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

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).
Then it also doesn't matter if it's an OGL, or some other RPG.

Keep internal consistancy here - either it doesn't matter and anything RPG is D&D in which case the OGL doesn't matter, or there's a difference that non-D&D is not D&D, in which case the OGL still doesn't matter.

In no case does what you are saying about the OGL matter in this scenario you are contriving. Either they are recognizing/beleiving the offending RPG is not D&D or they aren't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.

I mean, don't just take my word for it. WotC and Hasbro think the risk of brand damage from unseemly OGL products is big enough that they've revisited the topic repeatedly in their revisions of the OGL and consider it a big part of their next iteration. They want to address it, and are investing considerable resources in doing so. It makes sense to me that they'd do that - moral panics aren't reasonable things, pretty much by definition, and they're something D&D has faced in the past, and something that has actively changed D&D as a game (Tanar'ri, anyone?).

If they didn't think it was reasonable, if it is indeed so fanciful to imagine, why is it a consistent theme in each iteration of their licensing work?

Blue said:
Keep internal consistancy here - either it doesn't matter and anything RPG is D&D in which case the OGL doesn't matter, or there's a difference that non-D&D is not D&D, in which case the OGL still doesn't matter.

In no case does what you are saying about the OGL matter in this scenario you are contriving. Either they are recognizing/beleiving the offending RPG is not D&D or they aren't.

Hm, looks like there's some confusion. Lets see if I can clarify.

It doesn't matter that the OGL and D&D are distinct from the perspective of the general public. They'll judge D&D based on an OGL product, easy.

It doesn't matter if D&D says they have no ownership of some potential offending product. People will still judge them, and there can still be consequences for individual employees based on that judgement if the offense is big enough/loud enough/affects the bottom line enough, even if WotC and Hasbro had no hand in the product.

The OGL won't protect WotC from the court of public opinion. It seems like, because of that, because of wanting to be "good stewards of the game," they want an OGL that lets them exercise some kind of editorial control - to exclude things that would hurt the brand.

I don't know if that's going to work (I think it's not really a great idea, personally!), but it sounds like that's what they're working towards.

Justice and Rule said:
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.

This is part of why I don't think the OGL is the best mechanism for this. WotC has other venues where they exercise more editorial control already. The risk they're exposed to is real, but it's also something they can mitigate, prepare for, and work through. Using the OGL to lock down on this potential threat isn't the right tool for the job.
 
Last edited:

I mean, don't just take my word for it. WotC and Hasbro think the risk of brand damage from unseemly OGL products is big enough that they've revisited the topic repeatedly in their revisions of the OGL and consider it a big part of their next iteration.
There's no way to damage the D&D brand using the OGL, though. The license has never permitted use of the D&D trademark. If somebody was using a trademark owned by Hasbro in an OGL-licensed work, it could prevent that today because that's a license violation and trademark infringement.
 

Can we be honest here: I can't think of a time where I've seen a story about an "unseemly" (Very good term, @I'm A Banana ) OGL product, let alone one that would have fallen back on Wizards. Every time I see a story about something problematic like this, it's almost always something Wizards themselves have done. That's probably for two reasons:
  1. Low end, offensive products just don't gain purchase out there because there are mechanisms which naturally restrict how much visibility they can get and

  2. I don't think people care about those sorts of things unless Wizards is making the mistakes because at this point Wizards shouldn't be making those mistakes.
Honestly, if they want to protect their brand, the first thing they need to realize is that the bad calls are coming from inside the house.
 

There's no way to damage the D&D brand using the OGL, though. The license has never permitted use of the D&D trademark. If somebody was using a trademark owned by Hasbro in an OGL-licensed work, it could prevent that today because that's a license violation and trademark infringement.
They mention a few ways themselves, and I believe them, because moral panics are never things of reason.

Justice and Rule said:
I can't think of a time where I've seen a story about an "unseemly" (Very good term, @I'm A Banana ) OGL product, let alone one that would have fallen back on Wizards.

The first time I saw a reaction was The Book of Erotic Fantasy, which WotC at the time had this to say:

WotC said:
Wizards of the Coast is in no way associated with the product, “The Book of Erotic Fantasy,” referenced recently on Gamingreport.com. We find the subject matter distasteful and inappropriate and do not endorse, condone, or approve of its use with the Dungeons & Dragons game. While the OGL license allows anyone, even our employees, to produce products that are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards does not approve or control the theme of any third-party D20 product.

The actual action WotC took here was related to the d20 STL, which is different than the OGL (and would be more like them delisting a DM's Guild product or something), but it showed that WotC could be very sensitive about the impact a nominally unaffiliated product could have on their brand. And that wasn't even about anything non-fungible or related to the blockchain or gleefully racist.

I imagine, a Brand has an age range and nudity and sex doesn't vibe with the D&D Brand's Age Range. Valar was letting their freak flag fly, and WotC clutched their pearls. I'm sure they'd clutch tighter for something worse.
 
Last edited:

"Give a beggar a million gold and the first thing he'll buy is bread. After though he'll remember there are many other things you can buy."

I'm sure a desire to protect their brand is part of WOTCs reason for the OGL changes. Im also sure that its not the only thing they'll use it for. Really ask yourself if you want to trust WOTC to not only not abuse this power but decide what crosses the line. WOTC the company that is in the process of breaking their word. WOTC the company that brought us the Hadozee.
 
Last edited:


Or they’re less attached to disliking wotc than you are.

Or both.

It’s not like anyone is ever actually unbiased.

And lower quality is a subjective value judgement that I disagree with, so of course my perspective is different from yours.
I’m not “attached” to disliking WotC.

I’ve been continually disappointed by their products over the past 5 or so years, to the point I stopped buying them. Spelljammer is a great example—it was three thin books with a dearth of content, and even after putting on a big show about being inclusive they still managed to add new racist lore to D&D via that singular product. (I’m similarly disappointed by MTG these days.)

Meanwhile, there are plenty of companies making much more interesting content for WotC’s own game… and somehow WotC wants to hamstring those companies!

So nah, I’m not “attached” to disliking WotC, I’m just sick of expecting them to do better. How many more times should I fall for empty promises.

I understand someone preferring WotC’s official 5E content if they’ve never seen anything else… But if you’re posting here (and you have for years!) then you must be aware of how much better stuff exists for any sort of game. I’m honestly struggling to fathom such brand loyalty to WotC when they’re actively hostile to their own vibrant community.

When WotC starts making more worthwhile products and being less awful to their own customers, I’ll consider buying their stuff again.
 

Hm, looks like there's some confusion. Lets see if I can clarify.

It doesn't matter that the OGL and D&D are distinct from the perspective of the general public. They'll judge D&D based on an OGL product, easy.
It looks like there's some confusion. Lets see if I can clarify.

Either the "general audience" conflates RPGs and D&D or they don't. If something is OGL is not particularly clear to the rabid mob. Please stop ignoring the "RPG but not WotC nor OGL" category.

So if you say "this random bit of RPG can cause a social panic and WotC can get blamed for it regardless that it is not theirs", that's true REGARDLESS if it's OGL or not. If they are going to blame WotC no matter what, OGl or not makes no difference. And if they are going to listen to truth, "it's not ours and we have no control over it" is true either way. Both ways, same result. So OGL doesn't matter.

The only time the OGL matters in the scenario you put out, the ONLY TIME, is if they actually get control. Because then if there is a panic because of an RPG product, and that product happens to be OGL, then as self-appointed stewards they ARE responsible, and they get lambasted even more in the press.

To sum up:
With the current OGL, what you are saying matters not one whit if the offending RPG product is OGL or not. Either they blame WotC or they don't. EITHER WAY.
With the proposed OGL changes, it gets worse for WotC, since they are the self-appointed steward who did not correct this before it became a problem, so things are WORSE for them.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top