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!"

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.

 

[p_johnston]

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!

Yes but those things are hard and require effort, time, and an understanding of your product and costumers. You know what doesn't require effort or understanding? Hiring an expensive lawyer.

 

[Scribe]

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.

I'd agree, but thats not branding.

Thats a sickening desire to extract ever more profit.

 

[Blue]

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.

Sure, I won't quibble. Someone else will say it's the history, a fourth will say it's the community, and I think @Snarf Zagyg has written a five volume omnibus on it. Either way, the RPG system we know as D&D since WotC has owned it has done much better by being attached to "D&D" than it would have as a generic RPG system.

 

[FoolishFrost]

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:

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?

No clue. Seemed off to me to, with the D&D book of sex thing not getting shutdown. <shrugs> Not a lawyer though. The rest of the opinion on what Wizards said? I'm on board, really. Also think it's too late for the OGL 1.0a. Wizards is a proven liar in my book now, and I trust nothing they say. That means I'm waiting for the new license to work itself out, see what game they attach to it, and move on.

Pity. I literally took beatings to support D&D in the old days. Now? I'm just kinda done.

 

[mamba]

2 being my second point not the GPL 2.0, sorry for the confusion.

2 is what I countered with the GPL v2 not saying irrevocable, yet courts have ruled that it is irrevocable. So the word not being in it does not mean it can be revoked

 

[Scribe]

Sure, I won't quibble. Someone else will say it's the history, a fourth will say it's the community. Either way, D&D since WotC has owned it has done much better by being attached to "D&D" than it would have as a generic RPG system.

Absolutely it has. The name itself, has literal decades of history, of weight, of import.

Thats it though. The editions are not all the same, so we cannot pin it on 'mechanics'. The lore, the canon? Well they were more than happy to throw that all away recently! The art style? Changes all the time, and the quality of much of it is absolutely in the eye of the Beholder (now theres some IP/Branding!).

Its a farce however for anyone to keep saying that the SRD's, dry as dust, or the OGL is 'D&D Brand'. It is not, and frankly Pathfinder proves it.

Unless Wizards believes in their twisted heart of hearts, that all RPGs are simply beholden to D&D, and all must come under their control...but I dont think that is it.

I think, as others have noted, its down to 3 things.

1. Control.
2. The virtual space.
3. The fact that the OGL 1.0 has 5e, and Wizards doesnt want to ever have to create a 'new' edition again.

Emphasis on the last 2. Virtual is where they can extract the most value, but the fact their 'evergreen' edition is literally in the wild and provided by others as well, is a massive red flag to them and why?

Because they want others (3PP) to provide the products for them, and they dont want to have to define a 'brand' that people can find fault with. They want the totality of the 'brand' to be "D&D, its every RPG you could be playing."

Thats it.

 

[mamba]

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?

don't think so either, it can be individually terminated for non-compliance, but that is it, at least according to the stated intent

 

[Matt Thomason]

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:

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?

Well, their right to de-authorize/revoke (either generally or specifically) is a very big question in all of this.
Legal minds that agree they can are doing so on the basis that a simple licence with no termination date can be revoked at will by the licensor.
Legal minds that say they cannot are doing so on the basis that this is far more than a simple license because it has consideration on both sides, and that means it cannot be unilaterally revoked.

What it comes down to therefore, is whether there is consideration involved or not. It is believed by many that the number of conditions and requirements placed upon the licensee in addition to the benefits they receive do constitute "consideration" as per Jacobsen vs Katser (2008)

"The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties."

 

[TheSword]

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.

I’ll run with this…

Firstly it’s not a puppy, It seems to be all the puppies I ever produce.

Secondly no one can actually quantity how much you nourished it, because I was also feeding it every day, along with other people and there’s no way of telling if it actually ate any of your food.

You didn’t pay anything for the puppy; in fact you were using the puppy for entertainment shows and making profit from people while you had it.

I now say hang on a second, I gave you the puppy for free because I thought you wanted to play with it, but you’re making all this money from it. Plus this other guy down the road I gave one to is treating his puppy badly. So while you can keep that one, and this one I know you had your eye on. I know you have kennels and a puppy trainer but your gonna have to find someone else to give you puppies or grow your own. Im out.

I then reconsider and say I’m actually happy to keep giving you puppies as long as I can check you don’t treat them badly and provided you acknowledge I might want to stop giving you puppies in the future. You tell me to go make love to myself.

The 5e clones like Level Up didn’t come out when 5e was in its infancy. They came out when it was at the height of its success. The explosion of 3pp 5e came when 5e was clearly a success not when it was finding its feet.

Nothing stops 3pp using their resources to make other products, they are using 5e because they think it will sell better because it’s already popular.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Oh, hey, this account still works! Here's my take on the situation.

I think WotC is probably genuine about wanting to make sure D&D isn't associated with content they find distasteful and I suspect this isn't just the suits - it's probably the rank & file as well. I can't say I particularly blame them; I probably wouldn't want my work associated with content I find distasteful either. However, as others have pointed out, that desire, no matter how well-intentioned, varies in terms of "what is distasteful" not just from person to person, but can vary in the same person over time. More importantly, though, I think it's a mistake to try to exert that sort of control via the Open Game License. First of all, the idea is somewhat antithetical to the concept of "open" but secondly, the OGL has been around so long and used for so many products that as of November 1, 2022 (before WotC started making noises about revisions to the OGL) I don't think much of fandom made the association "OGL product = D&D product." For instance, I don't know if Thirsty Sword Lesbians is an OGL product or not, but even if it was and OGL release, I certainly wouldn't associate it with D&D. I definitely think there's some Streisand Effect going on NOW, though.

But I think the bigger thing here is simple. Money. We've heard the rumors of comments that "D&D is under-monetized" and I can certainly believe execs feel that way. Think about the traditional TTRPG business model - I write a book, I sell you the book, you take the book and play with it over and over again. Even if I charge you a lot, it's a single-sale model, and it puts a ceiling on what I can earn because once we've come to an agreement on a price one time, you can get enjoyment out of the product in perpetuity. (And of course, the Doctrine of First Sale means you can resell the book if you ever want to quit, so now you can transfer the ability to play the game to someone else so I can't collect revenue from that someone else.

What has changed over the twenty years since the release of the OGL 1.0a? Companies big and small have tried to shift from a "sell goods" to "sell services" model, because the "sell services" model provides a steadier stream of revenue. Instead of charging me one big price for a thing I then own and can use as much as I want, companies are trying to sell "the right to use a thing the company retains ownership of for a certain time period" especially in the Intellectual Property industry. The other thing that has happened to enable this is the rise of the internet which makes this much easier for IP products. Instead of buying a DVD for $20 and watching a movie as many times as you want, instead pay $5 to stream a movie one time.

People here have mentioned the failing of 4E as being due to it being licensed under the restrictive GSL instead of under the OGL, and I think that's partly true. But I think Matt Colville did a great job of explaining that originally the plan was to simultaneously release an electronic toolset for playing 4E - a VTT or at least a proto-VTT when the VTT was still more or less in its infancy (yes, I know Fantasy Grounds started in 2004, but functionality of VTTs was still rather limited in 2008 when 4E released because of the limitations of internet speeds, et al. He also mentioned that 4E was rushed out the door before the electronic toolset could be put together properly and it never materialized. My read on what Hasbro as an institution learned from the 4E launch failure was (1) change the game too much and your customer base won't like it and (2) exert too much control with the license and publishers won't support your product.

When 5E was getting ready for launch, WotC did not have a viable VTT, so there was no reason at the time for them to attempt to lock their content behind the GSL... it was wiser to try to harness the "Skaff effect" by releasing under the OGL and re-capture the third-party support that had helped 3E become dominant. Of course, this time, "killer app" that the internet brought to help explode the growth of RPGs, the Virtual Tabletop, was much more ready for primetime. With the rise of the VTT, you are no longer limited to gaming with people in your immediate geographic vicinity. The problem of "I would love to play, but can't find anyone to DM" is all but eliminated. Furthermore, the VTT offers an RPG company the holy grail of revenue stream - it can be sold on a subscription basis! No longer do I have to sell a static book or PDF and let you enjoy it as much as you want; instead, I can charge you a little bit each month for access to the VTT. I would posit that the pandemic helped speed the move to VTTs, but the paradigm shift was that around the time 5E was released, the internet had developed the bandwidth to support high-quality VTTs and there was some competition among VTTs with FantasyGrounds, Roll20, and later comers like Foundry pushing for innovation in the VTT experience.

I'm sure WotC gets that the VTT is their dream revenue stream - the subscription-based model. You don't think they paid $146 million for D&D Beyond last year just to offer you a great way to organize your stuff? No, we know OneD&D is expected to have a significant VTT element. They're pivoting into this space. Without even worrying about whether or not microtransactions will be a thing, if they can get people locked into their VTT, they can finally back off releasing physical books and move to a service-based model - you're paying them every time you play D&D. To maximize profits, WotC has to find a way to shut out competing VTTs to avoid having their revenue stream split and there are only two avenues to do that: (1) make OneD&D incompatible with 5E or (2) prevent competing VTTs from using the material that was released as OGC in the 5E SRD.

So now they're staring down the choice... make OneD&D incompatible with 5e (remember, they learned "change the game too much and your customer base won't like it") or prevent competing VTTs from using OGC from 5E (they also learned "exert too much control with the license and publishers won't support your product"). They don't dare make it incompatible, so they tried - and are still trying - to choke off competing VTTs from accessing the material that was released as OGC in the 5E SRD. I think it isn't Paizo, MCDM, Kobold Press, or any of these other publishers that they're worried about as their competition (as most of the community has assumed). They're looking at Fantasy Grounds and Foundry and Roll20 and possibly even Steam, World of Warcraft, and the like. The rest of the TTRPG industry publishers? They're just collateral damage. I suspect they'd be happy to say third-party publishers can continue to use OGC - even stuff from the 5E SRD - in static electronic format and books - in perpetuity. They don't need royalties from others, so they're happy to drop those while they backpedal. The VTT is the thing.

After all, these are SOFTWARE people at the head. They're not looking at D&D the game. They're looking at "how can we change D&D from book sales into a subscription service?" I think they have misread the room, not because gamers are creative or smart or any other number of traits, but because most gamers in the VTT space have already formed significant brand loyalty to Fantasy Grounds or Roll20 or Foundry or their VTT of choice - and often feel affinity toward their favorite third party content creators that are getting caught in the blast radius - far more than their brand loyalty to D&D itself.

D&D Beyond may eventually become an excellent VTT, but it can't just be a "good" VTT - it will have to be so much better than the alternatives it overcomes the ill will of VTT users toward them. And with the TTRPG community looking like it's going to splinter again like it was in the 90's where you had Vampire/Werewolf, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Palladium/Rifts, and several other systems I'm probably forgetting taking significant market share from D&D, I don't think "our VTT is the one that runs D&D" will be enough.

TL;DR: I don't think this isn't about TTRPGs. I think it's all about the VTT space, but I don't see a path forward for WotC that lets them get where they want to go other than "extreme sustained excellence" (which I haven't seen for quite some time so I'm not holding my breath).

I have been saying all along this is really about Foundry (or the "next Foundry", whatever that ends up being). They want the VTT for 6e locked down and to offer the only 6e VTT space at a subscription prince. When gamers can go elsewhere for a non-sub price, many will. They don't want that.

They can lock out Roll20 via licensing. Same with FG. Foundry is the threat, because it is more technologically capable than either Roll 20 or FG -- and unlike any other VTT out there because of its module design, it is nimble AF in terms of feature offerings. It even does this while directly leveraging interactivity with DDB, and offering 3d functionality now that WotC is currently working on and has a free software community + Patreon approach surrounding it which is, in a word VIBRANT.

And that's only about VTT market leaders today. It says nothing about the next decade and what other competitors might arise in that space that none of us yet see - because they don't exist yet.

All of this is bad if you want your product to be the next WoW. So the plan was to lock down VTTs out of the OGL. The changes after that were a shopping list of druthers and OGL 1.0a remorse.

My point: WotC can still get most of what it wants by simply making a markedly superior digital VTT product. They really should focus on this, because they can have the VTT space locked up with legal protections, policed by SWAT teams in VTOL aircraft, based on invisible SHIELD helicarriers hovering over the globe. In the end, if their own VTT product is no good -- not many will pay a subscription price for it. OTOH, if it is good, not many will choose a cheaper alternative. This was simply greed, trying to get the whole pizza all to themselves. It's unnecessary and it always was.