• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Pedantic

Legend
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.
There is no acceptable way to break WotC's existing promise. I don't particularly see a problem with provisions against hate speech in a license in general and would generally count them as a good, concerns around who ultimately is making those calls aside.

Even counted as a good though, that does not justify nor allow for WotC to break the existing promise offered by the OGL. The only course that would allow for that is to produce a new version of the OGL that has such restrictions, and then only release new open game content under it going forward, a plan no one has any problem with. Claiming the power to do away with the existing OGL is the problem there's no getting around.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
again, if they abuse it we do what we just did. We get them to change it

Hypothetical:

They've learned their lesson and do not want to annoy pretty much the whole community.
They still want to push out certain competitors.
This time they do it incrementally. One little change here, another a couple of months later. One or two small competitors at first, which the community probably never heard of, and who they're not willing to delete accounts over. They test the waters to see what they can get away with, and gradually remove the competition while everyone gets used to only needing D&D Beyond for all their online needs so losing a third party VTT or website here or there is no big thing.

Which they can do if we sign 1.1, because it includes the worst part of all, which they have not yet walked back on - the rolling update mechanism requiring all licensees to register, and to check in on the website for updates to the license regularly. Notably, a mechanism that allows one side of the agreement to modify the terms at will without the permission of the other side, and only gives the option of "take the update, or quit using the OGL"

Until I see the updated 2.0 and am sure it contains no mechanism to push future changes onto me while preventing my future use of earlier versions of the license I did agree to, I cannot be comfortable using it no matter what the rest of it says. I need a solid ground to work with, one that I know will not be removed from under me unless I cross lines that are specifically defined at the moment I first accept it.
 

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.

My comments have never referred to you or your opinions. My point, when I made it initially and followed up, were solely about the idea of "they (Wizards) want some controls", which I commented that their idea of "some controls" was excessive and didn't fit the more mundane and reason goals they have stated. Because of this, I do not trust their statements or motives in this debacle.

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?

No, we didn't. We haven't gotten anything yet because we've not seen what they will do and their apology is basically completely boilerplate. That they thought they could sneak this through, negotiate deals with places like Kickstarter without making this public, and then respond that this was the real goal makes me inherently distrust anything and everything they are trying to do on this front. It's incredibly hard for me to figure out what exactly they could do to regain that trust bar putting the words "irrevocable" into OGL 1.0a.

Kings don't negotiate with peasants, and corporations don't negotiate with customers. They can make those motions, act like they are taking our best interests in mind, but there is no negotiating table and there are no assurances to any of us of what they will do.

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.

No, my comment was largely towards the idea that they want "some control" over 3PP for whatever reason, which flies in the face of what they actually gave us. If you want to police your work, fine, but don't build a Death Star and tell me that it's just there to keep me safe.

I think the whole drive to want to be able to better police bad works is just an incredibly bad stalking horse, given that they already have powerful tools to do so without needing to modify the OGL one bit. Their status in the marketplace alone allows them to crush and deplatform a variety of different projects. Look at what happened to "Eat the Rich": got deplatformed because they felt the idea of "anti-capitalist" was "political".

again, if they abuse it we do what we just did. We get them to change it

That is... optimistic at best, to say the least. The assurances they could give me are ones that I am likely not to get. The idea that they are negotiating here misses that they've not really shown any sort of new agreement that doesn't give up their ability to alter things at their own whim. If they can give that up, sure. But their current statement comes off as inherently dishonest and deceptive given what we've been told about OGL 1.1, the contracts and their attempts to give out sweetheart deals.
 

Scribe

Legend
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

No, you are actually taking them at their word for some reason, or making some logical leaps on their behalf.

What they want, need actually, is ownership of the 5e 'source code'. They factually gave it away, and now they realize that its an issue.
 



mamba

Legend
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?
because they can still change the terms at any time, this is just a ruse
 

Scribe

Legend
and you are reading not just the worst of what they wrote but adding whole ideas of them being and evil empire to it...

No I'm not. I'm actually disregarding everything but the fact they are still trying to claw back the 1.0 OGL, especially in regards to the ACTUAL golden goose.

5.0 SRD.

You do realize yes, that they have fully, and completely without question, given up control of their game right? I mean we can at least see this?
 

agreed, but the rules need be neutral / objective, they cannot include something like 'and company X decides whether you violate them'
how can it NOT be 'company X decides' the only other choice is taking them to court... let the judge decide.

there is no 'one objective neutral judge' ever.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top