• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

I feel this was inevitable. Just look at how 3PP are successfully milking the player base with monthly subscriptions for additional content being produced. Everyone is doing it now - Level Up, Dragonix, Collville etc. WotC needed to safeguard their their online platform from 3PP - and basically said if you want to join pay the tax.

WotC cannot easily compete with 20 3PP producing monthly content - and typically of a high standard.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
What do other publishers on here think?

Any incentive to switch? An One D&D SRD doesn't seem like it would be enough, nor the badge.
I am guessing publishers will want to know WHAT the royalty is set to. For example (no basis for these numbers) if it's 1% on income above $750K I doubt many will care a lot, and if it's 20% on income above $750K they will care a lot.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Just for me, it's too much "we want all the money" back-to-back statements. The most significant changes we're hearing about One D&D is how they're changing how they make money - not even so much what the game is going to offer for fans and gamers.
They need to come out with some positive news - and fast.
There is definitely a change towards greater monetization of the OGL. Eh, doesn't bother me in the slightest, at least not with what we've heard so far.

The new license only requires royalties for publishers making over $750,000 in sales, and only on those sales above that limit. That's new for those publishers, and I'm sure they aren't happy about it, but it seems more than fair to me . . . use the D&D rules to make lots of money, share some of that revenue with D&D (or the company publishing D&D).

This affects fan-publishers and small-time publishers not in the least, other than new reporting requirements. Which again, is a change, and one not likely welcomed, but a small ask for the use of the D&D rules.

The clarified restrictions around other types of products than RPG books is, just that, clarification. I'm okay with it.
 

Art Waring

halozix.com
The money involved with these changes is very small. I don't think this is what they meant (and they said what they meant and it wasn't this).
But we also don't know the contents of the finalized 1.1 version until release, there could be other limitations, such as needing corporate approval for your book based on content, or other factors that we aren't privy to yet.
 

darjr

I crit!
The opening of your financials really bothers me. That's something you have to do if you have like a separate bespoke licensing agreement for some IP. Like say you're making an "official" Star Wars RPG or something. That's not really in-line with what the OGL has been and should be. They're changing it to be more like the former that I described.

Not good.
this i agree with

I think it'll be a burden to far. In that if there is any wait on wotc during the publishing cycle small publishers will get hurt.
 


glass

(he, him)
Not sure what you see as a problem…
I am not @darjr, but for me the revenue reporting requirement seem unnecessarily intrusive. Not to mention, un-open.

With DMsGuild, you have to hope the exposure more than doubles your sales.
Or you have a product idea that can only be done on DMsGuild.

But Section 9, specifies that you can use any version of the license with material released under any version. So, what prevents someone from using 1.0 with material released under 1.1?
IANAL, but I fear the word "authorized" is doing some heavy lifting in the existing s.9. Possibly 1.1 could include some language to the effect that "versions of OGL prior to 1.1 are not authorized for content released under 1.1"?
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
The more I think about this, the more I think that WotC is going to have to provide some sort of incentive to get other companies to use the OGL v1.1. Given that what they've said here so far only seems to relate to additional restrictions, there's going to need to be some other reason for third-party publishers to use it, rather than sticking with existing versions of the license.

I'm still guessing some new, separate license that will let third-parties use an "official" compatibility logo, a la the d20 STL, but I'm not sure that alone will be enough to make these changes palatable to most publishers.
 

irrg

Explorer
You are 100% correct -- I was just doing a compare of the two versions (thanks, Morrus) and I noticed the same thing.

I'd be interested in putting a small bet down on WotC deciding that the new license will be completely new, and not just a new version.
There is no obligation for WotC to use semantic versioning here, but, a full rewrite would, if they followed semver principles from software here, justifiably be called 2.0 instead of 1.1.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top