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.

 

[Zardnaar]

My favourite game is still the original Pool of Radiance, 1988 IIRC. All the goldbox games are on gog now, so the temptation is always there to sink a few hundred hours more playtime into them.

On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time. You had mentioned 3 hours per week, but there's also time spent writing adventures, crafting campaigns, creating characters, drawing maps, and so on. If that isn't your thing, then it's irrelevant, but I know for myself I spend exponentially more time on all the other stuff than I do on actually playing, and I absolutely consider those hours to be part of the value I get from the game.

Once upon a time I did more time on prep.

But there was also more inspiration available eg Dragon magazine or book.

Now I barely prep beyond the initial work and maybe a half hour or hour.

 

[BovineofWar]

On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time.

Time spent on this website reading and complaining about D&D...

I do not want to compare time surfing the internet for D&D to game time stats, too scary!

 

[GDGD]

Monopoly?

But quite aside from @overgeeked's excellent answer, the financial success of the shareholder does not require, and may even oppose, the long-term health of the company and its product. If Hasbro takes actions that juice its share price for a quarter, and I sell my shares during that quarter, I have profited even if those same actions harm the company a few years down the line*.

From what I've seen, long-term success requires a mix of profit motive with the desire to do good work that produces genuine value. Without the first, you lose sight of the realities of the business world and go bust. Without the second, you end up parasitizing your own company until it shrivels.

*In a world with perfect information and perfectly rational investors, this could never happen, since investors would see the long-term consequences and knock down the share price. Also in such a world, no one would ever invest in a Ponzi scheme. Since Ponzi schemes exist, we can conclude that we do not live in such a world.

Funnily enough, I was thinking of Monopoly too. But do we get to write it off as a terrible game? Lots of people love it. I love it, even though objectively I can't defend it mechanically, thematically, or in any other way. Soccer is the same. An awful game that seems to generate enormous revenue. But obviously my opinion isn't shared by the majority, so it is what it is.

My one comment on share value is that only very poorly run companies take a short-term view. Boosting value in the short term at the expense of the long term might please a small number of shareholders who are succeeding in timing the market, but that number would be so small as to be irrelevant to any sort of realistic corporate strategy. Shares are two-sided: They exist as a means of wealth generation for shareholders, yes, but primarily as a means of generating equity financing for the company. Equity financing is a good thing, because it's interest free. Conversely, it's bad because the shareholders own part of the company and get a say in how it's run (and often expect dividends). But I know a lot of shareholders, and I don't know any who think it's good for their investment if the company starts ignoring their customers and cranking out inferior products.

 

[Zardnaar]

Funnily enough, I was thinking of Monopoly too. But do we get to write it off as a terrible game? Lots of people love it. I love it, even though objectively I can't defend it mechanically, thematically, or in any other way. Soccer is the same. An awful game that seems to generate enormous revenue. But obviously my opinion isn't shared by the majority, so it is what it is.

My one comment on share value is that only very poorly run companies take a short-term view. Boosting value in the short term at the expense of the long term might please a small number of shareholders who are succeeding in timing the market, but that number would be so small as to be irrelevant to any sort of realistic corporate strategy. Shares are two-sided: They exist as a means of wealth generation for shareholders, yes, but primarily as a means of generating equity financing for the company. Equity financing is a good thing, because it's interest free. Conversely, it's bad because the shareholders own part of the company and get a say in how its run (and often expect dividends). But I know a lot of shareholders, and I don't know any who think it's good for their investment if the company starts ignoring their customers and cranking out inferior products.

I don't think monopoly is that popular now. It's popular enough to keep in print it I doubt it's earning a massive amount.

It's also very American in design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My favourite game is still the original Pool of Radiance, 1988 IIRC. All the goldbox games are on gog now, so the temptation is always there to sink a few hundred hours more playtime into them.

On the subject of value per hour, while it's hard for a TTRPG to compete with a video game, one thing I would note is that it's possible to include time spent on D&D aside from literal play time. You had mentioned 3 hours per week, but there's also time spent writing adventures, crafting campaigns, creating characters, drawing maps, and so on. If that isn't your thing, then it's irrelevant, but I know for myself I spend exponentially more time on all the other stuff than I do on actually playing, and I absolutely consider those hours to be part of the value I get from the game.

That's true. I spend a lot of time engaging with D&D outside of the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Funnily enough, I was thinking of Monopoly too. But do we get to write it off as a terrible game? Lots of people love it. I love it, even though objectively I can't defend it mechanically, thematically, or in any other way. Soccer is the same. An awful game that seems to generate enormous revenue. But obviously my opinion isn't shared by the majority, so it is what it is.

My one comment on share value is that only very poorly run companies take a short-term view. Boosting value in the short term at the expense of the long term might please a small number of shareholders who are succeeding in timing the market, but that number would be so small as to be irrelevant to any sort of realistic corporate strategy. Shares are two-sided: They exist as a means of wealth generation for shareholders, yes, but primarily as a means of generating equity financing for the company. Equity financing is a good thing, because it's interest free. Conversely, it's bad because the shareholders own part of the company and get a say in how it's run (and often expect dividends). But I know a lot of shareholders, and I don't know any who think it's good for their investment if the company starts ignoring their customers and cranking out inferior products.

Glad to hear it, but I have no such trust.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In the 90's a D&D book was about a weeks rent now it's dinner for two at a pub. Weeks rent is two books.

I want to have lived where you lived in the 1990s.

 

[Zardnaar]

I want to have lived where you lived in the 1990s.

Small Town NZ 3 bedroom house $100 NZD ($50-75 usd a week). Minimum wage was $6-$8 a week. If you didn't mind a dump you could get rent down to around $30-40 NZD (15-20 usd).

Student allowance was $150 NZ a week, rent $50 (room in small city) 2E phb $45, boxed set about ,$60.

Looking at adds in Dragon even with exchange rate they were selling books at $8-$16 usc. Paperback book here was around $15.95, a small one like a D&D one was $12.95.

Videogames are about the same price if not cheaper both in actual price and inflation adjusted. I payed $350 NZD for a Megadrive the games were $150 a pop which was what my friends corporate father was paying in rent for the house.

We don't have rent or mortgage to pay I would hate to do that now.

 

[darjr]

Football. All you need is one ball.

Not true, all the beers after add up!

 

[GDGD]

Glad to hear it, but I have no such trust.

Fair. But keep in mind that Hasbro has been public since 1968 and has owned D&D since 1999. That's respectively 54 and 23 years of history. If serving the wants and needs of shareholders was such a death knell to the products, I'm sure we would all have abandoned D&D long ago.