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.

 

[glass]

Sorry for the wall of quotes, but the thread exploded since last time I looked in. Reminds me of rules debates in the early 2000s.

That is nice and all, but this is starting to feel like the jump from 3.0 to 3.5.

For me, it is feeling a lot like they are trying to combine the worst features of the 3.0 => 3.5 transition and the 3.5 => 4e transition.

Well, at least wait to see what the actual license is before making a rash decision.

Absolutely not. The time to kick up a fuss is now, while there is still time to change WotC's plans.

If the new stuff is released under an iteration of the Open Game License (which is what WotC's press release is making it sound like, calling it OGL v1.1 and all), then the Section 9 from the existing versions of the OGL will apply. If they make a new license, though, then the OGL wouldn't apply.

If that were true, there is absolutely zero point in releasing OGL 1.1. That alone is reason to suspect that there is a way around that (or at least WotC's lawyer's believe that they have found such a way - and if they say so who is going to be able to afford to argue with them).

The sky doesn't seem to be falling.

Gives the middle a hug - it is feeling excluded Of course the sky is not falling, we are talking elfgames not curing cancer. That said, despite the sky staying where it is, there is plenty of scope for this to be a Really Bad Thing.

I’m assuming there’s some sort of benefit to using the new OGL?

None announced yet. Presumably they have something in mind, but I fail to see how anything could be worth it.

Are you a publisher of third party content that makes over 50k in sales annually?

It affects a lot more than that. It affects the thinking of anyone who might make 50k at any point in the future, up to and including anyone who has not made a damn thing yet.

Football. All you need is one ball.

...and a non-trivial amount of space (much more than a gaming table takes up).

"And what we know for certain right now is that their intention is for OneD&D to be less open than 5th Edition."

We know no such thing. We might speculate that this might be true.

We absolutely know exactly that because WotC just publicly announced said intention.

I'm sorry, but, maybe I'm just thick. How does requiring disclosures make something less open?

Definitionally and utterly.

Also the AI algorithm for social media is taking the info in your phone/computer and what you look at on there and what you “like” to inform itself of what you will stay to watch/read and what you will “like” and gives you more of that. So yes all social media is an echo chamber.

It's not quite that. Algorithmic social media show you things they think you will have a strong reaction to - that includes things they think you will really like, but also things they think you will really hate.

Do moves to tie the OGL explicitly to WoTC / Hasbro add weight to the legal argument that non-D20 use is invalid? Could it make the use of the OGL by independent games risky in a legal sense?

AFAICT it makes no difference to anyone using OGL 1.0A. Obviously it would make using OGL 1.1 for such products really weird, if not technically impossible.

No, I mean it's a risk for Wizards/Hasbro that someone will uses 1.0/a to clone 5e.

Somebody kinda already did. And WotC's current actions make a more direct clone all the more likely IMNSHO.

And, we have no idea what the question might actually be. It could be as simple as, "Did you make more than 50k in sales last year? Y/N" Followed by "Did you have sales of more than 750 k? Y/N"

We know that that it is going to be a lot more than that, because the announcement includes telling them what you are going to sell, not just what you sold.

There’s no point buying into the negative narrative beforehand.

"Beforehand" of what? We are not "before" the announcement. And "before" the license itself is, again, exactly when to kick up a fuss.

Requiring sales reporting =/= closed license.

Once again, that is exactly what it equals. And not just in my opinion, the Open Gaming Foundation agrees with my definition. But what do they know?

 

[Nylanfs]

Once again, that is exactly what it equals. And not just in my opinion, the Open Gaming Foundation agrees with my definition. But what do they know?

There's a group I haven't heard of in a LONG time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's another big thing I think we need to remember as we discuss all of this and whether OGL 1.1 is "necessary" is that from our limited vision thus far of the playtest packets... the "change" of the game from 5E to the 2024 edit will not be the same massive overhaul of mechanics and presentation that was 3.5 to 4E. Rather, from all indications it will be closer to the change of 3E to 3.5.

What does that mean? Well, first it means that we and WotC don't need to worry about a "new Pathfinder" cropping up... because the 2024 game won't be substantially different enough for there to be a gap for a "new Pathfinder" to find a place between the two 5E rulesets and blow up like Paizo's did. In fact we actually already have a potential "new Pathfinder" game already released... Level Up... that took 5E and really built and re-built upon the foundation of 2014 5E just like Pathfinder built and re-built upon the 3.5 foundation. But we have not seen that game achieve the same level of ubiquity and social cache that PF did, and I personally would doubt at this point it will grow even bigger by the time 2024 is released to really be seen as the "new Pathfinder"... nor do I think someone could release a "new 2014 5E" using the OGL 1.0a and make it distinguishable enough from both Level Up and the 2024 book to become a "new Pathfinder" either. I could be wrong about that of course... but I personally do not see the potential changes of 2024 being so great that another book that attempts to "fix and expand" the 2014 one being all that different than what 2024 will give us.

So with that being said... that from our limited vision of what the 2024 changes might look like it will probably be setting itself up to only as much as the 3.5 change or perhaps the "3.75" change that Pathfinder was... the game itself will still operate on the true mathematical foundation of 5E. Which means indeed that anything that was designed for 5E previously will probably still work pretty well with the 2024 changes. And that also means that anything that is made now or later could most likely still use the 1.0a OGL and 5E SRD and work absolutely okay with whatever 2024 looks like. Even something like a "monster book"... just how much of a change in monster design, mechanics, presentation, and terminology are we going to see that would make 2024 require someone to use the 1.1 OGL to make their book actually work with the game? Personally, I don't think we will see much at all-- not if WotC really sticks to the idea that their old 5E books will be compatible too. The mathematical underpinnings of the 2024 book remaining the same more or less to the 2014 book in order to assure compatibility means that people will still be able to make their stuff using the 5E SRD and have it fit the "new paradigm" of the 2024 book with little to no issue. After all... if WotC wants their older books to still work with the 2024 book... anyone who creates a new book that works like WotC's old ones do can be assured of compatibility too.

As a result... it again all comes down to what a publisher can gain from using the OGL 1.1 for anything new they create that they wouldn't be able to get by just using 1.0a? It is a question that I have no doubt the folks at WotC have already looked into and argued about substantially, and have had communication from the D&D team specifically. They all know what happened with the GSL. They know that they did not have anything in place that would make publishers want to follow it for 4E other than the "cache" of working with the newest edition of D&D. But as WotC discovered... cache doesn't pay the bills. So there was no real financial gain for publishers to use the GSL, especially when they had to give up so many of their rights to do so. I have to imagine at least one person over at WotC has made this argument, and thus everyone over there knows that for 1.1 to actually be used, WotC would need to make it financially advantageous to the 3PPs to do so. If those 3PPs are going to give up so many of their rights to use it... WotC 1.1 better make it really worth their while.

And how do they do that? I think there's only one real way-- turn D&D Beyond into their own "DMs Guild". A "DM's Guild" book sale repository that WotC owns and controls themselves. One that has the most important thing that publishers and players might want... full compatibility and use within the 3D VTT that WotC is trying to put together. WotC I think is banking on their 3D VTT that runs off of Beyond is going to truly be the "next big thing"... and if it does and it gets used and incorporated by a substantial part of the D&D Community... then yes, they will be able to dictate terms to any companies that may want in on that action. "You want your book of alternate rules to be able to be used within our 3D VTT? Then you have to build those rules under the 1.1 license. And you'll be able to sell your book to consumers through D&D Beyond as well."

THAT I believe is the only "perk" that would warrant Third Party Publishers to actually create product under 1.1-- to have their materially fully integrated into D&D Beyond and their 3D VTT. Because those 3PPs will get more exposure of their products to consumers if Beyond and the VTT blow up like WotC thinks/hopes it will. And maybe that additional exposure and sales will be worth the potential "poison pills" WotC ends up putting into their 1.1 OGL.

But really... like everyone else I am just spitballing here. Just making the best guesstimations of what most likely could be reasons for things to be playing out as they have been. Hell, for all I know there really are schmucks at WotC corporate and Hasbro corporate that did not learn from the GSL fiasco and who really think they can just create a new GSL-like thing in 1.1 and that publishers will still use it. Hopefully the feet on the ground at WotC will be able to disabuse them of that notion fairly quickly, because if they don't-- then WotC really will deserve the tomatoes thrown at them.

 

[Greg Benage]

Somebody kinda already did. And WotC's current actions make a more direct clone all the more likely IMNSHO.

Yeah, I’ve seen this comment a few times and I don’t think it holds up at all. Lots of people might prefer Level Up to 5e or to 1D&D, but I don’t think anyone chooses Level Up because they’re happy with 5e and don’t want to make the move to 1D&D. From what we’ve seen, Level Up is a bigger change from 5e than 1D&D is (perhaps to its credit IMO).

@Morrus might be the publisher in the best position to do a 5.25 “simple” cleanup and rebalancing of 5e, though. I’d back a Kickstarter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I’ve seen this comment a few times and I don’t think it holds up at all. Lots of people might prefer Level Up to 5e or to 1D&D, but I don’t think anyone chooses Level Up because they’re happy with 5e and don’t want to make the move to 1D&D. From what we’ve seen, Level Up is a bigger change from 5e than 1D&D is (perhaps to its credit IMO).

@Morrus might be the publisher in the best position to do a 5.25 “simple” cleanup and rebalancing of 5e, though. I’d back a Kickstarter.

True. I like Level Up because it does 5e's job for me better (way, way better) than WotC. If WotC disappeared tomorrow I honestly at this point wouldn't miss them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

People, can we tone down the hyperbole and (mild) personal attacks? I came in here for one report, but I’m seeing several posters veering into moddable posting behaviors.

 

[Zardnaar]

There's another big thing I think we need to remember as we discuss all of this and whether OGL 1.1 is "necessary" is that from our limited vision thus far of the playtest packets... the "change" of the game from 5E to the 2024 edit will not be the same massive overhaul of mechanics and presentation that was 3.5 to 4E. Rather, from all indications it will be closer to the change of 3E to 3.5.

What does that mean? Well, first it means that we and WotC don't need to worry about a "new Pathfinder" cropping up... because the 2024 game won't be substantially different enough for there to be a gap for a "new Pathfinder" to find a place between the two 5E rulesets and blow up like Paizo's did. In fact we actually already have a potential "new Pathfinder" game already released... Level Up... that took 5E and really built and re-built upon the foundation of 2014 5E just like Pathfinder built and re-built upon the 3.5 foundation. But we have not seen that game achieve the same level of ubiquity and social cache that PF did, and I personally would doubt at this point it will grow even bigger by the time 2024 is released to really be seen as the "new Pathfinder"... nor do I think someone could release a "new 2014 5E" using the OGL 1.0a and make it distinguishable enough from both Level Up and the 2024 book to become a "new Pathfinder" either. I could be wrong about that of course... but I personally do not see the potential changes of 2024 being so great that another book that attempts to "fix and expand" the 2014 one being all that different than what 2024 will give us.

So with that being said... that from our limited vision of what the 2024 changes might look like it will probably be setting itself up to only as much as the 3.5 change or perhaps the "3.75" change that Pathfinder was... the game itself will still operate on the true mathematical foundation of 5E. Which means indeed that anything that was designed for 5E previously will probably still work pretty well with the 2024 changes. And that also means that anything that is made now or later could most likely still use the 1.0a OGL and 5E SRD and work absolutely okay with whatever 2024 looks like. Even something like a "monster book"... just how much of a change in monster design, mechanics, presentation, and terminology are we going to see that would make 2024 require someone to use the 1.1 OGL to make their book actually work with the game? Personally, I don't think we will see much at all-- not if WotC really sticks to the idea that their old 5E books will be compatible too. The mathematical underpinnings of the 2024 book remaining the same more or less to the 2014 book in order to assure compatibility means that people will still be able to make their stuff using the 5E SRD and have it fit the "new paradigm" of the 2024 book with little to no issue. After all... if WotC wants their older books to still work with the 2024 book... anyone who creates a new book that works like WotC's old ones do can be assured of compatibility too.

As a result... it again all comes down to what a publisher can gain from using the OGL 1.1 for anything new they create that they wouldn't be able to get by just using 1.0a? It is a question that I have no doubt the folks at WotC have already looked into and argued about substantially, and have had communication from the D&D team specifically. They all know what happened with the GSL. They know that they did not have anything in place that would make publishers want to follow it for 4E other than the "cache" of working with the newest edition of D&D. But as WotC discovered... cache doesn't pay the bills. So there was no real financial gain for publishers to use the GSL, especially when they had to give up so many of their rights to do so. I have to imagine at least one person over at WotC has made this argument, and thus everyone over there knows that for 1.1 to actually be used, WotC would need to make it financially advantageous to the 3PPs to do so. If those 3PPs are going to give up so many of their rights to use it... WotC 1.1 better make it really worth their while.

And how do they do that? I think there's only one real way-- turn D&D Beyond into their own "DMs Guild". A "DM's Guild" book sale repository that WotC owns and controls themselves. One that has the most important thing that publishers and players might want... full compatibility and use within the 3D VTT that WotC is trying to put together. WotC I think is banking on their 3D VTT that runs off of Beyond is going to truly be the "next big thing"... and if it does and it gets used and incorporated by a substantial part of the D&D Community... then yes, they will be able to dictate terms to any companies that may want in on that action. "You want your book of alternate rules to be able to be used within our 3D VTT? Then you have to build those rules under the 1.1 license. And you'll be able to sell your book to consumers through D&D Beyond as well."

THAT I believe is the only "perk" that would warrant Third Party Publishers to actually create product under 1.1-- to have their materially fully integrated into D&D Beyond and their 3D VTT. Because those 3PPs will get more exposure of their products to consumers if Beyond and the VTT blow up like WotC thinks/hopes it will. And maybe that additional exposure and sales will be worth the potential "poison pills" WotC ends up putting into their 1.1 OGL.

But really... like everyone else I am just spitballing here. Just making the best guesstimations of what most likely could be reasons for things to be playing out as they have been. Hell, for all I know there really are schmucks at WotC corporate and Hasbro corporate that did not learn from the GSL fiasco and who really think they can just create a new GSL-like thing in 1.1 and that publishers will still use it. Hopefully the feet on the ground at WotC will be able to disabuse them of that notion fairly quickly, because if they don't-- then WotC really will deserve the tomatoes thrown at them.

The other perk us also OneD&D not being OGL but OGL 1.1. there's no poison pill it seems as it's not stopping you using OGL.

Theoretically they avoid the pitfalls of Pathfinder.

1. 5E is a lot bigger than 3.5 I assume they want make it bigger.

2. OGL 1.1 isn't the GSL 2.0.

3. 1D&D is evolutionary not revolutionary. Less blowback than 4E theoretically. More mature social media now though.

4. There's no publisher with the prestige of Paizo in 2007 and the mailing lists of Dragon and Dungeon subscribers. From memory 2/3 switched to Paizo.

I'm indifferent to 1D&D's fate. Smash hit or bomb its a big meh either way.

The carrot could be "want access to 1D&D bend the knee". If you don't feel free to use the OGL. It's also the stick.

 

[vecna00]

Gives the middle a hug - it is feeling excluded Of course the sky is not falling, we are talking elfgames not curing cancer. That said, despite the sky staying where it is, there is plenty of scope for this to be a Really Bad Thing.

And there is more of a chance for it to be fine, as I said in the other part of my post that was left out of the quote.

If thinking everything will be fine is the middle is the "middle," then call it what makes you happy I suppose. I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.

 

[mamba]

I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.

what would be something bad actually happening?

 

[Morrus]

And there is more of a chance for it to be fine, as I said in the other part of my post that was left out of the quote.

If thinking everything will be fine is the middle is the "middle," then call it what makes you happy I suppose. I just don't see this as the "Really Bad Thing" that others do and I won't be convinced otherwise unless something bad actually happens.

I guess that depends on what you define as a bad thing and how invested in third party content you are.