• 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

Staffan

Legend
My issue is that it’s no longer a good deal for one side of the bargain and they want out. You can say, ha ha. You didn’t leave a clause for thst, boo-hoo to you. But I then don’t blame the company for doing whatever they can to get out of it.
Let's say you and I make a deal about something, and as part of the deal you get a puppy.

You then nourish and take good care of that puppy, and as it grows into a full-grown dog you start using it for breeding, eventually getting a good little kennel business going. You even sell and/or give away some of the dogs for breeding by other kennel owners.

20 years later I show up and say "Hey, I never meant for you to start a business with that puppy. If I knew you were going to do that, I would have neutered it. I demand you close your kennel business and kill all the dogs descended from the puppy I gave you. OK, maybe not kill, but at least neuter."

Do you think that would be fair? Because that is basically the same situation you are proposing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Plokman

Explorer
All the kickstarters I Support will be out in six months, Dobbers is a particular favorite because it comes from my neck of the woods. But any I may want to support like anything Mr. Rhexx is working on or Dungeon Dad that needs safety!
 

p_johnston

Adventurer
TL;DR: I don't think this isn't about TTRPGs. I think it's all about the VTT space, but I don't see a path forward for WotC that lets them get where they want to go other than "extreme sustained excellence" (which I haven't seen for quite some time so I'm not holding my breath).
I also wonder how much is them trying to crack down and control the D&D brand while they expand it into other spaces. I can very much see this as them looking to make D&D movies, games, tv shows, etc and deciding they want more control over how people percieve D&D before they do so. Or maybe just use it as a bludgeon to try and intimidate away anyone else trying to do something similar.
 


Scribe

Legend
I also wonder how much is them trying to crack down and control the D&D brand while they expand it into other spaces. I can very much see this as them looking to make D&D movies, games, tv shows, etc and deciding they want more control over how people percieve D&D before they do so. Or maybe just use it as a bludgeon to try and intimidate away anyone else trying to do something similar.

What part of D&D branding. Actual branding. Is documented in the 5e or 3.5 SRD, or the OGL.

I'll wait.
 

guachi

Hero
What I get out of this is that Hasbro really, really, really wants our $5/mo forever for their digital platform. It's their new cash cow. The only real way to hurt Hasbro at this point is to unsubscribe/delete your DDB account.
 

Deadmanshand

Explorer
Oh, hey, this account still works! Here's my take on the situation.

I think WotC is probably genuine about wanting to make sure D&D isn't associated with content they find distasteful and I suspect this isn't just the suits - it's probably the rank & file as well. I can't say I particularly blame them; I probably wouldn't want my work associated with content I find distasteful either. However, as others have pointed out, that desire, no matter how well-intentioned, varies in terms of "what is distasteful" not just from person to person, but can vary in the same person over time. More importantly, though, I think it's a mistake to try to exert that sort of control via the Open Game License. First of all, the idea is somewhat antithetical to the concept of "open" but secondly, the OGL has been around so long and used for so many products that as of November 1, 2022 (before WotC started making noises about revisions to the OGL) I don't think much of fandom made the association "OGL product = D&D product." For instance, I don't know if Thirsty Sword Lesbians is an OGL product or not, but even if it was and OGL release, I certainly wouldn't associate it with D&D. I definitely think there's some Streisand Effect going on NOW, though.

But I think the bigger thing here is simple. Money. We've heard the rumors of comments that "D&D is under-monetized" and I can certainly believe execs feel that way. Think about the traditional TTRPG business model - I write a book, I sell you the book, you take the book and play with it over and over again. Even if I charge you a lot, it's a single-sale model, and it puts a ceiling on what I can earn because once we've come to an agreement on a price one time, you can get enjoyment out of the product in perpetuity. (And of course, the Doctrine of First Sale means you can resell the book if you ever want to quit, so now you can transfer the ability to play the game to someone else so I can't collect revenue from that someone else.

What has changed over the twenty years since the release of the OGL 1.0a? Companies big and small have tried to shift from a "sell goods" to "sell services" model, because the "sell services" model provides a steadier stream of revenue. Instead of charging me one big price for a thing I then own and can use as much as I want, companies are trying to sell "the right to use a thing the company retains ownership of for a certain time period" especially in the Intellectual Property industry. The other thing that has happened to enable this is the rise of the internet which makes this much easier for IP products. Instead of buying a DVD for $20 and watching a movie as many times as you want, instead pay $5 to stream a movie one time.

People here have mentioned the failing of 4E as being due to it being licensed under the restrictive GSL instead of under the OGL, and I think that's partly true. But I think Matt Colville did a great job of explaining that originally the plan was to simultaneously release an electronic toolset for playing 4E - a VTT or at least a proto-VTT when the VTT was still more or less in its infancy (yes, I know Fantasy Grounds started in 2004, but functionality of VTTs was still rather limited in 2008 when 4E released because of the limitations of internet speeds, et al. He also mentioned that 4E was rushed out the door before the electronic toolset could be put together properly and it never materialized. My read on what Hasbro as an institution learned from the 4E launch failure was (1) change the game too much and your customer base won't like it and (2) exert too much control with the license and publishers won't support your product.

When 5E was getting ready for launch, WotC did not have a viable VTT, so there was no reason at the time for them to attempt to lock their content behind the GSL... it was wiser to try to harness the "Skaff effect" by releasing under the OGL and re-capture the third-party support that had helped 3E become dominant. Of course, this time, "killer app" that the internet brought to help explode the growth of RPGs, the Virtual Tabletop, was much more ready for primetime. With the rise of the VTT, you are no longer limited to gaming with people in your immediate geographic vicinity. The problem of "I would love to play, but can't find anyone to DM" is all but eliminated. Furthermore, the VTT offers an RPG company the holy grail of revenue stream - it can be sold on a subscription basis! No longer do I have to sell a static book or PDF and let you enjoy it as much as you want; instead, I can charge you a little bit each month for access to the VTT. I would posit that the pandemic helped speed the move to VTTs, but the paradigm shift was that around the time 5E was released, the internet had developed the bandwidth to support high-quality VTTs and there was some competition among VTTs with FantasyGrounds, Roll20, and later comers like Foundry pushing for innovation in the VTT experience.

I'm sure WotC gets that the VTT is their dream revenue stream - the subscription-based model. You don't think they paid $146 million for D&D Beyond last year just to offer you a great way to organize your stuff? No, we know OneD&D is expected to have a significant VTT element. They're pivoting into this space. Without even worrying about whether or not microtransactions will be a thing, if they can get people locked into their VTT, they can finally back off releasing physical books and move to a service-based model - you're paying them every time you play D&D. To maximize profits, WotC has to find a way to shut out competing VTTs to avoid having their revenue stream split and there are only two avenues to do that: (1) make OneD&D incompatible with 5E or (2) prevent competing VTTs from using the material that was released as OGC in the 5E SRD.

So now they're staring down the choice... make OneD&D incompatible with 5e (remember, they learned "change the game too much and your customer base won't like it") or prevent competing VTTs from using OGC from 5E (they also learned "exert too much control with the license and publishers won't support your product"). They don't dare make it incompatible, so they tried - and are still trying - to choke off competing VTTs from accessing the material that was released as OGC in the 5E SRD. I think it isn't Paizo, MCDM, Kobold Press, or any of these other publishers that they're worried about as their competition (as most of the community has assumed). They're looking at Fantasy Grounds and Foundry and Roll20 and possibly even Steam, World of Warcraft, and the like. The rest of the TTRPG industry publishers? They're just collateral damage. I suspect they'd be happy to say third-party publishers can continue to use OGC - even stuff from the 5E SRD - in static electronic format and books - in perpetuity. They don't need royalties from others, so they're happy to drop those while they backpedal. The VTT is the thing.

After all, these are SOFTWARE people at the head. They're not looking at D&D the game. They're looking at "how can we change D&D from book sales into a subscription service?" I think they have misread the room, not because gamers are creative or smart or any other number of traits, but because most gamers in the VTT space have already formed significant brand loyalty to Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 or Foundry or their VTT of choice - and often feel affinity toward their favorite third party content creators that are getting caught in the blast radius - far more than their brand loyalty to D&D itself.

D&D Beyond may eventually become an excellent VTT, but it can't just be a "good" VTT - it will have to be so much better than the alternatives it overcomes the ill will of VTT users toward them. And with the TTRPG community looking like it's going to splinter again like it was in the 90's where you had Vampire/Werewolf, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Palladium/Rifts, and several other systems I'm probably forgetting taking significant market share from D&D, I don't think "our VTT is the one that runs D&D" will be enough.

TL;DR: I don't think this isn't about TTRPGs. I think it's all about the VTT space, but I don't see a path forward for WotC that lets them get where they want to go other than "extreme sustained excellence" (which I haven't seen for quite some time so I'm not holding my breath).
I believe you are correct. This is about dominating the digital market and tying it to subscriptions. They could have achieved that without causing this mess by simply confiding in some of the large 3pp’s and let them spread the message. They did not need to go scorched earth on the OGL to achieve their goals. Getting MCM, CR, etc to promote or advertise the VTT would have been a much better solution. It would have still worked with a ring fenced GSL 2.0 for OneD&D, but the VTT would have to be spectacular.
 

p_johnston

Adventurer
What part of D&D branding. Actual branding. Is documented in the 5e or 3.5 SRD, or the OGL.

I'll wait.
So my suspicion is that part of it is them not liking not having complete control over how people perceive D&D. To most people, especially people who aren't TTRPG players, the difference between Pathfinder, D&D 5e, and a third party book made to be compatible with 5e is pretty much non-existent. To the layperson they are all D&D. So when WOTC decides to do something like the D&D movie many people going to associate it with not only anything WOTC has done but also anything that is done by a third party operating in the same space. I could very much see some executive deciding that they need to crack down in case some 3pp publishes a naughty book that the public associates with them.
That being said these are just suspicions and even if true are likely not the main driving force. But I would be surprised if they weren't considered.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
It is pretty sad that WOTC saw the money being made by geeks with a YouTube channel and a Kickstarter and were willing to trash to the whole community just for a portion of that revenue. Except for totally niche things, Hasbro should be putting out content that blows away what one guy in his basement can do and they should have a full roster of personalities to engage with social media.
I think the royalties was just icing on the cake - see how fast they were willing to drop it; it was never core to their business plan.

Based on the software pedegree of the senior executives they have recently brought in, plus the acquisition of DnDBeyond, plus cutting software out, it seems they want to go heavily digital and be the only legal player in that space for D&D. Apps, VTT, games, etc. And that needs the old OGL to go away, or at least not be able to produce anything new. And that is what they seem to be offering in today's note - existing OGL 1.0a products are okay, which doesn't walk back anything about creating new products under it.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top