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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Please stop ignoring the "RPG but not WotC nor OGL" category.

Yeah, I think other RPGs are a concern of WotC's, too. The hobby is small, and people could call other games a D&D just like grandma calls your PS4 a Nintendo. WotC only controls themselves and (maybe) the OGL, though. They affect the rest of the TTRPG space mostly by being big. If someone wanted to re-publish FATAL, though, I think WotC would be concerned. Not, like, able to do much, but I don't think they'd like it.

And if someone re-published FATAL and released it with the OGL...and maybe some youtuber somewhere releases a video about how this controversial game is triggering the woke mob and sure maybe it's juvenile but it's all just a joke and anyway free speech, you know, we should be able to make a game like this, and isn't it nice that WotC has this license for us so anyone can make content for this lib-triggering game...

So if you say "this random bit of RPG can cause a social panic and WotC can get blamed for it regardless that it is not theirs", that's true REGARDLESS if it's OGL or not.

Yeah, I think any TTRPG could cause a moral panic and get back to WotC.

The only time the OGL matters in the scenario you put out, the ONLY TIME, is if they actually get control.

I think we may differ here. I think WotC would like to exert as much control as possible. They control the OGL (maybe). They control D&D. They have some influence over the greater TTRPG space on account of being the 10,000 lb gorilla in the room, but they only control those things. So they'll get the control they can. That's their version of being good stewards of the game, I think.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I mean, don't just take my word for it. WotC and Hasbro think the risk of brand damage from unseemly OGL products is big enough that they've revisited the topic repeatedly in their revisions of the OGL and consider it a big part of their next iteration. They want to address it, and are investing considerable resources in doing so. It makes sense to me that they'd do that - moral panics aren't reasonable things, pretty much by definition, and they're something D&D has faced in the past, and something that has actively changed D&D as a game (Tanar'ri, anyone?).

If they didn't think it was reasonable, if it is indeed so fanciful to imagine, why is it a consistent theme in each iteration of their licensing work?



Hm, looks like there's some confusion. Lets see if I can clarify.

It doesn't matter that the OGL and D&D are distinct from the perspective of the general public. They'll judge D&D based on an OGL product, easy.

It doesn't matter if D&D says they have no ownership of some potential offending product. People will still judge them, and there can still be consequences for individual employees based on that judgement if the offense is big enough/loud enough/affects the bottom line enough, even if WotC and Hasbro had no hand in the product.

The OGL won't protect WotC from the court of public opinion. It seems like, because of that, because of wanting to be "good stewards of the game," they want an OGL that lets them exercise some kind of editorial control - to exclude things that would hurt the brand.

I don't know if that's going to work (I think it's not really a great idea, personally!), but it sounds like that's what they're working towards.



This is part of why I don't think the OGL is the best mechanism for this. WotC has other venues where they exercise more editorial control already. The risk they're exposed to is real, but it's also something they can mitigate, prepare for, and work through. Using the OGL to lock down on this potential threat isn't the right tool for the job.

I think the concern about the brand is a combination of PR to explain why they are doing something terrible (we had to, they made us do it) and possibly some corporate brand person separated from any of the actual examples. That one puerile book from 20 years ago gets trotted out, but it is not even a good OGL example.

The truth is that is not a problem and only fanciful scenarios like you keep arguing without any real attachment to reality provide support for it.

The real facts are that Hasbro wants to end the OGL so they can protect their new D&D product, especially the VTT they are investing in. You can see that in the list of product areas they are going to clarify. NFT are not VTT. VTT are used to play games and pretty much they just present the maps already in the books/pdf and provide a way to project them out to the players. Some have some automation of the rules built in. They just allow table top play but online. However, WoTC finally wants to release their own VTT so they do not want competition for One D&D on it so they want to eliminate any content.

This is entirely about getting rid of the OGL and has nothing real to do about hate speech and prejudice.

You can keep repeating your fanciful concerns in different language but you are completely non-convincing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is entirely about getting rid of the OGL and has nothing real to do about hate speech and prejudice.

You can keep repeating your fanciful concerns in different language but you are completely non-convincing.

I mean, sounds like you got it figured out bro, congrats. I'ma go touch some grass, maybe hit up the Wawa, you want anything?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I mean, sounds like you got it figured out bro, congrats. I'ma go touch some grass, maybe hit up the Wawa, you want anything?

That was almost as poor as your flights of concern fantasy, but not quite.

A bad meme means you have nothing more. How about address the responses or just bow out.

 

[gban007]

I think the concern about the brand is a combination of PR to explain why they are doing something terrible (we had to, they made us do it) and possibly some corporate brand person separated from any of the actual examples. That one puerile book from 20 years ago gets trotted out, but it is not even a good OGL example.

The truth is that is not a problem and only fanciful scenarios like you keep arguing without any real attachment to reality provide support for it.

The real facts are that Hasbro wants to end the OGL so they can protect their new D&D product, especially the VTT they are investing in. You can see that in the list of product areas they are going to clarify. NFT are not VTT. VTT are used to play games and pretty much they just present the maps already in the books/pdf and provide a way to project them out to the players. Some have some automation of the rules built in. They just allow table top play but online. However, WoTC finally wants to release their own VTT so they do not want competition for One D&D on it so they want to eliminate any content.

This is entirely about getting rid of the OGL and has nothing real to do about hate speech and prejudice.

You can keep repeating your fanciful concerns in different language but you are completely non-convincing.

Re Vtt, their press release says the OGL won't cover VTT, so not sure that lines up.
Outside of that, if they do their own VTT, they don't need to kill the OGL to prevent other content on there, they can just not allow it on there.
If you meant they didn't want other VTTs out there with competing content, that is different, but they have said anything already published can still be sold, so what they're doing won't prevent that to my mind.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

If they go by what their current statement says I don't mind it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m not “attached” to disliking WotC.

I’ve been continually disappointed by their products over the past 5 or so years, to the point I stopped buying them. Spelljammer is a great example—it was three thin books with a dearth of content, and even after putting on a big show about being inclusive they still managed to add new racist lore to D&D via that singular product. (I’m similarly disappointed by MTG these days.)

Spelljammer is a great product that you dislike. That’s fine, but don’t try to act like your preferences are objective valuations of quality. They’re preferences, just like my preference for the format used and for the light and broad strokes lore, not to mention the art and general graphic design.

I don’t try to act like my opinion is obviously true, though, because I know damn well it’s a result of biases, especially aesthetic preference based biases.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of companies making much more interesting content for WotC’s own game… and somehow WotC wants to hamstring those companies!

Wotc leadership are being gigantic buffoonish…jerks, on the order of Biff from Back to The Future. Chris Cocks is a bad leader for Hasbro, and the trio of Microsoft alumns are bad for D&D specifically.

And I like most 5e official products.

So nah, I’m not “attached” to disliking WotC, I’m just sick of expecting them to do better. How many more times should I fall for empty promises.

Nine times! No, none times, iPhone, not nine.

But come on, you really don’t see the influence of bias here? You really think only those who disagree with you are biased?

I understand someone preferring WotC’s official 5E content if they’ve never seen anything else… But if you’re posting here (and you have for years!) then you must be aware of how much better stuff exists for any sort of game. I’m honestly struggling to fathom such brand loyalty to WotC when they’re actively hostile to their own vibrant community.

When WotC starts making more worthwhile products and being less awful to their own customers, I’ll consider buying their stuff again.

I couldn’t care less about the economic viability of a publicly traded company, nor do I ever have brand loyalty, as I don’t believe that anything other than individual people are relevant to the concept of loyalty.

I just like the products that wotc has made for D&D , and prefer the latter half of 5e’s catalogue to the former half, roughly speaking.

You say there are many “better” products out there. I buy a decent number of them. They are, for my tastes, at best about on par.

Kobold Press is a great example of a publisher that I’ve purchased from even though I generally feel like I have to modify half of the product to make it work how I want 5e compatible options to work. They have cool ideas, and I like the style and concepts they throw out, so I support them.

I never purchased Volos or MToF, because I despised the lore in them, and the thick layer of racial essentialism contained therein, but I picked up MMoTM immediately once it was available by itself, because it’s a high quality product full of stuff I like.

Finally, I have said repeatedly that I won’t be supporting wotc unless they do a couple very specific things wrt the OGL.

My statements here are about the product, and the license, not any sort of brand loyalty (again, a concept I am contemptuous of) or corporate apologism (I am literally an anti-corporatist socialist).

 

[GreyLord]

I am taking a wait and see on Hasbro right now.

I THINK that what is happening is a PR disaster and not so great all around. It makes me nervous. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I would have chosen, or the path I think is the right one.

HOWEVER, there are probably those that have way more power and control over Hasbro and that currently are supporting certain choices. There's nothing that I could do in the face of that...or most of those here probably (beyond what is already happening, petitions, making a loud noise, etc).

What I WILL note is that right now, and for the past few weeks, Hasbro stock has been on the rise. It's underperformed, but it is still going back up. This has not hurt it drastically thus far...at least from what I can tell.

In addition, they just go an award for treating the employees, the environment, and shareholders in how it treats them.

From a business standpoint, they are actually doing decently right now. As long as they keep this trend up, they could be doing well by the end of this year even.

I think it will be the movie that will see how well they really are doing in this fiasco. If it bombs, it could be heads will roll. If it doesn't, well...we'll see from there.

For the meantime, I don't know what is going to happen. I hear that people believe by unsubscribing from D&D Beyond that it will send a clear message. It may.

There are a LOT of Beyond subscriptions. It would take a LOT of people to unsubscribe to make a sizeable dent in that. if you have 10 million users, I'd say at least a million would have to unsubscribe to really send a STRONG message. That's a lot of people you guys have to reach.

I'm IN YOUR COURT, really, and truly. But, I don't see what the normal customer, shareholder (even the bigger shareholders that may even have a representative to stand for them, without a majority of the board and the shareholders on one's side [or at least the majority of the percentage], it doesn't matter how they feel about this), or other companies can do in this beyond what's already being done.

Other than the complaints on this, right now things kind of look rosy at HAS.

 

[Vincent55]

can you trust a thief if they attempt to steal from you, once a thief is always a thief, the trust has been broken and sorry but Hasbro has just lost the D&D players and all who loved it. Maybe if WotC spins off as its own company and is put once more into the hands of those who love and respect the game. But doubt this will happen so i suspect the stocks and all profits will take a nose dive. Hasbro needs to distance them selves from D&D cut all ties and let WotC take the helm, then things might be saved.

 

[GreyLord]

This is in the open now, so for your information, the original "leak" was to 3rd party publishers. You could say it was worded to strong arm them into a deal or to at least get them to sign onto something they thought would be a better deal for them.

CNBC report on the matter

Third-party publishers told CNBC that Hasbro representatives approached high-profile independent content creators late last year to offer them a “sweetheart deal” if they signed on before the new licensing agreement was launched to the public. A document reviewed by CNBC showed a lower royalty rate than what was included in the proposed OGL 1.1. Representatives from Hasbro did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on this point.

also this in the article

“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,” Hasbro wrote in a statement on D&DBeyond. “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 company said its new OGL will contain provisions to address this risk, but it will be done without a license back clause.