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

BlueFin

Just delete this account.
The thing I was objecting to was the claim that corporations have a legal obligation to maximize profits at the expense of all else.
No problem, and I'm happy to admit that it's no longer the case and I was incorrect in that particular statement.

However, the importance of the first half of the sentence you quoted is that it still speaks to the central point I was making, and to which you seem to be agree (that a for-profit company where profit is a 'central objective' can't be trusted as a 'steward').

The way you quoted it, by leaving out the first half of the sentence, and quoting in a way that made appear as an independent statement, made it appear you were objecting to my premise (to me at least), which is why I posted a 'rebuttal', so to speak.

The correct way to quote it would have been with an ellipsis at the beginning (ie. "[...] modern corporate law ...") to clearly show you were taking an excerpt. Leaving that out made it appear to be a deliberate attempt to mislead.
 

dave2008

Legend
Any such update would be its own iteration of the license, hence why Section 9 says "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." So it's not a change so much as it's a newer, alternative version (hence the "v" in "OGL v1.0a").
Sure, I was not trying to argue otherwise. I never thought they had the ability, that they now seem to claim they do, to rewrite an existing version of the license.
 
Last edited:

Ok. That's confusing language, because they mean totally different things, especially in this context.

The OGL 1.1 could be "updated" without creating a new version, with 30 days notice.

The OGL 1.0a cannot be "updated", only an OGL 1.0b and so on created, which leaves the OGL 1.0a fully functional.

Think of updating as like, shapeshifting, and creating as cloning with modifications.

I am aware of how it works.

My point was that in the PR "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" means that the 1.0a is still functioning as it always has because were that to change, the content already released under 1.0a would be very affected because it would not be re-usable or replicatable.

The PR release, as it reads now says that they are not attempting to "unauthorize" 1.0a and are instead creating a new version. Until we see the new 2.0 legalese, we won't know if "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected." is a lie or not.

I suspect it is a lie.

joe b.
 

dave2008

Legend
Yeah I'd forgotten how confusingly worded that was.

They say update, but because you can use any authorized version, it's cloning with modifications, not shapeshifting.

Whereas with the OGL 1.1, they change the entire thing with a 30 day notice.
I realized after I responded to your post that we are not really tallking about the same thing. All good!
 

MarkB

Legend
I will copy my response to @FrogReaver:

Section 9 allows them to update the license, i.e. "change" the license.

"Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License."

That is what I was referring to. What are you referring to?
Being able to publish different versions of a licence, while leaving the original version intact and binding, is worlds away from being able to change the terms of a licence that you as their client have signed while leaving you obligated to abide by those new terms.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Section 9 allows them to update the license, i.e. "change" the license.

"Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License."

That is what I was referring to. What are you referring to?
Section 9 also allows any version of OGL to be used for OGC. So it doesn’t matter if they release an updated OGL version. You can use the old one under section 9.
 

My point was that in the PR "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" means that the 1.0a is still functioning as it always has because were that to change, the content already released under 1.0a would be very affected because it would not be re-usable or replicatable.
It definitely doesn't, but okay lol.
 

dave2008

Legend
Being able to publish different versions of a licence, while leaving the original version intact and binding, is worlds away from being able to change the terms of a licence that you as their client have signed while leaving you obligated to abide by those new terms.
Yes, I know and was never trying to conflate the two. I didn't realize that was the discussion until I had replied to 3 different posters with basically the same comment!
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top