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

Jer

Legend
Supporter
"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."
This is really offensive to me. If you're a content creator who can sell their content then you are engaging in the same behavior as any other corporation, major or not. Who the heck is this targeted at?

Honestly when I read this bit my initial reaction wasn't Paizo or Asmodee or any other game company but "Are they talking about Wendy's?" Maybe it's the "promotional purposes" bit there, but it really made me think initially that someone in Wizards got big mad that Wendy's put out a D&D-like game for advertising purposes and got some buzz for a week on Twitter because of it and that Wizard's didn't get a cut of the burger money from it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


So NuTSR comes along and publishes hateful, racist, sexist content using OGL 1.0a and SRD 5.1. How has your approach accomplished Wizards' goals?
Completely.

My approach has achieve the goal of protecting WotC and the D&D IP completely.

In the incredibly unlikely event anyone publishes any kind of article about, I can say this not marked with "D&D compatible". As you can see, I say, holding up 3PP products, our authorized 3PP friends have this "D&D compatible". This is just a sad attempt by bigots to cash in on our success for our previous edition of D&D.

And also, let me point out to you, LaNasa didn't use the OGL, did he? So fantasizing about how he might is pretty silly.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
I think that with the statement that OneD&D will be 100% compatible with 5e, WotC realizes that any OneD&D content probably could be replicated using the 5.1 SRD and OGL 1.0a. To control 3PP OneD&D content, they needed to remove those resources from 3PPs.
 

The old 3.0 Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Fun times back then. IMO there's a market for that and it deserves a means to exist even if people don't like it ... the market can vote on its success.
Not a product I'd be interested in, but I really don't see why D&D and 3PP can't be handled like video games with a ratings system that clearly labels what types of content they might contain. Don't like it, don't buy it.
 

Erdric Dragin

Adventurer
No deal for me. Either OGL1.0a stays or more people will be out. There are very few people publishing PF1e products and I support them, but with the 1.0a being revoked, they can't produce any of that now.

Sucks everyone else gets to have their favorite system, whether 5e or one of the other now available open gaming licenses being created, but us 3.5/PF1e people are screwed over yet again. And I think that will affect OSR? Not sure.

Why is WotC so against people playing and supporting editions that are not 5e? How does that hurt them at all? It's not like it's gonna force us to want to like 5e.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Other "expressions" that use the OGL, such as livestreams, cosplay, VTT, etc. will "remain unaffected by any OGL update."
Cosplay was never something they had any say over. It's disingenuous of them to pretend otherwise. And livestreams that don't use WotC settings were always fine. (And honestly, I don't think the 200th Actual Play show doing Curse of Strahd is getting any better viewership numbers than it would if it used a homebrew setting instead.)
So in other words, it's the "we'll make it less bad and hope they're satisfied with that" which we all expected was coming, rather than the full re-commitment to open gaming that we'd hoped for (assuming we can trust any of what they're saying, which is extremely iffy at this point). :(
I actually didn't expect them to back down this much. It's still not enough, but it would not have shocked me if they had dug in their heels until the Wall Street Journal weighed in.
 

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf
They don't have to agree to an as-yet non-existant license. They just have to stop trying to de-authorize 1.0a.
And if the community is the rock, this fact is the hard place. Because they don't believe they can afford to do it.

Wizards almost certainly doesn't actually care about anything released in the last 22 years under the OGL 1.0a. Say what you will about corporate management, they are not naturally retrospective. They just don't want folks making future content for oneD&D they can't monetize.

The real problem is that keeping oneD&D compatible with D&D5 is a low-cost, low-risk win in the eyes of management. And if oneD&D is compatible with D&D5, 3rd-party D&D5 material is compatible with oneD&D.

So because a previous incarnation of their management made the OGL 1.0a perpetual, and a second previous incarnation licensed the D&D5 SRD under the OGL 1.0a, Wizards' only option is to kill the OGL 1.0a in its entirety, to keep 3rd parties from continuing to make D&D5 content that is compatible with oneD&D.

I enjoy the irony that they are more the cause of their own woes than is the community.

I hate to prognosticate, but I'm pretty sure this will be the last thing they walk back, on bloody stumps.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
This is still a negotiation, but I'd bet this will end up with One D&D removing itself from being an Open system, and instead ending up with a 4e like GSL. Honestly, while it may have been premature to take that step with 4e, it is likely in the best interest of all parties for One to take that step now. True Open gaming will continue with ORC (or something equivalent). One may have to make substantial changes to it's design, perhaps to the point that it is not directly compatible with 5.1 for WotC to achieve it's other goals, and that might be okay. The best thing will be for the GSL to be a fair deal for those wishing to created closed content for D&D, which what they are outlining appears to be stepping closer to.
Yeah, this. If WotC wants people to have to agree to this new license to make content for 1D&D, so be it. As long as the original OGL remains intact and people can still use it with the existing SRDs. It’s not yet clear that they intend to allow that (and in fact looks like they do not).
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top