WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[mamba]

And yet less than we had a few months ago.

not all all, we have the exact same thing today we had 6 months ago

We had nothing under CC, what is under the OGL is about the same

 

[S'mon]

This is not good enough. In fact, it is worse in how it is trying to be even sneakier in its framing.

They've definitely stepped up their game on the framing! I'm quite impressed. They are working very hard to crack what has up to now been a very impressively united front against them. The language is remarkably clever.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Given that WoTC has already had a long track record of increased representation in its products, and given that the majority of complaints regarding WoTC on-line come from people that are trying to make the game less inclusive ....


I would very much recommend against this line of argument, simply because it does seem disingenuous at this time.

Slave Space Monkies.

Yep. all is good here. Just trust those guys on the west coast and how they view the world.

How about, no. How about not tarring people that do not trust WoTC as racists and being less inclusive when 20 years ago Thirsty Sword Lesbians might have been offensive enough that Hasbro wanted it pulled. How about recognizing that it is not just the content but a broad list of actions outside of the content that can be judged. How about giving the examples of this terribad hate content released under the existing and probably still valid 1.0a that would lead to the need for such a clause.

I suspect that they continue to lead with this because of the ability to make such arguments in bad faith.

 

[Langy]

Given that WoTC has already had a long track record of increased representation in its products, and given that the majority of complaints regarding WoTC on-line come from people that are trying to make the game less inclusive ....


I would very much recommend against this line of argument, simply because it does seem disingenuous at this time.

The clause is phrased such that they can use it to veto any content for any reason and you explicitly give up any rights to have anyone other than WOTC review that decision.

If the clause were actually limited to "hate speech" or to promote inclusivity or something in any way that was enforceable, then it'd maybe be acceptable, but "we can retroactively veto any product you create and destroy your entire business for any reason and you can't even sue us if we do that" is not something I'd support.

 

[Nikosandros]

They've definitely stepped up their game on the framing! I'm quite impressed. They are working very hard to crack what has up to now been a very impressively united front against them. The language is remarkably clever.

It seems to be working already.

 

[Uta-napishti]

Quick thing.

A lot of what people might think of as "nefarious," are actually standard provisions in most contracts.

It's hard to deal with all the stuff going around- I don't know how many times, and how many people, had to say (back when royalties was a thing) that licensing agreements are always about revenue, not profit, and that wasn't some evil trick.

Same here. This is standard boilerplate language. Companies (and the attorneys that draft contractual language for companies) hate expensive litigation against them. This is nothing more than a standard waiver of class action ... the whole "class, collective, or other joint action," is simply legal surplusage to try and get all of the various type of "class actions" (like collective actions as they are called under the FLSA etc.).

It's not a "big deal." It's boilerplate.

It may be boilerplate, but it doesn't belong in a license that shares a name with an actually open license (the OGL 1.0a).

 

[Enrahim2]

<sigh> That's just great, another clarification we need them to make.

Now, it's pretty clear to me that this is not an authorized update to a license between a third party and myself, because it states specifically that it is between WotC and myself. Therefore it can only apply to their OGC contributions, and does not affect any agreement between me and a third party. However, it is almost certainly not clear to everyone. When 1.0 first launched, there were all kinds of silly OGL mistakes made in published books over the next few months, so its bound to happen again without clear guidance.

Yes, I am one of those that what you state is not clear for. It is far from obvious to me it can apply to their OGC contributions, as the agreement between you and the third party specifically specify that you agree Wizards of the Coast is allowed to publish "new versions", and that you agree there is certain rights associated with any (authorized) version.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Linda Codega has weighed in and they seem to like the Creative Commons release!


Ryan Dancey, on the other hand, still keeps deauthorisation as his red line. Which, given it's the license he created, it pretty understandable:

Holy crap on a cracker $600 million lost in share holder value, that is more then it cost to make the D&D movie. How does Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, WotC President Cynthia Williams, and D&D VP Rawson still have jobs at this point?

 

[Charlaquin]

The mechanics are, yes.

D&D-y things like owlbears will be OGL 1.2.

And they're officially deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.

Not just D&D-y things like owlbears. If you actually read what they’re releasing under Creative Commons, it does not include any monsters, spells, races, classes, traps, or magic items at all.

 

[Alzrius]

not all all, we have the exact same thing today we had 6 months ago

We had nothing under CC, what is under the OGL is about the same

No, six months ago we had an OGL v1.0a that everyone in the third-party community had complete faith they could publish under safely.

That is by no means "the same" as what we have now.