• 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



Konrad13

Explorer
I'm laughing and crying having read their "response" since it does nothing! They can claim to be trying to walk back stuff but I see nothing in there about protecting for all time the OGL 1.0 or 1.0a NOR are they saying they will never alter the license to reinstate the stuff they are claiming to remove!
 

TheSword

Legend
And what's the guarantee that v1.12 won't be replaced with v1.13 that does demand royalties and we're back to square one?

Unless they make a truly irrevocable version of the license, 3PPs cannot be safe. In the past they could rely on WotC's word (such as the 2004 FAQ), but we've clearly seen that's no longer reliable. Either Wizards reestablishes trust by making a legally binding guarantee, or this is just pithy PR spin.
What is it with irrevocable licenses. Why is it essential that you can’t be licensed to use something unless it’s forever. If this was the only acceptable license we wouldn’t have half the IP based games, film, TV, books and RPGs we have now. It feels like unreasonable expectations set by the original OGL that didn’t turn out to be irrevocable at all (potentially)

There’s no guarantee it won’t be replaced. Why is it essential that it can never be replaced as long as there is a window for people to adjust. How is having a deal that can never be changed a reasonable expectation.
 

TheSword

Legend
Sucks if you intend for your company to be around in seven months.

LOTR and Star Wars are IP. This has been explained repeatedly.
Thems the shakes if you sell products off the back of other peoples products.

It’s come up a few time but worth setting out. A lot is being relied on that mechanics can’t be copyrighted and that the IP we refer to is Beholders and Ilithilds.

If this goes to court WotC will be claiming infringement of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as basic expressions of ability, Armour Class, Saving Throw, Somantic, Verbal and Material as components of spells, pyramidal spells slots, scaling cantrips, the 8 schools of magic, darkvision etc etc etc.

Maybe Pathfinder or Level Up can easily de-D&D-ify their products but maybe not. Or maybe the de-D&D-ified bits are found to be sufficiently derivative. I wouldn’t be staking my mortgage on it with that level of uncertainty.
 
Last edited:


mamba

Legend
Having read the blog on DnDBeyond one thought I had over the "the OGL wasn't made for corporations" is, I wonder how much the Old Spice class and Wendy's RPG motivated that. As D&D and RPGs become more mainstream, that could be more common.
As gamers, we might be concerned with Pathfinder. But WotC might be more concerned with much larger brands making RPGs as advertising tools: having their game and IP associated by open license with a company they don't want to be associated with...
I was not even aware that these were things that existed, I doubt they have any impact on this decision however. The fact that they might be a short blip on the radar of some kids (no one I know would be caught dead with something like what I imagine this to be) is too unimportant for WotC. Also, what exactly does 1.1 change about the possibility of this ?
 
Last edited:

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
I wouldn't worry too much about that - existing products can continue to use the OGL 1.0, and they can simply use ORC going forward.
In some cases this is true. But in others the original licensor can't or won't update the license. Here are some examples.

The Action System was published under the OGL in 2003-2004. It has nothing to do with D&D. The core rules do not rely upon anything from the 3.5 SRD The company which published it (Gold Rush Games) subsequently vanished because the founder (Mark Arsenault) had some serious health issues. Who is going to update the licence in this case?

The Cepheus Engine is an excellent 2d6 based science fiction game. It is depends upon the Traveller SRD released by Mongoose Publishing for the first edition of their version of Traveller. Once again, the game system has absolutely no reliance on any WoTC intellectual property. Mongoose subsequently released a second edition of their game but did not produce a second edition SRD or release any 2E content under the OGL. Would they be willing to revisit the 1E SRD to change the licensing terms? Remember they license Traveller itself from Far Future Enterprises, so this might require upstream approval even if they did.

The risk of orphaned Games where open content is lost to the community forever is very real.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
What is it with irrevocable licenses. Why is it essential that you can’t be licensed to use something unless it’s forever. If this was the only acceptable license we wouldn’t have half the IP based games, film, TV, books and RPGs we have now. It feels like unreasonable expectations set by the original OGL that didn’t turn out to be irrevocable at all (potentially)

There’s no guarantee it won’t be replaced. Why is it essential that it can never be replaced as long as there is a window for people to adjust. How is having a deal that can never be changed a reasonable expectation.
Because we had one for over 20 years, explicitly.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top