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

No, actually. Nothing that Hasbro has done with the OGL bears any resemblence at all to your spouse cheating on you.
It is alike, in that hey broke a particularly important promise in a particularly horrible way, and as a result have shattered trust. OTOH, it is unalike due to the sheer scale.

I tried to bring up the idea that there are real problems in the world they could be directing their passion toward. It didn't work out well for me.
Whataboutism rarely does.

If there are no royalties and the it's ok for us to take your content clauses are gone, I don't think there is anything objectionable about the new version.
If it still has the Darth Vader clause, then it literally doesn't matter how reasonable or otherwise the other clauses seem.

Executives have generous compensation packages and golden parachutes. But, for most folks, getting fired can be losing your house. Losing your healthcare. Losing your child to social services.
The conversation was about executives, senior ones at that. Even if they get fired, they'll be fine. Certainly they will be better off than the 3PP's whose businesses they tried to destroy (and in some cases may well have succeeded).

Oh god it is! And I loathe British 'respectability politics' with every fibre of my being (I think I was born that way lol). Ironically it's exactly the same kind of thing a "trial by Twitter" in the end - i.e. about optics over everything else.
Bolding mine. Why are you blaming the British for this? We did not do anything!

And they are still deauthorizing OGL1, which means they are just buying themselves time.
Can we phrase it as "still intending/trying/pretending to deauthorise OGL 1", please? Otherwise we are buying into their propaganda.

Haven't you been listening? WOTC is is mustache twirling parasitic villain out to destroy our fun cackling maniacally while they crush every mom and pop publisher in existence while never developing anything new by copying and pasting everyone else's ideas
Your tone and general positioning suggest that this supposed to be ridiculously OTT. But when compared with their actual actions, it is somewhere between very-slightly hyperbolic and entirely accurate.

So ... Paizo ... they're the good guys now? Okay then! ;)
They've had their issues, but WotC has certainly done an excellent job of making them look better by comparison!

If they say say "Hate speech which, were it to be published in the European Union, would be considered a violation of the EU's Hate Speech Code of Conduct..." section on "hate speech that is prohibited under criminal law."
Violation of that in whose opinion? Because if it is WotC's it literally doesn't change anything.

I think in your “bring it on”, “watch the world burn” approach you’re missing the point.
If the world is burning, it is only because WotC set it on fire. It is on them to do what they can to put it out.

Instead of acknowledging that any company that is looking to invest and secure investment of millions in film, media and digital (which is good for the community) needs to have some control over their IP in order to secure that investment.
That would be a stronger argument if the movie were not already made. Clearly the OGL did not prevent fundraising for it!

So, you'll settle for unconditional surrender, then.
"Settle for"? No, but its a start.

Walking this all the way back to where we were a month or two ago is necessary, but not sufficient. To rebuild trust and regain the customers that they have lost (well, this one anyway) they will have to go a lot further than that.

Classic abuser language. That, along with the constant gaslighting throughout the statement, is showing everyone exactly who WotC are, and what they want. It's not a pretty picture.
Indeed. In the immortal words of Maya Angelou, "When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time.”
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Bolding mine. Why are you blaming the British for this? We did not do anything!
????

I think you might want to re-read the sentence there. The object of "British" is "respectability politics". Therefore I am talking about respectability politics in the country of Britain. I can't find any way to read that to imply this is Britain's fault. Also I am British.
 

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.
and i disagree with that
And it has worked well for 23 years.
I mean everything works right up until it doesn't.

all I see is a lot of "Never make anything better" and "We don't need to stop things cause it MIGHT get abused"

no argument yet on why d20 Nazi RPG should have a chance...
 



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)...
Mod Note:

2 red text warnings already in this thread about dropping the racism in RPGs issue in this discussion, and you blew right through them.

Booted,
 

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.
I already said that it is too early for the OGL debacle to have registered yet in my first reply

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.
if you disagree with a company’s direction, sell the stock
 
Last edited:

This is an argument against all open gaming and open source licenses.
wait... almost like simple guard rails would make them better...

If I wanted to say "Just nuke the OGL" I would... infact if you look back before this blow up I have MANY times said I saw good and bad that came from it.

However seeing this restriction added I liked.

An argument that drunk driving should be illegal, even if mixed with 'bars should have to cut off people drinking too much' argument is not "I am against all alcohol"

An argument that putting restrictions on something makes it better is NOT being against the something... infact if you are saying the restriction helps make it better you are trying to improve the thing... now we can disagree. You can say "I don't think that is needed, or "I don't like that" but pretending that an argument for improvement is an argument to destroy something makes no sense.
They don't control what people create using the licenses because would require a license that is the opposite of open.
That means the only open license can ever be "Do what ever you want with this" and we already know the OGL didn't say that.
 

Stick to the outrage script. :mad:
Mod Note:

Sarcasm is fine. That last line isn’t- ascribing someone’s concerns about the current kerfuffle as being part of or varying from “a script” echoes a lot of nasty political rhetoric, and we don’t need that.

Everyone: if you see stuff like that, please don’t quote it or otherwise amplify it, even to respond, however humorously you think you can do it. It often starts pointless side arguments and generates lots of extra reports. Just report the initial posts and move on.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top