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

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
The reason I'm really inclined to believe that the carrot is integration into the 2024 DnD Beyond/VTT ecosystem (whatever that ends up being called) is that bit about the $750K threshold for royalties. How would they enforce that? The easiest answer? From sales data. On their own digital storefront.
Many of those creators generate that revenue from Kickstarter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
Many of those creators generate that revenue from Kickstarter.
Yeah sure, but these are MBAs we are talking about. When creating a net to capture free money, why would they limit it to just big Kickstarters they notice, you know?

Plus when tied into their own storefront you can far more easily run reports, etc. You could even automatically take your cut once the threshold is met. Alot less friction there.
 

zooey

Explorer
The revenue reporting will be useful to Hasbro for identifying what sorts of products are in demand. Adventure modules are down? Put Yawning Portal 2 on hold. Four different ninja-related 3rd party books sold over $50k? See what the developers can do with Kara-Tur next quarter.
 
Last edited:

Dragonsbane

Proud Grognard
Should be interesting. I wonder if this will be a chance for other games to allow more publishing from people to counter this a little. There are soooooooo many other games out there people can try, and its a shame more don't.

The amount of blatant monetization leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Although my group plays other games now, I had considered trying the new D&D when it comes out, I have played it since the 80s, but... that desire is fading every new article I read about WofC and D&D One.
 


The revenue reporting will be useful to Hasbro for identifying what sorts of products are in demand. Adventure modules are down? Put Yawning Portal 2 on hold. Four different ninja-related 3rd party books sold over $50k? See what the developers can do with Kara-Tur next quarter.

This might be the answer to @eyeheartawk 's question.
We might profit, because wotc knows better what we want.
 

Loren the GM

Adventurer
Publisher
Why is a Roll20 Module or Foundry Module not static as far as I can tell a FantasgyGrounds Mod is static or at least as static as a web page.

Never minding though that a Roll20 Module isn't published under the OGL. At least, not if it's anything like Fantasy Grounds.

Many products are produced through Kickstarter (or independently) that use the OGL. These are then ported to VTT platforms, which often includes dynamic elements like character builders, compendiums, rollable tables, etc. If the original property was built using the OGL, then whatever content is produced for the VTT still includes OGL content and would need to abide by that license, even though the actual module being sold is under a license with whichever storefront is being sold. If they use any OGL 1.1 content that touches these dynamic elements, that could potentially be a problem (IANAL, and of course we don't have actual OGL 1.1 text yet so don't know what ACTUALLY will be allowed or not).

Official conversions of WotC modules (Curse of Strahd, for example) wouldn't fall under this category as they have a separate license with the VTT outside of the OGL, but the MANY third-party products that are created this way would definitely need to evaluate what the new OGL means to them.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
ETA: I'd also strengthen my language if I don't want someone retro-clowning me: "Any Work that uses One Game Content is subject to the terms of the Open Game License v1.1."
I'm not sure that would hold water, personally.

I mean, they could insert language like that, but if there's any "One Game Content" (i.e. 1D&D Open Game Content) that in any way overlaps with Open Game Content currently in use from a different SRD, e.g. content such as a race called "dwarves," or a class called "cleric," etc., then almost anything could be put forward as being "One Game Content" even if it's not.

Now, the obvious counter to that would be that you have to look at the Section 15 to see if the 1D&D SRD is being cited, which would ideally clear things up. Even then, though, I'm not sure you'd be able to make a "if you use this, you're subject to the OGL v1.1" clause fly, simply because that language would be part of the OGL v1.1 itself (not the 1D&D SRD), and so in order to be bound by that clause you have to actually use the OGL v1.1. You can't be held subject to the terms of a license you aren't a party to. Hence, if someone uses Open Game Content originally released under the OGL v1.1 in an OGL v1.0a product via the latter's Section 9, they haven't actually used the OGL v1.1 to begin with.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top