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.

 

[Alzrius]

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

My understanding is that de-authorization is not retroactive. Rather, the question of authorization (insofar as the OGL v1.0a goes) is a question of when a work was released under the OGL v1.0a. So long as it was released during the period of time when the OGL v1.0a was authorized (i.e. August 1st, 2000 through January 18th, 2023) then it can continue existing; PDFs of it can continue to be sold, and print books can have new copies made. But after that end date, i.e. when the license was de-authorized, nothing new can be released under it.

That's the idea, at any rate.

(Also, please note that the dates above are just for examples; I don't know the exact date when the OGL v1.0 was released, and WotC to my knowledge has only said that they intend to de-authorize the OGL v1.0a, but hasn't actually tried to do so yet.)

 

[TheSword]

Earlier I posted about not getting why people white-knight for corporations doing dirty deeds.

Here's what I really mean, as it relates to threads like this one:

What do you think you're going to get out of telling everyone to calm down and suck it up? The only reason WotC rolled anything back was because lots of people got very mad. Whatever your instinct might be to do Secret Service dives in front of any corporate executive or policy being criticized, don't you realize that, in this case, anger had a positive impact?

And if you think this is all just pointless blather, and only D&D sales and D&D Beyond subs matter, then, again, why engage here on behalf of your corporate betters?

I won’t speak for other folks 10th manning this like myself. But I personally enjoy these boards, enjoy 5e, am looking forward to enjoying one D&D and manage a decent sized business with many customers so have some sympathy for the way that company decisions and customers decisions don’t always align. Not that most of the people posting here are WotC customers - in fact they seem to be the opposite.

I’m concerned that an activist mob mentality will create a divisive - antagonist approach to the OGL which will only end in tears for both parties.

I’m concerned that folks who actively want to hurt and are advocated burning WotC down are given license to spread hate in a place where I actually come to enjoy a nice read and a chat.

I’m concerned that employees just going about their business in a way that you disagree with are open to mockery, criticism and hate. Which I don’t think would have been allowed ok on this forum prior to this.

I’m concerned that some 3pp are making hasty business decisions that I believe they could come to regret in the future because they are resistant to change and unwilling to adapt their thinking.

I’m concerned that litigation could end up with WotC spinning off from 5e altogether and I like the current measured approach WotC are taking.

Essentially the forums are turning into an echo chamber where anyone who isn’t with the OGL movement is a collaborator. That’s what you mean when you say White Knighting right? We just don’t hate WotC like you do and changing the OGL hasn’t wiped out our goodwill to them and would like folks to put the brakes on before it all ends in tears.

 

[Mercurius]

My guess is that they'll treat the OGL like they're treating D&D - there are no versions, no editions, just One D&D to Rule Them All that gets updates in many small iterations....and one OGL that is updated, and becomes the new and only OGL.

So I'm guessing there will be no "OGL 1.0" and "OGL 2.0". There will just be the OGL, in whatever form it currently exists. Which, of course, means essentially the same thing as de-authorizing the old OGL as far as new products are concerned. Anything published has to abide by the OGL as it stands when it is published.

 

[Nellisir]

I don't hate WotC. I really don't care. I think it's a stupid move on their part, but whatever. As I said above, the cost of moving away is really low. I'm not the target audience, but I'm not going to yell and scream and say mean things. I'd rather seduce their target audience away. I'll switch my game writing to a different license and keep going. I don't run a game currently, but I'll probably start one at my FLGS in a few months, using another system - maybe AGE, maybe a house-modified OSR system, maybe Black Flag (Kobold says Deep Magic 1&2 will be compatible, and DM1 has been out, so that suggests a very high level of compatibility with D&D 5e as it stands.)

I kinda think GR will open up AGE a little more, and Kobold has said Black Flag will be open for 3pp, and they're all working on ORC with Paizo. WotC has turned the D&D ecosystem into a donut and cut themselves out of the middle.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think this is a better approach, but they need to explain how and why they think they can revoke OGL 1.0a before a conversation can even begin on what (if anything) replaces it. Their continued avoidance of the central issue is incredibly off-putting.

Because it’s the one non-negotiable for them. All the other provisions they’re willing to bend on, but their primary purpose is to get rid of OGL 1.0 at all costs.

 

[eyeheartawk]

didn’t realize that was the goal

Sure it is.

WOTC is out here using the text of OGL 1.1/2.0 to plaster us off forever from publishing and the community as we know it.

Destroy that construct.

The house in this context is the new OGL, not the entirety of WOTC or Hasbro.

Though, I suspect you already knew that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Ultimately the compromise is OGL 1.0a stands, but 5.5e's SRD isn't under it. Instead, they'll make traditional contracts for 3PP, but leave fans making free stuff alone.

Done.

but no, they're so desperate to not create another Pathfinder, they need to burn the older agreement to the ground.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Nothing about the 1.0a continuing to be authorized going forward so this is worthless.

It's not worthless, it has huge comedic value!!!

This has already blown up in their faces, more bad PR, including stuff investors read, and they haven't gotten back all the don't deauthorize OGL 1.0a for future products feedback.

Oh and how am I supposed to give proper feed back on the new OGL when I can't see the new SRD and don't know the full extent of what it covers, like the new SRD is kind of key part of all of this. Even a full list of what it will have in it would be great, don't need the mechanics yet.

 

[Greggy C]

Also, Kyle Brink's resume can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gamesmith/details/experience/

To be clear, this is guy is a videogame designer, and one with his most significant and recent experience running MMOs. Which tells you I think a ton about WotC's goals for D&D.

He also did nearly 5 years at "Viggle" (??!) but explains that he was doing "loyalty and gamification" work on their app. Which again, I think speaks to WotC goals.

He has no working-life TTRPG (or even similar) experience. I'm not here to mock the dude, but if you're hiring people with this kind of background to be EP of D&D (WotC usually seems to only have one at once of those), you have a very specific vision for D&D. And that ain't a vision involving books or being TTRPG as primary part. This is particularly obvious when combined with appointing Dan Rawson to VP of D&D (which would be directly above Kyle I think).

I don't think it is fair to use Maggie Smith's image on all your posts, it really drags her down.
I understand you are trying to make your posts seem more adult, but any chance you could change your avatar?

 

[Mort]

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.

In case it hasn't been repeated enough, this is the crux of it.

WoTC still wants any "new" content under the soon to be proposed license.

And the the new "OGL" isn't an open gaming license, it's a walled garden. For example, WoTC has inserted the right to monitor content - sure they say it's only objectionable content, but they will be setting the rules. And even more blatant, they maintain the right to change the agreement AT ANY TIME (with just 30 days notice), which means nothing they say is the least bit binding - and makes them calling this an Open license laughable.