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

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".)
Presuming I'm understanding you correctly (and I confess that I'm still not sure that I am), then I don't think there's anything to worry about. The "authorization status" is with regard to existing versions of the Open Game License (e.g. v1.0, v1.0a, and will presumably apply to the forthcoming v1.1 once it's released), not with regard to any SRDs that are released under any version of the OGL.

Section 9 says that any Open Game Content "originally distributed under any version of this License," may be copied, modified, and distributed under any "authorized version" of the License. So authorization only matters with regard to the license that's doing the copying, modifying, and distributing, not which license the Open Game Content is originally released under. Which means that so long as there's no question that v1.0 and v1.0a are still considered "authorized," then anything released as Open Game Content under v1.1 can be used with them.

Or at least, that's my lay reading.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Presuming I'm understanding you correctly (and I confess that I'm still not sure that I am), then I don't think there's anything to worry about. The "authorization status" is with regard to existing versions of the Open Game License (e.g. v1.0, v1.0a, and presumably the forthcoming v1.1), not with regard to any SRDs that are released under any version of the OGL.
Yes, I know you do not think there is anything to worry about. But I do, and as much as I hope that you are right and I am wrong, I am usually only wrong when I don't want to be.... :(

Section 9 says that any Open Game Content "originally distributed under any version of this License," may be copied, modified, and distributed under any "authorized version" of the License. Which means that so long as there's no question that v1.0 and v1.0a are still considered "authorized," then anything released as Open Game Content under v1.1 can be used with them.
The question is, "authorized" for what? 1.0 and 1.0A can (and indeed must) remain "authorized" for things released under them, without necessarily being "authorized" for things released under 1.1.
 

Presuming I'm understanding you correctly (and I confess that I'm still not sure that I am), then I don't think there's anything to worry about. The "authorization status" is with regard to existing versions of the Open Game License (e.g. v1.0, v1.0a, and will presumably apply to the forthcoming v1.1 once it's released), not with regard to any SRDs that are released under any version of the OGL.

Section 9 says that any Open Game Content "originally distributed under any version of this License," may be copied, modified, and distributed under any "authorized version" of the License. So authorization only matters with regard to the license that's doing the copying, modifying, and distributing, not which license the Open Game Content is originally released under. Which means that so long as there's no question that v1.0 and v1.0a are still considered "authorized," then anything released as Open Game Content under v1.1 can be used with them.

Or at least, that's my lay reading.
They must also be considered versions of the same license. v1.1 might declare itself to be a new distinct license.
 

The question is, "authorized" for what? 1.0 and 1.0A can (and indeed must) emain "authorized" for things released under them, without necesarily bein "authorized" for things released under 1.1.
I think I mentioned this previously (there've been a lot of posts in a short time o_O ), but I think that's with regard to the previous sentence in that clause regarding who may issue updated versions of the OGL. That is, it's only "authorized" if it comes from WotC or their designated agent.
 

They must also be considered versions of the same license. v1.1 might declare itself to be a new distinct license.
I mean, I suppose it could, but I have a hard time seeing someone declare "this Open Game License version 1.1 is a separate and distinct license, and is in no way an iteration of the Open Game License version 1.0" and be taken seriously.
 

With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales. If it does, it's still a net win after you cough up 50% of the revenues. If not, you'd be better off under the OGL either on DriveThru or doing your own thing.
Except for the fact that publishing on DMsGuild allows you to use WotC's worlds and intellectually property. Good luck publishing your new Dragonlance adventure on DriveThru Rpg.

I'm sorry but a company allowing other game devolopers to play in their their toys in their world, and just asking for a cut of the profits and that you only publish your work in their online store isn't some sinister, evil plot. Sure taking a 50% cut may seem like a lot, but DriveThru RPG will take a 30-35% cut as well, if you sell books through them instead.
 

I think I mentioned this previously (there've been a lot of posts in a short time o_O ), but I think that's with regard to the previous sentence in that clause regarding who may issue updated versions of the OGL. That is, it's only "authorized" if it comes from WotC or their designated agent.
I think you did say that, and it may well have been what was meant at the time. But that does not mean the vulnerability is not there, even if accidentally.

I mean, I suppose it could, but I have a hard time seeing someone declare "this Open Game License version 1.1 is a separate and distinct license, and is in no way an iteration of the Open Game License version 1.0" and be taken seriously.
This OTOH, I fully agree with.
 

I mean, I suppose it could, but I have a hard time seeing someone declare "this Open Game License version 1.1 is a separate and distinct license, and is in no way an iteration of the Open Game License version 1.0" and be taken seriously.
I'll defer to anyone with IP law expertise on whether that would stick.
 

... No, I think I'll build my stuff back here in the free ecosystem, and ignore new design from WoTC now. :(
I kinda agree with you in spirit, but the big ocean effect of "current" version of D&D will eventually leave us behind.

Kinda reminds me of all the 1E AD&D players sticking to their guns with their edition when 2 and 3 came along.
Perfectly viable, fun, and sustainable for a local group.

NEVER gonna maintain the numbers of a current version. IMO.
 

Except for the fact that publishing on DMsGuild allows you to use WotC's worlds and intellectually property. Good luck publishing your new Dragonlance adventure on DriveThru Rpg.

I'm sorry but a company allowing other game devolopers to play in their their toys in their world, and just asking for a cut of the profits and that you only publish your work in their online store isn't some sinister, evil plot. Sure taking a 50% cut may seem like a lot, but DriveThru RPG will take a 30-35% cut as well, if you sell books through them instead.
50% is what distributors take when selling into retail. Every book you buy from a store, the publisher (effectively) paid out 50% royalties on.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top