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.

 

[overgeeked]

Sly Flourish talks about this today.

 

[Mistwell]

...what absolute nonsense.

You're not left behind. There are others who opt to stay with every edition when there's a change over. You still belong to the group who played that edition. You still belong to the group who keeps playing that edition, if you keep playing that edition. Your definition of culture has to be minuscule for you to no longer be a part of the culture. There's the broad nerd and geek culture, the smaller RPG subculture, the smaller tabletop RPG sub-subculture, and the smaller still D&D sub-sub-subculture. Then there's sub-sub-sub-subculture of which edition you play. So even if you still with a non-current edition, you're still part of a lot of cultures and subcultures. You're just not part of the current edition of D&D sub-sub-sub-subculture.

Things change regardless of how we feel about them. Change is. It’s not bittersweet.

I don’t view being with the majority as anything to feel proud of in most cases.

Your relevance is not tied to which edition of a particular brand of elfgame you play. Your sense of belonging shouldn’t be tied to which brand if elfgame you play. No matter how much WotC pushes the nonsense, D&D is not a lifestyle brand. It’s a game.

All you have left is nostalgia? What a bizarre take. Either I play the new shiny or I’m irrelevant? Nonsense. That’s pure fear of missing out.

It‘s obviously nonsense.

Being a little aggressive there in judging people's feelings about community, are you not?

 

[Hussar]

You think they’ll change their minds about the disclosure requirements, financial audits and royalties? That seems very unlikely.

But, that doesn't make the license any less open.

Unless we see an SRD that is significantly different than what we see right now, there is nothing in the announcement that makes it any less open than it is right now. Again, since we haven't seen what the new SRD looks like, it's possible that it will be less open. But, that's still speculative.

For the overwhelming majority of content creators for D&D, this new OGL will make zero difference. And even for those that it will impact - basically those who are making a living on 3rd party content (those making more than 50 grand a year), the disclosure requirements are not going to change anything. Why would having to tell WotC, "Hey, yes, my 3rd party product makes 65 grand a year." have any impact?

And, frankly, what financial audits?

 

[Greg Benage]

But, that doesn't make the license any less open.

Yes, requiring disclosures and charging larger licensees royalties does indeed make the license less open, regardless of how much content they make available under its terms.

Not a big deal — I understand what you were trying to say. The sarcasm directed at Justin was just a bit misplaced since what he said was correct.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, requiring disclosures and charging larger licensees royalties does indeed make the license less open, regardless of how much content they make available under its terms.

Not a big deal — I understand what you were trying to say. The sarcasm directed at Justin was just a bit misplaced since what he said was correct.

I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open? And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing. It does cost you something, sure. But, how does it make it less open.

And my criticism of Justin Alexander is well founded. He's been unrelentingly negative about all things WotC for over a decade. Seeing him state, in no uncertain terms that we KNOW that WotC is going to make the new license less open is what I'm criticising. We know no such thing. We might suspect that it's true. But, again, it's hardly surprising to see Justin Alexander making up his mind long before seeing the actual license.

 

[Cadence]

I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open? And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing. It does cost you something, sure. But, how does it make it less open.

Calling "having to jump through more hoops" being less open seems reasonable to me. But even discarding that...

Haven't they also said the new one won't apply to non-book-like things, so not to video games or continuously updated searchable websites, say?

The current one seems to have been explicitly designed to allow for those based on the FAQ they put out way back when, right?

 

[Umbran]

Haven't they also said the new one won't apply to non-book-like things, so not to video games or continuously updated searchable websites, say?

The statement quoted in the OP says, "To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it."

While I'd agree that this means video games (and, in general, automation of the rules) is out, I think searchable websites are probably still okay. I don't think a search widget will qualify as "dynamic content".

Basically, a PDF is searchable. HTML files are similarly static electronic files, and Google will make those searchable even if I don't have a search tool embedded in my page. So, I don't expect that's what's at issue.

Full on video games, software based character builders, or click-to-roll character sheets are probably more the target there. And, the point isn't that you cannot build them - just that the OGL is not the license you'll need.

 

[Hussar]

I posted this in another thread, but, I'll include it here too.

What about something like an AI powered adventure generator? Random dungeon generators have been around forever, but, this is a bit a of a step up. Say you have a Chat AI twinned with an Art AI (Look, I'm an English teacher, forgive me if I have the terms wrong) and tied to the OGL and the SRD.

We've seen right now that Chat AI's can generate fairly complex, interesting, and above all, functional adventure frameworks. Marry that to actually seeding in the stat blocks, plus an art generator for various parts and now, you've got a functional adventure generator that will create professional level modules ready to use at the table with a couple of clicks.

Is that a valid use of the OGL? I'd say no. That's pretty above and beyond what WotC intended with the OGL. Selling a program, for, say, a hundred bucks, that creates fully functional VTT adventures based on a few prompts (or tabletop versions as well) that look good, work and are fun isn't that far off technologically.

But, I can't say I blame WotC for wanting to wall off it's game from someone doing something like that.

 

[Squeatus]

The statement quoted in the OP says, "To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it."

Full on video games, software based character builders, or click-to-roll character sheets are probably more the target there. And, the point isn't that you cannot build them - just that the OGL is not the license you'll need.

I'd go so far to argue that character builders and even VTT's don't fall under "dynamic content definitely not covered by the OGL" either.

Character builders and VTT's would be using static rulesets (the ogl content) and dice rollers/calculators to facilitate play. WotC/Hasbro certainly can't say that they believe note-taking, and math randomizers, or the storage of the state of your story (game) is somehow in violation of their content license.

The rules could be edited for accuracy but there's nothing "dynamic" about them, even in a VTT or Character Builder. It's simply a tool you use to play the game, using rules distributed very much in a static, electronic format.

It'd be like saying Microsoft One Note, if used for your campaign tracking, somehow assisted you in violating the new license.

 

[Nylanfs]

I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open? And, again, charging royalties doesn't prevent you from publishing. It does cost you something, sure. But, how does it make it less open.

The same as placing a barrier to do something that was previously unimpeded, or even placing a "perceived" barrier. Yes, the vast majority of publishers won't have issues with the possibility of paying royalties, because they will never come close. But it is still a "theoretical" barrier and a chilling of the previous percieved "openness".