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

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.

No direct way, no.
Indirectly? Everything RPG ( Larp, video game, How to host a Murder, random third-party company ) can damage it. It won't be lasting, because the non-playing public either thinks RPG=D&D or RPG=Final Fantasy. Given the vastly deep knowledge the decision makers with this updated license have demonstrated, you can see how that fear would occur.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?

Did you not have these thoughts 30 years ago? I know we did. But what we learned as we grew older was how our answers impacted other people and maybe the answers should be reevaluated from time to time.
 

Indirectly? Everything RPG ( Larp, video game, How to host a Murder, random third-party company ) can damage it.
If everything can damage D&D what's the point of dragging the OGL out back and murdering it? At least the OGL licensees have agreed to a set of restrictions that others have not, such as never using Product Identity as an indication of compatibility.
 

If everything can damage D&D what's the point of dragging the OGL out back and murdering it? At least the OGL licensees have agreed to a set of restrictions that others have not, such as never using Product Identity as an indication of compatibility.

I make no claim it would be an effectual defense. Just that it is plausible that it's as much irrational behavior as controlling.
 

No direct way, no.
Indirectly? Everything RPG ( Larp, video game, How to host a Murder, random third-party company ) can damage it. It won't be lasting, because the non-playing public either thinks RPG=D&D or RPG=Final Fantasy. Given the vastly deep knowledge the decision makers with this updated license have demonstrated, you can see how that fear would occur.
Your entire list of examples does not use the OGL. So what is your point? How does it relate to this discussion?
 

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.
right now they can sue BECAUSE they were dumb and messed with trademark and dress... if the next one follows the old OGL what can they do?
 

right now they can sue BECAUSE they were dumb and messed with trademark and dress... if the next one follows the old OGL what can they do?
As has been said over and over in this thread:

1. The main places that RPG materials are sold already police material and it will not have access to them
2. Since the OGL clearly says don’t use the trademarks including Dungeons and Dragons, where is the link to D&D?
3. OGL has been around for over 23 years. Show me the examples or is this just a hypothetical concern?
 

What makes you say that? It was, as far as I know, the only time (and very recent) that WOTC lawyers had to react to and counter-sue over hate speech in a product using their IP. I feel pretty it's somewhat likely, once that was dealt with, they likely said, "We should do something about preventing this from happening again in the future if we can." And an agenda item was added to a meeting which led to this for the OGL. Of course it doesn't stop someone from doing it without the OGL, but it was a red flag raised for that legal team that would seem likely to lead them to be concerned about adding that kind of clause to a new OGL.

The case was specifically about copyright and trademark infringement. Read the filings, the OGL doesn't enter into the case at all.
 

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


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


agreed, we will see how this unfolds, much too early to tell


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.

Around Dec 20 (I actually think it hit a lower point on the 22nd, but end of day was higher) was the low point. It was not a surprise that it was going down at that point either. The Low was around $10 lower then it is now (give or take a dollar or two). It has had a steady rise (for stocks that is, it's never a straight line, nor is it an even line when talking on stocks normally) since then. This includes the past week with the commotion on D&D.

Since Dec 20 it has been on a steady rise. As I said, it is doing decently right now, and if it continues on this track could be good in around a year (maybe even shorter. It may even start hitting highs around March if one is lucky, just talking from a stock perspective and things that COULD happen around then).

What this means is that for those who are only interested in the stock side of things and the business side of things, Hasbro actually is not doing badly at this time. From that perspective I do not see the incentive to make them change course, nor does it give many any ammunition for them to change course in the board room if only looking at it from that perspective.

That does NOT mean there are not sympathetic voices in the mess or that everyone agrees with those making these choices. D&D Beyond may be a good item to use, but there WILL be voices countering that argument as well, including pointing out to other things going on that are on an upward trend in the company itself. I don't think the people on these forums or elsewhere are alone in the fight, there are those in the company itself or that have associations which are particularly not happy with some of the course selections that are currently being made.

I think there are misunderstandings on both sides of the lines right now. I think that it's not all peaceful behind the scenes either, but there are those who have the power overall that are pretty strong willed on certain things.

I hear people saying everyone at Hasbro is evil or everyone that is connected to them are evil. I imagine that can be painful to hear at times for those who are in the same boat but don't have the power to actually do a ton of stuff to change anything. Sure, there have been suggestions probably, and small battles have been "won" as they may put it in their response yesterday, but the overall situation is what you see.

Personally I am with everyone else here. As a gamer, I am just wanting to play the game as well. I am absolutely fuming, myself, at what's happened over the past week. With Paizo's ORC, I am gritting my teeth and just extremely furious at the choices they are making with D&D. I can see a situation where they are allowing a rise of another company (despite playing PF as well and loving what they've done with the game, they are not WotC or D&D) that could occur similar to what happened at the end of 4e. It makes me want to kick buckets as hard as I can. I am absolutely mad about that. I also feel almost helpless in regards to what HAS is doing about all right now in this situation. I think it is an absolute travesty and BAD PR. I think it is ESPECIALLY BAD RIGHT BEFORE THE MOVIE comes out and could see it affecting that, but I have nothing to back that up currently except my own personal feelings.

Beyond is one thing, and it may be that this will be a strong enough message from it that will make them change course. I do not know. It's uncharted waters. I feel there ARE a LOT Of eyes on that movie though. That's a LOT of presence there that can affect D&D. That's what I see as a turning point, depending on what happens with it.

It could happen sooner, it could happen quicker. You are talking about people committed to a course of action.

Overall, though, right now...there are going to be voices that point out that I should not be unhappy with how HAS is doing. They have a strong argument for the current course I think.

Changing their minds is going to take some very strong messages and other things occurring. I am not trying to discourage people at all, I am ON your side. I am just pointing out that it could be an uphill battle. Yes, people unsubscribed to Beyond...but has it led to them stating specifically that the 1.0a cannot be revoked yet, or rewording the "de-authorization" where it will appease those that are upset about how they interpret it currently?

You may be surprised at how many longtime (as opposed to day traders or shorter term) stockholders are actually invested in the Hasbro properties because they actually enjoy the materials and items involving Hasbro, including D&D and/or Magic among other things. You think the board is representing THEM with some of these decisions or making the decisions those stockholders want? It just that they currently don't have the power there to stop the course that's been chosen. I'd imagine there are at least a few on these very forums that have HAS stock. I can't imagine most of them are happy with the current situation in regards to D&D (and/or possibly MtG as well, or at least the past few months in that regards).

Part of that is probably not having the ammunition to fight the fight yet, or being able to prove that the current course is the wrong one to those committed to this course of action.

I apologize for the extremely long post. I am Mad at what is happening to D&D right now and a lot of this is probably just venting.


TLDR - I am mad about the situation right now with D&D and HAS/WotC's response. I see ORC as a possible threat to D&D's dominance. I feel powerless in regards to the decisions going on, even if some there consider even the little turning they've done as our side having "won." I feel that there are those that are stockholders that also sympathize with the rest of the community on this. They are not a monolithic group. Some don't like what's occurring either. Those stockholders just don't have the power right now to change the course that has been chosen.
 

right now they can sue BECAUSE they were dumb and messed with trademark and dress... if the next one follows the old OGL what can they do?
Absolutely nothing, which was known when the OGL was created. they KNEW somebody could create a Nazi based RPG and they left it to the marketplace to deal with it. Ryan Dancey has basically said this in two different interviews I've listened to with him. They knew anybody could create anything that was offensive or nasty or whatever. Has nothing to do with the D&D brand and it's the market place's problem to deal with.

And it has worked well for 23 years.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top