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.

 

[Haplo781]

.

 

[J.Quondam]

They want to stay in the game to make money and pay their bills? And they probably decided that at that point ORC will give them a lot of goodwill right now
And since they used OGL before anyway they don't give up a lot.

Ah, okay. "protecting their own business interests, while protecting others from legal threats."
Maybe not purely "altruistic", but certainly not "dodgy."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Your concerns are silly.

Mod Note:

If you disagree with someone, express your rationale for doing so. It’s neither cute nor helpful to post dismissive messages like this.

 

[Maxperson]

Cause he's been wrong or inaccurate several times now, and keeps posting the most clickbaity things ever.

That's fair. I don't know the guy, but anyone who isn't a well known journalist with integrity gets statements of fact based on "sources" taken with several grains of salt. I'm still interested in what he's going to say tomorrow, but until it's corroborated sufficiently I'm not going to take it as gospel.

 

[Charlaquin]

Again. I KNOW they have read comments.


View attachment 273017

That is actually genuinely surprising. I mean, I knew they must read at least some comments, but this sounds like a LOT of time being dedicated to reading survey responses, which seems like a very inefficient use of resources.

 

[Velderan]

Yea. don't bomb the survey.

Folks who had nothing to do with this are going to have to read them.

And as others have said, it's too easy for them to filter out obvious surveys that aren't providing constructive opinions. It's not any different than reading product reviews, generally the 1 star reviews can be ignored.

 

[ValamirCleaver]

with a two-week survey feedback period following it

I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

8:32 in the video
'On the survey process, this is a smoke screen also, because they already know what we want. We want to have assurance that they're not going to go back on their word and that has to be in writing and that already is in writing in 1.0a. All they need to do is add the words irrevocable to that.


So they want two weeks for people to fill out the survey and there is no deadline on when they respond to the survey. What they're trying to do is buy for time, hope that the storm blows over so that they can do something in the future. They want people to stop unsubscribing from D&D Beyond and stop declaring they're moving away from D&D with the hope that they are "listening" through this formality of a process.


A survey also has the conveniece of them saying we are not going to comment on your demands because we're waiting for the survey. Of course we should not relent in our demand that they declare that they will not revoke the OGL. Now they are biding for time.'


The survey is a delay tactic to try to buy time. THEY ALREADY KNOW OUR FEEDBACK: DON'T REVOKE THE OGL.


3:47 in the video
'Nobody reads anything you write in the survey for Unearthed Arcana or the OneD&D playtests, absolutely nobody. I've been told that by people working with the creative team who say, nope, no one sees it, and I've been told it by people on the digital side who said, even when they request that information they don't get it.'


"We don't care about actual feedback - we're making the next version of the rules, not our customers. What we do care about is that they will be positively received."


'They don't read it you guys. ... when someone asked them, well why do you collect it if we don't read it, the answer they gave was, "because if we don't, then they'll just send it to us as emails, tweet threads, forums etc. This way, we channel them to not be disruptive."'


'This sounds good until you realize that the surveys don't actually do anything. They're just used to collect broad satisfaction levels, but what's really important is that second part about how the surveys are only there to channel people's feedback into a place where it isn't public to stop us being "disruptive." That is what they're trying to do here as well.'

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ah, okay. "protecting their own business interests, while protecting others from legal threats." Maybe not purely "altruistic", but certainly not "dodgy."

Didn't mean that the ORC is dodgy.

I'd just meant that they had a good sense of timing to make the blow vs WotC as hard as they can. Probably a well deserved retaliation. I, without any proof, think they tried to communicate with WotC in december to signal them that their new OGL is harmful.

 

[Morrus]

'On the survey process, this is a smoke screen also, because they already know what we want. We want to have assurance that they're not going to go back on their word and that has to be in writing and that already is in writing in 1.0a. All they need to do is add the words irrevocable to that.

So they want two weeks for people to fill out the survey and there is no deadline on when they respond to the survey. What they're trying to do is buy for time, hope that the storm blows over so that they can do something in the future. They want people to stop unsubscribing from D&D Beyond and stop declaring they're moving away from D&D with the hope that they are "listening"through this formality of a process.

A survey also has the conveniece of them saying we are not going to comment on your demands because we're waiting for the survey. Of course we should not relent in our demand that they declare that they will not revoke the OGL. Now they are biding for time.'


The survey is a delay tactic to try to buy time. THEY ALREADY KNOW OUR FEEDBACK: DON'T REVOKE THE OGL.


'Nobody reads anything you write in the survey for Unearthed Arcana or the OneD&D playtests, absolutely nobody. I've been told that by people working with the creative team who say, nope, no one sees it, and I've been told it by people on the digital side who said, even when they request that information they don't get it.'

"We don't care about actual feedback - we're making the next version of the rules, not our customers. What we do care about is that the will be positively received."

'They don't read it you guys. ... when someone asked them, well why do you collect it if we don't read it, the answer they gave was, "because if we don't, then they'll just send it to us as emails, tweet threads, forums etc. This way, we channel them to not be disruptive."'

'This sounds good until you realize that the surveys don't actually do anything. They're just used to collect broad satisfaction levels, but what's really important is that second part about how the surveys are only there to channel people's feedback into a place where it isn't public to stop us being "disruptive." That is what they're trying to do here as well.'

De-link all that text, please. That's not pleasant.

 

[darjr]

That is actually genuinely surprising. I mean, I knew they must read at least some comments, but this sounds like a LOT of time being dedicated to reading survey responses, which seems like a very inefficient use of resources.

Yes. From what I understand they used to read all of them. All. Of. Them.