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.

 

[Greg Benage]

I dont know that it is. I feel you are describe D&D's place (correctly) as a mountain within nerd culture.

D&D as a marketed brand is something else, something much much less defined, and the lions share of that 'definition' is IMO not being done by Wizards, at all.

I suspect that's because you don't see it. I'm certain many, many more people have purchased or been gifted a Starter Set than have ever heard of CR, let alone watched an episode.

By way of détente, perhaps we could agree that CR has done more for D&D branding within the online community than Wizards has. I'd have no trouble buying into that statement. In fact, I'd say CR has been so much more successful at it that Wizards seems to have mostly abandoned their efforts (Force Grey, etc.) in that space.

 

[Scribe]

I suspect that's because you don't see it. I'm certain many, many more people have purchased or been gifted a Starter Set than have ever heard of CR, let alone watched an episode.

I'd agree! With your whole post but this part here is the point.

Of the people who bought that starter set, what is the branding?

Its Dungeons?
Its big (red?) Dragons?
Its your various fantasy tropes and archetypes?

Like I hear you, there is SOMETHING there, but I think its tied to the culture, the history, the name, far far more than what the actual product IS if you get me?

 

[Greg Benage]

Like I hear you, there is SOMETHING there, but I think its tied to the culture, the history, the name, far far more than what the actual product IS if you get me?

I would 100% watch a documentary about kids popping open a Starter Set for the first time! I know what my first experience was like, and the D&D brand is still attached to that for me, but I can't know if it has the same effect on kids today.

 

[Scribe]

I would 100% watch a documentary about kids popping open a Starter Set for the first time! I know what my first experience was like, and the D&D brand is still attached to that for me, but I can't know if it has the same effect on kids today.

Totally, my kid grew up in this stuff, and getting to share that with him before he hit his current 'teen/adult' phase, was a blast and memories I hold onto while hes....being a 'teen/adult'.

But even then you know what he has strong memories for? LoTR, Baldurs Gate 1/2, WoW. All things which either fed into, were part of, or derived from (in part!) D&D, but not the D&D being sold, today.

That's the distinction.

Could D&D have a brand? Absolutely. Is Wizards of TODAY, actually pushing a brand? Nah, I dont see it.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think I understand you, but I think your sense of scale is way off. It's like saying the Mekong River defines the Pacific Ocean (to choose the most grandiose example I can think of). It's fair to say every one of the few million people who've watched a CR episode know what D&D is. I run into players all the time who have never heard of CR.

I don't really see it like that: you can talk about people who don't know about CR and that's fine. I know people who don't, either. But I find it to be the single most popular and well-known driving force behind D&D right now, and most of the players I meet who started during 5E know it. The image of D&D is big, but when we are not just talking about the cultural footprint and the actual product of the game, I think Critical Role is way more important because it's actually the current face of the game. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know what is.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'd love to know what is.

If we have to choose one "face of the brand," my vote would be those kids fighting the Demogorgon in their friend's basement.

 

[Justice and Rule]

If we have to choose one "face of the brand," my vote would be those kids fighting the Demogorgon in their friend's basement.

But that's not about actually playing D&D, that's just it's cultural footprint. The difference is that Critical Role is actually using the game. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? Stranger Things isn't about D&D as a game, it's D&D as a backdrop. It's just that Community episode but more popular. What I'm trying to say is that Critical Role is the face of the actual game and not as a cultural shibboleth to identify characters as nerds.

 

[overgeeked]

This tweet @Justice and Rule is exactly what I've come around to as the problem for Wizards, and why they felt they needed to reign everyone in.



D&D 'brand' is basically a poorly defined mess, at best, and they actively have THROWN OUT or disavowed the very history that made it what it is.

The OGL protected content is not a brand.
The SRD is not a brand.
They actively disavowed their backlog of lore/canon.
They have no meaningfully defining art style or direction.
They simply go where the wind blows.
They have ACTIVELY enabled, requested, and essentially mandated that gaps in the game are filled by 3PP.

And then in the end, they sat back and said...wait. Just hold on a second here.

"We have no through line canon, no story. Our art is safe, generic, Fantasy art that you can find on DeviantArt. Our game makes no defining statement on...pretty much any kind of topic, so as to appeal to the widest range of people possible....what exactly makes D&D...anything but Solasta?!"

And thats not to dunk on Solasta either!

What actually does Wizards own? A name. They have willfully abdicated on the rest. So when people say "This is Wizards going out to protect their brand!" What does that actually mean?

They dont have a brand. They have a name. They have several rule sets of various shades of common mechanics and terms.

They gave up the rest long ago, and thats a problem, if you want to break into other media platforms.

Now if anyone cares to refute this...

What is the D&D Brand?

100% this.

D&D is you and your friends getting together to create a share story that's unique to you and your group. That's not a story that can be sold. I mean, you could. But unless you're Mercer and Co it'll be boring. Unless there's a story written wherein D&D is the central part of the story, like say that comic about an RPG that later became an RPG...whose name completely escapes me at the moment. But again, that's centering the activity, not a story inherent to the brand. Like the BMX movie from the '80s. At least they could jazz that up and make it a pseudo action-adventure story...about riding BMX bikes.

Other than the fiction and settings WotC has intentionally walked away from...they don't really have stories to sell. They sell packages of content that other people take and turn into stories at their dinner table. The closest they have to a story to sell that's recognizable is something like the Curse of Strahd adventure path or Tomb of Horrors or Keep on the Borderlands. Drop some characters into that, have them bounce off the setting and events...then you have a story. Like...I don't know the D&D Cartoon. Isekai portal fantasy. That's a story.

D&D isn't a story. It isn't a brand.

 

[CapnZapp]

So I totally get why they thought they could get away from this. They mistook D&D for an IP that it really isn't, didn't realize that while many in the community might not notice the most important ones would be viscerally against it, and that they wouldn't be able to split up and cow their competitors into compliance or exodus.

Again, Ryan Dancey's theory was that the executives were under intense pressure from Hasbro higher-ups, since investors have fairly recently found out that Hasbro is essentially worth nothing if you exclude D&D and MtG.

This intense pressure means, according to textbook corporate logic, that more blood needs to be pressed out of the stone.

Reality and objections just don't matter when you have a job to do. Even if that job results in self-destruction you still gotta do it.

---

Also, the "community" here consists of two distinct parts. Consumers and 3PP.

The consumers (us) could always be depended on to move on after being outraged and keep buying WotC's stuff. After all, it isn't the public that gets hosed by the OGL.

The problem is that to a very large extent what we know as "D&D" is created and maintained by 3PPs (also us, in many cases). WotC have failed to see the immense value in a) this, and b) the value in keeping all this creative energy from directly competing with WotC.

Now, from a narrow perspective Paizo et al does do compete against WotC. What they didn't do was to compete against this wider notion of D&D. In fact, they greatly contribute to the reputation of D&D and fuzzy warm feeling of being part of a greater D&D community. Not to mention how you can lift their stories and their adventures for your D&D (or OSR) games pretty much directly*.
*) even if PF2 is sadly so regimented, like D&D4, that scenarios written for it tend to work best using the rules they were written for. The greater point definitely still holds for most other D&D-adjacent games, though.

Now WotC is going to find out just how pleasant it will be to face direct competition. And they will do so with their reputation torn to shreds.

And they will do so at a critical juncture - when switching editions, when any ttrpg publisher is at its weakest, since it represents a decision point "should we stick with game A or try out game B instead".

All in all, a truly impressive work. I don't think I could have pulled off anything nearly as bad for Hasbro's bottom line, even if I tried. Oh wait, I could, because you like y'all I would have known I could always ruin the OGL for a quick easy way to detonate a dirty bomb at my feet...!

 

[Reynard]

What is the D&D Brand?

That's the point of all this. WotC can't monetize if they don't define it, and they can't define it if 100 other companies are making it. This is about consolidating and defining what D&D IS so they can plaster it on every bit of merch possible.