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.

 

[Blue]

I give up... we just disagree. I want guard rails (even if I personally don't get to design them) and you don't

"Guard rails" and Open licenses are fundamentally incompatible. The entire point of the "Open" is that is is open for everyone to use, with clarity on what can be used, so that there is no infringement or worry about legal action.

Guard rails cannot exist in that framework.

So be clear, you are against the concept of an OGL.

That's not a bad thing at all. Walled gardens with cultivated experiences can be really fantastic. That's what WotC is doing with the D&D brand itself, since they are the only ones allowed to use it (without a very specific contract, not the OGL). The OGL does not let you say Dungeons and Dragons or D&D or use the logo or anything like that -- it's kept very separate in branding.

But just realize that for others to have a viable business strategy, they need to know that everything can't be pulled away at a whim, so they need an actual Open license.

There can be a place for both, like there is right now with an OGL and with a separate D&D brand.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have no specific information- I've been clear. Instead, just like with any leak, you have to ask ... who is the source, and who does this benefit? Sometimes, a leak is just someone who wants to "do good." But most of the time, a leak (and sources) have an agenda- either they are disgruntled employees with an axe to grind, or they are competitors.

That said, I have consistently written that it's possible that Paizo (directly or indirectly) was responsible for the leaks. That's it. Paizo is an entity; and as any attorney will tell you, you can't control what a client does.

I guess. Cui bono only gets you so far though when literally half the industry either bono or just disagrees with what WotC is doing.

I think it's a lot more likely someone at D&D Beyond, WotC, or one of the smaller 3PPs did, though. My main suspect re: leaking would be D&D Beyond because they seem to very involved in this and I also get the feeling they're not super-enthused about it lol.

If we look at the history of leaks, it's actually surprisingly rarely the cui bono persons* (though they often help the leaker after the leaker has been outed), it's almost always an idealist of some kind or someone who didn't seem to be an idealist, but found out they were at a certain point.

We can all laugh because this is small potatoes but it happens with videogames and the like pretty often. Small charities too.

* = Unless it's a stock thing, but I'd categorize insider trading a bit differently to other forms of leaking, not least because it relies on NOT going public!

 

[wingsandsword]

No, it wasn't. I think you're thinking of the FAQ they released at the same time, which asked what would happen if WotC released an entirely new OGL, and they said that you could just keep using the old one if you didn't like it (i.e. Section 9). That's not nearly the same as what they're saying now, which is "we can change this at any time, and there's nothing you can do but comply."

. . .and WotC saying that in a FAQ for about 20 years, plus the creator of the license saying that repeatedly, are some of the major reasons for the rage that WotC is generating through this.

They've been saying, consistently for two decades that this was how the OGL worked. . .and now they pull some legal trickery to try to claim it doesn't work that way, and that everyone has no choice but to comply.

Whether or not it's legally a breach of contract is, legally speaking, for the courts. However, to fan and public perception it sure seems and feels like a breach of contract by WotC. . .which WotC seems unable or unwilling to comprehend.

 

[Dausuul]

Interesting that you dropped off the first part of the actual sentence -

"While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so."

... and indeed capitilised your quote to make it appear as an independent statement. Hhmmmm, somewhat disingenuous don't you think?

So sure, it may no longer be the primary objective as I thought it to be, but it is a central objective, and so my point remains - seeking profit will take precedence over being a good steward of the product, and indeed, the hobby.

The thing I was objecting to was the claim that corporations have a legal obligation to maximize profits at the expense of all else. They do not. I refuse to ever let that statement pass unchallenged. I quoted the part that was relevant to that claim, and left out the part that wasn't.

I have no problem whatever with saying that for-profit corporations often do pursue profits to the exclusion of all else, and that this makes them ill-suited to be stewards of pretty much anything.

 

[Clint_L]

Have they addressed the 30 day revocation thing? This thread is moving very fast - it's hard to keep up.

If they revise the OGL but get rid of that, and just add language pertaining to certain types of content, that would be a clear win for the community. I think we are all pretty agreed that we don't want D&D being used by the NuTSR types. Not that I believe that was ever what this was really about, but if WotC needs that to save face, that's fine.

Edit: What I'm saying is that if the end result is basically the OGL 1.0 but all it says is "just like the original, but irrevocable except for Nazis", that would be a win.

 

[dbolack]

This. It's not even 'trust' in the moral sense, it's 'trust' in the 'reliable business partner' sense.

I might go further and say "predictable" instead of reliable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The PR release does not say that. It says it is updating the license, which WotC has always had the right to do.

LOL no.

You cannot update the licence. You're just flatly wrong. Read the OGL 1.0a. You can't change it.

You can just create a new version. The old one still holds. What WotC are trying to do is to change that so they have an update-able version which would be essentially worthless.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Again, really depends on how they phrase that.

If they say say "Hate speech which, were it to be published in the European Union, would be considered a violation of the EU's Hate Speech Code of Conduct..." section on "hate speech that is prohibited under criminal law." Then I think most people would be OK with it. You have then a body of law which defines the finer nuances of that sort of rule, and it's not vague and simply up to the personal whims of WOTC but has an objective measurement not controlled by them.

If on the other hand it's just some vague ethics or morality clause they're in control of entirely, then I can see it being a bigger issue.

I think the hate speech thing is pure threater, all retailers like drivethrurpg already ban hate speech as do many Western Governments like Canada.

 

[Greg Benage]

It is possible that they have decided to change tack and to fork the content like the GSL did rather than risk the lawsuits that "unathorizing" the 1.0 will inevitably create. We need to see the actual legal language of 2.0.

How do you make sense of the six-month "grace period" for products developed under 1.0a and currently in production?

ETA: Or am I confusing the other leak with the press release? Now I gotta go read it again.
ETA2: Ayup.

 

[jgbrowning]

LOL no.

You cannot update the licence. You're just flatly wrong. Read the OGL 1.0a. You can't change it.

You can just create a new version. The old one still holds. What WotC are trying to do is to change that so they have an update-able version which would be essentially worthless.

That is what I am saying by the word "update." Create a new license.

joe b.