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.

 

[Scribe]

I am fascinated by the seeming fact that the idea of making a good product people want to buy simply hasn't occurred to them.

Well you see, that takes investment, and actually aiming to make a statement with ones product beyond 'we are the lukewarm option'.

Wait... Are people still believing that WotC were just testing the water with this, and not trying to blitzkrieg the contract through as fast as possible? They handed the contract over and said "sign by the 13th". Not, "we're getting your input on this, what do you think?"

I doubt anyone believes any such thing.

There are absolutely people on this forum who believe it, or at least claim to, to put up a smoke screen for Wizards.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Do you not see anything fundamentally immoral or wrong with that?

I dont agree with it but I can at least see the moral argument about work put under the OGL for 1-5e being relied upon.

How can you possibly justify having rights over future work people produce when they don’t consent to that? I’m mystified, and when people say stuff like this it makes me question the rest of the stuff they say.

This is actually a tricky one to think about, and mostly comes down to how copyrightable a game is in the first place with or without the OGL.

The main reason the OGL has "allowed" retroclones is that the OGL allowed the use of certain text such as "Hit Points", the six main attributes, etc, while any differences were purely in non-copyrightable mechanics (I would actually assume anyone using the phrase "THAC0" in a retroclone to be in possible IP violation because that term is fairly unique and not granted under the OGL, but reproducing the THAC0 mechanic to be absolutely fine.)

For it to allow someone to create a 6e clone depends on 6e being similar enough to what has come before for the same foundations granted under the OGL'ed SRDs to be applied to 6e. Therefore, it could be argued that if WotC don't want people copying 6e, they need to make it unique enough that people can't use material they currently have the rights to use to replicate it, and not simply tweak an existing system they have already given everyone license to use (of course, this would also likely result in that system not being recognizable as D&D and likely fail in its purpose.) However, any new mechanics they may come up with are still not covered by copyright. That means for them to have a unique, unclonable, protected work they would have to come up with an extremely unique mechanic that they could actually patent. So the main reason the rights of these future D&D authors is not very protectable is because they're using so much from previous versions themselves instead of developing a new game from scratch. The question therefore becomes - what really is the moral position of borrowing from people who themselves are borrowing heavily from previous iterations? Especially in that nobody really "owns" the D&D underlying game system anyway, only the trademarks attached and the specific rulebook text, layout, and artwork.

It really all comes down to copyright law, and the fact it does not realistically protect in any way the work done by game designers (the people coming up with the mechanics in the studio, not the rulebook writers whose expression is protected), because I can always, OGL or no OGL, take your game and rewrite the rules to it in completely my own words (with a possible requirement to make a number of changes to game terminology such as stat names.) Again, it's important to recognise that this can be done even if the OGL never existed in the first place, so it's not really something the OGL has enabled, although it has made it a bit simpler - while simultaneously ensuring people waive their fair use rights to, for example, refer to Wizards trademarks. The OGL is a trade-off on both sides, and that's an important factor in this whole argument - without it, we could all just write a D&D adventure (or indeed, a complete ruleset) and slap "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons(TM)" on the front, but we would also have to be a lot more careful that we were making our work unique enough to not be seen as derivative of theirs (and that our compatibility notice was not prominent enough to make people believe we were selling under that trademark), and would also lose the safe harbor protection from receiving a C&D order in the mail.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Well, Mark's still around if you know where to look....

Yeah. I've tried reaching out as I have an upcoming project that uses some content from the Action System. But I haven't had a reply.

If you have contact with him, ask him if he'd be willing to dual licence the system under Creative Commons or the upcoming ORC licence.

 

[mamba]

Google "Wendy's Feast of Legends". It was very much a thing and a physical book with dice, and they even partnered with Critical Role to do a ridiculous one-shot.
It was not a small product, and is the kind of marketing that might become more common as D&D and TTRPGs become more well known.

It strikes me as the kind of product that WotC would be more afraid of than Pathfinder, which is an order of magnitude smaller...

thanks for the name, that is certainly more than I expected it would be. Still, this is great marketing for D&D, if kids get hooked on TTRPGs from it but bored of just playing this very limited game, guess which 'real' TTRPG they are most likely to migrate to.

 

[TheSword]

It's simple. The rights were given to us via existing SRDs. That's all we'd use, the things that we legally have access to. And the reason we have access to them is because 20 years ago WotC came to us and said "Hey look, D&D is in the doldrums, we're launching 3E, we want you to make stuff for our game instead of making your own games, so that eventually everybody plays D&D and not a thousand other games, and in exchange you can use this content" and we said "Yes, OK. You have a deal".

They're reneging on the deal. There could be a bunch of competing systems, but we believed them when they said they couldn't rescind it. Now they're trying to rescind it. But make no mistake, those rights weren't a gift, they weren't generosity they were a mutually beneficial arrangement they persuaded us to rely on for 20 years instead of competing with them. Those are our rights.

Respectfully Morrus that wasn’t what was just discussed…

If you decided to stop publishing OGL work and moved onto future projects changing them enough that they were no longer covered by the OGL, I would not believe your future work should be morally copied simply because historically you used the OGL.

Mamba suggested a 6e made different to previous editions could morally be cloned and I don’t agree with that.

 

[FoolishFrost]

You can argue that my logic is faulty. Don't tell me i'm being disingenous. You're not here reading my mind, and can't tell me I don't believe what I say.

I did not say you can ONLY care about something else, I said I was disturbed by how animated you're able to get over this, and wished, not demanded or insisted, wished that that passion was channelled toward issues of actual import.

And in doing so told everyone who read it that the things they were feeling were important were in fact, not.

You know, the same way some people walk up to gamers and tell them to grow up? Can you follow how that might trigger a tad of hostility?

 

[Morrus]

Mamba suggested a 6e made different to previous editions could morally be cloned and I don’t agree with that.

I don't know what "a 6e made to previous editions" means.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's an awful lot of corp-speak for "oh, you...you saw that, did you? Well...uh...that was never our plan! Haha! Just kidding! ....unless?"

They got caught red-handed and took a week to decide whether they should try for damage control or double down. The corporate overlords don't deserve any patience or leeway. WotC and Hasbro folks who actually have control over this stuff should be seen as the opposition (or worse) unless and until at least the following conditions are met:

1. They explicitly reject any form of "de-authorization" of existing versions of the OGL, and explicitly, in writing, recognize the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a as irrevocable.
2. They include, in any new license they create, the fundamental structures necessary to keep it as an actually open license: perpetual, irrevocable, share-alike, royalty-free, etc.
3. They apologize for even considering such a damaging, draconian (heh) license. Preferably in both written and audiovisual form. An apology means more when you have to actually say it with your mouth.

That is the absolute, rock-bottom, bare minimum response from them if they want a cease fire. Unless and until those utterly bare-bones conditions are met, we are at war. Even if those conditions are met, that doesn't absolve the situation, it just means cease fire. If they actually want to earn back player trust, they're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than that. Hence my suggestion in another thread, to release all "core" rulesets from previous editions (e.g. OD&D, BD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3e, and D&D 4e) under the "we really really do mean it is ACTUALLY irrevocable" OGL 1.0 (or 1.0a) as noted above.

 

[mamba]

Mamba suggested a 6e made different to previous editions could morally be cloned and I don’t agree with that.

my emphasis was mostly on technically, because that is how we got the OSR out of 3.x, but I also do not see a moral dilemma. They can clone the new parts with the OGL as much as without it.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Respectfully Morrus that wasn’t what was just discussed…

If you decided to stop publishing OGL work and moved onto future projects changing them enough that they were no longer covered by the OGL, I would not believe your future work should be morally copied simply because historically you used the OGL.

Mamba suggested a 6e made different to previous editions could morally be cloned and I don’t agree with that.

The problem with this argument is that I can today, with enough effort, take Morrus' WOIN system, even if it was not released under the OGL, and make a workable clone of it. That's perfectly legal as long as you don't infringe on copyright or trademarks. Cloning games is not actually illegal if you're careful about it. Although, I do recognize you said "morally" and not "legally"