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.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is where it gets complicated. Greg Stafford regained control of the Runequest trademark, but he didn't regain ownership of the Runequest III rule system from the IP of Avalon Hill. So the Mongoose edition of RQ was a re-write of the system from the ground up.

So they just cloned it (the "yolo" option), but Stafford couldn't really have objected because he didn't own that IP -- Hasbro did (does). Is that right? Or did Stafford eventually get the IP back, but only after Legend had been created? So confusing!

 

[Prime_Evil]

As to this thread, it's funny to see how much flack they got for not being as permissive as the OGL. Given that there was no way to license anything before, this is interesting to me. So WotC might be in for a ride now that they actually want to remove stuff rather than not hand out as much as someone else.

I think what is interesting is the move away from the position adopted by WoTC in the days when they sponsored the Open Gaming Foundation. Ryan Dancey was encouraging other companies to adopt the Open Game License to create a shared pool of "open" IP. But with OneD&D, Wizards seems to be repositioning the licence as something applicable to the D&D ecosystem only. The revenue reporting and royalty requirements don't make much sense for non-D20 games (like Cepheus Engine or Legend / OpenQuest / Delta Green). So the implications for independent publishers using the OGL may be interesting (especially if people try to mix stuff produced under different versions of the license).

 

[Prime_Evil]

So they just cloned it (the "yolo" option), but Stafford couldn't really have objected because he didn't own that IP -- Hasbro did (does). Is that right? Or did Stafford eventually get the IP back, but only after Legend had been created? So confusing!

Greg had clear ownership of the trademark. And he also retained all rights to the Glorantha setting. But the first edition of Mongoose Runequest was effectively a "retroclone" of classic RQ. However, this was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the leadership team at WoTC at the time. People like Peter Adkison and Lisa Stevens (of Paizo fame) were huge fans of Runequest and wanted to see it back in print. Indeed, Lisa Stevens was a player in a campaign of RQ run by Mark Rein-Hagen (of Vampire: the Masquerade fame). So...it's complicated. When the business relationship with Mongoose broke down, Greg could take back the trademark and the rights to the Glorantha setting. But Mongoose retained ownership of their version of the rule system. That's why both Runequest 6 / Mythras and Chaosium's excellent Runequest: Adventures in Glorantha don't use any text from the Mongoose versions. Indeed, the Chaosium version hearkens back to the glory days of Runequest II.

 

[Greg Benage]

Greg had clear ownership of the trademark. And he also retained all rights to the Glorantha setting. But the first edition of Mongoose Runequest was effectively a "retroclone" of classic RQ. However, this was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the leadership team at WoTC at the time. People like Peter Adkison and Lisa Stevens (of Paizo fame) were huge fans of Runequest and wanted to see it back in print.

Sounds like more of a "clone" than a "retroclone," since it wasn't based on any open content. It seems odd that it had the "tacit approval" of Adkison and Stevens, since they were both gone by 2001. How would their approval have been relevant to something published 2007+?

 

[Prime_Evil]

I'm not speculating on Greg's opinion, I'm just restating what he told me about not approving the release of an OGL and an SRD, and not being aware of it before it was released. I wasn't the only one he said that to. As for official records, I have read the actual contract from May of 2005. It didn't allow for any licensing or sub-licensing to anybody else. As you say, Greg chose not to fight it, at least not legally, for reasons we will now probably never know. As for rescinding the license, I was one of advisors that worked with Greg on that in 2011.

This is open to interpretation. The Glorantha setting was explicitly declared as product identity in all Mongoose books. This meets the requirements of Section 7 of the OGL as Mongoose held an independent Agreement with the owner of the IP embodied in the Product Identity. Under the terms of the OGL, the "owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity". So in that sense, there was never any confusion. Mongoose owned their re-interpretation of the game system, but Issaries always retained ownership of their IP. The objection raised by Chaosium relates to section five of the OGL. Namely, the "Representation of Authority to Contribute". This states "If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." But it can be argued Mongoose did not release Greg's Intellectual Property as Open Game Content, thereby complying with the terms of the OGL. Both parties came to a semi-amicable agreement when the license terminated (I think around 2010). So Issaries went in one direction and Mongoose went in another. There is no doubt that the OGL release of Legend is on much firmer legal ground though.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is open to interpretation. The Glorantha setting was explicitly declared as product identity in all Mongoose books. This meets the requirements of Section 7 of the OGL as Mongoose held an independent Agreement with the owner of the IP embodied in the Product Identity.

I mean, it meets the requirement of the OGL. But if the license from Stafford's company didn't grant rights to license or sublicense the property, satisfying any requirements in the OGL isn't relevant, as far as I can see.

That said, from what you say, it sounds like Stafford didn't own the rights (whatever they may be, if it's ever tested) to the game system at the time, anyway. It's easy to imagine how this might have gone:

Stafford: I can license you the RQ trademark and the Glorantha IP, but not the RQ game system. I don't own those rights.
Mongoose: We can work with that.
Stafford: Okay.

And then Mongoose just cloned RQ (and later RQII) without the benefit of any open content.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Sounds like more of a "clone" than a "retroclone," since it wasn't based on any open content. It seems odd that it had the "tacit approval" of Adkison and Stevens, since they were both gone by 2001. How would their approval have been relevant to something published 2007+?

I believe private discussions around the fate of Runequest trademark occurred around 2000. I can't remember the exact date of the trademark expiry, but it should be a matter of public record. I seem to recall Greg finally secured the rights to the trademark in 2003. Issaries didn't enter a licensing agreement to develop a new edition for a few more years. I think that occurred sometime around 2004 - 2005.

Peter Peter Maranci's History of Runequest may help to explain the complex history here. But it hasn't been updated since 2014.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I mean, it meets the requirement of the OGL. But if the license from Stafford's company didn't grant rights to license or sublicense the property, satisfying any requirements in the OGL isn't relevant, as far as I can see.

That's the heart of the argument. My suspicion is that both parties were acting in good faith, but neither fully appreciated the position of the other. And it became a bone of contention as the relationship degenerated for other reasons. But after the "divorce", both parties landed on a compromise they could live with even if neither was 100% happy with the outcome. The direct involvement of Chaosium was a bit later and there have been some changes of leadership since that time.

 

[mamba]

I think what is interesting is the move away from the position adopted by WoTC in the days when they sponsored the Open Gaming Foundation. Ryan Dancey was encouraging other companies to adopt the Open Game License to create a shared pool of "open" IP.

they had their motives for creating it that way, basically they wanted to create PHB, DMG and MMs and leave the rest to others.

This way WotC could focus on the cash cows and leave the much less profitable to money-losing adventures and settings to others.

They also wanted to grow the hobby, which had been shrinking for a while, because they figured if it does and we are the 800lb gorilla in it, we are bound to benefit from that.

But with OneD&D, Wizards seems to be repositioning the licence as something applicable to the D&D ecosystem only. The revenue reporting and royalty requirements don't make much sense for non-D20 games (like Cepheus Engine or Legend / OpenQuest / Delta Green). So the implications for independent publishers using the OGL may be interesting (especially if people try to mix stuff produced under different versions of the license).

if you want a fee if something makes X amount of money, you need to know how much anyone makes. I doubt WotC would complain about getting some free money from a non-d20 game

I don’t see those publishers switching to 1.1 though, there is no incentive.

 

[Hussar]

In fairness to @Hussar after I so ardently defended Justin, he came to work with this today:

"...it’s become clear that Hasbro is, once again, planning to abandon the OGL."

Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?

In the Brief History of the Open Gaming License, we discussed how the Open Gaming License (OGL) works and how it has impacted the RPG industry and hobby since its introduction in 2000. If you’re u

thealexandrian.net

I am betrayed.

Nice to see that leopards don't really change their spots. There are just some folks out there that would kick up a fuss over how the twenty dollar bills weren't folded correctly if WotC included a twenty in the inside cover of every PHB.

And, having watched the unbelievably level of over reaction when 4e rolled out - yes, yes, I know, WotC did themselves absolutely no favors at the time either - I'd really rather not see that happen again. Every time the collective fandom gets a bee in its bonnet about something, WotC just moves further and further away from actually directly interacting with fans. I can't blame them. Like I said, it doesn't matter if WotC said that rain was wet, people would loudly proclaim that WotC is only trying to screw over gamers.