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

I am fascinated by the seeming fact that the idea of making a good product people want to buy simply hasn't occurred to them.

Well they were in track to that. Not much in playtest materials caused me to dump all over them for it.
Say your landlord signed a lease where for 10 years the rent stays at X, then after 2 years he comes and increases it by 20%, still happy with him?

I would take that deal lol. Here they've done 20%+ per year and rent auctions until they made rent auctions illegal.

Hell even when I was renting in 90's rent went up 10%+ per year. Haven't paid rent since 2009 but you get the idea.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And I like most 5e official products. 🤷‍♂️
And there are people who like Big Brother, etc. There is no accounting for taste... Just personal preferences! ;-)

I have most, 2E, all of 3e and 4e. 4e I actually didn't like, but bought it mostly because it was D&D, I didn't like what they did with most of the settings. So I was really hesitant to get into 5e... I actually liked the 5e system, the little I played of it. I have the PHB, I was thinking of getting the DMG and the MM as well, until this mess happened. I was tempted to buy a couple of books/adventure, but what I read of it and the whole drama's around it, the design directions WotC took, etc. all turned me off of buying any further D&D 5e books. Spelljammer was a good example, I have all the 2E stuff, but when you over correct for political correctness it becomes political blandness. Also the changes on how things work, feel like changes for changes sake, so they could sell you some product again... And when your primary selling point becomes PCness, people will walk away.

I actually RPed again last weekend with my group from back in the day (30+ years ago), no D&D, but D&D 5E came up. Even the person that I never expected to complain about PC, complained about the extensive hand-holding and over compensating PC blandness. Our conclusion was that D&D stopped trying to be something where you could learn something from and include who you wanted, and instead tries to tell us who we should include, how we should act, and what the world should be. An example: Is the old ranger class actually a racist class because he blindly hates all Orcs? Are Orc babies per definition evil? What is Good and Evil? A lot of hours were spend during our youth discussing these things. We asked the question "Why?", why is it that way, is it 'right' that way, would we want to see that in our own world/lives? LGBT is not something new, it's been around for a LONG time and even 30-40 years ago it wasn't a problem for us without the makers of D&D telling us how it should be. We figured out what was OK and wasn't OK in particular groups, and we sometimes figured out that a group just wasn't OK for us. We didn't need chapters and chapters of hand-holding in D&D books, we could appreciate an article about it, but certainly not having it plastered everywhere.

Now getting back to 'the point' people can like or dislike different versions of D&D for many different reasons. For our group that started with D&D Basic, then 2E, then 3E and 3.5E. 4E was mechanically strong, but it didn't feel like D&D, it felt more like an MMO like WoW. The changes to the settings to facilitate the mechanical changes also weren't received well. 5E we like mechanically, it 'feels' like D&D again (to us), but it's still stuck with the setting choices that were made in 4E. The ever increasing political blandness has made longtime D&D fans give away their entire 5e collections to people who do appreciate it (and can stand it)...
 

The real facts are that Hasbro wants to end the OGL so they can protect their new D&D product, especially the VTT they are investing in.

It is very interesting that you know "the real facts".

I have seen a lot of people on youtube lately who know the "real facts".

Looking at the current legal battle with a very small publisher that happens to have a big name, that treis to harm their reputation to gain money, I think they are actually concerned about repetitions of such. They can't lose that battle and they don't want to ever get involved in another one. I believe them more than your "real facts".

The problem in my opinion is that they mixed their reasons and the reasons you proposed into one giant bad OGL.

Lets see if they can do better.
 

The problem in my opinion is that they mixed their reasons and the reasons you proposed into one giant bad OGL.

That feels quite likely. The sheer number of changes at once in 1.1 indicate to me many people shouting around a table about something that has to change, all for different reasons. When they held their OGL meeting (or more likely, series of meetings), the person standing up wanting to protect the legacy of the game moving forwards had completely different objectives to the one who stood up wanting to ensure there would be no competition for their future online product, along with others each arguing for something else they felt needed to change, and it was all combined together in this festering ball of OGL 1.1-by-committee.
 

That feels quite likely. The sheer number of changes at once in 1.1 indicate to me many people shouting around a table about something that has to change, all for different reasons. When they held their OGL meeting (or more likely, series of meetings), the person standing up wanting to protect the legacy of the game moving forwards had completely different objectives to the one who stood up wanting to ensure there would be no competition for their future online product, along with others each arguing for something else they felt needed to change, and it was all combined together in this festering ball of OGL 1.1-by-committee.
This comment has lost any context to the events that led us here:

Wotc rank & file employee's didn't hear about the new OGL until the 11th of January. This was a comparmentalized corporate decision. Ryan Dancey has even said that wotc employees are trying to effect positive change from within the company because even they don't agree with the new license (because even they know how it will affect the community).

This was a corporate decision, likely by Hasbro, wotc has no choice but to follow orders from higher up.
 

It is very interesting that you know "the real facts".

I have seen a lot of people on youtube lately who know the "real facts".

Looking at the current legal battle with a very small publisher that happens to have a big name, that treis to harm their reputation to gain money, I think they are actually concerned about repetitions of such. They can't lose that battle and they don't want to ever get involved in another one. I believe them more than your "real facts".

The problem in my opinion is that they mixed their reasons and the reasons you proposed into one giant bad OGL.

Lets see if they can do better.
That publisher does not use the OGL and is using trademarks and dress that the OGL specifically forbids. This has been pointed out multiple times in this thread whenever this bad example is brought up.
 

What I WILL note is that right now, and for the past few weeks, Hasbro stock has been on the rise. It's underperformed, but it is still going back up. This has not hurt it drastically thus far...at least from what I can tell.
it lost 40% of value last year, this is a small bounce back and this story is in its early development, most people have not even heard of it. I would not read anything into that

From a business standpoint, they are actually doing decently right now. As long as they keep this trend up, they could be doing well by the end of this year even.
yeah right, losing 40% of value is doing decent… upsetting both the MtG and D&D communities within one month or so is doing decent

I think it will be the movie that will see how well they really are doing in this fiasco. If it bombs, it could be heads will roll. If it doesn't, well...we'll see from there.
agreed, we will see how this unfolds, much too early to tell

For the meantime, I don't know what is going to happen. I hear that people believe by unsubscribing from D&D Beyond that it will send a clear message. It may.

There are a LOT of Beyond subscriptions. It would take a LOT of people to unsubscribe to make a sizeable dent in that. if you have 10 million users, I'd say at least a million would have to unsubscribe to really send a STRONG message. That's a lot of people you guys have to reach.
that is 10M registered users, not active users, let alone paid subscriptions. Not sure what the ratio is, 1/10? No idea, but definitely a lot less.

The number of people unsubscribing got WotC to issue this statement yesterday, so it is not insignificant and bound to grow.
 
Last edited:

can you trust a thief if they attempt to steal from you, once a thief is always a thief, the trust has been broken and sorry but Hasbro has just lost the D&D players and all who loved it. Maybe if WotC spins off as its own company and is put once more into the hands of those who love and respect the game. But doubt this will happen so i suspect the stocks and all profits will take a nose dive. Hasbro needs to distance them selves from D&D cut all ties and let WotC take the helm, then things might be saved.
I disagree, they lost some players but not enough and in those players try whatever new rpg is created under ORC and don’t like it, they’ll keep looking or be back with WoTC cause the game is good, just their handling of 3pp has been a disaster.

I will say, I’ve been able to “not recommend” many a YouTube channels right now that kept popping up and getting on my nerves.
 
Last edited:

that is 10M registered users, not active users, let alone paid subscriptions. Not sure what the ratio is, 1/10? No idea, but definitely a lot less.

The number of people unsubscribing got WotC to issue this statement yesterday, so it is not insignificant and bound to grow.

It's also important to remember that there are tiers in paid subscription as well, so if those unsubscribing are predominately coming from the higher tier, they're effectively counted (revenue wise) as two 'regular' subscriptions, and the damage is thus (...I can't help it...) a critical! :cool:

joe b.
 

That publisher does not use the OGL and is using trademarks and dress that the OGL specifically forbids. This has been pointed out multiple times in this thread whenever this bad example is brought up.
Yep, none of these proposed OGL changes would have stopped a bad actor from squatting on abandoned trademarks that Wizards thought weren't valuable enough to maintain.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top