• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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


log in or register to remove this ad

Staffan

Legend
Wait, are people using the OGL for non-d20 games? How would that work and what would be the point?
The point would be the same as for Wizards: you let other people make supplemental material for your game, thereby increasing your game's profile. I suspect that in many cases, it is also fueled by generosity – "It's not like we're going to make tons of money on this anyway."
 

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
I for one had no idea there was all this activity (and recrimination) around d100 games and SRDs in the last couple years. Wow!
There's a long and complex history here going right back to the days when Avalon Hill produced a licensed version of Runequest in the 1980s. Chaosium lost ownership of the Runequest trademark for more than a decade as a consequence. Avalon Hill ended up as part of Hasbro. Peter Adkison of Wizards allowed the trademark to lapse so Greg Stafford could reclaim it because he was a huge fan of Glorantha.

The recent complexities come down to two factors. The first is licensing deal for Mongoose editions of Runequest and the SRD it spawned. A large number of games draw upon this material. The second is the murky copyright status of H.P. Lovecraft's work. This has led to the emergence of non-Chaosium d100 retroclones of Call of Cthulhu.
 

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
Wait, are people using the OGL for non-d20 games? How would that work and what would be the point?
There are a heap of them. The original concept of the Open Gaming Foundation sponsored by WoTC back around 2000 - 2003 was to encorage widespread adoption of the OGL. An early example is the Action System from Gold Rush Games. Another is Stefan O'Sullivan's FUDGE system. This spawned the popular FATE system from Evil Hat - which was also released under the OGL. Far Future Enterprises licensed a d20 version of Traveller that released most of the rule system under the OGL. When Mongoose Publishing picked up the Traveller license, they released a system reference document under the OGL. When they closed the license with the release of the second edition, fans forked the system to produce the Cepheus Engine. Issaries licensed Runequest to Mongoose Publishing around 2006-2007. They released a system reference document for that version under the OGL. When relations between Issaries and Mongoose soured, Greg Stafford pulled the license. Mongoose responded by releasing a version of the game under the Legend brand. This was released as 100% OGC under the terms of the OGL. A large number of games draw upon this, from Delta Green to OpenQuest. So it's not just D&D publishers who have skin in this game....
 

When relations between Issaries and Mongoose soured, Greg Stafford pulled the license. Mongoose responded by releasing a version of the game under the Legend brand. This was released as 100% OGC under the terms of the OGL.
What was the legal basis for Legend? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create Legend? Really curious how this went down!
 

Staffan

Legend
What was the legal basis for Legend? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create Legend? Really curious how this went down!
There are lots and lots of games on the market which are basically BRP clones, and Legend is just one more on the pile. Here in Sweden in particular, the leading RPG publisher in the 80s and early 90s based pretty much everything they made that wasn't a direct translation on some kind of mutated version of BRP.

I don't think it's an exact clone of MRQ2 – there are some differences in how magic works, for example. And section 15 of its copy of the OGL at least doesn't refer to anything else: just the OGL itself and the Legend core book.
 

I don't think it's an exact clone of MRQ2 – there are some differences in how magic works, for example. And section 15 of its copy of the OGL at least doesn't refer to anything else: just the OGL itself and the Legend core book.
Their own product marketing says this:

Using the core rules from RuneQuest II, Legend is a new fantasy roleplaying game that serves as the basis for a multitude of settings and worlds. 100% compatible with all previous RuneQuest II books, including Elric of Melnibone, Deus Vult and Wraith Recon, Legend repackages the rules into a new digest-sized format.

!!!

I'm still reading the thread that was linked earlier. Rick Meints' comments are really interesting:

I assume you mean that Greg knew about and approved of Mongoose's decisions to do an SRD and OGL for RuneQuest. That's not what Greg told us at the time. He repeatedly said he didn't know about it, didn't approve of it, and it was one of the reasons he ended the license.

and...

I'm not speculating on Greg's opinion, I'm just restating what he told me about not approving the release of an OGL and an SRD, and not being aware of it before it was released. I wasn't the only one he said that to. As for official records, I have read the actual contract from May of 2005. It didn't allow for any licensing or sub-licensing to anybody else. As you say, Greg chose not to fight it, at least not legally, for reasons we will now probably never know. As for rescinding the license, I was one of advisors that worked with Greg on that in 2011.

Bold is mine. This is super spicy! And a little sad. :(

ETA: I should add that while @Mongoose_Matt doesn't make an appearance in the thread, I can gather second-hand that they have a different account of these events.
 
Last edited:

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
What was the legal basis for Legend? Did they just say "yolo, you can't copyright game mechanics" and clone RQ? Or did they release an SRD while they had a license, and then use that to create Legend? Really curious how this went down!
This is where it gets complicated. Greg Stafford regained control of the Runequest trademark, but he didn't regain ownership of the Runequest III rule system from the IP of Avalon Hill. So the Mongoose edition of RQ was a re-write of the system from the ground up. The first edition of Mongoose Runequest wasn't very good, but they followed it up with a second edition which was excellent. It also influenced 5e in places(e.g. the Insight skill). When the licensing agreement terminated, Issaries took away the trademark and the rights to use the Glorantha setting. But the IP embodied in the game system remained the property of Mongoose. They choose to release this under the OGL with a generous trademark usage license. Meanwhile, the authors of the second edition of the Mongoose Runequest system (Lawrence Whitaker and Pete Nash) secured the rights to the Runequest trademark. They used this to create the sixth edition of Runequest, which was based on their work at Mongoose. When Issaries entered an agreement with Moon Design / Chaosium (around 2017 or 2018?), Design Mechanism lost the rights to the Runequest trademark. So they rebranded their version of the game system as Mythras. This game is very similar to Legend, but is more polished in places. It also reworks some concepts Lawrence Whitaker was working on when he did the Elric update at Mongoose, namely the Passions system.
 

mamba

Legend
The closest other thing I found says no such thing, but at least it is on the right forum and for those following the first link, this adds some more details, basically the same discussion on a second form though ;)

"So why is this different from the WotC OGL? Well largely because we have a different business model than WotC. Our settings are what are valuable to us - the cosmology, entities, storylines, etc. of RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. Some rules tie directly into the setting - like the Runes of RuneQuest, or the Sanity mechanic of Call of Cthulhu. We’ve removed those mechanics that we think are uniquely tied to a given setting (or with a specific edition of a game) but let you do whatever you want with the rest. Without paying us royalties."


As to this thread, it's funny to see how much flack they got for not being as permissive as the OGL. Given that there was no way to license anything before, this is interesting to me. So WotC might be in for a ride now that they actually want to remove stuff rather than not hand out as much as someone else.
 

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
There are lots and lots of games on the market which are basically BRP clones, and Legend is just one more on the pile. Here in Sweden in particular, the leading RPG publisher in the 80s and early 90s based pretty much everything they made that wasn't a direct translation on some kind of mutated version of BRP.

I don't think it's an exact clone of MRQ2 – there are some differences in how magic works, for example. And section 15 of its copy of the OGL at least doesn't refer to anything else: just the OGL itself and the Legend core book.
People forget that in the early 1980s, Runequest was a serious rival of D&D in Europe and Australia / New Zealand. Games Workshop produced very attractive hardcover editions of the game before Warhammer took off. And many early issues of White Dwarf contained Runequest content!
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top