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]

Ok, then what exactly is 1.1 accomplishing ? I thought the main reason in your opinion was to prevent something like that

I think there will be a lot of publishers who simply use 1.1 and few or none that go the clone route, just as a matter of common sense.

I do expect some publishers to continue supporting 5e, and they obviously wouldn’t have any need for 1.1.

From a fan perspective, my hope is that a tighter OGL will allow them to release a more robust/complete SRD. I feel like they tried to restrict what could be done with 5e (without much success) by releasing a more restrictive SRD—maybe they don’t do that now.

There, a carrot.

 

[overgeeked]

Again with the "greed" accusation while defending the top 1% of RPG publishers. Do you guys even hear yourselves?

Can you hear yourself? Do you know how tiny the amounts we're talking about are to WotC but how big they would be to those 3PP?

20 companies, $2M per KS (one each), say 25% profit, say WotC takes 10% of that, that is 1M in fees.
Say they make the same amount again in sales afterwards, now we are at $2M. Out of a $1B goal that is a rounding error.

This is a literal drop in an ocean. But, the effect that will have on those 20 3PP is hugely detrimental. Many will have to take a long, hard look at their own books and figure out where that money's supposed to come from. If they can't square that circle, they'll likely not come along with the new edition, which means they will get left behind by a huge section of their customers. Unless one of them magically lucks out and becomes 5E's Pathfinder. Most of those "big" 3PP are only "big" because they publish content for the latest edition of D&D. Matt Colville's been asked about resurrecting and/or supporting 4E for years, since he likes it so much. But he's repeatedly said something to the effect of, "It's hard enough to make money supporting the current edition of D&D. Supporting a dead edition? Forget about it."

This is WotC greed and malice pure and simple. They want free money and are going to intentionally tank several large 3PP to do it. Even if you hate every single one of those 3PP you cannot possibly think that's good for the community.

 

[mamba]

I think there will be a lot of publishers who simply use 1.1 and few or none that go the clone route, just as a matter of common sense.

I am not expecting many to go the clone route either, mostly because I do not see many cloning One D&D.

Anyone creating supplements for One D&D can simply stay on the 5e SRD / OGL 1.0, I gave the reasons earlier. Anyone creating a sufficiently different RPG can do the same.

From a fan perspective, my hope is that a tighter OGL will allow them to release a more robust/complete SRD. I feel like they tried to restrict what could be done with 5e (without much success) by releasing a more restrictive SRD—maybe they don’t do that now.

There, a carrot.

Would be nice, I kinda doubt it (that would make a new Paizo so much easier, even if WotC then gets a fee they would be better off it that were their customers instead). will take a while until we know.

 

[Mistwell]

Can you hear yourself? Do you know how tiny the amounts we're talking about are to WotC but how big they would be to those 3PP?

No I don't. And you don't either. You have zero knowledge of how much the royalty will be or how it will work. But you're stating this as if you do know, and that it will be huge in impact. To guys like Critical Role, and MCDM.

Instead y'all are calling WOTC over the top corporate greed (while simultaneously claiming it will be a drop in the bucket to them, which adds humor) while defending organizations which rack up millions a year, not even knowing how big or small the impact will be on those companies.

So yeah, I hear myself just fine. Do you?

This is WotC greed and malice pure and simple. They want free money and are going to intentionally tank several large 3PP to do it. Even if you hate every single one of those 3PP you cannot possibly think that's good for the community.

Oh it's actual people at WOTC being malicious now? Calling them greedy wasn't good enough, now they are malicious for charging money to the top 1% users of their intellectual property license?

You might not see how over the top you've gone, but I bet others will.

 

[Mistwell]

My initial rough math is not that far off. 20 companies, $2M per KS (one each), say 25% profit, say WotC takes 10% of that, that is 1M in fees. Say they make the same amount again in sales afterwards, now we are at $2M. Out of a $1B goal that is a rounding error.

It's a per-year license. Definitely not 20 companies are there with $2M KS in every year. And we have no idea what their profit margins are, or what the royalty will be.

But as for your premise that this is not about money, I think there might be some truth to that. I think it's about preventing another Paizo, while not holding back the extreme overwhelming majority of creators. I suspect it will be a progressive tiered royalty system but we shall see. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's a small royalty on every dollar from $750K to $1M, then a larger one on $1M to $2M, then a larger one from $2M to $3M, and so on.

And I again say this is about having your 3pp material available through DnDBeyond and the VTT. I think that is the primary incentive to use 1.1.

 

[overgeeked]

No I don't. And you don't either. You have zero knowledge of how much the royalty will be or how it will work. But you're stating this as if you do know, and that it will be huge in impact. To guys like Critical Role, and MCDM.

Instead y'all are calling WOTC over the top corporate greed (while simultaneously claiming it will be a drop in the bucket to them, which adds humor) while defending organizations which rack up millions a year, not even knowing how big or small the impact will be on those companies.

So yeah, I hear myself just fine. Do you?

Oh it's actual people at WOTC being malicious now? Calling them greedy wasn't good enough, now they are malicious for charging money to the top 1% users of their intellectual property license?

You might not see how over the top you've gone, but I bet others will.

When you get handed a David vs Goliath situation you don't root for Goliath. You root for David.

 

[Greg Benage]

I agree that there is some logical tension between the “corporate greed” and “rounding error” lines of attack.

It could still be malice, though. [emoji23]

 

[Mistwell]

When you get handed a David vs Goliath situation you don't root for Goliath. You root for David.

YOU are David here. Actual small publishers are Davids. Matt Collville and the Critical Role crew are not. They're just slightly shorter Goliaths. Matt and the CR Crew all likely make more money than the top executives at the D&D division of WOTC. You're not defending David.

And I say that assuming it's going to be a progressive royalty which hits the very top much harder than the smaller ones who are above $750K but below $2M a year in revenue. We shall see if that's what happens. But calling this malicious by WOTC is over the top.

 

[mamba]

It's a per-year license.

My math was per year as well

Definitely not 20 companies are there with $2M KS in every year. And we have no idea what their profit margins are, or what the royalty will be.

So I overestimated the money WotC can expect then

The profit margin is a guess, so is the % WotC takes, but since they take 20% from DMsG and offer up more there, it felt like a good guess. I feel good about my profit margin as well. If you want to go extreme, double to $4M, still a drop in the bucket for WotC.

But as for your premise that this is not about money, I think there might be some truth to that. I think it's about preventing another Paizo, while not holding back the extreme overwhelming majority of creators.

I don't think it even is about preventing a second Paizo, because quite frankly it won't. The next Paizo can branch off the 5e SRD under OGL 1.0 just fine. Heck they can even do it off 1.1 if they are ok with some fee.

I really think WotC would be so much better off restricting it to 'only print, PDF and VTT' part and leave the rest alone. That prevents the unforseen future development (at least to the degree that it is not out of the bag with the 5e SRD already) while still allowing TTRPG products of any kind.

And I again say this is about having your 3pp material available through DnDBeyond and the VTT. I think that is the primary incentive to use 1.1.

it would be the primary incentive, because the license terms clearly are not

 

[darjr]

This bit here makes me think there will be a thumbs up or down process from WotC.

Include a Creator Product badge on your work

WotC, at a minimum, won't want that badge on bigoted or hateful content. I even think it makes sense that they'd have such a review.
That review will either be before any such product is made, or after the 3pp has printed books (or sold PDFs out to the wild).

Also I would think WotC would have a longer list of what THEY think is inappropriate. On their terms, not ours.

Will WotC care if they demand you pulp printed books? Would they want them to get out to the wild before they had a chance to stop them?

Maybe, given how the dmsguild runs, but the question of pulping printed books is almost not a concern on the dmsguild. For small 3pp publishers printing outside of on-demand, it very well might be.

If you are a small publisher what would you prefer? Pre review or post?