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

That’s one of my many worries in this situation. It wouldn’t be the D&D that I recognize and love playing. Nonetheless D&D will be whatever the people who own the trademark to D&D decide it will be next. No matter how unpalatable that will be to me.

The entitlement and the idea that companies can profit off something paid for, owned and invested in by other people against their current consent until the ends of time is one of the reasons I’m the 10th man on this. There is something I find deeply uncomfortable about taking someone else’s work reproducing it with minor variations and then when they say woah, that’s not what we intended we want to pull out of this arrangement for future products, saying too late. Everything you do now is ours to do with as we like.

My issue is that it’s no longer a good deal for one side of the bargain and they want out. You can say, ha ha. You didn’t leave a clause for thst, boo-hoo to you. But I then don’t blame the company for doing whatever they can to get out of it.
So part of the problem is that it is still a good deal. D&D, and TRPG's in general, being so huge and widespread is mostly because of the OGL. Saying it's not a good deal for WOTC is like me claiming that the car I bought six months ago isn't a good deal for me because I already have my car why should I have to keep making payments? WOTC used the OGL to help push D&D to the position it's in today and now that it's time to keep paying back that debt they want to welsch on their end.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Hasbro is slitting the neck of the goose that is laying golden eggs. Nothing about this proposed idea to revoke the OGL on previous existing works gets them more money. At all. When it was about royalties at least there was a thin reed of a trickle of money they might get but without the royalties? It's nonsense.
It's not about third-party TTRPG publishers. It's that they are pivoting hard into the subscription-based VTT space with D&D Beyond and need to muscle out the current players that support 5E like FantasyGrounds, Roll20, Foundry, etc. by revoking their ability to support 5E material so that they don't have to change OneD&D much from 5E (which would annoy their customers) but the subscription-based revenue flows to them instead. That's where their actions say they think the money is.
 




I think a lot of your theories may be correct but they're demented if they think this is the right way to go about it.
If it's an argument you're looking for, you're not going to find one here.

The ethical way to do this would have been to make OneD&D "just different enough" from 5E that it doesn't alienate the community while leaving material previously released as OGC alone and making it problematic for running OneD&D on existing VTTs with 5E rules. But that's a very tough needle to thread and it means you wouldn't capture revenue from people who like their existing VTT enough to ignore it.
 

It's not about third-party TTRPG publishers. It's that they are pivoting hard into the subscription-based VTT space with D&D Beyond and need to muscle out the current players that support 5E like FantasyGrounds, Roll20, Foundry, etc. by revoking their ability to support 5E material so that they don't have to change OneD&D much from 5E (which would annoy their customers) but the subscription-based revenue flows to them instead. That's where their actions say they think the money is.
Except the only thing that Wizards has said about this - which is the release they dropped today - is that it's all about publishing and not about VTTs at all anymore. Nor is it about royalties. Now it's about control.

It's hilarious to me. The one thing that they actually could have done to quell everything is to say "We're not retracting the 1.0a OGL, we're just not releasing new One D&D material under anything but OGL 2.0" and they could have kept the royalties and the VTT restrictions and likely most of the critics would have quieted down. That's actually done easily enough - they did it with 4e and their GSL, they could do it again.

But instead they dropped all of those bits and are focusing on the single most destructive part of the proposal - they won't say categorically that they're not revoking the OGL 1.0a on existing SRDs. Until they say, categorically, that the 3e and 5e SRDs are under the OGL 1.0a terms and those terms are non-revokable they're leaving a loaded gun pointed at the industry.
 

If it's an argument you're looking for, you're not going to find one here.

The ethical way to do this would have been to make OneD&D "just different enough" from 5E that it doesn't alienate the community while leaving material previously released as OGC alone and making it problematic for running OneD&D on existing VTTs with 5E rules. But that's a very tough needle to thread.
I think even from the packets they've already achieved that, if they just keep on in the same direction. The only reason this is a huge problem is because they don't have the 1D&D SRD ready to use as leverage, so they're trying to destroy the 1.0a OGL to force people into this with 5E rather than 1D&D.

And no I wasn't expecting argument lol. I suspect we broadly agree.
 

Except the only thing that Wizards has said about this - which is the release they dropped today - is that it's all about publishing and not about VTTs at all anymore. Nor is it about royalties. Now it's about control.

It's hilarious to me. The one thing that they actually could have done to quell everything is to say "We're not retracting the 1.0a OGL, we're just not releasing One D&D material under anything but OGL 2.0" and they could have kept the royalties and the VTT restrictions and likely most of the critics would have quieted down. That's actually done easily enough - they did it with 4e and their GSL, they could do it again.

But instead they dropped all of those bits and are focusing on the single most destructive part of the proposal - they won't say categorically that they're not revoking the OGL 1.0a on existing SRDs. Until they say, categorically, that the 3e and 5e SRDs are under the OGL and it's non-revokable they're leaving a loaded gun pointed at the industry.
I strongly suspect they're essentially lying about that re: VTTs though. I suspect the actual info will be like VTT makers MUST contact WotC and no version of the OGL will help them, unless it's an entirely free fan-VTT.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top