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


log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think de-authorizing the OGL, and leaving the restrictive v1.1 as the only option was the problem.

If the option they offer is not onerous, it may not be an issue to de-authorize prior licenses.

We are 20+ years on from the original license. Expecting zero change to a license in a changing world seems unrealistic.
Is it unrealistic when they’ve spent those 20 years saying they couldn’t change the license, and in some very notable cases behaving in ways that wouldn’t make much sense to do if they could change it?
 

In short to follow your analogy, they were not fighting Sauron, they're telling you to fight Sauron while they stay home like they always have.
I mean, if we extend the analogy like that, didn't they already "push Sauron from their lands", and you're ignoring people you successfully pushed Sauron from their lands? I feel like your analogy might need work lol.
 

Reynard

Legend
That's not what the OGL is or was, though.

You cannot publish something with Elminster or Drizz't under the OGL. When you do see it published, like on DMs Guild, it's under a completely different licensing agreement.

The OGL is more comparable to Ford "letting" after-market companies provide tires, seat covers, stereos, by providing a standard framework for them to work off of.
I am beginning to think that the folks making weird claims about the OGL aren't doing is mistakenly any more...
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I tried to bring up the idea that there are real problems in the world they could be directing their passion toward. It didn't work out well for me.
Well, your line of reasoning is faulty at best and disingenuous at worst. You present a false dichotomy in when we can only care about one thing or another. But that's not true, we can multitask—we can be disgruntled about WotC reneging on the OGL and we can also be outraged by injustices elsewhere. Also, this OGL debacle may be a million times smaller than the erosion of democracy, corporations influencing legislation, and so on, this still negatively impacts the lives and livelihoods of many 3PPs. Personally, I find your stance extremely demeaning.
 

rcade

Hero
I don’t seem to understand the “trust” issue and not buying dnd products cause of this broken trust. I play dnd for dnd, not 3pp specialty or not covered rules…
If the issue doesn't affect you because you only buy official D&D products from WOTC, then there isn't as much reason for you to care about the breach of trust. But part of the reason D&D has grown to its current size is the third-party publishers who have been creating products for the last 23 years through the network effect of the OGL.

It might turn out that driving off all those publishers could hurt D&D in the long run. Then you'd have a reason to care.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
The part about "they won, we lost," and that garbage about "those people will only be half right" really stuck in my craw. This isn't about winning or losing, this is about listening or not listening--and I can't help but infer they are only half-listening to us. That whole paragraph was damaging and unnecessary.
Yeah, some executive had a temper tantrum and insisted on having that in there. I assume it was the only way to shut him up.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
As others have said, you can’t unring the bell. We know what they want to do. And what they want to do to open gaming and to the RPG industry. They simply are not trustworthy nor will any promise they make ever be believable again.

The OGL is dead. long live the ORC.

The only question is where does that leave current OGC going forward? Publishers can re-release their original content under the ORC, when it comes out, but for things like WEG d6 are likely lost. But, there’s so many WEG d6 clones out there it’s only a matter of time before one is released under ORC or a new one is written for ORC.

WotC had the golden goose. Then they strangled it.
 
Last edited:

You're literally just misreading what they said there lol. It's not possible to get what you're claiming from the actual words.

I'm honestly confused. How is it a misreading?
The content released under 1.0a is not just the individual product produced (the ISBN or sku), it is the material that was declared OGC within that release. That includes all the SRDs.

joe b.
 

I tried to bring up the idea that there are real problems in the world they could be directing their passion toward. It didn't work out well for me.
It's because it's a fallacy.

You can use about anything people care about. "Oh you're so concerned about climate change, huh? Why aren't you more concerned about how the sun will enter a new phase in 500 million years?!" or you can go the other way "Oh you're so concerned about climate change, why aren't you more concerned about the fact that criminal justice sucks, that's hurting people right now, not in 20 years!!!" and so on.

Ad infinitum, like I said. It's total fallacy because there's nothing you can't argue that way. It's empty of reason.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top