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

Hatmatter

Laws of Mordenkainen, Elminster, & Fistandantilus
Your example of Disney makes no sense. You can't publish WotC IP with the OGL lmao
I am sorry, Shardstone. It made sense to me when I wrote it. I wish I had not let you and all of Enworld down with such an ill-considered and inappropriate comparison. I also apologize for having wasted your time with my poorly-chosen words both there and here.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Actually if Wotc doesn’t release the SRDs under the ORC then any game that does include or rely on wizards OGC cannot be released under the ORC either.
Oh. No. I'm under no illusion that things released under the OGL are in any way automatically ported over to ORC. Whoever owns the content has to be the one to release that content into a license, no one else can.
That’s going to include a lot of content.
Absolutely. A lot of stuff I really like and enjoy is about to go poof.
Possibly worse than that too because you using the OGC for the product before and citing wizards as copyright holder means you thought at that time you were using wizards content. Going to be hard to walk that back if it ever comes to legal blows.
100%. I'm a big fan of the OSR so I'm well aware that WotC just yanked the rug out from under that entire scene. Best case scenario is WotC doesn't rescind the OGL for already existing content and the OSR can keep churning out their own unique stuff and adventures and compatible supplements under normal copyright laws. Worst case they start suing. It's an utter nightmare.

What I'm saying is there's no going back. It's forward with the ORC (or other similarly honestly open license) or nothing.

The creative types that built up the OSR will just have to do it again. No idea what that will look like.
 

```
I am sorry, Shardstone. It made sense to me when I wrote it. I wish I had not let you and all of Enworld down with such an ill-considered and inappropriate comparison. I also apologize for having wasted your time with my poorly-chosen words both there and here.
Why are you being so sensitive and passive aggressive? Be humble and admit that your analogy was flawed and move on instead of getting snide like this is middle school.
 

I'm not sure I understand the question? We're not looking at the license, just an article with a single sentence on the topic, so I guess we can all interpret "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" however we do, but my interpretation is that the license will not allow you to make a new product using SRD material. That doesn't mean the SRD has been affected, but your new product is.

That's why I think they're lying when they're saying "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" because to remain unaffected means to remain replicateable at a later date, as all material released as OGC under the OGL has always been. But currently, if ""Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" means that all material released as OGC is replicateable in the future.

joe b.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I'm honestly confused. How is it a misreading?
The content released under 1.0a is not just the individual product produced (the ISBN or sku), it is the material that was declared OGC within that release. That includes all the SRDs.

joe b.
You’re thinking of the content licensed under 1.0a. The content released under it is indeed the individual products.
 


dbolack

Adventurer
I wasn't sure if they did or not. The ad campaign is over so of course the document is gone and I don't think I kept a copy around even for novelty purposes.

I could check the Internet Archive I guess, but I'm lazy so I haven't...
I made a nice hardbound of it. :)
 


Why are we doing the Socratic thing? It's an inference. From the statement that "existing content will be unaffected," people are inferring that future content will be affected. We don't know for sure what will be affected or what the actual effects will be.

It could also infer a fork in the content. Meaning new content created would be under the 2.0 (as they're calling it now) while old 1.0a content remains under 1.0a. I don't think that's what they're aiming for, but the release is unclear regarding what it means.

joe b.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top