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 deauthorized.
  • Non-TTRPG mediums such as "educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses" are unaffected by the new license.
  • The 'we can use your content for any reason' provision is going away
  • The royalties aspect is also being removed
  • Content previously released under OGL v1.0a can still be sold, but the statement on that is very short and seems to imply that new content must still use OGL v1.1. This is still a 'de-authorization' of the current OGL.
  • They don't mention the 'reporting revenue' aspect, or the 'we can change this in any way at 30 days notice' provision; of course nobody can sign a contract which can be unilaterally changed by one party.
  • There's still no mention of the 'share-a-like' aspect which defines an 'open' license.
The statement can be read below. While it does roll back some elements, the fact remains that the OGL v1.0a is still being de-authorized.

D&D historian Benn Riggs (author of Slaying the Dragon) made some comments on WotC's declared intentions -- "This is a radical change of the original intention of the OGL. The point of the OGL was to get companies to stop making their own games and start making products for D&D. WoTC execs spent a ton of time convincing companies like White Wolf to make OGL products."

Linda Codega on Gizmodo said "For all intents and purposes, the OGL 1.1 that was leaked to the press was supposed to go forward. Wizards has realized that they made a mistake and they are walking back numerous parts of the leaked OGL 1.1..."

Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL commented "They made an announcement today that they're altering their trajectory based on pressure from the community. This is still not what we want. We want Hasbro to agree not to ever attempt to deauthorize v1.0a of the #OGL. Your voices are being heard, and they matter. We're providing visible encouragement and support to everyone inside Wizards of the Coast fighting for v1.0a. It matters. Knowing we're here for them matters. Keep fighting!"


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

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I’ll run with this…

Firstly it’s not a puppy, It seems to be all the puppies I ever produce.

Secondly no one can actually quantity how much you nourished it, because I was also feeding it every day, along with other people and there’s no way of telling if it actually ate any of your food.

You didn’t pay anything for the puppy; in fact you were using the puppy for entertainment shows and making profit from people while you had it.

I now say hang on a second, I gave you the puppy for free because I thought you wanted to play with it, but you’re making all this money from it. Plus this other guy down the road I gave one to is treating his puppy badly. So while you can keep that one, and this one I know you had your eye on. I know you have kennels and a puppy trainer but your gonna have to find someone else to give you puppies or grow your own. Im out.

I then reconsider and say I’m actually happy to keep giving you puppies as long as I can check you don’t treat them badly and provided you acknowledge I might want to stop giving you puppies in the future. You tell me to go make love to myself.

The 5e clones like Level Up didn’t come out when 5e was in its infancy. They came out when it was at the height of its success. The explosion of 3pp 5e came when 5e was clearly a success not when it was finding its feet.

Nothing stops 3pp using their resources to make other products, they are using 5e because they think it will sell better because it’s already popular.
Holy bad faith argument batman
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I’ll run with this…

Firstly it’s not a puppy, It seems to be all the puppies I ever produce.

Secondly no one can actually quantity how much you nourished it, because I was also feeding it every day, along with other people and there’s no way of telling if it actually ate any of your food.

You didn’t pay anything for the puppy; in fact you were using the puppy for entertainment shows and making profit from people while you had it.

I now say hang on a second, I gave you the puppy for free because I thought you wanted to play with it, but you’re making all this money from it. Plus this other guy down the road I gave one to is treating his puppy badly. So while you can keep that one, and this one I know you had your eye on. I know you have kennels and a puppy trainer but your gonna have to find someone else to give you puppies or grow your own. Im out.

I then reconsider and say I’m actually happy to keep giving you puppies as long as I can check you don’t treat them badly and provided you acknowledge I might want to stop giving you puppies in the future. You tell me to go make love to myself.

The 5e clones like Level Up didn’t come out when 5e was in its infancy. They came out when it was at the height of its success. The explosion of 3pp 5e came when 5e was clearly a success not when it was finding its feet.

Nothing stops 3pp using their resources to make other products, they are using 5e because they think it will sell better because it’s already popular.
Enough with the puppy analogy, it is sick in my mind to equivalent a living creature to a contract.
 

Not really, AI is not able to get far ahead of programmers. It has limits and even with quantum computing it will take a hundred years to get a Marvin level thought process (AI follows information, with out it it cannot understand anything, AIs spook us because the have a near limitless data library. Run the same algorithm on a computer not connected to the net and it will be terrible) I know a guy who does programming for a living and understands spacial physics who gave me the laymens terms on that.

On the other hand, the other week I asked an AI to write me an interactive Doctor Who adventure, and it gave me a scarily accurate one. Note, I did give it some parameters for the opening scene, but it worked out stuff like the fact that I'd be carrying a sonic screwdriver all by itself.

(August 23, 1704 - Morning)
(Level 1)

As you step out of the TARDIS, you find yourself in the bustling streets of London. The smell of smoke and the sounds of horse-drawn carriages fill the air. Your companion, Donna, looks around in wonder at the 18th century city.

You take a moment to gather your bearings and check your equipment. You have your trusty sonic screwdriver and a few basic medical supplies. You also have a small amount of money to use for supplies and bribes.

As you begin to explore the city, you can't help but feel a sense of excitement and adventure. The people of this time period are so different from your own, and you can't wait to see what kind of trouble you'll get into and the mysteries you'll uncover.

But be careful, Doctor. The world can be a dangerous place, and you never know what kind of danger lurks around the corner. Keep your wits about you and stay on your toes. You never know what challenges or foes you might face on your journey.

What do you do next, Doctor?

It went on to keep responding to my replies in the manner of a 1980s text adventure, let me overhear an NPC talking about a museum artifact being stolen, and kept on through my investigations to recover it.
 

So what are the odds that ChatGPT wrote most or all of that WotC statement?
Okay, I've got to go off topic for this. It's just too good. ChatGPT wouldn't know anything about this, so I ensured that it knew about the Exxon research predicting climate change back in the 1970s that it did not share, and asked it to do just that.

Prompt: Please write a public-relations style non-apology from Exxon where they seem like they are apologizing for knowing about climate change in the 1970s but not telling anyone, but that does not admit to any wrong-doing or guilt.


"At Exxon, we have always been committed to conducting thorough research and staying informed on the latest scientific understanding. In the 1970s, our scientists were studying the potential impacts of burning fossil fuels on the environment, including the possibility of climate change.

While we now know that the world has changed since then and the information about the risks of climate change were not fully shared, we want to assure the public that at the time, based on the understanding and knowledge available to us, we believed that the information we gathered was used in good faith.

We understand that people may have different perspectives on this issue and we respect that. However, we want to assure the public that we are committed to being transparent and responsible in our actions. We continue to invest in and support the development of innovative technologies to reduce our carbon footprint, and we are committed to being a part of the solution to address climate change.

We apologize if our actions in the past have caused any confusion or concern. We are dedicated to moving forward and finding solutions to address the issue of climate change."
 

On the other hand, the other week I asked an AI to write me an interactive Doctor Who adventure, and it gave me a scarily accurate one. Note, I did give it some parameters for the opening scene, but it worked out stuff like the fact that I'd be carrying a sonic screwdriver all by itself.



It went on to keep responding to my replies in the manner of a 1980s text adventure, let me overhear an NPC talking about a museum artifact being stolen, and kept on through my investigations to recover it.
You told it to make a "Dr. Who interactive adventure" of course it knew you had a Sonic Screwdriver. It was also taking bits from random databases related to the input, there is a game out Event 0 it did the exact same thing but didn't understand anything beyond the game space.
 

Okay, I've got to go off topic for this. It's just too good. ChatGPT wouldn't know anything about this, so I ensured that it knew about the Exxon research predicting climate change back in the 1970s that it did not share, and asked it to do just that.

Prompt: Please write a public-relations style non-apology from Exxon where they seem like they are apologizing for knowing about climate change in the 1970s but not telling anyone, but that does not admit to any wrong-doing or guilt.


"At Exxon, we have always been committed to conducting thorough research and staying informed on the latest scientific understanding. In the 1970s, our scientists were studying the potential impacts of burning fossil fuels on the environment, including the possibility of climate change.

While we now know that the world has changed since then and the information about the risks of climate change were not fully shared, we want to assure the public that at the time, based on the understanding and knowledge available to us, we believed that the information we gathered was used in good faith.

We understand that people may have different perspectives on this issue and we respect that. However, we want to assure the public that we are committed to being transparent and responsible in our actions. We continue to invest in and support the development of innovative technologies to reduce our carbon footprint, and we are committed to being a part of the solution to address climate change.

We apologize if our actions in the past have caused any confusion or concern. We are dedicated to moving forward and finding solutions to address the issue of climate change."
I love you. Marry me. Wait. Already married!
 

Ooh, update me Content Daddy.

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

They say they want to be good stewards of the game, and reasonably that means making sure that people can't be stinky ghouls about making an adventure where George Soros is the lord of the 4th layer of the Nine Hells and putting it on Kickstarter for One Million Money or making different ability score rules for women or putting it on the blockchain or whatever other nefarious ghoul garbage our broken culture is cooking up today. And that sounds like a Good Thing. Who wants a bunch of stinky garbage ghoul humans mucking up our Weird Elf Game? NOT ME!

There is a conflict between this good thing and another good thing, though. That other good thing is: People can take OGL'd D&D content and do what they want with it. Whatever they want. Without having to ask Content Daddy first. And that's the conflict. Being open means you're open to a lot of awful ghouls. Wanting to not let the ghouls in means you can't really be open. At the basic level, it's the paradox of tolerance.

And this problem isn't new, right? I remember this kind of thing when the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out (Pun intended? Or am I just broken inside? Porque no los dos?). WotC suddenly very nervous that the Brand, in all its PG-13 Glory, was right up next to pictures of prominent nudity and naughty spells that made me feel funny inside. Being open means having this kind of...exposure...sometimes. Not ideal. Not great. Not something you want to pop up in Google when Timmy's Puritanical Mom looks up your Brand because of the buzz about the hip new movie.

So I put on my glasses from They Live!, and I see the mewling corporate homunculus at the core here, what it's saying to me is that it's real hard to turn a profit when your Brand might get sniped by garbage ghouls of ill intent, and yeah, I'm sympathetic.

Only, hold up a tick, DM's Guild already does do this kind of content moderation. What with the Oliver Darkshire's sexy vampire adventure and the Eat the Rich compilation having their stuff censored. (and probably more, but those are the ones I've heard about, so I know they Already Do This Stuff).

So, WotC already owns some storefronts and can set some standards there, which is tighter control and tighter association than the d20 System License was in the 3e days. It's not just OGL stuff, it's just D&D stuff. So it would seem that this problem is addressable without de-authorizing the OGL. Maybe not completely, maybe not without risk, maybe you've gotta ramp up your intolerance of intolerance in different places, but, dang, if you can already stop someone from selling an adventure with sexy vampire pictures in it, I think you have the kind of control you say you're looking for here. Just empower that a bit more.

It sounds to me like it's totally possible for D&D to have continued brand integrity while risking the occasional bad actor. You can't protect yourself from all the ghouls and have an open system, and while the ghouls are rank and disgusting and weird, maybe this is something where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I guess that's not super clear-cut, and there's probably reasonable people who would disagree there. I am definitely for letting that risk be a risk, though, and protecting against it where you can in ways that don't destroy an industry.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1.

Don't get cute on me. You are in big trouble, Mister. Paizo and I have been talking, and we are not happy with your recent behavior.

It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected

What it will not contain is any royalty structure..

Good. You can be a good steward of the game by protecting it from NFTs in other ways, and avoiding the royalty thing will remove a headache for you and for others.

It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

Okay, I'm willing to forgive the clumsy legalese here. I'm familiar with some of the nuances of legal language and "hit that risk with the biggest f'n hammer we can muster" is definitely standard corpo legal practice (Read your ELUA sometimes, folks). Hope they get better at vetting this BS, though. This language should've never gone out. The D&D audience is many things, but one of the things we all are is giant nerds. You know, the kind of people who read the fine print.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.

The promise to do better is never sufficient on its own, but it's also always a necessary first step.
 
Last edited:

You told it to make a "Dr. Who interactive adventure" of course it knew you had a Sonic Screwdriver. It was also taking bits from random databases related to the input, there is a game out Event 0 it did the exact same thing but didn't understand anything beyond the game space.
... Did you just say... "Of course it"?

My god you adapt quickly. This is not NORMAL. This is cyberpunk 2020 AI crap we dreamed up in the 80s and somebody mad scienced together.

Get a GRIP MAN! YOU SHOULD BE PANICING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

<cough> Sorry. Was having a moment. Carry on.
 

You have the most bizarre one-sided view of the OGL, as if it was just WotC giving things away for nothing. That is not the case. I'm going to ask you to read Morrus' post. Morrus, who has run ENWorld for decades, and publishes RPGs under the OGL.


Just read it, and any and everything you want to say, see if it agrees with what Morrus says. Because if it doesn't, then between you, and intelligent and interested bystander, and him, an industry professional using the OGL and reporting on the D&D, d20, OGL, and the industry for decades, there's a really good chance he's the one in the right.

Then come back and respond to various comments on this thread, running every sentence through "does this align with what I just learned from Morrus". Because right now your viewpoint seems really lopsided and could be helped if synced with the reality of the situation.
I’ve read Morrus’ points. Absolutely an industry expert but he has made a fair amount of revenue cloning 5e so I think he is utterly partisan in this regard as I’m sure I would be in his position. My opinion is that WoC should be able to alter the license, particularly if that alteration seems reasonable. The world is different now to what it was then and I don’t think the deal is equitable. I don’t blame WOC for trying to get out of it. Nor do I blame Morrus for trying to keep it.
 

The policy you are apparently in favor of gives WotC the ability to do exactly what @Scribe said. That is the point of contention. You think that's fine, and seem to trust WotC's judgement in that matter, and we don't. If I am misrepresenting your position, please let me know.
yes you did my opion is it works like rock paper scissors...

wotc gets to shut down people who commit hate speech and slurs... we get to raise a fuss (you know like we just did) if they try to shut down non hate speech...

you want anarky I want guard rails
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top