• 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 Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being deauthorized. Non-TTRPG mediums such as "educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay...

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being deauthorized.
  • Non-TTRPG mediums such as "educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses" are unaffected by the new license.
  • The 'we can use your content for any reason' provision is going away
  • The royalties aspect is also being removed
  • Content previously released under OGL v1.0a can still be sold, but the statement on that is very short and seems to imply that new content must still use OGL v1.1. This is still a 'de-authorization' of the current OGL.
  • They don't mention the 'reporting revenue' aspect, or the 'we can change this in any way at 30 days notice' provision; of course nobody can sign a contract which can be unilaterally changed by one party.
  • There's still no mention of the 'share-a-like' aspect which defines an 'open' license.
The statement can be read below. While it does roll back some elements, the fact remains that the OGL v1.0a is still being de-authorized.

D&D historian Benn Riggs (author of Slaying the Dragon) made some comments on WotC's declared intentions -- "This is a radical change of the original intention of the OGL. The point of the OGL was to get companies to stop making their own games and start making products for D&D. WoTC execs spent a ton of time convincing companies like White Wolf to make OGL products."

Linda Codega on Gizmodo said "For all intents and purposes, the OGL 1.1 that was leaked to the press was supposed to go forward. Wizards has realized that they made a mistake and they are walking back numerous parts of the leaked OGL 1.1..."

Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL commented "They made an announcement today that they're altering their trajectory based on pressure from the community. This is still not what we want. We want Hasbro to agree not to ever attempt to deauthorize v1.0a of the #OGL. Your voices are being heard, and they matter. We're providing visible encouragement and support to everyone inside Wizards of the Coast fighting for v1.0a. It matters. Knowing we're here for them matters. Keep fighting!"


Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad




Kai Lord

Hero
Please consider that the "objectionable content" clause can be used to block anything, anytime since they are the police, judge and executioner; they only have to play the "foul" card and off to the discard pile goes someone's hard work.
Yep, even with the universally despised crap that Nu-TSR was spouting it's just too slippery a slope for WOTC to be the final arbiters on what is and isn't "objectionable" for any release going forward. Best thing I can think of is to force anyone who uses the OGL to put a disclaimer in their products somewhere that says something to the effect of "The content in this product does not necessarily reflect the values of Wizards of the Coast" if they want to officially distance themselves from anything that ends up being widely recognized as offensive.
 
Last edited:

zooey

Explorer
Well, this is certainly much better than the leaked version, but, as others have already said, the trust is broken. There are various things here that make eyes roll, and it certainly could have been said sooner, but if the end result doesn't hurt people's livelihoods, we can count that as a win in these all too interesting times.

I am curious about what they define as a "big corporation". Does that mean video games? Movies and TV?

Personally, i'm more excited about the new things that have been announced in the last few days than i ever was about OneD&D. So here's hoping that we still get a lot of new fantasy TTRPGs.

Mostly I'm glad that a lot of designers, artists, and publishers can breathe a bit easier. I hope they have a much better weekend.
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
I've always thought of "content controls in the marketplace somewhere" was a euphemism for "let the customers decide for themselves."

Have you heard the phrase "brand safety" before? It is, effectively, "We, as a company, do not want our brand associated with things that our customers don't like."

Like, on Twitter, as soon as it looked like guidelines on moderation were going to loosen up, any companies halted their advertising (and ad revenue for twitter plummeted). Companies did not want ads for their candy, dish sop, or what have you, sitting next to some racist, sexist screed or the like in people's feeds, even if those racists weren't responding directly to the ads. They didn't even want their ads associated with a place that had lots of racist, sexist screeds in it.

Same concept applies here - WotC does not want its IP to be seen as adjacent to bigotry. And that's a fair desire.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
but I think it's awkward to tell a company trying to market products to young people that they have to enter the sex-education space.
No one's telling anyone that they have to enter a market. Niche products being created is one of the central purposes of an open license, and that includes creating things for marginalized groups who want to be represented. I don't see a huge multinational corporation as being the best guardian of their ability to do so, and so I don't want them to have oversight in that regard.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top