WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[Reynard]

No you're missing my core point.

I don't think any major company can make a good RPG without stealing from WOTC enough to lose a fair use claim.

My core point is that there are few good, well designed RPGs that are "closed enough" and "broad enough" for any Megacorp to buy.

I feel like you are suggesting that there are no other "good RPGs" besides D&D and that claim is... suspect, at best.

 

[Arakhor]

WotC is going to remove the OGL 1.0a. That seems to be a major goal of this. Everything else is negotiable.
The Open Gaming community can get something in exchange for the 1.0a going away, negotiating for something else. Or they can posture and make analogies and forfeit any right to participate in the negotiation and WotC will decide what to give for them.

This assumes that WotC are dealing in good faith. They can promise anything they like, but as long as they claim the right to "update" the terms after you're locked in, literally nothing they say can be believed.

 

[ilgatto]

And if there is something preventing a Willow RPG, it would also apply to any 3PP. In this scenario, Disney is no different from any other third-party publisher.

Unless @FormerLurker is imagining market-cap limitations in the license, or something.

All this aside, they've said they have two core goals:

(1) protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment
(2) limiting the OGL to TTRPGs

I'll admit to be more than a little dubious about (1), but I absolutely believe (2). They're not worried about the Willow TTRPG, they're worried Disney, Amazon, Activision, or some other company will do a next-gen SRD-based VTT that blows them out of the water after they've sunk literally hundreds of millions of dollars into it.

The only way to do that is to go nuclear on the OGL. But the ironic thing is that, even if the largest companies in the TTRPG space don't have the war chest to resist their lawfare, Disney, Amazon, and Activision sure as hell do. If one of those companies decide they want to produce a next-gen SRD-based VTT that blows WotC out of the water, Wizards' claim to have "taken it back" isn't likely to stop them.

Agreed. It's not as if a large company suddenly moving into a market from nothing and taking a big chunk of it hasn't happened before. Take, for example, Microsoft's X-Box, which...

Hold on...

Microsoft?

Hmm...

 

[Matt Thomason]

WotC is going to remove the OGL 1.0a. That seems to be a major goal of this. Everything else is negotiable.

It may be a major goal, but it probably isn't completely legal for them to do.

Concensus at the moment seems to be that they can cease offering any new OGL 1.0a licenses, but what they cannot do is revoke existing ones, or prevent their existing licensees from continuing to sublicense under 1.0a.

So, given they have very little legal ground to stand on here, our reply to their suggested course is that they stop pretending they can actually stop anyone other than by bullying people with the threat of court costs and hoping we back down. They can do whatever they like with new material under any new license they see fit, but they're unable to effectively prevent anyone using existing Open Game Content from the SRDs under 1.0a.

 

[Reynard]

WotC is going to remove the OGL 1.0a.

They are going to try. Then they are going to have to sue someone who doesn't heed their C&D. Then a judge is going to have to rule on their claim that people can't make 5E compatible products without an OGL. And that is just as likely to go badly for them as it is to go well for them. And all that will take years.

In the meantime, the alliance of 3PPs will have established a new marketplace of ideas and created a second, bigger "Paizo."

Win win.

Don't give an inch.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is silly. This isn't a negotiation where both sides willingly decided to negotiate. Hasbro made demands. The other side rejected them.

Your post remind me of someone trying to convince someone else to go out with them and getting mad they won't say yes. 'No' is an acceptable response. 'No' is always an acceptable response.

except for that to be the case the "no" can't be followed by "now go change X Y and ZZ" or it isn't a no, its a negotiation.

As someone that has gotten more then enough "no's" to asking people out, and just accepted and walked away, I would be VERY weirded out if they chased after me to tell me to change my offer, and or myself in general AFTER the no... the no was 8 out of 10 times the end, and when it wasn't, it was a no but if you changed X Y then maybe (Like no I don't want to see that movie, but maybe we could do something else)

No is ALWAYS 100% acceptable, and should be respected. No, but now go do this and that instead is not.

 

[Bagpuss]

Enough of it is given away for them to be worried, as the rules themselves are available.

While the rules are technically intellectual property (as in they are someone's idea originally) they aren't protected by any laws you can't patent, copyright or trademark system mechanics of a game.

The rules weren't given away by the OGL they were already free game.

However it could be argued in court that a specific expression of a games mechanics might fall under copyright (the same words in the same order, rather than the idea). They couldn't protect d20+number vs TN as a mechanic, but they could perhaps persuade a judge that someone specially mentioning Base Attack Value + Stat modifier + d20 versus an opponent's Armor Class, might be copyrighted, especially if expressed in the exact same why as the PHB. They might also try and claim adventures using D&D rules are "derivative works" and sue/send cease & desist letters that way. Which is what T$R use to do a lot of when it controlled DnD back before 3rd Ed.

WotC OGL is basically an gentleman's agreement not to take these matters to court so long as you don't use certain stuff, we say is our IP like Beholder's, certain spells, character's etc. You can use what you are technically already entitled to use, better yet here's an SRD so you don't have to reinvent the goblin or other common creature (which legally we could never claim is our IP, but we might have been able to say it's stat block is), or a load of spells that a common in literature like Fireball, etc. That way you can make the stuff to support our game that is needed but never make a huge profit for us (like adventures or obscure sourcebooks) and we can focus on the big ticket items.

The point is no one wants to go to court, because that cost money. At least that was the case when the OGL first came into being, when WotC weren't as big as they are now. Also at the time the people in charge of WotC had vision and saw how the OGL would lead to the expansion of D&D getting lots of support and d20 becoming a platform for the industry, driving sales of their core product.

Things have changed, those visionaries have left the company and it is now run by an exec producer with a background in computer games and monetization of the same. The have a much bigger bank balance and market share and perhaps now they are willing to back up their new "OGL" in court. Although I suspect it is still something they would rather not do, because it might not go their way and it is still money even if they have the bankroll nowdays.

 

[mamba]

Then WotC will just remove the OGL anyway and the Open Gaming community won't have any say in what they get in return because when it came time time establish terms they just kept crying "NO!"

that remains to be seen, if that were so easy for them they would not have retreated at all.

Other than that I agree, this is a negotiation.

 

[FormerLurker]

They are going to try. Then they are going to have to sue someone who doesn't heed their C&D. Then a judge is going to have to rule on their claim that people can't make 5E compatible products without an OGL. And that is just as likely to go badly for them as it is to go well for them. And all that will take years.

WotC is going to do it. And then crush anyone who tries to argue otherwise.
We've seen lawyers argue both points are valid, and WotC has the money to drag things out in court beyond another company's ability to pay.

OR just buy-out anyone complaining.
WotC dropped over $146 million for D&D Beyond. Paizo's revenue is between $35-12 million annually. Revenue not profits. WotC could buy Paizo in a heartbeat if they wanted.

In the meantime, the alliance of 3PPs will have established a new marketplace of ideas and created a second, bigger "Paizo."
Win win.

Unliklely.
The alliance of 3PP will be established as companies sign-up to ORC to make their D&D competing products and stand-alone games. But they'll still sign the OGL 2.0 and make 6e compatible products because those actually sell and they can make ten or twenty times as much money on Kickstarter from a D&D product that some homebrew system.

Don't give an inch.

Then they just do what they want and you can't set terms for what you want in exchange. You've ceded the battlefield without a fight.

 

[mamba]

Enough of it is given away for them to be worried, as the rules themselves are available.

the rules are the least of their concerns, they are not protected without the OGL either