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.

 

[Yaarel]

It can get tricky.

Say the Incubus - an Evil demon - is portayed prominently as a gay character. Is that homophobic? In some contexts it would be and in other contexts it wouldnt be.

Is the Drow racist? In some ways it kinda is, and in other ways it kinda isnt.

Is exploring domestic abuse helpful or censorable?

And so on.

Relying on capricious whim to make the judgment calls is ... an unreliable remedy.

If someone weaponizes the authority to decide, groups who are meant to be protected get injured.

 

[Xyxox]

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:

"Neither the Work nor any advertising, promotions, press releases, or other documents affiliated with the Work may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material."

Interesting clause.

How can he enforce it?

 

[Blue]

I don’t think wanting a safer gaming space is wrong.

No one forces anyone to purchase or use a product. Allowing the OGL to kill products will not change a "gaming space" that does not actively want that product in the first place to purchase it, and if they do actively want it then it's not making their space less "safe" to them.

And for this, what it allows is a corporation, with a financial bias, to eliminate a competitor. There's dozens of people on the threads talking about how a publicly traded organization has a responsibility to make money, so assume that at some point under some leadership or activist stockholder agitation (like Alda Fox tried last year), they will use it on major competitors.

Basically, it does not give the benefits you desire, and will likely eventually be used offensively if a publicly traded's corporation's goal is to make money.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

No one forces anyone to purchase or use a product. Allowing the OGL to kill products will not change a "gaming space" that does not actively want that product in the first place to purchase it, and if they do actively want it then it's not making their space less "safe" to them.

And for this, what it allows is a corporation, with a financial bias, to eliminate a competitor. There's dozens of people on the threads talking about how a publicly traded organization has a responsibility to make money, so assume that at some point under some leadership or activist stockholder agitation (like Alda Fox tried last year), they will use it on major competitors.

Basically, it does not give the benefits you desire, and will likely eventually be used offensively if a publicly traded's corporation's goal is to make money.

The very next part of my post says the same thing. That does not change the fact that wanting a safer gaming space is good.

The leaked 1.1 license makes it clear that it allows a logo / designation that makes materials much more official and linked to D&D the brand. In that scenario, a company should have general content restrictions.

One key reason that the OGL does not is that it forbids that clear link. With the exception of the copyright notices and the product identity trademark discussion in the license itself, anyone using the license cannot use the trademarked names or advertise it as being D&D content.

So if they were to offer that, a clause like proposed is basic brand protection. They are wrapping themselves in the hate speech and inclusiveness flag, but such clauses to use IP long predates the current social media wars.

Unfortunately, not long ago products like “Thirsty Sword Lesbians” (not even an OGL product I believe) probably would have triggered such a clause. That is the trade off of agreeing to what appears to be a completely reasonable clause. It cuts both ways.

But as a company with a brand, I would insist on it.

 

[MNblockhead]

As another side note - If you had posted that two years ago I would have laughed. Now, it's kinda scary to realize that is a very real possibility.

Yeah, Reddit has bots that summarize linked stories, etc.

 

[Composer99]

I would be concerned about a morality clause in an open licensing schema, mostly because of well-meaning people inadvertently misusing it, and somewhat because of the possibility of bad actors "weaponising" it.

I don't see anything objectionable about a "morality clause" in a licence that, say, allows use of D&D-themed branding or access to platforms such as DriveThruRPG, Beyond, or even the upcoming D&D VTT - those aren't (indeed, oughtn't be) open licensing schemas.

Here I should note that despite the name "Open" in the title, the Cypher System licence (as mentioned upthread) allows the specific use of Cypher branding indicating compatibility - so of course brand protection considerations apply. The OGL itself does not permit publishers to indicate compatibility with D&D nor does it permit them to do so with brand-specific trademarks or references - and indeed several game systems that aren't compatible with D&D at all include the licence!

So I think these licences are sufficiently different that a morality clause makes sense in the Cypher licence but not in an OGL.

---

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.

I mean, there's kind of a consensus on "revoking 1.0(a)" being (a) terribad, (b) the central objection to WotC's manoeuvring, and (c) likely not possible (but without enough certainty on that point to say for sure) - so I suspect there's not really much more to discuss on that point? Either folks agree with that overall position or they don't, and that's all there is to it.

Major remaining points of disagreement have to do with things like morality clauses. Hence why they're coming up in discussion - especially 64 pages into a discussion thread, by which point many tangents and subthreads have usually emerged.

 

[overgeeked]

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

Power corrupts. Anything so vague as a “we know it when we see it” morality clause will inevitably be abused.

 

[Dreamscape]

I went and looked at the Cypher license. [...] I don’t think it is a good example of a general use license.

Monte Cook did post on Twitter back when this first blew up that people were now questioning the Cypher System Open Licence more closely, so potential 3PPs are clearly scrutinising these things carefully now. The lack of an irrevocability clause is the big one. The more restrictions it contains the more it restrains potential 3PPs. Most cyberpunk games, for example, contain overt political agendas. As mentioned above, if the system really took off amongst 3PPs the owners might find it rather onerous ensuring compliance - not to mention expensive if things got lawyerly.

 

[Incenjucar]

Regarding the Cypher system license, I would be afraid to use it for anything with any sort of depth, such as something in the vein of Planescape. It bans a lot of scenarios that are staples of even Children's cartoons; no adventures where you rescue children from enslavement by evil halfling corporation mining operations, etc. It's way too vague in the way it limits things.

But it's at least already written there for me to make a decision about.

 

[Scribe]

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?

No, because its still a corporate entity.

Do you follow Magic the Gathering? I held Mark Rosewater (Maro) in high esteem. He still facilitated steps Magic took as a brand, that ruined the game.

Would I trust Maro or Monte as individuals? Yes.

Will I trust either under the control of Wizards? No.