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

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Is a casual reader going to read the license boilerplate at the back of the book?
On average? No. But that doesn't change the fact that it's there. And in the paranoid mind of a brand-conscious company, they know it would only take one person post a pic of it to social media and cause a kerfuffle.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Jer

Legend
Supporter
Woof, that's sour. :whistle: It's also possible that D&D Beyond reaches far more of their fans far more quickly than the Wizards site these days. In general, they've stopped updating a lot of content at wizards.com that used to be fairly regular.
When they acquired D&D Beyond they moved all of their D&D community contact over to that platform and off the website. There's no conspiracy here or bad faith - DDB is the offfical D&D communications platform by Wizard's design now. So it's not surprising this comes as a post on DDB rather than another source.
 

I actually didn't expect them to back down this much. It's still not enough, but it would not have shocked me if they had dug in their heels until the Wall Street Journal weighed in.
I'm pretty surprised they (supposedly) have backed off completely on the royalties. That's the part that might have conceivably made the brand damage and loss of trust with 3rd party publishing partners in some way worthwhile.

But at the same time, once they have given up on that, almost certainly the principle raison d'etre for the whole affair (even if they were also pushing for some other things while they were at it), I think it would make more business sense for them to back off on everything entirely, and emphasize that they now embrace the irrevocable nature of the prior OGL, and generally just try to make things go back as close to the status quo ante as possible. The approach they are currently taking probably has more to do with saving face for whomever orchestrated this debacle than the actual health of the business.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Suggesting someone be fired is incredibly mild...

If you say it loudly enough that they actually get fired, it may not be mild, to them.

Executives have generous compensation packages and golden parachutes. But, for most folks, getting fired can be losing your house. Losing your healthcare. Losing your child to social services.
"Mild" indeed.
 


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I'm actually ok with the discussion of "marriage" of any sort. I think there are ways to talk about marriage in terms that don't involve sex, and normalization of different kinds of marriage may be the most wholesome way to prime a young mind for eventually learning to evaluate acceptance of others' sexuality. Having the female looking innkeeper married to the non-binary blacksmith is maybe the only way WotC CAN hint toward LGBTQ+ identity without addressing sexuality. I think that's exactly why marriage is seen as such a powerful issue.
Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. If someone wanted to make an OGL version of Dungeon Bitches (affiliate link), and noted that "this game contains gore, nudity, sexuality, trauma, and mentions of abuse and assault," then it's hardly unimaginable that someone at WotC would slam their finger on the "delete" key before they got anywhere near to reading "Dungeon Bitches is a game about queer women banding together. It’s about trauma. It’s about community. It’s about pain. It’s about survival. But most of all, it’s very gay."
 

OB1

Jedi Master
The inclusion of a contract suggests that it was only retroactively a negotiation, unless WotC was playing incredibly over the top hardball, which makes them bullies punching down at much smaller companies in the best case scenario.
Like I said, they overplayed their starting position, maybe believing that the docs wouldn't be leaked due to the NDAs. Also, I'm assuming the 'attached contracts' were proposals for a custom agreement. An OGL doesn't need a separate contract to sign, you just include it in your published works. So it was a, here is what you will be dealing with if you don't sign the custom agreement.
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Even the courts tend to follow the old line of, "You know it when you see it."

Humans are ingenious - if you give them a hard, clear line, they will find a way to work around that line. Judgement of content ought to be on a case-by-case basis.
I'm not even just talking about "offensive material"... I'm also talking about all products that have used the OGL and parts of the SRD to create stuff that isn't meant to be used directly with D&D and whether or not those can no longer be produced. That should all get hammered out in court as well.

Mutants & Masterminds... Esper Genesis... Pathfinder... etc.... can those still go forward with new product or are those now verboten since they were build upon the foundations of an SRD? No one will know until someone decides to just keep on keeping on and dares WotC to sue them.

At some point that kind of lawsuit should happen just to at least paint the lines down. At that point, yeah, people can try to start skirting them but at least they know where the skirting needs to happen.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top