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

So my suspicion is that part of it is them not liking not having complete control over how people perceive D&D. To most people, especially people who aren't TTRPG players, the difference between Pathfinder, D&D 5e, and a third party book made to be compatible with 5e is pretty much non-existent. To the layperson they are all D&D.

So heres my thing.

I dont think you are wrong here. I think PF1 was far more distinct (and better) than what we get with 5e, but you know what Wizards could do?

Actually release content. They could actually pay for more art. Actually get a unified art direction (gasp horror) and actually BRAND D&D.

Imagine that?

Then, they could actually put in work to you know, provide Source Books! Imagine!

This is the issue with Wizards. They dont want to actually do the work to push the brand!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
The D&D brand is priceless - any edition of D&D that had come out as some generic named RPG would have done well because it had decent rules, but would not have been the no-questions-asked market leader. Heck, 4e might have done better as it wouldn't have had a load of expectations on it.
 

Let's say you and I make a deal about something, and as part of the deal you get a puppy.

You then nourish and take good care of that puppy, and as it grows into a full-grown dog you start using it for breeding, eventually getting a good little kennel business going. You even sell and/or give away some of the dogs for breeding by other kennel owners.

20 years later I show up and say "Hey, I never meant for you to start a business with that puppy. If I knew you were going to do that, I would have neutered it. I demand you close your kennel business and kill all the dogs descended from the puppy I gave you. OK, maybe not kill, but at least neuter."

Do you think that would be fair? Because that is basically the same situation you are proposing.

Its even worse than that. In this case they came right out and said they were fine with you starting a business with that puppy, and any offspring that puppy may ever have - and now they're angry they didn't make a better deal at the time and want a share of your profits, and to take back any new offspring they like the look of.
 

I am fascinated by the seeming fact that the idea of making a good product people want to buy simply hasn't occurred to them.
I think they are looking at the software side, from VTT+ through apps and games, and thinking "a monopoly on producing these legally for OneD&D is even better than having to compete".
 

The D&D brand is priceless - any edition of D&D that had come out as some generic named RPG would have done well because it had decent rules, but would not have been the no-questions-asked market leader. Heck, 4e might have done better as it wouldn't have had a load of expectations on it.

The NAME, is priceless.

What is the D&D art style. What is the D&D 'brand'.

Seriously. PF1 has one. D&D??? I think not.
 

You can argue that my logic is faulty. Don't tell me i'm being disingenous. You're not here reading my mind, and can't tell me I don't believe what I say.

I did not say you can ONLY care about something else, I said I was disturbed by how animated you're able to get over this, and wished, not demanded or insisted, wished that that passion was channelled toward issues of actual import.
This isn't the first time I've seen you use the issues of import strawman and yet here you are arguing on WotC's side instead of ohidunno spending your energy on an issue of importance?
 


What part of D&D branding. Actual branding. Is documented in the 5e or 3.5 SRD, or the OGL.

I'll wait.
The part where people get to buy things to play D&D with that aren't official D&D brand items.

I'm really coming around to thinking that this is all about control. They really want to control everything around D&D and make it the kind of walled garden that Apple has in their app store. They're not satisified with making money every time someone sells something through DM's Guild, they want to make pennies every time someone gets a dollar for an adventure on DriveThru.

It's all reminding me of T$R back in the 1990s. Except T$R back in the 90s was a company that was losing money everywhere on D&D and was desperate to make a profit and Wizards is selling a D&D that has never been more profitable than it is now. At least they haven't started threatening fans with website with lawsuits yet.
 

Google "Wendy's Feast of Legends". It was very much a thing and a physical book with dice, and they even partnered with Critical Role to do a ridiculous one-shot.
It was not a small product, and is the kind of marketing that might become more common as D&D and TTRPGs become more well known.

It strikes me as the kind of product that WotC would be more afraid of than Pathfinder, which is an order of magnitude smaller...
And since it was developed seperately and not under the OGL, would be completely unaffected by this.

This is what WotC needs beware - if the OGL fails we'll have lots of systems getting developed, some which will be good, that don't "keep people in D&D's yard".
 


This is pretty much my total view on this in video format. Thanks DnD shorts.
Hm, at 1:08, he says that the OGL v1.0a allows for WotC to terminate an individual creator's license to use it, and that this means that WotC could already shut down products that were hateful or discriminatory, citing this notation:

MLF.jpg


I'm pretty sure that's not correct at all; maybe Noah's note is with regard to the OGL 1.1 (or 2.0 or whatever it's called now) and DnD Shorts is misreading it?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top