The OGL -- Just What's Going On?

D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumours are flooding social media regarding WotC's intentions to 'de-authorize' the existing Open Gaming License in favour of a new one.

What's the OGL?
The Open Gaming License is a share-a-like license created by D&D owner WotC about 20 years ago so that third parties could create material compatible with the then-3E D&D game. This allowed smaller publishers to ensure the game was supported with products which WotC could not make themselves, driving sales of the core rulebooks. D&D 5E's rules are also released under that very same license, which is why you see hundreds of 5E-compatible products on Kickstarter from massive projects like the 5E-powered The One Ring, down to small adventures and supplements. It has been widely believed for two decades that this license is irrevocable (and, indeed, WotC itself believed that -- see below), but it appears that WotC is now attempting to revoke it.

A Quick Recap
A few weeks ago, WotC made a short statement regarding the OGL, followed later by a more in-depth announcement covering revised terms, royalties, and annual revenue reporting.

WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting

There has been a lot of speculation recently about WotC's plans regarding the Open Gaming License and the upcoming One D&D. Today, WotC shared some information. In short, they will be producing a new Open Gaming License (note that the previous OGL 1.0a will still exist, and can still be used)...

www.enworld.org

At the same time, at the end of December, a number of hastily arranged meetings with 'key' third party creators under a strict NDA agreement were set up with WotC's licensing department in order to share the company's plans regarding licensing of D&D going forward (disclaimer -- while WotC also reached out to me, we were unable to schedule a meeting over the busy Christmas period, so I am not party to that information).

A New Rumour Emerges
This all came to a head yesterday when the Roll For Combat YouTube channel released what they said was a leak of the upcoming OGL from multiple trusted but anonymous sources within WotC.

We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

We received an official leak of OGL 1.1! In our weekly Roll For Combat Live YouTube show, we were talking about what we know about OGL 1.1 when we received a leak of OGL 1.1 from a reliable source. This isn't a scam, a troll, or clickbait. We go over the new OGL 1.1 and what it means to One D&D...

www.enworld.org

This leak claims the following. Note -- it is impossible to verify these claims at this time.

• There will be TWO OGL's -- an OCG: Commercial and an OGL: Non-Commercial.
• The original OGL will become unauthorized. This hinges on the wording of s9 of the current OGL:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

While the license does indeed grand a 'perpetual' right to use the Open Gaming Content referenced, it appears that WotC currently believes that it can render a version of the license unauthorized. The license itself makes no reference to authorization or the lack thereof, nor does it define any methods of authorization or deauthorization, other than in that line. So this entire thing hinges on that one word, 'authorized' in the original OGL.

RollForCombat posted the following summary -- it is unclear whether this is their own paraphrasing, or that of their anonymous source, or indeed the actual document (although tonally it doesn't sound like it):

"This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."

"You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."

"You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."

The ability for WotC to use your Open Gaming Content is not new; the company could do that under the old OGL also; it has rarely exercised that right, though it did reuse a couple of third party monsters in a 3E rulebook.

iO9 Gets A Copy
However, Linda Codega over at Gizmodo/iO9 got hold of a copy of the current draft of the OGL 1.1.

• It's long. It's ten times the length of the current OGL, at 9,000 words.
• No bigots. It prohibits NFTs and bigoted content.
• Print/PDF only. It also prohibits apps and video games. And pantomimes, apparently. The wording says "including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."
• Deauthorizes the previous OGL. The license states that the OGL 1.0a is "no longer an authorized license agreement".
• It’s soon! Pressingly, the draft also indicates that publishers who wish to sell SRD-based content on or after January 13th (which is just 8 days away!) have only one option: agree to the OGL: Commercial. That gives companies very little time to evaluate the license or make any necessary changes.
• Clear OGL declarations. The new license contains other restrictions which effectively prohibit companies from identifying their OGC via a separate System Reference Document (which is what games like Pathfinder do); instead the reader must be alerted to Open Gaming Content within the product itself.
• Royalties. As previously noted, creators who make over $750K will need to pay royalties to WotC. WotC does indicate that it might reach out to succesful creators for a more 'custom (and mutially beneficial) licensing arrangement). Creators are divided into three tiers - under $50K, $50K-$750K, and $750K+. The royalty is 20% or 25% of 'qualifying revenue', which is revenue in excess of $750K. The term used is revenue, not profit.
• They want you to use Kickstarter. Kickstarter -- their 'preferred' platform -- attracts the lower 20% royalty, and non-Kickstarter crowdfuders attract 25%. It's interesting that WotC even has a preferred crowdfunding platform, let alone that they are trying to influence creators to use it over its competitors like Backerkit, IndieGoGo, Gamefound, and the like.
• New logo. An identifying badge will be required on products which use the new OGL, and creators will need to send WotC a copy of their product.

The document itself comments that “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.” That sounds like it is talking about companies such as Paizo.

Community Reaction
Social media has exploded, with a lot of very negative pushback regarding this news.

Many people have weighed in with their interpretations of s9 (above), both lawyers and non-lawyers. There seems to be little agreement in that area right now. If the above rumous is true, then WotC's current leadership clearly believes that previous iterations of the OGL can be 'de-authorized'. It's interesting to note that previous WotC administrations believed otherwise, and said as much in their own official OGL FAQ:

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

OGL architect Ryan Dancey also appears to have felt otherwise. In an article right here on EN World he said:

I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners.

Of course, many game systems are released using that license: Pathfinder, Fate, Open d6, WOIN, and many, many more -- many of them have nothing at all to do with D&D and simply use the license as a useful tool for enabling third-party content creators; while Pathfinder is, of course, the industry's largest OGL game and published by Paizo, the industry's second largest TTRPG comapmny after WotC itself. If the original OGL were somehow to become invalid, all these games would be affected.

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

There are other bits to the current rumour -- a 30 day notice period during which WotC can change the license any way they wish, and a waiver over the right to sue the company.

It's hard to get a clear picture of what's going on right now. I haven't seen the new OGL, and other than a handul of 'key' creators, it seems like very few have. WotC did indicate that it would be unveiled very soon.

Is it an OGL?
While it may be called "Open Gaming License v1.1", if the above is true, this isn't really an update to the OGL, it's an entirely new license. Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL. and who runs the Open Gaming Foundation, defines open gaming licenses as --

​

1. Game Rules and materials that use those rules that can be freely copied, modified and distributed.​

​

2. A system for ensuring that material contributed to the Open Gaming community will remain Open and cannot be made Closed once contributed.​

​

By these definitions, it appears that the new OGL is not actually an open gaming license, and has more in common with the Game System License WotC used for D&D 4th Edition.

So, What Now?
Now, we wait and see. Many eyes will be on the bigger players -- Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. -- to see what action they take. As yet, none of these have commented publicly except for Green Ronin's Chris Pramas who told Gizmodo that they had not yet seen the new license, but they do not believe there is "any benefit to switching to the new one as described.” As for Paizo, Gizmodo says "Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."

Will these companies go along with it? Will they ignore it? Will they challenge it? We'll have to wait and see!

7 days is not enough time for even a small publisher to overhaul its entire product line to comply with new rules, let along a large one like Paizo. I have to assume there is an allowed time period to do this, otherwise it's practically impossible to do. It does seem that -- if proven enforceable -- the de-athorization of the existing OGL would drive many companies out of business, especially those which produce or lean heavily on electronic apps and the like.

It also remains to be seen how WotC goes about the task of persuading creators to use its new license -- will it tempt them with a carrot (such as access to the D&D Beyond platform), or try to force them with a stick (such as threat of legal action)? And how will the TTRPG community react, because this goes far beyond just D&D.

It sounds like we'll hear something more solid imminently.

 

[Justice and Rule]

While "they're idiots" is not an unlikely explanation, I think it is more in line with the forum rules and policies to not assume the professionals in the industry (that might very well be reading and posting forumists) are clueless.

So I choose the only other explanation:

That WotC knew exactly what they were doing, that their intention all along was to nuke all competition out of orbit.

I mean, I also assume that their intention was to nuke the competition from orbit as well. Absolutely agree there. The not-smart thing was not predicting the response:

I have a harder time explaining how they could have thought they could get away with this without also vaporizing all the excitement over D&D One as well their company's entire cache of good-will, but I'm doing my best here to see rational business arguments why you would, in a single move, self-destruct like this, while at the same time incentivizing all the people that have worked with you (to build up D&D as the indisputably market leading game) to not only abandon ship but actively pour all their creativity into creating direct competitors to your product.

I don't have a hard time, because I think they critically misjudged the audience. I suspect their idea of how this was going to go was something like this:

I think their big expectation here was that most of the publishers would either get out of their way or fall in line because they are the big dog and they felt they had to because Hasbro would simply bury them in litigation otherwise. Maybe they would give a few special carveouts to some of publishers to try and split the opposition, but I think they figured they would look like a legal juggernaut that could not be stopped without a serious loss of time and revenue. Similarly, some fans might care, but this would be so "inside baseball" that it could be obfuscated enough to avoid creating a big rift in the community that could sustain any sort of long-standing resistance. Plenty of companies do big stupid things and they blow over (Games Workshop is a sterling example of doing this over and over).

This obviously failed for multiple reasons, not the least of which that people really don't like bullies and that there are plenty of alternatives to D&D. Dennis Detwiller really nails it here:


With GW, the IP is very clear and important, with the merchandise and continuing fiction being a massive part of the appeal. This makes it difficult to replace because while there are alternatives to 40K, it's still not quite 40K. You just can't replace it easily. On the other hand. D&D is more of a vibe or experience or even state of mind. God knows how many people I've seen say how they don't want to play in the Forgotten Realms, or others who just go off and make their own world. D&D is not really about the rules as much as being around friends and creating fiction, and you don't really need D&D for that. People stick with D&D because it's the easiest, most mainstream version of that idea out there. A lot of people will stick with what's kind of a mediocre game as long as it's just really accessible and the company doesn't f*** up too badly too often.

And here we are, a case where they f$#%ed up way too badly. People will put up with a whole lot, and certainly WotC probably has enough legal power to stifle a lot of s#!✚ internally that might leak with a smaller company. But this sort of thing is just too "mask off" to be mistaken for anything else other than a giant corporate power grab, and that's basically enough for the portion of the population plugged into these sorts of matters... which also happens to be the people who are the biggest influencers as well are most likely to buy stuff: Dungeon Masters. Most of my group does not know about this going on, but the ones who do are all the people who run games and buy expansion books or adventures or other stuff. Couple that with the fact that there's pretty much been a united front against them from their competitors, and it's just the worst-case scenario... which should have been the obvious one, but corporations generally act much more recklessly when the smell of a bigger bottom line is waved in front of their noses.

So I totally get why they thought they could get away from this. They mistook D&D for an IP that it really isn't, didn't realize that while many in the community might not notice the most important ones would be viscerally against it, and that they wouldn't be able to split up and cow their competitors into compliance or exodus.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This seems the core language.

“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.”

I would take this more seriously if they hadn't already negotiated a royalty structure with Kickstarter. At this point, there's just nothing in there that can be trusted without putting it into firm, immutable, irrevocable writing. Without that, they can just switch back whenever they like.

 

[Scribe]

This tweet @Justice and Rule is exactly what I've come around to as the problem for Wizards, and why they felt they needed to reign everyone in.

WOTC WILL REALIZE TOO LATE DND ISN’T AN IP, REALLY, BUT A FEELING: Barring #Dragonlance, DND is not really a mainstream story-based property, but a mish-mash of vague ideas which generate great fun with friends, but which traditionally falls flat in other mediums.

D&D 'brand' is basically a poorly defined mess, at best, and they actively have THROWN OUT or disavowed the very history that made it what it is.

The OGL protected content is not a brand.
The SRD is not a brand.
They actively disavowed their backlog of lore/canon.
They have no meaningfully defining art style or direction.
They simply go where the wind blows.
They have ACTIVELY enabled, requested, and essentially mandated that gaps in the game are filled by 3PP.

And then in the end, they sat back and said...wait. Just hold on a second here.

"We have no through line canon, no story. Our art is safe, generic, Fantasy art that you can find on DeviantArt. Our game makes no defining statement on...pretty much any kind of topic, so as to appeal to the widest range of people possible....what exactly makes D&D...anything but Solasta?!"

And thats not to dunk on Solasta either!

What actually does Wizards own? A name. They have willfully abdicated on the rest. So when people say "This is Wizards going out to protect their brand!" What does that actually mean?

They dont have a brand. They have a name. They have several rule sets of various shades of common mechanics and terms.

They gave up the rest long ago, and thats a problem, if you want to break into other media platforms.

Now if anyone cares to refute this...

What is the D&D Brand?

 

[Justice and Rule]

What is the D&D Brand?

I really, really haven't appreciated how much modern D&D's brand has largely been defined by Matt Mercer until just moments ago. Just very wild that so much of D&D's current identity is not even under their direct control.

 

[Scribe]

I really, really haven't appreciated how much modern D&D's brand has largely been defined by Matt Mercer until just moments ago. Just very wild that so much of D&D's current identity is not even under their direct control.

Indeed, so is it really Wizards Brand at all in that case? Because once CR goes on its own, they are taking CR with them.

 

[GrayLinnorm]

So, who has done a worse job, Hasbro or Warner Brothers Discovery?

 

[Greg Benage]

I really, really haven't appreciated how much modern D&D's brand has largely been defined by Matt Mercer until just moments ago. Just very wild that so much of D&D's current identity is not even under their direct control.

I think CR was huge for D&D*, and yet this seems mildly bonkers to me. The D&D brand is fifty years of, um, D&D, nerd jokes, the 80s fad, the Satanic Panic, the cartoon, bad movies, dozens of computer and video games, a vast constellation of memes, Stranger Things, Community, Big Bang Theory, Rick & Morty, and ~50 million players worldwide.

I sorta agree with those saying it's not really a brand, it's a culture, or a feeling, or a vibe, but whatever it is, while Matt Mercer and his friends have made a big contribution to it, they certainly haven't "defined" it.

* And vice versa. I've been playing D&D since 1980 and 5e since 2014, but when I heard from a player in my game that there was a group of voice actors playing D&D on YouTube, I decided to check it out.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think CR was huge for D&D*, and yet this seems mildly bonkers to me. The D&D brand is fifty years of, um, D&D, nerd jokes, the 80s fad, the Satanic Panic, the cartoon, bad movies, dozens of computer and video games, a vast constellation of memes, Stranger Things, Community, Big Bang Theory, Rick & Morty, and ~50 million players worldwide.

I sorta agree with those saying it's not really a brand, it's a culture, or a feeling, or a vibe, but whatever it is, while Matt Mercer and his friends have made a big contribution to it, they certainly haven't "defined" it.

* And vice versa. I've been playing D&D since 1980 and 5e since 2014, but when I heard from a player in my game that there was a group of voice actors playing D&D on YouTube, I decided to check it out.

I would say that what I'm talking about is what we think of as D&D directly, not it's reputation (which has spread across media in various ways). Like Dennis says, right now D&D really isn't a "property" in the same way most big ones are, outside of stuff like Critical Role. I'm not going to say Matt Mercer is all of it, but I think it's hard to deny that what Critical Role does and is doing is arguably bigger when it comes to defining the idea of what D&D is right now than what Wizards is generally trying to do when they aren't nuking their reputation from orbit.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm not going to say Matt Mercer is all of it, but I think it's hard to deny that what Critical Role does and is doing is arguably bigger when it comes to defining the idea of what D&D is right now than what Wizards is generally trying to do when they aren't nuking their reputation from orbit.

I think I understand you, but I think your sense of scale is way off. It's like saying the Mekong River defines the Pacific Ocean (to choose the most grandiose example I can think of). It's fair to say every one of the few million people who've watched a CR episode know what D&D is. I run into players all the time who have never heard of CR.

 

[Scribe]

I think I understand you, but I think your sense of scale is way off. It's like saying the Mekong River defines the Pacific Ocean (to choose the most grandiose example I can think of). It's fair to say every one of the few million people who've watched a CR episode know what D&D is. I run into players all the time who have never heard of CR.

I dont know that it is. I feel you are describe D&D's place (correctly) as a mountain within nerd culture.

D&D as a marketed brand is something else, something much much less defined, and the lions share of that 'definition' is IMO not being done by Wizards, at all.