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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, this is certainly much better than the leaked version, but, as others have already said, the trust is broken. There are various things here that make eyes roll, and it certainly could have been said sooner, but if the end result doesn't hurt people's livelihoods, we can count that as a win in these all too interesting times.

I am curious about what they define as a "big corporation". Does that mean video games? Movies and TV?

Personally, i'm more excited about the new things that have been announced in the last few days than i ever was about OneD&D. So here's hoping that we still get a lot of new fantasy TTRPGs.

Mostly I'm glad that a lot of designers, artists, and publishers can breathe a bit easier. I hope they have a much better weekend.

They're still trying to de-authorize 1.0a, and keep people from using it for future products. I wouldn't breath that much easier.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Make 1.0a irrevocable and the rest becomes irrelevant.

That's the fundamental problem for Wizards of the Coast. Nothing they want to accomplish with OGL 2.0 actually matters if publishers can simply choose to use 1.0a instead.

Good. That's what the OGL is for. Not letting the whims of a corporation prevent publishers from using the OGL as originally drafted.

 

[mamba]

I am skeptical too. I won’t make any final opinion until I see the final draft. But I think for some people there is nothing short of agreeing to ORC or something similar that will soothe them.

For some maybe that is true, others might say it in the heat of the moment but be fine with a 1.1 that is essentially a slightly altered 1.0a once it is final (not that I am saying this will be what 1.1 becomes...). In the end a reasonable 1.1 will get enough support to not be the disaster the current version is, even if not everyone is back on board.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

The main selling avenues - One Bookshelf and Kickstarter - already police material. There is absolutely zero need for Hasbro/WoTC to have such a clause or to use it as an excuse. They already ban using their brand/trademarks and claiming it is compatible with D&D so they already have plausible deniability. This is a completley bogus claim and that alone is enough to completely reject their attempts. They have decades of actual experience and it just has not been an issue.

Are many OGL products able to meet a more advanced (or extreme or however you want to add a description to it) inclusivity standards that some people want? No. So what? Don't buy them. They are not official WoTC D&D and the market pretty much does not see them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am fine with that. Stick to Corporate Middle American Media values, or you can't claim the D&D brand? Extremely reasonable.

If they want to do that, THEY CAN.

You don't need to nor even really benefit from deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a to do that. Let me lay it out so there's no confusion as to how it's done:

1) You create GSL 2.0. You clearly outline what you want. You can even put in a poison-pill clause re: OGL if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it. You leave the OGL 1.0a alone, it's irrelevant.

2) You provide clear carrots - for example, a large obvious badge saying "D&D compatible" not like "Creator Content" with no explanation or some bollocks.

3) You create a new 1D&D SRD. You clearly state that ONLY the GSL 2.0 lets you use this. No-one will mess with you on that.

That's it. Now you've achieved everything you were suggesting. You didn't need to blow up anything, you didn't cause a massive ruckus. You've clearly separated your brand from anyone else, you've "taken back control" (lol!) and so on.

But that's not WotC's actual goal, as evidenced by now essentially three different takes on the OGL - 1.1, 2.0, and whatever this is (it ain't 2.0). All of them are focused on destroying the OGL 1.0a. That's not all necessary to the goals you're suggesting, indeed it's a counter-productive.

 

[Maxperson]

Was anyone of the opinion that reporting revenue was present for any reason other than assessing royalties? Like, they can't tell how much you owe without knowing the revenue.

I saw multiple opinions in these threads that thought that the reporting could or would be used to reassess the income threshold required to trigger the royalties provision.

 

[Zaukrie]

Because they can trash anything they want under this deal, for any reason. It doesn't actually have to be hateful or racist.

I didn't say I trusted them.....I said I understand why they want the right to protect their brand.

 

[Osgood]

For those demanding a pound of flesh in the form of terminations of leadership involved in the OGL decisions, I have an honest question: Would you rather have folks at the helm who've lived though this experience and and felt the wrath of the community, or some new suit who thinks they're the the smartest person to walk into a boardroom and really knows how to monetize a brand?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Please consider that the "objectionable content" clause can be used to block anything, anytime since they are the police, judge and executioner; they only have to play the "foul" card and off to the discard pile goes someone's hard work.

yes... so is it better to let resists in or to trust that everyone that is going to be in power wont want a repeat of this if they cancel things that are not?

 

[Scribe]

Would you rather have trial by Twitter?

lol as if its not the same thing with Wizards.