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

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."


I am betrayed.
I find the OpenD&D hashtag was a great place to clear my Twitter follows list
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

Yes, if that's what they do, if they simply change the name of the GSL, I agree that would be tantamount to "abandoning the OGL." I just don't think it's clear that's what they're going to do.

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

When was the FAQ released relative to OGL 1.0? I would not assume any correspondence between what they said was "intended" in the FAQ and what they "intended" when the license was drafted. I suspect like everyone else, a lot of people at Wizards learned a lot about the OGL after it was released into the wild. ;)
 

yup like everyone here I can only make assumptions based on the information I have. We each have our own personal experence.

I know we talked before and live in adjacent parts of North America. But I have to say everything I have seen backs up what you have. Now that may be VERY different in other states or countries but I agree with what you are seeing.


Also the AI algorithm for social media is taking the info in your phone/computer and what you look at on there and what you “like” to inform itself of what you will stay to watch/read and what you will “like” and gives you more of that. So yes all social media is an echo chamber.
 

only if you wanted to have a peer reviewed article in some phsyc/soc piratical

Surveying on a large scale is a tool for getting at the zeitgeist. While you can use that to write peer-reviewed papers, you can also use that to inform design decisions.

to talk in layman terms here on the web I would think we could each take our own personal experience

Except, by definition, personal experience isn't the zeitgeist. Personal experience is anecdote, local effects, while the zeitgeist covers an entire culture (with a nod to what "culture" we are talking about).

You can handle the zeitgeist of your three gaming stores, perhaps, but that really doesn't scale. Your stores don't speak to the tendencies of the larger audience, are not reliably representative of gaming as a whole.

By my own statements, my own personal experience has little to do with zeitgeists.

We could, however, talk about the current designer's zeitgeist - looking at the design of games put out recently. That's something that's more accessible, what with it being published and advertised at us. However, that kind of gives one vote per game, no matter how small that game's player following, so we have to be careful how we think about it.
 

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

Not like we have an agreed-upon measure of "distance from a license", but...

For about 20 producers of content, there'll be a significant difference. For fan content, and small producers, not really.
 

Yes, if that's what they do, if they simply change the name of the GSL, I agree that would be tantamount to "abandoning the OGL." I just don't think it's clear that's what they're going to do.
that is moot, we will know in a month or less, so let’s just wait for that
When was the FAQ released relative to OGL 1.0?
2004 I believe, at least that is when it was last updated. The fact that they pulled it right after this announcement also is no coincidence and should tell you something…
I would not assume any correspondence between what they said was "intended" in the FAQ and what they "intended" when the license was drafted. I suspect like everyone else, a lot of people at Wizards learned a lot about the OGL after it was released into the wild. ;)
I am not talking about the intention part, but about this

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 OGL was already clear on what it covered, and you are changing what that is with 1.1. This is not you clarifying things you always intended but left unclear. Since this is a change to what is covered today saying it shouldn’t affect what players use is disingenuous at best.

If this were the only change and they did not carve out VTTs, I would not mind. At that point it might fall under ‘what we intended’, but registering, reporting income and possibly paying a fee all are outside of that and my main gripe.
 
Last edited:

Not like we have an agreed-upon measure of "distance from a license", but...
pretty sure we can agree in many cases however ;)
For about 20 producers of content, there'll be a significant difference. For fan content, and small producers, not really.
it requires fees from 20, registration and reporting income from a lot more than that

Also, tell that to the small producers, I see them thinking about leaving the OGL already, much like the GSL never was adopted.
Whether they ultimately will, will depend on the exact terms, but we are pretty close to that point now.
 

This is shaping up as a really interesting development. The thing is, at this point we have some more information, but we don't know about the incentives WotC is going to put in play to get designers both big and small to adopt to the new license.

The thing I find really interesting in sort of a "following the vibes of the community" way is how negative it's being received as. Enworld is older gamers, but it also one of the most consistently positive places to be for D&D content and WotC. I have seen a lot of people who I typically see being super positive about WotC's moves be neutral at best. I haven't really seen anyone talk about how this is a really good thing: it's been neutral and "we have to wait and see" at best. Frankly, I don't think this is being handled in the best way, and it seems to be coming from people who aren't in tune with the community. I also wonder if the people behind the decision are really 100% up to speed on the OGL: do they understand that if 1D&D is entirely backwards compatible with 5E, there is no need for anyone to actually even use the new license? I would think they'd have to be, but ... I'm certainly not seeing a reason now.

I have a ton of speculation but at this point, it's all just speculation, right? I wonder if anyone at WotC is looking at the speculation right now because the press release really doesn't seem to make things more positive for them.
 


I also wonder if the people behind the decision are really 100% up to speed on the OGL: do they understand that if 1D&D is entirely backwards compatible with 5E, there is no need for anyone to actually even use the new license? I would think they'd have to be, but ... I'm certainly not seeing a reason now.
we have no 1.1 yet, so WotC can still come to their collective senses, but given where things stand now, I expect the OGL 1.1 to be a non-starter just like the GSL.

Whether people just stick with 1.0 or drop the OGL altogether, who knows. I certainly see zero incentive to use 1.1. As you wrote, there is not really any reason to, unlike back with the jump from 3.5 to 4e
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top