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.

 

[Mistwell]

I do wonder how many make over $50 thousand.

Of those what kind of business are they? Single proprietor with zero full time employees? I imagine the vast majority of them are.

Is reporting a burden too far for many of them? Is having to inform WotC about their items for sale going to be a burden? Will they have to wait on WotC before they can out up things for sale? It’s already got to be tough to be in that space.

Would this mean folks like M.T. Black? I’d hate to lose many of them.

@Mistwell thia isn’t so much a comment on your post but that your post prompted my thoughts.

I mean, if you're making more than $50K a year on something, I assume you're already creating a line-item of some sort for your federal taxes. It would be the same line item, right?

 

[Greg Benage]

Is reporting a burden too far for many of them?

Maybe it depends on the particulars of the "web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible." What could go wrong?

 

[darjr]

What about the “tell us what you’re selling” bit?

We don’t know if it requires a thumbs up from WotC, would that be a no-go? How could this work and be acceptable?

 

[Mistwell]

What about the “tell us what you’re selling” bit?

We don’t know if it requires a thumbs up from WotC, would that be a no-go? How could this work and be acceptable?

Why would an income reporting requirement come with an approval requirement for content? If they do that, then I'd say it's worth complaining about. But it seems like random speculation to imply from what they've written that it's a content gatekeeping requirement.

My guess, from what they said, is they just want to know what types of things are selling well as part of their analytics. If you're selling sub-classes and new spells, or adventures, or initiative trackers, etc.. they want to know that so they know what the marketplace is buying.

 

[Greg Benage]

What about the “tell us what you’re selling” bit?

We don’t know if it requires a thumbs up from WotC, would that be a no-go? How could this work and be acceptable?

I don't think there's any possible universe in which WotC could manage an approval process for everything that's published under the OGL. Even in the GSL, they reserved a "right of review" but they didn't require prior approval, assuming the product otherwise conformed to the terms of the license.

It's possible the web portal might enable a creator to self-report something that flags a product for further review. For example, maybe if you tick the "New Game" box in the Content Category field, you go into the review queue. If so, the license will presumably include a provision for accurate self-reporting.

One thing is clear: Unless Wizards botches the web portal functionality, they're going to get a lot of data about product sales.

ETA: Posted at the same time as @Mistwell - great minds!

 

[Sacrosanct]

My guess, from what they said, is they just want to know what types of things are selling well as part of their analytics. If you're selling sub-classes and new spells, or adventures, or initiative trackers, etc.. they want to know that so they know what the marketplace is buying.

IMO, this is it right here. Market analysis purposes.

 

[Prime_Evil]

IMO, this is it right here. Market analysis purposes.

And that is perfectly reasonable.

The sky is not falling, but there are some genuine concerns about aspects of the proposed license change. The OGL is a legally binding contract between the licensor and the licensee. The details matter.

Lawyers don't care about fuzzy "intentions". They care about the exact wording of the contract itself. We haven't seen the document yet and nobody outside of Wizards knows what it will look like. Heck, I bet WotC haven't finalised the details internally yet. The new version of the OGL may exist only in draft form right now.

However, WotC have made a public statement about their intentions. This isn't the same as releasing the actual contract, but it gives us some idea what to expect.

Some things are clear. WotC want to change the nature of the OGL from a general "open source" gaming licence to one tied explicitly to the D&D ecosystem. I can't imagine any publisher will adopt the new revision for their own game system. They will either stick with the old version or move to a different licence (Creative Commons?). Some may away from the open gaming paradigm entirely. This may accelerate the trend towards "walled gardens". We are seeing a proliferation of exclusive community content agreements via Drivethrurpg. This may not be healthy for the industry in the long run as it locks everyone into a single distributor.

The concerns about dynamic web content are real. Reading the announcement carefully, it looks like WotC are happy for people to build free character generators and encounter builders under the Fan Content Policy. But they don't want commercial products in these categories. This is probably because they perceive such products as being in direct competition with their own digital platform. I suspect they definitely want to limit the ability of people to play OneDnD via VTTs who don't have a licensing agreement with them. Understandable, but not great from a consumer perspective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"

No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.

It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist." This has been a topic argued going back to 1e AD&D, the importance of supporting fans sharing their homebrew work with other fans, even if it's for a few bucks to support their time, versus professionals who create RPGs for a full time living.

The main reason I care about those 20 is that they make most of the stuff I and my friends buy and like, and I don't want WotC to pressure them into making stuff for a game I like less instead.

 

[mamba]

What are folks thoughts on what is encompassed by “static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs).

“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.

The problem, to me, is the use of ”static”, and the vast jump from static files to a video game. That gap seems too vast to be adequately addressed by the proposed license.

Is a cross-linked but static set of HTML allowed? What about a static style sheet into which static monster data was placed?

what my opinion is will not matter if WotC disagrees with it, but to me anything that is unchanging to the same degree a PDF is, is fine. I see no difference between a PDF and a static HTML page in that regard.

If the page is dynamic and the content of it is taken from a database that might already be different however.

I do think that these are dynamic and are disallowed: A character form — which allows dynamic selection of 1E abilities; An encounter builder — which allows dynamic selection of 1E opponents; A virtual table — which allows dynamic placement of 1E assets.

I doubt they are allowed, mostly because they exclude VTTs and you are working your way up towards that. As you said, dynamic

Also, how much “dynamic” processing by a client is allowed? Simple resizing and scaling are technically “dynamic” adjustments to static content. However, I doubt that kind of client processing is disallowed. Similarly, an animated emoticon would not be disallowed.

you have no control over scaling on the client side with a PDF either, so scaling is fine

But .. what about the processing of javascript (or other embedded scripts)? How much of that is allowed?

my expectation is that exactly zero of that is allowed, that goes back to me saying it has to be a static page

Ultimately you will have to check with WotC though (maybe their new FAQ goes into that), it does not really matter what any of us here think

 

[mamba]

It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"

I am defending my interests (not as a publisher but as a consumer). The less restrictive the license is, the better

No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.

I do not really see that relevance, other than to be surprised WotC wants to go after that little money at the risk of alienating a not insignificant part of their customers.

You want to grow D&D to a billion $ business and worry about what here? Chances are the fees make up less than a percent of that. Your next movie flopping will cause more damage than this will make in the next years…

It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist."

matter of perspective I guess, the problem is you come from a more open license and now want to restrict rights people have become used to (and I call them rights because the OGL granted them)

This will not just affect the 20 largest ones, there will be others who think twice now