• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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). However, for those who use the new OGL 1.1, which will be released in early 2023, there will be some...

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). However, for those who use the new OGL 1.1, which will be released in early 2023, there will be some limitations added with regards the type of product which can use it, and -- possibly controversially -- reporting to WotC your annual OGL-related revenue.

They are also adding a royalty for those third party publishers who make more than $750K per year.

Interestingly, only books and 'static electronic files' like ebooks and PDFs will be compatible with the new OGL, meaning that apps, web pages, and the like will need to stick to the old OGL 1.0a.

There will, of course, be a lot of debate and speculation over what this actually means for third party creators, and how it will affect them. Some publishers like Paizo (for Pathfinder) and others will likely simply continue to use the old OGL. The OGL 1.0a allows WotC to update the license, but allows licensees to continue to use previous versions "to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".


wotc-new-logo-3531303324.jpg



1. Will One D&D include an SRD/be covered by an OGL?

Yes. First, we’re designing One D&D with fifth edition backwards compatibility, so all existing creator content that is compatible with fifth edition will also be compatible with One D&D. Second, we will update the SRD for One D&D as we complete its development—development that is informed by the results of playtests that we’re conducting with hundreds of thousands of D&D players now.

2. Will the OGL terms change?

Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

The OGL needs an update to ensure that it keeps doing what it was intended to do—allow the D&D community’s independent creators to build and play and grow the game we all love—without allowing things like third-parties to mint D&D NFTs and large businesses to exploit our intellectual property.

So, what’s changing?

First, we’re making sure that OGL 1.1 is clear about what it covers and what it doesn’t. OGL 1.1 makes clear it only covers material created for use in or as TTRPGs, and those materials are only ever permitted as printed media or static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs). Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

Will this affect the D&D content and services players use today? It shouldn’t. The top VTT platforms already have custom agreements with Wizards to do what they do. D&D merchandise, like minis and novels, were never intended to be part of the OGL and OGL 1.1 won’t change that. Creators wishing to leverage D&D for those forms of expression will need, as they always have needed, custom agreements between us.

Second, we’re updating the OGL to offer different terms to creators who choose to make free, share-alike content and creators who want to sell their products.

What does this mean for you as a creator? If you’re making share-alike content, very little is going to change from what you’re already used to.

If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
  1. Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
  2. Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)
  3. Include a Creator Product badge on your work
When we roll out OGL 1.1, we will also provide explanatory videos, FAQs, and a web portal for registration to make navigating these requirements as easy and intuitive as possible. We’ll also have help available to creators to navigate the new process.

For the fewer than 20 creators worldwide who make more than $750,000 in income in a year, we will add a royalty starting in 2024. So, even for the creators making significant money selling D&D supplements and games, no royalties will be due for 2023 and all revenue below $750,000 in future years will be royalty-free.

Bottom line: The OGL is not going away. You will still be able to create new D&D content, publish it anywhere, and game with your friends and followers in all the ways that make this game and community so great. The thousands of creators publishing across Kickstarter, DMsGuild, and more are a critical part of the D&D experience, and we will continue to support and encourage them to do that through One D&D and beyond.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dire Bare

Legend
I find the terms on DMs Guild to be pretty bad (mainly in the revenue split and the IP terms for your own content), but putting that aside do DMs Guild participants also pay a royalty on top of that or have to open their books? Because, I don't think they do? That's an honest question, I'm actually not so sure I don't much follow that space.
DM's Guild creators pay 50% royalties (25% to WotC, 25% to OneBookShelf) and WotC retains the rights to their work. That is hefty, but still a pretty good deal if you want to create and sell D&D content using not just the rules, but WotC's IP. Plus, the DM's Guild is more "visible" for many creators than publishing something similar on other sites, even DriveThruRPG.

And if those terms are too onerous for any given creator, you still have the OGL. DriveThruRPG.com, a sister-site to the DM's Guild, charges creators 25% royalties. I imagine other retail sites have similar deals, and you always have the option of building your own company website with a store.

If you want to publish your "Guide to Faerun's Best Eateries" book and charge for it, the DM's Guild is your only real option. If you are content with publishing instead, "Guide to Fantasy Restaurants" without using any WotC IP, you have lots of options. However, your Realms-specific book might get more visibility on the DM's Guild site and see increased sales, balancing out the higher royalties.

I'd be interested in hearing from creators who do both, sell OGL and Guild products. Does the Guild really boost sales enough to balance out that higher royalty fee? I imagine opinions vary . . . .
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Which can only really be the case if Beyond becomes not just convenient, but essential.
Oh, I don't think it needs to be essential to be worth it. D&D Beyond really is convenient - convenient enough that it already has a fairly thriving population of subscribers (my daughter maintains a sub there and she uses it with all of her D&D games, many of which are online). If I was a smallish 3pp and going with OGL 1.1 was the price to pay for having access to the D&D Beyond distribution channel, I'd probably do it assuming there wasn't some additional toxic provision.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
IANAL, but I fear the word "authorized" is doing some heavy lifting in the existing s.9. Possibly 1.1 could include some language to the effect that "versions of OGL prior to 1.1 are not authorized for content released under 1.1"?
I'm not a lawyer either, but I don't think it works that way. Looking at Section 9 again:

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.

The work "authorized" is only mentioned with regard to any version of the License being something which you can publish Open Game Content under. Said Open Game Content can come from "any version of this License," authorized or not.

Or at least, that's my read on it.
 

Reynard

Legend
Which they will very likely push for. One big way of doing that is making only 1.1 stuff available on Beyond.
But they can't make Beyond the only outlet for 1D&D stuff, because of section 9. So they would have to convince 3PPs that Beyond is important enough to their model that they should go 1.1. And to do that, they have to have much more serious reach with Beyond than they have now.
 

The more I think about this, the more I think that WotC is going to have to provide some sort of incentive to get other companies to use the OGL v1.1. Given that what they've said here so far only seems to relate to additional restrictions, there's going to need to be some other reason for third-party publishers to use it, rather than sticking with existing versions of the license.

I'm still guessing some new, separate license that will let third-parties use an "official" compatibility logo, a la the d20 STL, but I'm not sure that alone will be enough to make these changes palatable to most publishers.
Compatibility with their platform will be incentive enough.
 

Reynard

Legend
Oh, I don't think it needs to be essential to be worth it. D&D Beyond really is convenient - convenient enough that it already has a fairly thriving population of subscribers (my daughter maintains a sub there and she uses it with all of her D&D games, many of which are online). If I was a smallish 3pp and going with OGL 1.1 was the price to pay for having access to the D&D Beyond distribution channel, I'd probably do it assuming there wasn't some additional toxic provision.
What percentage of D&D players use Beyond? What percentage of those use 3PP content?
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Compatibility with their platform will be incentive enough.
Sorry, by "their platform" do you mean D&D Beyond? Because whether or not they'll allow third-party publishers to post their content on D&DB strikes me as being an entirely separate issue.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
As a publisher, I want to know if it's net or gross. I don't want to make any assumptions. Gross? Then I qualify for over $50,000. Net? Then I'm still technically in the red lol.

And yeah, I can work with the current OGL and not need the new one if it's Gross. Maybe. It depends on what 1DnD will ultimately look like for the SRD.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top