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.

 

[SteveC]

This is really interesting stuff. The most important thing is that just about everything we are seeing at the moment is pure speculation. I know a few people have already mentioned this but if we shut down comments on that basis, we don't have much to discuss.

With that in mind, here's my speculation: WotC is trying to bring together all content under the umbrella of the new VTT and D&D Beyond. They want to bring everyone to use that platform, that seems really obvious. The obvious carrot is integration with that platform.

But what does that mean for other platforms? I use Foundry, but haven't used it for 5E yet. I know there's a module to import material from D&D Beyond, and I expect that will no longer be allowed in the 1D&D world. I wonder if WotC will continue the "special license" they have with any VTT company at that point.

This all gets back to how compatible 1D&D will be with 5E. If the new game truly is backwards compatible, there's no reason that companies really need to move forward to the new edition at all because their games can just be parallel to it and still use any new content. That's why I'm of the belief that 1D&D will be different enough so as not to make that easy to do. That is 100% speculation on my part, but I think it's likely.

But, as Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong, let's go have pie.

 

[tomBitonti]

So, i’m getting a different read of this than seems prevalent:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish
updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version
of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game
Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

Bold added by me.

How does this apply to new content? I can get it to apply, it seems, only after using the current license. Which would be bizarre.

TomB

 

[dbolack]

Yep you are correct but I do not see the issue with mods of OGC content. The files are still static information. The automation on FantasyGrounds is a language parser that drives a die roller. It does not modify any original gaming content.

Working from the assumption that is absolutely correct:

Being correct and being able to prove it should you choose to defend your correctness in court when the aggressor gets to select the venue are two very, very, very different things.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This is really interesting stuff. The most important thing is that just about everything we are seeing at the moment is pure speculation. I know a few people have already mentioned this but if we shut down comments on that basis, we don't have much to discuss.

With that in mind, here's my speculation: WotC is trying to bring together all content under the umbrella of the new VTT and D&D Beyond. They want to bring everyone to use that platform, that seems really obvious. The obvious carrot is integration with that platform.

But what does that mean for other platforms? I use Foundry, but haven't used it for 5E yet. I know there's a module to import material from D&D Beyond, and I expect that will no longer be allowed in the 1D&D world. I wonder if WotC will continue the "special license" they have with any VTT company at that point.

So this prompted me to scan the D&DBeyond "Term of Service", now I am not a lawyer not did I read it very closely but a quick scan of the TOS would appear to me that the use of importers or webscrapers is a violation of the TOS.
They may not have gone after the like of Beyond20 but that you are in violation of the TOS.

This all gets back to how compatible 1D&D will be with 5E. If the new game truly is backwards compatible, there's no reason that companies really need to move forward to the new edition at all because their games can just be parallel to it and still use any new content. That's why I'm of the belief that 1D&D will be different enough so as not to make that easy to do. That is 100% speculation on my part, but I think it's likely.

But, as Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion and I could be wrong, let's go have pie.

My guess as I have said before all that is out now is free forever but that this may not apply to the SRD for the new content.

 

[dbolack]

But that's the thing, though. Why should any third-party publisher report the revenue of their products that contains OGC to WotC/Hasbro?

This is a common thing in licenses that are not acquired with a flat fee ( $0 is still a flat fee ) for auditing and renewal purposes.

 

[Bitbrain]

reads entirety of thread

Not entirely sure about the full implications of a new OGL, but it sounds like even more incentive for me to just stick with 5e and ignore 1D&D completely.

 

[Remathilis]

reads entirety of thread

Not entirely sure about the full implications of a new OGL, but it sounds like even more incentive for me to just stick with 5e and ignore 1D&D completely.

Not to pick on you, but this thinking confuses me.

Are you a publisher of third party content that makes over 50k in sales annually? Then this doesn't really concern you. This has zero effect on the average player or consumer. There will still be third party content. This doesn't even relate to DMsGuild. I'm sure WotC is going to make sure that the major 3pp studios like Kobold or Darrington Press aren't going to pull a Paizo on them again. Again, unless you are making a living selling D&D adjacent material, this is a tempest in a teapot.

Further, it has nothing to do with One D&D directly, except for the fact they are using the rules update to coincide with the updated OGL. 5e and 1D are mostly compatible, so even if your favorite publisher doesn't move to 1D for some reason, there is no reason why you couldn't use their stuff with 1D.

Listen, buy One D&D or don't. But don't frame the decision as some moral stance. The sheer amount of virtue signaling that frames not upgrading your PHB as "sticking it to WotC's corporate overlords" is laughable. Especially when we're over a year away from it's final form.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Here's my random speculation after skimming a bunch of the discussions going on: YMMV

Currently, Hasbro's got an issue with Magic and whether they're flooding the market to essentially print money. Shareholders are concerned.

They're going to have their own online platform. They probably want to drive traffic there and find a way to make money off it.

Given they've talked about 1D&D being backward-compatible, and given that the OGL is able to be used from any previous edition... I wonder if this talk about the royalties etc is just to bolster shareholder confidence. A way to say 'hey, here's a way that we're having residuals come to us.' New game stuffs will continue to be released, under new or old OGL - I don't feel anyone's going to be stifled. Personally, I felt at the time of the 3.x OGL that, largely, a lot of third-party materials and splatbooks were just... Not Good. The market got flooded and those companies ceased to be. I hope this won't be the case coming up.

On the talk of them seeing another company's financials.... I see why that may be objectionable to some people, but as long as that information is staying private, I don't see the harm. From their standpoint, I feel it's a way for them to really get real numbers on the 'health' of D&D, their main product, to really look at its profitability beyond what they make. Any business would be right to have someone they're going into business with look at their numbers and really do some forensic accounting on it - that's why there was an issue at Disney+ hiding costs and faking health by shunting things to appear on the Disney Channel first so the Channel eats the cost of it. That's why Peter Jackson had his lawsuit with New Line - they were 'paying' their own subsidiaries first and then claiming to him there was no revenue left to split.

I know it's a serious concern for ENWorld's publishing, for other people who hit that line, but again, it feels like, as we live in a content-driven age, a lot of these videos or posts out there seem to be out to just have discussions for page clicks. I hope I don't sound like I'm disparaging anyone's comments - I just come from an auditing background in a few industries, and currently work for a bank that's either always buying or merging with other banks.

Again, YMMV

 

[Umbran]

The sheer amount of virtue signaling ...

Mod Note:
This comprises an assertion that the person's concerns are not sincere.
You are not in a position to make that assertion.
So, please don't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm glad they're committed to releasing a 1D&D SRD. However, I'd note they don't have to make anything in the 1D&D SRD Open Game Content, which would effectively be the same as having no 1D&D SRD with respect to Section 9 and previous versions of the OGL. Previous SRDs have designated all content in the document except PI as OGC, but that obviously isn't mandatory.

Maybe the new SRD designates content you could pull from the 5.1 SRD anyway as Open Game Content, but designates new content as One Game Content (just to have confusing acronyms), which can only be used by third parties publishing under the 1.1 OGL. If they change enough things like class tables and spell lists and then designate those things as One Game Content, they could conceivably make it difficult to hang 1D&D-based content on a previous version of the license.

Anyway, that would be the kind of strategy that would make sense of the "why would anyone use this?" question, given Section 9. I'll be very interested to see what they do with monsters. If they high-board off Monsters of the Multiverse and really revamp the way they handle monsters, then they're cooking with Crisco in my opinion.

All speculation, obviously, but I think they clearly have a path to work around Section 9 if that's what they want to do.

ETA: I'd also strengthen my language if I don't want someone retro-clowning me: "Any Work that uses One Game Content is subject to the terms of the Open Game License v1.1."

If so, I'd definitely lose respect for them. That's a move designed to literally make the rich get richer.