WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

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

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[humble minion]

It’s a playtest. It’s really clear that they’ve been reading* the surveys and responding to them by changing the mechanics presented.

Yeah, while there's been some conspicuous misses (like the wording of the Hadozee gliding ability), and some massive goofs gotten through when material has not gone to UA (the Peace cleric), I can remember several times when feedback has clearly been adopted. Limiting the Fairy flight to when the PC is not wearing heavy armour, for instance, or the kender's magic pockets, or making the Squire of Solamnia feat more useful for martial rather than spellcasting characters.

 

[mamba]

My question is this. Based on the current thoughts on the OGL 2.0, can I publish for profit a new module for Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Delving Deeper, or not? I believe that is the crux of the matter. WOTC was cleverly obtuse in their recent announcement. I think they need to come out and clear this up.

agreed, if not then it is unacceptable

 

[FrogReaver]

Not necessarily. They can compile, analyze and react to the survey questions you click and not even look at the written portions he was talking about.

My guess is they have some grunt level of employees doing a first pass at the written comments to massage them into data points that they can use. After he's done it goes up the chain to someone that consolidates that info into more clear categories. Etc.

Then at the end of the day they would analyze that data the same way they do the rest. Example: 56% of comments mentioned OGL 1.0a deauthorization as a reason in the comments.

 

[blakesha]

That's fair. I don't know the guy, but anyone who isn't a well known journalist with integrity gets statements of fact based on "sources" taken with several grains of salt. I'm still interested in what he's going to say tomorrow, but until it's corroborated sufficiently I'm not going to take it as gospel.

Biggest issue with this mess, and how it kinda works at the moment unfortunately, is the sheer volume of OTHER commentators (video or text based) that are quoting him (DS) as a reliable source. Its bias confirmation at its ugliest. Did wotc try and pull a swifty? Yep, totally did. Are they in damage control. Hell yes. Are wotc biggest competitors trying to profit from it. Also hell yes cough*paizo*cough. Would I do that in the competitors shoes - freaking hell yes! Does it suck for the great gaming community. I think the answer to this is both yes and no.

This really is a blessing in disguise. It has nearly forced ttrpg players to take hard looks at alternative game systems, it has forced big 3pp to look at releasing their own. It has forced big competitors to remove themselves completely from the grasp of wotc. Lots of really positive things have come out of the actions of WotC.

If they are being genuine in acknowledging that what they had planned was a mistake, or hell just in upfront "We want to go digital and make all players pay for content, rather than just the DMs and want D&D in ours hands thank you very much". Then also fine. Its the lying and double talk we dont like.

The real "losers" in this are the small guys that jumped on the D&D wagon and are kinda stuck with it to make a living. Their living is dependent on the success of someone elses property. That was a risk that they had to take. The backlash I hope is enough to have WotC walk back some of the terms that they put into the first release of the new OGL so that it is palatable to those small 3pp content creators.

 

[overgeeked]

So is DnD Shorts getting his info from a mysterious omniscient figure who somehow knows everything about everything or is he getting faulty info? I'm confused.

Jumping a few pages of unread posts.

There’s any number of possible explanations. The source is disgruntled and venting half truths. The source is making things up. The source is talking about the suits, not the designers. The source is fake. Etc.

That several creatives have said flat out that the designers do read the comments, at least some, makes me question the veracity of the source. But more in the they’re talking about the suits possibility rather than the it’s all BS possibility.

 

[blakesha]

agreed, if not then it is unacceptable

You always could publish for those other systems, as long as you dont use Product Identity or any of the specific phrasing that is in any WotC (or any other companies!) copyrighted material. Probably the best discussion of it that I have seen in my (limited) trawling of the youtubes:

 

[FrogReaver]

Jumping a few pages of unread posts.

There’s any number of possible explanations. The source is disgruntled and venting half truths. The source is making things up. The source is talking about the suits, not the designers. The source is fake. Etc.

That several creatives have said flat out that the designers do read the comments, at least some, makes me question the veracity of the source. But more in the they’re talking about the suits possibility rather than the it’s all BS possibility.

I'd suggest that one can read without actually reading. So maybe both are right.

 

[smetzger]

I am a long time user of the OGL from the 3.0 days. I actively lurked and participated in discussions on the open gaming foundation forums

ogf-l

www.mail-archive.com

IMO WOTC should not change the OGL at all. If they do they need to still honor (as in no attempted legal action) the section in 1.0a that lets you use any version of the OGL even if they release a new version. Which of course means that there really is no change.

If WOTC wants to restrict the OGL they need to either release a different license for OneD&D or a compatibility license like the d20. OneD&D is their creation they can release it using whatever license they want, or none at all. If it is so derivative of 5e that someone can use the 5e SRD and OGC content to release compatible products under OGL 1.0a... well that's the point of the OGL. The cat is out of the bag, no stuffing it back in now.

Optionally WOTC should use the OGL to its advantage... Use OGC from 3rd parties that have added to 5e (of course they will need to use the license correctly just like everyone else, which involves giving credit to the source of the OGC).

 

[mamba]

1. Do you want us to add the word "irrevocable" to the OGL 1.0a?

|_| Yes

2. should we clarify that an authorized version is any version that is not clearly marked as a draft and that this can never change

3. about those NFTs…

 

[FrogReaver]

De-authorization doesn't terminate existing licenses; rather, it closes the barn door and prevents new material based on the OGL 1.0a from being created going forward. Given that there is a REAL prospect of a "fork" in 5e coming in the near future based on the 5.1 SRD, published by Kobold Press, (or Paizo or somebody else) that is what WotC would prefer to avoid. Conversely, it's also what some ENworlders and other DMs/players might prefer DID HAPPEN in the near term as well. Project Black Flag drew a roar of approval from many 5e gamers. So yes, this is very much a live issue.

This is impossible without revoking OGL 1.0a. OGL 1.0a explicitly allows all of that.