WotC 5E Designer Mike Mearls Talks About The OGL Crisis

D&D historian Ben Riggs recently conducted an interview with Mike Mearls, who worked at Wizards of the Coast from 2005 to until he was laid off in 2023. Part of the interview touched on the OGL crisis back in 2022, with Mearls indicating that WotC was caught by surprise by the backlash when they revealed that they intended to rescind the Open Gaming License. They also talk about how WotC felt 'stabbed in the face' (Ben's words, not Mike's) when the draft OGL 2.0 was leaked by a partner who had been sent the document in confidence.

Ben Riggs: What was the atmosphere within the company during the whole OGL fiasco, like what was it like within the walls of Wizards?

Mike Mearls: Oh, people took it very, very seriously. You know, I don’t know if anyone at Wizards has ever publicly said anything or talked about it, but I think it was genuinely surprising to people.

And I’m going to be in the weird position of like, "Oh, this company laid me off, but I’m going to kind of defend them now." One of the things I do feel bad about is that people who got caught up in it—who aren’t Wizards—probably thought, hey, we’re doing exactly what the community would want us to do. We have some ideas for how we want to change it.

I am sure at this stage—remember, it’s 2020—the business is blowing up, there’s a lot of potential for licensing, and it’s going to be hard to negotiate a license with someone if they’re like, "oh, we don’t actually need to work with you. We can get everything you have by just going and using this Open Game License." And if you look back, you know, the things they were looking at were, "If you're making X dollars or more, you have to give us royalties," etc. That, to me, feels like those terms were coming from a place of, we don’t want, like, Lucasfilm showing up and doing a Star Wars D&D game and just selling a bajillion copies because they could have licensed it but just decided not to, because the system's free.

Now, there's a lot of reasons why I think they misread the situation, but I think the one thing people have to give a little maybe consideration is that they were sending out the license to people with this idea of getting feedback. Now, you could argue that no one took them seriously, thought, "No, this is just you sending this to me, and you're going to ignore my feedback." But that to me doesn’t make sense. Because if I was in that position of, like, "Hey, people are going to hate this so much, and I’m going to do it anyway", why would I show it to people early? Because then the story is just going to be, "Hey, this thing is so bad, we hate it. By the way, they showed it to us and ignored us." That makes it even worse.

Ben: I will say, though, that the sources I’ve had within Wizards seem sincere when they say, yeah, we sent it out for feedback, and then someone stabbed us in the face. Because again, from within Wizards, that is their point of view, right? You just sent this thing out for feedback, and now it’s all over the internet, and everyone is angry. One of the people that you trusted to look at this and negotiate with you has stabbed you in the face. Again, I can understand that point of view.

Mike: But I will say, though, there is something to be said for the one thing they didn’t quite account for. Because this would have been 2022 when they were sending this stuff out. Had they announced the new edition yet? I think 5.5 had been announced.

Ben: Yeah, they announced it—I want to say around August—and then in December, they sent out OGL--I think it's 1.0a--for feedback. And then, within a week of the new year, Lin Codega was writing articles about it.

Mike: And I think that was their miscalculation. You know, a lot of people like me, who worked on 4th Edition, you may have heard this being talked about, hey why did 4th Edition have so much trouble where it ultimately almost wrecked the business? It just tried to change too much at once. It was a new world, a new game mechanic. Forgotten Realms got radically changed. The novel line was really pared down. Digital tools, right? There was just so much change. It’s like, How am I supposed to make this journey from where I was to where I am to where we’re going? And I think that was their big miscalculation was, I think it’s almost the same root cause maybe—like, "Oh, we don’t really understand how people will look at this". So, we're gonna show it to them, but not knowing people are going to be very on edge about this, very like "no, this is a direct threat" even though you're trying to be as nice as possible.

To put it in context, that maybe Wizards didn’t see, they had just announced a new edition. So people were immediately going back to 4th Edition and the GSL. And they're immediately going back to that space of "You are trying to do a new version of D&D that can cut us out." So this didn’t feel like "Hey, can you give us feedback?" It felt more like, "This is the deal. Take it or not."

Ben: For the audience that doesn’t know—what was the GSL?

Mike: So, the GSL was—so we had the OGL for 3rd Edition, but the company did not want to do the OGL for 4th Edition. And again, this is another example of "of all the paths, this was the worst." And I think businesses do this all the time, and it drives me bananas. They didn’t want to do the OGL for 4th Edition for reasons, right? It’s competition, blah blah blah. But rather than just saying, "Hey, there’s no gaming license", which I think would have been a much better approach—people would have been upset, but they'd have said "OK, I'm upset but that's it"—they had the GSL. And the GSL was basically like—imagine if you took the OGL and said, "What are all the things we could put in this to make it so that no one would ever use it because it’s so obviously a bad deal?" And then, like, double that. That was the GSL. It was so obviously like "No, why would anyone do this? This feels like you're actively stabbing us in the face."

So, I think it had a similar thing—like, oh, they clearly didn't want any competition for their products, so they didn't actually want anyone to make stuff for it. So they offered such a horrible deal that no one would take them up on it. And I think very few people did. You had to register your company with Wizards. They could revoke it at any time. You had to send in all your... it was just super fiddly. It would have been much cleaner to just say, "No, there’s no OGL." And this is the kind of thing where you need to be in touch with your audience to know like "we’re doing this, people are going to be really upset that we don't have the OGL, but we don't want to do the OGL." So, as soon as you’re having that conversation, you need to step back and "Why are we getting rid of the OGL again?" or whatever the decision is. If we’re gonna jump through all these hoops to make it look like we’re not doing the thing we’re doing—like just do the thing or just don’t do the thing. That’s actually an even better answer: Just don’t.

Ben: Yeah.

Mike: So yeah the long and short of it is I feel bad for people who got stuck in that situation. Because I just think they didn’t have the right context to understand the reaction. And it’s the worst outcome. Like, you think you’re being reasonable, so then when people react, you think maybe, "Are they being unreasonable? Are the children wrong?" And this is a case where—no, the children were not wrong. And to Wizards' credit, they released the game under [Creative Commons], which is like OK, now they have no control over it. And then 5.5 came out and sort of changed things, I think you could just make stuff for it using the current 5E thing, so it makes the decision to crack down even more like, OK I don't know why, I think it was purely from a licensing standpoint. I think if you just look at it from that point it makes total sense.

Ben: The story I’ve heard is that there was a French video game called Solasta: Crown of the Magister—or I might even be saying it wrong—that was a real turning point for Chris Cocks. Because, for those of you who don’t know, and I didn't know unti I was told about it, it was a French video game that used 5th Edition as its engine. And it was D&D. And the press was all like, "This is the best D&D video game ever made!" And it's not D&D.

 

[Iosue]

I may be pissing in the wind here, but here's a summary of the OGL timeline, for posterity and reference, if nothing else. I have endeavored to include just the facts, without speculation or interpretation.

• Late in 2022 (Riggs suggests August in the video), WotC met with third party publishers to explain their plans for the OGL. Attendees were given a draft of OGL 1.1 and term sheets for bespoke licensing deals that provided for lower royalties than in OGL 1.1, and other perks such as access to the D&D Beyond market. (Source: 1/14/23 Lin Codega article)
  • There is confusion about term sheets. Term sheets are documents broadly outlining what two parties have essentially agreed to, which are signed when agreement is reached, and act as letters of intent prior to the official contracts being written out in detail by the lawyers. There is confusion whether WotC signed the term sheets when giving them to the third-party publishers, but as @dave2008 has noted in this thread, which lines up with my own experience, the document being signed in no way means it's a final version that cannot be changed by the other party. Term sheets (which inherently imply negotiation) and draft contracts are often sent signed to expedite the process. If the other party agrees with the terms, they can simply sign that draft, and make it official and final. The term sheets were distinct documents intended for each individual third-party publisher, not the OGL!
• The draft of OGL 1.1 said that the final version of OGL 1.1 would be released on January 4, 2023, to go into effect on January 13, 2023. (Source: 1/5/2023 Lin Codega article)
• None of the third party publishers present at the meeting concluded licensing deals with WotC.
• On January 4, 2023, OGL 1.1 was not released. One of the third-party publishers present at the meeting leaked the draft of OGL 1.1 to Lin Codega at Gizmodo.
• On January 5, 2023, Lin Codega published their article detailing the contents of the lead OGL 1.1 draft.
• "A few days later" (per Codega), someone within WotC leaked to Codega a draft FAQ about "OGL 2.0." It is unknown what this FAQ was intended for, e.g., whether OGL 1.1 was being renamed 2.0, or whether it was a different document from 1.1, when it was drafted, and when it was intended for release, if ever.
• On January 14, an unnamed author at WotC released a statement on the OGL situation. The statement was not well-received.
• On the same day, Lin Codega published an article that recapped the week to date, and detailed the OGL 2.0 FAQ.
• On January 19, Kyle Brink released a statement apologizing for the OGL situation, and expressed intent to hold surveys to find an OGL the fanbase is pleased with.
• On January 20, the surveys were released for "OGL 1.2", and limited release of the 5e core rules into the Creative Commons was announced. The OGL draft released in the survey still attempted to revoke OGL 1.0a, but removed royalties and included language to protect products already released under OGL 1.0a.
• On January 27, the survey was ended with the announcement that OGL 1.0a would not be revoked, and there would be a full release of the 5e SRD into the Creative Commons.

 

[Pedantic]

I may be pissing in the wind here, but here's a summary of the OGL timeline, for posterity and reference, if nothing else. I have endeavored to include just the facts, without speculation or interpretation.

• On January 5, 2023, Lin Codega published their article detailing the contents of the lead OGL 1.1 draft.

This is very helpful and concise, I just wanted to point out that Lin Codega uses they/them pronouns.

 

[Iosue]

This is very helpful and concise, I just wanted to point out that Lin Codega uses they/them pronouns.

Much obliged, I will edit accordingly.

 

[mamba]

On January 20, the surveys were released for "OGL 1.2", and limited release of the 5e core rules into the Creative Commons was announced.

huh? Don't think I remember that announcement, I only recall them ending the survey ahead of time and releasing the SRD into CC then

 

[Iosue]

huh? Don't think I remember that announcement, I only recall them ending the survey ahead of time and releasing the SRD into CC then

Here's the ENWorld thread on it, which you were a part of!

Here's a post wherein @Ondath detailed what was in that initial release into CC. Basically, everything except character classes, subclasses, races, spells, and monsters.

 

[Voadam]

I am sure at this stage—remember, it’s 2020—the business is blowing up, there’s a lot of potential for licensing, and it’s going to be hard to negotiate a license with someone if they’re like, "oh, we don’t actually need to work with you. We can get everything you have by just going and using this Open Game License." And if you look back, you know, the things they were looking at were, "If you're making X dollars or more, you have to give us royalties," etc. That, to me, feels like those terms were coming from a place of, we don’t want, like, Lucasfilm showing up and doing a Star Wars D&D game and just selling a bajillion copies because they could have licensed it but just decided not to, because the system's free.

This seems pretty ironic as they had arranged licensed three editions of Star Wars d20 product lines in the original OGL era. Yeah, yeah, knowledge of the OGL was broader in the 5e era but still.

Also I really have no sympathy for them deciding to break the use of the OGL they had setup as irrevocable through strained contract interpretations and counter to their prior assurances, particularly over concerns that others could use the OGL as intended (use 5e rules with their own IP). Also particularly even though when they flipped and put the 5e SRD into CC they did not put out a revised version of the OGL to make explicit that it was irrevocable, instead leaving the threat of again legally arguing a future revocation whenever they want and driving a ton of people away from using the OGL by retaining the threat of future lawfare again.

 

[Ondath]

Here's the ENWorld thread on it, which you were a part of!

Here's a post wherein @Ondath detailed what was in that initial release into CC. Basically, everything except character classes, subclasses, races, spells, and monsters.

I should note that what I analysed there was a preview of the CC release, and then they ended up releasing the entire SRD 5.1 into CC, so the analysis I made there is incorrect.

 

[Clint_L]

No. It’s (somewhat aggressively…) pointing out that Mearls’ account is inconsistent with the publicly known historical facts.

Theres multiple possible reasons for that, of course, but the fact remains.

It was NOT all about video games etc or else the ‘this licence only covers pdfs and written material’ clause would have been enough.

It was NOT an attempt to prevent big corporations functionally taking over d&d using the license, or the $750k royalty threshold would have been higher.

The documents distributed with the draft agreement specifically stated that the ogl ‘had been used in unforeseen ways’ and was never intended to enable competitors to WotC’s D&D, and that the new license intended to wind that back. This was squarely aimed at Paizo, among others who published variant core books.

The royalties, approvals, financial disclosure rules, surrender of rights etc etc - these were so absolutely monstrously heinous that it was very clear they were intended to kill any 3pp above the level of ‘spare time hobbyist’ dead, unless that 3pp was willing to sign away its independence by begging WotC for a bespoke deal in exchange for who-knows-what. They were utterly inconsistent with someone who needed to run a company and put food on the table doing this stuff, and whoever designed and drafted that appalling agreement knew that full well.

These are opinions, not facts. That you believe your own opinions does not make them facts (rather ironic, given your user name). Mearls also gave his opinions. I think he has rather more understanding of the inner workings at Wizards, not to mention connections to the people who were there at the time, than random internet dude. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that is a fact.

 

[BigZebra]

Don't forget that the market is a lot bigger too. While PF2 might sell more in absolute terms, as a percentage of the market it is nowhere near as big as PF1 was

My feeling as well. There definitely was an uptake on the heels of the OGL-crisis, but I have heard many that switched back to 5e (or other systems like A5E) because of the more complex PF2 game play.

 

[Staffan]

Post PF2, I don't think Paizo are as close as they once were.

I sort of wonder if there's another company who is now #2 instead of Paizo in the TTRPG field.

Oh, in the current market Pathfinder is nowhere near being a threat to D&D. But at one time it were, and its existence probably ate into 4e's sales by quite a lot.

The way I see it, people disenchanted with 4e would normally have had two options:

1. Stick with 4e because "Well, I guess this is D&D now."
2. Stick with 3.5e, which would normally be an intermediate step before.
3. Stop playing entirely (or possibly switch to some other game).

Pathfinder gave an option 2b: Play Pathfinder instead which is almost exactly 3.5e, and will keep being supported with both rules and setting material, not to mention adventures. This likely persuaded over a lot of people from option 1. In the long run it was probably beneficial, because it kept those players D&D-adjacent and primed to return once 5e was released, but Wizards definitely didn't like it.

Interesting question. Probably not, I'd say Paizo is still #2, but candidates--Chaosium (massive in Japan!) and Modiphius would be my initial guesses.

Modiphius is a bit of an odd bird, as they seem highly focused on (a) having a large amount of licensed games that receive a limited amount of releases and then they go on the backlist and don't receive any more support and (b) providing fulfillment services for other companies. But they aren't associated with any one game or game line the way Wizards is associated with D&D, or White Wolf were with World of Darkness. It seems to be working out for them, though.