Open Game License

BREAKING NEWS!! WotC cancels OGL 1.1 and 1.2

Wizards' excuse to fix something that isn't broken

At least 100 years ago, Wizards of the Coast purchased the then floundering TSR and came into possession of the Dungeons and Dragons IP. Their first two tasks were to replace the unbalanced, non-playtested 2e and to guide a box-office bomb to market, and they accomplished both with surgical precision in 2000. In order to ensure wide adoption of the new 3e d20 system, they licensed their System Reference Document to others under the semi-free Open Game License. This allowed third-party RPG developers to published new works without going to the trouble of writing their own rules, which led to the spread of 3e (and later 5e).

OGL 1.0a

It should be noted that game mechanics falls under the realm of ideas, and ideas can be patented but not copyrighted. Only the expression of those ideas (e.g. through text, audio, code, etc.) can be copyrighted. As anyone using a thesaurus and changing word order in order to avoid looking too much like that online article he or she just read can tell you, coming up with one's own way of expressing an idea, or a large web of RPG rules and mechanics in this case, can be troublesome and time-consuming; hence, the appeal of the Open Game License.

3e grew in popularity, yet Wizards weren't satisfied; they wanted a larger portion of the pie, so they created 4e but devised a new, more restrictive license for it: the Game System License (GSL). Wizards expect everyone to switch over the shiny, new system; instead, third-party publish stuck to 3e and the freer OGL 1.0a.

Wizards learned from this mistake and released 5e (DnD Next) under the OGL 1.0a again. In a eerie reflection of the old Star Trek movie curse, it also became evident that even-numbered editions were bound to be horseshit while odd-numbered edition would restore fan confidence…

OGL 1.1

Contents

…Speaking of which, 6e (One DnD) is approaching, and a new edition means new licensing drama. Wizards decided to unlearn the lesson of the 4e-GSL debacle and once again pursue a more restrictive license. The first thing one notices when comparing OGL 1.0a to the new and much disapproved OGL 1.1 is the difference in sheer size: the original is short and simple while the new hot mess is many times larger.

The 1.1 license would've came in two flavors: Commercial and Non-Commercial. The Non-Commercial would've allowed content creators to collect money from those paying them to work (e.g. Patreon and commissions released to the public), while forbidding content creators from collecting money for allowing access to work done, meaning that Non-Commercial doesn't permit private commissions or private behind-the-scenes or early-access content.

Now that we've taught you the basics, let's discuss the provisions that outrage across nerddom. In order of appearance, using the numerals of the longer Commercial version:

• Section VI.A: The licensee is required to register with Wizards of the Coast even if he or she don't expect to generate enough sales to reach the royalty threshold. This means that one must hand over their personal information to Wizards and its SJW's even if he or she makes mere pennies or fail to sale any copies. The licensee must also register before he or she is permitted to sell their product, which means that the registration process also doubles as an approval process.
• Section VII.B.ii: The licensee is provided with financial incentives to place his or her self at the mercy of Kickstarter's moderation team. Since Wizards promises to funnel more users to Kickstarter, Kickstarter might bend over backwards to appease Wizards and ban anyone Wizards doesn't like.
• Section IX.H: The licensee promises to never to offend any member of the alphabet soup crowd. This provision exists in order to permit Wizards' SJW squad to censor anyone that doesn't assimilate into the Leftist zeitgeist.
• Section X.A: The licensee is forbidden from pulling Linus and sticking to an older yet better version of the license.
• Section X.B.i.a: Wizards possesses the the sole right to decide what content and conduct is considered mean and offensive enough to warrant a ban, and the licensee agrees to never challenge Wizards' decision in court.
• Section X.B.i.c: If the licensee sues Wizards for stealing original characters, Wizards may terminate the licensee's license to DnD's SRD. Since the subsequent section (Section X.C.i) demands that the licensee cease sells immediately after license termination, this means that that suing Wizards is tantamount to ceasing all operations and forfeiting one's own source of income. In short, the licensee must choose between defending his or her own creations against lazy, content-stealing Wizards employees or facing financial suicide.
• Section X.C.ii: If Wizards bans a licensee, that licensee must still pay royalties to Wizards. This means that if a blue-haired FemiNazi bans a licensee, that licensee must still contribute to the paychecks of the libtard who banned the licensee's content.
• Section XI.A: If the licensee sues Wizards or if a third party sues Wizards in a matter regarding the licensee's work, then the licensee must assume full responsibility over Wizards' legal expenses.
• Section XI.B: If a third party sues the licensee, then Wizards may push the licensee out of his or her own lawsuit and assume control of the defense. This means that if Wizards hates the licensee enough and wants the licensee to lose the case, then Wizards can take over the licensee's lawsuit and deliberately lose to the third party, and yes, Wizards can afford to intentionally lose the case, since this section states that the licensee must pay for Wizards' legal expenses.
• Section XII: The licensee agrees not to challenge Wizards if Wizards produces something extremely similar to what the licensee has made, and the licensee agrees to grant Wizards a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that licensee's own content. Essentially, Wizards is hiring people based on identity politics instead of creativity or craftsmanship, so they need the licensee to loan his or her own creativity and craftsmanship to Wizards free of charge instead.
• Section XV.D: Even if Wizards approved a licensee's content in the past, Wizards may decided to disapprove of a licensee's content in the future and revoke his or her license to publish that content. A licensee may not use a the previous management team said it was okay defense. This means that a licensee's work is always in danger of becoming banned and will be judged in accordance with some nebulous future standard instead of a contemporaneous or timeless standard.
• Section XV.G: The licensees agree not to join forces in a class-action lawsuit; instead, the licensees agree to be picked off one by one in individual lawsuits.
• Section XV.H: The licensee agree to place his or her self at the mercy of West Coast activist judges instead of a jury of his or her peers.

Drama

In November 2022, Indestructoboy alleged that a whistle-blower contacted him about Wizards' plan to destroy the OGL 1.0a. However, Indestructoboy didn't post any docs and was extremely vague, so no one cared.

On January 4, 2023, a whistle-blower sent a copy of the OGL 1.1 to Roll for Combat during a live stream. Then on the 5th, Gizmodo published an article quoting passages from the OGL 1.1. Fans were outraged and began cancelling DnD Beyond subscriptions. On the 12th, Paizo of Pathfinder fame announced their plan to create an Open RPG Creative License (the ORC license) to rival the OGL.

Clearly, they both won

Wizards channeling @dril

On the 13th, after weeks of laying low, Wizards published a passive-aggressive response to the fans' concerns, with the pinnacle of butthurt being the following passage:

	“	[Y]ou're going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.	„
	—Wizards in their butthurt, sole-loser folly

A true apology requires humility and taking the matter seriously; instead, Wizards inserted a rolled a 1 quip, utilized pandering, patronizing, and phony language, and avoided displaying humility of any kind by constantly rationalizing and feebly claiming to not have been defeated.

OGL 1.2 draft

On January 18, 2023, Kyle Brink published a better apology, and on the 19th, he unveiled OGL 1.2. This 1.2 draft is better than the 1.1 one, although it still contained provisions that are detrimental to certain publishers: section 6.f would've stifled free speech, section 9.c would've permitted double jeopardy inasmuch as Wizards giving the okay in the past is not the same as Wizards waiving their right to ban a licensee's work in the future, section 9.e would've forbid the licensee from joining class-actions lawsuits, and section 9.g would've forced the licensee into accepting the judgment of a West Coast activist judge instead of a jury of the licensee's peers. Wizards also released a survey to accompany the draft so that the fanbase could participate in the drafting process.

Wizards caves

Wizards burns 1.1 and 1.2 and abandons plans to revise the OGL

See also

• A copy of the OGL 1.0a text
• A copy of the leaked OGL 1.1 FAQ
• A copy of the leaked OGL 1.1 Commercial license text
• A copy of the leaked OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial license text

External links

• Open Game License at 1d4chan

Open Game License is part of a series on Social Justice Visit the Social Justice Portal for complete coverage.