The Alexandrian

The Leap - PThira89 (Edited)

Go to Part 1

REBOOTING 3rd EDITION

As a result of the Open Gaming License (OGL), D&D was sitting at the top of, and benefiting from, a huge pyramid of support material. Wizards wanted to shut that down, but there was no way to do that because the license couldn’t be revoked.

What Wizards COULD do, though, was reboot the game. And that’s exactly what they did in 2003, releasing the revised 3.5 Edition of D&D.

The way in which they did this was significant. Before 3.5 was released, Wizards made a big deal in all of its marketing about how the game was going to be “backwards compatible.” It wasn’t going to make your existing 3.0 books obsolete, and players should have no qualms about continuing buy 3.0 books because they would still work with the new 3.5 rulebooks.

But when 3.5 was actually released, a switch was flipped in the marketing: The 3.0 books were now worthless. Those black-and-white softcovers we were selling? Get rid of ‘em. Time to buy the new full color hardcover splatbooks! The evergreen strategy was out, and the splatbook strategy was back, with Wizards using the 3.5 reboot to upgrade their splatbooks so that they could compete with the high quality third-party supplements.

But it wasn’t just the customers who had been caught flatfooted by this abrupt one-eighty in marketing. OGL publishers had taken Wizards at their word, and continued developing, writing, playtesting, and printing 3.0 supplements they had been told would be completely compatible with the new rulebooks, but which their customers were now being told were worthless.

And it wasn’t just the publishers. It was the local game stores, too, who had continued investing their capital in merchandise they thought they could sell, but which Wizards was now telling their customers should be left to rot on the shelves.

Hundreds of games stores went out of business. Dozens of publishers followed. The “D20 bubble” had burst, having been either accidentally — or, according to some — deliberately popped by Wizards.

But 3.5 was, in fact, pretty similar to 3.0. Even if WotC hadn’t released an updated SRD for the 3.5 rules, third-party publishers would have been able to continue producing compatible books using the existing OGL. For now, at least, Wizards decided it made more sense to stay on top of the pyramid.

That would change, however, five years later with the release of 4th Edition.

LET’S KILL THE OGL

The story of the release and many, many failures of 4th Edition is a saga in its own right, so I’m going to try to keep it as simple as possible and also stay focused on the OGL.

The short version is around 2005, Hasbro decided to split its brands into core brands, which had more than $50 million in annual sales, and non-core brands, which didn’t. Core brands would get investments in development, marketing, and licensing. Non-core brands would not, and in fact many of them would be mothballed, allowed to lie dormant for years before being potentially brought back for a fresh start.

D&D was not a $50 million brand. It was a $30 million brand.

So the D&D team had a big problem: At best, most of them were about to lose their jobs. At worst, D&D was once again on the corporate chopping block.

So they came up with a big plan for saving D&D by growing its annual revenues. This included a virtual tabletop, digital DLC, increased miniature and merch sales, and a subscription platform to get regular, monthly income from their fans just like an MMO. They also believed that they needed to kill all outside licensing, including the OGL, so that they could claw as much of that revenue back as they could.

But, of course, the OGL could not be revoked.

Do I know for an absolute fact that the design team of 4th Edition D&D was given a corporate directive to design a game that required the use of either miniatures or a virtual tabletop, both of which Wizards would sell; strongly encourage the use the of a digital character creation subscription service; and so fundamentally alter the core gameplay of D&D that the OGL could no longer be used to create compatible supplements?

I don’t.

So you can make up your own mind about that.

What we do know is that Hasbro killed the OGL for 4th Edition. And we also know that Wizards didn’t really want to publicly admit that, so they spent a lot of time before 4th Edition came out hemming and hawing. They talked a lot about their commitment to open gaming and assured people that a license for “third-party and fan creations” would definitely be made available for 4th Edition.

There was a lot of back-and-forth here, and the timeline is made a lot muddier because there were both public announcements being made and private meetings with third-party publishers shielded with NDAs. There are a few key milestones that are probably worth establishing, though.

First, Wizards eventually admitted that 4th Edition would not use the OGL. Instead, they were creating a new Gaming System License, or GSL. But the details of this new license still weren’t being made public.

Wizards then announced that people could pay them $5,000 in order to get early access to the 4th Edition SRD and GSL, but still didn’t tell anyone what the terms of the GSL were. This went over like a lead balloon and the program was cancelled.

When the GSL was finally released, it contained a poisoned pill: If you used the GSL, you could not publish anything in the same product line using the OGL.

It also contained a termination clause, just like the one used in the D20 System Trademark License: Hasbro could unilaterally cancel the GSL at any time, at which point you would need to immediately de-list your books and pulp your inventory.

After more public outcry and pressure, they eventually dropped the poisoned pill. But the termination clause stuck. That was, after all, more or less the whole point of the exercise.

(Ironically, as far as I know, that termination clause has never been activated.)

THE RISE OF PATHFINDER

At this point, Wizards had a few problems.

First, their GSL shenanigans were just one of several ways in which they’d alienated large chunks of their fanbase.

Second, even though they’d willfully abandoned their position on top of the vast pyramid of 3rd Edition support material, that pyramid was still there. And people were still free to create more of it.

Third, they’d pushed a company called Paizo Publishing into a desperate situation.

When Wizards decided they didn’t want to keep publishing Dragon and Dungeon Magazine in 2002, they licensed those magazines to Paizo, a company which had been founded by former Wizards executives to specifically do that.

In preparation for 4th Edition, Wizards announced that Paizo’s license would not be renewed and, in fact, that Dragon and Dungeon would no longer be published as physical magazines at all. Paizo, of course, still had the subscription lists, so they started publishing the Pathfinder Adventure Path as a new monthly periodical for their customers.

Paizo’s intention was to transition the Pathfinder Adventure Path to 4th Edition when the new game came out, but Wizards’ lengthy delays in making the GSL available put Paizo in a bind, which only became worse when it became clear that, whatever the Top Secret terms of the new license were going to be, they certainly weren’t going to be particularly friendly.

The result was the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Published by Paizo, it was essentially a “3.75” edition of D&D that, because of the subscription lists, could be marketed directly to the most hardcore of D&D’s fans by a company that had already spent years selling them premiere adventures and support material. It also became a banner for all those disaffected by Wizards’ actions, the gameplay of 4th Edition, or both.

Wizards had completely blown their dismount from the OGL and managed to create their single largest competitor. Furthermore, Pathfinder made it certain that the OGL — and the wealth of third-party support made possible by the OGL — would continue through the long winter of 4th Edition.

THE RETURN OF THE OGL

Let’s fast forward now to 2015.

Whatever your personal opinion of 4th Edition as a game, there’s little question that it was a failure for Wizards of the Coast. They attempted to relaunch the game in late 2011, and then cancelled it entirely in 2012. The leadership responsible for 4th Edition was fired and development began on what would eventually become 5th Edition, which was released in the fall of 2014.

A lot of the marketing around 5th Edition took the form of mea culpas. As we’ve noted, Wizards had burnt a lot of bridges in 2008, and they were now working overtime to repair them. For example, whereas 4th Edition had seen them cancel all their third-party licenses, they would now reach out to third-party companies to develop their first official campaigns for the new edition.

In the spirit of bridge-building, they similarly announced, in May 2014, that 5th Edition would be returning to the OGL. Unlike in 2000, this wouldn’t happen on the day of the game’s release in September 2014, but would instead follow in the spring of 2015.

There would also be no trademark license this time, but the approach to the OGL itself would be similar: An SRD would be released under the license, containing all of the open game content required to make 5th Edition-compatible adventures and supplements.

Behind the scenes, this détente had actually required a titanic struggle with Hasbro’s lawyers. The compromise that was made was that nothing would be included in the 5th Edition SRD unless it had already been included in the 3rd Edition SRD.

So, for example, the magic missile spell had appeared in 3rd Edition, so it’s also in the 5th Edition SRD. Arcane gate, on the other hand, wasn’t a spell in 3rd Edition, so it doesn’t appear in the 5th Edition SRD.

This also means that the 5th Edition SRD contains enough material to allow for the creation of 5th Edition-compatible supplements, but not so much that something like the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game could be easily created by another company.

MEANWHILE, IN THE GUILD…

In terms of community content, however, the SRD and the OGL aren’t the whole story for 5th Edition. There’s also the Dungeon Masters Guild.

To understand the origins of the DMs Guild, we need to go back in time to the early days of 3rd Edition. During this time, a company called RPGNow had signed an agreement with Wizards of the Coast to sell D&D PDFs. This included PDF versions of older books, too, going all the way back to the original 1974 game.

RPGnow would eventually merge with DriveThruRPG to form a company called OneBookShelf, which continued selling the D&D PDFs.

When Wizards started yanking all their external licenses with the release of 4th Edition, however, this included OneBookShelf’s license. This was, rather infamously, done without any prior announcement and included preventing people who had previously purchased the books from downloading them. (Remember what I said about alienating large chunks of their fanbase?)

In 2012, with leadership changing in the wake of 4th Edition’s failure and the corporate strategy switching from No One Shall Play With Our Toys to Y’All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?, OneBookShelf was able to negotiate a new license, launching D&D Classics in 2013 to once again offer PDFs from all previous editions of D&D.

In 2016, D&D Classics was rebranded the Dungeon Masters Guild, and a community content program was launched: Independent creators could now create and sell content based not only on the SRD, but on all official D&D 5th Edition books. This included the Forgotten Realms, and has since expanded to include other official settings including Ravenloft, Eberron, Ravnica, Theros, and Dragonlance.

The license for the Dungeon Masters Guild has nothing to do with the OGL, and those using this license can ONLY sell their books through the Dungeon Masters Guild website. Furthermore, if you publish a book through the DMs Guild, you are prohibited from publishing any derivative work.

So, for example, you could not publish a book through the DMs Guild, then remove all the D&D-related material and publish it using a different set of rules. Nor could you publish a novel or comic book based on your DMs Guild book.

Finally, unlike the OGL, the DMs Guild license can once again be unilaterally terminated by Hasbro. This does not, crucially, end the exclusivity agreement, so you would still be unable to remove the D&D IP and publish your work somewhere else.

This means that there will come a day when Hasbro decides to shut down the DMs Guild and everything on the site will simply… vanish. Forever.

You’ll hear some people say that this would never happen, because Hasbro would never want to deal with the huge public backlash that would follow. But, as we’ve seen, this isn’t really a hypothetical: Hasbro HAS cancelled licenses just like this one. It’s not a question of if they’ll do it again, just when.

Does this mean that no one should publish on the DMs Guild? Not necessarily. Being able to commercially access the entire lore of D&D’s official campaign settings and produce tie-ins and support products for their most recent adventure modules is an incredibly unique and creatively special privilege.

But unless you’re doing that, you may want to take that whole “some day you’ll never be able to show anyone your work ever again” thing into consideration.

Regardless, with the OGL and the DMs Guild, 5th Edition ushered in a second golden age of third-party content for D&D. As with the OGL and D20 System Trademark License for 3rd Edition, you can argue about exactly how much this openness has contributed to the success of the game, but there’s no question that the game has succeeded brilliantly, with 5th Edition exceeding all expectations and finally achieving the lofty revenue goals that 4th Edition tried so desperately to grasp.

THE NEXT CHAPTER

Now, in the waning days of 2022, preparations are being made for D&D’s next chapter. A new edition of the game, currently referred to as OneD&D, has entered public playtesting and is scheduled for release in 2024 during the game’s 50th anniversary.

A few days ago, Wizards of the Coast announced that OneD&D, like 4th Edition before it, would NOT be using the OGL. Instead, a new version of the license – currently referred to as the OGL v1.1 – will be used. We don’t know a lot about this license, but we do know that:

  • Those using the license will need to file their documents with Hasbro.
  • Those using the license who have at least $50,000 in OGL-related revenue will need to start reporting their income to Hasbro.
  • Those who have $750,000 in revenue or more will need to start paying a royalty to Hasbro.
  • There are other changes in the terms of the license which have not yet been announced.

Any or all of this, of course, might still change. And what the final form of this 1.1 license will be is something we can really only speculate about. Will it have one or more poison pills? Will it give Hasbro the right to make unilateral changes to the license or otherwise be revocable?

As we look back over the history of the Open Gaming License, it seems as if we’re in a period of time quite similar to 2008: New leadership has taken control of Wizards. They have a new edition coming out. Corporate leadership is calling for increased monetization of the D&D property. After hemming and hawing, Wizards has been forced to make a public statement about the future of the Open Gaming License.

And what we know for certain right now is that their intention is for OneD&D to be less open than 5th Edition.

How MUCH less open it will be is the unanswered question.

FURTHER READING
Do I Need to Use the OGL?

26 Responses to “Open Gaming License: A Brief History – Part 2”

  1. Artor says:

    I’ve been a D&D nerd since 1982, but the directions the game has been taking and the overdevelopment of the lore around it have turned me off it. I’ve barely dabbled in any of 5E, and I doubt I will ever play the game again, as there are many better alternatives now. Hasbro is treating the fan base like a crop to be sprayed with pesticides and fertilizer, and then harvested to enrich their coffers with little regard for the love and work that has gone into making it the dominant social phenomenon it has been.
    They are welcome to jerk around their customer base and abuse their property as much as they like, as I will no longer be participating.

  2. colin r says:

    I hope they manage their shenanigans with a lighter touch this time around. D&D has not been my first choice of RPG system since I became disillusioned with 2nd Ed splatbooks, but at the same time it was my first entry to the world of RPG and I retain plenty of fondness for it. And I value a lot of the stuff that goes on in its penumbra, whether it’s OSR or OGL or whatever banner Justin prefers for all the material on this site here. I don’t doubt that splashy marketing from D&D brings people into the hobby, and I want that to continue while I *also* want stuff like Justin’s remixes to continue.

    I dunno. Fingers crossed, I guess.

    One question that isn’t entirely clear to me: Can Hasbro selectively revoke DM’s Guild licenses for, say, 5e material while continuing to allow OneD&D-based material to be sold? I mean, leaving aside whatever collateral damage would flow from that kind of trust-breaking, could it happen? Or do they have to create a new version DM’s Guild license for new material so that they can later on cancel the original version without affecting the new one?

    Can they selectively cancel the licenses of a specific publisher, if that publisher does something Paizo-like and becomes annoying to Hasbro’s bottom line?

  3. spine says:

    I fear the tech trend they are chasing this time around is ‘walled garden’, and any licensing will be in service of creating their virtual monopoly, ensuring all digital sales happen through their app/website, and their official vtt will be the only place to play the true one d&d online. This time around they are trying to kill the digital renaissance 5e has brought in and i hope it results in a similar failure when they tried to kill the 3.x ogl ecosystem.

  4. Camila Acolide says:

    What a great article! Well written and very clear! Thanks a lot Justin.

  5. Paul says:

    Wotc can’t do this.

    Don’t they care about the people who put everything into this game?

  6. Antonio says:

    Oh well, time to leave WotC behind, then. I already wasn’t a fan of the ‘regression to mediocrity’ edition; their update of the OGL means I won’t buy OneD&D; first time I won’t buy D&D. Oh well, back to 3.0!

  7. Backcountry164 says:

    It’s worth noting that if you’re making more than 50k, you’re reporting more than just your income. You’re basically providing free market research for WotC. You’re providing them with the information they need to compete directly with your products.

  8. Erik says:

    Interesting & informative read! Thank you! It did leave me, wondering, however, how the OGL applies to older, pre-3E content such as AD&D and B/X–the origins of the OSR and products such as Swords & Wizardry, Old-School Essentials, OSRIC, etc.

    Any chance of an addendum or mention of how those work?

  9. misomiso says:

    Fantastic write up. Really explained the whole saga well.

    It would be interesting to know what kind of shenanigans are going on at the moment at WotC and who is arguing for what; personally I think that it’s a huge mistake for them to deviate from the 5e model – it’s been so successful! And they solved the ‘Paizo’ problem of creating a huge new rival.

    But there is obviously something going on

  10. Nikko says:

    What a great article! On point, succinct, unbiased, and passionate.
    Thanks for filling in the missing gaps in my OGL history knowledge.

    I hope they do not build walls so high that people decide they aren’t worth climbing anymore. They are a myriad of other RPGs, of course, but the bustling renaissance that 5e brought is fond by many.
    We will see.

  11. Octal says:

    Really interesting read! I had no idea about all that.

  12. Stoorma says:

    Paul:
    “Wotc can’t do this.

    Don’t they care about the people who put everything into this game?”
    No, they don’t. Hasbro is a corporation. The execs in charge only care about short term profits. They could care less if the brand grows and more people play, they only care if people are paying money. This is why 6e will follow 4e, and be even worse, by making it in such away that you can only play on *thier* VTT, using thier digital tools, using only thier materials, and have to pay to use it.

    If you are a 3PP, you will be shut out of the 6e market or pay them excessive royalties.

  13. Keith says:

    With 4e they move away from the OGL pretty clearly, in terms of what it allowed and disallowed, and in the name. By calling the new license ‘OGL v1.1’ and how it ‘only refines the previous version’ (not a strict quote, but the gist of the recent D&DBeyond post) it appears this is supposed to be just an update to or a new version of the OGL (currently v1.0a).

    If so, I wonder if they are overlooking, or are hoping everyone else overlooks, OGL v1.0a Section 9:

    9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

    If I read this correctly, Section 9 means that OGC published under any version of the OGL can be copied, modified, and distributed under any version of the OGL (because that’s what the words say!). Thus, unless v1.1 grants you something not granted under v1.0a, you should be able to ignore v1.1 entirely and continue under v1.0a.

    I would not care to test this in court, of course, but that’s because I’m not prepared to spend the time and effort to fight about the few hundred dollars a year it brings me.

  14. Terzengel says:

    I’ve started my PnP journey with DnD 2nd edition and left Wizards material behind at v3.5. My group actually switched to Pathfinder which soon turned is all away with too technical strict rulesets and limiting builds. Today we are using only low dice frequency story telling systems, starting with WoD now more and more Fate. Wizards D20 has lost many of not all their player base, and will turn them away again with OneDnD. I have been playing DnD 5th being invited to rounds by DnDBeyond DMs, I like the system but to get the base rulebook set online is hundreds of dollars. I won’t invest that much into a soon to be switched off system 😅

  15. Elderand says:

    Gentle reminder that you don’t need the OGL at all to publish homebrew for dnd or any other ttrpg. They can’t copyright game mechanics, they can only copyright specific phrasing and creative work (IE, settings and a limited list of specific monster) the OGL is there so you can use the specific phrasing in the SRD, so long as you bother rephrasing the mechanics in your own words you’re in the clear.

  16. Keith says:

    @Elderand True, but the OGL makes it easy to refer to/reuse/remix existing content without legal hassle. You don’t [i]need[/i] the OGL, but it makes many things quite a bit easier. As long as it doesn’t have poison pill silliness such as Justin suggests (and I concur) might happen.

  17. RatherDashing says:

    This is very interesting and a great summary for those like me who are RPers but outsiders to D&D specifically. I’ve been very curious about the phrases OGL and SRD and this explains them well.

    The other things I am curious about now are the phrases I often see on 3rd party supplements and guidebooks: “compatible with 5e” and “the Most Popular Roleplaying System”. The first seems like it might avoid having to use any licensing agreement because it never says D&D, and the second seems deliberately designed for that purpose. Do these two monikers represent content outside any OGL use at all? Or is it just a modern way to signify OGL content?

  18. Keith says:

    @RatherDashing I would say your surmise is correct: they are ways to say compatible with D&D without saying “compatible with D&D”. There are logos and whatnot available (from third parties) for ‘OGL’ (which may or may not be D&D) and ‘5e’ (‘5e of what’ is not said, but it’s not Castles & Crusaders or Hero System).

    As Justin said, the d20 STL allowed publishers to use the ‘d20 Logo’ to explicitly indicate compatibility with D&D 3e. When the d20 STL went away, or for those who didn’t want to comply with the content restrictions it placed on the publisher (no character creation rules, comply with ‘community standards’ — The Book of Erotic Fantasy from Valar Project was denied the d20 logo because of the content), some publishers started using various circumlocutions such as “third edition of the most popular roleplaying game”.

  19. Tom H. says:

    “(‘5e of what’ is not said, but it’s not Castles & Crusaders or Hero System)”

    I wanted to call out Troll Lord when I read this, because they have some “5th Edition” adventures that are full of Castles & Crusades references, but on careful reading it looks like they’re just poorly-edited ports of old C&C material to 5e D&D.

    “Compatibility” is relative.

  20. Camila Acolide says:

    It seems the new OGL 1.1 document has leaked:

    https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634

  21. Highbrowbarian says:

    Yeah, can’t wait for Justin’s thoughts on THAT.

    It looks far, far more aggressive than I saw anyone speculating, but I’d love to see the thoughts of someone with more specific knowledge and experience with independent RPG publishing.

  22. PuzzleSecretary says:

    This news is one more reason to be disgusted with the warped structure of our society, I suppose. Looks like 6e’s going into the boycott bucket alongside 4e, where it can make the latter with its subscription model feel like it has the moral high ground.

    Also time to panic buy things that are going to disappear shortly because small corporations are too cowardly to band together against large ones trying to extinguish them.

  23. colin r says:

    “Cowardly” is absolutely unfair. Most of the ones I’d be sad to lose, barely scrape by at the best of times.

  24. Zapp says:

    “And what the final form of this 1.1 license will be is something we can really only speculate about. Will it have one or more poison pills? Will it give Hasbro the right to make unilateral changes to the license or otherwise be revocable?”

    According to the leak, yes and yes. It’s the GSL all over again.

    See you with D&D 7 in the new decade…

  25. Evan says:

    “I hope they manage their shenanigans with a lighter touch this time around.”

    By “lighter touch” you meant “sledgehammer,” right?

  26. colin r says:

    @Evan, yeah, ha ha, funny how that turned out.

Leave a Reply

Archives

Recent Posts


Recent Comments

Copyright © The Alexandrian. All rights reserved.