New RPG Players

New Players in Games Today

Living in a Golden Age?

It seems like since I heard about David Ewalt’s Of Dice & Men, I—and everyone else—decided it was time to pick our dice back up and start rolling again.  I stopped playing when 2nd Edition was a big thing (the Dragon magazine 5 CD compilation was my last major purchase—and one I’m thrilled I held on to, if only out of chance).

Lately, it seems like everywhere I turn, there’s another article about how roleplaying games are becoming all the rage again.  The most recent was published in today’s Washington Post as a short comic (guessing online only!).  Some of the reasons listed are that the stigma’s been lifted, people never really knew what roleplaying games were before, among other things.

Although none of the major producers I know of release detailed sales figures, anecdotal sources tell us that the state of the hobby is strong.  ICv2’s most recent Internal Correspondence estimates that games sales are up 20% overall.  Internal Correspondence notes that RPG sales as a whole are increasing, led (unsurprisingly) by 5th Edition, with Pathfinder sales flat or declining—at least in retail stores. 

And yet, something must be going right for the kids over at Paizo.  Even if the industry insider is telling tales of their woes, Paizo’s gone and broken three of their oldest taboos.  First, they’ve consistently said no new edition for Pathfinder, at least not anytime soon.  Second, they’ve repeatedly resisted advancing their timeline, something popular with RPGs in both the domestic and international markets.  Finally, citing concerns that it was the creation of too many campaign settings that ultimately sunk TSR into Wizards of the Coast’s arms, they’ve refused to publish anything but their Golarion products—in house at least.  Instead, they’ve squared the circle, developing a new game mixing magic and technology and adding in a little interstellar travel.  Before this post devolves into a post on the merits of Starfinder (future topic!), I’ll leave it to say that Lisa Stevens at Paizo strikes me as a shrewd businesswoman.  If she didn’t believe there was space (double enténdres?) in the industry for a successful new product, it would not be happening.

Finally, we’ve seen a bevy of other games and game companies sprout up over the last few years.  This includes Monte Cook Games with their Numenera, the Strange, and Cypher System games; Fire Opal Media’s partnership with Pelgrane Press to publish 13th Age; Robert Schwalb’s Shadow of the Demon Lord (with a number of support products that are, frankly, mind boggling for a product with less than one year on the market); Green Ronin’s Fantasy AGE; and a new edition of Shadowrun, just to name a few.

What Does This Have to Do With New Players?

New players are how we keep growing our hobby!  And, because I need to write a blog post.  Because I want to see the less-well supported products succeed, I like to run 13th Age games at GenCon and other local cons I attend.  So, before GenCon 2015, I invited some friends over to my house for a little roleplaying session.  I planned on using four hours to run the first two-hour scenario in the Shadowport Shuffle series: Deep in the Red.  I felt like Deep in the Red would be a strong scenario because it offered a lot of roleplaying opportunities.  I provided pre-gen characters, but wanted to give people wholly ignorant of game mechanics quite some time to learn them.

I ended up with 7 players, only one of which had experience playing any RPG.  6 were heterosexual women, one was a bisexual woman, and 1 was a homosexual male.  That’s right our table had no heterosexual males (not that there’s anything wrong with playing with heterosexual males, but our group was NOT the norm)!  Here’s a quick rundown, all working professionals in the Washington, DC area:

·      Attorney for a large corporate firm

·      Property manager for an apartment building with 100+ units

·      Congressman’s scheduler

·      Charter school principal

·      Special events director of a museum

·      Office manager for a judicial advocacy organization

·      Partner of a real estate management and sales firm

One look at this list does not scream: members of the creative class!  There were no writers, no artists, no singers or songwriters, no architects, etc.  All in all, I was actually excited about this.  Of course, there were no engineers either, so we were killing the stereotypes on multiple fronts. 

What Actually Happened?

[MINOR SPOILERS FOR THE 13TH AGE SCENARIO “SHADOWPORT SHUFFLE” FOLLOW]

We sat down and everyone but me opened their first drinks (did I mention this was a heavy drinking group?).  I gave a quick runthrough of the system’s rules: covering ability scores, races, classes, using d20 and other weird dice, and other information on their character sheets.  Then, we talked about backgrounds and how they interact with skill checks.  We talked one unique things and icon relationships.  Finally, we jumped into play.  Here are my quick takeaways:

Roleplay Attracts No Specific Type of Person

When I’d first put out the call for GenCon guinea pigs players, the call was wide and to a large group of people (about 25), because I thought that no one would be interested.  I found that quite a lot of people were.  Some were curious because they’d never heard of them.  Others were curious because they’d heard of them, but didn’t know what they were.  A surprising number did know what they were, and had played before. 

Three of my players are from another group that frequently discusses attempting to organize a book club dedicated to cheap wine and trashy, smutty fantasy novels.  I was not surprised when they signed up.  However, I was surprised that one of them was not a fan of the RPG experience.  Another participant, who was a last minute, day of, addition, has been hassling me to organize another home game.  (Don’t worry, law school’s over!  It’s happening!) 

Fortunately, at least one of them had some rpg experience.  This was useful from a numbers management perspective.  Having two people to help six new people wasn’t an optimal ratio, but we’ll discuss that later in the post.

Roleplay Can Be Intimidating for Newcomers

One of my players had initially emailed me saying that she’d love to help out a friend, but she just didn’t feel like she was creative enough to participate in something like an afternoon of roleplay.  I assured her that she was and that if she was uncomfortable, she should by no means feel required to do anything that would upset her.  I was thrilled when she showed up that day though.

This is an area where system choices can have a real effect on new players’ experiences.  Two of 13th Age system tools quickly came into play here.  First, its montage scene feature is a system-neutral tool (it’s not even mentioned in the Core book, just in the adventures and later products) that’s useful for helping players get into their characters. 

·      GM (to Player 1): It took you two weeks to make the journey from Alepha to Betatown.  On the way, there was a great challenge that threatened all of your lives.  What was it?

·      Player 1: A man-hunting bear trained in the art of the shuriken stalked us through the forest of Beasties.

·      GM (nodding): Yes, it was a terrifying time.  But, Jord the Crazed Sword Mute saved all of your skins.  How did he do it?

·      Player 2 (playing Jord): Well, you see, it went something like this…

Montage scenes involve no rolling of dice, merely storytelling.  They are a great way to invest players in the story without needing a single mechanic.  It’s also exteremely useful for helping those players who are concerned that they’re “not creative enough” to get involved.  It’s loads easier to ask a player to give a minor detail (or set up a problem) than it is to say, “You’ve got this sheet full of stats, tell me its story.”

Deep in the Red makes use of this in other ways two.  At one point, the players meet an NPC.  After the GM gives a very brief initial sketch, each player is invited to give a detail about that NPC’s appearance and/or mannerisms (which resulted in my having to act like a physically big man with a small boy’s voice).  That’s a great way to let players develop the world: it takes work of my shoulders while investing them in the experience at the same time.  Sure, it was a pain keeping my voice high and occasionally cracking it, but my players were invested and actively listened to what the NPC had to tell them.

Deep in the Red also assumes that each of the characters owes one of the Icons, major NPC organizations in the game system, a favor.  That Icon is the Prince of Shadows, an archetypical master thief figure.  The scenario begins with the Game Master informing the players of this debt.  Each player then has an opportunity to explain what, exactly they needed and how, exactly, the Prince helped them.  This was very useful for getting players in character.

And that player who thought she wasn’t creative enough?  Well, after the party recovered the MacGuffin they were sent to find, she had a really sneaky idea.  Since the party was working for a master thief, why didn’t they just have a copy of the statue made and sneak off with the real one themselves?  Not to spoil a major reveal at the end of the scenario, but what’s supposed to be a big surprise for the PCs turned into a much bigger surprise for the NPC questgiver.  And the PCs were thrilled to see that happen (not to mention paid double for stealing only once!).

Newer Players Preferred Story over Context

I provided the info map above as a flip map in the center of the table.  My goal was to quickly convey system information (yellow) and setting information (pink) with a visually appealing backdrop.  To some degree, it worked.  To other degrees it didn’t.

What Worked

Pelgrane Press provides a beautiful, hi-res, image file of the map of the Dragon Empire.  Gaming companies put these things out and as a Gamemaster, you should run with them.  Obviously, don’t abuse their intellectual property (most companies detail how you can use these materials for your home games somewhere in their core rulebook or attached to each product).  Remember, many gaming companies are small and thrilled to have you interacting with their materials and the authors themselves will love seeing what you did.  So, get out there and do it.  Focus on what you’re best at, but don’t be afraid to stretch out—graphic design isn’t my field of expertise, but I think I did a pretty good job throwing out a 24x30 inch flip map that got everyone’s attention.

The bare bones information was helpful here.  Being able to point to the gazetteer information on Shadowport (which paraphrases the 13th Age Core entry on the city with a bare-bones explanation) and then tell them, “And that’s ALL anyone…you or I…really knows about it right now,” helped cement the setting’s malleability in their heady.  Similarly, defining the Icons enough to give them flavor but without setting them in stone was helpful.  If I run a similar campaign, I’ll consider using the 7 Icon Campaign aid.  13 Icons are great if you’re a voracious reader or a regular gamer, but if you don’t have a wide breadth of fantasy they can get a little tough.  Additionally, at least for a one shot, I wouldn’t be afraid to cut down on Icons in the future.  I don’t remember if any of my players had a relationship with the High Druid, but I do know it likely didn’t come into play in a highly urban setting (though, who’s to say it couldn’t?).

What Didn’t

A wise man once said that the rent in New York was just “too damn high.”  Mechanics information is just too damned complicated.  I wanted a simple reference guide that my players could refer to while moving through the story.  What I realized is that mechanics information is something that really has to build upon a strong foundation.  Most of the yellow space on my map could easily be replaced with more pink content or (even better), freeing up some of the underlying map to be seen.

Newer Players Preferred Roleplay Over Combat – BUT mechanics matter!

Remember when I said that mechanics needed to be built over time?  I was blown away by this.  In fact, my last blog post of last summer posited that system mastery would be the least important factor for any new player—that was why I chose a rules-light game like 13th Age over something like Pathfinder.  But, without the concepts attached and a strong explanation of those rules, sometimes things felt a little bit arbitrary.

This was especially true in combat situations.  My characters did not like combat.  But, they loved skills challenges.  They even loved how ridiculous situations got when they failed forward and more and more off-the-wall ideas were required to get them out of a jam they’d just created.

One player commented that she wished that we’d had more time to go through the character creation process.  This has helped me a lot—I’ve realized that a session 0 and a Microscoping session for worldbuilding are essential for a longer-term campaign.  Similarly, for a one shot (especially one where the play is only supposed to last two hours), offering those who want to make their own characters an opportunity to drop by a couple hours early and do so will only enhance the experience.

Go Forth and Play!

So, those were my lessons:

·      Create situations where your players can ease into roleplay and they won’t even notice how deep they get – cook your players frogs slowly;

·      Make sure you’ve got a story everyone can relate to.  It doesn’t have to be plain vanilla European fantasy (Deep in the Red is a pretty obvious Maltese Falcon knockoff), but it does need to be relateable; and

·      Ensure that players get a good grasp of the underlying mechanics and they’ll come up with ways to employ them destined to drive you crazy.

Good gaming!

Deconstructing the new 5E OGL into Plain English

So, Wizards of the Coast has made an Open Gaming License for 5E available.  I don’t write a lot about Wizards or D&D products, but I do like to write about the intersection of roleplaying games and the law.  (Well, let’s be honest, I haven’t written about much of anything lately, but the spirit moved me).  I’ve even discussed the copyright status of the old OGL before.  EN World has already done a bang up job identifying what the overall terms like SRD, OGL, etc. mean, but I wanted to do something a little more in depth.  I wanted to deconstruct the Open Gaming License and put it into plain English for you.  Before I do so, a few caveats:

1) I’m not a lawyer.  I’m a damn good law student, and expect to be a lawyer one day, but I’m not now.  Even if I were a layer, I’m not YOUR lawyer.  So, while there’s some legal knowledge here, I’m certainly not practicing law and you shouldn’t rely on this as legal counsel before taking action.  Use a real lawyer or wait about nine months and then call me to see if I stand by this.  I probably won’t agree to be your lawyer as my specialty lies in Administrative/Regulatory and Intellectual Property law, rather than Contracts, though I did quite well in both of my Contracts classes.

2) Just printing the OGL is arguably a copyright violation, even though the license itself expects the user/licensee to reprint it.  If NOT a licensee though, so it’s iffy as to whether or not my copying it is a copyright violation.  I’m falling back on the fact that even if it would be a copyright violation, I’m standing pretty well in the center of fair use based on the four factors plus the magical fifth factor.  What’s the magical fifth factor?  I’m educated and make enough that I’m not afraid to hire a lawyer to fight an infringement case but not wealthy enough to make suing me for damages worthwhile for WotC/Hasbro.  

3) That said, I’d consider any cease and desist letter I received and make a decision about removing the post if I thought I actually was in violation based on what was sent to me.  In fact, on balance, this is a pretty content-creator friendly license.  My heavy criticisms come in early, but overall the terms are very balanced for both parties and even include protections for previous creators, which was a nice touch.

Without further ado, my deconstruction of the new OGL:

What it Says	What it Means
The terms of the Open Gaming License Version 1.0a are as follows: OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a	This just officially names the document.  It doesn’t really mean anything.
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.	This is WotC claiming its own copyright in the text of the OGL.  There are some possibilities of your admissions below, but, technically, the OGL hasn’t started yet… By agreeing to the use of this license, you agree that WotC holds a copyright in the text of the OGL.  You’re essentially pre-admitting that they hold the copyright to the text and agreeing that you can’t use the text in any way that they haven’t approved.  You are waiving your right to argue that portions of the text are not subject to copyright at all.  For example, there’s a pretty strong argument that the first section of the OGL (“1. Definitions:”) is so generic that it’s not subject to copyright.  By accepting the license you agree that it is subject to copyright.  That doesn’t mean that it is, it just means that you can’t challenge it. You are not explicitly giving up your fair use rights to use the text, but by agreeing to use the OGL, in any future litigation, the character and purpose prong of your use would weigh heavily against you.
1. Definitions:	THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT, MOST BORING PART OF ANY CONTRACT. Why is this so important?  Because words mean whatever you define them to mean in a contract.  If you define “Butterflies” as “ninjas that jump out of bottles and chop you up hard,” then that is what butterflies means.  No pretty flying bugs for you, just angry ninjas.  Well, not necessarily angry.  Why not?  Because the contract didn’t define the ninjas as being angry, just embattled and desirous of chopping you up hard. Also, be careful, sometimes a definition references another defined term.  When that happens, the (see “Contributors”, below)
(a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content;	See—I told you this stuff would get complicated!  The very first term references another defined term in it.  To understand who is a “contributor,” you have to understand what “Open Game Content” is.  So, you might want to scoot on down there and see what it is before you figure this one out.  Back?  Okay…here we go… Once you know what “Open Game Content” is (and, if you read below, you know that’s very much open to interpretation), “Contributors” becomes a little more obvious.  A Contributor is someone that created “Open Game Content.”  WotC likely means Contributors are anyone that made anything that’s part of the SRD after the text of the Open Game License, but that’s not what they said when they defined Open Game Content. Basically, the Contributors are: Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, James Wyatt, Robert J. Schwalb, Bruce R. Cordell, Chris Sims, Steve Townshend, E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. As other products are added to the Open Game Content, those products’ authors will become Contributors as well.
(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;	This is tough, because the OGL doesn’t define an “existing work.”  Without that, it’s tough to determine what you can use as a base work.  If the term isn’t defined in the contract, you default to the plain meaning of the term in the contract.  Depending where a suit related to the license is filed, that could be a strict dictionary definition of “existing” and “work” or an attempt to divine what the two parties that made the contract intended the phrase to mean.  Either way, this seems like a very likely area where litigation could arise. WotC might actually intend this to be very vague.  That lets them claim that most anything could be “derivative material.”  This cuts both ways.  On one hand, in copyright law, derivative works are defined extremely broadly.  On the other hand, some states’ contract law have special tenets for contracts where one party (WotC) wields vastly superior bargaining power over the other party (the licensee, aka You) and construe vague terms in the contract against the more powerful party?  You can thank the banks and insurance companies for this—rare—consumer-friendly development.
(c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;	This is likely overkill.  “Distribute”’s dictionary meaning and plain meaning are unlikely to be sources of conflict between the parties.  Additionally, this definition for “Distribute” tracks closely with the Copyright Act’s definition for “publication.”  That’s almost assuredly not an accident, but for the same reason it’s likely overkill.
(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.	PET PEEVE ALERT!  If you’re coming to this section immediately from the definition of “Contributors,” above, because it had the term “Open Game Content” within its definition, take a very close looks at this definition.  What do you see?  The definition for “Open Game Content” has the term “Contributor” used within it.  That means no reader can really understand either term without reference to the other.  That’s not fatal to either term as used in the contract, but it is sloppy drafting. This is the part of the contract where you start trading away your rights in exchange for rights or other benefits from the other party (WotC in this case).  Let’s break this one down… The “game mechanic” including the “methods, procedures, processes, and routines” are the exact portions of any game that are not subject to copyright.  You can bet that somewhere down in the agreement that you will have to promise to treat “Open Game Content” as if it were subject to copyright by WotC. What about “to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art  and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity”?  Well, and is interpreted as being conjunctive, so, to be Open Game Content, something needs to check ALL the following boxes: ·       It’s a game mechanic or similar material; ·       It’s NOT Product Identity; ·       It’s an enhancement over the prior art (no idea what that means.  Maybe it means that it’s somehow improvement over a previous edition of the game?  Could maybe figure it out with some research, but this is a blog post, not a brief.); ·       The Contributor (WotC or anyone with a trademark or copyright interest in the intellectual property underlying what’s in the SRD) clearly identify it as Open Game Content (basically by putting it in the SRD); ·       It’s work covered by this License; o   (License shouldn’t be capitalized here—they never bothered to define it, though it’s pretty obvious they mean “this license you are reading right here.” ·       It’s NOT Product Identity (again) That’s some sloppy, sloppy drafting.  I suspect that what WotC wants this to mean is that Open Game Content is comprised of game mechanics and related material that they (or their predecessors in interest, which is a fancy legal term for the people that owned the TSR/D&D/AD&D/etc. intellectual property before them) developed and that doesn’t otherwise conflict with the terms of the Open Game License.  But, no matter what, Product Identity can NEVER be Open Game Content.  Unfortunately, that’s not what they wrote. This one is definitely open to interpretation.  Not good, since this is THE central operative term of the license. It would have been easier to indicate that Open Game Content is “anything contained in Annex 1 of this agreement, which is posted online at [URL linking to the SRD].”
(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;	This one is also torturously drafted.  Trademark courts frequently disagree about what is and is not product identity (which is a subset of trade dress and trademark).  But, by agreeing to the license, you’ve agreed not to use any of the things listed in the “Product Identity” definition in your work. I don’t like this definition either.  It’s broad and self-contradictory.  Does it mean that you can’t use the specific things that WotC has identified as Product Identity explicitly?  Or does it mean that you can’t use any of these things and WotC’s list of Product Identity is merely a helpful tool to help you determine what is and isn’t covered here? If it means only the list of things that WotC has explicitly designated as Product Identity, this definition is overly long and extraneous.  If WotC’s Product Identity list is merely an aid, this is self-contradictory because there are some things that a licensee would almost have to be able to use, like: ·       Representations of thematic elements or concepts; ·       Names of spells, enchantments, and special abilities; ·       Creatures; ·       Equipment; and ·       Magical or supernatural abilities or effects. I know; I know!  They CYAed with “specifically excludes the Open Game Content.”  This is a mess!
(f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor	Argh!  This could have been encapsulated with a term like trade dress which is (shocker!) included in the definition of Product Identity.  In fact, going this route would have made for a much simpler and more intelligible agreement if WotC had adopted a less byzantine definition of Product Identity.
(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.	This definition is straightforward and, like “Distribute”, tracks pretty closely to copyright jurisprudence.  This license is going to govern how you can “use, Distribute [referring to the way “Distribute” is defined above], copy, edit, format, modify, translate and [should be “or”] otherwise” create 5E stuff.
(h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.	This means “you”.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.	This places requirements on you, the licensee: 1) You will follow the license’s terms when you make Use of Open Game Content; 2) You will put in a page at the end of your Use that says it uses Open Game Content It also places some requirements on you AND WotC: 1) The License cannot be modified except in ways the license says it can be modified. ·       See #9 below.  That gives WotC the right to change/update the license at any time, BUT (and this is a big “but”) you have the option of using any version of the license that’s ever been published.  This is a huge concession to you, licensee! 2) Neither you nor WotC can attach different rules for using Open Game Content, so long as it’s Used under this license. ·       This doesn’t preclude you and WotC from developing your own, separate license.  In fact, if you become a BFD third-party publisher, you might end up with your own license.  That’s likely what happened for Kobold Press and Green Ronin Games when they created their content for WotC.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.	Okay, this is in fact total BS.  What they mean here is “If you behave in a way consistent with this license, it applies to you.”  They can’t say “if you use 5E content, you’re governed by this license.”  They can’t do that for the same reason that I can’t say, “If you sneeze on me, you’ve agreed to paint my house for free.”  There are multiple ways to accept a contract, but you have to know that you are accepting the contract.  So, you’ve got to have an idea that you agreed to the license.  Normally, we indicate agreement by signing a contract, but that would be unwieldy here.  So, instead, WotC is saying, “By acting as if you’ve read this license and adhering to its terms, we understand that you have read the license and agree to its terms.”  Does that mean that if you start posting/distributing 5E material (OGC or not) that you’ve agreed to the license?  NO.  But, it DOES mean that if you start acting like you’ve agreed to the license, a court will likely interpret that you have agreed to the license.
4. Grant and Consideration: 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.	Consideration is just a fancy way of saying that a contract has to have give and take on both sides.  Consideration is what each side gives away as a part of the contract/deal: You, the licensee, give away: All the rights that you’ve agreed not to invoke in court in the case of future litigation; anything you’ve expressly promised not to do; the option to NOT do something required of you under this license. WotC, the licensor, gives away: The right to charge your royalties for the use of Open Gaming Content, the right to sue you for copyright and/or trademark infringement for uses that adhere to the terms of this license. Both sides have given away something of value, so there’s likely valid consideration here.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.	If you make use of the license, you’re representing that you created the material that rides on the license or the person that did has sold (or…you guessed it…licensed!) her/his rights in the creation to you.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.	You agree to list every source you’ve used in developing your content.  Essentially, you agree to add the text of Section 15 at the end of your licensed work.  To the extent that you use other stuff that might later be made available as Open Game Content, you’ll have to add references to that in your Section 15 as well.
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. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.	You’re making a few promises here: 1) You won’t use anything that WotC has identified as Product Identity in the definitions section; 2) You won’t expressly state that your product is compatible with 5E, unless you get a different agreement with WotC that says you can; 3) You can’t use any WotC trademark to indicate that your product is compatible with 5E; and 4) You agree that if you do somehow use some Product Identity in your publication, you will not challenge WotC’s rights that WotC actually owns it.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.	This is pretty obvious.  The whole idea behind the OGL is that you get to attach your creative stuff to WotC’s game mechanics.  You are agreeing that your product will make it clear what portions are your creative endeavors and which are WotC’s Open Game Content, and free for everyone to use. This is actually hugely advantageous to you, because it means that you can pretty clearly designate the items (not Open Game Content) that YOU intend to own.  That intellectual property is NOT owned or in any way encumbered by WotC.  It’s ALL yours!
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.	WotC can change the license at any time without notice to you.  Unlike creepy other licenses, which often say that the licensor can change the terms on its own just by notifying you that it’s changing, WotC has agreed that you can always use this version OR any other version that they happen to make available.  This is a big concession from them.  Be happy!
10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.	Another obvious one—if you make a product that uses this license, you’ve got to put a copy of the license in it.  Or distribute it with it—as written, you could slip license sheets in the products you produce.  So long as you give a copy of the license to someone when they get the product from you, you’re good to go.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.	This is to stop you from making outrageous claims.  Section 15 lists Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, James Wyatt, Robert J. Schwalb, Bruce R. Cordell, Chris Sims, Steve Townshend, E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson as the authors or other creators of the Open Game Content.  So, theoretically, if you include Open Game Content in your product, you are using their work.  If their work is in your product, they are sort of authors, aren’t they?  NO.  THEY AREN’T.  This provision expressly says that you can’t claim any of them as authors of your work without their permission—in writing.  It would be really uncool to do that, so don’t.  The same applies for other Contributors who are added as authors of Open Game Content.  You wouldn’t want someone doing that to you, and this says you can’t do that to them.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.	Basically, this is a reservation of rights.  This says that if for some reason the law says that you’d need to use the Open Game Content differently than this license says that you can, you agree that you just can’t use it at all.  This is basically an escape clause in case someone does challenge the license in court and it’s declared void.  That could actually make the agreement void not just for the guy that went to court, but for everyone! Under this provision, you agree that if that happens (or similar happens because of Congress or a government agency), you give the rights to use the content back to WotC as if this agreement never happened. Using “Open Game Material” rather than “Open Game Content” here was a bad move—they are intellectually the same thing, but legally, maybe not.  If they were the same, a court would ask, why do they have different names.  This raises some red flags!
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.	This means that if WotC tells you that you are in violation of the license, you’ve got 30 days to fix your violation.  But, if you’d licensed your non-Open Game Content to someone else, that license would survive.  Here’s an example: Under the license, you create a whole new 5E campaign setting.  It becomes wildly popular and another publisher wants to write adventures set in your setting!  You make a deal with them that allows them to publish adventures set in your campaign setting and that piggy back off of your construction of the 5E rules that are Open Game Content in exchange for giving you $1.00 for every adventure they sell.  If WotC invokes the termination provision, your license with WotC falls and you can’t create more material.  But, the license you gave to your adventure-writing friends will survive.  (It will definitely survive for your friends use, whether they still have to pay you is arguable, though likely).
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.	This is pretty impressive.  Normally, contracts say “If any part of this contract is deemed invalid, all the other parts that can still be enforced are enforceable.”  This instead says “If any part of this license is deemed invalid, we automatically agree to change it—but only just enough that it becomes valid.”  This is actually pretty impressive lawyering—if this is legal.  It should be, but this is the sort of creative lawyering that sometimes gets frowned upon.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. System Reference Document 5.0 Copyright 2016, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, James Wyatt, Robert J. Schwalb, Bruce R. Cordell, Chris Sims, and Steve Townshend, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.	You’ve agreed in Sections 6, 8, 10, & 11 to use this text (and to identify any other Copyrighted Open Game Content-using material you relied upon) to identify the source of the 5E compatible material you are using.
END OF LICENSE	This is to indicate that the license is done.

Just for shits and giggles, here’s what WotC identifies as explicitly being its Product Identity:

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.