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...

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

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
why? what benfit is there, when we all just spent 4 days complaining and raising a ruckus about this, to then turning around and cutting everyone loose?

Now I think that this new ORC thing will pull some away, and I doubt we will have as many 3pp, but nothing shows so far that they want none... they just want some controls
The issue here is what they want those controls for.

If it was possible to assure me that they will only ever use those controls to go after bad actors, I would not have a problem.

My problem is I believe they will also use it to go after competition, because 1.1 was obviously doing exactly that by removing the rights for VTTs and other non-static content to be distributed under the OGL at all, despite being perfectly okay (and specifically mentioned in FAQs as being so) in the original OGL.

I would be a lot happier were any power in this respect to go to a neutral third party, and not one who has a rather huge conflict of interest if allowed to decide what is and is not allowed to be published.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No one is going to sign that piece of garbage that they want to have replace the 1.0a (...somehow), so as far as D&D is concerned, yes, they want no 3pps, and all the control.
No one is a strong stance... I am sure someone out there is looking at it as a chance to BECOME the next 3pp name in the game for 1D&D... if Green Ronin, Piazo ect are all off on there own why WOULDN'T someone, especially now that they took the 25% over $750k out, want to make the NEXT necromancer games?

By the way even with the 25% thing, it would make the games more expensive, it would make the math a bit harder to make sure to ever turn a profit... it still could work for some.
 

I mean, saying they wanted "some" controls is like saying the Empire was building the Death Star just because they wanted some law and order in the galaxy. There's a big difference in wanting to exercise content control (which they already can) and wanting to have complete dominion over 3PP.
saying not hate speech is not the same as building a weapon that's only purpose is to blow up a planet...

Edit: if the need to have hate speech is like blowing up your world I am wondering, what is a small control?
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
I see nothing to suggest that open means 'can do anything' open just means anyone can choose to use it by the rule provided...

If i made a star trek replicator tomorrow and put the plans on line saying "I give an open license to use this to make anything but weapons" (Yeah would need a lawyer I don't know the whole wording thing) and I find a company using it to make weapons, I can say they are infringing because they did not keep to my open license...

Indeed, but the original OGL was 'can do anything', and people have built up businesses based on their ability to do just that. Pulling the rug from under them because WotC doesn't want alternative competing VTTs, etc, is not acceptable.

What 1.1 does is turn to some people and say "hey, that thing you do for a living? That's no longer permitted."
 

Amrûnril

Adventurer
It won't hit stock prices until the news gets more out there in the mainstream media. There's someone doing an NPR interview today. That might start thing off. There was a Guardian article a few days ago. We'll see.

Professional, generously compensated, stock traders not doing enough research on the company they're trading to notice this? How could that possibly happen if the financial industry exists to make markets run rationally and efficiently?

Next you'll be telling be me that a board of directors would spend millions of dollars to hire executives who don't understand their customers or product.
 

saying not hate speech is not the same as building a weapon that's only purpose is to blow up a planet...

You're mixing up the wrong parts of the simile: Saying "no to hate speech" would be the same as saying "We want the galaxy to have law and order, to be free from internal strife". Those are, in the abstract, reasonable desires to have.

Similarly, deciding that you are going to achieve "no hate speech" by implementing insanely draconian contract terms to small third-party publishers is absolutely the same as building a Death Star: they are both meant to achieve their "goals" through fear and blowing stuff up.

It's all in the execution, especially when you declare yourself executioner.
 

Indeed, but the original OGL was 'can do anything', and people have built up businesses based on their ability to do just that. Pulling the rug from under them because WotC doesn't want alternative competing VTTs, etc, is not acceptable.

What 1.1 does is turn to some people and say "hey, that thing you do for a living? That's no longer permitted."
NOW THAT is what I have a problem with right there... The entire last few days I have beat that drumb again and again.
make no mistake when I say I support this change but not that the biggest one I say not to is:
What 1.1 does is turn to some people and say "hey, that thing you do for a living? That's no longer permitted."

Now what I said I would have wanted is also not what was leaked as the next possibility I said let the 1,0a be grandfathered in for anything published up until now plus a few months and give them until the 50th to sell down on the old... give them time to adjust businesses can't turn on a dime.
 

You're mixing up the wrong parts of the simile: Saying "no to hate speech" would be the same as saying "We want the galaxy to have law and order, to be free from internal strife". Those are, in the abstract, reasonable desires to have.
no YOU are mixxing up that I support 1 change doesn't mean I support ALL the changes... the "No hate speech" is what I called out as not wanting to go... I like that change.
Similarly, deciding that you are going to achieve "no hate speech" by implementing insanely draconian contract terms to small third-party publishers is absolutely the same as building a Death Star: they are both meant to achieve their "goals" through fear and blowing stuff up.
so we ask them to build a less draconian contract... isn't that what we have been doing, didn't we already get the 25% over $750k rethought?

You are saying if ANY change is like you must like ALL of them... and as such are ignoring me saying this 1 thing should be kept going forward.
It's all in the execution, especially when you declare yourself executioner.
again, if they abuse it we do what we just did. We get them to change it
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
NOW THAT is what I have a problem with right there... The entire last few days I have beat that drumb again and again.
make no mistake when I say I support this change but not that the biggest one I say not to is:


Now what I said I would have wanted is also not what was leaked as the next possibility I said let the 1,0a be grandfathered in for anything published up until now plus a few months and give them until the 50th to sell down on the old... give them time to adjust businesses can't turn on a dime.
So you'd still be ok with of the 5e 3pp being ruined, you just want to make sure they have enough time to say goodbye properly? Did I hear that correctly?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top