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...

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

Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

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.


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".


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

I understand you wish to make a point, but the underlying issue is pretty simple; the existence of the OGL (and OGL+SRD) is most certainly unusual. Again, this is due to a number of factors that I've delineated in the past, and doesn't excuse Hasbro wanting to go back on the bargain. But it does explain why Hasbro doesn't want to have it.

I agree it is unusual, and if it didn't exist we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. But they chose to make the original OGL, and their stated reasons at the time, don't line up with what they're now saying. And a whole culture and industry emerged around the OGL and the spirit of Open Gaming it created. So I think it is one of those genies they can't just put back in the bottle
 


Did anybody really expect that someone at WotC was reading the text box responses from 39,000 playtest surveys? Edit: Debunked on Twitter by Ray Winninger as well as Alex Kammer. I trust Ray and Alex on this, so I believe WotC actually does read and compile the written feedback—my cynical hot take was wrong.
 
Last edited:

Reynard

Legend
I mean, if people thought survey comments actually mattered, they weren't paying attention during the Next playtest.

Data that was actually public never made a lick of difference (e.g., Warlord was actually more popular than Druid in a poll about what class people liked best.) And several of the questions asked during the Next playtest were blatant, obvious push-polling (including times where there literally wasn't the option to say you disliked something.)

WotC has never actually cared about feedback. They care about, as the snipped image says, getting a "temperature check." Detailed feedback would require significant man-hours to pore over and turn into something useful and digestible. If they can't even be bothered to draft good, productive survey questions, what on earth would get them to read complicated player feedback that requires interpretation?
And I remember being called paranoid when I said the playtest was just PR a few months ago.
 




rknop

Adventurer
Open gaming may be unusual, but it does not exist in a vacuum. It was explicitly inspired by the whole open source / free software movement.

Most web servers and high performance computers in the world use Linux or something derived from it now-- something that was released under an open license, not a proprietary product of a large company. In the early 1990s, when Linux was young, most people did not believe that this was even a possibility. There's lots of other open source software out there that's extremely widely used.

So, yeah, while by and large you don't see media companies releasing stuff as open content (there are some exceptions), the whole open gaming thing is not unique.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top