• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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

It is a neutral pronoun, a dog can be called " it" though I rather they not. Referring to a program as it has been something since computers were made PCs.
<Stares>

I can't tell if you really don't get the point of what I was saying, or if your are messing with me.

Reread, and worry less about the pronouns. Get back to me about the part where you normalized an AI making abstract connections between fictional entities and reporting back coherent interactions.

You know.

The PART THAT WILL KILL US ALL!

<cough> There I go again.

"It." Heh. <rolls eyes>
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Drake2000

Explorer
This part really stood out to me:

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.

Classic abuser language. That, along with the constant gaslighting throughout the statement, is showing everyone exactly who WotC are, and what they want. It's not a pretty picture.
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
My opinion is that WoC should be able to alter the license, particularly if that alteration seems reasonable. The world is different now to what it was then and I don’t think the deal is equitable.

My opinion is they should be free to release any future content on any terms they wish, and not be beholden to doing so under the OGL 1.0a. However, their past content is released under specific terms in that license, terms both sides agreed to at the time.

The biggest issue for creators here is much of our work over the past 20 years has been done so under OGL 1.0a. That also means we gave everyone else similar rights to those we received, and the whole thing has spiderwebbed since into a huge interrelated tangle of collaborative effort between hundreds, possibly thousands, of people.

WotCs leaked plan would have destroyed many people's rights to continue to use that content. Not just the SRDs, but everything spawned on top of those SRDs by third parties. That is why so many people are angry that WotC feel this is something they can unilaterally do despite not being the owners of the majority of the IP involved.

So, lets put it this way. I rent you a bit of land, to do whatever you want with. Our contract states you can rent it for as long as you like, indeterminately, and that instead of paying in cash you instead agree never to use any of the trademarked names owned by my business, even where fair use allows you to do so. The agreement includes only one termination clause, which is triggered if you specifically break the terms of your tenancy in some way. We sign the agreement.

You now build a house on that land. After a couple of years, you also build a factory. You create all kinds of interesting stuff in your factory, that you built on the land I'm renting to you. There was even room for you to let some friends build things.

Now, 20 years later I get a little mad that I didn't realize quite how well your factory was going to do, and wish I'd also put in that I want a percentage of your profits. I'm also a little mad that your factory makes widgets and sproggins because I also decided 2 years ago to make widgets, so I want to change your agreement to prevent you from operating a factory on that land that makes widgets (although sproggins are fine, I'm happy for you to continue to make those).

You, quite rightly, will point to your contract with me that gives me no way to back out of this deal. I may be very upset at the terms now, 20 years later, but quite frankly that's my own stupid fault for not having the foresight to write it into our original contract. Meanwhile, I've done very well for myself, and own ten factories of my own, so I'm not exactly short of cash.

I tell you that unless you agree to this new, updated contract, I am kicking you out of the house you built and demolishing your factory, and your friends are homeless too.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Yeah, my rent gets raised, nobody wants it to happen but I get why it does. That’s the point. It’s life. For the most part of my landlord does it, I ask them to replace the fridge and regroup the shower. That’s fair.
Did your landlord’s mortgage go up? Was the increase in rent about the same percentage as the increase in property tax?

Are you seriously apologizing for landlords?
 



Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
All the kickstarters I Support will be out in six months, Dobbers is a particular favorite because it comes from my neck of the woods. But any I may want to support like anything Mr. Rhexx is working on or Dungeon Dad that needs safety!
Where did they say you have six months to comply? It wasn't in the statement I read. If you're talking about the 2.0 leak, that has no legal standing and hasn't be officially released.
 

You dont have hate speech laws in the US?

News to me!
A person making racist comments, is completely protected by the first amendment, so they can not be convicted for doing so. Now if during the persons racist rant they are also actively inciting others to commit a crime that's another story.
You are free to use the N word the G word or the words that the enemy back in WW2 used... as long as you have no incitement.
 

Scribe

Legend
A person making racist comments, is completely protected by the first amendment, so they can not be convicted for doing so. Now if during the persons racist rant they are also actively inciting others to commit a crime that's another story.
You are free to use the N word the G word or the words that the enemy back in WW2 used... as long as you have no incitement.

I'm sure that will fly in any product someone tries to print. Hows NuTSR doing at this point? Rolling in the cash?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top