OGL v1.2 Survey Feedback: 'Hasn't Hit The Mark'

WotC has shared some of the (still ongoing) survey feedback following the release of the Open Game License v1.2 draft last week.

We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3.

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here

The linked FAQ (no, not THAT linked FAQ, the one where they say the original OGL cannot be revoked, I think we're supposed to ignore that one!) indicates that recent rumours about $30 subscriptions and homebrew content are false. They also say that they will be revising the 'harmful content' morality clause in the recent OGL draft, which in practice gives WotC power to shut down competitors at will.

You can still take the survey here until Feb 3rd.

 

[dave2008]

Can you provide a link to the article? The only links are to the FAQ and I can't seem to find it on DnD Beyond.

I am glad to see they are, apparently, being open with what we all probably thought the response would be. I don't think this will quell the voices of those who claim this playtest of the OGL is a shame, but it is another step in the right direction IMO.

 

[delericho]

It's somewhat positive that they've admitted it's fallen short, but there's a gap between that and actually fixing the issues. So we'll see what the next draft brings - and, crucially, whether they're determined to try to revoke 1.0a.

 

[dave2008]

It's somewhat positive that they've admitted it's fallen short, but there's a gap between that and actually fixing the issues. So we'll see what the next draft brings -

I agree completely.

 

[Aldarc]

It's somewhat positive that they've admitted it's fallen short, but there's a gap between that and actually fixing the issues. So we'll see what the next draft brings - and, crucially, whether they're determined to try to revoke 1.0a.

Probably. This is the red line for lies at the heart of the debate. But even those opposed to WotC seem to be of two minds: (1) fight every inch for preserving the OGL 1.0a versus (2) the OGL 1.0a is no longer worth preserving and it's best to move on because there is too much bad blood in the OGL 1.0a now.

 

[BrassDragon]

WotC is still in the long process of finding out.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

Community: Stop trying to make new versions of the OGL!

WotC: We'll do better next draft

Community:

The linked FAQ (no, not THAT linked FAQ, the one where they say the original OGL cannot be revoked, I think we're supposed to ignore that one!)

Heh.

Noice.

 

[Osgood]

it‘s good to hear they acknowledge there are still issues, we’ll see what they come up with. They’ve got their work cut out for them, because I’m not sure that anything short leaving 1.0a or a 1.0b that adds language about being irrevocable will be acceptable to the community at this point.

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with keeping things like NFTs out and having a harmful content clause—it’s a matter of how it’s applied (ability to appeal, WotC not being the only decider, etc.). The VTT stuff is just a blatant effort to kneecap the competition, which suggests they don’t have confidence their product will be able to compete in a fair marketplace… good luck with that.

 

[Jer]

Probably. This is the red line for lies at the heart of the debate. But even those opposed to WotC seem to be of two minds: (1) fight every inch for preserving the OGL 1.0a versus (2) the OGL 1.0a is no longer worth preserving and it's best to move on because there is too much bad blood in the OGL 1.0a now.

I mean, I'm of two minds in the sense that the OGL needs to be preserved and also nobody should trust Wizards and a new license and community SRD should be created for the next time they decide to go nuclear.

I think both of these can hold simultaneously. It's absolutely the case IMO that Wizards is a company that has proven that they're not to be trusted to act in good faith long term and so folks shouldn't be entering into new partnerships with them. But also they don't get to revoke the OGL off the SRDs (or worse "deauthorize" it entirely) because they sold it to everyone as permanent and perpetual and just because their lawyers found "one weird trick" in the way language has evolved over the last two decades doesn't mean that they can actually do what they say they can do.

 

[OB1]

At this point, I think there is only one way out of this for WotC.

Release all existing Wizards SRDs to a CC license and make no alterations to the current OGL.

Move One D&D onto a closed license, make enough changes to the game that an SRD conversion from existing SRDs would prove difficult, even if this means losing 5e compatibility, and compete against 5e clones with it's new system.