• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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

Michael Linke

Adventurer
It's like coming home to find your spouse in flagrante delicto with somebody else; your trust is shattered and heart is broken.

Your spouse takes off for a week, does not return calls, ignores your texts... and then comes home a week later, announcing that we didn't understand what we thought we saw, it will be fine going forward, and -- "Oh, you don't have to cook tonight, I ordered take-out", as they sit on the couch and pick up the remote.

The baffling thing? There seem to be more than a few people here who are prepared to sit down with WotC on the couch and wait for the pizza to arrive.

Now I'll relay this little bit
Happens more than I'd like to admit
Late at night, she knocks on my door
Drunk again and looking to score
Now I know I should say no but
It's kind of hard when she's ready to go
I may be dumb but I'm not a dweeb
I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem
No, actually. Nothing that Hasbro has done with the OGL bears any resemblence at all to your spouse cheating on you.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
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.

Because, for the most part, non-commercial uses aren't going to change.

The main issue for homebrew or non-commercial use was the license-back language, which I can believe was lawyer overreach. Ask a lawyer to draft a new unilateral contract, and you can bet that they're likely to draft the most protective terms possible without necessarily thinking about the other side.

As to why provide it to the big guys? Because they're the big guys, with lawyers, who will provide feedback on the commercial side. Theoretically under an NDA, so you can iron out the issues before unveiling it. That's how it should work, at least.
 

Oofta

Legend
I understand your thoughts on this, but it comes down to this:

I have a company. It has 15 employees. We making gaming stuff.

My company depends on a license to sell from X company. They can revoke this at any time, as long as they have a reason. You, nor any third party, have to agree with this reason. There is no arbitration.

If you're wiling to run a business under that sword hanging over your head, I'm not sure what to say to communicate how... awful... that is.
I think there are many inherent risks to running a business. This particular one? I think it would be incredibly low on the level of risks.

BTW I'm not saying this is a good clause, just that it's an understandable one.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
And also that what they probably thought was a typical negotiation process was hurt by them overplaying their starting position.

"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 inclusion of a contract suggests that it was only retroactively a negotiation, unless WotC was playing incredibly over the top hardball, which makes them bullies punching down at much smaller companies in the best case scenario.
 

Steel_Wind

Legend
The real problem is that keeping oneD&D compatible with D&D5 is a low-cost, low-risk win in the eyes of management. And if oneD&D is compatible with D&D5, 3rd-party D&D5 material is compatible with oneD&D.

So because a previous incarnation of their management made the OGL 1.0a perpetual, and a second previous incarnation licensed the D&D5 SRD under the OGL 1.0a, Wizards' only option is to kill the OGL 1.0a in its entirety, to keep 3rd parties from continuing to make D&D5 content that is compatible with oneD&D.
This is exactly it.

Nothing has changed. This is still a problem for WotC and nothing said today gets them out of this issue going forward. In order to get around it, they have to make 6e less compatible with 5e than they initially preferred, or they are back in the soup.

I'm not sure they can avoid a "5.5, Pathfinder Redux" environment now that this disaster has happened, come what may.
 

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...
Assuming they find a way to walk this back enough to get me to renew my DDB sub, the lesson I've learned is a monthly sub costs me more if I'm happy with the service, but costs me less if I'm not. I don't think I'll ever let myself get locked into a sub longer than month-to-month if there's shorter options.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
No, actually. Nothing that Hasbro has done with the OGL bears any resemblence at all to your spouse cheating on you.

I mean, I know that this issue is important to people in our hobby. I really do.

But I wish that people would care about other issues that have a real impact on a lot of people just ... I don't know ... half as passionately as they do this? A quarter?

Try to get people involved in criminal justice reform and you get yawns. Maybe if I told them that there was open licensing involved?
 

rcade

Hero
Maybe it's the "promotional purposes" bit there, but it really made me think initially that someone in Wizards got big mad that Wendy's put out a D&D-like game for advertising purposes and got some buzz for a week on Twitter because of it and that Wizard's didn't get a cut of the burger money from it.
If that's Hasbro's beef they should take it out on the burger maker, not the OGL. Wendy's Feast of Legends didn't use the OGL.
 


Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Take leaks with a grain of salt.
No.

Do you know any people who have leaked stuff? I do. Lots of people. They are invariably, in my experience, true believers in an organization's mission who have tried and failed to address issues within the usual power structure.

"Leakers are liars or publicity hounds" is a smear tactic by bad organizations. You should not trust that rhetoric at all.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top