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!"

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.

 

[Nikosandros]

So naturally, you are boycotting Monte Cook and unsung the hashtag #OpenCypher until he changes the terms, right?

... Right?

This license has always been like this from the start. The issue with WotC is reneging on the legal promise of a perpetual license.

 

[Justice and Rule]

So naturally, you are boycotting Monte Cook and unsung the hashtag #OpenCypher until he changes the terms, right?

... Right?

No . The Cypher system never advertised itself as such, didn't establish itself as the bedrock of third party publishers, and then suddenly get rug-pulled by corporate interests. I don't understand the desire here to ignore context to somehow try and undermine people's motives for moving away from Wizards. Does the gigantic corporate entity really need people to defend its honor and try to point out the "hypocrisy" of those who are angry at it?

So if Wizards wrote they would have an oversight executive to oversee decisions about offensive content, and then hired Monte for that position, you would accept his decisions regarding such content?

In the end it wouldn't be his decision, it'd be Wizards. Just having a good person at a position misses that their higher-ups can order things to can still make decisions from above. If Monty isn't deciding the overall policy that things will be judged under to begin with, that he is the axe man or not doesn't really matter. This is part of the problem with corporations: it's great to have someone who is a cool guy in a high-up position, but at any point the corporation can assume direct control and ignore his guidance.

 

[MNblockhead]

Would you rather have trial by Twitter?

You are going to get that regardless.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

So naturally, you are boycotting Monte Cook and unsung the hashtag #OpenCypher until he changes the terms, right?

... Right?

I have never played the system. Does that mean I am boycotting it? I have Ptolus by that company (original and newer 5e versions) but I don’t have anything else by them and never have tried them. I am the main GM in my group and just never looked into it. There are so many RPG out there ..

But, where does the statement that I don’t think the license is a good example of an open license jump the logic train to I am boycotting it? Or that I have any emotion invested in a purely logical statement that it is not an open gaming license?

 

[Alzrius]

It's funny, Monte Cook's Cypher System license has had this morality clause in it, and I've never once seen someone say there is anything wrong with this or that Monte Cook could take advantage of it and censor works made under it

I'll say it then: there is something wrong with that, because Monte Cook (or whoever else runs or will eventually run Monte Cook Games) could take advantage of that clause and censor works made under the Cypher System License.

 

[Umbran]

So naturally, you are boycotting Monte Cook and unsung the hashtag #OpenCypher until he changes the terms, right?

... Right?

Mod Note:
Folks were told, just upthread, to dial back the snippy responses. You were not given some special exemption.

Please put some more consideration into holding discourse that doesn't escalate in this manner.

 

[Umbran]

I'll say it then: there is something wrong with that, because Monte Cook (or whoever else runs or will eventually run Monte Cook Games) could take advantage of that clause and censor works made under the Cypher System License.

Context matters. Relative position matters.

WotC is the 800lb gorilla of RPGs. Monte Cook is not. If Monte went wild enforcing it, how many folks would he impact? How many would WotC impact?

Also, IIRC, Monte Cook had that clause in the license from the beginning - anyone agreeing to it knew what they were getting into. WotC seems to have been trying to strong arm dozens of creators into the clause after the fact.

That said, I find that clause in v1.1 pretty unobjectionable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Context matters. Relative position matters.

WotC is the 800lb gorilla of RPGs. Monte Cook is not. If Monte went wild enforcing it, how many folks would he impact? How many would WotC impact?

Also, IIRC, Monte Cook had that clause in the license from the beginning - anyone agreeing to it knew what they were getting into. WotC seems to have been trying to strong arm dozens of creators into the clause after the fact.

That said, I find that clause in v1.1 pretty unobjectionable.

See to me, that clause requires trust that WotC will use that power fairly. And they've just proven they can't be trusted.

 

[Alzrius]

Context matters. Relative position matters.

WotC is the 800lb gorilla of RPGs. Monte Cook is not. If Monte went wild enforcing it, how many folks would he impact? How many would WotC impact?

It matters in terms of scope and scale, but the nature of what that clause entails, and the objection to it, remain unchanged.

Yes, far fewer people/companies use the Cypher System License, and as such there's far less harm to be done by misuse of that morality clause. But while not an unimportant aspect of the discussion, that's an orthogonal take on the issue, because it looks at scope of the consequences rather than the essence of what's being discussed and why an objection is being raised. That part is true regardless of the breadth of the potential outcomes.

Also, IIRC, Monte Cook had that clause in the license from the beginning - anyone agreeing to it knew what they were getting into. WotC seems to have been trying to strong arm dozens of creators into the clause after the fact.

WotC is trying to strong-arm everyone into that clause, via declaring that the old OGL can be revoked and that you need to use the new one if you want to make compatible content.

 

[Pedantic]

I'd much prefer if we could focus on the whole "revoking 1.0(a)" thing. This whole discussion of content controls, while certainly an interesting point for some other hypothetical license, feels like a bit of a sideshow distraction that WotC pointedly threw up to draw focus away from the actual bad thing they are currently doing.

There is still no justification for them to claim the ability to yank the existing OGL, and until they give up that claim, there is no negotiation that can happen here. Whether they are trustworthy stewards of a morality clause is an interesting discussion, but whether or not they are doesn't have any bearing on whether they should be allowed to break the existing promise that powers the 3rd party publishing industry.