WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

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...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[Haplo781]

There are no AI DMs.

According to one Tweet by a random non-verified account.

Given that D&D Shorts (who has AFAIK not posted any inaccurate information) is pointing the finger at WotC Digital Games Development head Chris Cao, I find "AI DMs" more believable than "AL DMs".

 

[Charlaquin]

All their surveys are scams. Literally no one reads the survey responses. Even if someone asks for the survey responses, they're not provided.

This survey is specifically meant to channel and focus the conversation to get it off forums, Twitter, Reddit, etc. It's literally the proper channels thing I mentioned up thread.

Kyle is 6 months on the job and has nothing to do with it but is the scapegoat of choice.

It's all down to Chris Cao.

This whole OGL thing is part of a bigger, nastier initiative.

Stay tuned.

I’ll reserve judgement until I actually watch the video, but that sounds like tinfoil at best, fear mongering at worst.

 

[DMZ2112]

One thing, though. It may well be true that Wizbro don't give a lamp about surveys or, indeed, read them, at least not in the way one might think, but their statement of today does say:


(emphasis mine)

Not saying that this survey will actually amount to anything, but maybe that statement suggests they will at least read it - if that's what they mean by "compile" and "analyze"?
Even though it still doesn't say, exactly, who they are going to "react" and "present back to"?

It means they're paying someone at the law firm to make some charts and write a blog post, at least. The thing about data is that a good analyst can make it say whatever they want.

For my part, I strongly dislike how this individual throws the playtest under the bus to build momentum for their primary argument.

It's not even the "Lead Designers" writing the OGL, so I'm not sure why their position on surveys should have any bearing at all on this topic. Part of ensuring the new rules are well received is assessing negative feedback to those rules before they are finalized. Taking these quotes out of context is meaningless.

I've run a lot of internal meetings that sounded like those quotes from the "Lead Designer;" they sound terrible, but it doesn't follow that they or I don't have our clients' best interests in mind.

Consider how demoralizing it must be to the creative team, who have game design CVs and are paid to design D&D, to feel like 'community feedback' is more important than their ideas. How do you counter that but with strong, intentional speech? Nevermind that I doubt the employee was live recording the meeting word for word, or cares whether their quotes are accurate.

There's obviously a ton of anger at Wizards right now. That's reason enough to take any e-mail from a disgruntled creative with a full shaker of salt and not immediately turn around and produce YouTube content from it. None of that matters; it's sturm und drang. A distraction.

I agree that folks shouldn't respond to the OGL survey, think, "Job well done," and move on, but... well, duh. That's not an insight. It barely qualifies as thought.

 

[Haplo781]

The leak about subscriptions and AI DMs.

To the point he he did not post the video he said he had on it. Also his habit of taking news that other people have already reported on, and saying his sources (which he does not properly quote) and saying they are accurate.

Oh, you mean the thing that hasn't been disproven?

The thing you keep pretending was totally debunked by... one random tweet by a non-verified user?

I am actually LOL right now.

 

[jgbrowning]

I mean, who cares? You think we're stupid enough to see WotC as some monolithic corporate person twirling their collective moustache? Of course it's business. That's the point. This kind of grim platitude excuses anything any corporation could ever do, so long as it's not an actual crime.

Until the decisions are no longer made by persons (including the decisions about what automations are utilized), all business remains personal.

joe b.

 

[Haplo781]

The surveys are not bunk.

[citation needed]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ok bye.

I am actively starting to want 1.0 to be revoked at this point cause I am sick of comments like this.

Mod Note:

Q: What does a post like this add to the conversation?

A: Hard feelings, agitation and discord.

Let’s minimize this kind of posting, please. It’s hard enough moderating a topic that has generated dozens of discrete threads without people actively tossing rhetorical Molotov cocktails.

 

[Reynard]

I’ll reserve judgement until I actually watch the video, but that sounds like tinfoil at best, fear mongering at worst.

My big concern about this story is that it is not going to come with any proof. There won't be any emails or memos, just frustrated and angry employees reaching out to this guy. That doesn't mean they are lying, but it does mean it isn't reliable unbiased information and therefore isn't really actionable.

I am very leery of social media that confirms my own biases because I don't trust the algorithms.

 

[Scribe]

And yet none of that was influencing you to call them 'shills'. Again I disagree with supporting WotC for their actions and words, but we don't need to be dismissive. It costs nothing and if they add no new information or argument you can safely ignore them.

Pretty sure I didnt call anyone a shill, but I'm not bothered.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What assumptions? I literally just responded to the statement you made!

Was not a personal you. Was more a general some of you.
If you did not before. Exclude yourself from it.