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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Seems to me that people should be careful of what they wish for.

The worst thing that could happen in my opinion would be forcing an OGL court case - that ends up costing everyone a lot of money. I personally don’t buy the idea that a reasonable sized business can’t challenge WotC in the courts. I remember the Games Workshop v Chapterhouse case where Chapterhouse won on several points while still losing and having to pay damages. Games Workshop then went on to change huge swathes of its world in order to copyright it - to such an extent that a lot of their IP became unrecognizable.

If WotC win they shut down all OGL1 items and the future iterations that are derived from it. Several lawyers have expressed concern that this could be possible.

If WotC lose they are forced to change the D&D game for the future to something that can be copyrighted and isn’t compatible with 5e. Else forever put up with their future work being picked apart and recycled by parties they don’t want to have a relationship.

I actually don’t want my D&D game to change to much. I like the small evolution that One D&D was driving at. I hate the thought of a court case with Paizo forcing WotC to put their foot on the accelerator down.
I mean, that’s on WotC for putting the 3PP community in the position of having to challenge the revocation of the license in court…
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
ok, now I am curious, how does the timeline show that? All I have is WotC came up with an awful new license, gave it to Paizo and said 'sign this' and after that Paizo announced they would not and rather create their own license. That they did not talk about the WotC license before the leaks is called being under an NDA

I posted a thread on it here.

Briefly- there was a leak. The leak allowed Paizo, and their agents (and others) to talk about the "rumors" without themselves discussing the actual documents (NDA). Then their attorney was able to solicit people and gauge interest (and also form ACP to keep it protected in case of litigation) so that Paizo could both announce their own license and have others back them at the same time.

It is similar to what occurred with PF, when Paizo was fully aware that they were creating a competing system even while discussing the licensing terms and playtesting 4e.

I'm not saying that's what they did here ... just saying that it's plausible, and ... if I was sneaky and rationally self-interested and Paizo, I would probably help get something leaked.
 


I think that works. The SRD still remains unaffected. But you can't make a new product using it.

I'm looking very hard to see where that is stated, but I don't see that in that release. Could you help me find it?

{edit: to be clear, content that is already released is already released whether I reprint it in a new work or not)

joe b.
 

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?
This is a false choice. As someone who actually deals with auditing company errors (which this is) I can say the appropriate response is to review the employees that were responsible and make any appropriate terminations an then hire new talent.

Also just because an executive is "new" does not mean that "they think they're the smartest person to walk into a boardroom..."

WOTC is an established enough company that they should have hiring practices that can weed out this particular mindset and if they don't then their hiring practices and policies should also be audited.

To paint this as an either/or situation is just hyperbole.
 

Where is that said? I must be missing it. What they say is "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

Also, I believe they are lying when saying "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected." because they don't intend for that to be the case, but I do believe that is what they have said.

joe b.
Dude, the OGL 1.1 basically says that too. It's not a change. ALREADY RELEASED is the keyword.

Maybe you're not understanding how the OGL 1.0a works? You have OGC, right, which includes SRDs, right?

If you put the OGL 1.0a in your book, you get to use any/all OGC, including SRDs, right?

WotC are still deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a.

That means you cannot put the OGL 1.0a in your book. That means you cannot OGC/SRDs. Therefore you cannot make any new product which relies on those. Do you see how that works?

The newer OGLs 1.1/2.0 and this one, do not include the concept of OGC. Therefore they cannot be substituted.
 

Well, those people are likely as responsible (perhaps) for the retraction and amendments as they were for the initial draft. To be honest with you, I have always felt like the OGL and Wizards's willingness to make its documents available for free on the website (like the most basic version of its rules or the adventures they published online during the pandemic) was very generous and not comparable to the holder of any other intellectual property that I can think of. I can't imagine Disney (which I like) permitting a third party publisher to publish a Wolverine comic, for example.

I am torn in two in feeling ways that run in two different directions:
  1. I primarily yearn for D&D to be doing great and for the game and books and culture to be as good and as healthy as possible. To see the role-playing game community go nuclear over this is what really troubles me. I just want people happy: third party creators as well as the designers as Wizards of the Coast, who are the custodians of the games mechanics in the 21st century. This is NOT a criticism of anyone. I simply grieve because division, arguments, bickering, etc. has happened so often in the past and it was making me so happy to see the hobby doing so well these past ten years.
  2. I admire those who have spoken out strongly against the OGL changes in order to fight for the free circulation and publication of ideas. At the same time, I respect Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro for being willing to make revisions that acknowledge those objections, even in the face of (no doubt) constant pressure to produce a favorable bottom line (a treacherous path that many amateur designers and probably all players do not have to negotiate).
Cheers everyone! I have always valued Enworld. Hopefully we can all (including Wizards of the Coast) navigate this imbroglio within our community while maintaining respect for each other intact.
Your example of Disney makes no sense. You can't publish WotC IP with the OGL lmao
 


mamba

Legend
Only partially true. The rest becomes irrelevant for anyone who wants to publish content for 3e or 5e. But, WotC doesn’t have to release an SRD for whatever they end up calling the rules they’re playtesting under the name 1D&D. They could choose only to license those rules under 1.1, in which case it’s relevant for anyone who wants to publish content compatible with that rules set.
not if 1DD and 5e are as compatible as WotC claims
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top