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
That's not what I mean. I was just saying that the fact that there are far, far more than 20 3PPs out there says nothing about the relevance of the 20 in question, who collectively are the most visible and comprise the most-used content.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what this conversation is even about or how I managed to get myself into it let alone able to understand what this means. Never mind. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
That's not what I mean. I was just saying that the fact that there are far, far more than 20 3PPs out there says nothing about the relevance of the 20 in question, who collectively are the most visible and comprise the most-used content.
Their relevance is that they are the most visible and have the most-used content?

I admit to not understanding your statement.
 

tomBitonti

Adventurer
What are folks thoughts on what is encompassed by “static electronic files (like epubs and PDFs).

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.

The problem, to me, is the use of ”static”, and the vast jump from static files to a video game. That gap seems too vast to be adequately addressed by the proposed license.

Is a cross-linked but static set of HTML allowed? What about a static style sheet into which static monster data was placed?

I do think that these are dynamic and are disallowed: A character form — which allows dynamic selection of 1E abilities; An encounter builder — which allows dynamic selection of 1E opponents; A virtual table — which allows dynamic placement of 1E assets.

Also, how much “dynamic” processing by a client is allowed? Simple resizing and scaling are technically “dynamic” adjustments to static content. However, I doubt that kind of client processing is disallowed. Similarly, an animated emoticon would not be disallowed.

But .. what about the processing of javascript (or other embedded scripts)? How much of that is allowed?

TomB
 


Nylanfs

Adventurer
They are attempting to retcon what the OGL was "intended" for, and attempting to create confusion between what the OGL is, and what the d20 STL was. With software it's kinda dicey because you have to know what license all of the libraries you are using is under (several are incompatible with the OGL), OR you have to write everything yourself so you have guaranteed ownership of the software to say that it can be OGC or not. Or you have to do it similar to how PCGen does it and the engine uses one license LGPL, Apache, etc., and the data is all human readable and released under the OGL only.
 


Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
My point was that it isn't only 20 out if all the 3PP, as some seem to have implied. It's the biggest and most visible 20, who collectively represent all 3PP to some degree.
It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"

No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.

It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist." This has been a topic argued going back to 1e AD&D, the importance of supporting fans sharing their homebrew work with other fans, even if it's for a few bucks to support their time, versus professionals who create RPGs for a full time living.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
This entire argument is very reminiscent of the Setting Contest that was held here on EnWorld that resulted Keith Baker's Eberron. A loud minority of people were running around saying they refused to participate in the contest because "WOTC would gain the rights to my setting!"

95%+ of these people had little to no professional experience in being published. And of course WOTC didn't "steal settings" that were submitted.
 

darjr

I crit!
It is truly weird to see "Big evil greedy corporation hurting the little guy" from the same people arguing "Top 1% of D&D publishers represent all 100% of D&D publishers and we must defend their interests as our interests!"

No, the less that 20 publishers who generate more than $750,000/year in income off the license do not in fact represent "all" third party publishers to some degree. It is in fact highly relevant that the number of entities that need to pay a royalty under this plan is an incredibly small number relative to their competition in that marketplace.

It's fair to distinguish between "Professionals who do this for a living likely in their own corporation with employees and government filings" and "side gig or hobbyist." This has been a topic argued going back to 1e AD&D, the importance of supporting fans sharing their homebrew work with other fans, even if it's for a few bucks to support their time, versus professionals who create RPGs for a full time living.
I do wonder how many make over $50 thousand.

Of those what kind of business are they? Single proprietor with zero full time employees? I imagine the vast majority of them are.

Is reporting a burden too far for many of them? Is having to inform WotC about their items for sale going to be a burden? Will they have to wait on WotC before they can out up things for sale? It’s already got to be tough to be in that space.

Would this mean folks like M.T. Black? I’d hate to lose many of them.

@Mistwell thia isn’t so much a comment on your post but that your post prompted my thoughts.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I do wonder how many make over $50 thousand.

Of those what kind of business are they? Single proprietor with zero full time employees? I imagine the vast majority of them are.
It depends on if it's gross or net. Gross? I made more than $50,000 last year. Net? Not even close. And I am a single sole proprietorship with zero employees.


Is reporting a burden too far for many of them? Is having to inform WotC about their items for sale going to be a burden? Will they have to wait in WotC before they can out up things for sale? It’s already got to be tough to be in that space.

Would this mean folks like M.T. Black? I’d hate to lose many of them.

@Mistwell thia isn’t so much a comment on your post but that your post prompted my thoughts.
It really depends on what the trade off is gonna be. I don't know the benefits yet to know if it's too much a risk/privacy concern to report. If it is? Then I stick with the old OGL.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top