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.

 

[J.Quondam]

If WotC aims for the more restrictive way of doing it, will it be painful for the small producers to have to check if the sources they want to use are 1.0a or 1.1 and not mix and match them?

This. I'd think that if those Top 20 shift to v1.1, presumably that would force small publishers using their material from those Top 20 to also shift along with them, or else abandon using their material going forward. Right? So the impact potentially goes far beyond those Top 20, at least at first blush.

 

[J.Quondam]

Something that has seen little discussion yet. What does the OGL update mean to non-D&D / d20 games published under the license? There are a lot of them. Everything from the Cepheus Engine to FATE has the OGL attached. Then there's the area of D&D retroclones / spin-offs. These don't use the fifth-edition SRD. What about stuff like Mutants and Masterminds? It started as a D20 game published under the OGL, but became its own thing.

Publishers can continue to use the existing version of the OGL, but does this update add legal risk? Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid. They already claim legal advice indicates this. So they created of a seperate licence for the Basic Roleplaying System. Many commentators dismissed this claim as an attempt to create fear and uncertainty. Chaosium have a vested interest in discouraging the spread of OGL d100 games. There are already things out there like Legend, Delta Green, and Cthulhu Reborn.

Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?

The cynical part of me wonders: In a world with two disparate versions of "the" OGL floating around, perhaps the confusion is the point.

 

[Mistwell]

tell me you don’t understand the topic without telling me you do not understand the topic

Tell me you don't understand a joke without telling me you do not understand a joke.

And I understand the topic just fine. Thanks for the insult over a joke though.

 

[Mistwell]

it might be, we will have to see. Makes some sense given that so far all they gave us was reasons not to use it (I’d even say it would be the only rational approach by WotC, as they need an incentive).

Then they will have to exclude their VTT from the ‘OGL is not intended for VTT use’ retraction however

I suspect it still won't be alone. However I suspect accepting 1.1 will be one requirement to get the VTT license. My guess is the VTT license will include more things than this license.

 

[mamba]

I'm sorry, how much did you make on 5e related 3pp last year?

doubling down on the misunderstanding I see

 

[mamba]

Something that has seen little discussion yet. What does the OGL update mean to non-D&D / d20 games published under the license? There are a lot of them. Everything from the Cepheus Engine to FATE has the OGL attached. Then there's the area of D&D retroclones / spin-offs. These don't use the fifth-edition SRD. What about stuff like Mutants and Masterminds? It started as a D20 game published under the OGL, but became its own thing.

it means nothing to them. They started with 1.0a and are under no obligation to switch to 1.1, in fact they would be foolish to do so. This assumes they move forward from wherever they are instead of trying to incorporate One D&D SRD material into their games.

Publishers can continue to use the existing version of the OGL, but does this update add legal risk? Representatives from Chaosium argue the use of the OGL by games outside of the D&D / D20 ecosystem is invalid.

If so, it has always been, that would not be due to 1.1. I am not seeing anything in the license that restricts it to 'D&D-adjacent', whatever that even means

They already claim legal advice indicates this. So they created of a seperate licence for the Basic Roleplaying System. Many commentators dismissed this claim as an attempt to create fear and uncertainty. Chaosium have a vested interest in discouraging the spread of OGL d100 games. There are already things out there like Legend, Delta Green, and Cthulhu Reborn.

Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?

The OGL is a license, no more. I could use it for some RPG I created completely from scratch if I wanted to / liked the terms. I could use a Creative Commons license, I could create my own license that I like better than any of the existing ones, I could not license it at all.

I see no case where the use becomes risky, I'd say the use for my own hypothetical game is becoming less alluring because while I might be ok with licensing it under 1.0a, I definitely see no reason why WotC should get fees from a third RPG someone based on mine that became hugely successful, just because that guy switched to 1.1 from my 1.0a license.
I mean, ultimately it is his fault and his money, but still

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those 20 are being contacted directly.

My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied. It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.

 

[Cadence]

I see no case where the use becomes risky, I'd say the use for my own hypothetical game is becoming less alluring because while I might be ok with licensing it under 1.0a, I definitely see no reason why WotC should get fees from a third RPG someone based on mine that became hugely successful, just because that guy switched to 1.1 from my 1.0a license.
I mean, ultimately it is his fault and his money, but still

Can someone else put your 1.0a stuff into a more restrictive 1.1 based on how 1.0a is written?

 

[mamba]

Can someone else put your 1.0a stuff into a more restrictive 1.1 based on how 1.0a is written?

No, mine would still be under 1.0a, but he could add to it and release his contribution under 1.1, thereby having to register with TSR and possibly pay a fee to them. It even works both ways under section 9 "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."

Will be interesting to see what WotC does once someone takes 1.1 open game content and uses it with a 1.0a license. The expectation is that the next SRD won't be OGC to prevent this, or they rework section 9 in OGL 1.1

 

[Morrus]

My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied. It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.

I don’t know what that means.