• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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 deauthorized. Non-TTRPG mediums such as "educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay...

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 deauthorized.
  • Non-TTRPG mediums such as "educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses" are unaffected by the new license.
  • The 'we can use your content for any reason' provision is going away
  • The royalties aspect is also being removed
  • Content previously released under OGL v1.0a can still be sold, but the statement on that is very short and seems to imply that new content must still use OGL v1.1. This is still a 'de-authorization' of the current OGL.
  • They don't mention the 'reporting revenue' aspect, or the 'we can change this in any way at 30 days notice' provision; of course nobody can sign a contract which can be unilaterally changed by one party.
  • There's still no mention of the 'share-a-like' aspect which defines an 'open' license.
The statement can be read below. While it does roll back some elements, the fact remains that the OGL v1.0a is still being de-authorized.

D&D historian Benn Riggs (author of Slaying the Dragon) made some comments on WotC's declared intentions -- "This is a radical change of the original intention of the OGL. The point of the OGL was to get companies to stop making their own games and start making products for D&D. WoTC execs spent a ton of time convincing companies like White Wolf to make OGL products."

Linda Codega on Gizmodo said "For all intents and purposes, the OGL 1.1 that was leaked to the press was supposed to go forward. Wizards has realized that they made a mistake and they are walking back numerous parts of the leaked OGL 1.1..."

Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL commented "They made an announcement today that they're altering their trajectory based on pressure from the community. This is still not what we want. We want Hasbro to agree not to ever attempt to deauthorize v1.0a of the #OGL. Your voices are being heard, and they matter. We're providing visible encouragement and support to everyone inside Wizards of the Coast fighting for v1.0a. It matters. Knowing we're here for them matters. Keep fighting!"


Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I mean, never trust them to do anything except in there own best interest but we got them to make it there best interest not to run other companies out of business' sounds like a win win to me.
They still want to stop people from making new content under the old license, so I don't see how this isn't still an attempt to run people out of business. They're just doing it more slowly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mangamuscle

Explorer
Yeah, this seems satisfactory. Walking back the royalty issues, but giving WotC the ability to put the brake on objectionable content. They probably shouldn't have tried for royalties in the first place, but live and learn.
Please consider that the "objectionable content" clause can be used to block anything, anytime since they are the police, judge and executioner; they only have to play the "foul" card and off to the discard pile goes someone's hard work.
 

EthanSental

Legend
Supporter
I’m fine with it. Although I’ve bought and backed a few kickstarters, I’ve yet to use it in my games as the group doesn’t want to use them yet.
Not that I’m swinging by WoTC jock strap cause this is a disaster and wish they left things alone, but my very limited comparison is WoTC left the crayons on the table for others to use in the OGL, other use them but when WoTC comes to get the crayons, people are shocked…we shouldn’t be.
 

mamba

Legend
Quite a bit of backpedalling and revised history there

"When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs"

you could have accomplished that much simpler, you explicitly said print and PDF only, not even VTTs, the above list does not match that.

"And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose."

Define 'major', I am not seeing any major corporatrions here, and if a company manages to make 5-10M in D&D adjacent products, they do sell them to 'the community'. And that range is already very generous, I doubt any do, or not more than a handful.

"Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second. "

You failed miserably at the former, to the point that I do not believe the latter for even a second

"That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did."

They were not early drafts, you sent them out to the major 3PPs, expecting a signature within a week. No draft would expect that

"That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update"

good step

"What it will not contain is any royalty structure."

good step

I am not seeing anything about not registering, not reporting income, throw those out too. Finally, make it perpetual and irrevocable and we are in business again ;)
 
Last edited:


Michael Linke

Adventurer
Until they decide to call you a racist, sexist and hate monger and ban your product even though you are not.
Well, I DON'T want to take your side, but it is legitimate to wonder whether they intend to use this against objectionable content, or unobjectionable content created by objectionable people. I understand that those are loaded terms that may be offensive. I'm curious whether this will mean that people who keep that stuff out of their gaming products, but are on the record outside of gaming spaces, will have to worry about being cancelled.

I actually have no problem buying content from people I strongly disagree with, provided those disagreements aren't aggravated within the gaming content.
 

Jack Daniel

dice-universe.blogspot.com
Were they nice the first time back in 3.0 days? Yup. Do they need to be now? Nope.

And so Wot¢ can GSL their new TETSNBN if they like. They're well within their rights to do that.

But the 3.0, 3.5, Modern, and 5.0 SRDs are open-source content now. Publishers have used it and built businesses around it predicated on the irrevocability of that fact. There can be no takesies-backsies for existing SRD content; the very attempt is precisely the backstabbing betrayal of the whole 3PP community that has everyone up in arms.
 

We should not expect ANY company to promise to adhere to ORC before ORC is actually published. Do not ask businesses to take a pig in a poke.
Fair enough. Then, maybe adhere to the spirit of the initiative? A fully open, irrevocable, decentralized license for everyone to use with their SRDs?
 

rcade

Hero
Were they nice the first time back in 3.0 days? Yup. Do they need to be now? Nope.
They don't have to be nice on anything new they share in the future. They don't have to share at all.

But they do have to be nice on anything they shared in the past under an open license they created while telling the world it would be around forever and was written to achieve that specific purpose.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I've always thought of "content controls in the marketplace somewhere" was a euphemism for "let the customers decide for themselves."
Eh, that is hit and miss. And that decision making for a customer is easier if there is tight branding and signaling. ESRB ratings are fantastic as a parent.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top