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

I think a simpler system with more RP and less combat would do that. Something more like what I suggested up thread (4e as teh base but with some of the streamlined 5e upgrades but with 2e hp... all healing being HD based, and social and exploration systems more baked in like an updated skill challenge mixed with the journey systems... also a 'keeping contacts' sub system like the one in Strixhaven... but you need to meld all of that in while removing combat options and abilities to keep it as simple as possible)

I don't think 4e as a base is a good idea. 5e has a lot of influences of 4e. I would not mind taking some more (healing surges cough cough, attacks vs defenses 5e saving throws just to end effects).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I wouldn't care about 3PP content if WoTC were remotely capable of delivering the quality and quantity of content the community desires.

My critique isn't them being greedy corporate subscription foisters (although that is obviously demonstrably true). My critique is them being clueless, out of touch, ivory tower, Seattle nepotist, corporatist brand jockeys.

If they want to make money, fine -- but how about sell products??
You should have been around when they were the nouveau hip Seattle trend setters that brought the game back.
 


I don't think 4e as a base is a good idea. 5e has a lot of influences of 4e. I would not mind taking some more (healing surges cough cough, attacks vs defenses 5e saving throws just to end effects).
all of what you said, and more standardize class lay out (not exactly like 4e I actually think taking the warlock and the artificer from 5e and using them as the base for all the classes would work best TBH) but the most important is clear precise language. X does Y. little (but not no)room for DM judgement calls being needed at most tables most times (looking at you stealth), the idea of roles EXPANDED... give each class a base "you are good at this" combat role and a "you can with some options work at this okish" combat role but then do the same with the other 2 pillars (social and exploration)

But MOST important is the monsters design... the type (soldier,skirmisher, lurker) and the sub level (minion elleite solo) mixed with a more stream lines "Hey a party of 4 1st level have a normal challenge with 4 1st level regular or sub out 4 minions for 1 or 1 eleite for 2 or 1so for 5" combine with advice like "Hey if your PCs have higher then average stats, treat them as 1 level higher, if half or more of the parrty has a higher number of magic items count them as 1 level higher"
 

I think a simpler system with more RP and less combat would do that.

That makes some hefty assumptions about the zeitgeist. I'd think that anyone who wanted to encompass the zeitgeist would need to do a lot of work to determine what it actually is.

There's also different zeitgeists at any given time, determined by the population you're talking about. The zeitgeist of designers is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of players is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of GMs, and so on.
 

That makes some hefty assumptions about the zeitgeist.
yup like everyone here I can only make assumptions based on the information I have. We each have our own personal experence.

Mine is 3 local gaming stores (well 1 comic shop and 2 rpg stores) that 2 have closed in last few years, some cons (mostly in north east coast of US but I have been to gencon and origins) my tic tok reed (my understanding is somehow the AI knows what I like so that is a bit of an echo there) and my friends and family... I can add in a small amount of theory crafting/number crunching on here...

so again pretty much the same as you or the next guy posting on enworld.
I'd think that anyone who wanted to encompass the zeitgeist would need to do a lot of work to determine what it actually is.
only if you wanted to have a peer reviewed article in some phsyc/soc piratical to talk in layman terms here on the web I would think we could each take our own personal experience
There's also different zeitgeists at any given time, determined by the population you're talking about. The zeitgeist of designers is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of players is probably not the same as the zeitgeist of GMs, and so on.
okay, I welcome you to give YOUR insight from YOUR experence... I wont ask you to site sources or do research since this is just a message board with us expressing out our thoughts form our own experiences.
 

In fairness to @Hussar after I so ardently defended Justin, he came to work with this today:

"...it’s become clear that Hasbro is, once again, planning to abandon the OGL."
He is not wrong though, from all I see / hear they are abandoning the OGL in all but name (because taking that last step worked so great last time and they hope not enough people will notice if they keep the acronym)

We will know more when 1.1 drops, but from where things stand today, it will be a lot closer to the GSL than OGL 1.0
 

He is not wrong though, from all I see / hear they are abandoning the OGL in all but name (because taking that last step worked so great last time and they hope not enough people will notice if they keep the acronym)
that is a touchy subject... is a gaming license that has you report income after X money and pay a royalty after Y money really OPEN?
 

He is not wrong though, from all I see / hear they are abandoning the OGL in all but name (because taking that last step worked so great last time and they hope not enough people will notice if they keep the acronym)
Well, I don't think it's clear at all that they're abandoning it. All they've actually said is that they are not abandoning it, but they are changing it ("Pray I don't alter it any further"). Maybe they're lying. I wouldn't be shocked if they're lying. I also wouldn't be shocked if we get something a lot like the existing versions of the OGL, with the addition of the new restrictions they've already announced. I wouldn't suggest that what they've announced thus far constitutes "abandoning" the OGL.

ETA: I mean, they're clearly abandoning versions 1.0/1.0a, so if that's all we're saying, then I agree. It's clear because they explicitly said so.
 

Well, I don't think it's clear at all that they're abandoning it. All they've actually said is that they are not abandoning it, but they are changing it ("Pray I don't alter it any further"). Maybe they're lying. I wouldn't be shocked if they're lying. I also wouldn't be shocked if we get something a lot like the existing versions of the OGL, with the addition of the new restrictions they've already announced. I wouldn't suggest that what they've announced thus far constitutes "abandoning" the OGL.
The restrictions they already announced make it not an open license and a lot closer to the GSL... Essentially saying 'we keep the acronym while changing the terms to the GSL' is not not abandoning the OGL.

As to how truthful they were in that statement, I'd say not at all, given that they are misrepresenting the OGL 1.0a terms in it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top