• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I know this is not going to go over well. At first I was firmly against WoTC. But to be honest the intense vitriol of so many people and the feeling I now have that nothing will ever be good enough, is pushing me back in the other direction.
For me it's the sheer loudness and quantity of some OSR fans who hated WOTC before all this happened who have been dunking on them and flexing for a week now that's started to push me back the other direction.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's the challenge -- WotC creating an environment where the positive aspects of signing on to an OGL2.0 encourage consumers and creators to do so.
It's worse, though, so forgive me for hammering on this. They can add all the carrots to OGL 2.0, and a bad actor can still come along and publish their hateful, sexist, racist content using 1.0a and a previously licensed SRD.

They cannot achieve any of their goals--even if we absolutely trust that these are, in fact, their actual goals--unless 1.0a can be revoked.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
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.
So, this statement is better than I was expecting.

There's still the expected "oh, you guys just misunderstood what we were saying in the very clear written English document we sent out" nonsense and outright lies (it's not a draft seeking comments if you paperclip it to a contract to be signed), but it also walks back at least some of the first round of crap.

That said, they're still trying to shut down OGL 1, which means that ORC and Black Flag are still needed.

But today's statement is progress. As long as it's not WotC's final word, as much as the C-suite would certainly like it to be, it's relatively good news.
 


Cake Mage

Explorer
"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."

Ryan Dancy has already stated that this was for other companies to use and went out and solicited White Wolf and others when the original OGL was made to make sure that other brands would trust this license.

"Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t."

It was never in question who owned the content. They included language that would allow them to revoke that content as well as use the content however they wanted. Oh and also you can't sue them or have any rights to argue.

This statement is utter crap.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
It's always possible they backtrack further but I think the clear implication here is that it won't be.

Aside from the language of this release, it would also just be very odd for WOTC to release a new OGL that is substantially more restrictive without revoking the old one--there would be no incentive to use the new one. (They could always release new content under the new OGL, and not the old one, but they seem to want to cover already-released 5e content too.)
Yes, that was exactly the point of OGL 1.0, and the reason it was intended to be irrevocable.
 

Staffan

Legend
I'm not sure the original OGL was really all that open to begin with. I know we've seen statements to the contrary from Dancey and others, but the OGL really only seems to give you things you already have under general copyright law. One of my favorite OGL products from back in the 3.5 era was Iron Heroes. But actually looking at it, I don't think it needed to be under the OGL. A more recent example is Pathfinder2 - that really doesn't need to be under the OGL!
I think you're right that Iron Heroes probably didn't need the OGL – or at least, a version of it could have been made that didn't (as written, there are a whole bunch of things copied verbatim from the SRD, but you could have gotten mostly the same result from a different angle). The Pathfinder 2 core book is in mostly the same situation, perhaps closer to being SRD-free (there are some items and spells that could use some work, and maybe they'd need to redo the magic schools, but it's marginal).

But I would not want to defend the Pathfinder Bestiary against accusations of copyright violation. You don't just have dragons, you have the same set of ten dragons the Monster Manual has. You don't just have goblins, you have goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears, and they're related to one another. You have lillends, ghaele, brain collectors, chuuls, daemons as NE fiends, vulture-like wrath demons who conjure storms by dancing, driders, hill/stone/frost/fire/cloud/storm giants, and so on.
 

For me it's the sheer loudness and quantity of some OSR fans who hated WOTC before all this happened who have been dunking on them and flexing for a week now that's started to push me back the other direction.
This is fascinating. So instead of looking at what's rationally good/bad/smart/dumb, you're just sort of steering on vibes? I'm not criticising per se, but that's wild. I've never in my life taken that approach. On the contrary, I can find people very annoying and agree with them if they're presenting a rational argument in good faith.
 

That's absolutely untrue. It would be arguable if a new edition had just started, but when one is coming up, and has no SRD yet? No you can't argue that.

All WotC have to do is make the 1D&D SRD only allowed under GSL 2.0/OGL 2.0.
So NuTSR comes along and publishes hateful, racist, sexist content using OGL 1.0a and SRD 5.1. How has your approach accomplished Wizards' goals?
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top