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

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
But that hasn't happened. In 20 years.
Dude, i know. I'm simply positing - in my opinion - why a company might be concerned to have their name in a mandatory bit of text in some books they didn't publish.

edit: I could be mistaken, but isn't that sort of what the kerfuffle over The Book of Erotic Fantasy was about; and more recently the NuTSR thing?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

OB1

Jedi Master
I think this is aimed specifically at the top 3-5 companies releasing content. When I heard that they met with the top 20 content creators, presumably to discuss the +$750k royalty, I honestly could come up with just a handful of people they could be talking to. I'm not up on the movers and shakers, but the three that came to my mind was Paizo, Kobold Press, and Critical Role.

And Critical Role is making money hand over fist. They had a +$1M Kickstarter for their animated series, on Netflix, which has since expanded to a planned three seasons. I'm certain they sell mountains of merch. They produced a board game. They have advertisement income from spots Sam talks about during the show. Plus, however they make money from all the people that watch the stream on Twitch and YouTube. They've managed to transform a gaming group into a revenue stream. Now, not everyone can do that- they have some key ingredients. Having them all be actors who can get deep into their characters makes a gaming session somewhat interesting to watch.

I am also 100% certain that CR and WotC already have some kind of agreement which has been present for some time now. There is just too much money flowing through CR's hands through several modalities. There's a copyright notice under their logo that says something like "WotC IP used with permission". I haven't payed attention or care to search how long for Season 3 it has been there. It would be interesting to see if it has been there only for 2-3 months.

I'm sure CR is a quantum leap beyond everyone else, and I don't begrudge WotC wanting a slice of their pie from CR's use of D&D. I believe that the confluence of CR's wild success, NuTSR's flagrant racism and repulsive behavior, and the launch of One D&D at near the same time spurred the update of the OGL.
It's also in CRs best interest to have a custom deal with WotC. When you reach a certain size, the uncertainty of relying on Fair Use and Open Gaming policies becomes a detriment to your business. A custom contract protects both sides from that uncertainty.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
But that hasn't happened. In 20 years.

Most of the past 20 years has been D&D in a relatively small and insular group - so small and insular that we saw the Book of Erotica Fantasy and Vile Darkness published 20 years ago without anyone batting an eyelash.

Of course, things have changed in the last five years. D&D is big business. There is about to be a massive movie release. A TV show. We are long past the point of things flying under the radar. We are at the point where they have to do massive damage control over the Hardozee ...

So yeah. I can see them wanting control.
 

Scribe

Legend
Most of the past 20 years has been D&D in a relatively small and insular group - so small and insular that we saw the Book of Erotica Fantasy and Vile Darkness published 20 years ago without anyone batting an eyelash.

I feel there was some backlash on BoVD, but I did come from a religious area...
 

Dausuul

Legend
Unfortunately, a publicly listed company just can't be that. Remember folks, the primary objective of any publicly listed company is to maximise return to shareholders - that is the law, so there is no point screaming at the wind when they try to do that. What this means though is that they will continue to try to turn the OGL more in their favour, bit by bit. Every major corporation does this - they are in fact legally obliged to do so.
"Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not."

--The United States Supreme Court, 2014
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
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.
The problem for Wizards is that they cannot afford to change the rules for "OneD&D" (sigh) enough to make it incompatible with 5e. 5e is too popular, and released under the OGL.

For 3e->4e they thought they could get away with it. 3e sales were slumping, 4e was released to try to boost D&D sales back up again. The rules were different enough that you could cite enough vocabulary differences between the two to make it uncomfortable for someone to try to publish 4e-compatible material under the OGL. It didn't work, but you can see how they had a plan to make it work.

They can't do that here. 5e just sells too well to run the risk of dumping the existing player base with a game different enough that you can't make compatible products using the existing SRDs and OGL without having to bother with the new material. So if you want to lock people out you have to invalidate the old license.

(Of course the question of why they want to lock people out when the current model has been working fine for more than 20 years arises, especially given how they were so willing to quickly drop the idea of royalties while not clearly expressing that they're not planning on revoking the OGL 1.0a. So this feels a lot more like executives who don't like not being in control of everything rather than worries about actual revenue being missed. And that sucks, frankly, because execs who are playing that kind of game are the worst kind of people to be in charge IME. Makes me think that the so-called "activist investors" last year might have had a point about Wizards poor management, and frankly any time I'm on the same page as people the Wall Street Journal call "activist investors" I don't like it.)
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
It’s generally referred to as “respectability politics.”
 


MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
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.
This isn't enough. The most important part wa leaving 1.0 alone. And they remain fixated on getting rod of it
 

So yeah. I can see them wanting control.
Which could easily have been achieved without impacting the OGL 1.0a.

Just put out a new SRD and give people a bigass "D&D compatible" logo for signing your GSL 2.0.

You'd actually have got a bunch of the 3PPs that way.

Then you put out a statement saying "Yo anything without this logo? It ain't WotC approved, use at your own risk". Boom winner.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top