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]

Because they're a business that needs to sell products to customers.

last I checked they are doing just fine as is, when they do not keep shooting themselves in the foot at least that is

What are you giving in that example of a give and take? NFTs and computer games, which many say don't apply to the 1.0a anyway.

by ‘many’ you mean WotC claims it, they definitely are covered, show me what excludes them

So you're willing to give up nothing and take as much as WotC will give, and then accuse WotC of only taking...

I am taking nothing I do not already have

 

[eyeheartawk]

At this point, I honestly have to wonder what would piss off the fanbase less; making a legit 6e that isn't compatible with the last decade of material (assuming we get into the wayback machine and take back them saying it would be) or their current path.

At this point you may well get both. To further insulate them from non-srd derived compatible material why wouldn't they change 6e (if not 1D&D at this point) to be substantively different mechanically?

 

[Staffan]

Those amazing levels of support mostly come from 3pp.

Sort of. Even without 3PP, the support for 5e is much greater than most RPG lines these days, particularly regarding adventures. I mean, it's not a deluge of product like in the 3e to early 4e era, not to mention the firehose of 2e, but 4-5 books in a year ain't nothing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Most of the time for the vast majority products you don't need to do that at all, you can produce an adventure for D&D without needing to copy anything from the SRD or rulebooks.

the only benefit I can imagine is a copy/paste monster stats

 

[Matt Thomason]

That's not what I'm asking.
WotC wants to take away the OGL. The community doesn't want them to take away the OGL.

WotC is going to win that fight.

That, right there, is where most of us disagree. They are not going to win that fight.

 

[FormerLurker]

That last part is where you're wrong. You seem to think that WotC "winning that fight" is axiomatic, presumably because you either feel that their arguments have merit, or that their greater amount of money than any potential challenger guarantees victory. Neither is as true as you're making them out to be.

They have lawyers and money and everything to lose. This isn't a fight. This isn't David vs Goliath, it's Batman vs a random thug in a pool of mud.

Incorrect. The fight, as you describe it, is not unwinnable, and so it's incumbent on the community not to surrender the OGL.

Then you've already lost.
The aspect of the community that cares about the OGL numbers in the thousands. Tens of thousands. D&D players are measured in the millions.
WotC doesn't want to lose those players, but they also know that it's 0.3% of the brand's audience. They might be an acceptable loss and will be replaced in a matter of months. They also know many of the people who cancelled their sub are posturing and won't actually stop buying D&D books or playing the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sort of. Even without 3PP, the support for 5e is much greater than most RPG lines these days, particularly regarding adventures. I mean, it's not a deluge of product like in the 3e to early 4e era, not to mention the firehose of 2e, but 4-5 books in a year ain't nothing.

It is far, far less material than what has been and is being offered via 3pp. Which was of course the point of allowing 3pp in the first place. I think it's important to remember just how much richness and nuance and different points of view we would lose if WotC has their way here. 6e is working up to be a much less interesting and varied game than its predecessors.

 

[Velderan]

The aspect of the community that cares about the OGL numbers in the thousands. Tens of thousands. D&D players are measured in the millions.
WotC doesn't want to lose those players, but they also know that it's 0.3% of the brand's audience. They might be an acceptable loss and will be replaced in a matter of months. They also know many of the people who cancelled their sub are posturing and won't actually stop buying D&D books or playing the game.

This is a pretty bad take. If it were evenly remotely true, they wouldn't have adjusted course even a little. They know they've screwed up, period.

 

[FormerLurker]

Nice take on publishers' reactions to their livelihood being threatened.

THEN DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT.

Posturing about the OGL won't stop WotC yanking it. Right now you've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
Instead, the community could insist the replacement to the 1.0a OGL continues to protect those publisher's livelihoods or makes it even easier for them to make money. Y'know, like the advertising on DnDBeyond that WotC pitched, which would get a heck of a lot of attention on 3PP. Or a "D&D Compatible" logo... which WotC also pitched.

Gee... it seems like WotC is thinking of more ways to try and help those publishers' livelihoods than the community.

 

[Matt Thomason]

They have lawyers and money and everything to lose. This isn't a fight. This isn't David vs Goliath, it's Batman vs a random thug in a pool of mud.

Hardly. Batman was the good guy, not the thief trying to steal things that are not theirs.

Then you've already lost.
The aspect of the community that cares about the OGL numbers in the thousands. Tens of thousands. D&D players are measured in the millions.
WotC doesn't want to lose those players, but they also know that it's 0.3% of the brand's audience. They might be an acceptable loss and will be replaced in a matter of months. They also know many of the people who cancelled their sub are posturing and won't actually stop buying D&D books or playing the game.

That has zero bearing on whether or not what they say they want to do is something they legally can do.