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, 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!"

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Are those posters making OGL products?

I mean, no, is basically the answer.

That's what makes a lie out of this whole thing. WotC haven't had any real issue with the OGL being used to make products that people then use to embarrass WotC.

This is going to have to end up in court because WotC can't stop lying, though.

As far as I know there was only the one back in 3E... the Book of Sexi-sexiness or whatever the heck it was. But your point is completely valid.

Although I honestly think this SHOULD be figured out in court once and for all just so everyone can know exactly where the lines are and everyone can move on.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, absolutely. Wizards doesn't want or need to steal your freaking ideas. They can find other boilerplate* to do the job, but this kind of language is always used to protect a business from bogus lawsuits.

* And honestly, no matter what boilerplate they use, people will howl about how they're trying to steal the little guy's ideas.

I didn't ask if you believed that they weren't planning on doing it. I asked if you believed that multiple corporate executives and experienced attorneys failed to see how people could take it that way. It boggles the mind that they think that we would think that they were that dumb.

 

[lkj]

I consider this announcement a very good step in the right direction. What will matter will be the actual license text. Until then, I don’t really have much opinion other than-- It’s a good sign that they are changing their approach in response to community feedback. We’ll see if I am satisfied once we have an actual document.

Here’s the things that are true of me: I love D&D. I tend to like the products that WotC has been producing (both print and DDB). I’m generally a happy customer. And, honestly, that’s most of what will matter for whether I continue to buy their stuff. That’s true of most of the stuff I buy from most corporations (with the caveat, obviously, that my buying habits are also affected by egregious abusive behavior-- we are free to disagree on what rises to that level. I won’t argue it as it’s a personal thing).

But the game is also important to me as an idea, and I do believe (though not strongly enough to argue it in absolute terms) that a strong 3PP community is good for the game and is probably good for WotC. Or at the least that the feeling of goodwill of having a good community of creators likely far outweighs whatever relatively trivial amount of money they are leaving on the table for other businesses (trivial in the context of a corporation that thinks in terms of millions and millions of dollars). So I’m very interested in not seeing the company that is the steward of D&D make moves that destroy that feeling of goodwill. So-- I’ve signed the petitions. I’ve canceled my DDB subscription. My coming back will be contingent on whether I feel that-- given the context of their being a corporation-- they’ve made reasonable adjustments to their approach. Even if they aren’t as far as I might like them to go (In an ideal world, they’d freely join the effort to create a license that operates independently of WotC-- working with Paizo and others to find mutually satisfying language. I honestly think they’d benefit in the long run. But I think that would likely be a bridge too far for a corporation working with a precious IP)

Generally speaking, I find this discussion of whether to ‘trust’ WotC to be not helpful. Corporations are groups of individuals who change through time. There’s little point in trying to trust an entity which isn’t really a creature at all but a changing conglomeration of individuals who are trying to make money by producing things people want to buy. Trust-- in the context of a corporation-- is built into the documents and legal language. They can add language to the license which clearly makes it irrevocable or more clearly provides a safe harbor. They can make the 2.0 license safe and attractive enough that not being able to use 1.0 in the future isn’t such a big deal.

We’ll see. And if they are being smart, the next draft of the license will be explicitly called a draft and they’ll say they are explicitly soliciting feedback. I’m fine with this being an iterative process.

For my part, the line for my returning to buying their products is not ‘Now that they have erred, I will force them to their knees and insist that they concede to all my demands or I will forever shun them’. There just needs to be a reasonable compromise. And it’s fine that what is ‘reasonable’ will vary by customer and by 3PP partner.

My 57 cents.

AD

 

[Alzrius]

There are legitimate reasons they would want to protect their brand identity. I don't see why that is controversial.

There certainly are, but that's not compatible with making an open license, insofar as that term has been defined for over twenty years now. You can control how your content is used, or you can make it open for others to use; you can't do both.

 

[Corinnguard]

Take leaks with a grain of salt.

It's more than a grain of salt. It's all the salt in the Quasi-Elemental Plane of Salt. Enough to bury and dessicate them with.

 

[Greg Benage]

I asked if you believed that multiple corporate executives and experienced attorneys failed to see how people could take it that way.

Like I said, people literally always take it that way, but that language is still always going to be there in some form.

 

[Michael Linke]

It's not just "somebody else's IP", it's "open gaming content", the rights of use of which were legally transferred to third party pubishers. The SRD content ain't theirs any more. It's OGC.

If they truly wanted that, why wasn't the SRD dedicated to the public domain? They clearly wanted an escape plan to the OGL all along, it was just a question of how/when/why they would use it.

 

[Fendulum]

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.

WOTC was also very slow on this. (Even comparatively speaking, they were way slower than Paizo, for example.) Not exactly a huge legacy of trust there, at least not from me.

 

[Maxperson]

They used the same language that social media companies use that allows things like Retweets, Shares, etc.
People took that poorly because they were looking for reasons to hate due to the other, actually egregious statements

Tweets are very different than products and it was immediately obvious to people that the language used would allow them to take the products from people. I can't believe that all those executives and experienced attorneys missed that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Without the outcry we would never have gotten these concessions.

Probably depends on what all the companies who had received the 1.1 themselves were responding to WotC with. Their responses might have been a microcosm of the greater public response and thus WotC already knew they were going to need to amend some stuff.