• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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

except that is the whole argument. I think that having a rider saying that if you put hate speech out there you forfeit your use license... now you can disagree (plenty here do), but if that rider stays (as I want it to) there would NEED to be an arbitier.

Who is doing that? I mean, of all the people on this board, I'm loudly for social justice causes, but at the same time I don't really see a need for putting a "no hate speech" rider in because we'd need to define what "hate speech" covers. It's just easier to work collectively to shun and deplatform those projects and people who pursue those projects rather than giving the executioner power to a faceless corporation that can change leadership and direction based on the whims of shareholders.

I am not suggesting this is a wide spread issue we have seen for years... I am suggesting it is a possibility, a hole that can be filled.

And what I'm saying is that the system already works: we are in an era that is rife with this stuff, where people love putting out offensive stuff like this... and we don't have a huge problem with racist products as far as anyone can show me.

This is Bear Patrol-level stuff of "problems that don't exist but need fixing"... and at least in that case, there actually was a bear.

Heck as I said a billion posts ago, I EVEN disagree with the BoEF... I still own my copy and use it as inspiration for spells and items in 5e.

Then why do we need some immutable, unchallenged, unseatable patriarch of the community telling us what we can and cannot have? I'm utterly confused by this line of argumentation.

show me evidence that all advancement is bad first... I assume you are typing this into your telegraph...

This is a nonsense counter, and you should really answer his question if you want to convince people. If you can't prove that something is broken in any way, why does it need a fix?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
show me evidence that all advancement is bad first... I assume you are typing this into your telegraph...
So we should put this degree of control into the hands of a company we know to be untrustworthy, with no evidence that the change you want is needed? That is dangerous and nonsensical to me. In what way can you even call that advancement?
 

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer
I would hope THAT wasn't what people were complaining about.

I;m not sure I 'blamed' the OGL... I am just saying we saw they are going to update it, and THAT update I like and support and will get annoyed if it is dropped.
But why do you support it? You aren't going to buy anything that you find objectionable so why do you want WotC to have veto power over every single D&D product?
 

The company you trust to police this has in the last several years alone published racist former slaves space monkeys. I have two black guys in one of the games I run and they think many of the conversations and handwringings are silly but that made them pause.

This same company is perfectly willing to break pretty solemn promises and put lots of freelancers and small businesses down because they are scared to compete.

You back them because maybe something bad might be published? Hasbro I get. I think they miscalculated and not enough people signed up in advance and the leak happened. You? For that I have nothing.
And that's just the thing. Without getting further into whether content is or isn't racist to derail the thread, what happens if WotC decides something is racist? A 3PP has to issue a recall for their printed material and cease sales? That's funny, considering WotC couldn't be bothered to do that with their own material that THEY have admitted had problems. I can still go to my local Barnes and Noble and find a 1st print copy of Curse of Strahd. I'll bet the alt cover copies of Spelljammer at my FLGS still contain the artwork WotC agreed was offensive, I can't check because the slipcase is shrink-wrapped.

I completely don't trust a company with their own record of releasing content that has had problems to be the arbiter of what is offensive and worse be able to pull it from the market. Perhaps if they had done better with the handling of their own content, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt but they absolutely haven't. If anything, I'd be ok with a neutral 3rd party being formed similar to the ESRB to issue ratings based on content but that's about as far as I would go.
 

So we should put this degree of control into the hands of a company we know to be untrustworthy, with no evidence that the change you want is needed? That is dangerous and nonsensical to me. In what way can you even call that advancement?

I mean, it's definitely moving in a direction. Not a good one, but it's definitely going there.
 


This is a nonsense counter, and you should really answer his question if you want to convince people. If you can't prove that something is broken in any way, why does it need a fix?
this whole conversation is nonsense... I said hours ago nothing I say will change your mind...and so far if anything everything said to me has had me dig in deeper... I am NOT trying to convice YOU...but wotc
 

So we should put this degree of control into the hands of a company we know to be untrustworthy, with no evidence that the change you want is needed? That is dangerous and nonsensical to me. In what way can you even call that advancement?
we aren't "Putting" anything anywhere... we can't. I am advacating that if they can change it, I want that change kept.
 

But why do you support it? You aren't going to buy anything that you find objectionable so why do you want WotC to have veto power over every single D&D product?
becuase I don't want my nephew to walk into a store and see a 3pp hate speech book.... I should not of in 97ish seen a book with the G word on the cover either.
 

this whole conversation is nonsense... I said hours ago nothing I say will change your mind...and so far if anything everything said to me has had me dig in deeper... I am NOT trying to convice YOU...but wotc

I believe you are confusing me with someone else because I've been talking to you for just under 90 minutes. You are arguing with a lot of people, though.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top