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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah that's about the level.

Whereas I went to a proper Mexican place with my wife and her parents last time I was in the US, and it was absolutely amazing, just non-stop great every dish.

Given how much Indian food Britons eat, do you think an inexpensive/unpretentious Mexican (or Mexican-American) restaurant would flourish over there? Unless someone is showing off, most of it isn't any spicier than a lot of the curry being eaten in the UK nowadays.

 

[FrogReaver]

The OGL (all existing, non-"draft" versions) makes reference to authorized versions of the license. WotC is going to claim that that authorization has been withdrawn going forward from whatever date the so-called "Open" Gaming License 2 (or whatever they're calling it now) takes effect.

Like...that's literally what they're doing. They're trying to exploit a crappy probably-non-existent loophole in the way the existing license is worded.

Good explanation on how they are planning on revoking it. But it's still a revocation.

 

[dbolack]

You used the internet to find information about someone because you are mad at there company, then defended that action... what do you call it?

Research and/or validation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do think this is a good.
View attachment 273031

@darjr you are our most trusted source...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There’s any number of possible explanations. The source is disgruntled and venting half truths. The source is making things up. The source is talking about the suits, not the designers. The source is fake. Etc.

Or is simply mistaken or has a different standard for what constitutes taking the surveys seriously. There's no need to ascribe malice when the not-malicious reasons seem at least equally likely.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Good explanation on how they are planning on revoking it. But it's still a revocation.

Okay. I don't deny that. I'm not even sure WotC denies it. The license, as it stands, lamentably doesn't forbid revocation. They're just trying to revoke it without using the word "revoke" because they know how bad the optics on that would be (they just don't seem to understand how bad the optics of their bullcrap excuse is.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I said this before but please do not @me in things we have been told not to talk about

Sorry, I hadn't yet gotten through dozens of pages to see the moderation.

 

[wingsandsword]

This really is a blessing in disguise. It has nearly forced ttrpg players to take hard looks at alternative game systems, it has forced big 3pp to look at releasing their own.

That's not a blessing, it's a curse.

I remember before the OGL, before the d20 system and its derivatives.

Every dang game out there had their own system.

Most of them were awful. The skill set to make a good game system is completely different from creating a good setting. Open gaming and the rise of the d20 system gave the industry a system which was open to everyone which was fairly adaptable, at least decent, and widely known.

I remember back in the 90's, more than once, buying a game and reading through it. . .and STILL not understanding how to actually play it, because the part of the book explaining the game rules themselves (and not just the setting) was that poor. It was either a really broken, poorly written ruleset where I'm wondering if I missed something somehow that would make the rules make sense. . .or it was an overcomplicated mess of tables and charts and graphs and an alphabet soup of acronyms that made learning a new game feel more like accounting.

There's a reason people rushed to embrace d20 in the early 2000's, as so many games switched over to it. . .because people knew a system that people widely understood and was at least adequate to the game was better than some poorly tested homebrew nightmare that only makes full sense to the designer.

WotC going salted Earth on the OGL and with it the games derived from the 3.x and 5e SRD's is a broad swing at the entire gaming industry.

I know I'm not interested in learning a new (usually badly written) system for every last game I ever want to play again. It was something that, until this nonsense with WotC, it seemed like the gaming industry had outgrown.

 

[wingsandsword]

Yes. After this last week I simply don't trust them not to abuse an anti-bigotry clause.

"To use the OGL we require certain levels of inclusion be maintained. Publishing in English only cannot be accepted."

Given the sweeping claims some people have made in the name of fighting bigotry, I also absolutely do NOT trust WotC like that.

Like this editorial in The Guardian from two years ago arguing the entire fantasy genre as we know it is inherently racist (It’s time for fantasy fiction and role-playing games to shed their racist history). Making just about anything you'd recognize as a D&D adventure or campaign setting would fall under things this editorial calls "racism".

There's the nonsense with WotC even removing the term "race" for the game when referring to character races.

They'll find SOMETHING to complain about for any work they want to ban, saying it's some kind of bigotry. Is your big bad villain a woman? Then your setting is misogynistic. Are the villains men instead? Then you're sexist for not being inclusive of women. Do your dungeons have stairs and ladders instead of ramps? Then you're being ableist by not accomodating wheelchair-bound adventurers. Do you not include any LBGT characters in your setting or adventures? Then you're transphobic or homophobic. If your LBGT character is a villain or has an evil alignment, then you're being transphobic or homophobic for depicting a trans person as a bad person.

They can cook up any excuse they want, in bad faith, to come up with the excuse to call virtually any content bigoted if they want.

I absolutely would never trust them with any kind of content-approval clause. It's just a blanket veto power under a fig leaf of diversity.

 

[Haplo781]