The OGL -- Just What's Going On?

D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumours are flooding social media regarding WotC's intentions to 'de-authorize' the existing Open Gaming License in favour of a new one.

What's the OGL?
The Open Gaming License is a share-a-like license created by D&D owner WotC about 20 years ago so that third parties could create material compatible with the then-3E D&D game. This allowed smaller publishers to ensure the game was supported with products which WotC could not make themselves, driving sales of the core rulebooks. D&D 5E's rules are also released under that very same license, which is why you see hundreds of 5E-compatible products on Kickstarter from massive projects like the 5E-powered The One Ring, down to small adventures and supplements. It has been widely believed for two decades that this license is irrevocable (and, indeed, WotC itself believed that -- see below), but it appears that WotC is now attempting to revoke it.

A Quick Recap
A few weeks ago, WotC made a short statement regarding the OGL, followed later by a more in-depth announcement covering revised terms, royalties, and annual revenue reporting.

WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting

There has been a lot of speculation recently about WotC's plans regarding the Open Gaming License and the upcoming One D&D. Today, WotC shared some information. In short, they will be producing a new Open Gaming License (note that the previous OGL 1.0a will still exist, and can still be used)...

www.enworld.org

At the same time, at the end of December, a number of hastily arranged meetings with 'key' third party creators under a strict NDA agreement were set up with WotC's licensing department in order to share the company's plans regarding licensing of D&D going forward (disclaimer -- while WotC also reached out to me, we were unable to schedule a meeting over the busy Christmas period, so I am not party to that information).

A New Rumour Emerges
This all came to a head yesterday when the Roll For Combat YouTube channel released what they said was a leak of the upcoming OGL from multiple trusted but anonymous sources within WotC.

We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

We received an official leak of OGL 1.1! In our weekly Roll For Combat Live YouTube show, we were talking about what we know about OGL 1.1 when we received a leak of OGL 1.1 from a reliable source. This isn't a scam, a troll, or clickbait. We go over the new OGL 1.1 and what it means to One D&D...

www.enworld.org

This leak claims the following. Note -- it is impossible to verify these claims at this time.

• There will be TWO OGL's -- an OCG: Commercial and an OGL: Non-Commercial.
• The original OGL will become unauthorized. This hinges on the wording of s9 of the current OGL:

9. Updating the License: 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.

While the license does indeed grand a 'perpetual' right to use the Open Gaming Content referenced, it appears that WotC currently believes that it can render a version of the license unauthorized. The license itself makes no reference to authorization or the lack thereof, nor does it define any methods of authorization or deauthorization, other than in that line. So this entire thing hinges on that one word, 'authorized' in the original OGL.

RollForCombat posted the following summary -- it is unclear whether this is their own paraphrasing, or that of their anonymous source, or indeed the actual document (although tonally it doesn't sound like it):

"This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."

"You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."

"You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."

The ability for WotC to use your Open Gaming Content is not new; the company could do that under the old OGL also; it has rarely exercised that right, though it did reuse a couple of third party monsters in a 3E rulebook.

iO9 Gets A Copy
However, Linda Codega over at Gizmodo/iO9 got hold of a copy of the current draft of the OGL 1.1.

• It's long. It's ten times the length of the current OGL, at 9,000 words.
• No bigots. It prohibits NFTs and bigoted content.
• Print/PDF only. It also prohibits apps and video games. And pantomimes, apparently. The wording says "including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."
• Deauthorizes the previous OGL. The license states that the OGL 1.0a is "no longer an authorized license agreement".
• It’s soon! Pressingly, the draft also indicates that publishers who wish to sell SRD-based content on or after January 13th (which is just 8 days away!) have only one option: agree to the OGL: Commercial. That gives companies very little time to evaluate the license or make any necessary changes.
• Clear OGL declarations. The new license contains other restrictions which effectively prohibit companies from identifying their OGC via a separate System Reference Document (which is what games like Pathfinder do); instead the reader must be alerted to Open Gaming Content within the product itself.
• Royalties. As previously noted, creators who make over $750K will need to pay royalties to WotC. WotC does indicate that it might reach out to succesful creators for a more 'custom (and mutially beneficial) licensing arrangement). Creators are divided into three tiers - under $50K, $50K-$750K, and $750K+. The royalty is 20% or 25% of 'qualifying revenue', which is revenue in excess of $750K. The term used is revenue, not profit.
• They want you to use Kickstarter. Kickstarter -- their 'preferred' platform -- attracts the lower 20% royalty, and non-Kickstarter crowdfuders attract 25%. It's interesting that WotC even has a preferred crowdfunding platform, let alone that they are trying to influence creators to use it over its competitors like Backerkit, IndieGoGo, Gamefound, and the like.
• New logo. An identifying badge will be required on products which use the new OGL, and creators will need to send WotC a copy of their product.

The document itself comments that “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.” That sounds like it is talking about companies such as Paizo.

Community Reaction
Social media has exploded, with a lot of very negative pushback regarding this news.

Many people have weighed in with their interpretations of s9 (above), both lawyers and non-lawyers. There seems to be little agreement in that area right now. If the above rumous is true, then WotC's current leadership clearly believes that previous iterations of the OGL can be 'de-authorized'. It's interesting to note that previous WotC administrations believed otherwise, and said as much in their own official OGL FAQ:

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

OGL architect Ryan Dancey also appears to have felt otherwise. In an article right here on EN World he said:

I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners.

Of course, many game systems are released using that license: Pathfinder, Fate, Open d6, WOIN, and many, many more -- many of them have nothing at all to do with D&D and simply use the license as a useful tool for enabling third-party content creators; while Pathfinder is, of course, the industry's largest OGL game and published by Paizo, the industry's second largest TTRPG comapmny after WotC itself. If the original OGL were somehow to become invalid, all these games would be affected.

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

There are other bits to the current rumour -- a 30 day notice period during which WotC can change the license any way they wish, and a waiver over the right to sue the company.

It's hard to get a clear picture of what's going on right now. I haven't seen the new OGL, and other than a handul of 'key' creators, it seems like very few have. WotC did indicate that it would be unveiled very soon.

Is it an OGL?
While it may be called "Open Gaming License v1.1", if the above is true, this isn't really an update to the OGL, it's an entirely new license. Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL. and who runs the Open Gaming Foundation, defines open gaming licenses as --

​

1. Game Rules and materials that use those rules that can be freely copied, modified and distributed.​

​

2. A system for ensuring that material contributed to the Open Gaming community will remain Open and cannot be made Closed once contributed.​

​

By these definitions, it appears that the new OGL is not actually an open gaming license, and has more in common with the Game System License WotC used for D&D 4th Edition.

So, What Now?
Now, we wait and see. Many eyes will be on the bigger players -- Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin, etc. -- to see what action they take. As yet, none of these have commented publicly except for Green Ronin's Chris Pramas who told Gizmodo that they had not yet seen the new license, but they do not believe there is "any benefit to switching to the new one as described.” As for Paizo, Gizmodo says "Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation."

Will these companies go along with it? Will they ignore it? Will they challenge it? We'll have to wait and see!

7 days is not enough time for even a small publisher to overhaul its entire product line to comply with new rules, let along a large one like Paizo. I have to assume there is an allowed time period to do this, otherwise it's practically impossible to do. It does seem that -- if proven enforceable -- the de-athorization of the existing OGL would drive many companies out of business, especially those which produce or lean heavily on electronic apps and the like.

It also remains to be seen how WotC goes about the task of persuading creators to use its new license -- will it tempt them with a carrot (such as access to the D&D Beyond platform), or try to force them with a stick (such as threat of legal action)? And how will the TTRPG community react, because this goes far beyond just D&D.

It sounds like we'll hear something more solid imminently.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, there's a case study: the return, in droves, from PF to 5E.

They return to a new system made as an "apology edition" specifically targeting them (and other lapsed older-edition players), but they don't go back to the same one they left because of, though, note.

 

[Reynard]

They return to a new system made as an "apology edition" specifically targeting them (and other lapsed older-edition players), but they don't go back to the same one they left because of, though, note.

My point is that a "good" D&D is significantly more important than a "great" anything else.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why did they have to act now? I do not seem then running out of time, with someone else about to eat their lunch. If anything, this endangers 1DD more than doing nothing.

I agree that if you do it regardless, the sooner is the better, but I still do not see it being needed or even beneficial at all.

I mean, I don't know why they acted SO soon, I have to say.

There could be a million reasons, either relating to timing of upcoming projects, information about or alpha/beta-testing of the 3D VTT, or relating to internal pressures (like best to have any losses from this offset by the profits from the D&D movie). It's also possible that they felt that if they waited too long the plans would definitely leak, and if they weren't already negotiating with 3PPs by the time they did, that could be a lot more dangerous.

The timing which would have made more sense to me would have been to:

A) Wait until well past the movie.

B) Wait until the 3D VTT is much further along and plans for Beyond, especially re: 3PP involvement, are a lot clearer, and a lot more set in stone. Yeah you don't want to wait until GSL late, but like, late 2023? I could see that.

Then you can have D&D even more mainstream/lifestyle-y, and can offer 3PPs are more certain carrot in the form of fabulous profits via the Beyond store and perhaps a tiny cut of licenced virtual minis linked to their IP in the 3D VTT.

Note I think that'd have still been too early for the lifestyle lock-in to really have worked, but they'd already announced 1D&D and so on.

 

[mamba]

I suspect any RPG that does get significant traction would probably be:

agree on all these,, just curious who goes for it

 

[mamba]

I mean, I don't know why they acted SO soon, I have to say.

I think I initially misunderstood you, I agree with doing it the sooner the better before 1DD comes along, hoping that people will forget

The timing which would have made more sense to me would have been to:

A) Wait until well past the movie.

B) Wait until the 3D VTT is much further along and plans for Beyond, especially re: 3PP involvement, are a lot clearer, and a lot more set in stone. Yeah you don't want to wait until GSL late, but like, late 2023? I could see that

A seems to be the most exposed here, don't think we get B this year

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My point is that a "good" D&D is significantly more important than a "great" anything else.

I'm not convinced. If that was fully true 4E wouldn't have caused such division.

I don't think anyone who went to PF and then came back to 5E came back because 5E has "D&D" written on it. I think they came back because 5E's design is more like the kind of game they want to play than PF1's design. I think one of the major reasons people left when 4E got made was that PF1's design was more like what they wanted to play than 4E was, or such was their perception (terrible PR and marketing was another major factor, anyway, that's a separate discussion).

 

[delericho]

I'd suggest the executives at Hasbro really don't see it that way. Or if they do, changing that is a core part of their product strategy.

I'm reasonably sure this is it. Financially, there just isn't enough gain here for them - with D&D aiming to be a lifestyle brand even the RPG as a whole is almost an irrelevance, never mind the OGL-based offshoot. So my guess would be that someone, or multiple someones, over at WotC really doesn't like the concept of open gaming, and so they're willing to take whatever hit is needed to bring it to an end.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not convinced. If that was fully true 4E wouldn't have caused such division.

IF 4e was around for critical role stranger things and the pandemic we might have seen it bloom too (I would hope actually we would still be in a 5e just a very diffrent 5e growing from 4e with fixes)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IF 4e was around for critical role stranger things and the pandemic we might have seen it bloom too (I would hope actually we would still be in a 5e just a very diffrent 5e growing from 4e with fixes)

Sure, but that's such a what if it's hard to be sure about. My personal feeling is that once, say, Critical Role got into the Paragon tier there'd be so many Interrupts, Immediate Actions, and Reactions flying around in combat that it'd get frustrating to watch/listen to whenever they got into combat, though maybe Mercer is such a good DM he'd anticipate that and convince everyone to have a sort of "détente" on those kind of abilities.

(That said, whilst this is off-topic, and perhaps worthy of another thread, a 5E based primarily on 4E would likely have had reducing that issue with the game as one of the big mechanical changes, imho.)

 

[S'mon]

I'm not convinced. If that was fully true 4E wouldn't have caused such division.

I think anyone who went to PF and then came back to 5E didn't come back because 5E has "D&D" written on it. I think they came back because 5E's design is more like the kind of game they want to play than PF1's design. I think one of the major reasons people left when 4E got made was that PF1's design was more like what they wanted to play than 4E was, or such was their perception (terrible PR and marketing was another major factor, anyway, that's a separate discussion).

I definitely liked the design of 5e a lot, I think it is a very good game, close to great. While I like 4e for a very particular kind of game, 5e is great for semi-generic fantasy driftable to all sorts of campaign styles.