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.

 

[Greg Benage]

Was there an L5R d20 that wasn't the 3e "Oriental Adventures"? I feel like that's a different category of thing because it was actually published by Wizards (though I do now remember that there were non-Wizards supplements for the line, so it does fit the argument).

Yeah, it was OA and then a bunch of d20 Rokugan supplements (Creatures, Magic, etc.).

 

[Reynard]

Since the beginning of this crisis, I didn't understand why people are so against this? It seems perfectly reasonnable from a business perspective. We are finally going to see design creativity instead of D&D clones.

Where have you been for the last 20 years?

 

[Jer]

If the part I quoted doesn't target publishers like Kobold Press, Cubicle 7, or others who have published 5e compatible products all those years, who are they targetting? Stuff like Critical role and their animated show on Amazon?

If it does target other ttrpg publishes then Wizards is being ridiculous because even the biggest of them is a small business not a "major corporation".

Do you mean this quote "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."

The first part of that quote - up to the emdash - is under a charitable read emotional PR speak trying to get customers onto their side by pretending that they're doing us a favor by breaking their contract with the community. Under an uncharitable read it suggests they literally do not know what the ttrpg community is and how they use the OGL, so I'll be charitable and go for the cynical read.

The second half - after the emdash - could be more emotional PR speak to try to get knee jerk "my major corporation can beat up your major corporation" team feelings in readers. Given the context that's a likely read.

But I can't help but think of "promotional purpose" being so prominently displayed there and thinking of the Wendy's RPG they put out for promotional purposes, or the Old Spice "gentleman" class. Now neither of those were OGL'd and if Wizards wanted to put a stop to them they could sue for trade dress infringement and possible lose or win depending on the lawyers. So it doesn't make sense to put that there. But I'm not convinced that the folks trying to revoke the license actually understand what it does and does allow - and that D&D Beyond post doesn't help - so it's possible they think that's something that revoking the OGL could stop when, in fact, it has nothing to do with it.

 

[Maxperson]

If the part I quoted doesn't target publishers like Kobold Press, Cubicle 7, or others who have published 5e compatible products all those years, who are they targetting? Stuff like Critical role and their animated show on Amazon?

I doubt it. Critical Role has a special license and I doesn't believe use the OGL. I think the major competitor portion was either a smokescreen to try and sell us on the idea of wrecking the small guys, or else refers to Amazon, Apple, etc. in fear that they could make a major production of some kind with their mass amounts of money available.

 

[Greg Benage]

The setting changes aside it's a game of mother may I.

Not putting them aside, the effort to transform the Age of Empire into something socially progressive was tortured.

 

[Jer]

I doubt it. Critical Role has a special license and I doesn't believe use the OGL. I think the major competitor portion was either a smokescreen to try and sell us on the idea of wrecking the small guys, or else refers to Amazon, Apple, etc. in fear that they could make a major production of some kind with their mass amounts of money available.

If that's the case they really don't understand what they own. They own the Dungeons and Dragons trademark. What is Apple going to do with the SRD content that would be bigger than that?

I think it's most likely the first thing you said - trying to get a knee-jerk "when corporations fight fans need to pick teams" thing going because their PR folks actually know how us nerd fans operate. Give us a good Marvel vs. DC fight to focus on to distract us and we'll forget about how bad Disney and Warner/Discovery are as we line up to defend our nerd territory.

Edit - the problem here is that there's no major company for them to square off against in battle, so they have to handwave.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Not putting them aside, the effort to transform the Age of Empire into something socially progressive was tortured.

Eh, I can take or leave it the original setting was pretty socially progressive too.

I can also take or leave the addition of not Poland.

Just look at what they did to my boy Eisen.

What was a cool, destroyed 30 Years War battleground with the only worthwhile armor in the game instead of magic got turned into Ravenloft with monsters everywhere. And the sorcery that replaced it is literally only good against monsters that pretty much only exist in Eisen.

 

[Maxperson]

If that's the case they really don't understand what they own. They own the Dungeons and Dragons trademark. What is Apple going to do with the SRD content that would be bigger than that?

If they use the OGL 1.0a to make a major movie, WotC doesn't get any money. There are no royalties in 1.0a. That's their fear. They want to make all the major money from their brand.

I think it's most likely the first thing you said - trying to get a knee-jerk "when corporations fight fans need to pick teams" thing going because their PR folks actually know how us nerd fans operate. Give us a good Marvel vs. DC fight to focus on to distract us and we'll forget about how bad Disney and Warner/Discovery are as we line up to defend our nerd territory.

If that was their plan, it was a really crappy one. The reaction they are getting is anger against their own brand, not Disney and the others. If they were intending it as a smokescreen against the small guys, I think they were hoping that we would grumble a bit and accept it, not fight back as hard as we are.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Call of Cthulhu d20, Legend of the Five Rings d20, 7th Sea d20...

star wars, stargate (I am surprised we never got a star trek)
Edit: but I still use deadlands d20 when I want magic gun peeps

 

[Minigiant]

Maybe because we like those competitors and want them to continue to be able to pay rent and feed their families?

Also, going back on a perpetual agreement is not reasonable.

We can understand that what we might like and might prefer as an easier path for the publishers we like might not be beneficial to even the nicest IP holder.

WOTC is taking a bad route. But even a good WOTC would eventually want to get out the OGL. That's one of the reasons why the OGL was created.