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, 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

Do you not see anything fundamentally immoral or wrong with that?
no. I see this as 1) the intent, 2) covered under a license they voluntarily offered and 3) not actually being all that harmful if you look at the success of D&D. I'd even argue that the OGL has helped them get that big
How can you possibly justify having rights over future work people produce when they don’t consent to that? I’m mystified, and when people say stuff like this it makes me question the rest of the stuff they say.
I have no rights to their work, but it can be approximated, whether with the OGL or without.
 

It doesn’t matter if you make a good product if someone else can take the investment you put in and the development time and effort - and the marketing - and then sell the same thing for less.

This is the thing, the 'time and effort and marketing' is D&D specific. Other products are not selling D&D IP.

Again, show me Minsc in Golarion. Hes not there.

It’s why I said this is an existential problem for WotC. It will end with them winning, or everybody compromising and agreeing to budge a little. Or D&D changing into something that can be copyrighted.

Only if Wizards decides they will only allow one product, for everyone to orbit around, with intent to drive everyone else, under.

OneD&D, for example.
 

no, you are wrong, it is irrevocable, full stop. It is still being used today and if a license cannot be revoked, who exactly is going to stop you from using it.

There are two aspects here.

1. Content already published. As was pointed out, there is precedent saying you can't retroactively revoke the license as to this. So this one would be a tough sell for WoTC if they choice to challenge it.

2. Content not yet published. This is MUCH less clear and there is a good argument to be made that NEW works would have to use the new license and could not rely on the old one. The OGL does not say it is irrevocable - that makes a difference.
 

Well that's the catch-22, isn't it? If D&Done can be cloned under the 1.0a, then they need to kill the 1.0a.
only if the fact that it can be cloned is an issue, I do not believe that it actually is. I mean, anyone can clone 5e right now and yet they are more dominant than ever
 

Just to be clear, you're speaking with regard to people using the 5.1 SRD to publish a clone of 1D&D under the OGL v1.0a, right?

Because, if that is what you're asking about, then to be as clear as possible: no, I don't see anything immoral or wrong with that, fundamentally or otherwise.

No one is asserting that they have rights over people's future work. They're saying that they can take existing work, willing and deliberately released under an open license with full knowledge of what that means and entails (i.e. I think WotC knows that using Open Game Content to clone existing games is a thing by now), and make it into a close facsimile of something that's not open. Personally, I don't see a problem with that.
Mamba was referring to a sixth edition not 5th or 5.5. Maybe he meant 5e. Maybe not.
 

Minigiant just feels confused.

I don't even fully trust the corporations that I've worked for. Big corporations will always go towards the money whether it's slow or fast. Small ones go the only ones that really can be the good guys but they usually wish big and what do the same thing if they become.

WotC is still going to try to eventually kill the OGL. And all of the independent publishers that are trading their own versions of the old jail if they become huge would do the same and will try the same. They want to be in full control of the digital/entertainment TTRPG space before anyone else can jump it.
 

It’s why I said this is an existential problem for WotC.
Why is that a problem at all, let alone existential? They had the same 'problem' with 3e, they had the same 'problem' with 5e, yet they thrive and grow. I see only an assertion here that is contradicted by all available evidence.
 


The Action System was published under the OGL in 2003-2004. It has nothing to do with D&D. The core rules do not rely upon anything from the 3.5 SRD The company which published it (Gold Rush Games) subsequently vanished because the founder (Mark Arsenault) had some serious health issues. Who is going to update the licence in this case?
Well, Mark's still around if you know where to look....
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top