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

I notice that "distributed" is written in past tense, so maybe a loophole where since this new version hadn't been published when 1.0 said that?

IANAL. (not even close)
As soon as something is distributed, its distribution is in the past, so the past tense writing would apply. (I'm not a lawyer either, but that'd be my guess.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just occurred to me on reddit. The VTT's that don't have a license with WotC don't need one if they don't sell OGL 1.1 stuff. Even if they host games that players use OGL 1.1 stuff. For instance Owlbear Rodeo need not worry about this at all, not even the old OGL. I suspect many others don't either.
 

This is extremely dissapointing. Man, I am mad. My take on this is that it goes way too far on poisoning the market for third party products. I think that this is the day that 3rd party publishers will have to decide to stick with 5E, and the community will have to release our own patches / updates to that SRD rather than moving on to basing our work on One DnD.

The open OGL 1.0 and the 5E SRD was what got me into creating D&D compatible products in the first place (although part of that license is that you aren't allowed to say D&D Compatible), and there is no way I am going to move to a less open license for any future work. Ya lost me Guys! Is is too easy just to say that this is the inevitable train wreck result once you start bringing in Microsoft executives to run a company whose ecosystem was created by open licenses? No, I think I'll build my stuff back here in the free ecosystem, and ignore new design from WoTC now. :(
 


4. And some will. Imagine Keith Baker's Eberron or Darrington Press's Exandria Reborn on D&D Beyond. Much like how Blood Hunter or Gunslinger is there already. It will give them a closer sense of "official" than some of it had.
Coincidentally, I literally just got home from a coffee meeting with Keith. Not to misspeak for him, but we talked about this. He doesn't own Eberron. Anything he does for Eberron currently has to be published through DM's Guild, and for anything printed, he has to ask them for permission for them to print (since DMs Guild doesn't have that). What that looks like going forward is up in the air (although I have to think WoTC would reach out to him for a 1DnD version at some point. IIRC, Eberron is only behind FR in popularity).
 




what aspect of the new (unreleased) license is "less open"?
The part where you have to pay royalties if you hit a certain threshold. That's not an open license. Also having to open your books to Hasbro.

I don't see why they need to revise the OGL in order to control what goes on D&D Beyond. That could be made part of the terms of service on DDB. This seems like another attempt to do what the 4E GSL tried to do and failed -- claw back some of the control that the OGL deliberately surrendered. I hope it meets the same fate and gets roundly rejected.

(As far as NFTs go, NFT makers are a bunch of scam artists and I shed no tears for them. But "paper publishing or static files only" hits a whole lot more than NFTs.)
 

Well, then I misunderstood you before. I thought you were mentioning the use of the term "authorized" out of a worry that WotC would try to say that older versions of the OGL were no longer authorized to publish Open Game Content from newer versions of the license, which I see as being very unlikely on their part and unlikely to succeed if they tried. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean with regard to mentioning that particular word?
That's almost what I was saying, except it is not "no longer". Since an SRD that has not been written yet has by definition not been released under any version of the licence, its authorization status is currently undefined. If my fears are grounded (and to be clear, I am not saying they are - this is something I fear not something I know), then the OGL 1.0A will not be a an "authorized version" for material released under material released under OGL 1.1 (not "no longer", because it never will have been, simply "not".)

what aspect of the new (unreleased) license is "less open"?
The requirements to preregister, provide non-trivial paperwork, and potentially pay royalties. Except it is not so much "less" as "not at all".

IAstillNAL.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top