• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
So your argument that something should not be revoked is that it wasn’t previously… hmm. I get that people don’t like change but that sounds a bit impractical if simple existence was enough to justify irrevocable.

I’m sure the argument will be made that perpetual just means without a fixed end date. Like your Netflix subscription is perpetual. “Irrevocable? Never mentioned that word in the contract Your Honour.”

See my previous post.
I know that your answer to these concerns amounts to, "too bad", but I hope you're not expecting that to convince anyone.
 

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
You are clearly not familiar with a big chunk of people that frequent D&D forums. A ton of people on this site and others have strange vendettas against WotC and their employees (Jeremy Crawford in particular is pretty often the target of hateful comments).
I would make the distinction that this is about the public policy statements of WoTC. It has nothing to do with the personalities within WotC. They might be nice people or they might not be. Heck, Cynthia Williams might be lovely in person for all I know. This is solely about a bad policy. Let's focus on that. Don't let this degenerate into a discussion about individuals.
 




This isn't an edition war. This is about the survival of most RPG publishers. There is little room for compromise when facing an existential threat to the entire industry.
right no compromise, 100% has to be your way... and if someone is saying for it to be 95% your way they are the enemy...
This removes about 60% of RPGs from sale, including many unrelated to D&D.
not really Fate and any other (we had a list in 1 thread) can just change license ... there is no need for them to go out of business. It is only the actual roll d20 ad stat that is a problem... and EVEN then it isn't Rifts or TORG, its the 6 attribute that are using the same stat mods as D&D and the same prof/level advancment... and even then there are some that you could argue

I think that they need to have a real chance, and I don't like WotC doing this. I don't want to see people put out of work... and I hope that this shows they wont.
 

Pedantic

Legend
So your argument that something should not be revoked is that it wasn’t previously… hmm. I get that people don’t like change but that sounds a bit impractical if simple existence was enough to justify irrevocable.
The license was clearly represented as being irrevocable. That was the way it was intended by the people creating it, that was how questions about it were answered, that's a reasonable plain reading of the document and most importantly, that's what the next 20 years of the 3rd party publishing industry were built around.

This isn't some abstract test of how content should be licensed, that's what WotC actually did, and they are now trying to say they didn't mean it, and that they never made any promises. That's the unconscionable, unfair thing and unreasonable thing there's no getting away from and no making up for short of not doing it.

It doesn't matter if no one would create the license today, they already did and let the industry grow up around it, taking them at their word.
 

Yeah, now you are getting it, and once that 'enemy' tag gets applied, you get painted with every brush in the tool kit, and boom, your product is withdrawn because of 'guard rails' for terms that cannot even be realistically defined.

"I know it when I see it." yeah?
except that isn't what WotC is doing... it's what you just did. SO I guess YOU are the one guilty of that.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top