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, 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

if there are influencers here and elsewhere pushing the "the OGL was always fatally flawed and bad for the games industry so it is better that it is being killed
Interestingly I haven't seen that narrative from any influencer-types. In fact generally the more followers someone has, the shallower their take on this tends to be, and concepts like that are a bit high-level.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Uncertain how I feel. It does sound like they tried to resolve most of the issues. It seems like they listened to the community, which is nice and should be praised: if apologies aren't ever accepted, there's no reason for them to fix future mistakes.

De-authorizing the old OGL is a bitter pill. I dislike that. But... it was almost too open and does technically allow stuff that was never intended to be allowed, like NFTs. And it did create D&D's biggest competitor and could create more. It's not surprising they want to eliminate that.

Being able to shut down content they don't like feels bad. But I was just talking about the Pathfinder compatible adventure that caused a stir in DriveThru a few years back: Tournament of Rapists. Or the flagrantly racist Star Frontiers leak. Being able to shut down content like that isn't a bad thing...

I'll need to sleep on this and read the new OGL to decide for myself.
 

I'm looking very hard to see where that is stated, but I don't see that in that release. Could you help me find it?
I'm not sure I understand the question? We're not looking at the license, just an article with a single sentence on the topic, so I guess we can all interpret "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" however we do, but my interpretation is that the license will not allow you to make a new product using SRD material. That doesn't mean the SRD has been affected, but your new product is.
 

I'm looking very hard to see where that is stated, but I don't see that in that release. Could you help me find it?
Why are we doing the Socratic thing? It's an inference. From the statement that "existing content will be unaffected," people are inferring that future content will be affected. We don't know for sure what will be affected or what the actual effects will be.
 

You know, this reminds me just how long it has been since I've heard about any sort of NFT, and that's honestly a really nice realization.
The blockchain bros have mostly realized that the NFTs-as-stocks angle was too unpopular to work. They still want to make NFTs a thing, but they’ve re-evaluated their strategy for how to use them.
 

My bad. Still the point remains.
No worries. I have family internationally and we have this conversation constantly, when they don't understand how I haven't watched a movie or TV show that's "on Netflix." I didn't want other people to get tripped up over a minor detail.

Also, the new season of the Legend of Vox Machina looks like it's going to be a lot of fun. (y)
 

I mean, if we extend the analogy like that, didn't they already "push Sauron from their lands", and you're ignoring people you successfully pushed Sauron from their lands? I feel like your analogy might need work lol.
It's not my analogy man I'm just working with the material that's given to me. Sauron never invaded their lands to begin with. They never pushed him away, he was ignoring them all the time.
 


Lawyers are literally trained to see this kind of stuff. That multiple lawyers failed to see something that was immediately obvious to the rest of us is wholly unbelievable. Corporate executives to a less degree are also trained(by experience in rising to upper management) to see these sorts of things.
Recovering former attorney here. I would argue that what lawyers are trained to do is maximize their client's legal position. What good business lawyers learn to do from experience is to recognize when the zealous protecting of their client's legal rights might impede their actual business, advise them of that, and possibly temper the aggressiveness with which they, say, draft terms of a legal document on behalf of their client. But ultimately the normal state of business law is that the businessperson knows what's best for business, the lawyer knows what's best for their legal position, and after discussion between the two they take actions which balance both interests.

So while it's possible lawyers are partially to blame here, we really have no reason to believe they are, and ultimately blame lies primarily, if not entirely, with the relevant executives.
 
Last edited:

I'm not saying that's what they did here ... just saying that it's plausible, and ... if I was sneaky and rationally self-interested and Paizo, I would probably help get something leaked.
That's very serious accusation/conspiracy theory to be bandying around like it ain't no thang. Especially re: a fellow lawyer. You might want to reconsider making this suggestion publicly. I'm just sayin', to be clear.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top