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). However, for those who use the new OGL 1.1, which will be released in early 2023, there will be some limitations added with regards the type of product which can use it, and -- possibly controversially -- reporting to WotC your annual OGL-related revenue.

They are also adding a royalty for those third party publishers who make more than $750K per year.

Interestingly, only books and 'static electronic files' like ebooks and PDFs will be compatible with the new OGL, meaning that apps, web pages, and the like will need to stick to the old OGL 1.0a.

There will, of course, be a lot of debate and speculation over what this actually means for third party creators, and how it will affect them. Some publishers like Paizo (for Pathfinder) and others will likely simply continue to use the old OGL. The OGL 1.0a allows WotC to update the license, but allows licensees to continue to use previous versions "to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".


wotc-new-logo-3531303324.jpg



1. Will One D&D include an SRD/be covered by an OGL?

Yes. First, we’re designing One D&D with fifth edition backwards compatibility, so all existing creator content that is compatible with fifth edition will also be compatible with One D&D. Second, we will update the SRD for One D&D as we complete its development—development that is informed by the results of playtests that we’re conducting with hundreds of thousands of D&D players now.

2. Will the OGL terms change?

Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property.

So, what’s changing?

First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

Will this affect the D&D content and services players use today? It shouldn’t. The top VTT platforms already have custom agreements with Wizards to do what they do. D&D merchandise, like minis and novels, were never intended to be part of the OGL and OGL 1.1 won’t change that. Creators wishing to leverage D&D for those forms of expression will need, as they always have needed, custom agreements between us.

Second, we’re updating the OGL to offer different terms to creators who choose to make free, share-alike content and creators who want to sell their products.

What does this mean for you as a creator? If you’re making share-alike content, very little is going to change from what you’re already used to.

If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
  1. Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
  2. Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
  3. Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.

For the fewer than 20 creators worldwide who make more than $750,000 in income in a year, we will add a royalty starting in 2024. So, even for the creators making significant money selling D&D supplements and games, no royalties will be due for 2023 and all revenue below $750,000 in future years will be royalty-free.

Bottom line: The OGL is not going away. You will still be able to create new D&D content, publish it anywhere, and game with your friends and followers in all the ways that make this game and community so great. The thousands of creators publishing across Kickstarter, DMsGuild, and more are a critical part of the D&D experience, and we will continue to support and encourage them to do that through One D&D and beyond.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

While I like a lot of the creatives involved and a fair amount of their actual output, as someone who started in 1984, I can't help but notice that a whole lot of 3PP are selling older-edition content and ideas to players new to D&D with 5E.
I see a lot of "50 new magic items! 13 new subclasses! Get access to the NPC deck! Back this adventure path in which the BBEG are orientalized Egyptian gnolls, only $100!"

I'm sorry but go to exalted funeral and pick a product completely at random and it will have more soul and craft put into it than these 5e hustles.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's entirely possible. Trying to guess exactly what WotC is going to do with D&DB is, at this point, gazing into a crystal ball; there's no way we can be sure of what they'll do, though insofar as the new OGL v1.1 goes, I do think they're going to try offering some sort of incentive(s) to entice third-party publishers to use it. If they allow compatible material on D&DB, requiring it to use the OGL v1.1 could potentially be one way to do it.
Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.
 

Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.
Well, one idea I've mentioned before is that they may put out something like the old d20 STL; a separate license used in conjunction with the OGL v1.1 so that you can use an "official" compatibility logo on the cover of your book (remember that old red-and-white d20 logo from the 3E boom years?).
 

That's entirely possible. Trying to guess exactly what WotC is going to do with D&DB is, at this point, gazing into a crystal ball; there's no way we can be sure of what they'll do, though insofar as the new OGL v1.1 goes, I do think they're going to try offering some sort of incentive(s) to entice third-party publishers to use it. If they allow compatible material on D&DB, requiring it to use the OGL v1.1 could potentially be one way to do it.

Which seems to indicate they don't kill the OGL and actually plan to bring 3rd party creators on board for a fee if it is successful.
So time to panick? Probably not.

Grats to @Morrus for achieving that mark of being noticed.
 


Right. But what other way would they have to incentivize 3PP to move to 1.1? I doubt they’re going to open more IP and offer that up because section 9 would mean it would just be released into the wild. The only other leverage they have is Beyond.
I remember the Kenzer people saying that being able to label their 3e Kalamar stuff as official D&D was worth far more to them than what they could do under the OGL and they were happy with that as part of their settlement with WotC for WotC's infringement of their IP in the Dragon archive CD.

WotC has a few options for offering up different incentives. Until they announce something it will be a lot of speculation.

Until WotC announces more all they have announced is a new license with downsides that can be avoided by using the old one.
 

Well, one idea I've mentioned before is that they may put out something like the old d20 STL; a separate license used in conjunction with the OGL v1.1 so that you can use an "official" compatibility logo on the cover of your book (remember that old red-and-white d20 logo from the 3E boom years?).
Uh…I’m sure most 3PP would take the exclusive use of a sales platform with 15 million views a month.
 


I remember the Kenzer people saying that being able to label their 3e Kalamar stuff as official D&D was worth far more to them than what they could do under the OGL and they were happy with that as part of their settlement with WotC for WotC's infringement of their IP in the Dragon archive CD.
The funny thing is that I remember hearing a few years ago (though I can't find any mention of it now) another case involving the same underlying issue; that someone put out a compilation archive which included licensed material. It went to trial, and the company that put out the archive won; so precedent was set in a manner that wouldn't favor Kenzer if something like that happened today! (Though, again, this is all hearsay on my part.)
 

How else can one fairly apply royalty/commission?
Well, "not at all" seemed to work for 1.0A.

The work "authorized" is only mentioned with regard to any version of the License being something which you can publish Open Game Content under. Said Open Game Content can come from "any version of this License," authorized or not.
Exactly. The licence that has to be "authorised" is the one you want to publish under. Far from alleviating my concern, that is the source of it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top