• 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

Staffan

Legend
I don't know that exploration of sexuality of any sort belongs in D&D branded products. If you find a way to talk positively about sexuality without the sex... then push the envolope.
Look at the current culture wars. You have people trying to outlaw wearing drag, and trying to legislate the forcible detransition of trans people by making HRT illegal or at least unviable. There is strong pushback against this kind of nonsense, but it's moving forward in certain regions.

While Wizards today finds that being LGBTQ-positive is a winning move, that's something that could change on short notice. And then they could do things like go after sourcebooks and adventures that feature LGBTQ people and couples in a positive light – like how Paizo's iconic rogue and cleric are both ladies and in a relationship with one another, and how their iconic shaman is trans.

Stuff like this is happening today already, with content filters that automatically treat any discussion of LGBTQ stuff as "adult".

I mean, I don't think we need to have books with rules on how to do the ol' in-out, but it's pretty hard to find where the line should be drawn, and I don't think it should be left up to Wizards' benevolence.
 


Jer

Legend
Supporter
Had they proceeded with some form of royalties at least the company might have made some money to compensate for the loss in good will and the decreased number of 3rd party products adding value to their product. While in my capacity as a consumer I am pleased by the backtracking, in my capacity as a Hasbro shareholder I want whomever was behind this fired that much more now, as instead of damaging an asset, the brand good will, in short-sighted pursuit of further profits (a valid business decision), they have just squandered it in order to achieve nothing.
If they want royalties they should let people slap the name "Dungeons and Dragons" on their products.

Heck, they could probably make a bit of money from some companies if they just let them clearly state "Compatible with X Edition Dungeons and Dragons" on the back cover of their books instead of coming up with different ways of saying that they're D&D compatible without actually using the words "Dungeons and Dragons" in their copy.
 


Steel_Wind

Legend
These two statements contradict what we heard, from multiple credible sources, about finalized contracts being included and the orignal January 13 deadline. Unless, those leaks were mistaken, in light of everything else, I can only assume that this is deliberate obfuscation or deception.

To me, Wizards of the Coast does not have the credibility left to claim good intentions without evidence to back it up.
It's like coming home to find your spouse in flagrante delicto with somebody else; your trust is shattered and heart is broken.

Your spouse takes off for a week, does not return calls, ignores your texts... and then comes home a week later, announcing that we didn't understand what we thought we saw, it will be fine going forward, and -- "Oh, you don't have to cook tonight, I ordered take-out", as they sit on the couch and pick up the remote.

The baffling thing? There seem to be more than a few people here who are prepared to sit down with WotC on the couch and wait for the pizza to arrive.

Now I'll relay this little bit
Happens more than I'd like to admit
Late at night, she knocks on my door
Drunk again and looking to score
Now I know I should say no but
It's kind of hard when she's ready to go
I may be dumb but I'm not a dweeb
I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem
 

Fendulum

Explorer
Yes, absolutely. Wizards doesn't want or need to steal your freaking ideas. They can find other boilerplate* to do the job, but this kind of language is always used to protect a business from bogus lawsuits.

* And honestly, no matter what boilerplate they use, people will howl about how they're trying to steal the little guy's ideas.
I think you're right that this is why the lawyers added it but it's still way too broad a transfer of rights to be acceptable. It's not a reasonable deal to cut off the risk of frivolous litigation by just getting rid of the other party's rights.
 

macd21

Adventurer
Sounds like anything new HAS to use OGL 2.0. Anything already made with 1.0 is grandfathered in.

So what's actually in OGL 2.0 is still up for questioning.

If they hold to the spirit of this statement then it sounds okay, but a corp is gonna corp.

With that said, wait and see and stop screaming that the sky is falling. Don't go off half-cocked. This could be something. Could be nothing. Change is scary but don't burn your books in protest yet. Wait and see.
" 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."

I mean, does anyone believe that? I certainly don't.
I do. I’ve seen such language before (hell, I’ve signed contracts that basically said the same thing). In fact, I think part of the problem is that they took boilerplate legal language from somewhere and stuck it in the license without really grasping how it would come across.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yeah, this seems satisfactory.
No it doesn’t. It completely fails to address the main issue, which was the revocation of OGL1.0
Walking back the royalty issues, but giving WotC the ability to put the brake on objectionable content. They probably shouldn't have tried for royalties in the first place, but live and learn.
It’s an improvement, but it still leaves prospective licensees with no reason to believe WotC won’t just change the license again later. This might pacify some of the players who were never that invested in the issue to begin with, but it’s not going to entice any 3rd party publishers back.
 

If people are so worried about the clause, perhaps they shouldn't be using the OGL at all. 🤷‍♂️
If WotC are so worried about entirely fictional attacks on their good character by Evil Books (lol) and so on, WotC shouldn't be offering an OGL, eh?

They could incredibly easily shut the whole thing down by just making a clearly-worded GSL, and stop trying to destroy the OGL. As soon as they go to 1D&D, they're safe.

And they're never going to succeed at preventing people saying it's "compatible with the world's most popular role-playing game" or whatever.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top