Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

Publishing with the OGL and You Sticky

A topic by Sandy Pug Games created Mar 17, 2019 Views: 7,442 Replies: 9
Viewing posts 1 to 3
Moderator(+4)

I was asked to write up a quick summary of how to properly use the OGL to make content based off of WoTC content. This is accurate to the best of my understanding, but with the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, and I recommend everyone read the OGL before posting any derived works for sale! Please feel free to mention any corrections or missing important stuff here or ask any questions about OGL/Licensing in general here.

D&D is by far the most popular game out there, and it's a place ripe for developers and designers to cut their teeth and reach a bunch of people with their ideas. Making settings, monsters, classes and other content for D&D is likely the first place most people get a start on the content creation side of things.

However, when you make stuff for use with D&D, you have to follow the OGL or the Open Game License. This is a document that comes with a lot of D&D products these days that specifies exactly what is "Open Content" and what you're allowed to do with it. It's most commonly attached to the SRD or System Reference Document, which you can find here - http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf - the first thing to know is that if it shows up in the SRD, you can use it in your project. You can quote it, you can copy it, edit it, whatever you like. Its "Open" by the terms of the license.

If you use anything in the SRD, you have to include the full 2 page OGL attached to the SRD. You also have to make it clear when and where you're using something from the SRD - if you use a creature or a stat block from the SRD, you have to include a note that it's reproduced under the OGL.

It seems complicated, but the basic breakdown is - if it's in the SRD, you can use it, so long as you include the OGL in its entirety and make a note wherever you use SRD content. Something like “Reproduced under the OGL” under the stat block or whatever is fine. So that sounds pretty good, but what can't you do?

Well, a lot. The OGL itself specifies the following are part of WotC's Brand and cannot be touched:

"The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, EverChanging Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti"

You can not reference, mention, use, replicate or modify anything to do with any of the above. Technically you can't even mention it in your text. Doing so violates the license and puts you in trouble with Wizards.

The other part to keep in mind is Section 7: "7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."

What does this mean? Very simply, you can't say or imply that your game is for or compatible with D&D. I know this seems weird, and a bit backwards, but them's the breaks. You can still make the content, publish and sell it, but by the terms of the license, you can't say "This is a D&D 5th Edition Game". You CAN reference the SRD (By adding "System Reference Document 5.1 Copyright 2016, Wizards of the Coast” to your game description), you can say "Compatible with the world's most popular RPG system" or something similar, you just can't say "Dungeons and Dragons" or "D&D". You can also reference the OGL itself to describe what your creation is. Just don’t explicitly reference Dungeons and Dragons or any trademarks or elements of the Product Identity, and you should be clear.

You also can not reproduce any mechanics for character creation anywhere in any of your books - you can make new classes, new backgrounds, new spells, etc, but you can not tell people the rules for picking them, unless you're making up new ones somehow. The same goes for making monsters, stat blocks and so on - you can make new ones, just don't reproduce the rules for making them anywhere.

Muddying the waters somewhat is the Dungeon Masters Guild, which is a storefront that has some very different, much looser rules on producing content for D&D. You can find out more information on the DMG here -  http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd

Despite the somewhat confusing and overworked way the OGL works, once you get to grips with it, it's actually not as restrictive as it may feel, and it's perfectly ok for you to create content under it and post it here on Itch.

Deleted 5 years ago
Moderator (2 edits) (+2)

From several people saying they had actions taken against them for reproducing those on Kickstarters and other places. It's absolutely true that you can't copyright mechanics - but WotC has frequently went after people for reproducing their CC rules in text - I think the legal argument they fall behind is that the CC of D&D is a unique enough process to fall under their IP, but I'm not really clear on the specifics - I just see people saying its a thing Wizards have went after people for. See this comment thread for more;

https://theangrygm.com/save-vs-lawsuit-how-to-publish-dd-content/#comment-29263

While you may be technically correct, it's probably better for most creators to ere on the side of caution in these situations - no one wants their big project squashed by a C&D they can't afford to fight. 

(+3)

thought process and abstraction cannot have a registered copyright (or patent, sorta), no, but you can still get sued for copying an idea. the legal idea is substantial similarity, and in the US (or countries part of the WIPO treaty) you can get sued for it, however rare. you can get literally sued for anything, and if you don't show up you lose automatically. what's more; the OGL is a trade agreement, a contract, and agreeing to it's terms supersedes on-the-street copyright code. so if you're using the OGL you agree to not do shit you would normally be able to otherwise, like how you cannot claim compatibility using proper nouns and are limited on the reproduction of procedure, etc. what WotC does and does not choose to enforce has no bearing on how it actually works.

(+1)

If you know the answer I would appreciate you explaining it to me:

If I rely upon parts of Microlite20 that uses the OGL 1., but the part that I use from Microlite20 has nothing to do with the SRD 3.5 or anything else from WotC, is that non-WotC content now 'given' to WotC by including the OGL 1.?

I suppose I just just sit down and study the damn thing for myself, but sometimes it is nice to get guidance from more knowledgeable people.

Moderator(+1)

I'm not 100% sure I'm  following, but I don't *think* you have anything to worry about. It's just not quite how the documents function, their inclusion doesn't itself convey a right, their inclusion is a condition of the rights being exchanged, if that makes sense.

Moderator(+1)

that said i'm hesitant to say anything for certain and 100% recommend you take a look at the relevant docs yourself before making any choices. Esp with the new version of OGL potentially coming soon, its a difficult time to say anything for sure, and that goes double since I'm not a lawyer 😅

Well I am a lawyer and this stuff is making my head spin! you are right I have to dig into the OGL 1.0a and parse out every single word.

(+1)

This is my primary concern. Under normal copyright law you can use copyrighted material under certain circumstances related to 'fair use'. Under 'fair use' doctrine it must not be word for word copy unless it is very limited, like a quotation, and then must have proper citation and attribution. So if I was making a dungeon crawl game that was compatible with D&D but not an actual copy there would be no problem stating that it was D&D compatible as long as I provided citation and attribution to WotC acknowledging their copyright, tradename, trademark, etc. Under the OGL 1.0a I can actually use the SRD 3.5 word for word, but I CANNOT provide citation or attribution back to WotC other than through the OGL itself which prohibits me from even mentioning the product identification. 
Now I don't make anything that is directly derivative from the SRD 3.5 other than a few components (monsters and stat system which I state are from the SRD 3.5), but I do use Microlite20 and Microlite2020 components that are also not derivative of the SRD 3.5. However, some parts of Microlite are derivative, but I don't use those parts, only the parts that are unique to Microlite. So I need to include the OGL for those limited parts that are derivative from SRD 3.5, but what do I do with the Microlite portions that I am using that are not derivative of the OGL or SRD 3.5? Under standard copyright law all I would have to do is provide a brief description of what I am using and attribution for Microlite. Or does Microlite fall under the OGL because they used the OGL themselves??? A real nightmare. 
I think I can rely upon the OGL 1.0a for past efforts since at the time it was clearly an authorized license. But if I want to create something new in the future that uses nothing from the SRD 3.5, but does use some components from Microlite????? Ahhhhhhhh. 

(+1)

And I am sorry to bother you about this. I am rather 'thinking out loud' here and bouncing it off you. Not really fair, but I appreciate your feedback! And patience!

I believe I have an answer to my question. 

Under the OGL 1.0 or 1.0a, if I choose to use it, I have the right to use the Open Source Content material (the SRDs) word for word if I want to. What I give up in exchange for this right, creating what is an enforceable contract IMHO because that means there is consideration (or a mutual exchange of value of some sort), is giving WotC more IP property rights over the branding, name, non-Open Source Content, etc. than it would otherwise have received under standard copyright law and other IP laws. Also, by including the OGL 1.0 in my work I voluntarily make my work, which may contain unique and potentially protected material not derived from the SRD part of the a chain of Open Source Content that always leads back to WotC. So those elements of Microlite that are NOT derivative from the WotC Open Source Content are all the same now Open Source Content covered under the OGL 1.0.

That is some powerful consideration in favor of WotC and IMHO makes the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a an enforceable contract that cannot be unilaterally amended, revoked, or 'unauthorized' by WotC. All the same that is just my opinion. I think I will wait until a court issues a more binding opinion in my favor, preferably without me being a part of the proceedings, before I continue using the OGL 1.0 or 1.0a.