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


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
As far as I can tell they still look like they are going to de-authorize the OGL (unless I am missing something which I could be). That was the original thing that set off all the discussion

I think de-authorizing the OGL, and leaving the restrictive v1.1 as the only option was the problem.

If the option they offer is not onerous, it may not be an issue to de-authorize prior licenses.

We are 20+ years on from the original license. Expecting zero change to a license in a changing world seems unrealistic.
 

rcade

Hero
I tried to bring up the idea that there are real problems in the world they could be directing their passion toward. It didn't work out well for me.
Because it's a fantastically annoying argument. Nobody who cares about anything wants to hear from Care About This Other Thing Instead Guy. If we cared about that thing we'd be on another message board. Maybe we'll care about it later.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
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.
Who would administer it?

But honestly, if you've ever seen the Book of Erotic Fantasy, no one -- including the children we're supposed to constantly be thinking of -- would accidentally pick it up, thinking it was anything other than it was. (And what it was, honestly, was pretty cheesy. I'm not sure who the audience was, really.)
 
Last edited:

Finnman

Explorer
"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."

"NO YOU DON'T WIN, WE WIN!" :mad:😭🤬🥵🥺😭😴
 


Because they are an example of :

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.
Dude. You're not getting it.

What you're discussing is outside the OGL. Jester the Tiefling hoodies already weren't provided with safe harbour by the OGL, what you think those hoodies have the OGL printed on them on a label inside them or something lol?
 

Hatmatter

Laws of Mordenkainen, Elminster, & Fistandantilus
Can't wait to see what new insidious BS they attempt to slip in on us. Stay vigilant, is all I can say.

Also, any announcement that doesn't include the words to the effect of "Cynthia Williams, Chris Cocks, and Tim Fields have been relieved of their duties" is useless to me at this point.
Well, those people are likely as responsible (perhaps) for the retraction and amendments as they were for the initial draft. To be honest with you, I have always felt like the OGL and Wizards's willingness to make its documents available for free on the website (like the most basic version of its rules or the adventures they published online during the pandemic) was very generous and not comparable to the holder of any other intellectual property that I can think of. I can't imagine Disney (which I like) permitting a third party publisher to publish a Wolverine comic, for example.

I am torn in two in feeling ways that run in two different directions:
  1. I primarily yearn for D&D to be doing great and for the game and books and culture to be as good and as healthy as possible. To see the role-playing game community go nuclear over this is what really troubles me. I just want people happy: third party creators as well as the designers as Wizards of the Coast, who are the custodians of the games mechanics in the 21st century. This is NOT a criticism of anyone. I simply grieve because division, arguments, bickering, etc. has happened so often in the past and it was making me so happy to see the hobby doing so well these past ten years.
  2. I admire those who have spoken out strongly against the OGL changes in order to fight for the free circulation and publication of ideas. At the same time, I respect Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro for being willing to make revisions that acknowledge those objections, even in the face of (no doubt) constant pressure to produce a favorable bottom line (a treacherous path that many amateur designers and probably all players do not have to negotiate).
Cheers everyone! I have always valued Enworld. Hopefully we can all (including Wizards of the Coast) navigate this imbroglio within our community while maintaining respect for each other intact.
 

Again though, I wont forget their clear deceptive behavior, and they have just confirmed what I suspected before, openly.
If I'm a publisher, I don't care about "their" behavior, good or bad, because there could be a new "they" in place tomorrow. I care about license language I can read and evaluate, as well as the certainty that explicit irrevocability would provide.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top