Open Game License
The Open Game License is a public copyright license by Wizards of the Coast that may be used by tabletop role-playing game developers to grant permission to modify, copy, and redistribute some of the content designed for their games, notably game mechanics.
Language of the license
The OGL states that "in consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content". The OGL defines two forms of content:;Open Game Content
;Product Identity
Use of another company's Product Identity is considered breach of the licensing agreement.
History
3rd Edition
The OGL was originally published by Wizards of the Coast in 2000 to license the use of portions of the third edition of Dungeons & Dragons, via a System Reference Document, thus allowing third-party publishers to produce compatible material. The SRD "included the basic rules and elements of D&D, such as classes, monsters, spells, and magic items, enabling the creation of legal support products for the game". This move was spearheaded by Ryan Dancey and it was "modeled on the various open-source licenses used in the software industry". Publishers could also use the separate d20 System Trademark License to include a logo indicating compatibility. In an interview, Dancey stated:I think there's a very, very strong business case that can be made for the idea of embracing the ideas at the heart of the Open Source movement and finding a place for them in gaming. One of my fundamental arguments is that by pursuing the Open Gaming concept, Wizards can establish a clear policy on what it will, and will not allow people to do with its copyrighted materials. Just that alone should spur a huge surge in independent content creation that will feed into the D&D network.Academics Benoît Demil and Xavier Lecocq, in the economic journal Revue d'économie industrielle, highlighted that a business goal of the OGL was to have competitors institutionalize a standardized rule system – "if WOTC could get more people in the industry to use the same system, players would learn only one system and be able to migrate from product to product and game to game without learning and transaction costs. While it would reduce the number of original gaming systems in the market, the idea was to increase the audience for everybody, especially for the leader. The ultimate goal was to establish 'd20' as a recognizable trademark, like 'VHS' or 'DVD'".
In 2004, Wizards of the Coast addressed what would occur if the license was changed – the OGL "already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway".
4th Edition
In June 2008, Wizards of the Coast transitioned to a new, more restrictive royalty-free license called the Game System License, which is available for third-party developers to publish products compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. The GSL is incompatible with the previous OGL. However, by its own terms the OGL is perpetual, and remained in widespread use.Greg Tito, for The Escapist in 2011, commented that the GSL "released in conjunction with 4th edition took away many of the freedoms that the industry had come to expect with the D&D rules, such as reprinting text for clarity in new products". Andy Collins, a Dungeons & Dragons designer who became the "Design & Development Manager around the release of 4th edition", stated that:
I remember arguing pretty hard to retain something like what Wizards had done for 3rd edition; an open license that included the core rules and a few basic guidelines on how to use it. I argued that without some kind of OGL, Wizards risked leaving behind the body of customers and potential customers who saw the open license as an assumed part of the D&D. In hindsight, I wonder if it might simply have been better to rather than guilting the company into crafting a Frankenstein's monster of an open license that ended up pleasing basically nobody.
5th Edition
On January 12, 2016, Wizards of the Coast released the 5th Edition SRD under v1.0a of the OGL, marking a return to the Open Gaming format. This SRD was later revised and rereleased as SRD 5.1 in May 2016.Content creators can alternatively utilize a different licensing option by publishing through the Dungeon Masters Guild storefront; this license allows individuals and third party publishers to create and sell content based on specific Wizards of the Coast intellectual property such as the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and the Magic: The Gathering planes. Content creators are allowed to set their own price, however, Wizards of the Coast and OneBookShelf take a 50% cut of the proceeds.
Proposed OGL changes
In August 2022, Wizards of the Coast launched a public playtest of the next version of Dungeons & Dragons under the One D&D initiative. In November 2022, there was reported speculation that the OGL would be discontinued for this new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons based on unconfirmed leaks. In response to the speculation, Wizards of the Coast stated in November 2022: "We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document at this time".Following concerns raised by third-party Dungeons & Dragons creators on the potential changes to the OGL, in December 2022, Wizards of the Coast released additional details on the proposed OGL 1.1 which would have gone into effect in 2023. It would have clarified that it only applies to "printed media or static electronic files " and "only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs"; OGL 1.1 would not cover other content such as video games or virtual tabletops. Content creators using OGL 1.1 would have been required "to put an official OGL badge on their products". Revenue related to OGL content would have been reported to Wizards of the Coast if that revenue exceeds $50,000 annually; creators who make at least $750,000 in income annually will be required to pay a royalty starting in 2024.
Lin Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0. Codega explained that while the original OGL granted a "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license" it also included language around authorized versions of the license and "according to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL". The document also states that the intention of the OGL was not "to fund major competitors and it wasn't intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed materials for use while gaming". In a statement to EN World, Dancey, former VP of Wizards of the Coast and the architect of OGL1.0, said, "my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked".
Following an apology issued by Wizards of the Coast, the company released a new draft titled OGL 1.2 for public comment on January 19. It would have put some of the Dungeon & Dragons mechanics under a Creative Commons license, while other material would have been covered by OGL 1.2. Unlike the leaked OGL 1.1, the proposed OGL 1.2 contained "no royalty payment, no financial reporting, no license-back, no registration, no distinction between commercial and non-commercial". The proposed OGL 1.2 would have de-authorized the OGL1.0a; it would also be "irrevocable, although there's still a severability clause should a part of the license is held to be unenforceable or invalid". Along with the proposed OGL 1.2, Wizards released a separate virtual tabletop policy. On January 27, 2023, Wizards of the Coast announced that following feedback during the open comment for OGL1.2 they had decided to instead release the System Reference Document 5.1 under an irrevocable Creative Commons license effective immediately and would no longer pursue deauthorizing the OGL1.0a.
2025 update
The SRD was revised to reflect the 2024 revision to the 5th Edition ruleset. SRD 5.2 was released under a Creative Commons license on April 22, 2025. Jess Lanzillo, VP of Franchise and Product for Dungeons & Dragons, explained that the "SRD will be part of the errata process, ensuring it is regularly updated as official clarifications and corrections are published for our Core Rulebooks. Future SRDs will be published with new version numbers, allowing us to respond to how players are playing D&D and what creators are creating within the game and update the SRD with future versions".Reception
Open Game License
Those individuals, groups and publishing companies that license their works under the OGL and similar documents are sometimes collectively referred to as the "open gaming movement". The OGL led to the development of the stand-alone Pathfinder Roleplaying Game which is a modified version of the 3.5 game. James Maliszewski, for The Escapist, commented that the OGL also helped launch the Old School Revival movement and that "by 2002, the idea of using the SRD to reverse engineer the out-of-print AD&D took root on Dragonsfoot and other old school forums". Academics Benoît Demil and Xavier Lecocq, in the economic journal Revue d'économie industrielle in 2014, stated that the OGL had an immediate impact on the tabletop role-playing industry with an increase in new TTRP publications where the "majority of the new entrants adopted" the d20 license; d20 products sold at a higher rate than non-d20 products until the mid 2000s. It "was considered by WOTC's managers as a huge success due to the large movement of adoption it created among publishers". They also highlighted that the "success was amplified by the rise of electronic publishing". Christopher B. Seaman and Thuan Tran, for the academic journal Iowa Law Review in 2022, also highlighted that the release of the OGL "created a major shift in the RPG industry" and "led to a boom in the RPG industry in the early 2000s". They commented that "the emergence of open source licensing for RPGs facilitates user creativity and innovation, as dozens of D&D-compatible supplements have been created under the Open Game License".Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in 2023, highlighted that roleplaying games have aspects that are copyrightable, such as creative expression, and aspects that are not, such as functional descriptions of game mechanics. Walsh commented that the original OGL "is very narrow" and includes "elements that are not copyrightable in the first place" – agreeing to the OGL "almost certainly means you have rights to use elements of Dungeons and Dragons than you would otherwise. For example, absent this agreement, you have a legal right to create a work using noncopyrightable elements of D&D or making fair use of copyrightable elements". However, Walsh highlights the "primary benefit" is knowing the exact terms in order to not be sued by Wizards of the Coast and avoiding "having to prove your fair use rights or engage in an expensive legal battle over copyrightability in court". Walsh stated that "open licenses can involve a lot of legalese that makes them hard for a layperson to understand" and explained that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" are separate legal terms; while the OGL states it is perpetual, it does not state that it is irrevocable. In an update to the article, Walsh wrote that past statements by Wizards of the Coast make "very clear that Wizards always thought of this as a contract with obligations for both sides . Unlike a bare license without consideration, an offer to contract like this cannot be revoked unilaterally once it has been accepted, under the law of Washington and other states". Walsh stated that works already published "under OGL 1.0a are entitled to the benefit Wizards of the Coast promised them under that contract. But Wizards can revoke the offer of the OGL 1.0a as to new potential users who haven't yet accepted its terms". Kyle Orland, for Ars Technica, highlighted Walsh's analysis and commented that the "legal situation is complicated a bit by Section 9" of the original OGL as that clause states third party designers can "use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License". Orland stated that Section 9 coupled with statements made by Wizards of the Coast in the original 2001 FAQ, seem "to suggest that companies could continue using the old license to make products based on the old ruleset that was published under OGL v1.0a ".