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.

 

[FormerLurker]

This assumes that WotC are dealing in good faith. They can promise anything they like, but as long as they claim the right to "update" the terms after you're locked in, literally nothing they say can be believed.

But in practice, they can't. Because if they change things arbitrarily for the worse, people will just protest again and cancel subs.

 

[mamba]

But the SRD has the rules. Which are the hard bit of making an RPG.

the rules are not somehow being protected by the OGL going away, mechanics are free to use, the only thing going away is their description of that rule

making a good RPG that competes with D&D costs a lot of money and could take a couple years

and that somehow would stop Disney if they wanted to?

 

[eyeheartawk]

Then WotC will just remove the OGL anyway and the Open Gaming community won't have any say in what they get in return because when it came time time establish terms they just kept crying "NO!"

God, can you imagine the gall?

The absolute entitlement of the community?

I mean, they got told you can publish under the OGL forever and it won't go away. They may change the terms at any time but the you can publish under older iterations if you so wish. Then, the megacorporation decided to not honor their word, assurances of which they repeatedly gave in their own documentation well into 2021.

Yeah, I can't believe how unreasonable the community is being about all of this .

Sarcasm aside, if your scenario plays out, so what?

With ORC and like, a million other games to choose from both sides taking their ball and going away would be fine by me. Sometimes the only way to win is to not play.

 

[Staffan]

But the SRD has the rules. Which are the hard bit of making an RPG.
People have been making D&D worlds and characters for almost 50 years but making balanced rulesets that people like playing? That's a challenge. There's a graveyard of RPGs that failed and have been forgotten. And making a good RPG that competes with D&D costs a lot of money and could take a couple years. It's much easier to just take the rules for D&D and make a "D&D compatible" product.

Eh, there are plenty of RPGs that work better mechanically than any version I know of D&D (although I freely admit that this is subjective). D&D's strength is in its player network (it's easy to find people who like to play D&D) and in the amazing levels of support available for it, not in the mechanics.

And the thing I was responding to was "If the D&D TV show is a hit, they don't want Prime or Disney+ making a competing show and related game." There's nothing in the SRD of value to making a TV show, unless you want to make it about xorns and inevitables. And if a "rival" makes, say, the House of the Dragon RPG and bases the mechanics on those of D&D, that is not a problem. There were several RPGs back during the d20 boom based on licensed properties, and none of those ever posed a threat to D&D's dominance.

 

[mamba]

But in practice, they can't. Because if they change things arbitrarily for the worse, people will just protest again and cancel subs.

but then legally they can, so why even concede anything when all it does is weaken your position

Either this is a negotiation and there is a give and take, they get, let’s say NFTs and computer games and we get clear, express language that the license is perpetual, cannot be revoked and will always remain available under the newly negotiated terms, or there is no reason to give an inch.

So far all they do is take, that slice is only getting smaller.

 

[TrainedMunkee]

Their IP is included in an OGL? And maybe. Let's see. I think there is an awful lot of guessing at the motives and beliefs of the people behind this. For me, I just want to see the first draft and the survey questions to begin with. They've responded to feedback before, and I see no reason why they won't respond to it this time.

I am not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe that their IP is covered under a different license.

Guessing, but educated guessing. They are a corporation motivated by profit. They will give away the least amount that they have to try and save this situation.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I am not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I believe that their IP is covered under a different license.

Guessing, but educated guessing. They are a corporation motivated by profit. They will give away the least amount that they have to try and save this situation.

Their IP is covered under the stuff about Product Identity in the OGL text. The OGL does not let you use Beholders etc.

Which really underscores that the OGL was basically a gentleman's agreement to not sue each other. Because if the OGL doesn't allow you to use their IP, and you can't copyright mechanics, just their unique expression, then that's all it really is. The access to the SRD at that point is just a nice convenience. So basically, it doesn't allow you to do stuff that you weren't basically already legally clear to do. It was just a legal safe harbor.

Which is why retroactively trying to pull it, despite saying they never would is so insidious.

 

[FormerLurker]

While the rules are technically intellectual property (as in they are someone's idea originally) they aren't protected by any laws you can't patent, copyright or trademark system mechanics of a game.

The rules weren't given away by the OGL they were already free game.

However it could be argued in court that a specific expression of a games mechanics might fall under copyright (the same words in the same order, rather than the idea). They couldn't protect d20+number vs TN as a mechanic, but they could perhaps persuade a judge that someone specially mentioning Base Attack Value + Stat modifier + d20 versus an opponent's Armor Class, might be copyrighted, especially if expressed in the exact same why as the PHB. They might also try and claim adventures using D&D rules are "derivative works" and sue/send cease & desist letters that way. Which is what T$R use to do a lot of when it controlled DnD back before 3rd Ed.

WotC OGL is basically an gentleman's agreement not to take these matters to court so long as you don't use certain stuff, we say is our IP like Beholder's, certain spells, character's etc. You can use what you are technically already entitled to use, better yet here's an SRD so you don't have to reinvent the goblin or other common creature (which legally we could never claim is our IP, but we might have been able to say it's stat block is), or a load of spells that a common in literature like Fireball, etc. That way you can make the stuff to support our game that is needed but never make a huge profit for us (like adventures or obscure sourcebooks) and we can focus on the big ticket items.

The point is no one wants to go to court, because that cost money. At least that was the case when the OGL first came into being, WotC weren't as big as they are now, perhaps now they are willing to back up their new "OGL" in court. Although I suspect it is still something they would rather not do, because it might not go their way and it is still money even if they have the bankroll nowdays.

Yes, yes, we've all seen the Legal Eagle video and are now specialists in copyright law as it applies to games.

The point is text of the SRD is protected under copyright. You can make your own compatible game but you have to rewrite every single line of text, rearrange stat blocks, and probably rename terms. But it still needs to be legible and readable. (And that's still not a guarantee because it could still be seen as a derivative work if brought to a judge.)
The SRD and OGL make that significantly easier because you don't have to compare documents to make sure you didn't accidently copy text while editing because that was the most natural phrasing or worry what a judge may or may not decide is derivative. The SRD reduces the time spent on development significantly as you don't need to write original rules.

It makes it fast and easy and reduces the development time for a D&D level of game from a couple years to six months.

 

[mamba]

The point is text of the SRD is protected under copyright. You can make your own compatible game but you have to rewrite every single line of text, rearrange stat blocks, and probably rename terms. But it still needs to be legible and readable.

pretty sure this can be done while improving clarity and legibility, WotC didn’t stumble across the holy grail for rule descriptions

 

[FormerLurker]

I feel like you are suggesting that there are no other "good RPGs" besides D&D and that claim is... suspect, at best.

That's not what he's saying.
Major corporations aren't making RPGs now. The various 3PP aren't corporations, let alone major ones.