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.

 

[Reynard]

For the record:

When you give us playtest feedback, we take it seriously.

Already more than 15,000 of you have filled out the survey. Here's what you said:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

These live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.

The feedback is in such high volume and its direction is so plain that we're acting now.

1. We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.
2. We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
3. You choose which you prefer to use.

This Creative Commons license makes the content freely available for any use. We don't control that license and cannot alter or revoke it. It's open and irrevocable in a way that doesn't require you to take our word for it. And its openness means there's no need for a VTT policy. Placing the SRD under a Creative Commons license is a one-way door. There's no going back.

Our goal here is to deliver on what you wanted.

So, what about the goals that drove us when we started this process?

We wanted to protect the D&D play experience into the future. We still want to do that with your help. We're grateful that this community is passionate and active because we'll need your help protecting the game's inclusive and welcoming nature.

We wanted to limit the OGL to TTRPGs. With this new approach, we are setting that aside and counting on your choices to define the future of play.

Here's a PDF of SRD 5.1 with the Creative Commons license. By simply publishing it, we place it under an irrevocable Creative Commons license. We'll get it hosted in a more convenient place next week. It was important that we take this step now, so there's no question.

• SRD 5.1-CC

We'll be closing the OGL 1.2 survey now.

We'll keep talking with you about how we can better support our players and creators. Thanks as always for continuing to share your thoughts.

Kyle Brink

Executive Producer, Dungeons & Dragons

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How could it.

OGL - Someone at WotC is going to lose their job: Beholder and Strahd in CCBY4

So I can commercially publish my Mickey/Strahd gay erotica finally? Why you doing Sherlock dirty by leaving him out? And the Beholder can watch. Really really watch.

www.enworld.org

someone could just hypothetically put strahd out in the cc...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, there's a great deal of question on whether the actual official promise (the OGL itself) actually promises what we all came to believe it did. That's a legal question that even legal experts cannot agree upon, and will only be resolved if it goes to court.

The corporation stated, in writing, what the promise meant. It's not just what people believe. It's what they said.

 

[wingsandsword]

It is irrelevant. They've released the entire SRD 5.1 under Creative Commons.

Well, those of us who still play 3.x and d20 Modern would be inconvenienced to say the least to try to reverse-engineer as much material from those games from the 5.1 SRD.

However, them backing off their assault on the OGL is definitely a win.

It's just a matter of how much damage WotC did too their business, and to the broader gaming community for this whole stunt over the last few weeks.

 

[DMZ2112]

I also don't think this is likely in a general sense.

We have been made chumps! Chumped are we!

 

[eyeheartawk]

We have been made chumps! Chumped are we!

Never been happier to be this chumped.

 

[rknop]

and nothing so far has indicated said 'oh a whim' other then tin foil hat "They MIGHT someday" conspiracies

um... Wizards is trying to revoke the license, and not under the terms the license itself says it can be revoked. That's what makes it "on a whim". This is reality, not tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.