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

Imagine some company made a book like Orcs of Thar. Or had a module with Gringott's goblins-like racial caricatures. Or someone makes Hadozee 2.0. and it makes a stir with the community. Then you get headlines and YouTube thumbnails that say "D&D supplement RACIST?!!" while burying deep into the copy the fact it is some third party OGL book. People turn to WotC and ask "how could you let this happen?" And WotC is supposed to say "Nothing we can do. We signed away our power to stop this 20+ years ago."
Or perhaps they can say "This isn't us. We didn't publish it, it does not say D&D nor use our logo. Contact the right people."

Because they would be telling the truth.

At that point, it's only if a journalist isn't actually interested in reporting the facts but rather just clickbait that there's a problem, but WotC couldn't stop a bad actor journalist no matter what they did so that's pretty moot.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

"It's not our responsibility" is not a good look, right? Even if it's true? Even if it's better overall for the game and the industry for it to be true?

I'm sympathetic to what they say they want to do here. I don't think that de-authorizing the OGL is the path should go down to fix it, but it's the kind of thing I think reasonable people can easily disagree about. There are other, less controlling ways to get at this, Those are maybe a little more loosy-goosy and open to some vulnerabilities, so I can appreciate that it's a difficult decision.
Of course it's a sympathetic argument, that's exactly why they've repeatedly invoked it while arguing in bad faith about their real goals.
 

Or perhaps they can say "This isn't us. We didn't publish it, it does not say D&D nor use our logo. Contact the right people."

Because they would be telling the truth.

At that point, it's only if a journalist isn't actually interested in reporting the facts but rather just clickbait that there's a problem, but WotC couldn't stop a bad actor journalist no matter what they did so that's pretty moot.

One of the Things about being a Brand and a publicly-traded corporate entity is that it doesn't matter if it's the truth, or if the journalist was a bad actor. It doesn't matter if you're innocent. Everyone's jobs are still at risk. If that bad news affects your ability to get people to go to your movie or it shows up in a meeting with Amazon over a streaming show or is talked about in your quarterly investment call, someone is going to have to experience the consequences, and it ain't gonna be the C-suite (at least not until the end of the financial year, anyway).

The stonk only cares about the psychology of your investors, and if the stonk go down, your boss gets angee at you and now you can't pay rent or for your meds or whatever. Even if you're right.

Branduil said:
Of course it's a sympathetic argument, that's exactly why they've repeatedly invoked it while arguing in bad faith about their real goals.

I think their real goals are to have a profitable brand. I would generally trust them when they say things that line up with that. "We don't want D&D to be associated with things that would damage the brand" seems true from a corporate homunculus standpoint.
 


It was an unincorporated area, too, which tends to be higher rent. He was really scarred by the experience of trying to do right in the system as set up.
Oof. Yeah, a lot of systems are built that way.

If you let some folks do right by thier neighbor, how will you get away with doing them dirty?

Much better to “consult” for lawmakers on what legislation will “best serve the people”.
 


Brand Shenanigans aside, I think this bit is the weasely-est of potential weasel-words.

Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected

It notably doesn't say "Content can continue to be released under 1.0a" or "We're not de-authorizing 1.0a" or "The OGL 1.0a will remain unaffected."

It sounds like they really want to keep space fo some poison pill / de-authorization / "once you go OneD&D you can't go back" kind of thing, and that is farts.
 

One of the Things about being a Brand and a publicly-traded corporate entity is that it doesn't matter if it's the truth, or if the journalist was a bad actor. It doesn't matter if you're innocent. Everyone's jobs are still at risk. If that bad news affects your ability to get people to go to your movie or it shows up in a meeting with Amazon over a streaming show or is talked about in your quarterly investment call, someone is going to have to experience the consequences, and it ain't gonna be the C-suite (at least not until the end of the financial year, anyway).

The stonk only cares about the psychology of your investors, and if the stonk go down, your boss gets angee at you and now you can't pay rent or for your meds or whatever. Even if you're right.



I think their real goals are to have a profitable brand. I would generally trust them when they say things that line up with that. "We don't want D&D to be associated with things that would damage the brand" seems true from a corporate homunculus standpoint.
There is a near zero chance that any investor will care about some obscure, non-D&D branded, not Hasbro published book that causes a Twitter storm. This is a completely stretched past any reasonable chance.

The bigger risk is actually with the proposed branding because it will be splashed with official trade dress accepted by the brand. There is absolutely nothing to stop that from coming out. Sure, they can demand it get pulled off the market, but it will be all over social media and in the news that like to sensationalize it.

Otherwise, read the Wallstreet Journal or Barrons or take advantage of the free Bloomberg subscription period and see what investing professionals look at.

They actually will care about plummeting D&D Beyond subscriptions and managment fumbling the brand. Not any of the fanciful conjectures made in this thread to support the need to end the current OGL because of the non-existent threat. You don’t even need 3rd parties, WoTC just printed the slave monkeys themselves with zero help from anyone else.

A few “stonks” got the boiler room social media push and exposed some shorts, but that was to the upside.
 

I think they want to be able to send Cease and Desist letters with some teeth behind them.

Or they could just make sure that no major distributors carry it. Of course, places like DriveThruRPG already do this, and we've also made it over two decades without this being a major problem that I can remember. This is all just bad-faith concern-trolling about something that hypothetically could happen but has yet to ever happen because there are already guardrails in place that are more nimble and less insane than revising the OGL over it.
 

Brand Shenanigans aside, I think this bit is the weasely-est of potential weasel-words.



It notably doesn't say "Content can continue to be released under 1.0a" or "We're not de-authorizing 1.0a" or "The OGL 1.0a will remain unaffected."

It sounds like they really want to keep space fo some poison pill / de-authorization / "once you go OneD&D you can't go back" kind of thing, and that is farts.
100% they want full general deauthorization. Everyone has been moaning about it, and they didn't address it at all. If it was opt-in/poison pill they planned, they'd have addressed it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top