• 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

Kai Lord

Hero
Anti-inclusive content
Except when they get to define that in their sole discretion.

Giving them a legal backdoor to block any product for any reason they can cook up that they can tenuously call "hate" or "bigotry" etc. is handing them powers I don't trust them with.

For example, for almost 50 years, character races in D&D have been called "races", now they're calling them some new term for 6th edition. I forget what, and frankly don't care because I won't be using it.

. . .but letting WotC say that you can't publish something under the OGL because you called Elves and Dwarves "races" instead of the Newspeak term for them and that's "racist" is some nonsense that will not stand.
Yep, and remember that saying that orcs are evil is also apparently racist. Tomorrow evil demons might be racist. And God knows what after that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Branduil

Hero
It's their license. You can choose to publish awful material not using their license. Why is this hard to understand, that they would not want objectionable material published under their brand, effectively?
I for one am glad WotC is here to protect us from 3rd party publishers writing awful stuff like the Hadozee last year.

Wait, hold on, I'm getting some new information...
 

Unless they change 6e enough to reduce compatibility, and then set up their walled garden. They'd still have the name "D&D" to trade on.
Then they definitely get Pathfiver...and I suspect that's what you're secretly hoping for. And while I deeply respect the commitment to Jokerism, and I would join you in eating all the popcorn, I'm not sure we can expect Wizards to be that dumb. Again. :D
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
But who gets to decide if something is offensive? WotC, and they can use any parameters they want.
Yeah... but based upon some of the attitudes of some of the posters who keep showing up here on the boards whenever threads about inclusivity show up (only to then get threadbanned or boardbanned shortly thereafter)... better to have WotC make those decisions for themselves rather than the general gaming populace.

The general gaming populace kinda sucks, all things considered. ;)
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
The original purpose of the OGL was largely to skip past figuring where that line was - you can use the mechanic and the SRD's specific expression of the mechanic, if you follow the license.
So many people miss this.

The original purpose of the OGL was a promise from Wizards that they would not sue you if you made D&D compatible stuff but followed their rules as outlined in the OGL.

And given that we were coming off the days of T$R threatening fans on Usenet or Palladium suing Wizards over a page of rules incorporating some compatibility to Palladium's system in their Primal Order game, that clarity was needed.

People also forget the old d20 System Trademark that went along with the OGL originally. A mark that you could use that denoted compatibility with D&D while not using the D&D brand at all on your product. All because Wizards understood the market they were in back then and knew what this stuff meant.
 


Bitbrain

Lost in Dark Sun
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.

Too little, too late for me.

I DON’T WANT a new OGL, I want the OGL 1.0(a) to be left alone and remain “authorized” indefinitely.

But since that’s not the direction WOTC is apparently intending to go… I shall join the ORC-horde and await the BLACK FLAG’s arrival.

Till then, I’ll continue looking into non-D&D game systems. I just got a copy of Shadow of the Demon Lord and it looks like a lot of fun.
 


Oofta

Legend
Except when they get to define that in their sole discretion.

Giving them a legal backdoor to block any product for any reason they can cook up that they can tenuously call "hate" or "bigotry" etc. is handing them powers I don't trust them with.

For example, for almost 50 years, character races in D&D have been called "races", now they're calling them some new term for 6th edition. I forget what, and frankly don't care because I won't be using it.

. . .but letting WotC say that you can't publish something under the OGL because you called Elves and Dwarves "races" instead of the Newspeak term for them and that's "racist" is some nonsense that will not stand.

When it comes to corporations, I don't assume best case scenarios. Companies are in the business of making money not the business of making me happy.

But I also think it's a mistake to assume the worst of companies. There are legitimate reasons they would want to protect their brand identity. I don't see why that is controversial.
 

Glade Riven

Adventurer
Rarely things that are done "For the children" are for the children but rather for dominance and usually hurts marginalized groups. Sure, Wizards is LGBT friendly now, because it's convenient and shield, but that can change in a few years, a decade, who knows.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top