• 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

Steel_Wind

Legend
Despite what YouTubers screamed, WotC never wanted to steal their content. Ideas are cheap, time to develop is expensive.

This is the one place that WotC was being honest: This item was them covering their asses legally. It's the same kind of provision that comic book companies, the music industry, TV shows, etc., all use, because no one wants to be at the center of the next Blurred Lines case.
Oh I agree that having WotC to have the rights to use 1.0a OGL content on DDB to be able to resell it without concern was always in the best interests of gamers. I said as much.

But when you go further and express that as a transfer of ownership, it's a lot of problems. Those problems were largely created by WotC trying to use this to restrict what your content could be used for (Print and near-print) while their own rights to exploit it were unlimited without regard to ... well... anything.

Anyways, this was largely a sideshow battle in the footnotes of 1.1 that produced an emotional response that was not entirely rational. I think we are in agreement on that point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
There are very few people publishing PF1e products and I support them, but with the 1.0a being revoked, they can't produce any of that now.

Sucks everyone else gets to have their favorite system, whether 5e or one of the other now available open gaming licenses being created, but us 3.5/PF1e people are screwed over yet again.
 

For those demanding a pound of flesh in the form of terminations of leadership involved in the OGL decisions, I have an honest question: Would you rather have folks at the helm who've lived though this experience and and felt the wrath of the community, or some new suit who thinks they're the the smartest person to walk into a boardroom and really knows how to monetize a brand?
Definitely the latter, given the level of idiocy involved.

Any suit as smug as you describe will immediately abandon existing plans because they're not his plans. And if his plans are dumber, they'll fail just as hard. If they're smarter, they're probably also less awful.
 

R_J_K75

Legend
1: "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."

Ok... buuuut why are we hearing that contracts were sent to creators? That doesn't sound like consultation to me...
Yeah, this struck me as weird too. Why not just be transparent and forthcoming and release their proposed new version of the OGL to the community at large to get feedback rather than "leak" it to a few of the bigger players in the industry. Doesn't really seem like they were interested in feedback until they failed their saving throw.
 



Would you rather have trial by Twitter?
You seemingly present it in contrast, but Trial by Twitter is not the alternative to giving WotC complete discretion over what to deem hateful and hence censored, it is what that is enacting. Everytime a miniscule number of Tweeters get upset about an obscure 3rd party product they will try to pressure WotC into shutting it down. Then advocates (because someone will always have the contrary opinion) will try to pressure WotC not to. It is much more a "trial" than the scenario where WotC has no such powers of judgment to render someone's product unpublishable, and after a handful of people let off some steam on Twitter over whatever storm is in whatever teacup everyone else ultimately still gets to make individual decisions to buy or not buy a product.
 

Art Waring

halozix.com

My approach has achieve the goal of protecting WotC and the D&D IP completely.
Dude, no it hasn't. Here's their goal -- one of the three reasons they felt they had to make this change.

First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products.

Your approach most certainly does not prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. If it did, Wizards would not need to claim some right to revoke 1.0a.

Your approach does not prevent some company from using 1.0a to incorporate D&D content into an NFT or blockchain game.

Your approach does not prevent a "major corporation" from using D&D content for "their own commercial and promotional purpose."

In every single case, they just use 1.0a to do it and ignore OGL 2.0.

No changes in OGL 2.0 make any difference whatsoever if OGL 1.0a can be used instead.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
I actually didn't expect them to back down this much. It's still not enough, but it would not have shocked me if they had dug in their heels until the Wall Street Journal weighed in.
I suspect the rumors that DDB subscription cancellation were in numbers that were noticeable and could impact the bottom line might actually be true.

One benefit of making your business model a "suck as much cash from the wallets of customers on a monthly basis as possible" model is that you can get immediate feedback on how much you've screwed up if you anger said customers en masse by watching the flow of money through the straw you have stuck in their wallets dwindle in real time...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top