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

I know this is not going to go over well. At first I was firmly against WoTC. But to be honest the intense vitriol of so many people and the feeling I now have that nothing will ever be good enough, is pushing me back in the other direction.
"People are too angry about this tyrant! Maybe I should be on the tyrant's side because the angry people are too angry!" Get a grip.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Linke

Adventurer
One person's "exploration of sexuality" is another person's "I wrote that the innkeeper is a woman married to another woman."

Denying the existence of the LGBT community is a very big deal to many people -- especially their newest, youngest customers, who already outnumber Boomers and Gen Xers -- and it's an inacceptable place for WotC to draw the line. (Note that their design team is lead by a gay man and they've already included gay and I think trans NPCs in recent books.)
I'm actually ok with the discussion of "marriage" of any sort. I think there are ways to talk about marriage in terms that don't involve sex, and normalization of different kinds of marriage may be the most wholesome way to prime a young mind for eventually learning to evaluate acceptance of others' sexuality. Having the female looking innkeeper married to the non-binary blacksmith is maybe the only way WotC CAN hint toward LGBTQ+ identity without addressing sexuality. I think that's exactly why marriage is seen as such a powerful issue.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
One thing just occurred to me regarding this, though: WotC actually does own the copyright on the text of the OGL1.0. That means if someone publishes "Genocide: The RPG" under OGL1.0, a reader can look in the back of that book and can find a bit of text that reads:



In other words, anything using OGL1.0 has that mandatory association with WotC, in print. I mean, people like us know that WotC had nothing to do with that publication, but a casual reader wouldn't know that. So I can sort of understand why WotC wouldn't want that out there.

The OGL should have been controlled by a truly neutral and truly open interest from the beginning. Unfortunately, it wasn't, and now creators have to somehow extract their own works from WotC's corporate reflex to control "their" IP, while WotC has to deal with potentially negative associations with distasteful material.

I really wish there was a way to just strip out WotC's name from the OGL1.0, tack on the word "irrevocable", and carry on.
Oh well, that water went under the bridge 20+ years ago.
Is a casual reader going to read the license boilerplate at the back of the book?
 

Really? Has that happened to you?

Gotta say, advocating for ending people's job isn't very mild in my mind, especially for the person involved. Especially when what we're talking about isn't some kind of abuse, but just a business decision you disagree with.
Yes, more than once.

I wasn't fired because I was doing my job and doing it well. One of the senior partners at a previous law firm tried to get me fired. He ended up leaving the firm less than a year later. Funny how that works.

It's absolutely mild blowing off steam to suggest, on some internet forum, that some high-paid executive get fired.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
I mean, you just before all this posted a thread basically seemingly trying to build some sort of vague conspiracy theory about Paizo, so pot meet kettle, frankly.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It was pointing out that the timeline shows that Paizo knew about the license, waited until the leaks and then was able to communicate about the "rumors," and then had their attorney solicit people to join a new license.

That's not a conspiracy. That's pointing out that IMO they were engaged in the same thing they did to launch PF during 4e- rational self interest.

This is such a hilariously American take.

Yeah the only kind of protesters are civil rights protesters, all other protesters are the bad kind! You can't protest about anything but rights. Sorry mate, I come from a country where, like most of the world, we don't think like that.

I'm glad you think I'm hilariously American!

I think we are almost good. Almost.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yes, because it's standard across the entertainment industry and, as everything from the past week and a half makes clear, the people behind this decision have little to no contact with the actual gaming community.
Lawyers are literally trained to see this kind of stuff. That multiple lawyers failed to see something that was immediately obvious to the rest of us is wholly unbelievable. Corporate executives to a less degree are also trained(by experience in rising to upper management) to see these sorts of things.
 

Scribe

Legend
If we allow that the three stated goals are actually Wizards' goals, and if we allow that they are willing to back away from the royalty demands, here's a possible way forward. A carrot, if you will.

Why would we as reasonable people allow that though? I do not believe for 1 second that those are the 'actual' goals of Wizards.
 


AstroCat

Adventurer
One person's "exploration of sexuality" is another person's "I wrote that the innkeeper is a woman married to another woman."

Denying the existence of the LGBT community is a very big deal to many people -- especially their newest, youngest customers, who already outnumber Boomers and Gen Xers -- and it's an inacceptable place for WotC to draw the line. (Note that their design team is lead by a gay man and they've already included gay and I think trans NPCs in recent books.)
Denying is the not the same as mandatory inclusion. If I don't have every other character in a module be gay or trans, and perhaps not even a single one, will I be rejected for being bigoted. And those perceptions vs stats matter, some of these groups are minuscule portions of the population, doesn't mean they don't exists or deserve to, of course not. I'm just not big on forced inflated quotas above all else and being unfairly accused because of it.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top