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.

 

[Charlaquin]

New news post on D&D Beyond!

A Working Conversation About the Open Game License (OGL)

These past days and weeks have been incredibly tough for everyone. As players, fans, and stewards of the game, we can't–and we won't–let thi...

www.dndbeyond.com

"Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a."

That looks like a pretty unequivocal walk-back!

The previous statement also said that, though not in as clear terms. The problem is It only talks about content already published under 1.0a. Doesn’t say you’ll be able to publish new content under 1.0a, which means 1.0a is still being de-authorized.

 

[Bravesteel25]

GW are frankly extremely lucky that Creative Assembly and other videogame companies kept the Warhammer Fantasy brand alive whilst GW abandoned it for AoS, which has proven to be successful as a minis line, but has had sadly little cultural impact, relentlessly flopping when it's used much outside of a TT wargame context (the RPG ain't bad, but it isn't anything special, either). Now GW is circling back with their proposed "Old World" line which would bring back WHFB and the Warhammer Fantasy setting, thought they seem to be dithering about it a bit.

You are definitely right. I never played the Creative Assembly games, but I heard thy are excellent.

I have really strange feelings about Age of Sigmar, as I wish they hadn't destroyed the setting in order to change the game, and it doesn't help that I feel like I contributed to its creation by predicting it back in 2013.

I've heard the news about them bringing back the Old World, but after everything I've been through with that company I don't think I can go back to that well again. The well has been filled in and buried under several feet of concrete.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't understand the connection between these two words.

I feel you on this lol.

Dominos in the UK did improve steeply after Papa John's got over here, for whatever reason. In the '90s and most of the '00s it was what people referred to as "cardboard pizza" and we're British so we have low standards for pizza. Now it's merely mediocre, but recognisable as pizza. Just barely.

Papa John's sadly slowly decreased in quality as they realized they couldn't both import the good ingredients from the US and keep prices down, so just started using worse ingredients. There are decent pizza places here, about equal to an "average" or "decent" (7/10) local pizza place in the US, but they're all single places or small chains and often get undercut by the dreadful places due to poor British ability to discern good pizza.

(Shoutout to Party Town Pizza who I used to be able to get when I was in South London, who made pizza that an American wouldn't sneer at!)

 

[jerryrice4949]

I don't complain...
I am indifferent, because I have seen too many complains and pipe dreams.

I just want the warring to stop and hope in the end a compromise is reached, where creators can sefely publish their 3pp books and wotc be safe to make a great OneD&D. And I want more D&D movies and I want a great VTT that is well supported and that I actually want to use, because it safes me work instead of creating extra work.

Me too but the vast majority or vocal majority of people on these forums do not seem interested in a compromise unless the OGL stays exactly the same which is the one area WoTC will budge the least.

 

[Konrad13]

How does that work if the OGL is deauthorized, i dont understand, they have lost the literal right to use the terms in those books retroactively

If you made anything before with the OGL 1.0/1.0(a) WotC won't come after you or force you to change the licensing on that product. But the second the OGL 2.0 drops, anything you make AFTER the drop must use the 2.0 or they will go after you (supposedly). Again, you will be allowed to keep printing and selling anything that WAS made with the 1.0/1.0(a) but you will be BANNED from making new things with the older OGLs once 2.0 comes out.

 

[Arilyn]

This...Literally makes no sense.
So the license is Deauthorized, but still authorized so old stuff can be made?


What?

It'd be a Grandfather Clause. Previously published stuff will be left alone but new content will have to be published under new license. Grandfather clauses are pretty common. They are probably still killing OGL1.0a.

 

[masdog]

Even if what they release by Friday is significantly better, it really is "too little, too late." They kind of nuked the trust bridge from orbit. I doubt they will be able to rebuild it, and that will have short, medium and long term impacts to their bottom line. They took a huge risk with their ecosystem/community just as they were planning to change or extend their business model...which is a huge risk in and of itself.

And every time they try to clarify or backtrack, they just dig themselves deeper...

I don't fault them for looking at new ways to monetize their IP or move away from the OGL. But there were so many ways they could have handled this without looking like late 1990's Microsoft. If they OGL no longer fits your business, turn it over to someone else to manage it and release a new version of the licensing reflecting that change in ownership. And then build your walled garden.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why do I think I’ll need to sign back up to D&D Beyond to provide feedback? Gathering responses artificially inflates their account numbers.

Yeah, I think that’s precisely their angle here.

 

[mamba]

For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.

didn’t realize that was the goal

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have really strange feelings about Age of Sigmar, as I wish they hadn't destroyed the setting in order to change the game, and it doesn't help that I feel like I contributed to its creation by predicting it back in 2013.

Yeah I made a similar detailed and accurate prediction 2-3 years before Star Trek: Enterprise was released so I wonder if I, what's the word... ah... "manifested" it! I do hope not!

Also wow you NAILED It. That's all the major design goals right there - combine that with the other thing that happened in 2013, which was GW v CHS and GW finding out they didn't actually have strong IP claims on a ton of their stuff (or any claims at all in some cases), and you're basically all the way there.