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".

OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D

We love the interest and passion the community has for D&D. We love D&D, too. So, when we see the D&D community concerned by rumors and misu...

www.dndbeyond.com

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.

 

[RangerWickett]

The opening of your financials really bothers me.

I mean, I'd be down if WotC reciprocated. Tell us how many units you sell, Hasbro, and who gets what cut of the profits, and how much all your employees and freelancers make. Transparency will lead to more accountability and better treatment of the little guy, but only if the big guy plays by the same rules.

 

[Alzrius]

And we're right back to the idea that being legally right and being able to afford to prove it in court are two wildly separate things.

It's certainly true that the legal system itself can be weaponized when adverse parties have major differences in what they can afford, but given how the OGL is both brief and comparatively clear...maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time not seeing anything like what you're describing quickly going to summary judgment in a way that won't be in WotC's favor.

 

[mamba]

I read it as that way too, but since the OGL is irrevocable by design and you can just shrug and use v1.0a indefinitely instead. Why would anyone use version 1.1? I don't really see how that changes things in Wizard's favor.

yeah, if I have a choice of using 1.0a or 1.1, I see no reason to ever use 1.1. Still kinda unsure about the new SRD and how that works out. If this really can be used with 1.0a, then I am not sure why WotC even bothers with this 1.1 iteration

 

[kenmarable]

And we're right back to the idea that being legally right and being able to afford to prove it in court are two wildly separate things.

But also keep in mind that the language of the OGL is specifically based on open-source software licenses, and if WotC wanted to try taking it to court to revoke an irrevocable license, there would be many interested parties even larger than Hasbro that would be quite keen on making sure that precedent is not set. I can't see the WotC legal team being willing to take that risk when there are easier ways to avoid it.

(Not to mention anyone spending some time Googling and hitting archive.org can find plenty of official WotC statements from Ryan Dancey that would count against WotC's case.)

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm not in favor of the game being, at or near its core, a subscription-based service, even if I'm not going to subscribe one way or another. I just can't help note the irony that some of the people campaigning for #opendnd have monetized every aspect of their "creative" process. They're peddling kickstarters with $175 tiers and Patreons with $20/month subscription levels; wotc would get skewered for charging those kinds of prices. I put "creative" in quotation marks because these products are highly derivative of wotc's game and book design at best and at worst are full of problematic fantasy tropes. It's like listening to an airbnb host complain about corporate greed.

There are fans who share their created content only to share their passion for the hobby. They distribute their fan-work for free, or for a very low cost on sites like DriveThruRPG or the DM's Guild, mostly for the visibility rather than hopes of making any money. Some use the OGL or the DM's Guild license, others the WotC fan content policy, others don't worry about licenses and policies at all. I am 100% certain WotC isn't going to crack down on this sort of community sharing, like TSR did in the days of old.

And there are fans who love the idea of possibly making a living, or at least a decent side-hustle, designing for their favorite game. They share their content on DriveThru, DM's Guild, and other sites very much hoping to make money. Like anyone offering art for profit, they have to balance maximizing their income and offering a "fair deal" to their customers. That includes Kickstarters (and other crowdfunding options) and subscription fees . . . .

And it's all okay. If any publisher offers a deal you don't like, just don't patronize them. There is so much good content out there, ranging from free to pricey, you can afford to be choosy. Complaining about these creators trying to make money from their creative endeavors . . . . sigh.

Most of the products designed to supplement D&D . . . . carry forward D&D's fantasy tropes and of course the rules themselves. Of course they do, they wouldn't be D&D supplements otherwise, seems an odd complaint. The quality of OGL and Guild products vary widely, in both game design, world-building, and moving away from problematic fantasy tropes. There are a good number of creators out there who are very aware of problematic tropes in fantasy literature and D&D, and work to avoid those in their products. There are plenty of creators who take D&D . . . and take it into some very innovative and creative places.

WotC has released some details of the upcoming OGL changes . . . and they will impact folks creating for the game. There will be reporting requirements that didn't exist before, and royalties for the big-time publishers. Of course these folks aren't going to be happy about these changes. But I agree, what is being asked of creators using the OGL (so far, at least) seems more than reasonable. You want to use somebody else's game to make some money, jumping through some (small) hoops to do so, or sharing some of that revenue if you make a lot, doesn't seem unfair to me.

 

[Morrus]

I mean, I suppose that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.

That would be the argument if they went that route.

If it came to it, it would be Paizo fighting it. Everybody else would be on the periphery watching.

 

[overgeeked]

It's certainly true that the legal system itself can be weaponized when adverse parties have major differences in what they can afford, but given how the OGL is both brief and comparatively clear...maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time not seeing anything like what you're describing quickly going to summary judgment in a way that won't be in WotC's favor.

You have infinitely more faith in the judicial system (insert Dana Carvey clip here) than I do.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Welp.

Now we know how they plan to (fail to) monetize 5.5e.

 

[glass]

I mean, I suppose that WotC could argue that older versions of the OGL are no longer "authorized," but while I'm certainly no lawyer I don't see that argument getting very far if they tried to use it.

I really hope you're right, but I still have my doubts. If "authorized" does not mean what I think it means, then what does it mean? Why is it there in the first place?

Even in the OGL itself, I suspect that would run afoul of Section 4, which says that it grants you a "perpetual" (among other terms) license, which according to Section 13 can only be terminated if you fail to obey its terms. Given that there's no clause about the license being "de-authorized," I think that's probably not going to happen.

Nobody is talking about anything being "de-authorized". That is clearly impossible.

This is about the 1D&D SRD which has not been released as Open Content (on the basis of not existing yet), and what might be possible when it eventually is. Which is at worst a minor inconvenience unless there is some pretty big carrot attached to the 1.1 OGL.

But again IANAL (or a publisher for that matter - although I aspire to be one one day), so maybe I am worrying about nothing.

 

[mamba]

Because it's going to be "the current edition." And if you want to keep up with that, to have the latest/most compatible version of the game, you'll have no choice. Otherwise, you're publishing a retroclone.

it’s the current edition of the license, not of the actual game content, so you are not publishing a retroclone. Also, most stuff is adventures, monster manuals, etc to begin with, not other TTRPGs, so it would not be retroclone anyway