WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[mamba]

So the crux of the issue for me is that WOTC has already demonstrated they are very comfortable going back on their word if they believe it's in their best interests. Even if the current staff are 100% pure in intention (Which I have doubts about) and only interested in using this benevolently what happens in 5 years when a new CEO comes in and decides that Hateful is whatever product they don't like/feel is a threat? At the end of the day it's still a matter of WOTC going "Trust us to keep our word about this" while in the very same document breaking their word.

That is something they cannot undo. If this is your line then why would you trust 1.0a again? You have to move to ORC or something, but no longer the OGL

 

[mamba]

So there are separate rules for VTTs, what's the likely route for other software? Character generators, random treasure tools etc.?

Not explicitly spelled out, but to me this would fall under VTT functionality

 

[kjdavies]

Never claimed that everyone has the same line. As to use existing SRDs, if anyone would actually answer why the 3e SRD is still needed, I'd probably join in, but since either no one can or no one wants to, I see no point in fighting for it. This is the third time I am asking for why it is needed now in this thread... would be nice if I got an answer and not just 'we need it'

I could argue that technically Pathfinder 1e is based on 3e SRD (copyright date on the SRD entry in the Core Rulebook is '2000', not '2000-2003' of the 3.5 SRD), and that's still pretty relevant... even more so considering how many other third-party 3e sources eventually got used in Pathfinder.

 

[Azzy]

There are courts, and laws. There are plenty of outside places where that determination can be done by neutral parties. Not by a self interested corporatiom that can use it uncompetitively.

In the US, the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), for instance, has long advocated for civil rights and against bigotry and hate. I'd trust them or another, similar organization over WotC to arbitrate on the matter fairly.

 

[CubicsRube]

Revenue from D&D and MtG have become major contributors to Hasbro's revenue. In Q3 2022, Hasbro's net revenue was $1.1 billion from consumer products, $303 million from WOTC/digital gaming, and $211 million from film/TV.

https://investor.hasbro.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-reports-third-quarter-financial-results

While i don't know the split, estimates i've seen of 10% max pf Wotc's revenue sounds plausible.

So d&d is not insignificant, but it's not a core product (financially speaking) to the business. So if d&d sales drop 25%, the truth is shareholders would barely notice the change in their share price.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

While i don't know the split, estimates i've seen of 10% max pf Wotc's revenue sounds plausible.

So d&d is not insignificant, but it's not a core product (financially speaking) to the business. So if d&d sales drop 25%, the truth is shareholders would barely notice the change in their share price.

They're exposing themselves to a potentially very costly lawsuit here though.

 

[jerryrice4949]

In the US, the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center), for instance, has long advocated for civil rights and against bigotry and hate. I'd trust them or another, similar organization over WotC to arbitrate on the matter fairly.

I don’t think this is something the SLPC would be involved in. They have miuch bigger fish to fry.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wouldnt, owlbears for sure, but ive seen magic missile in a lot of fantasy fiction over the years, its nothing exclusive to dnd.

The TV show (I don't know about the novel but I bet it came from that) the Magicians used it.

 

[mamba]

So far, I think it's safe to assume they're all categorized as "VTT", being "software that replicates and/or automates the tabletop". So far. Until WotC decide they're not. I'm very, very uncomfortable having these things picked out and not covered by the OGL directly.

Yeah, this is far too restrictive to me, and obviously can still be changed, which right now I do not want at all given WotC's track record, even though the limits are already pretty crap.

My current take is that a VTT should be considered anything where the players control their PCs and the DM / one player controls all the NPCs and monsters, i.e. where the computer does not control the moves at all. I know this still crosses into some MP game territory, but so be it, VTTs simply do that if they want to be more than a 2d map with 2d tokens.

Also, I want this covered under the OGL, so it cannot be changed later.

I am ok with having it separate if WotC agrees in the OGL that the same restrictions they put in the VTT policy also apply to their own VTT. In fact I like this idea very much

 

[Matt Thomason]

"This license permits you to combine Your Content with Our Licensed Content and distribute the resulting works as authorized by this license." this is how you combine it from my understanding, i.e. you are now licensing 'your content' under this license

If it were just about you using 'our content', then "You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license." would have been sufficient, yet they have both under 1. (a)

I read that as "you can combine your content with our content, and make a finished product out of it, and distribute it to customers" - not that "your content" becomes reusable by other creators under that license.