D&D General WotC's Dan Ayoub talks OGL mistakes--"we're recovering from loud public missteps"

In an interview with Wargamer, Dan Ayoub--head of Dungeons & Dragons at Wizards of the Coast--talked about the trust the company lost when it tried to rescind the Open Gaming License back in 2023. Ayoub took over at WotC in 2025, two years after the crisis, and said of the events "But I don't want to skirt the focus of your question. It was a rug pull, right? A lot of people and businesses were built up around a specific thing. Trust was given to the brand, and people rightly felt the rug was pulled from under them. In some cases, it's caused damage we are still trying to fix today."

He also spoke about D&D's new franchise model, reconnecting with classic D&D creators like Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, Bob Salvatore and Luke Gygax, and bringing on new partners. Check out the interview here.

 

[bsss]

CC can be ported into other works. All you have to do, if you (voluntarily) want to contribute more under this license, is indicate what parts can and are licensed. The CC-BY license does not require you sub-license.

If this is in reply to me, I don't dispute that, but being able to sub-license my stuff isn't the challenge I'm thinking of. Let's say my product is downstream of the 3e SRD by three generations of products, and I would like to continue to distribute it --- and allow others to distribute it --- under the strongest open protections available to the community. However, it has derivative elements --- let's say it uses a bunch of 3e spells from a variety of sources or something. If the strongest option was not a "fixed" OGL but rather a CC license, all of those upstream from me would have to sub-license/re-license their works before I could change how I distributed their things. Any break in the chain keeps downstream stuck on the (allegedly) "weaker" OGL. A proper revision to the OGL doesn't need the copyright holders' explicit involvement, everyone gets OGL v1.0b as an option "for free".

That's what I personally like of a strong OGL. The re-licensing rigmarole is non-existent.

 

[mamba]

There are ways they could release a OGL v1.0b that would make the license clearly irrevocable

arguably the current one already is, they just tried to pretend they found a loophole and expected that they could strongarm everyone into submission. So adding some words means little, they can always invent a new interpretation of some clause the next time around they want to bully the community into submission.

The difference between the CC and an OGL 1.0b isn’t the wording, it’s the trust. If WotC were to attack the CC, they will be in a world of hurt, if they attack 1.0b, the scenario is exactly the same as with 1.0a

It’s a nice gesture, but if you are not comfortable with using 1.0a now, you should not be comfortable with using 1.0b then either

 

[bsss]

arguably the current one already is, they just tried to pretend they found a loophole and expected that they could strongarm everyone into submission. So adding some words means little, they can always invent a new interpretation of some clause the next time around they want to bully the community into submission.

The difference between the CC and an OGL 1.0b isn’t the wording, it’s the trust. If WotC were to attack the CC, they will be in a world of hurt, if they attack 1.0b, the scenario is exactly the same as with 1.0a

It’s a nice gesture, but if you are not comfortable with using 1.0a now, you should not be comfortable with using 1.0b then either

I agree, if nothing else, that the current OGL v1.0a is fine, practically anyway, but the real point is that they eroded that trust in the OGL (for nothing, in the end) and for all of their talk, they have done nothing to repair that trust as it relates to the OGL, when there's some pretty low-hanging fruit for options out there. They have all the power to make it stronger, and they're not --- doing so would probably make it more legally robust and show they care, both of which would be actions towards regaining trust. Not just an empty gesture.

 

[kenmarable]

arguably the current one already is, they just tried to pretend they found a loophole and expected that they could strongarm everyone into submission. So adding some words means little, they can always invent a new interpretation of some clause the next time around they want to bully the community into submission.

The difference between the CC and an OGL 1.0b isn’t the wording, it’s the trust. If WotC were to attack the CC, they will be in a world of hurt, if they attack 1.0b, the scenario is exactly the same as with 1.0a

It’s a nice gesture, but if you are not comfortable with using 1.0a now, you should not be comfortable with using 1.0b then either

Like you even say, the current one is only "arguably" irrevocable.

But the OGL 1.1 legal argument relied on some imprecise wording that could be open to multiple interpretations. Sure, ultimately that wording would be interpreted only one way if it made it to court (and most are confident which way that would be), but the point is that WotC legal team felt 1 or 2 spots were imprecise enough that the attempt to force their particular interpretation was worthwhile.

Fixing the imprecise spots makes it a better, stronger, more precise license regardless of whether we are comfortable enough to use the current one. That doesn't mean no one will ever try to exploit it, but it objectively makes it more difficult to do so (and therefore less likely that it would be worthwhile to attempt it).

I don't buy into the legal nihilism of "well, lawyers can argue anything they want so no improvement to a license would matter."

A better license is a better license. And the OGL 1.0a could be made far better with only a couple very minor edits.

 

[mamba]

Like you even say, the current one is only "arguably" irrevocable.

it pretty much is, the only way WotC wins this one is if the judge is incompetent. I just wanted to avoid some argument over this, seems I failed

As you yourself wrote

Sure, ultimately that wording would be interpreted only one way if it made it to court

Fixing the imprecise spots makes it a better, stronger, more precise license regardless of whether we are comfortable enough to use the current one.

it makes it stronger in the sense that it removes some of the FUD WotC spread, but it does so only partially. WotC cannot go back to a time before they needlessly and without a case threatened their own license. Some fear that they will be stupid and reckless enough to shoot themselves in the foot a second time while dragging the community down with them will remain.

There is no way to get back to the trust they had before this, not with the OGL. WotC recognized this, which is why they released the SRD under CC and not under a revised OGL. Releasing a revised OGL would be a nice gesture, but between getting a new OGL and the 3e SRD in CC, I much prefer the latter. Practically speaking the former accomplishes next to nothing.