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

Jer

Legend
Supporter
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.
I wasn't sure if they did or not. The ad campaign is over so of course the document is gone and I don't think I kept a copy around even for novelty purposes.

I could check the Internet Archive I guess, but I'm lazy so I haven't...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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 what they want to do is profoundly unpopular. They can't be transparent about that.
 



If we allow that the three stated goals are actually Wizards' goals, and if we allow that they are willing to back away from the royalty demands, here's a possible way forward. A carrot, if you will.

Make OGL 2.0 explicitly irrevocable.

Now, maybe, if you write an attractive enough license for good-faith actors, maybe freedom from your claims of the revocability of 1.0a is enough to bring them aboard.

You may still have "bad actors" challenging that claim and using 1.0a for racist stuff or NFTs or whatever, but at least if you're Wizards that allows you to focus your fire and you don't have the whole hobby against you.
 

Okay, a few thoughts:

1) This is a statement, not the actual new proposal. Obviously we have to be vigilant and, even where we like what we just saw, make sure that the eventual new document actually follows through (hopefully with the community legal experts going over it like never before).

2) No one believes any of the 'This is all a misunderstanding/We never intended X/ We always intended to get community input on this' kind of stuff. I'm not giving it a pass, but IMO it's the expected norm. Large corporations generally don't benefit from saying, 'yeah we were trying to get away with something, but ya caught us.' (and even if the corporation might get some community kudos for refreshing honesty, the decision makers who authorized this would rather encode it as 'unexpected consumer hostility' rather than 'the consumers caught us trying to %&@# them.').

3) WotC has indicated that they can't be trusted. At this point, it's just a reminder to me that I shouldn't have been doing so in the first place (or any other entity that is beholden to stockholders who do not care about principled stances rather than immediate quarterly revenue).

4) No, they are not backpedaling on revoking OGL 1.0. At this point it is irrelevant, because the realization that they believe (unless they were doing one hell of a bluff) that they could revoke it means that OGL 1.0 is effectively dead. We could keep up the pressure campaign until they completely capitulate and scrap both the revocation of 1.0 and/or even the introduction of a new one altogether and it won't stop them from changing their minds at a later point. This alone is prohibitive towards working with 1.0, because what 3PP has the resources to treat every new potential product as the one they'll pay to develop but can't publish because an OGL change happened mid-lifecycle? It can never again be trusted as a safety net, and like the trust issue above, it means I retroactively shouldn't have trusted it for the past two decades.

5) Thus, for me, the only way forward (other than #6) is to pressure them to introduce a new OGL that is acceptable*. And for that, I ask everyone: given that (IMO) the broken trust and revoked OGL 1.0 components are effectively irrevocable, what else in the new proposal isn't acceptable? For me, I'm okay with the product veto, even though I don't love a corporation being the arbiter of too sexist/racist (they do have some vested interest in people trusting that they would only veto genuine bad actors). What else is in there that can't be/missing that needs to be, outside of the things that cannot be achieved (trust/preserved 1.0)?
*and we'd need to have the legally-minded of the community to go over the new thing and make sure it is foolproof and perpetual in a way that 1.0 apparently never was.

6) In the end, though, I don't know if this is resolvable. For me this all is just a reminder that there was a world before the OGL when companies other than TSR-then-WotC made games using engines outside of the d20/class/level system (containing vestiges of a dungeon-crawling playstyle which hadn't been universal since ~1975). Maybe we'd all be better off re-exploring those other options. 5e has ballooned the hobby, and maybe the 3PP developers should take the initiative and develop ORC or their own house system no matter what WotC ends up putting forth.
 
Last edited:


Staffan

Legend
No, actually. Nothing that Hasbro has done with the OGL bears any resemblence at all to your spouse cheating on you.
I disagree. I mean, it's a difference of scale, but not of kind. Both involve a fundamental betrayal of trust and breaking of promises. Promises on which people have built large portions of their lives.

Well, technically at the moment it's more that you learn that your spouse has been hanging on Tinder or one of those dating apps that specialize in cheating spouses, and you catch them dressing up for a date. They technically haven't done anything irrevocable yet, but it's definitely time to discuss some issues.
 


Sometimes when you're ambivelent about an issue, but one side of the debate seems like chill people you'd want to hang out with, and the other side looks like some dangerous loose cannons who you never want to accidentally offend, you'll probably hope the scary ones just go away.
LOL!

The history of protest shows extreme clearly that people who are advocating for any kind of change or improvement, no matter how mild, get seen as "dangerous loose cannons" no matter how gentle their behaviour. Literally you can do passive resistance, and just like, lie on the floor to try and prevent something, and people will act like you're a dangerous loose cannon.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top