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.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Others have noted that a principle of contract law is that ambiguous terms are traditionally NOT interpreted in favor of the person who drafted the contract, so that's a heck of a stretch, so I suspect they may be counting on the unethical legal strategy of "We're a huge company with deep pockets and can just hound smaller parties into bankruptcy through frivolous filings". . .which works right up until someone has the means to fight back.

Exactly right. But who in the field has the means? Outside of Peter Adkison swooping in from on high to pay for it I don't think any other entity in our little hobby has the financial resources for such a fight.

It's deeply cynical, unethical and downright contemptuous. But I can't really argue with the logic of Wizards' here. I don't think anybody is likely resourced enough to fight a long, and certainly drawn out (to consume the most financial resources possible to force a tap out) court battle with a multi-billion dollar mega corp.

 

[humble minion]

Or they will all sign special agreements with WotC that are mutually beneficial and not burn their own businesses down over idealism.

That's the most likely solution for my betting. Unless either private feedback or public outrage convinces WotC to wind this back in a big way, the larger 3pps are more likely to come to some sort of private sweetheart arrangement with WotC (and to be fair it's hard to fault them for that - much as the proposed 1.1 is catastrophic for the broader industry, it's very easy for us to sit here at our keyboards and pontificate about how someone else should willingly put themselves in danger of bankruptcy and ruin to just have a shot at knocking this on the head via the legal system).

Places like KP and GR have decentish relationships with WotC anyway I think. The small players, and anyone new trying to break in, will be the ones who really cop the pointy end of the pineapple here. And even the bigger 3pps are mostly fairly small and operating on thin margins. Green Ronin had to run a kickstarter just to get capital together to reprint out-of-stock Mutants and Masterminds material (including the core book!) quite recently. That ain't the behaviour of a company that has a handy sooper-sekrit multimillion dollar fighting fund suitable for launching extended legal assaults on Hasbro.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

That does seem to be pretty amateur hour for the lawyers Hasbro should be able to afford.

It wouldn't surprise me if wotc management "shopped around" for lawyers until they found someone who gave them the answer they wanted.

 

[dbolack]

"believed"? there's a ton of precedence for perpetual licenses. 1.0(a) is perpetual, explicitly so - there's nothing to believe about it. the only "question" is if WoTC can unauthorize an OGL license version...and it's really looking like they can't.

Citations, please.

 

[dbolack]

She was probably also there when WotC was sued by Palladium (and lost pretty badly iirc)

My memory of that is that they did not lose. I'd have to go reread, it's been 30 years.

 

[BMaC]

I know someone who will work pro bono, but his area of legal expertise is rather specialized:

 

[dbolack]

Places like KP and GR have decentish relationships with WotC anyway I think. The small players, and anyone new trying to break in, will be the ones who really cop the pointy end of the pineapple here. And even the bigger 3pps are mostly fairly small and operating on thin margins. Green Ronin had to run a kickstarter just to get capital together to reprint out-of-stock Mutants and Masterminds material (including the core book!) quite recently. That ain't the behaviour of a company that has a handy sooper-sekrit multimillion dollar fighting fund suitable for launching extended legal assaults on Hasbro.

I find it very likely that GR will ditch OGL if forced to 1.1 or nothing.

 

[humble minion]

I find it very likely that GR will ditch OGL if forced to 1.1 or nothing.

Maybe. Lots of water to pass under the bridge yet, and it's quite possible that 1.1 is still subject to change. I suspect that GR, like everyone else, are waiting for concrete news and quietly pulling whatever strings they still have at WotC.

I believe M&M is published under the old OGL though. If it comes to that, unless they can get themselves a new licence or successfully argue that M&M3 is sufficiently divorced from its d20 roots (no hit points, no levels, no damage rolls, different saves, different ability stats and character generation...) that a licence is no longer necessary, then abandoning the OGL completely would likely mean the death of that game. And they just crowdfunded a bunch of money to reprint M&M.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

I understand that corporate motives can be and often are bizarre from a consumer perspective. But emotionally I have a hard time grasping that the people who have tied knots of themselves trying to cleanse their product from everything than can be interpreted as offensive to someone somewhere, now may be moving towards one of the biggest duck moves in our hobbys history.

 

[Alzrius]

They could have avoided the whole mess by not releasing D&DOne with an SRD and released just a DMSguild only license.

My guess (and I want to stress that this is just a guess) is that someone at WotC realized that a third-party could take the existing 5.1 SRD (and 3.5 SRD; there's no reason you can't mingle their content) and create a near-perfect facsimile of 1D&D (when it comes out) under the OGL, similar to how earlier versions of D&D were retro-cloned, and that this entire debacle is them trying to stop that from happening.

No idea if that's correct, but it's one of the few reasons I can think of for why they'd go this far.