alzrius]

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

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious about the efficacy of making a 3.5 retro-clone via the 5.1 SRD. Most OSR stuff is defined by the relatively light amount of rules they have, compared to 3.5, and 5E is comparable to them in that regard.

But that's just my off-the-cuff instinct. You could very well turn out to be correct. What edition did your retro-clone simulate?

 

[Jaeger]

"...One key reason why we have to deauthorize: ..."