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.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Would something like keeping the old SRD in an unrevokeable OGL and keeping the new SRD for OneD&D behind a closed wall work for most people?

Yes, that is exactly what Wizbro should have done and none of this present animus would exist. Wizbro should have announced that all future reference document material for 1D&D/5.5e would be offered under a new license (that would not be named anything similar to "Open Game License"), but would not be allowed for use with OGL 1.0a. Wizbro could have their own walled garden & those who wanted to continue to using previous OGC under an unchanged OGL 1.0a could continue to do so.

Beholders and stuff like that already are excluded

The ironic thing is that of the 11 monsters that Wizbro claims as protected IP, 5 of them (I've made reference to them in this post) are obviously derived from earlier pre-existing media & 3 more are arguably generic enough that I would be hard-pressed to consider them unique.

A TSR-like game wouldn't sell to the modern public.

Have you not heard of the OSR? New material has been steadily produced for pre-2000 versions of D&D since 2008 to the present day.

But the SRD has the rules. Which are the hard bit of making an RPG.

Oh really? One could easily make a rules set mechanically compatible with D&D without it even being d20 based in a relatively short period of time, it would not take a math wiz. 100 is a multiple of 20, right? (20 x 5 = 100) A +1 adjustment to a d20 would be the mathematically equivalent to a +5 to a d100, right? Mathematical processes are not copyrightable. I assume that anyone else that plays RPGs can easily fill in the rest of the blanks in my short example. All that's left is providing a free conversion guide...

 

[Krachek]

I don't understand the point of putting this up to a mass survey.

The people directly effected by this do not make up the majority of the D&D survey responders.

And the numerical feedback system doesn't allow for anywhere near the amount of nuance that a legal document requires.

maybe Wotc consider that they only need the approval of the mass. a mass survey is a nasty trick to dilute 3pp concerns into a mass of common customers. By doing a mass survey, they bring the OGL from a business issue to a marketing one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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.


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.

Is there a reason you keep telling people to give up? Where's the benefit in that, to them or to you?

 

[FormerLurker]

but then legally they can, so why even concede anything when all it does is weaken your position

Because they're a business that needs to sell products to customers. There's lots of things businesses can "legally" do but don't because it's bad publicity.
WotC could legally have their books made by hand by child slaves in SE Asian. But they're not going to...

Either this is a negotiation and there is a give and take, they get, let’s say NFTs and computer games and we get clear, express language that the license is perpetual, cannot be revoked and will always remain available under the newly negotiated terms, or there is no reason to give an inch.

So far all they do is take, that slice is only getting smaller.

What are you giving in that example of a give and take? NFTs and computer games, which many say don't apply to the 1.0a anyway.
So you're willing to give up nothing and take as much as WotC will give, and then accuse WotC of only taking...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh, there are plenty of RPGs that work better mechanically than any version I know of D&D (although I freely admit that this is subjective). D&D's strength is in its player network (it's easy to find people who like to play D&D) and in the amazing levels of support available for it, not in the mechanics.

And the thing I was responding to was "If the D&D TV show is a hit, they don't want Prime or Disney+ making a competing show and related game." There's nothing in the SRD of value to making a TV show, unless you want to make it about xorns and inevitables. And if a "rival" makes, say, the House of the Dragon RPG and bases the mechanics on those of D&D, that is not a problem. There were several RPGs back during the d20 boom based on licensed properties, and none of those ever posed a threat to D&D's dominance.

Those amazing levels of support mostly come from 3pp.

 

[Bagpuss]

Yes, yes, we've all seen the Legal Eagle video and are now specialists in copyright law as it applies to games.

The point is text of the SRD is protected under copyright. You can make your own compatible game but you have to rewrite every single line of text, rearrange stat blocks, and probably rename terms. But it still needs to be legible and readable. (And that's still not a guarantee because it could still be seen as a derivative work if brought to a judge.)
The SRD and OGL make that significantly easier because you don't have to compare documents to make sure you didn't accidently copy text while editing because that was the most natural phrasing or worry what a judge may or may not decide is derivative. The SRD reduces the time spent on development significantly as you don't need to write original rules.

It makes it fast and easy and reduces the development time for a D&D level of game from a couple years to six months.

Most of the time for the vast majority products you don't need to do that at all, you can produce an adventure for D&D without needing to copy anything from the SRD or rulebooks.

 

[Dreamscape]

So you're willing to give up nothing and take as much as WotC will give, and then accuse WotC of only taking...

So in addition to WotC taking away the OGL 1.0a, what else would you like 3PPs to give up?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because they're a business that needs to sell products to customers. There's lots of things businesses can "legally" do but don't because it's bad publicity.
WotC could legally have their books made by hand by child slaves in SE Asian. But they're not going to...


What are you giving in that example of a give and take? NFTs and computer games, which many say don't apply to the 1.0a anyway.
So you're willing to give up nothing and take as much as WotC will give, and then accuse WotC of only taking...

Show me one thing they've given us that we didn't have before this all started.

 

[amethal]

pretty sure this can be done while improving clarity and legibility, WotC didn’t stumble across the holy grail for rule descriptions

Pathfinder 1st edition re-organised the D&D 3.5 stat blocks because they felt they could be improved.

They can certainly be improved again - in an ideal world I'd re-format the feats section so feats whose effects are already included in the stat block (like Improved Initiative) are "greyed out" somehow, and include the Demoralise and Feint DCs.

 

[FormerLurker]

God, can you imagine the gall?

The absolute entitlement of the community?

I mean, they got told you can publish under the OGL forever and it won't go away. They may change the terms at any time but the you can publish under older iterations if you so wish. Then, the megacorporation decided to not honor their word, assurances of which they repeatedly gave in their own documentation well into 2021.

Yeah, I can't believe how unreasonable the community is being about all of this .

Sarcasm aside, if your scenario plays out, so what?

They gave us something in 2000, two years after Google was founded, before anyone shopped on Amazon, a few years after Marvel was bankrupt and when Phantom Menace was making people question if Star Wars was still good. At a time when TSR had gone under and TTRPPGs were a tiny industry. Before DriveThruRPG was a thing, when 3PP only meant physical books and everyone wasn't carrying a portable computer in their pocket capable of holding a game store's worth of books.
It was a very different time.
It seems naïve to expect those rules to apply forever regardless of how the world changes.

Regardless, it's going to change. Whining about how unfair it is doesn't help and isn't productive.
The OGL 1.0a is going to go away. That's the reality. The community can with scream that it's unfair or find a way to get something good out of the survey and make the new OGL more passable. Find the opportunity.

With ORC and like, a million other games to choose from both sides taking their ball and going away would be fine by me. Sometimes the only way to win is to not play.

Yes. A million other games. Each played by like 30 people worldwide, all with different schedules and free days to you.

Green Ronin is a major player in the 3PP scene. There's ONE Fantasy Age game listed on Roll20 right now. ONE Shadow of the Demon Lord game.
"Not play" indeed.