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.

 

[mamba]

The license, as it stands, lamentably doesn't forbid revocation.

this is patently untrue, it doesn’t allow it, it has no mechanism for being revoked, in 2000 perpetual meant irrevocable as well (how can you be perpetual and get revoked…). I wish people would stop repeating this garbage

 

[Reynard]

Pathfinder.

It's Pathfinder.

They all but called them by name in the opening salvo.

"Major corporations" indeed. Did we think they were talking about Grim Press?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's my question for the group: If the next OGL was the exact same except it banned offensive stuff and NFTs, and was explicitly irrevocable, would you go along with it?

Because, presumably, if the old OGL was not "deauthorized" or revoked, couldn't bad actors just use the old one to make NFTs and racist stuff?

Doesn't the old OGL need to go to prevent that?

Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?

How would it ban those things? Who decides what is offensive? I certainly don't trust WotC in that role.

 

[FormerLurker]

Pathfinder.

It's Pathfinder.

They all but called them by name in the opening salvo.

I don't think so. Pathfinder sells like a tenth of D&D. Or a hundredth. They're not the competition of D&D. They're the competition of D&D 3PP.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Major corporations" indeed. Did we think they were talking about Grim Press?

Oh, that was the second time. The first was the thing about the OGL not being meant to finance 'competition'.

You know, the competition they made by leaving Paizo in the lurch.

 

[mamba]

Okay... so right now it seems like WotC only has one thing they really want: the OGL 1.0a revoked. Everything else is negotiable, but keeping that seems to be the deal breaker.

it being perpetual and irrevocable, and I am not budging on either

 

[FormerLurker]

Because the rest didnt matter.

Its not a negotiation. OGL 1.0 remains, untouched or declared legally irrevocable. Thats it, thats how this all ends.

Isn't it?
WotC want's something. The community wants something. The two sides have to find some way to meet in the middle and compromise.

If one side isn't budging then things are an impasse. It's having a discussion with a brick wall. WotC will just have to ignore those people and move on, because there's nothing to be gained in engaging.

 

[Minigiant]

I dunno, I picked up RPGs in the early 80's and I tried a lot of RPGs in the early 90s.

While I have fond memories of some of the settings, I have less-fond memories of the mechanics and in fact felt that oftentimes clunky mechanics made an otherwise-interesting setting something I wasn't interested in playing. Sometimes mechanics do a really good job of enhancing the setting but in my experience, "Good Setting, Bad Mechanics" is a lot more prevalent than "Bad Setting, Good Mechanics" (and even more rare is "Good Setting, Good Mechanics") and I do wonder how many really "mechanically solid" systems are really out there in the design space; for example, there's only a limited number of ways to build a system designed around rolling only d10's.

Well I actually do the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a stunted the game design growth of the Fantasy TTRPG sphere. II read a lot of blogs, watched a lot of videos, and talked to a lot of people and it is amazing how few people get how big the impact of the 1d20+X when X is small.

"All your games are random. All your rulings are random. All your rules are random. Because the d20 makes all the impact. Might as well flip a coin" - Minigiant, many times

 

[FormerLurker]

it being perpetual and irrevocable, and I am not budging on either

Then goodbye. There's nothing more you need to say and there's no point in you engaging in the topic anymore.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think so. Pathfinder sells like a tenth of D&D. Or a hundredth. They're not the competition of D&D. They're the competition of D&D 3PP.

1) They want to keep it that way because

2) Look who stepped up and is the only one big enough to get prepped to lock horns legally.

They're the Snow White, sent to the forest by the Queen because she can't risk her becoming Fairest of Them All.