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 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".

OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D

We love the interest and passion the community has for D&D. We love D&D, too. So, when we see the D&D community concerned by rumors and misu...

www.dndbeyond.com

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.

 

[teitan]

I am not a creator. But it does not sound like the sky is falling. A little more restrictive, but I mean, making 750k a year does not look like it affects most people (less than 20 as they say).

Not really. You could stick to 1.0a and nothing happens. 1.1 just seems a replay of the GSL but more open and at the same time more closed. It’s not going to go well. It’s part of that monetization strategy. Really they just need to bring the minis and spellcards etc back in house.

 

[teitan]

OK, this is what bugs me. It may not actually be an open license. Not with the revenue part. I'd be VERY interested in hearing more of what you think @Morrus

I know you probably have a lot of internal discussions and thinking to do though.

I think what it is is that it gives you a Badge, a compatibility logo and they won’t offer a OneD&D compatibility logo unless you accept the 1.1 OGL.

 

[Alzrius]

I think what it is is that it gives you a Badge, a compatibility logo and they won’t offer a OneD&D compatibility logo unless you accept the 1.1 OGL.

I agree, but they'll probably keep that to a separate license, rather than baking it into the text of the v1.1 OGL, since presumably the license will otherwise allow for other games to release SRDs of their own (as has been done with the existing OGLs), making the issuance of a compatibility logo for 1D&D somewhat awkward if it's part of the new OGL unto itself.

 

[MNblockhead]

Probably, but I don't see it. Maybe younger players engage D&D differently enough that beyond will become "essential" for most of them. I find it not worth the trouble.

I wonder if this is the case with the 20-30 crowd. I know my son and his friends, who are in middle school, play full pen and paper. No DDB, no VTT. I've offered to let them use my DDB account and my VTT, they just have no interest. They are all into video games and live on their electronic devices (phones, iPads, etc.) but when it comes to DnD, it just books, pen, and paper. I find that very interesting. It me and my group of players in our 40s and 50s that are using DDB and VTTs. It would be interesting to see the percentage of players using online tools versus pen and paper broken down by age category. I think it may not be tied to generation necessarily.

 

[teitan]

I agree, but they'll probably keep that to a separate license, rather than baking it into the text of the v1.1 OGL, since presumably the license will otherwise allow for other games to release SRDs of their own (as has been done with the existing OGLs), making the issuance of a compatibility logo for 1D&D somewhat awkward if it's part of the new OGL unto itself.

It would be inessential to those other games since 1.0a already exists. They’re tying it altogether as spelled out in the FAQ.

 

[MNblockhead]

Not if WotC doesn't provide some coding service for your content. Most of the people I have worked with and for making 5E content aren't coders. Asking small 3PP to take on the additional expense of finding people to code their stuff for Beyond and the VTT is probably not going to work. The margins are slim enough as it is.

Coding isn't necessary, but prepping your material, editing, and QCing for another media is still a lot of work. With VTTs it is harder because there isn't a lot of consolidation. But because most of the major VTTs have ways that allow you to bring your DDB content into their platforms, that would make DDB much more valuable to TTPs, assuming WotC doesn't try to block this in the future.

 

[Alzrius]

It would be inessential to those other games since 1.0a already exists. They’re tying it altogether as spelled out in the FAQ.

Right, but imagine how much confusion it could cause if someone used the FATE SRD with the OGL v1.1, and put some sort of 1D&D compatibility logo on it as per a line in the text of the license itself that said they could (or had to) do that.

Now, that seems like an outlier, since I don't see that being good for anyone. But if it's not good for WotC, they're probably not going to want that to happen, since it could hurt the compatibility logo's utility. Hence why they'll probably limit it to a separate license rather than being part of the v1.1 OGL itself.

 

[DorkForge]

I wasn't too concerned about when they declared D&D was under monetized, since that's a massive blanket and nobody will bat an eye if they started to churn out dice, shirts, and other accessories that Etsy makes a killing off of.

However, this just feels bad. Whatever the royalty is set to it's extremely likely that WotC will be double-dipping on those publishers for VTT content. A % of your sale like DMs Guild, then the OGL royalty tax once you get over the threshold.
Depending on what that percentage is and what the cut they take is, I wouldn't be surprised if bigger publishers started to just work around it with loop holes, and I wouldn't blame them. This is the kind of greediness people were worried about from that Hasbro chat.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

However, this just feels bad. Whatever the royalty is set to it's extremely likely that WotC will be double-dipping on those publishers for VTT content. A % of your sale like DMs Guild, then the OGL royalty tax once you get over the threshold.

The DMsGuild license is different from the OGL. If you publish things under the DMsGuild license, you're not restrained to the same terms as you are by the OGL.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm not in favor of the game being, at or near its core, a subscription-based service, even if I'm not going to subscribe one way or another. I just can't help note the irony that some of the people campaigning for #opendnd have monetized every aspect of their "creative" process. They're peddling kickstarters with $175 tiers and Patreons with $20/month subscription levels; wotc would get skewered for charging those kinds of prices. I put "creative" in quotation marks because these products are highly derivative of wotc's game and book design at best and at worst are full of problematic fantasy tropes. It's like listening to an airbnb host complain about corporate greed.

To be fair, however, economy of scale is important. When you back some someone on patreon, you are generally supporting a single creator or a small publisher. You pay more because you like their content and it is something that might not get made otherwise. Often there is a small community that builds around it and at certain tiers their make be customized rewards. With Kickstarter, you are helping fund a particular product to get made, often with crazy high production values that you would never get with a mass-produced product. The expectations and relationship between the creators and customers is quite different than that in retail transactions. And you do see some minor blowback on larger companies that use Kickstarter and Patreon more like retail transactions (subscriptions and pre-sales). I don't have an issue with it, but when it comes to major publishers, I tend to just wait until the product is available to purchase on-line rather than back on Kickstarter or support via Patreon. If I'm confident that the product is going to be published anyway and if I don't feel that I'm supporting someone who might not otherwise be able to bring their vision to fruition, then I can just wait and see if I like the final product and but it when it is generally available.