• 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

Ondath

Hero
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.
Look mate, I remember you and I had a very lengthy discussion when D&D Beyond didn't allow Turkish customers to claim Pride dice — and I can't help but notice a pattern in your argument: "How dare we ask the company to do better?"

Sure, if they put their minds to it, they can revoke the license and completely eradicate what has been a very healthy and innovative third-party industry. How dare we oppose that? Even if it goes against a 20-year precedent (and completely goes against the principles that founded the precedent), how dare we ask better?

Why should we ask them to allow LGBT users in the Middle East to claim a simple pride item and not bend over backwards to (nonexisting!) anti-LGBT laws? WotC's got to keep viability of business in the Middle East before their principles, so how dare we demand they don't act hypocritically?

I don't know, man. Why shouldn't we dare doing that? Why shouldn't we ask them to keep to a very simple level of decency when they're dealing with us? What is so wrong with that?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

RareBreed

Adventurer
Wait, why are so many people conflating OGL = D&D = TTRPG hobby?

I see a lot of people suggesting that WotC has a right to defend their brand by essentially being able to censor who gets to publish what under the OGL to protect their image. But a 3P creating a game using OGL as a license does not mean or imply association with D&D (or WotC) as a brand. It's like saying because the Apache Software Foundation created the Apache License (an open software license), if someone created a porn bot or trojan virus under the Apache License, it should tar and feather the ASF's reputation. That's not how open licenses works.

Secondly, it seems like many people feel that if D&D fails, or OGL fails, the TTRPG will collapse. I for one think that D&D has way too strong of a hold on many people's minds about it being not just the pillar of the hobby, but the hobby itself.

Being a software engineer, I know we have a plethora of programming languages and frameworks. A multitude exists, because each language has its pros and cons. All programming languages are Turing Complete (or the lesser known but cooler lambda calculus equivalent), but your ease of expressing your code and algorithms can be vastly different between languages. The same is true with game systems. The TTRPG industry/hobby does not need a "standard" (whether that be a game system, brand or even open gaming license) anymore than software engineering needs a programming language or one size fits all open license that all companies must use.
 





TheSword

Legend
Look mate, I remember you and I had a very lengthy discussion when D&D Beyond didn't allow Turkish customers to claim Pride dice — and I can't help but notice a pattern in your argument: "How dare we ask the company to do better?"

Sure, if they put their minds to it, they can revoke the license and completely eradicate what has been a very healthy and innovative third-party industry. How dare we oppose that? Even if it goes against a 20-year precedent (and completely goes against the principles that founded the precedent), how dare we ask better?

Why should we ask them to allow LGBT users in the Middle East to claim a simple pride item and not bend over backwards to (nonexisting!) anti-LGBT laws? WotC's got to keep viability of business in the Middle East before their principles, so how dare we demand they don't act hypocritically?

I don't know, man. Why shouldn't we dare doing that? Why shouldn't we ask them to keep to a very simple level of decency when they're dealing with us? What is so wrong with that?
Well that is a bizarre non-sequitor. Im pretty sure I said in the other totally unrelated thread. I’m a gay man myself but when in Rome. I’m atheist but I cover my legs when I go into a Cathedral. Really not gonna get into all that jazz again here.
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top