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...

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

Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

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.


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".


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
so what is your / WotC’s supposed fear here, that Disney makes a show with Tome of Horror monsters in it?
That Disneyys makes a better adventuring group TV show and movie then they do.
Which makes people play the Disney RPG and not D&D.
 

Is WOTC afraid of another Megacorp buying and funding a 3pp that produces a D&D-like game?
lets walk down a crazy hypothetical where honor among thieves hits 2.x billion (talk about a fantasy story) and unseats avengers and avatar... they green light 4 sequels, 2 direct with same cast and crew, and 1 that is a Drizt movie and 1 that is an Elminster movie.
Disney wants in, but can't just make "a D&D movie" so they hire some one to make a new OGL game, and this game is pretty much just the SRD with some paint over it... then they have a writer make a movie and back build that movie into that game... and they STILL don't get the name recognition of D&D...
 

Reynard

Legend
And if that's your attitude nothing changes and WotC just ignores you.

Here's how compromise works. WotC doesn't give a crap about Paizo or the small 3PP publishers making stuff with the OGL. They're beneath their notice. Very likely, the reason they want the OGL 1.0a gone is so it isn't used by larger companies. The "major corporations" they speak of. I.e. brands and companies bigger than WotC.
So a compromise would be a OGL 2.0 that works exactly the same as the OGL 1.0a for PDFs and 3rd Party Publishers. Nothing changes for them. It could even include language like "irrevocable" and stuff. BUT it has the protection WotC needs to prevent other companies exploiting D&D IP if the movie and TV show are hits.

Both sides get what they want.
But that requires talking, understanding, and meeting halfway and not just making ultimatums.
I don't think you understand how trademarks work. At all.
 


Yaarel

He Mage
This gives me a ray of hope. This is a better response. Drafting a license by polling is exactly what they should have done from the beginning.
This second response is more spin.

Hasbro-WotC knows well the gaming community requires the original OGL 1.0a going forward.

Hasbro-WotC doesnt give an F.

Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy the OGL 1.0a at any cost.

Hasbro-WotC is disrespectful of and hostile against the gaming community, and has no qualms about seeking to destroy the gaming community.

Hasbro-WotC wants a videogame market that makes more money. It doesnt care about a tabletop roleplaying hobby.

Hasbro-WotC cares about the future plans for DnDBeyond. It cares about its shareholders.

Hasbro-WotC probably suspects that other roleplay gaming businesses can probably do a better job at providing digital services than Hasbro-WotC can. Especially if the future digital world evolves from crowdsourcing digital services by the gaming community itself. Hasbro-WotC seeks to prevent the gaming community from creating its own digital products.
 
Last edited:



FormerLurker

Adventurer
so what is your / WotC’s supposed fear here, that Disney makes a show with Tome of Horror monsters in it?

Also, I am not finding a flumph in the ToH
Tome not Tomb.
The Tome of Horrors by Frog God Games. It's how Paizo has the rights to the flumph and related monsters.

And, yes, as D&D and RPGs become bigger they probably ARE worried about Disney or Amazon or someone not partnered with Hasbro making a D&D-esque property or using the D&D rules to make their own RPG with the full resources of that corp.

They can handle Paizo. WotC dropped $146.3 million for D&D Beyond. If Paizo was a problem, they'd have already bought them. But Disney or Discovery-Warner? That's harder.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top