The OGL -- Just What's Going On?

D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumours are flooding social media regarding WotC's intentions to 'de-authorize' the existing Open Gaming License in favour of a new one.

What's the OGL?
The Open Gaming License is a share-a-like license created by D&D owner WotC about 20 years ago so that third parties could create material compatible with the then-3E D&D game. This allowed smaller publishers to ensure the game was supported with products which WotC could not make themselves, driving sales of the core rulebooks. D&D 5E's rules are also released under that very same license, which is why you see hundreds of 5E-compatible products on Kickstarter from massive projects like the 5E-powered The One Ring, down to small adventures and supplements. It has been widely believed for two decades that this license is irrevocable (and, indeed, WotC itself believed that -- see below), but it appears that WotC is now attempting to revoke it.

A Quick Recap
A few weeks ago, WotC made a short statement regarding the OGL, followed later by a more in-depth announcement covering revised terms, royalties, and annual revenue reporting.

WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting

There has been a lot of speculation recently about WotC's plans regarding the Open Gaming License and the upcoming One D&D. Today, WotC shared some information. In short, they will be producing a new Open Gaming License (note that the previous OGL 1.0a will still exist, and can still be used)...

www.enworld.org

At the same time, at the end of December, a number of hastily arranged meetings with 'key' third party creators under a strict NDA agreement were set up with WotC's licensing department in order to share the company's plans regarding licensing of D&D going forward (disclaimer -- while WotC also reached out to me, we were unable to schedule a meeting over the busy Christmas period, so I am not party to that information).

A New Rumour Emerges
This all came to a head yesterday when the Roll For Combat YouTube channel released what they said was a leak of the upcoming OGL from multiple trusted but anonymous sources within WotC.

We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

We received an official leak of OGL 1.1! In our weekly Roll For Combat Live YouTube show, we were talking about what we know about OGL 1.1 when we received a leak of OGL 1.1 from a reliable source. This isn't a scam, a troll, or clickbait. We go over the new OGL 1.1 and what it means to One D&D...

www.enworld.org

This leak claims the following. Note -- it is impossible to verify these claims at this time.

• There will be TWO OGL's -- an OCG: Commercial and an OGL: Non-Commercial.
• The original OGL will become unauthorized. This hinges on the wording of s9 of the current OGL:

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.

While the license does indeed grand a 'perpetual' right to use the Open Gaming Content referenced, it appears that WotC currently believes that it can render a version of the license unauthorized. The license itself makes no reference to authorization or the lack thereof, nor does it define any methods of authorization or deauthorization, other than in that line. So this entire thing hinges on that one word, 'authorized' in the original OGL.

RollForCombat posted the following summary -- it is unclear whether this is their own paraphrasing, or that of their anonymous source, or indeed the actual document (although tonally it doesn't sound like it):

"This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."

"You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."

"You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."

The ability for WotC to use your Open Gaming Content is not new; the company could do that under the old OGL also; it has rarely exercised that right, though it did reuse a couple of third party monsters in a 3E rulebook.

iO9 Gets A Copy
However, Linda Codega over at Gizmodo/iO9 got hold of a copy of the current draft of the OGL 1.1.

• It's long. It's ten times the length of the current OGL, at 9,000 words.
• No bigots. It prohibits NFTs and bigoted content.
• Print/PDF only. It also prohibits apps and video games. And pantomimes, apparently. The wording says "including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."
• Deauthorizes the previous OGL. The license states that the OGL 1.0a is "no longer an authorized license agreement".
• It’s soon! Pressingly, the draft also indicates that publishers who wish to sell SRD-based content on or after January 13th (which is just 8 days away!) have only one option: agree to the OGL: Commercial. That gives companies very little time to evaluate the license or make any necessary changes.
• Clear OGL declarations. The new license contains other restrictions which effectively prohibit companies from identifying their OGC via a separate System Reference Document (which is what games like Pathfinder do); instead the reader must be alerted to Open Gaming Content within the product itself.
• Royalties. As previously noted, creators who make over $750K will need to pay royalties to WotC. WotC does indicate that it might reach out to succesful creators for a more 'custom (and mutially beneficial) licensing arrangement). Creators are divided into three tiers - under $50K, $50K-$750K, and $750K+. The royalty is 20% or 25% of 'qualifying revenue', which is revenue in excess of $750K. The term used is revenue, not profit.
• They want you to use Kickstarter. Kickstarter -- their 'preferred' platform -- attracts the lower 20% royalty, and non-Kickstarter crowdfuders attract 25%. It's interesting that WotC even has a preferred crowdfunding platform, let alone that they are trying to influence creators to use it over its competitors like Backerkit, IndieGoGo, Gamefound, and the like.
• New logo. An identifying badge will be required on products which use the new OGL, and creators will need to send WotC a copy of their product.

The document itself comments that “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.” That sounds like it is talking about companies such as Paizo.

Community Reaction
Social media has exploded, with a lot of very negative pushback regarding this news.

Many people have weighed in with their interpretations of s9 (above), both lawyers and non-lawyers. There seems to be little agreement in that area right now. If the above rumous is true, then WotC's current leadership clearly believes that previous iterations of the OGL can be 'de-authorized'. It's interesting to note that previous WotC administrations believed otherwise, and said as much in their own official OGL FAQ:

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License 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.

OGL architect Ryan Dancey also appears to have felt otherwise. In an article right here on EN World he said:

I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners.

Of course, many game systems are released using that license: Pathfinder, Fate, Open d6, WOIN, and many, many more -- many of them have nothing at all to do with D&D and simply use the license as a useful tool for enabling third-party content creators; while Pathfinder is, of course, the industry's largest OGL game and published by Paizo, the industry's second largest TTRPG comapmny after WotC itself. If the original OGL were somehow to become invalid, all these games would be affected.

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

There are other bits to the current rumour -- a 30 day notice period during which WotC can change the license any way they wish, and a waiver over the right to sue the company.

It's hard to get a clear picture of what's going on right now. I haven't seen the new OGL, and other than a handul of 'key' creators, it seems like very few have. WotC did indicate that it would be unveiled very soon.

Is it an OGL?
While it may be called "Open Gaming License v1.1", if the above is true, this isn't really an update to the OGL, it's an entirely new license. Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL. and who runs the Open Gaming Foundation, defines open gaming licenses as --

​

1. Game Rules and materials that use those rules that can be freely copied, modified and distributed.​

​

2. A system for ensuring that material contributed to the Open Gaming community will remain Open and cannot be made Closed once contributed.​

​

By these definitions, it appears that the new OGL is not actually an open gaming license, and has more in common with the Game System License WotC used for D&D 4th Edition.

So, What Now?
Now, we wait and see. Many eyes will be on the bigger players -- Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. -- to see what action they take. As yet, none of these have commented publicly except for Green Ronin's Chris Pramas who told Gizmodo that they had not yet seen the new license, but they do not believe there is "any benefit to switching to the new one as described.” As for Paizo, Gizmodo says "Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."

Will these companies go along with it? Will they ignore it? Will they challenge it? We'll have to wait and see!

7 days is not enough time for even a small publisher to overhaul its entire product line to comply with new rules, let along a large one like Paizo. I have to assume there is an allowed time period to do this, otherwise it's practically impossible to do. It does seem that -- if proven enforceable -- the de-athorization of the existing OGL would drive many companies out of business, especially those which produce or lean heavily on electronic apps and the like.

It also remains to be seen how WotC goes about the task of persuading creators to use its new license -- will it tempt them with a carrot (such as access to the D&D Beyond platform), or try to force them with a stick (such as threat of legal action)? And how will the TTRPG community react, because this goes far beyond just D&D.

It sounds like we'll hear something more solid imminently.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm sorry but this slippery slop might as well lead to a zombie apocalypse with all the inserted "this COULD in THEORY happen" by the time I become a 'victim'
so how about we keep perspective... I am not (I think) losing my job next week. There are people who are in very real danger of that... THOSE are the victims not the fans.

It isnt either fan or business person.

Most of the victims of Hasbro-WotC would be somewhere in between.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

IMO, it is not necessarily to kill a business that gets to large, but to rent-seek off of them so that WotC's competitor's growth is extremely limited by the rent they're forced to pay to WotC past that threshold. It's not supposed to kill competition, it's supposed to transfer competition profits to WotC thereby keeping all competition at an acceptable level while ensuring any newly-discovered revenue generators are sending their pound of flesh.

Consider that the marginal rate on 1.5 million would be 12.5%. That amount could probably be afforded, but that marginal rate rapidly increases towards the full 25% as revenue increases.

The fact that the commentator said it wasn't rent-seeking behavior annoyed me. It is precisely rent-seeking behavior, and specifically rent-seeking behavior designed to prevent competition above a certain size. Particularly when that rate and threshold of where it kicks in can be unilaterally changed at a later date if a company shows that it still capable of growing while paying their rent to WotC.

joe b.

Yup, that is EXACTLY what they are doing. They are saying "stay small fish, or we will release the sharks"

 

[Reynard]

You mean none of them overtook it for keeps. Pathfinder eclipsed D&D during 4th edition but was overtaken when 5e came out

That's not quite what happened, but we don't need to relitigate that issue yet again.

 

[kenada]

Wall of text warning:

I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.

To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.

Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.

Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.

Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.

It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.

The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.

The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.

Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.

This is something I wanted to post after I questioned the desire to replace D&D with another (universal, etc) game. My apologies for using your post as a jumping off point @martinlochsen instead of responding to you in particular.

I’d not want to replace one RPG monoculture with another. I fear that could kill innovation by putting pressure on designers to remain compatible with the omni-base, new game, or whatever form it takes. I don’t think a game has to precede the license. We’ve been doing open gaming for several decades now, so I think there’s a good understanding of what a new open gaming license should look like (addressing the revocation issue, ownership of the license, abusing PI to prevent mechanics being OGC, etc).

In particular, I think the following steps would result in a diverse and flourishing hobby:

1. Draft a true-OGL and assign to the Open Gaming Foundation (or some other nonprofit whose charter is involves the promotion of open gaming);
2. Relicense non-SRD OGL games under the true-OGL with permission of their publishers (yielding an immediate base of true-OGL games to use as a base for other games);
3. Determine whether Pathfinder 2e is truly independent of the SRD and relicense it under the true-OGL (adding a D&D-like to the pool);
4. Assuming yes for #3, rework SRD-derived games (Mutants and Masterminds, retroclones, etc) to be based off PF2 (adding simpler D&D-likes to the pool); and
5. Reach out to Creative Commons licensed games to see if they would be willing to contribute their games under the true-OGL (adding BitD and other games to the pool).

The effect of this approach is to bring a large swath of the hobby under a true open gaming license, but it also gives designers a wide variety of mechanics they can use in their games. Instead of the true-OGL being a marketing tool to reinforce the dominant position of one game, it provides a rich selection of options designers can use as a starting point for building their games. It would make the hobby be more like the open source software community that originally inspired the OGL.

As an added benefit, places where games have clumsily recloned other mechanics, they could just use those mechanics directly. I’m looking at PF2’s VP subsystem in particular. It’s basically clocks, but it’s not actually clocks. If it could be clocks, it would be much simpler to understand because you could draw on the body of experience using clocks in FitD games with the added advice (provided by PF2) on how to use them with its resolution system.

 

[ChaosOS]

Wall of text warning:

I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.

To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.

Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.

Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.

Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.

It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.

The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.

The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.

Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.

 

[kenada]

View attachment 271787

What XKCD failed to understand is you just need to have the 15th standard deauthorize the fourteen other ones, so there is only the one true standard remaining.

 

[Random Task]

Wall of text warning:

I still think what we need is a ruleset that everyone can get behind. Everybody knee-jerking their own SRDs won't help. We already have many of those. We need an Omni-srd with support from the large majority of companies in the OGL-sphere.

To achieve a game like this, it would have to be based on community feedback. The final product would be free of any single designer's personal vision and instead be an amalgam of the most supported mechanics in the community. This would result (at least that is the hope) in a game that is perfect for none, but acceptable to all.

Use existing games as a starting point, and send out surveys where people vote on different mechanical elements, like «four or six attributes?», «advantage/disadvantage or modifiers?» and so on. The designers job would then be to piece together a working game from these elements.

Also, everyone participating would have to pull together to increase the visibility of the product. It would have to be a complete game, not just a barebones chassis. It would need a cool name, logo, preferably artwork and so on, at least as much of this as possible. In short, a sellable, marketable product.

Why do this? Well, the main idea is defracturing the non-dnd market, which would have several positive effects. There is a lot of talk about how dnd drives the entire rpg market. A strong dnd is good for everyone and so on. The new game would serve a similar purpose for the secondary market as dnd serves for the total market, being a figurehead for non-dnd products and a driving force.

It would serve as the clear an obvious alternative for anyone disgruntled with dnd for whatever reason. It’s main selling point wouldn’t be the system in itself, but better support and a larger player base. I think the absence of a clear alternative is a hurdle for many people who want to try something new. You either get lost in the jungle of alternatives or perhaps never find the game that is exactly right, and so end up staying with the default.

The theory here is that with the omnigame handling recruitment, business would trickle down to all of the existing 3pp games already out there as well. Having burst the dnd-bubble, trying something else feel less daunting than before. Perhaps in time, the IP would be strong enough to also recruit infant players as well, who knows.

The omnigame through its OGL would provide a common non-dnd-derived terminolgy that could be used by all other games to avoid legal troubles with WotC. This would solve part of the problem with accessibility of games for new players. If we can’t use the word saving throw for example, the second best thing is that everybody uses the same alternative.

Of course, the omnigame would also provide a market for adventures, mechanical expansions, setting books and so on that would be a lot smaller than the one for dnd-compatible products, but still larger than the one for each of the individual smaller games.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that it is actually a good idea.

I was involved in a Discord server where the goal was to make a new best version of Shadowrun ever because people weren't happy with what Catalyst did for 5th and 6th edition and it devolved into competing ideas, some forking of the project and a whole lot of reviewing and voting and the project never went anywhere. Without some person or people having ultimate control of the overall project it is a mess.

As an added benefit, places where games have clumsily recloned other mechanics, they could just use those mechanics directly. I’m looking at PF2’s VP subsystem in particular. It’s basically clocks, but it’s not actually clocks. If it could be clocks, it would be much simpler to understand because you could draw on the body of experience using clocks in FitD games with the added advice (provided by PF2) on how to use them with its resolution system.

Clocks predates FiTD by at least PbTA. I presume if Pathfinder wanted to use clocks, they would have just used them.

 

[kenada]

Clocks predates FiTD by at least PbTA. I presume if Pathfinder wanted to use clocks, they would have just used them.

The way FitD systematizes clocks is different from PbtA. The VP subsystem is clearly inspired by the FitD approach rather than the PbtA one.

Anyway, the point was to illustrate how a diverse pool of games could share mechanics directly due to the safe harbor provided by a true open gaming license.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. The motive or goal for rent-seeking behavior does not negate that it is rent-seeking behavior any more than the reason for driving a car negates that one is driving a car. For instance, one could easily postulate that the rent-seeking is also done to keep competition at a level low enough so that WotC has a chance to purchase any competition that has a very good idea before that very good idea becomes a lot more expensive to purchase. In this way they are out-sourcing the idea-development in a way that allows them to harvest the best that blooms while knowing that the rent-seeking will keep those blooms from ever leaving the garden and costing $142 million dollars to purchase like D&D Beyond just cost them. There are many reasons one can put forth as for why the rent seeking exists and all of those reasons are just speculation.

What is not speculation is that the mechanism for all of those speculative reasons is rent-seeking behavior.

joe b.

The problem you are facing here in the conversation is that you use the word "seeking" where that isn't applicable. They aren't seeking(the goal) rent. They are seeking(the goal) to prevent competitors from achieving any decent size. They are using rent to achieve their goal(behavior). So they have anti-competitor seeking behavior, using "rent"(royalties) as the tool to achieve it.

 

[Maxperson]

Any of those motives are speculation. It could also as easily be as "seeks to limit any gaming company from becoming too successful" or "seeks to use those limits to find suitable company ideas for acquisitions." The motives are speculation, informed speculation certainly, but still speculation. The behavior is rent-seeking, so that is what WotC are doing.

WotC knows the numbers, so they know full well that a royalty of 20-25% can't be handled by these small businesses. If rent was what they were seeking, the royalty number would be lower so that they could get a decent amount rent from successful companies. There is a reason that circumstantial evidence can put a criminal behind bars. There's a point where you can see clearly what is happening without the entity telling your straight up what they are doing.