• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! 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


log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
To be fair. Even if one of them asked in a meeting why it’s worded that way, the answer could easily have been, that’s how legal said it needed to be.
I strongly doubt this was the scenario.

WotC Executive: "Hey. So I was looking over the new OGL and the way it's worded we would be allowed to tell a content creator that he could no longer produce his content and sell it, and then we could sell it instead. That's basically stealing his creation."

Lawyer: "It needs to be written that way."

It doesn't need to be written that way at all. That was fairly obvious to begin with and confirmed by the removal of one of the portions in question. And I'm sure in a room(Zoom?) full of executives, WotC wouldn't have just accepted that without more follow-up.

Lastly, if it was questioned and answered by legal, both WotC and legal would have been aware of how it could and would be interpreted by the public, which is what they denied, and which is what I said was so unbelievable. They knew about it and went forward with that wording anyway.
 


Uta-napishti

Adventurer
OK, folks, clearly we made an impact. Deep Breath. Since most of us like the D&D team, it's hard to stay furious at them when they say "mea culpa". But, we need to look at what is actually important and stay focused on securing it.
  • They moved away from royalties (for now) trying to get the larger companies to drop their opposition to the license.
  • They dropped the weird "we can use all your ideas" stuff, but say they still need something like it to not get sued when they make movies in the future.
  • They say that existing OGL 1.0a stuff is still valid (but not any new stuff).

Those are the only three concessions that have been made. These concessions are designed to split apart the overwhelming force of the community reaction they have united against them. They want to split off the people who care about royalties from the people who care about compatibility from the people who care about freedom and creating a commons. Divided we won't have the strength to force them to back down.

This new proposal is still designed to replace the current open OGL era with a new closed era where Wizards can change the provisions of using their content at will whenever they want, choosing who can compete with them and in what media.


Instead of giving up our power, we should demand the continuation and strengthening of the current open era.

We want primarily, and non negotiably (and will defend with boycotts and lawsuits).
1) The promise to treat the current OGL 1.0a as irrevocable for current and future third party products in all media. The 3.0, 3.5 and 5E SRDs and everything that followed and will follow in the future from them would then be safe. This just represents protecting the status quo as it has existed for D&D's best years- It's not some unreasonable, impossible dream, just holding the line. It is the minimum, yet winning everything else flows from winning this...

After that we get into the gravy -- asking for more than we had before. BUT if they can't deauthorize the 1.0a, you'd hope WoTC would be smart enough to want their new stuff to out-compete their old OGL 1.0a 5E stuff, so they should:

2) Release OneDND under an open license at least as good as the OGL 1.0a (hey, maybe the new ORC?)
Which means:
3) No reporting or royalties (like all open licenses, you don't need to ask for permission as permission is given in the license.)
4) No limits by medium.
5) Cannot be changed after the fact or revoked.
 
Last edited:

Guidelines are nice and I'm not opposed to them theoretically, but in cases such as this, they need to be well-defined legally in what is covered and not just vague ideas. Otherwise, such guidelines can easily be abused by the licensor in ways that others have brought up.
my counter argument against this is similar to my friend who complains about dangerous and crazy Exs... don't get into bed with people/things/organizations that you think will abuse you later.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
my counter argument against this is similar to my friend who complains about dangerous and crazy Exs... don't get into bed with people/things/organizations that you think will abuse you later.
This is good advice, hence why so many people are saying that they're done with WotC and the OGL (and certainly WotC's statement hasn't done much to change any minds).
 


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 .
Yeah, I get this. Like, I wouldn't want to make a ttrpg with some vague similarities to dnd only be to sued to oblivion by a company who incorrectly alleges that I'm stealing their work.

I don’t get this. Who trusts any corporation?
Everyone who made products using the OGL 1.0 for the last 20 years.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1.

Was that on their Persuasion or Deception check?
Intimidation
 

The 1.0a OGL was, at its core, a promise of stability for third party publishers. It was a promise that third party publishers could safely and continuously use or refer to certain material without the sort of litigious response TSR had been known for, building trust where a simple promise may not have worked.

Trying to pull 1.0a back at all destroyed a lot of trust in this regard. It simply made it much riskier to depend on WotC allowing the use of material WotC has and will allow third parties to use - it's harder to depend on the material staying available on consistent terms. That WotC ever intended to add royalty rates that would make market success a threat to third party publisher survival will be hard to forget, even if that section is now gone. Any third party publisher that wants to draw from 3 or 5 now has to consider both of those threats before publishing, and this will drive companies away.

The two biggest open questions are about stability: is the continued use of 1.0a for already published material absolutely secure, can 1.0a be used for material derivative of that (PF1e ecosystem, most notably), and will WotC still be able to freely alter the upcoming OGL as was originally planned? The last in particular would make working with the new OGL a quite risky proposition with WotC's prior plans in consideration, too risky for many companies.

I wouldn't put WotC's effort to claim veto power on quite the same level of risk - at least the reasons are, if the ability to edit and revoke is removed, reasonably stable, though Team Hadozee might not be the best judges of offensiveness.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top