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.

 

[Blue]

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.

This is very dishonest. Wanting a safer gaming space is good, but that's not the whoel of what is being offered. If I said "I want a safer gaming space by killing everyone who I disagreed with", we could agree is not "good". So "Wanting a safer gaming space by allowing one corporation to have free reign to remove any competitors, and the chilling effect that will have on any others producing in that space" is not something that you have universal agreement is "good".

We have already seen Kickstarted withdrawn, the chilling effect has already been demonstrated.

These are atomically linked - you can NEVER argue just for a safer gaming space by empowering WotC to remove via the OGL without thje rest.

Let's talk about the actual issue, as opposed to one fraction of it that has feel-good capabilities. Only talk about the whole picture.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

This is very dishonest. Wanting a safer gaming space is good, but that's not the whoel of what is being offered. If I said "I want a safer gaming space by killing everyone who I disagreed with", we could agree is not "good". So "Wanting a safer gaming space by allowing one corporation to have free reign to remove any competitors, and the chilling effect that will have on any others producing in that space" is not something that you have universal agreement is "good".

We have already seen Kickstarted withdrawn, the chilling effect has already been demonstrated.

These are atomically linked - you can NEVER argue just for a safer gaming space by empowering WotC to remove via the OGL without thje rest.

Let's talk about the actual issue, as opposed to one fraction of it that has feel-good capabilities. Only talk about the whole picture.

Again, please quote my entire post. You are clipping my opening sentence and then arguing like I said that I want the OGL changed because of that lofty sentiment.

“I do think that blaming the OGL and insisting it be modified is wrong and does not tie to any reasonable or actual scenario and changing it is harmful.”

That is immediately below in the same post and it says basically what you are saying, but much shorter.

Your clipped quote makes it appear that I want the OGL to be changed when I said the opposite.

 

[Azzy]

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."

Then again, he's not trying to revoke a 20-odd year license that was publicly stated to be irrevocable and by doing so is putting 3PP's livelihoods in danger. So I find the morality clause argument to be a distraction from the real issue (which is why I suspect WotC is trying to use it).

Personally, I'm not against such a clause in theory, but I am against it being ill-defined and nebulous. The problem with terms like "repugnant" is that it's repugnant to whom? Obviously to Monte, in this specific case (and we generally know where he stands), but this kind of wording from a corporate entity would be bad news. Corporations do not have a sense of morality, especially when leadership changes hands regularly. Any stance on morality they make is typically following whichever way the wind is blowing—and that can be dangerous as well as good. There are regressive and bigoted elements in society with outsized power that want to tear down the rights of various minority and "othered" groups and censor or ban material—and this is usually done under the guise of "morality". With ill-defined terms, a morality clause that may have the intention of stopping anti-LGBTQ+ material (for example) could later be used to actually support an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda because of pressure from politicians, religious group, and such.

A second issue is that vague terms like that can also be used as a blanket excuse to quash competition regardless of whether the competitor publication's actual content was actually objectionable.

If you let a corporation use vague, ill-defined terms, they will use it against you eventually. You cannot trust corporations to do the right thing—like not trying to dismantle a license that they initially claimed was irrevocable.

 

[Mistwell]

Then again, he's not trying to revoke a 20-odd year license that was publicly stated to be irrevocable and by doing so is putting 3PP's livelihoods in danger. So I find the morality clause argument to be a distraction from the real issue (which is why I suspect WotC is trying to use it).

Personally, I'm not against such a clause in theory, but I am against it being ill-defined and nebulous. The problem with terms like "repugnant" is that it's repugnant to whom? Obviously to Monte, in this specific case (and we generally know where he stands), but this kind of wording from a corporate entity would be bad news. Corporations do not have a sense of morality, especially when leadership changes hands regularly. Any stance on morality they make is typically following whichever way the wind is blowing—and that can be dangerous as well as good. There are regressive and bigoted elements in society with outsized power that want to tear down the rights of various minority and "othered" groups and censor or ban material—and this is usually done under the guise of "morality". With ill-defined terms, a morality clause that may have the intention of stopping anti-LGBTQ+ material (for example) could later be used to actually support an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda because of pressure from politicians, religious group, and such.

A second issue is that vague terms like that can also be used as a blanket excuse to quash competition regardless of whether the competitor publication's actual content was actually objectionable.

If you let a corporation use vague, ill-defined terms, they will use it against you eventually. You cannot trust corporations to do the right thing—like not trying to dismantle a license that they initially claimed was irrevocable.

I agree. That morality clause is vague and subjective and not based on outside standards. I was merely pointing out a likely more vague and subjective morality clause had never once been met with any resistance I have ever seen.

And for the very point I think you agree with - the objections to the new OGL are not really centered on this morality clause. I don't think most people care about it. I think a lot of people would be fine with a morality clause in an open license.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I agree. That morality clause is vague and subjective and not based on outside standards. I was merely pointing out a likely more vague and subjective morality clause had never once been met with any resistance I have ever seen.

And for the very point I think you agree with - the objections to the new OGL are not really centered on this morality clause. I don't think most people care about it. I think a lot of people would be fine with a morality clause in an open license.

We will see if ORC has one and what is says. I am pretty sure that even a mild one will provoke outrage. You just have to bounce over the the other forum we share and see the latest video by that site owner to see …

 

[Mistwell]

We will see if ORC has one and what is says. I am pretty sure that even a mild one will provoke outrage. You just have to bounce over the the other forum we share and see the latest video but that site owner to see …

That other forum hated WOTC before all this, and almost everything you're seeing there is dunking and gloating about the downfall of a hated foe and not based on the downfall of something people loved. There is no scenario where they'd be OK with anything WOTC does because there was none before all this happened as well.

So yeah, I think most people who actually liked 5e and played it and bought WOTC products would not have a big objection to a morality clause, if that's all this involved. Of course it's not all this involved.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

That other forum hated WOTC before all this, and almost everything you're seeing there is dunking and gloating about the downfall of a hated foe and not based on the downfall of something people loved. There is no scenario where they'd be OK with anything WOTC does because there was none before all this happened as well.

So yeah, I think most people who actually liked 5e and played it and bought WOTC products would not have a big objection to a morality clause, if that's all this involved. Of course it's not all this involved.

I have zero objections to a standard and accepted clause of it ties to a brand or specific company. The more open the license is, the less it probably is needed.

I don’t recall GPL saying no porn servers can be run using our license.

 

[overgeeked]

We will see if ORC has one and what is says. I am pretty sure that even a mild one will provoke outrage.

I don't envy them in writing the new license. It needs to be ironclad and utterly perfect...beyond reproach. Anything less and they'll get torn to shreds over it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I don't envy them in writing the new license. It needs to be ironclad and utterly perfect...beyond reproach. Anything less and they'll get torn to shreds over it.

They don't have to get it perfect on the first try though. Make it clear that the licence is a work in progress and put out plenty of drafts until the community is happy with the result.

 

[overgeeked]

They don't have to get it perfect on the first try though. Make it clear that the licence is a work in progress and put out plenty of drafts until the community is happy with the result.

Exactly. This community...who until a few weeks ago literally couldn't agree on anything. And we still can't. People are still defending WotC and their nonsense against all comers in various threads. I doubt we're capable of reaching a consensus on anything.