• 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


log in or register to remove this ad


rcade

Hero
In 2003 after Ryan Dancey left the company, WOTC modified the d20 System Trademark License to introduce content review in response to Arthaus releasing the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Dancey thought the trademark license change was a terrible idea. Here's his post from OGF-d20-L, as reprinted in a post on RPG.net:

I'm pretty unhappy with the decision to alter the d20 System Trademark License to include post-publication content limitations.

In my opinion, the current version of the d20 STL is not a license I would be comfortable using in a commercial work unless I was able to secure a release from Wizards prior to publication exempting me from the content clauses. The potential for abuse (accidential or intentional) of the new clauses renders the "safe harbor" established by the D20 System Trademark License moot.

By altering the risk equation that must be considered by each party to the D20 System Trademark License in such a manner, in my opinion, it may now be more risky for a publisher to publish with the D20STL than without it. Thus the changes severely undermine the value proposition of the license as a whole.

Prior to these changes Wizards of the Coast was insulated from the contents of 3rd party d20 products through its inability to assert a review or approval right over such contents. By insisting on such a right, Wizards of the Coast has just made themselves liable for defamation, slander, trade secret, copyright, patent, and trademark litigation which would otherwise have been limited to the original publisher.

In addition, they've put themselves into a terrible PR position. Prior to these changes, Wizards of the Coast could refuse public comment on the contents of any product using the D20STL, claiming no prior knowledge nor approval responsibility for distasteful work. Now they will be forced to explain either a) why they support a work containing distasteful content, or b) when they'll be forcing the publisher to institute a recall of that work.

The net result of this change will be more work for Wizards of the Coast (with no related revenue), more danger of a public communications nightmare, less D20-logoed product, and an increase in the effort devoted to creating (and the value of) a publisher-sponsored D20 trademark replacement not controlled by Wizards of the Coast .

All those problems have been incurred to gain the ability to stop one product from commercial distribution to a limited audience. And in the end, Wizards of the Coast probably won't stop the release of that product. All they'll stop is the publisher's use of the words "Dungeons & Dragons" and a logo the size of a postage stamp.

Essentially, Wizards gets nothing for this change but heartache.

This is what happens when emotion gets in front of rational business management. And, in my opinion, it is an extremely unfortunate choice.

I hope you'll join me in asking Wizards of the Coast to reconsider its stance on this matter and retract this change to the d20 System Trademark License.

Ryan S. Dancey
Founder, Open Gaming Foundation

This article may be copied and republished provided the entire contents remain intact.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1.

Was that on their Persuasion or Deception check?
They rolled well on their initial public deception check - people were grumbly but grudgingly accepting of the initial royalty message which would have supposedly impacted only the top 20 content creators, which mysteriously failed to mention they were de-authorizing 1.0a.

Then they rolled a 1 on their persuasion check with the actual documents they were sending creators that were leaked.
 

Fendulum

Explorer
No, that's not it.

The OGL 1.0a already provided WotC protection to use 1.0a OGL material on DDB without needing to compensate anybody. They ALREADY get to sell your stuff without compensation - that's the OGL 1.0a., which is something that a LOT of people here didn't understand when they were so incensed by it.

The catch is, they don't want to release it under 1.0a, they want to make it theirs, build on it -- and have it all accrete to them and them alone -- and not have it apply to the various media they previously insisted the OGL no longer applied to.

That was not an accident; that was deliberate.

Sauce for the goose was NOT sauce for the gander.
The OGL 1.0a only does this for game mechanics. The draft OGL 1.1 would have applied to "Product Identity" as well.
 

MarkB

Legend
For those demanding a pound of flesh in the form of terminations of leadership involved in the OGL decisions, I have an honest question: Would you rather have folks at the helm who've lived though this experience and and felt the wrath of the community, or some new suit who thinks they're the the smartest person to walk into a boardroom and really knows how to monetize a brand?
No. Neither of those sounds like a good option.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Interesting also that they talked about the part that would have allowed them to steal creators' content, but just completely ignored the attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a.
Despite what YouTubers screamed, WotC never wanted to steal their content. Ideas are cheap, time to develop is expensive.

This is the one place that WotC was being honest: This item was them covering their asses legally. It's the same kind of provision that comic book companies, the music industry, TV shows, etc., all use, because no one wants to be at the center of the next Blurred Lines case.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
For those demanding a pound of flesh in the form of terminations of leadership involved in the OGL decisions, I have an honest question: Would you rather have folks at the helm who've lived though this experience and and felt the wrath of the community, or some new suit who thinks they're the the smartest person to walk into a boardroom and really knows how to monetize a brand?
The New Suit.

Because if we show that there are no repercussions for this type of behavior it will just continue and become more ubiquitous. Corporations are quite good are shielding individuals from consequences -- provided those individuals are high enough in the chain.

But a New Suit will have to deal with the fact that they personally will potentially be held responsible, and have recent history that others will advice them about how the community reactions.

So please, give me some personal responsibility here. Because that will show that we can deal with the New Suit if they cause problems.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top