Statement on OGL from WotC

Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement regarding the ongoing rumors surrounding OneD&D and the Open Gaming License. In a short response to Comicbook.com, the company said "We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time."

Dungeons & Dragons Clarifies Support for Third-Party Material as New Edition Draws Near

Wizards of the Coast has responded to rumors of changes to the Open Game License and System [...]

comicbook.com

It's not clear what WotC means when they say that the OGL will 'continue to evolve' -- while there have been two versions of the license released over the years, each is non-rescindible so people are free to use whichever version of the license they wish. Indeed, that is written into the license itself -- "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

During the D&D 4th Edition era, WotC published a new, separate license called the Game System Licence (GSL). While it was used by third party publishers, it was generally upopular.

 

[ersatzphil]

I may throw together some scraps of notes and do just that as well.

naughty word em.

Naughty word 'em indeed, friend.

Naughty word 'em indeed.

 

[Scribe]

Naughty word 'em indeed, friend.

Naughty word 'em indeed.

View attachment 271551

This is a family friendly forum, friend!

 

[ersatzphil]

You say “their spokeswoman” like she’s in their pocket. She’s just a popular D&D YouTuber who happens to like what’s been shown of 1D&D so far. And far from the only one, I know XP to Level 3 also praised the playtest material.

She's also recently tweeted her negative feelings about getting rid of the OGL.

 

[ersatzphil]

This is a family friendly forum, friend!

Let the record show that I did in fact type out the phrase "naughty word", rather than anything that was caught by the obscenity filter.

 

[Charlaquin]

She's also recently tweeted her negative feelings about getting rid of the OGL.

Right, I was just saying, “spokeswoman” seems like a really disingenuous way to describe her relationship with 1D&D.

 

[Drake2000]

Yeah I'm increasingly convinced new leadership is needed at WotC deseperately. I suspect that the activist investors are quietly marshalling their forces for a renewed battle over the fate of WotC, just too many angry fans, bad publicity, potential lawsuits, and a host of other issues. WotC is just too valuable to keep dropping the ball like this.

I believe Cynthia Williams and Dan Rawson are fairly new hires. I also believe they're doing exactly what power investors and the higher-ups at Hasbro want them to do, which is protect and monetize their IP to the hilt to increase their revenue stream. This isn't really about D&D rulebooks, or even the game itself, this is about squeezing every last penny they can out of the D&D brand, and either eliminating the competition, or bringing it to heel under WotC's own terms.

 

[Staffan]

Right, I was just saying, “spokeswoman” seems like a really disingenuous way to describe her relationship with 1D&D.

I think "spokeswoman" comes from her being hired to handle the D&D portion of the presentation WOTC did a few months back of their 2023 offerings. But AFAIK that was one gig, not an ongoing position.

Amy Dallen's probably closer to a spokesperson as she's an ongoing host on the D&D Beyond side of things, but that's still more of an "entertainment" position.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not sure if anyone here can answer this, but hopefully @Morrus would know better than I.

I've had just over a handful of my articles published for EN5ider. Would my ability to write OGL content in the future be protected through this, or would I personally have to publish something on my own before the new OGL is released?

Well (a) I don't know that it would work and (b) if it did, it would apply to the publisher.

 

[Art Waring]

I'm not sure if anyone here can answer this, but hopefully @Morrus would know better than I.

I've had just over a handful of my articles published for EN5ider. Would my ability to write OGL content in the future be protected through this, or would I personally have to publish something on my own before the new OGL is released?

I'm an not 100% certain about anything right now, but I think you would need to include the 1.0a OGL license together with any material you have posted up on the internet. So I guess you can make a PDF, add the 1.0a license as you would with any OGL product, and hopefully we will get some better news soon.

 

[Rabulias]

I am not a lawyer of any kind, and have no inside info, but I believe WotC's intent with "de-authorizing" the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a licenses means that anything published under them while they were authorized will be OK to keep in print and give away or sell in the future. I think they intend this to be complete products and not placeholders for further development and/or additional future content to be released under 1.0/1.0a.

In other words, I don't think they would look kindly on my putting out a one-page PDF today that says "My Game Stuff Here" with the OGL 1.0a attached, and at some point (after OGL 1.1 goes into effect) I add the 5.1 SRD content to that PDF and post it again without updating to the OGL 1.1 license. I do not think that is what the terms mean in the minds of WotC's lawyers.

 

[glass]

I believe Cynthia Williams and Dan Rawson are fairly new hires. I also believe they're doing exactly what power investors and the higher-ups at Hasbro want them to do, which is protect and monetize their IP to the hilt to increase their revenue stream.

They are obviously trying to monetise D&D, but depending on how this plays out they may end up doing the opposite of "protecting" the investment. The story of the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind. EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying this will kill D&D (unlike the poor goose). But it might end up making quite a dent in it.

 

[Plokman]

They are obviously trying to monetise D&D, but depending on how this plays out they may end up doing the opposite of "protecting" the investment. The story of the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind. EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying this will kill D&D (unlike the poor goose). But it might end up making quite a dent in it.

Corporate people, those who ask "What do we have?" as opposed to "What can we find or create" should never be allowed to make these decisions. They always follow the money.

 

[bedir than]

I just got an email from Kobold Press overnight saying that they'll soon be launching their Deep Magic II kickstarter 'for 5th edition games' in the near future. Odds on are that KP are one of the 3pps under NDA - it'll be interesting to see what licence they publish under, whether they've come to a private bespoke agreement with WotC, or whether they talk about any of this at all. It doesn't seem to have made them put a hold on their product pipeline though.

Kobold is one of the 3pp I'm most interested in seeing what they do. They and EN are the two 3pp I've spent the most supporting.

I suspect that the activist investors are quietly marshalling their forces for a renewed battle over the fate of WotC

Their claim was Hasbro needed to sell Wizards because Hasbro was holding back Wizards from monetizing the game enough.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Kobold is one of the 3pp I'm most interested in seeing what they do. They and EN are the two 3pp I've spent the most supporting.

Their claim was Hasbro needed to sell Wizards because Hasbro was holding back Wizards from monetizing the game enough.

Doesn't mean they wanted WotC to create a huge backlash in the process, I suspect they had their own idea of how to increasing the monetization of D&D by you know, producing more products worth buying, not illegally breaching a contract with who knows how many companies and pissing off the D&D fandom.

 

[bedir than]

Doesn't mean they wanted WotC to create a huge backlash in the process, I suspect they had their own idea of how to increasing the monetization of D&D by you know, producing more products worth buying, not illegally breaching a contract with who knows how many companies and pissing off the D&D fandom.

Wizards says that they want to monetize via movies, streams, video games -- posters here assumed that meant microtransactions.
but the activist investors that fronted hedge fund say they want to monetize and the assumption is benevolent glut?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Wizards says that they want to monetize via movies, streams, video games -- posters here assumed that meant microtransactions.
but the activist investors that fronted hedge fund say they want to monetize and the assumption is benevolent glut?

Glut is too strong a word. There is a right way and a wrong why to monetize D&D, WotC chose wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wizards says that they want to monetize via movies, streams, video games -- posters here assumed that meant microtransactions.
but the activist investors that fronted hedge fund say they want to monetize and the assumption is benevolent glut?

I really, really wish people wouldn't equate the words "more" and "glut". They are not the same, and "glut" is an entirely subjective term.

 

[bedir than]

I really, really wish people wouldn't equate the words "more" and "glut". They are not the same, and "glut" is an entirely subjective term.

Hedge funds are definitely known for making wise business decisions when they take over a company.

Recall they put forward only a single candidate with business experience beyond retail management

 

[Irlo]

Doesn't mean they wanted WotC to create a huge backlash in the process, I suspect they had their own idea of how to increasing the monetization of D&D by you know, producing more products worth buying, not illegally breaching a contract with who knows how many companies and pissing off the D&D fandom.

I suspect they wanted to extract value (by way of stock dividends) from WotC. By breaking WotC away from the lower-performing arms of Hasbro, they could achieve that goal. I really don’t think they’re concerned about making products worth buying.

This is the activist investor version of gerrymandering.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I suspect they wanted to extract value (by way of stock dividends) from WotC. By breaking WotC away from the lower-performing arms of Hasbro, they could achieve that goal. I really don’t think they’re concerned about making products worth buying.

This is the activist investor version of gerrymandering.

Honestly, they really emphasised their roots in the fandom, I suspect profits we're never their only goal, they just had to couch things in those terms to sway other investors, as fans I think they weren't happy with the direction of WotC.