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


log in or register to remove this ad

Well then it wouldn't be D&D, would it?
That’s one of my many worries in this situation. It wouldn’t be the D&D that I recognize and love playing. Nonetheless D&D will be whatever the people who own the trademark to D&D decide it will be next. No matter how unpalatable that will be to me.

The entitlement and the idea that companies can profit off something paid for, owned and invested in by other people against their current consent until the ends of time is one of the reasons I’m the 10th man on this. There is something I find deeply uncomfortable about taking someone else’s work reproducing it with minor variations and then when they say woah, that’s not what we intended we want to pull out of this arrangement for future products, saying too late. Everything you do now is ours to do with as we like.

My issue is that it’s no longer a good deal for one side of the bargain and they want out. You can say, ha ha. You didn’t leave a clause for thst, boo-hoo to you. But I then don’t blame the company for doing whatever they can to get out of it.
 

It might be worth putting together a project to contact the various RPG companies who released stuff under the OGL that is not derivative of WoTC IP. The project should ask them whether they are willing to release them under a different licence - probably either ORC or Creative Commons. Having a central register of the resppnses would be useful. This would allow us to salvage as much as possiblefrom the wreckage of the OGL. What do people think? Maybe ENWorld could play a role in this.
 

My issue is that it’s no longer a good deal for one side of the bargain and they want out.
Tough. They got what they asked for. They don't get to take back the payment. That was the price they agreed.

If I sell you my car, I don't get to come take it back 3 weeks later and leave you stranded because I changed my mind.

(Edit -- and also, with respect, you're not the one whose livelihood and mortgage depend on the deal you made, and the livelihood and mortgages of your employees and freelancers; it's easy to ponitificate on forums, harder to live it).
 
Last edited:


is there a 4e 'clone' created under the OGL?
There is ORCUS: D&D 4E - Introducing Orcus -- a 4E retroclone

But it's basically in beta so it's not much. That said, I don't really think a 4e retroclone under OGL would be legally any different than AD&D/BECMI retroclones under OGL, since those games were never released under the OGL but could be cloned using the terminology permitted by the license anyway.
 


I think he's saying "what if 6e was so different from anything that came before, that nothing based on any SRD would approach compatibility with it"?

To not be supportable by previous SRDs it would need to be completely unrecognizable as D&D. No classes, no attributes, no spells, no monsters, etc.
 


My issue is that it’s no longer a good deal for one side of the bargain and they want out. You can say, ha ha. You didn’t leave a clause for thst, boo-hoo to you. But I then don’t blame the company for doing whatever they can to get out of it.
it isn't? have you checked their profits? They keep making more money every year... as I said before, all you state are assertions that are contradicted by all available facts. I am pretty sure them wanting out of this is doing more harm to WotC than simply not having changed the OGL at all.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top