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

Literally none of which was even covered by or impacted by the OGL 1.1 even, note, so why are you bringing it up?

The OGL 1.1 went to huge pains to exclude merch.

Because they are an example of :
"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."
Yes, merch inspired by D&D would require a separate agreement. Much like livestreams. The foundation of CR's success is D&D. A bunch of actors use their skills to make playing D&D something other than dull. The retraction specifically mentions that they won't go after livestreams, implying that they would otherwise.

Also, they are impacted by the OGL 1.1. The OGL 1.0 was vague as to what it would apply to. OGL 1.1 was very specific. Anything that fell outside that would require a separate agreement. That's why I'm bringing it up. If the OGL 1.0 was rescinded, and you didn't have the safe harbor anymore for your Jester the Tiefling hoodies with the OGL 1.1, it looks like you have some negotiation to do, doesn't it?

Follow the money. Now, again, I think the CR has an agreement already with WotC, and for some time now. Probably around the time they were pitching the animated series. But, if lightning were to strike twice somehow, WotC is laying the foundation for getting a thick slice of the next pie.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you say it loudly enough that they actually get fired, it may not be mild, to them.

Executives have generous compensation packages and golden parachutes. But, for most folks, getting fired can be losing your house. Losing your healthcare. Losing your child to social services.
"Mild" indeed.
Sure, but we're talking about execs, aren't we?

If we were talking about normal people - LIKE ME - who this has actually happened to (i.e. vendetta, albeit not a public one) then it is unfair and not okay.

But blowing off steam on a messageboard saying "they should fire X executive" is not comparable to that.
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
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.

I don't want to see anyone struggle to put food on the table (that is one of the reasons I find so much of the division that goes on in the hobby and elsewhere distasteful). But I do think we need to remember that de-authorizing the OGL is a move that also is going to cause people to struggle to put food on the table (there is a whole industry built around the OGL). If one of the ultimate goods here is people not losing their job and being able to retain a livelihood (because after all their kids still need to eat, and didn't do anything wrong), then that also needs to be extended to the hobby more broadly
 


Scribe

Legend
For the sake of discussion. If these are their goals, they should have no objection to making OGL 2.0 explicitly irrevocable.

I mean as some kind of hypothetical? Sure, in a world were Wizards has not taken off the mask, I could believe they had those goals, and if those were the goals, they certainly could draft a contract around how to meet those goals (and define morality while they are at it) and then say 'everything going forward, is held to our arbitrary standard, we love our diverse and inclusive community'.

Then, they could commit to leaving the 3.5 SRD, and 1.0 OGL alone, and move on with their new irrevocable 2.0 for 6e (because I dont think 5.5 is enough anymore) and...ride off into the sunset.

Sure.

Again though, I wont forget their clear deceptive behavior, and they have just confirmed what I suspected before, openly.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Make 1.0a irrevocable and the rest becomes irrelevant.

That's the fundamental problem for Wizards of the Coast. Nothing they want to accomplish with OGL 2.0 actually matters if publishers can simply choose to use 1.0a instead.
Only partially true. The rest becomes irrelevant for anyone who wants to publish content for 3e or 5e. But, WotC doesn’t have to release an SRD for whatever they end up calling the rules they’re playtesting under the name 1D&D. They could choose only to license those rules under 1.1, in which case it’s relevant for anyone who wants to publish content compatible with that rules set.

That’s what a lot of people care most about. They want the option to keep making stuff for the existing games under the existing license, like they’ve been told for the past 20 years they’d always be allowed to do. If WotC wants a more restrictive license for their new ruleset, that’s their prerogative, but taking the old license away is a bridge too far.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
White Wolf made a book with a title starting with G, discussing the Romani people in the World of Darkness. I have not read it myself, but apparently it had Blood Purity as a stat.

To give them a teeny tiny benefit of doubt, the G-word is often not recognized as a slur in the same way the N-word is. People use it in what they believe are neutral or positive contexts, as in "Oh, she's so liberated, like a true _____ soul" or crap like that. That doesn't change the fact that it is a slur, and that ascribing magical abilities to a particular ethnicity based on their "Blood Purity" is a Very Bad Thing.
Again though, not an OGL product.
 


Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
This is fascinating. So instead of looking at what's rationally good/bad/smart/dumb, you're just sort of steering on vibes? I'm not criticising per se, but that's wild. I've never in my life taken that approach. On the contrary, I can find people very annoying and agree with them if they're presenting a rational argument in good faith.
No, nothing so absolute. I started on the side of this was a bad move from WotC/Hasbro, and have only moved further in that direction thanks to well thought out and argued posts here about the history/intention/value of the OGL.

However, when someone is both advocating for that side, and mixing those sorts of nuanced appeals with "And they want to take 25% of all of the money you make, destroy your company, and then steal your product from you," it makes me inclined to view the whole thing with more a more judicious eye than before. I'm not going to completely 180 my position, I don't suddenly think the company is "good," and I'm still going to evaluate arguments on their merits, not exclusively tone, but it also sure doesn't make me want to stake my flag right next to theirs.

Or more simply: It's easy to say you're 100% against the move, but then you hear folks argue for something that seems extreme even when in the context of agreeing on the basic, or even advanced, principles, and you think "Maybe I'm more like 93% against the move, if that's where 100% is."
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top