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


log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
I'm actually ok with the discussion of "marriage" of any sort. I think there are ways to talk about marriage in terms that don't involve sex, and normalization of different kinds of marriage may be the most wholesome way to prime a young mind for eventually learning to evaluate acceptance of others' sexuality. Having the female looking innkeeper married to the non-binary blacksmith is maybe the only way WotC CAN hint toward LGBTQ+ identity without addressing sexuality. I think that's exactly why marriage is seen as such a powerful issue.
Alternately, don't buy the books with LGBT characters in them, if it's an issue for you. Or, if you're DMing it, just change the NPC.

We do not need to protect the aging gamers from the existence of the LGBT community.
 

Giving them a legal backdoor to block any product for any reason they can cook up that they can tenuously call "hate" or "bigotry" etc. is handing them powers I don't trust them with.
If there is anything the 21st century has taught us so far its that there is nothing that someone can't make a colorable case (in someone's mind) of bigotry against.

Should the provision prove to be abused it may well prove that 3rd party publishers would be better off if WotC just had complete arbitrary powers to block publication of anything. Then when WotC decided an upcoming high profile 3rd party product looks too much like something they have in their own development pipeline and don't want the competition they can just screw over the creator without also branding their work bigoted as a pretext to invoke that clause.

I don't particularly think they currently plan to use the no bigotry provision to block competing products, or other uses beyond its stated purpose, but I have no trust that they won't do so on an occasion when it proves sufficiently expedient and they think they can get away with it.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
D&D wasn't small and insular 20 years ago. It had been around for a quarter century and had millions of players. The Book of Erotic Fantasy didn't cause outrage in the wider culture because it wasn't the 1980s any more. The Pat Pullings of the world couldn't get anywhere by demonizing D&D because so many people had grown up playing it -- including members of the media.

If you don't think the world of D&D was small and insular in 2002 compared to today, I'm afraid that either you have lost touch with reality, or I have, but one of us is so far removed from it that further communication is likely impossible. :)
 


Most of the past 20 years has been D&D in a relatively small and insular group - so small and insular that we saw the Book of Erotica Fantasy and Vile Darkness published 20 years ago without anyone batting an eyelash.

Of course, things have changed in the last five years. D&D is big business. There is about to be a massive movie release. A TV show. We are long past the point of things flying under the radar. We are at the point where they have to do massive damage control over the Hardozee ...

So yeah. I can see them wanting control.

Plenty of people were irritated and pissed about the book of erotic fantasy but I think we all just understood with the OGL people would make all kinds of things, including things that got into R, even X rated content if they wanted to. Personally I don't object to stuff like the book of erotic fantasy existing but I never allowed it in my campaigns either. For 20 years we have all well understood this.

Personally I think they are using this as an excuse to torpedo the OGL and regain control of their IP so they can monetize it more securely.
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
It's also in CRs best interest to have a custom deal with WotC. When you reach a certain size, the uncertainty of relying on Fair Use and Open Gaming policies becomes a detriment to your business. A custom contract protects both sides from that uncertainty.
I'm really hoping for some malicious compliance from CR on this.
 

If you don't think the world of D&D was small and insular in 2002 compared to today, I'm afraid that either you have lost touch with reality, or I have, but one of us is so far removed from it that further communication is likely impossible. :)

It is definitely much bigger today. I don't think insular is the language I would use as early 2000s was a pretty big boom. But it was still very much a 'geek hobby'. Obviously it has gone more mainstream. But I don't think that alters the promise of the OGL.
 

supermighty

Explorer
Allowing WotC to de-authorize has impact not just on 2.0 (or whatever they call this one) but on 3.0, 4.0, 7.0, etc. That one step allows them full control to make the OGL into anything they want when the original intent was 100% to prevent future WotC from doing the exact thing they are doing. So, on principle and long term health of the OGL itself, any de-authorization is unacceptable and effectively makes the entire original purpose of the license moot!

This is the most important part about the WotC announcement today.

Everything else is window dressing.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top