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.

 

[mamba]

Which to me is the sad part about the royalties threshold they've since backed off of; why $750k? I don't know what Paizo's sales are, but if we're going with the "we want to avoid a megacorp coming in" theory why not have the language be something like "companies with an overall revenue over $100m

that does not stop them from coming in, it stops them from agreeing to it. They take their chances with copyright and WotC loses 70% of what they showed up with, so they probably do not even try

 

[rooneg]

If they use the OGL 1.0a to make a major movie, WotC doesn't get any money. There are no royalties in 1.0a. That's their fear. They want to make all the major money from their brand.

Someone really needs to explain to me what the OGL 1.0a has to do with making a movie. They put a lot of Attack Rolls and Skill Checks in movies these days? Are SRDs full of game rules suddenly relevant to the plot structure of feature films? Even WotC and TSR didn't bat an eye when they wanted their fictional characters to do stuff that was explicitly against the rules of the game, why would it be relevant in even the smallest possible way to a filmmaker who wanted to make a D&D inspired movie?

 

[Jer]

If they use the OGL 1.0a to make a major movie, WotC doesn't get any money. There are no royalties in 1.0a. That's their fear. They want to make all the major money from their brand.

I think they're more worried about video games than movies from that angle. And even there, video games have been using the trappings of D&D as long as there have been video games. If they're really concerned about that kind of thing that tells me they don't know what's in their own SRDs or how much of it is actually not really copyrightable in the first place.

Edit - and also they don't realize that nobody cares about the game rules for the most part in a video game - if people are buying the game because it implements the D&D rules what they want to see is the D&D branding on it, not some "hey this is a d20 OGL game like that popular fifth edition game you love. You know the one. Wink wink nudge nudge" blurb on the back cover.

If that was their plan, it was a really crappy one. The reaction they are getting is anger against their own brand, not Disney and the others. If they were intending it as a smokescreen against the small guys, I think they were hoping that we would grumble a bit and accept it, not fight back as hard as we are.

I mean, I am on record as believing that being bad at their jobs is one explanation for this whole fiasco

I do think a big part of the explanation is that they just don't understand the ttrpg market but think they do because they understand video games. The two markets are only the same superficially, but if the only tool you have is a hammer...

 

[mamba]

If they use the OGL 1.0a to make a major movie, WotC doesn't get any money. There are no royalties in 1.0a. That's their fear

if so, it is irrational. There is nothing in the OGL you need for a movie

 

[Scribe]

If they use the OGL 1.0a to make a major movie, WotC doesn't get any money. There are no royalties in 1.0a. That's their fear. They want to make all the major money from their brand.

This isnt it.

Nothing in the OGL 1.0 is going to build a movie for christs sake.

Here lets grab a quick snippet!

FIGHTER BONUS FEATS
Any feat designated as a fighter feat can be selected as a fighter\rquote s bonus feat. This designation does not restrict characters of other classes from selecting these feats, assuming that they meet any prerequisites.

Hmm my interest is rising!

FEAT DESCRIPTIONS
Here is the format for feat descriptions.

FEAT NAME [TYPE OF FEAT]
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order
to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.

Now we are talking!

The OGL/SRD is not IP from which to build a MOVIE. lol

 

[ValamirCleaver]

Someone really needs to explain to me what the OGL 1.0a has to do with making a movie.

The ironic thing about this is C-movie producers were doing better D&D-adjacent movies on shoestrings budgets during the '80s (and I realize that's not saying much) better than anything Sweetpea Productions churned out in 2000+.

 

[Jer]

if so, it is irrational. There is nothing in the OGL you need for a movie

I'd go further - there's nothing in the SRDs under the OGL that you could even use in a movie that you couldn't use anyway without any permission from Wizards in the first place.

It's a description of game stats and a bunch of magic items and monsters that are culled from public domain sources. The stuff you'd use in a movie is Product Identity, and one of the rights you give up when you choose to use the OGL is the right to use elements that the license holder has outlined as Product Identity whether you could actually use them under existing copyright law or not.

 

[Maxperson]

Someone really needs to explain to me what the OGL 1.0a has to do with making a movie. They put a lot of Attack Rolls and Skill Checks in movies these days? Are SRDs full of game rules suddenly relevant to the plot structure of feature films? Even WotC and TSR didn't bat an eye when they wanted their fictional characters to do stuff that was explicitly against the rules of the game, why would it be relevant in even the smallest possible way to a filmmaker who wanted to make a D&D inspired movie?

The SRD contains names and ideas as well. Look at the D&D movie coming out. Owlebears, Tieflings, Druids, Bards, specific spells, Gelatinous Cubes, and on and on. All of which are things governed in some way or another by the OGL and the SRD. It's not just mechanics.

 

[Scribe]

The SRD contains names and ideas as well. Look at the D&D movie coming out. Owlebears, Tieflings, Druids, Bards, specific spells, Gelatinous Cubes, and on and on. All of which are things governed in some way or another by the OGL and the SRD. It's not just mechanics.

What a sad state of affairs, that some names, is the depth of D&D's branding.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The SRD contains names and ideas as well. Look at the D&D movie coming out. Owlebears, Tieflings, Druids, Bards, specific spells, Gelatinous Cubes, and on and on. All of which are things governed in some way or another by the OGL and the SRD. It's not just mechanics.

are items in there too? could you use a frost brand or vorpal sword?