• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

And 1.1 doesn't allow apps, programs, websites, etc. So it's a lot of exclusive content on their VTT.

Literally writing it into 1.1 that DNDBeyond is the one and only digital place for OneD&D.
Under the OGL 1.1. We don't know yet what other options there will be.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Does it? I've never actually sat down and watched an episode of Critical Role, but I don't think that they or any other actual-play series ever used the OGL, did they?
No, you're right, CR probably didn't ask for permission at all, and used non-SRD proprietary player's handbook stuff on the air even, so the OGL changes wouldn't hurt or help them exactly, The other two examples stand.

I think for streamers it's more that these changes are a signal that if you get too successfull in the DnD ecosystem in any medium. Wizards is going to show up rattling a moneybox. MCDM and Kobold Press are on Notice, because their kickstarters won't stay under 750K per year.

I have nothing against WoTC making Ocean liners full of money, what sickens me is the mountains of cash aren't enough that they can't keep themselves from trying to now skim even more off of everyone else in the ecosystem that they built up through the previous open license space. I'm not even completely convinced that they are trying to make more money from ecosystem royalties vs the much blunter, dumber goal of discouraging competition before it starts for new projects like D&DBeyond Ongoing Subscription $.
 
Last edited:

Also, notice that now videos, websites and other media other than print are not going to be allowed to use OGL 1.1 content.
That means no competing with D&D Beyond kids, No Level Up Tools website next time, and also that there might never be another Critical Role (at least there will not be using OneDnD or later) --- this deal keeps getting worse all the time!
The success of Critical Role has never had anything to do with the OGL. They may have published their first campaign setting books under the OGL(I think, I am not sure on this one), but their massive success is due to their streaming, which isn't governed by the OGL in any way. A lot of different issues tend to get conflated together. Any intellectual property issue involving copyright, trademark, licensing and a host of other issues all tend to get lumped together as the "OGL". It can make following the discussion difficult sometimes.
 

Does it? I've never actually sat down and watched an episode of Critical Role, but I don't think that they or any other actual-play series ever used the OGL, did they?
I was wondering about the video clause myself. I'm not sure how they'd interact. Videos of people playing the game could be considered derivative works. But yeah, I don't see WotC picking a fight with Critical Role. They're making a lot of money directly off of each other. I mean if anyone's going to have a chance of pulling in more fans than WotC if the fandom splits it's Paizo and/or CR. Like I said in the initial rumor thread, if WotC handles this badly enough, Paizo is going into immediate production of Pathfinder 5E. I wonder if they'll talk to the CR people and join up. After all, when CR was a home game they were using Pathfinder. New from Paizo and Critical Role...that would be huge.
 


The success of Critical Role has never had anything to do with the OGL. They may have published their first campaign setting books under the OGL(I think, I am not sure on this one), but their massive success is due to their streaming, which isn't governed by the OGL in any way. A lot of different issues tend to get conflated together. Any intellectual property issue involving copyright, trademark, licensing and a host of other issues all tend to get lumped together as the "OGL". It can make following the discussion difficult sometimes.
In the title sequence of every Critical Role episode is a disclaimer about WotC copyrights and trademarks.
 


I am not a lawyer but ... oh. Wait. I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know what any of this means. I'll wait until morrus pipes in with an overview that dumbs it down enough for us muggles to understand instead of making pointless speculative assumptions.

It would make sense if they're trying to protect their investment in DDB and the new VTT while getting a little bit back from those companies making a lot of money off of their IP.
 


I am not a lawyer but ... oh. Wait. I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know what any of this means. I'll wait until morrus pipes in with an overview that dumbs it down enough for us muggles to understand instead of making pointless speculative assumptions.

It would make sense if they're trying to protect their investment in DDB and the new VTT while getting a little bit back from those companies making a lot of money off of their IP.
For the record, despite not being a lawyer, I disagree with Morrus about the whole Section 9 thing as you can read above. I.e. I think his summary at the top of the thread about being able to pick which version of the OGL applies to a work is only good for interchanging OGLs that have that Section 9 clause, and should that be removed, I think it would break compatibility for bringing future work back to 1.0a.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top