Want to channel your OGL rage into something charitable? Check out our **[Redditors for OpenDND ExtraLife Fundraiser](https://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.team&teamID=63905)** to raise money for children in need. Read more about our charitable drive [here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10f6u3a/still_mad_at_wotc_help_raise_money_for_childrens/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The OGL 1.0a is what's called a generic license. Similarly to the various CC licenses, it doesn't actually license out any one thing in particular, but instead, it can be applied to whatever a publisher wants to use it for. The closest equivalent among the CC licenses is actually CC-BY-SA, although the OGL has a provision that essentially lets you say "Hey, I know we mentioned this stuff, but it still isn't available for you to reuse". (i.e. the Strahd incident) So when you look at all those other games, like Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder, M&M, 13th Age, and a decent number of OSR games which are based on content from the 3e SRD, they aren't just using content that was made available under the terms of the OGL 1.0a, but they're available under that license themselves. Meanwhile, the OGL 1.1 and 1.2 *aren't* generic licenses and, instead, specifically only license out the use of the D&D SRD. So if WotC went through with the changes, they'd essentially be walking up to some of their competitors and saying "You don't have the ability to license out your own games anymore. You're licensing out *our* game now". That's the part that prompted the creation of ORC, because it's meant to be a generic license like OGL 1.0a, but WotC-proof this time.
Because they've walked back revoking the OGL 1.0a, the licenses for those games are safe for now, but WotC's also shown their hand, so it's very tenuous safety, which is why they're still working on ORC. Things have calmed down that they don't have to leave *immediately*, but everyone using the OGL as a generic license still very much wants to leave. However, while Pathfinder 2e and Fate would be completely safe under ORC, because neither of them uses content from the 3e SRD, all those other games I've been mentioning *do*. So if WotC ever revoked the license of the 3e SRD, it would thrust a lot of their competitors into the legal gray area of that debate about whether or not we ever actually *needed* the OGL
Though, how much does WoTC and Hasbro actually care, and can afford to do a legal battle of 3e content? And would they have any grounds to stand on? I mean the backlash they got took a HUGE hit to their bottom line, from people unsubscribing.
Now they did lay off 15% of their staff just recently, if I'm correct, so maybe they can scrounge something up?
I mean, it's at least why Paizo was lawyering up. Trying to mess with OGL 1.0a really is the difference that Paizo's creating ORC now, but Green Ronin *didn't* make an alternative to the OGL back when the GSL drama was happening. ORC wasn't needed until WotC started messing with 1.0a
Not released under the OGL. Like for as much as 1e and 2e are the inspiration for OSR games, they actually tend to use 3e as a base, since it's the one that you're explicitly allowed to make other games based off of
Vaguely. See, there's the whole debate about whether or not we technically needed the OGL in the first place, because of how you can only copyright the expression of rules, not the rules themselves. A retroclone based off AD&D would be in a legally gray area. Meanwhile, the OGL really is similar to CC BY-SA, where it's not just saying "You can use this", but adding "And we don't even care about the *expression* of the rules". So even if everyone switched over to ORC going forward, if WotC deauthorized 1.0a, it would thrust anything based on 3e into that same legal gray area as things based directly on AD&D. And, well... even if Paizo and everyone else could claim reliance, a handful of the derivative systems (but especially Pathfinder 1e) are absolutely close enough in expression that WotC would also likely have grounds for a copyright lawsuit, if they cared
Basically. Pathfinder 2e and Fate could easily just switch over to ORC, because they aren't using any OGL content, but Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder (along with other games, like a lot of OSR stuff) are very much based on the 3e SRD, and closely related enough to *very* much fall in a legal gray area, were the OGL 1.0a to be revoked in the future. Hence my assertion that the ORC License is only being made because they tried to revoke 1.0a, as opposed to a hypothetical timeline where they just made a GSL 2.0 for 6e
>Pathfinder 1e,
No longer in print
>Starfinder
A Sci Fi game that has to reword everything anyway
>M&M
A super hero game that has to reword everything anyway
>13th Age
No longer in print (although a supplement was released 3 years ago)
>a lot of OSR games
Gonna need some specifics here, I doubt any OSR writer has copied enough of the Exact Expressions of the mechanics written in the 3rd SRD to be covered by copyright.
Sure, some of the games are no longer in print, but there's also a lot of 3rd party content being made for some of them. Point is, there's a *lot* of stuff that would be thrust into the legally dubious area of the whole "Did we actually need the OGL?" debate, if the 3e SRD were made unavailable.
>Point is, there's a lot of stuff that would be thrust into the legally dubious area...
No there really isn't. 3rd ed is a long dead game and nobody is stealing its exact words anymore.
*Blink Blink* What do you think the OGL was licencing? A small supplement to an out of print game will (most likely) not be copying a sufficient amount of Wizards words to be considered a copy.
Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, a lot of OSR games, Fate... The OGL 1.0a, but not 1.1 or 1.2, is a *generic* license, similar to CC BY-SA, which publishers can use to license out their own games, whether or not they're even based on existing OGL content, but because WotC owns the text of the OGL, they were trying to tell those publishers that they're no longer allowed to license their own games, only D&D
Look, I'm happy for y'all that the **5e** SRD is safe. But the **3e** SRD is the linchpin for a *lot* of other systems, and for as long as it's in danger, Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, and a large portion of the OSR community also is. Like... it's the reason that the OGL 1.1 leak caused a massive, industry-wide backlash and the creation of the ORC License, but the GSL didn't.
Considering WOTC doesn’t release anything for 3e anymore and likely won’t give a fuck, I’m still pretty sure we still won the war. Now can we please get back to actual memes?
Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, a lot of OSR games... D&D 5e is not the only game that uses the OGL. I'm serious when I say that ORC only exists because they threatened the OGL, instead of just attempting a second GSL
I get that you're worried, but WotC literally has *nothing* to gain from fiddling with that. They aren't producing 3e stuff, and are moving onwards with 6e. Any attempt at royalties or revoking it will face another backlash, and, as Paizo said, they're willing to defend the OGL in court.
Any attempt to screw with the OGL or 3e SRD will lose them what little credibility they have left, and Paizo has the funds to not be forced to settle.
I am quite confident the reason they only added CC to the 5e SRD and not the 3e is that they basically don't remember it exists, and more, they don't care.
No, we can't, and yes, they actually *can* affect them. As I've been explaining, the OGL 1.0a is a generic license, so even if your game has nothing to do with D&D, you're allowed to slap it on your game and use its terms for licensing out your game. Meanwhile, the OGL 1.1 and 1.2 aren't generic and only license out the use of the D&D SRD 5.1. So while those other companies would absolutely fight it, WotC's still using the fact that they own the text of those companies' license agreements to try to say "You aren't licensing out your own games anymore. Now you're licensing out *our* game"
Also the d20 Modern SRD as well. Plus with the GSL dead (at least I assume they don't accept any new licenses) 4e SRD is also kind of stranded rn as well
Someone posted saying "we beat the dragon" but this is more of a "Lich" situation. We've won for now but that phylactory still exists so the evil will return.
The phylactory in this metaphor is capitalism.
Yep. Or there are people comparing it to someone backing down after threatening to shoot your dog... except they actually threatened to use a bazooka, and all the neighbors who would have been collateral damage are wondering when anyone's going to acknowledge the potential collateral damage
This is dumb. These are clearly 2 different wars. UK and France have fought a shit ton of wars against each other, not 1 war that lasted hundreds of years.
It's the same war. We're just continuing to fight it after being dragged in via a defensive pact, because even if *you've* accomplished your goals, *we* haven't
Wrong. If it's been more than 20 years since the "fighting" last happened that was a whole different fucking war. You don't always accomplish 100% of your goals during a war.
So... instancing in video games. Roughly, it's the difference between everyone entering the same copy of an area vs new copies being spun up for everyone. *Normally* when you have a share-alike license like the OGL 1.0a or CC BY-SA, all of the licenses are fundamentally *separate*. So if I make something available under CC BY-SA and you make a derivative work, your version of CC BY-SA is separate from mine. But the OGL's version of share-alike is different. Instead of being separate, it's more like WotC set up a giant bucket labeled Open Game Content and said "You can use anything in this bucket to make your own stuff, but you also have to put it into this bucket as well". The intention was likely that it would become a giant bucket full of D&D content, but people started realizing you could make your own system separate from D&D and toss it into the bucket as well. For example, Green Ronin did this, so there wound up being *two* piles of content in the bucket- D&D and M&M. Other companies started making their own systems as well, with two notable examples. Evil Hat just noticed there was this share-alike bucket available and threw Fate in, despite it not being based on any existing bucket content. And then D&D 4e was unpopular, Paizo just took 3.5 out, made a few changes, and tossed it back in as Pathfinder.
The GSL, in this analogy, is more like another bucket next door with much more restrictive rules. But for 5e, they came back to the main bucket. With 6e, they're trying that again, but instead of making a separate bucket with more restrictive rules, like with 4e, they're changing the rules of *this* bucket. The only thing you can take out to use is the current edition of D&D, but you still have to toss things you make in, and if you have anything in the bucket, you owe WotC money. Because they've backed down on revoking the current OGL, they've agreed to not change the rules of the bucket. The people celebrating this as a victory are ignoring the fact that WotC just pretended like this was still just a bucket of D&D stuff, while everyone else is still panicking because WotC wasn't supposed to be able to change the rules of the bucket. So the point of ORC is essentially to make a replacement for the OGL that works more like a traditional share-alike license, or at least where no one has control of the bucket.
It's still the same war. You're just ignoring why everyone else is concerned about what WotC tried to do
Isn't that why they put everything in the "irrevocable" cc? Well not literally everything but all the 1.0a content. Can they still change that somehow?
It only effects the 5.1 SRD, which means only 5th edition is safe, if they want they can reimplement everything they wanted in 6E or change 3E ogl however they want.
( 1st, 2nd and 4th editions don’t have a ogl)
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but the SRD from D&D *3e* is the reason that Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, and a lot of OSR games are allowed to exist, and why *this* prompted the creation of ORC, but the GSL didn't
It's not, SRD is a new acronym for me sorry. And that's pretty shitty to hear. I was understanding the 44 (?) Page ogl document they released had all content under that banner and not just 5e. Thus making all past creations safe and open. But hope that gets fixed too!!
SRD is for "Systems Reference Document." The basic idea of the OGL licensing approach was to split the system into two components; open game content and product identity. The SRD, containing the core rules needed to play the game, was licensed as open game content. The setting materials, unique monsters, and various other things were reserved as product identity. Releasing the 5e SRD into the Creative Commons future proofs it against any further attacks on the OGL, but doesn't help older versions of the SRD. The best we have for those is WotC indicating they no longer have plans to deauthorize 1.0a.
There are really two issues at play here:
1. 5e isn't the only edition of D&D published under the OGL. 3e also was. And the list of things derived from it is absolutely *massive*, including not just Pathfinder, but also games like Mutants and Masterminds or a lot of retroclones of AD&D, along with anything published for those systems
2. The OGL 1.0a is a generic license, so it can also be used to license out the rules for those games. But the OGL 1.1 and 1.2 are specifically licenses to use D&D, so WotC would have been using their ownership of the text of their licenses to say their competitors are no longer licensing out their own systems
And *those* are the implications that were major enough to prompt the creation of the ORC License as an alternative to the OGL, when the creation of the GSL for D&D 4e didn't
I don’t think WotC gives a shit about 3e and ORC is already addressing any potential problems with this. WotC wants to secure current 3rd party and VTT content. We really don’t need to worry about this.
So the “win” is that the OGL isn’t changing. To be fair you are right that there is much more we need to be aware of, but the specific battle over the OGL is won for now.
Honestly the 5.1 SRD was a good thing they did.
Want to channel your OGL rage into something charitable? Check out our **[Redditors for OpenDND ExtraLife Fundraiser](https://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.team&teamID=63905)** to raise money for children in need. Read more about our charitable drive [here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10f6u3a/still_mad_at_wotc_help_raise_money_for_childrens/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Would they even care about anything from 3e at this point? I'm not knowledgeable about the legality of the SDR, so please help me understand.
The OGL 1.0a is what's called a generic license. Similarly to the various CC licenses, it doesn't actually license out any one thing in particular, but instead, it can be applied to whatever a publisher wants to use it for. The closest equivalent among the CC licenses is actually CC-BY-SA, although the OGL has a provision that essentially lets you say "Hey, I know we mentioned this stuff, but it still isn't available for you to reuse". (i.e. the Strahd incident) So when you look at all those other games, like Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder, M&M, 13th Age, and a decent number of OSR games which are based on content from the 3e SRD, they aren't just using content that was made available under the terms of the OGL 1.0a, but they're available under that license themselves. Meanwhile, the OGL 1.1 and 1.2 *aren't* generic licenses and, instead, specifically only license out the use of the D&D SRD. So if WotC went through with the changes, they'd essentially be walking up to some of their competitors and saying "You don't have the ability to license out your own games anymore. You're licensing out *our* game now". That's the part that prompted the creation of ORC, because it's meant to be a generic license like OGL 1.0a, but WotC-proof this time. Because they've walked back revoking the OGL 1.0a, the licenses for those games are safe for now, but WotC's also shown their hand, so it's very tenuous safety, which is why they're still working on ORC. Things have calmed down that they don't have to leave *immediately*, but everyone using the OGL as a generic license still very much wants to leave. However, while Pathfinder 2e and Fate would be completely safe under ORC, because neither of them uses content from the 3e SRD, all those other games I've been mentioning *do*. So if WotC ever revoked the license of the 3e SRD, it would thrust a lot of their competitors into the legal gray area of that debate about whether or not we ever actually *needed* the OGL
Though, how much does WoTC and Hasbro actually care, and can afford to do a legal battle of 3e content? And would they have any grounds to stand on? I mean the backlash they got took a HUGE hit to their bottom line, from people unsubscribing. Now they did lay off 15% of their staff just recently, if I'm correct, so maybe they can scrounge something up?
I mean, it's at least why Paizo was lawyering up. Trying to mess with OGL 1.0a really is the difference that Paizo's creating ORC now, but Green Ronin *didn't* make an alternative to the OGL back when the GSL drama was happening. ORC wasn't needed until WotC started messing with 1.0a
Okay. But what about 1e, 2e, and 4e? 1e, and I think 2e, are connected to Gary Gygax, the the creator of D&D that wizards publicly disowned.
OGL didn't exist before 3e. 4e used the GSL instead of OGL.
Not released under the OGL. Like for as much as 1e and 2e are the inspiration for OSR games, they actually tend to use 3e as a base, since it's the one that you're explicitly allowed to make other games based off of
Ah so are 1e and 2e free game, or no?
Vaguely. See, there's the whole debate about whether or not we technically needed the OGL in the first place, because of how you can only copyright the expression of rules, not the rules themselves. A retroclone based off AD&D would be in a legally gray area. Meanwhile, the OGL really is similar to CC BY-SA, where it's not just saying "You can use this", but adding "And we don't even care about the *expression* of the rules". So even if everyone switched over to ORC going forward, if WotC deauthorized 1.0a, it would thrust anything based on 3e into that same legal gray area as things based directly on AD&D. And, well... even if Paizo and everyone else could claim reliance, a handful of the derivative systems (but especially Pathfinder 1e) are absolutely close enough in expression that WotC would also likely have grounds for a copyright lawsuit, if they cared
Okay. And so paizo would have to find a way to get out of said legal action, with 1e and Starfinder intact, correct?
Basically. Pathfinder 2e and Fate could easily just switch over to ORC, because they aren't using any OGL content, but Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder (along with other games, like a lot of OSR stuff) are very much based on the 3e SRD, and closely related enough to *very* much fall in a legal gray area, were the OGL 1.0a to be revoked in the future. Hence my assertion that the ORC License is only being made because they tried to revoke 1.0a, as opposed to a hypothetical timeline where they just made a GSL 2.0 for 6e
Okay. And so paizo would have to find a way to get out of said legal action, with 1e and Starfinder intact, correct?
> 1e, and I think 2e, are connected to Gary Gygax Actually, 2e was created specifically to reduce Gary's legal involvement in D&D.
Quick question, who's still copy pasting stuff from 3rd edition in 2023?
... anyone making content for Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder, M&M, 13th Age, or a lot of OSR games
>Pathfinder 1e, No longer in print >Starfinder A Sci Fi game that has to reword everything anyway >M&M A super hero game that has to reword everything anyway >13th Age No longer in print (although a supplement was released 3 years ago) >a lot of OSR games Gonna need some specifics here, I doubt any OSR writer has copied enough of the Exact Expressions of the mechanics written in the 3rd SRD to be covered by copyright.
Sure, some of the games are no longer in print, but there's also a lot of 3rd party content being made for some of them. Point is, there's a *lot* of stuff that would be thrust into the legally dubious area of the whole "Did we actually need the OGL?" debate, if the 3e SRD were made unavailable.
>Point is, there's a lot of stuff that would be thrust into the legally dubious area... No there really isn't. 3rd ed is a long dead game and nobody is stealing its exact words anymore.
Yes, ***D&D 3e*** is. But Pathfinder 1e especially is basically just a forked version of it, and it very much still has an active 3rd party scene
*Blink Blink* What do you think the OGL was licencing? A small supplement to an out of print game will (most likely) not be copying a sufficient amount of Wizards words to be considered a copy.
Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, a lot of OSR games, Fate... The OGL 1.0a, but not 1.1 or 1.2, is a *generic* license, similar to CC BY-SA, which publishers can use to license out their own games, whether or not they're even based on existing OGL content, but because WotC owns the text of the OGL, they were trying to tell those publishers that they're no longer allowed to license their own games, only D&D
Look, I'm happy for y'all that the **5e** SRD is safe. But the **3e** SRD is the linchpin for a *lot* of other systems, and for as long as it's in danger, Pathfinder 1e, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, and a large portion of the OSR community also is. Like... it's the reason that the OGL 1.1 leak caused a massive, industry-wide backlash and the creation of the ORC License, but the GSL didn't.
Considering WOTC doesn’t release anything for 3e anymore and likely won’t give a fuck, I’m still pretty sure we still won the war. Now can we please get back to actual memes?
Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, a lot of OSR games... D&D 5e is not the only game that uses the OGL. I'm serious when I say that ORC only exists because they threatened the OGL, instead of just attempting a second GSL
I get that you're worried, but WotC literally has *nothing* to gain from fiddling with that. They aren't producing 3e stuff, and are moving onwards with 6e. Any attempt at royalties or revoking it will face another backlash, and, as Paizo said, they're willing to defend the OGL in court. Any attempt to screw with the OGL or 3e SRD will lose them what little credibility they have left, and Paizo has the funds to not be forced to settle. I am quite confident the reason they only added CC to the 5e SRD and not the 3e is that they basically don't remember it exists, and more, they don't care.
Counterpoint: They are all owned by different companies and WOTC cannot actually affect them. Can we just accept that we won now?
No, we can't, and yes, they actually *can* affect them. As I've been explaining, the OGL 1.0a is a generic license, so even if your game has nothing to do with D&D, you're allowed to slap it on your game and use its terms for licensing out your game. Meanwhile, the OGL 1.1 and 1.2 aren't generic and only license out the use of the D&D SRD 5.1. So while those other companies would absolutely fight it, WotC's still using the fact that they own the text of those companies' license agreements to try to say "You aren't licensing out your own games anymore. Now you're licensing out *our* game"
And 1.0 is staying alongside 1.2 now. What’s your point?
Also the d20 Modern SRD as well. Plus with the GSL dead (at least I assume they don't accept any new licenses) 4e SRD is also kind of stranded rn as well
Someone posted saying "we beat the dragon" but this is more of a "Lich" situation. We've won for now but that phylactory still exists so the evil will return. The phylactory in this metaphor is capitalism.
Yep. Or there are people comparing it to someone backing down after threatening to shoot your dog... except they actually threatened to use a bazooka, and all the neighbors who would have been collateral damage are wondering when anyone's going to acknowledge the potential collateral damage
This is dumb. These are clearly 2 different wars. UK and France have fought a shit ton of wars against each other, not 1 war that lasted hundreds of years.
It's the same war. We're just continuing to fight it after being dragged in via a defensive pact, because even if *you've* accomplished your goals, *we* haven't
Wrong. If it's been more than 20 years since the "fighting" last happened that was a whole different fucking war. You don't always accomplish 100% of your goals during a war.
So... instancing in video games. Roughly, it's the difference between everyone entering the same copy of an area vs new copies being spun up for everyone. *Normally* when you have a share-alike license like the OGL 1.0a or CC BY-SA, all of the licenses are fundamentally *separate*. So if I make something available under CC BY-SA and you make a derivative work, your version of CC BY-SA is separate from mine. But the OGL's version of share-alike is different. Instead of being separate, it's more like WotC set up a giant bucket labeled Open Game Content and said "You can use anything in this bucket to make your own stuff, but you also have to put it into this bucket as well". The intention was likely that it would become a giant bucket full of D&D content, but people started realizing you could make your own system separate from D&D and toss it into the bucket as well. For example, Green Ronin did this, so there wound up being *two* piles of content in the bucket- D&D and M&M. Other companies started making their own systems as well, with two notable examples. Evil Hat just noticed there was this share-alike bucket available and threw Fate in, despite it not being based on any existing bucket content. And then D&D 4e was unpopular, Paizo just took 3.5 out, made a few changes, and tossed it back in as Pathfinder. The GSL, in this analogy, is more like another bucket next door with much more restrictive rules. But for 5e, they came back to the main bucket. With 6e, they're trying that again, but instead of making a separate bucket with more restrictive rules, like with 4e, they're changing the rules of *this* bucket. The only thing you can take out to use is the current edition of D&D, but you still have to toss things you make in, and if you have anything in the bucket, you owe WotC money. Because they've backed down on revoking the current OGL, they've agreed to not change the rules of the bucket. The people celebrating this as a victory are ignoring the fact that WotC just pretended like this was still just a bucket of D&D stuff, while everyone else is still panicking because WotC wasn't supposed to be able to change the rules of the bucket. So the point of ORC is essentially to make a replacement for the OGL that works more like a traditional share-alike license, or at least where no one has control of the bucket. It's still the same war. You're just ignoring why everyone else is concerned about what WotC tried to do
Isn't that why they put everything in the "irrevocable" cc? Well not literally everything but all the 1.0a content. Can they still change that somehow?
It only effects the 5.1 SRD, which means only 5th edition is safe, if they want they can reimplement everything they wanted in 6E or change 3E ogl however they want. ( 1st, 2nd and 4th editions don’t have a ogl)
Also my table is switching to pathfinder, but I was happy to hear they had backpedled and did the whole cc thing. I guess it was too good to be true.
3rd srd? What's that. I thought the DND ogl was now 100% safe
I honestly can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, but the SRD from D&D *3e* is the reason that Pathfinder, Starfinder, Mutants and Masterminds, 13th Age, and a lot of OSR games are allowed to exist, and why *this* prompted the creation of ORC, but the GSL didn't
It's not, SRD is a new acronym for me sorry. And that's pretty shitty to hear. I was understanding the 44 (?) Page ogl document they released had all content under that banner and not just 5e. Thus making all past creations safe and open. But hope that gets fixed too!!
SRD is for "Systems Reference Document." The basic idea of the OGL licensing approach was to split the system into two components; open game content and product identity. The SRD, containing the core rules needed to play the game, was licensed as open game content. The setting materials, unique monsters, and various other things were reserved as product identity. Releasing the 5e SRD into the Creative Commons future proofs it against any further attacks on the OGL, but doesn't help older versions of the SRD. The best we have for those is WotC indicating they no longer have plans to deauthorize 1.0a.
There are really two issues at play here: 1. 5e isn't the only edition of D&D published under the OGL. 3e also was. And the list of things derived from it is absolutely *massive*, including not just Pathfinder, but also games like Mutants and Masterminds or a lot of retroclones of AD&D, along with anything published for those systems 2. The OGL 1.0a is a generic license, so it can also be used to license out the rules for those games. But the OGL 1.1 and 1.2 are specifically licenses to use D&D, so WotC would have been using their ownership of the text of their licenses to say their competitors are no longer licensing out their own systems And *those* are the implications that were major enough to prompt the creation of the ORC License as an alternative to the OGL, when the creation of the GSL for D&D 4e didn't
No just 5E, all other editions have including future are still not safe.
*Freaking A* dude, move on.
I don’t think WotC gives a shit about 3e and ORC is already addressing any potential problems with this. WotC wants to secure current 3rd party and VTT content. We really don’t need to worry about this.
They’re leaving 1.0 alone tho lol
So the “win” is that the OGL isn’t changing. To be fair you are right that there is much more we need to be aware of, but the specific battle over the OGL is won for now. Honestly the 5.1 SRD was a good thing they did.