OGL v1.2 Survey Feedback: 'Hasn't Hit The Mark'

WotC has shared some of the (still ongoing) survey feedback following the release of the Open Game License v1.2 draft last week.

We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3.

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here

The linked FAQ (no, not THAT linked FAQ, the one where they say the original OGL cannot be revoked, I think we're supposed to ignore that one!) indicates that recent rumours about $30 subscriptions and homebrew content are false. They also say that they will be revising the 'harmful content' morality clause in the recent OGL draft, which in practice gives WotC power to shut down competitors at will.

You can still take the survey here until Feb 3rd.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All they have to do is say the OGL cannot be deauthorize and is irrevocable. The survey is just a con

 

[dave2008]

You certainly do have competing ideas and agendas in corporations... but eventually one of them wins out against the rest and that's what the company does.

And the one that did was "Let's revoke an agreement we promised was irrevocable for 20 years and replace it with a new one which gives ourselves the authority to steal people's work, take their revenue over $750,000 directly, and makes it almost impossible to run a VTT that can compete against the one we intend to create, but haven't yet." and also "Let's send this as a contract to some of the biggest publishers in the industry with an NDA and a deadline to sign onto it."

And then when that one got shouted down by a leak and the community, they're backing off to "We'll -just- make it possible to unilaterally end any license we like at any time and also make it impossible to create a VTT that can compete with the one we intend to create, but haven't yet... and also break that agreement we promised was unbreakable for 20 years."

Like... It ain't gonna happen.

Players, surely. Some small publishers probably. But the big dogs and a MASSIVE QUANTITY of small publishers are all "Nah, chief, ORC and CC from now on."

Like... the players don't need to sign the 1.2 or 1.3 or 2.27 or whatever they get up to in the end. It's the publishers and producers. And they've said "No".

Or course WotC is offering to put up several editions to CC, so that is part of what you want.

Ultimately, I think that will depend on where the money goes. If customers stay with D&D, them I imagine a lot of 3PP will too.

Look, I backed your KS because it is 5e/A5e. I wouldn't do that if it was Savage Worlds, Fate, PF2 or any other system really. That is potentially the issue.

Now, I don't need the OGL or WotC at all if people can find a way to make 5e/A5e supplements without it. So that may be the way to go.

 

[Charlaquin]

No, they need to make something that can pass legal muster. The OGL 1.0(a) wasn't that document.

The thing is, it was, at the time it was written. Software licensing language has evolved since then, and WotC is trying to use that fact to say the meaning has somehow changed. If we let them get away with that, there’s no reason not to expect the same thing to happen again in another 20 years.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have had several lawyers tell me that is not what the OGL 1.0(a) was. It is poorly written from a legal language standpoint. That is why we are where we are. If the document was a good legal document, we would not have this discussion.

I want a better legal document. I would hope we get that with ORC and what WotC eventually produces, but we have to wait and see.

Again, it was a good legal document when it was written, it’s just that standards in contract language change over time.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm pretty sure that WotC could care less about 3PP publishing traditional print materials. Which is most 3PP. They want to prevent another Pathfinder in the digital and media spaces, but using the 5e rules, since they have already announced that they are keeping 5e as the chassis for OneD&D. Basically, they want to prevent someone from using their own IP to compete against them in the revenue streams that they care most about going forward.

I doubt that you'll get them to concede much ground on that point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Morally? The person who wrote didn’t have to live with it.

yeah, I see a lot of people thinking that ANY buisness is moral... but also people being pretty free with other peoples money (Oh this company should sue WotC) but very few looking at it as if THEY had THERE OWN lively hood on this line.

Wizards is spending hundreds of thousands of $ on R&D for future iterations of D&D while clones can benefit from that R&D at no cost to themselves.

more then that... pre OGL no edition COULD be continued without the D&D company approval, so now they are not just competing with stuff they put out but others taking what they did and adding to it and calling it there own...

Morally I think WotC are ok…

that... that is A take, I'm not sure I would go that far.

 

[dave2008]

The thing is, it was, at the time it was written. Software licensing language has evolved since then, and WotC is trying to use that fact to say the meaning has somehow changed. If we let them get away with that, there’s no reason not to expect the same thing to happen again in another 20 years.

I get that point, and that is why I think a legal challenge would not up hold it (you can't deauthorize). However, I can only go by what the lawyers are saying today. And there is enough doubt among legal experts today that I think the language should be updated. Whether you call that 1.0b or 1.2 - I don't care.

 

[FoolishFrost]

I mentioned 1.2., thus I was talking about 1.2.

Also, 1.1 was sent to specific parties under an NDA - that is not a public draft. The NDA makes it very specifically private.

Agreed - you seem to need to do some fact checking yourself!

The following was due to a misunderstanding of the statement Dave made originally, and does not reflect on him. It is only left as a statement of public record.

Are you actually attempting to say, because of a legal NDA, the 1.1 they sent to be signed does not exist, was not the attempted result by Wizards, and that you are going to ignore it wholly due to Wizards saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?"

Thank you for being clear in your intent.

1.1 was released. Not to you, but to people to be signed. Not discussed, signed. Drafts DO NOT GET RELEASED WITH REQUESTS TO BE SIGNED. EVER. An NDA is just them trying to STOP what is happening from taking place until it was done and dead.

I stand by my statements. I also stand against your wording.

Fact: OGL 1.1 was sent to publishers, under NDA, with requests to sign by the 13th. This makes it not a draft, but a finalized contract.

 

[Steampunkette]

Or course WotC is offering to put up several editions to CC, so that is part of what you want.

Ultimately, I think that will depend on where the money goes. If customers stay with D&D, them I imagine a lot of 3PP will too.

Look, I backed your KS because it is 5e/A5e. I wouldn't do that if it was Savage Worlds, Fate, PF2 or any other system really. That is potentially the issue.

Now, I don't need the OGL or WotC at all if people can find a way to make 5e/A5e supplements without it. So that may be the way to go.

And that is the rub. And the direction that I want ENPublishing and my work to take going forward.

I will produce content for Level Up in the coming months and years. And with some very minor changes (names probably high on the list) it'll be compatible with 5e. And you'll be able to use it in your games.

Because even -if- they enshrine the 1.0a like I've suggested... I won't use it. I won't put my material going forward into it. Paranormal Power is the first and only book I intend to release under the OGL. I even offered Ryan Dancey a free PDF copy to mark the occasion (he mostly plays board games these days, though).

But publishers 5, 10, 15 years from now are more likely to tentatively get back into publishing under the OGL 1.0a than they would be to the 1.2a with the Sword of Damocles hanging from the whims of Corporate needing more profits in Q4 2025 being free to unilaterally change the agreement.

A wildfire has hit the 5ecosystem. Whether it regrows and flourishes, or gets paved over, is up in the air.

 

[Clint_L]

I think discussions of morality are besides the point. The whole purpose of legal contracts is that you don't have to rely on someone else's morality. It doesn't matter to a 3PP that they have the moral high ground, it matters that they can pay themselves and their staff. Let's keep our eye on the prize: keeping 3PP sustainable through an enforceable contract.