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
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?
I tried to bring up the idea that there are real problems in the world they could be directing their passion toward. It didn't work out well for me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
No, it is closed to anything that WOTC claims is hateful, racist, or sexist. Big difference.

One thing just occurred to me regarding this, though: WotC actually does own the copyright on the text of the OGL1.0. That means if someone publishes "Genocide: The RPG" under OGL1.0, a reader can look in the back of that book and can find a bit of text that reads:

The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

In other words, anything using OGL1.0 has that mandatory association with WotC, in print. I mean, people like us know that WotC had nothing to do with that publication, but a casual reader wouldn't know that. So I can sort of understand why WotC wouldn't want that out there.

The OGL should have been controlled by a truly neutral and truly open interest from the beginning. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and now creators have to somehow extract their own works from WotC's corporate reflex to control "their" IP, while WotC has to deal with potentially negative associations with distasteful material.

I really wish there was a way to just strip out WotC's name from the OGL1.0, tack on the word "irrevocable", and carry on.
Oh well, that water went under the bridge 20+ years ago.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
if there isn't anything then the rule shouldn't bother you...
Flip that one around; if there's no problem, then there's no need for WotC to implement a solution.
and teh World of darkness had 2 in the 90s... the G* word book being the worst of the two
Well I don't know what "the G-word book" is, but since neither of those were OGL products, they're not really relevant examples here.
 

DaveMage

Slumbering in Tsar
So....for lawyers on this thread - is it possible that any OGC released up to this point could be declared as open content by the license that Paizo's lawfirm is developing? For example, could the new license state that any open content that was perpetual as declared by OGL 1.0a remain perpetual under the new license - even though the new license was created by another entity?

Essentially - can perpetual open content released under one license be considered as perpetual under a new license - even though the original license itself is no longer "authorized"?

I'm guessing something like this has rarely, if ever, been tested.
 


"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."

This is really offensive to me. If you're a content creator who can sell their content then you are engaging in the same behavior as any other corporation, major or not. Who the heck is this targeted at?

I think this is aimed specifically at the top 3-5 companies releasing content. When I heard that they met with the top 20 content creators, presumably to discuss the +$750k royalty, I honestly could come up with just a handful of people they could be talking to. I'm not up on the movers and shakers, but the three that came to my mind was Paizo, Kobold Press, and Critical Role.

And Critical Role is making money hand over fist. They had a +$1M Kickstarter for their animated series, on Netflix, which has since expanded to a planned three seasons. I'm certain they sell mountains of merch. They produced a board game. They have advertisement income from spots Sam talks about during the show. Plus, however they make money from all the people that watch the stream on Twitch and YouTube. They've managed to transform a gaming group into a revenue stream. Now, not everyone can do that- they have some key ingredients. Having them all be actors who can get deep into their characters makes a gaming session somewhat interesting to watch.

I am also 100% certain that CR and WotC already have some kind of agreement which has been present for some time now. There is just too much money flowing through CR's hands through several modalities. There's a copyright notice under their logo that says something like "WotC IP used with permission". I haven't payed attention or care to search how long for Season 3 it has been there. It would be interesting to see if it has been there only for 2-3 months.

I'm sure CR is a quantum leap beyond everyone else, and I don't begrudge WotC wanting a slice of their pie from CR's use of D&D. I believe that the confluence of CR's wild success, NuTSR's flagrant racism and repulsive behavior, and the launch of One D&D at near the same time spurred the update of the OGL.
 
Last edited:

Michael Linke

Adventurer
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.
The people talking about burning D&D to the ground, "blood and fire", and demanding the recent hires from Microsoft get fired, and promising me that WotC will come for me next, aren't just passively laying on the ground. They're spouting off ridiculous nonsense that makes them read like people I definitely don't want to play D&D with.
 


If there are no royalties and the it's ok for us to take your content clauses are gone, I don't think there is anything objectionable about the new version.
 

AdmundfortGeographer

Getting lost in fantasy maps
This has the feeling of stumbling towards a license to a yet-to-be-revealed Steam-like digital toolset with a lock in that what is created under this isn’t promiscuous on other platforms.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top