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

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Since most of us like the D&D team, it's hard to stay furious at them when they say "mea culpa".
You are clearly not familiar with a big chunk of people that frequent D&D forums. A ton of people on this site and others have strange vendettas against WotC and their employees (Jeremy Crawford in particular is pretty often the target of hateful comments).
 

Pedantic

Legend
What is it with irrevocable licenses. Why is it essential that you can’t be licensed to use something unless it’s forever. If this was the only acceptable license we wouldn’t have half the IP based games, film, TV, books and RPGs we have now. It feels like unreasonable expectations set by the original OGL that didn’t turn out to be irrevocable at all (potentially)

There’s no guarantee it won’t be replaced. Why is it essential that it can never be replaced as long as there is a window for people to adjust. How is having a deal that can never be changed a reasonable expectation.
Because that was the original promise, and that promise started of 20 years that careers and companies and the industry was built on. If we were mooting a totally new offer, in a world without an OGL, that first offer frankly would probably have gone over just fine.

That's not the world we live in. WotC is claiming they can break a promise they have earlier because they don't like its implications now, and there is no concession that makes up for that.
 
Last edited:

mamba

Legend
Claiming that 3pp are being destroyed is nonsense. Folks can continue to publish without royalties, without theft of their work, pdfs and books under the OGL2.0. That in itself is extremely generous for any company who’s game is so popular. It seems people have lost sight of that in the desire hold onto the past.
the license is perpetual and irrevocable (even though the word is not in it), maybe you have lost track of that, and the fact that WotC definitely wants to kill it even after they benefited immensely from it and promised for years that it cannot be revoked

Finally, none of their IP is covered by the OGL, so that is a nonstarter
 



glass

(he, him)
Haven't quite read the whole thread yet, but it's bedtime and I've already amassed quite a few quotes to respond to so I will leave this here and come back to it tomorrow....

I don’t get this. Who trusts any corporation?
Everyone, every day. It is pretty much impossible to live in the modern world without doing so. That trust is not (or should not be) absolute, but it will be present.

Some serious backpedalling, but I didn't see any mention of them removing the "we can change this deal at any time. Pray we don't change it again" clause.
Which makes any other change irrelevant, because anyone signing up to 2.0 under those circumstances is effectively signing up to 1.1 (except it will presumably be called 2.1) down the line.

The open question might be whether new material will be allowed under 1.0a.
Not open IMNSHO. AFAIAC, anything they did not explicitly walk back should be assumed to be exactly as awful as before.

Was anyone of the opinion that reporting revenue was present for any reason other than assessing royalties? Like, they can't tell how much you owe without knowing the revenue.
I did. It was about market information and control. You don't need to collect information on people making 50k to collect royalties from people making fifteen times that much.



Aside from that, I agree with the seeming near-consensus that this is a small step in the right direction but nowhere near enough. One line did stand out as being particularly awful (which is saying something):

"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."

Given that they are a "major corporation" (pretty much the only major corporation when it comes to TTRPGs), and these changes are entirely for their own (perceived) benefit, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
 

Prime_Evil

Adventurer
Ah, a new edition war. Some people never learn.
This isn't an edition war. This is about the survival of most RPG publishers. There is little room for compromise when facing an existential threat to the entire industry. This removes about 60% of RPGs from sale, including many unrelated to D&D. This is because they touched the OGL at some point in the past. WotC made official representations the licence was available for everyone to use forever. And now they are trying to break this commitment. There is a strong case they don't have the legal power to do this, but WotC / Hasbro know nobody can afford to challenge them in court because they would be financially ruined. It is unconscionable conduct akin to bullying.
 

TheSword

Legend
Because we had one for over 20 years, explicitly.
So your argument that something should not be revoked is that it wasn’t previously… hmm. I get that people don’t like change but that sounds a bit impractical if simple existence was enough to justify being irrevocable.
the license is perpetual and irrevocable (even though the word is not in it), maybe you have lost track of that, and the fact that WotC definitely wants to kill it even after they benefited immensely from it and promised for years that it cannot be revoked
I’m sure the argument will be made that perpetual just means without a fixed end date. Like your Netflix subscription is perpetual. “Irrevocable? Never mentioned that word in the contract Your Honour.”
Finally, none of their IP is covered by the OGL, so that is a nonstarter
See my previous post.
 
Last edited:

Plokman

Explorer
It's not here to stay. You can sell books that were published under OGL 1 for six months. And then ... who knows?

This isn't even close to being over.
Fair, though I for one lost trust in Hasbro and Mattel long ago, if you know the phrase "All Engines Go" you will know why as it is proof they can't be custodians to anything and make it vibrant with proper respect.

I am building a toy company of my own, built off Patreon and YouTube. It may not sound professional but I know it can be done. Build upon trust, much like A.C. Gilbert all who help me make my dream real will be repaid in kind. Toys with story with comics like the good days before corporate glut decided to not care.

Edit: sorry this wasn't meant to be a repeat of my prior post. If needed I will remove. 😓 this is embarrassing.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top