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


log in or register to remove this ad


Hm, at 1:08, he says that the OGL v1.0a allows for WotC to terminate an individual creator's license to use it, and that this means that WotC could already shut down products that were hateful or discriminatory, citing this notation:

MLF.jpg


I'm pretty sure that's not correct at all; maybe Noah's note is with regard to the OGL 1.1 (or 2.0 or whatever it's called now) and DnD Shorts is misreading it?
Assuming no one else replied, it's section 13:

13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
 

Enough with the puppy analogy, it is sick in my mind to equivalent a living creature to a contract.
See, using living creatures was the whole point of my analogy, because much like IP, they grow, change, and reproduce, and you (or perhaps more apt, your child since you retired a couple of years back) shouldn't get mad 20 years down the line because these particular ones haven't grown in a way you approve of. But perhaps flowers would be a better analogy, as they also grow and can be bred and changed but generally don't have any volition of their own.

But puppies are cuter.
 

@TheSword , How about the various non-D&D type games that adopted the license as the first Open Gaming License but share no DNA at all with D&D? In other words they used it as an Open License, just as people put up their code under a version of the GPL or CC for others to use.

But now WotC is going against their own long stated intent and changing it from an truely Open License.

Will you defend WotC's ability to do that, since it can not be separated from the rest?
 

you think that is what stopped them?

Market forces, copyright law, and just like, general rules and laws?

Yes?

Or, maybe they are swimming in cash, I dont follow them so I dont know.

The point is, I would assume there are rules out there, laws, in the US. I know there are in other Western countries.

An 'open' license doesnt need to reprint said laws, nor should people look to a company who's "brand" is little more than name recognition, as a source of moral authority.
 

Assuming no one else replied, it's section 13:

13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
Yeah, but DnD Shorts presented that quote from Noah in the context of WotC already being able to revoke the OGL v1.0a from products that were hateful/discriminatory, and that their being able to do so in the OGL v2.0 (née 1.1) therefore wasn't anything new. That's not correct.
 

Market forces, copyright law, and just like, general rules and laws?
copy write law and being generally bad at everything has gotten in there way... hate speech not so much
The point is, I would assume there are rules out there, laws, in the US. I know there are in other Western countries.
again, no there isn't. You can reprint the WW2 bad guy ideology as a game... not that I think it's smart, but you can legally.
An 'open' license doesnt need to reprint said laws, nor should people look to a company who's "brand" is little more than name recognition, as a source of moral authority.
There is no law that prevents you from saying writing or disrupting the N word or the G word... if there were whole songs would be illegal.
 


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 issue is WOTC put the OGL out into the world. And for its duration it was presumed to be permanent. Most of the companies that have decided to go with ORC are still saying they don't think WOTC has the legal right to de-authorize the OGL (it is just very risky and time consuming, as well as potentially a loss of revenue, for them to fight it). Hasbro made a choice to buy a property that had an OGL attached to it. I think acting like just because time has passed that changes things doesn't make a great deal of sense here.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top