The Future of Tabletop Roleplaying: The Open Source Gaming License

26 min readJan 20, 2023

Introduction

None of us wanted this battle, but together we will finish it. In 2023, Wizards of the Coast Inc. (“Wizards”) broke a covenant spanning more than 20 years. During the two decades under their Open Gaming License v1.0a (the “OGL”), we saw a flourishing of tabletop roleplaying games (“TTRPG”) of all types. The industry as a whole has never been larger, more creative, or prosperous. All of that is now in jeopardy because Wizards of the Coast®(1) is taking steps that we believe will stifle innovation and remove competition. It must not and will not stand.

In early January 2023, a draft update to the OGL (the “Leak”), the first in almost 23 years, was leaked online. The licensing terms of the update caused immediate uproar within the broader community of TTRPG game developers and participants (the “TTRPG Community”), which viewed the update to be unilateral, oppressive, and incredibly unfair to anyone or any company that develops TTRPG content, products, assets, art, or other items and elements (“Content Creators”) within the Wizards gaming framework. Facing intense criticism and pressure from Content Creators and the TTRPG Community at large, Wizards walked back many of its proposed terms in the Leak. Although Wizards published a proposed revision on January 19, 2023 (“OGLv1.2”)(2), the document did not assuage our concerns.

The Leak and OGLv1.2 have caused the TTRPG Community to quickly get up to speed on intellectual property (“IP”) laws and rules. It has become critical for all Content Creators to be wary of a tricky minefield fraught with possible IP infringement. To put it bluntly, the rules that have been in place for more than two decades are about to change drastically. As a Content Creator, GRIPNR, LLC (“GRIPNR”) needed to gain an understanding of the myriad IP issues at play. In this article, we provide a primer on United States IP laws, analyze Wizards’ System Reference Document Version 5.1 (the “SRD”), its associated Open Gaming License Version 1.0a, and the impact of proposed OGLv1.2 on our business. We share our findings and the path we will forge ahead with respect to Wizards’ licensing framework, which lies at the heart of the current controversy. Given Wizards’ proposed OGLv1.2, there is a real necessity for a long-term plan that provides assurances to all Content Creators.

Our legal CYA: Please note that this document does not constitute legal advice, and none of its authors is your attorney. The document outlines GRIPNR’s intended path, based on our own assessment of the various risks posed by Wizards’ licensing, and IP issues within our own game, The Glimmering (TM). If you follow our path with respect to your own content, you assume all risks associated with your decisions, including dealing with any possible legal action brought against you by Wizards or any other parties.

A Brief IP Primer and its Relevance to Wizards’ OGL

Intellectual property is a product of the human intellect for which the law affords protection from unauthorized use by others. In the United States, IP generally falls into four categories: patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. IP is usually only protected if it meets the legal requirements specific to one of these four categories. Ideas and other products of the human intellect that do not meet the legal requirements of any of these categories are generally not protected. Below, we briefly cover each of these categories and discuss how they are relevant to the OGL and the proposed OGLv1.2.

Patents

The US Constitution authorizes protection of patents and copyrights in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, providing that: “The Congress shall have power…to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Patents are governed exclusively by federal law, under Title 35 of the United States Code.(3)

Three types of patents exist: utility patents, plant patents, and design patents. Design patents cover ornamental design (appearance) of an article of manufacture, and plant patents, as the name implies, are limited to new plant varieties; neither are relevant to the present discussion. Utility patents (what most people imagine when they hear ‘patents’) cover new and useful inventions, including processes, machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and improvements thereof. In order for a patent to be granted in the United States, a nonprovisional patent application must generally be filed within one year of the date of first public disclosure, and for many reasons are usually filed prior to public disclosure. A utility patent generally lasts at most 20 years from the date of the initial patent application (or its earliest priority date). Any invention publicly disclosed more than one year prior to filing of a related provisional or nonprovisional patent application is generally considered donated to the public domain.

Upon doing our searches, we have not found any applicable U.S. patents granted to Wizards or its predecessor entities that cover any of the methods, processes, systems, designs, or other items disclosed in the SRD or the OGL. Even assuming patents had been granted for any items covered by the original Open Gaming License, the IP covered would have fallen into the public domain long ago because any such patent would have expired. U.S. patents generally last at most 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application. The OGL dates back more than 20 years. In addition, no reference was ever made in the OGL or elsewhere to licensing of any patent rights. Indeed, Ryan Dancey, a Vice President at Wizards and the visionary who spearheaded the Open Gaming License, stated in an interview during the inception of OGL, “Patents are great. They can lock a game mechanic away behind a legal wall very effectively.”(4) However, Wizards has never secured a patent for the game mechanics in the SRD. Furthermore, any methods, processes, or systems that might have been subject to patent protection, but for which no patent application was timely filed within one year of public disclosure, would appear to have been donated to the public domain.

Trademarks

A trademark is a word, name, symbol, device or any combination thereof, used to identify a particular manufacturer or seller’s products, and distinguish them from the products of another.(5) Trademark law is governed by both the federal Lanham Act and state trademark common law, and each has its separate set of rules and procedures for registering either a federal or state trademark. Substantially more rights are obtained through federal registration of a trademark over a state registration. However, the word “trademark” or the symbols for a trademark (“TM” or “R”) may refer to both trademarks and service marks. Trademark laws also cover trade dress protection. Trade dress covers all elements that make up the overall appearance of a product or service, including color, shape, size, configuration, and packaging of a product. Trade dress protection does not cover elements which are primarily functional.

Wizards holds many federally registered trademarks and possibly additional trademarks under common law. Wizards’ trademarks may not be used by third parties in promotion of goods or services without their permission. In Exhibit A to this document, we provide a list of live, registered US trademarks owned by Wizards for your reference.(6) Note, the OGL specifically denied permission to Content Creators for use of these trademarks. It stands to reason that Wizards always intended to protect its trademarks. Even Ryan Dancey stated in his 20-year-old interview, “Trademarks are great. They can stop a lot of commercial products dead by refusing to allow those terms to be used.”(7) Therefore, our approach will not seek a license for use of Wizards’ trademarks, and we will continue to take adequate steps to avoid unfair use of any Wizards’ trademarks or service marks.

Trade Secrets

Trade secrets are protected both under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and state trade secret statutes. Trade secrets are generally defined as any commercially valuable information not generally known and not readily ascertainable by proper means, where reasonable measures are taken to keep such information secret. Any potential trade secrets which are publicly disclosed or for which adequate steps are not taken to keep the information secret are generally considered donated to the public domain. Given that everything discussed in this paper relates to information available to the public, trade secrets do not apply. There is no indication that any information not generally known was disclosed confidentially by Wizards, nor that any reasonable measures were taken to keep such information secret. There is no reference in the OGL to any applicable Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) or any other confidentiality agreement. Therefore, we are confident that issues related to the OGL and OGLv1.2 do not encompass trade secrets.

Copyrights

As stated above, copyrights are authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Copyrights are governed exclusively by federal law, under Title 17 of the United States Code. Copyrights protect original works of authorship, fixed in any tangible medium of expression, as follows:

(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

literary works;
musical works, including any accompanying words;
dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
pantomimes and choreographic works;
pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
sound recordings; and
architectural works.

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.(8)

Copyright law explicitly states that protection does not extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”(9) Such systems and methods may only be protected under patent law, and only if they meet all requirements for patent protection, including timely filing of a patent application. Although Wizards and its predecessor entities hold copyrights to many published books and other creative works, these copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, and concepts, regardless of the form in which they are described in such works. Methods, processes and systems are generally protected through patent or trade secret protection, which does not apply here. It bears repeating that Wizards does not hold any patents on game mechanics.

The United States Supreme Court has long held that patents rather than copyrights are the proper form of protection of systems and methods. In Baker v. Seldin, dating back to 1879, the Supreme Court held that the mere copyright of a book does not confer exclusive rights to the system described therein.(10) The opinion provides a detailed analysis of the difference between copyrights and patents and why patents are the proper vehicle for protection of methods. The Court pointed out that copyrights require authorship of an original work whereas patents require novelty of a useful invention, as follows:

To give to the author of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein, when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the province of letters-patent, not of copyright. The claim to an invention or discovery of an art or manufacture must be subjected to the examination of the Patent Office before an exclusive right therein can be obtained; and it can only be secured by a patent from the government.(11)

The Court further confirmed the longstanding principle that “by publishing the book, without getting a patent for the art, the latter is given to the public.”(12) One hundred and forty-four years later, this remains the law of the land.

Further, the Copyright Office publishes a five-page circular devoted to the issue of “Works Not Protected by Copyright”, which addresses attempts to copyright ideas, methods, and systems.(13) The Copyright Office notes that even though methods are excluded from copyright protection,

The Office may, however, register a literary, graphic, or artistic description, explanation, or illustration of an idea, procedure, process, system, or method of operation, provided that the work contains a sufficient amount of original authorship. However, copyright protection will extend only to the original expression in that work and not to the underlying idea, methods, or systems described or explained.(14)

The Copyright Office goes on to discuss copyright protection for “layout” or “format” of items such as a page, web page, or form, noting that these are generally uncopyrightable.(15) Given sufficient creativity, copyright protection may be available, but is limited “to the selection and arrangement of that specific content, not to the selection and arrangement of any content in that particular manner.”

Originality is the touchstone of copyright protection in directories and other fact-based works.(16) In a case denying copyright protection for publication of telephone directories, the Supreme Court held that the copyright statute “envisions that some ways of selecting, coordinating, and arranging data are not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection…Others may copy the underlying facts from the publication, but not the precise words used to present them.”(17) This holding is consistent with the notion that game mechanics, such as those listed by Wizards in the SRD are not protectable by copyrights.

Creative Commons

OGLv1.2 has proposed that the “core D&D mechanics” of the SRD (or any subsequent version) be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC by 4.0).(18) Creative Commons is a license designed to provide IP to the public while retaining authorship and attribution to the author. Essentially, when IP is provided to the public under Creative Commons, that IP can be used, shared, distributed, and adapted, so long as proper credit is given and a link to the license is posted. In addition, any content released under Creative Commons may not restrict others from doing anything that the license permits. The version proposed (CC by 4.0) is the least restrictive of the available versions, allowing for broadest use, including royalty-free commercial use and is perpetual and irrevocable as long as the licensee complies with its attribution requirements. Although Wizards is attempting to assuage the TTRPG Community by providing some of its SRD elements as Creative Commons, significant concerns remain, which we will address herein.

Our analysis indicates that if any IP issues persist with respect to the OGL and proposed OGLv1.2, they exist under the category of copyrights, since third parties are already required to avoid improper use of valid trademarks. Having said that, let’s take a closer look at the OGL and where things stand as of January 19, 2023.

Wizards’ Open Gaming License 1.0a

A Brief History of the OGL

As most of the TTRPG Community is already aware, the Open Gaming License is a copyright license created and provided by Wizards of the Coast to the public. As of January 19, 2023, even though proposed OGLv1.2 has been published, it is only in draft form. Therefore, the OGL is still in effect and has been since 2000. The OGL coincided with the release of the 3rd Edition of Dungeons and Dragons®. Although in 2008, Wizards implemented a more restrictive Game System License to coincide with the 4th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, this license was not compatible with OGL. In 2016, with the release of the 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, Wizards released the System Reference Document 5.1 under the terms of OGL. The general consensus of the TTRPG Community is that OGL’s “open” nature is principally responsible for a much larger influx of TTRPG players. Therefore, review and analysis of the SRD and the OGL are required to determine what license rights Wizards has provided to Content Creators.

Analysis of the OGL

The OGL falls under the realm of United States copyright law. While Wizards has drawn a clear boundary around several IP assets protected by their trademarks, the OGL itself is not protected by trademark law, patent law, or as a trade secret.

The System Reference Document is a reference guide for playing the TTRPG under Wizards’ Dungeons and Dragons game framework. The framework includes terminology, definitions, and some game mechanics, skill checks, classes, spells, various character abilities, and rules for combat and other challenges. As stated clearly in OGL, usage of content and assets in SRD is “granted through the use of Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.” (19) So long as Content Creators follow the terms (and any restrictions) of OGL, they may copy, reproduce, and distribute the contents of SRD for their own commercial uses.

The Open Gaming License is a public copyright license provided by Wizards that defines what third party developers of content, products, and game assets can and cannot do. By making it “public,” Wizards has provided a license by which, as the copyright holder and licensor, it can grant additional copyright permissions to any and all persons in the general public as licensees. The SRD is published under the OGL, which means that the OGL defines how third parties may or may not use the contents of SRD. Content Creators do not need to execute a formal document under an open public license. However, if they do not follow the terms of OGL, Wizards will likely aggressively protect its legal rights and pursue claims against infringers. Regardless, under general contract theory, the OGL is an offer by Wizards, provided with consideration, and Content Creators using SRD to create their content under the OGL thereby accept Wizards’ offer. Thus, the OGL is a valid contract. In addition, under the theory of promissory estoppel, if Content Creators have relied on promises already made by Wizards, then Wizards is bound to keep its end of the bargain.(20) As already discussed by a large number of attorneys, legal scholars, TTRPG companies, and the TTRPG Community at large, the OGL presents issues as we move forward.

First, Paragraph 4 of the preamble on Page 1 states what Wizards did not license, which includes a variety of trademarks and IP claimed by Wizards.(21) Therefore, any use of IP in this exhaustive list is off limits to any third parties, and doing so will very likely result in legal action by Wizards.

Next, the grant of the license is provided in the OGL Section 4: “In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.” Although the plain language of Section 4 states that the OGL is “perpetual”, much of the recent controversy focuses on whether the OGL is revocable. The question does not have a straightforward answer. Had the OGL stated that it was perpetual and irrevocable, there would be no question about content created using SRD. Content Creators could rest assured that Wizards would not be able to change or revoke the terms of the OGL under which they created content.(22) However, the OGL is silent as to whether it is irrevocable, and thus courts could easily hold that the OGL is revocable. The mere fact that it is perpetual does not prevent either the licensor (Wizards) or any licensee (Content Creator) from revoking it.

Of note, however, are some important facts: At the inception of OGL, no distinction of perpetual versus irrevocable was required because there was no such intent. The framers of the OGL never intended for the public license to be revoked, and thus, the word was not used.(23) Second, Ryan Dancey stated in his interview during the inception of OGL:

The idea is to release a D20 System reference document under the Open Gaming License; essentially exposing the standard D&D mechanics, classes, races, spells, and monsters to the Open Gaming community. Anyone could use that material to develop a product using that information essentially without restrictions, including the lack of a royalty or a fee paid to Wizards of the Coast.(24)

Making the waters even murkier, Section 9 of the OGL reserves Wizards’ right to publish updated versions of OGL. However, Section 9 also states that third parties may use any authorized version of Wizards’ license to distribute any Open Game Content that is distributed by “any version” of the license. This language seems to strongly suggest that if a Content Creator created content under the OGL at a time that the license was authorized, such content would remain safely licensed pursuant to the terms of OGL, even if the OGL was revoked at some point in the future.

Therefore, based on established law and the texts in Sections 4 and 9 of OGL, we believe we can formulate the following guidelines:

1) The OGL is perpetual, so long as it is not revoked.

2) Wizards’ position is that the OGL can be revoked by Wizards at any time.

3) After the OGL is revoked, any content created by Content Creators within the SRD (or its successor) framework will be subject to the proposed OGLv1.2.

4) Any SRD-based content created prior to Wizards revoking the OGL is subject only to the terms of the OGL and not OGLv1.2 or any other future license.

5) Any content created, distributed under, and conforming to the terms of the OGL prior to its revocation is likely safe from royalties, demands of withdrawal, or legal claims, because those were the terms of the OGL, regardless of whether the OGL is revoked or not.

Many Content Creators, including GRIPNR, have relied on these rules in order to develop, publish, and profit from their content that specifically follows these rules. However, as the recent TTRPG Community’s backlash against the Leak indicates, many Content Creators, including large companies like Paizo and smaller independent Content Creators, are deeply concerned about having relied on rules established for more than two decades that are now in jeopardy of being changed. The backlash has caused Wizards to make public statements that are now consistent with OGL Section 9. Specifically, on January 13, 2023, Wizards published, “Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.”(25)

Although Wizards’ position appears to be that they can revoke the OGL at any time, we are confident that any content we created under OGL prior to its revocation would remain subject to the terms of the OGL. Of course, any content created after Wizards revokes the OGL would still need to avoid infringement on any valid Wizards’ IP rights and would still be restricted by OGLv1.2 or other future license. However, we believe that Wizards cannot claim any rights, ownership, or royalties to content we created while the OGL was in effect, regardless of whether or when Wizards revokes the OGL.

Serious Problems with Proposed Open Gaming License v1.2

Despite our confidence about the content we have created under OGL, when it comes to proposed future licenses, all bets are off. Based on the Leak and OGLv1.2, a number of changes have been proposed, none of which give us assurances as Content Creators. The following section is not exhaustive, but we need to highlight the most troubling aspects of OGLv1.2 for us and other Content Creators.

Deauthorization of the OGL

OGLv1.2 states that the Open Gaming License v1.0a is no longer an authorized license agreement. As we have discussed at length, we do not believe a deauthorization or revocation of the OGL could invalidate permissions expressly granted while the OGL was in effect. What is clear, however, is that upon the publication of the final version of OGLv1.2, the original OGL will no longer be effective. This means any part of the SRD that is not under Creative Commons will be subject to OGLv1.2.

Content Released Under Creative Commons Does Not Appear Protectable

In response to the TTRPG Community backlash, Wizards has proposed releasing the following sections under Creative Commons:

Part 1: Beyond 1st Level to the rules for Spellcasting (pages 56–104 of the SRD), which includes:

Leveling and experience points;
Multiclassing;
All of the stats: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, Hit Points, Hit Dice, Proficiency Bonus, Speed, and Inspiration;
The skills;
The idea of class features;
Rules for spellcasting;
Alignment;
The idea of backgrounds;
The idea of feats;
The equipment section (but excluding specific examples on these pages);
Advantage and Disadvantage;
Saving Throws;
Initiative and the combat rules and actions;
The various types of visions and speeds;
Death saves;
Temporary Hit Points; and
Generally, the rules for the game.

Part 2: The section of the rules about monsters, excluding stat blocks for monsters and any monsters with sufficient original content created by Wizards (pages 254–260 of the SRD).

Part 3: The rules section detailing conditions, meaning the bad things that can happen to creatures besides damage (pages 358–359 of the SRD).

While we applaud Wizards for proposing to release these SRD items under Creative Commons, we do not believe any of these items are protectable, except under limited copyright protections for Wizards’ content containing sufficient originality. Per our analysis, these items are all included in or related to game mechanics, which could have been protected by patents, had Wizards secured patent rights. Note, even if Wizards had secured patents in game mechanics in the first place, any such patents would already have expired.

Further, we would be remiss if we did not point out that none of this content has been released under Creative Commons as of yet because OGLv1.2 has not been finalized. Proposed terms have changed radically in the last two weeks alone, and they can change again before the final release.

Termination of the License

OGLv1.2 reserves the right to terminate the license agreement as follows:

Wizards will terminate a Content Creator’s license under OGLv1.2 if any infringement of Wizards’ IP occurs. What is considered their IP remains broad and vague.
Wizards will terminate OGLv1.2 if any Content Creator brings an action to challenge ownership of Wizards’ Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents (of which they hold none with respect to the OGL or the SRD). In a circular manner, OGLv1.2 defines their Licensed Content as any Wizards content covered by OGLv1.2, and any other content they release or have released. Note, if a Content Creator combines their content with Wizards content, then OGLv1.2 applies to that combined content, which makes it Wizards’ Licensed Content, and therefore subject to termination.
Wizards will terminate OGLv1.2 if they deem, in their sole discretion, that a Content Creator has created content that is “harmful, discriminatory, illegal, or harassing.” Wizards retains the sole right to be the arbiter of what these terms mean. These terms are vague, incredibly broad, and their meanings are prone to change with time.

To be fair, we applaud Wizards for reversing its position on some aspects of the Leak. OGLv1.2 now proposes that their License Content would be perpetual, non-exclusive, and irrevocable, and we hope that the final version retains these terms. However, we remain uncomfortable with the broad and unilateral authority with which Wizards can terminate the license. It is unclear what would occur with our content if Wizards successfully terminates their license with us under OGLv1.2.

Ownership of Content IP

Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the Leak was the terms of intellectual property ownership of the content. The Leak had stated that Content Creators would be explicitly agreeing that Wizards owns copyright, trademark, and patent rights to both licensed and unlicensed content. As a Content Creator, we were extremely uncomfortable with ambiguous language that did not clearly define what we own and what Wizards claims it owns. Although OGLv1.2 is better at defining what is our content and what is Wizards’, we cannot help but remain skeptical. Note, under OGLv1.2, we still would not be able to challenge the ownership of IP without giving Wizards immediate grounds to terminate the license.

Problematic Virtual Tabletop Policy

OGLv1.2 proposes a policy applicable to virtual tabletop (VTT) games. Special notes and definitions apply toward whether a game is still considered a tabletop game or a video game. We find the VTT policy to be half-baked and poorly conceived. GRIPNR’s business includes games, worlds, characters, and stories, represented by a variety of NFTs and blockchain technology. While we understand and respect Wizards’ right to protect its images and artwork, their VTT policy does not consider the fact that just because a TTRPG contains electronic components, that alone does not make it a video game. Most concerning is how the VTT policy calls out NFTs as possible video games. We disagree. We are deeply concerned with Wizards’ reservation of rights to cancel the license simply because it deems that we have violated any term in the OGLv1.2 or their VTT policy because of our NFTs. Again, they would also terminate our license if we simply challenged them in a legal action. We simply cannot agree to these terms, as they affect our core business.

Silent on Royalties

The Leak provided explicit terms on royalties, which was one of the main reasons for the community backlash. OGLv1.2 remains silent as to royalties, but again, we are extremely uncomfortable with how Wizards has flirted with the idea of royalties. There are no assurances that a future license would not invoke royalties. At least for now, any licensed content under OGLv1.2 and any content released under Creative Commons would be free of royalties.

A Solution: The Open Source Gaming License

Wizards has shown its hand, and the trust with the TTRPG Community has been broken. Wizards clearly wants to revoke the OGL. Although OGLv1.2 walks back some of the oppressive terms of the Leak, as Content Creators, we cannot ignore that Wizards could change the rules on us again in the future. The best path forward for GRIPNR and many other companies in the industry is to abandon the OGL license and find licenses or other methods that will allow us to continue our business and our love for the TTRPG Community. We are developing an alternative paradigm to publish our game, world, adventures, and various supplements with a stronger Open Source Gaming License that is not controlled by the whim of a corporate master, that will better serve the entire tabletop roleplaying game community, and that is forward facing when it comes to emerging technologies. GRIPNR believes that “open” means exactly that — open.

First, we support our friends at Paizo and their efforts to spearhead the creation of this kind of license. As of January 19, 2023, Paizo’s Open Roleplaying Creative License (the “ORC”) is in the early stages of development. The ORC has likely already reached a critical mass, with hundreds if not more tabletop roleplaying game publishers and content creators, as well as the original architects of the OGL, voicing their support. After discussions with Paizo, we have eagerly added our name to that list, with the intention of drafting language that supports open gaming concepts in conjunction with our blockchain and other emerging technologies.

But the hour grows late; the matter is urgent. GRIPNR is making its changes now, and will share those changes with Paizo and the entire TTRPG Community, and even share it under the ORC down the line. Our goal is simple. The future must be truly open source. Thus, as our first step to abandoning the OGL, we hereby deem OGLv1.2 or future license produced by Wizards of the Coast insufficient for the future of real open gaming. Wizards actions have shaken our trust to the core, and there is no going back. We have a plan for the future, and we suggest any Content Creator interested in honest open gaming form a plan of their own.

Nuts and Bolts: Removing the Open Gaming License

Divorcing from the OGL license involves a) stripping future products, and possibly past products, b) of any statements of Open Content and the appearance of the license itself, and c) expunging any text expression taken from the SRD from those products, d) while respecting Wizards of the Coasts legitimate copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets. The following outlines how we intend to accomplish this.

Step 1: Not Using any Trademarked Terms in the SRD or the OGL

This is the easiest step. The terms of the OGL already reserved Wizards’ trademarked IP. We are used to working with the OGL, and so we have already been doing this. As we have stated herein, we pay special attention to the Page 1 Paragraph 4 of the OGL, which lists terms that Wizards’ “Product Identity” and therefore not open game content. A number of these are registered trademarks. Also, we will not use the proper names of any individuals or places in the Dungeons & Dragons multiverse, just to be safe, and to not infringe on Wizards of the Coast’s legitimate intellectual property rights.

Step 2: Changing the Patterns

This step is more challenging. We cannot rely on old patterns of presentation and expression. The flow of information within game rules, including different charts, examples, and even the various statistics can be presented differently, often even more clearly than in the past. It’s not enough just to paraphrase what exists already and present it in a similar format. We will strive for innovation and an improvement of past styles of presentation. We will make sure our own voice and creativity shines through when unleashing our game design.

Step 3: Change the Rules

What game designer, whether a grizzled veteran or just starting out, hasn’t looked at a rule and thought, “Well, I have a better idea!”? We plan to commit to our creativity and express the rules of our roleplaying game that we think are better for the worlds we are creating. Game rules often become more refined and satisfying through innovation. We are not afraid to flex our creativity and intellect when creating our game or supplement. As we have discussed in this article, we do not believe Wizards can protect the game mechanics. Therefore, our new rules accomplish several tasks:

a) Our rules remain compatible with 5th Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. b) Our rules respect the worlds and stories that have existed in this genre for centuries.
c) Our rules do not infringe on any of Wizards’ IP that is protectable, notwithstanding the fact that their game mechanics do not appear to be protectable.

Conclusion: A Path Forward

We want to be abundantly clear that regardless of the proposed OGLv1.2 published on January 19, 2023, we are taking a different path. GRIPNR and The Glimmering do not need OGLv1.2 or the SRD to build game worlds people love, enjoy playing, and find familiar yet new. To be candid and blunt, Wizards has no broad right to prevent the use of Web3, blockchain, or NFTs in tabletop gaming. We deploy all of them and will not stop.

Wizards’ reference to NFTs as a “reason” for changes in the OGL are disingenuous. First, it is not legally possible to create an NFT using Wizards of the Coast’s IP without complying with the OGL (which we did). Second, Hasbro, Wizards’ parent company, has already produced and sold NFTs. NFTs and emerging technologies are not a valid reason for revoking the OGL, especially in such a severe manner. Wizards’ unilateral proposal in the current form only serves to stifle innovation, creativity, and competition in the tabletop roleplaying game industry.

GRIPNR’s deployment of these technologies is aimed at expanding and fulfilling the promises long made to third-party publishers, game masters, game designers, and players to create together without limit, receive attribution and remuneration for their work, and structure and authenticate organized play with true personal ownership of characters and treasure. The blockchain literally prevents predatory elements that Wizards proposed in its leaked OGLv1.2. Our decentralized and distributed systems authenticate and validate creative contributions and enable the transparent flow of value to those who have created it. Our tech prevents large organizations from claiming ownership of someone else’s work, siphoning compensation for it without merit, or terminating Content Creators’ rights to build worlds and create adventures that others love.

Not long ago, our efforts were consistent with the goals of the OGL. Wizards’ had created a powerful treaty with the TTRPG Community. But, unfortunately, now the old spell of trust and collaboration has been fundamentally broken. None of us wants to have to do this, but we must now build a future where TTRPGs can flourish under a truly open environment, where all of us can build and play free of any entity’s attempts to stifle an entire industry.

While GRIPNR is preparing to revoke all uses of the OGL and the SRD, we aren’t building in a walled garden. The methods, processes, and mechanics we are developing will be freely and irrevocably given back to the community to use as they see fit, in the true sense of a perpetual, irrevocable, open source manner. In addition, we will continue to support and collaborate with other publishers in developing new and genuinely open gaming licenses to ensure that tabletop roleplaying games will remain open, inclusive, and fun for everyone.

Authored by GRIPNR LLC (https://gripnr.com) and its counsel, Abid Hussain of Hussain Law LLC (https://hussainlaw.com) and William Buckley of Buckley Law Firm, LLC (https://buckley.law).

Footnotes and Citations:

EXHIBIT A

Wizards of the Coast’s Registered US Trademarks

The following are live, registered federal US trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, provided here for your reference. We cannot guarantee the completeness of this list. Do not infringe on these marks.