You don't actually need a license to create content for ANY game.
WOTC suckered everyone with their OGL nonsense, convincing people that they needed a license to do things that copyright law already allowed them to do - allowed by design, not some accident or loophole.
Worse than that, their OGL "granted" the right to do just
some of the things that anyone is free to do whilst requiring them to give up other rights that they have. Corporations do evil stuff like that all the time, relying on the fact that most people are ignorant enough to believe them or too scared to challenge them. Many people (and companies) believe and repeat these lies until it becomes accepted "truth" that everyone believes even though it's completely false.
There's a good argument that this license isn't valid because it offers no consideration for the things it requires people to give up.
Anyway, you can create and publish pretty much whatever you want - adventures, PC/NPC galleries, rules supplements, rule interpretations, commentaries, etc, as long as you:
- don't copy text or images direct from rule books or source books etc
- don't use another company's logos or branding or "trade dress" without permission
- don't falsely claim to be the owner of any trademarks that aren't yours
- don't falsely claim to have any official or authorised connection with the actual owners of those trademarks
In short, don't infringe copyright and don't pretend to be someone you're not - remember that trademarks exist to protect consumers from bogus products, not to give ownership of parts of our language to companies.
Game rules, the "mechanics" of a game, can not be copyrighted or patented.
Rule definitions (i.e. the
actual text in the rulebooks)
may be copyrighted and usually are - it's a bit of a grey area, legally, but it basically requires the text to be sufficiently novel or creative, which is pretty easy, a very low bar to pass. If in doubt, it's safest to assume that the verbatim text of any rule is copyrighted. So, in general, you can't just copy-paste rules from someone else's work into your work without permission. You can, however, write your own definitions (and here's another area where "sufficiently creative" comes in - if it's impossible to describe/define a rule without using the same or substantially the same words as the original rule, then the original is NOT sufficiently creative to be worthy of copyright protection - it's not creative, it's merely descriptive).
Individual words or phrases or acronyms/abbreviations (like "HP", "AC", "Str", "hit points", or "armor class") can not be copyrighted. They're just not creative enough. Hasbro/WOTC would have you believe otherwise, but they're a corporation and therefore habitual liars who routinely indulge in anti-competitive and anti-consumer activities - it's what corporations do.
This is why all those "retro clones" of early D&D and other games are completely legal - they've kept the same basic "mechanics" of the rules but have rewritten the rule definitions in their own words, perhaps modifying them slightly - like ascending AC rather than descending, or adding new-fangled notions like "critical hits" or "advantage"/"disadvantage".
It's also why Pathfinder exists even though it's based on D&D 3rd edition (this is slightly complicated by the fact that the Paizo originally licensed D&D - but they were able to switch their focus onto their own "totally different" clone game called Pathfinder after the license was revoked).
It's why there's a bunch of games with mechanics that are basically the same as Runequest/BRP/Call of Cthulhu. It's why BlackyTheBlackball has a bunch of games (e.g "Blood, Guts, and Glory" and "Darker Dungeons") with rules similar to a hybrid of D&D and Rolemaster. It's why "Against the Darkmaster" exists (although that doesn't really borrow too heavily from MERP or RM mechanics - similar concepts, different implementation).
BTW, you can use any trademarks as you please without any need for circumlocution or grovelling (like all those sycophantic clowns who think that saying stuff like "the world's most popular game" instead of just saying D&D is some kind of magic ritual that is a) necessary, and b) will save them from imaginary legal problems) - as long as you don't falsely claim to own or be affiliated with those trademarks.
It is, however, generally considered wise to include a disclaimer explicitly disavowing any official connection with trademarks in or near the title page of your work. Something simple like "This is an
unofficial supplement for XYZ" and/or "Trademarks used within this work belong to their respective owners. No association or affiliation with those owners is intended" works. If you want, you can list the trademarks you use with their actual owners along with the disclaimer. As long as you make it clear that you're not falsely claiming ownership or official use of a trademark or affiliation with the owner, it'll be fine. The point is to avoid any perception of consumer fraud.
So, you don't need a license to create unofficial content for a game. This is true whether you publish it or not, and whether you sell it or give it away. You have the right to do these things because copyright law, trademark law, and patent law says you have these rights.
You might still want a license for other reasons - mostly marketing. There are benefits to being able to use official logos and branding, to being able to claim your work is an officially licensed/authorised product.
So far, no incarnation of ICE has ever shown any interest in offering such a license or creating the kind of "Community Content Program" that you want. It has been asked for several times over the years, with no result.
One last thing: just because you have the legal right to create and publish unofficial works for games doesn't mean that some giant corporation won't abuse their wealth and sue you until you're bankrupt. I doubt ICE would do so and AFAIK WOTC hasn't so far - I suspect WOTC don't want to risk it coming to court and setting a precedent (because they would definitely lose if they tried suing anyone with sufficiently deep pockets or motivation to persist)....they're happy enough that most people are too scared to do anything they disapprove of.
Also worth noting: some platforms may choose to act as if the OGL and other bogus claims of corporations are true and legally valid. This is mostly because they don't want to get in an expensive court case AND because they're corporations too, so they also benefit from the lies about copyright, patents, trademarks etc. You have the right to create and publish your work, but they're under no obligation to carry it if they don't want to.
