• 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

Giving up on royalties (for now) is actually a major concession in terms of not getting what they wanted. It was clearly goal one with all of this.

But the damage is done. Now they didn't get what they wanted and they undermined the confidence of everyone that their OGLs can be relied on on any level and won't get creepy new terms imposed at WotC's whim. The immediate storm will likely pass, but if I were one of the affected 3rd party developers who have doubtlessly taken a long hard look the last week at whether they wanted to continue with D&D products, these concessions would probably get me to "still publishing products already in the development pipeline", but not away from "looking for a different game to build my business around".

Had they proceeded with some form of royalties at least the company might have made some money to compensate for the loss in good will and the decreased number of 3rd party products adding value to their product. While in my capacity as a consumer I am pleased by the backtracking, in my capacity as a Hasbro shareholder I want whomever was behind this fired that much more now, as instead of damaging an asset, the brand good will, in short-sighted pursuit of further profits (a valid business decision), they have just squandered it in order to achieve nothing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Jer

Legend
Supporter
If this had been their first statement I think there never would have been an outcry. It's all reasonable.
I mean, it is their first statement. The previous "statement" was a leak of their plans, not an official PR move.

The outcry is because after the leak they refused to say anything and let everything spiral. And this really isn't sufficient IMO to tamp back down on the distress the original leak caused.
 

Oofta

Legend
But that's the whole problem: if WOTC is going to use content provisions to do brand protection, then there's no clear limit on how far that goes. It's way broader than hateful or discriminatory products or anything sexually explicit.

I don't think they should have the discretion. WOTC can protect its own brand by controlling what it publishes as official WOTC products. Everything else should not be subject to top-down content control.

If people are so worried about the clause, perhaps they shouldn't be using the OGL at all. 🤷‍♂️

It may not be literally published as D&D, but my 3PP books that use the OGL are clearly labeled as compatible with 5E.
 

Quarzis

Villager
I’m fine with it. Although I’ve bought and backed a few kickstarters, I’ve yet to use it in my games as the group doesn’t want to use them yet.
Not that I’m swinging by WoTC jock strap cause this is a disaster and wish they left things alone, but my very limited comparison is WoTC left the crayons on the table for others to use in the OGL, other use them but when WoTC comes to get the crayons, people are shocked…we shouldn’t be.

I respectfully disagree with this analogy. WotC provided an open game license so others could create content, with the express (they had it in their FAQ in plain English that they couldn't take it away) right to keep using the license, to promote their system and brand. A lot of great, creative work went into it, which in turn inspired others in various industries (particularly the entertainment industry) to promote D&D. WotC reaped enormous benefit from this open environment. The SRD/open game content is more the equivalent to giving the crayon to the other kids and saying hey create cool stuff with it, which made the stuff WotC created even more valuable. However, when they thought - hmm... I could take what everyone else is making and make it mine, they went back and said "nope... I'm taking my crayon back. Just kidding about giving it to you." Offer... the crayon, acceptance... creating the work, consideration... adherence to the license (including giving up some IP law based rights they would have had without the license). Not a gift - this was a legit transaction of material value.
 





Alzrius

The EN World kitten
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.
This does not follow. Insofar as I'm aware, whether or not something can be deliberately "dedicated" to the public domain (as opposed to when copyright protection expires as per the law) remains an unanswered legal question.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top