DDO Players News Episode 322 – Hasbro’s OGL Critical Failure

Posted by in DDO Players News, Podcast | 0 comments

Special Note – this is a NON DDO show this week, Evilbeeker and I discuss the OGL controversy in a very long in-depth conversation. So, if you normally only listen to the show for DDO news and talk, there is none this week, this is a D&D/RPG focused episode.

As I said in the add-on at the start of the show, I did not get this show edited in a timely manner and was late in getting it released, the Hasbro/WOTC has stepped back on the OGL as of now, I talk about this. So, keep in the mind, the conversation we had in the show, was BEFORE this news broke… I’m a horrible person and podcast producer and for that I am sorry.

 

 

Audio Only Listen And Download Link

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (192.7MB)

YouTube Watch Links

 

The Hasbro-OGL Crit Fail Timeline

 

The TSR Years

Mayfair Games (1984, 1991). Mayfair was the first roleplaying competitor to poke the bear. Not only did they publish “generic” adventures for use with AD&D, but they went further: starting with their fourth “Role Aids” product, Dwarves (1982), the adventures said they were “suitable for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”. Though Mayfair’s careful use of TSR’s trademark was likely legal, TSR sued; when Mayfair didn’t budge, rather than create a legal precedent, TSR ultimately gave Mayfair a royalty-free license to keep producing their products as long as TSR’s trademark was noted in a very specific way.

In 1991, TSR filed a new complaint against Mayfair, this time claiming that they’d violated the licensing agreement, and everyone agreed that there had been a number of variations from the set formula, most notably in Mayfair’s City-State of the Invincible Overlord (1987), which stated that introduction-writer Gary Gygax was the “creator of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”. In 1993 a judge ruled that there were violations, but not enough to end the contract. But after two exhausting years of legal battle (a suit-by-exhaustion technique that TSR perfected in the late ’80s and early ’90s), Mayfair had had enough. They sold off all the Role Aids properties to TSR, who promptly plopped those in the vault as well — other than two unpublished books, Chronomancer (1995) and Shaman (1995), which were published by TSR directly.

New Infinities (1987). New Infinities was Gary Gygax’s attempt to get back into the roleplaying world following his departure from TSR. Gygax had explicit rights to continue his Gord the Rogue novels and New Infinities’ premier RPG, Cyborg Command (1987), didn’t look anything like D&D, and so that didn’t give TSR a lot of opportunity to go after Gygax’s new company. At least not until they began their “Fantasy Master” line of generic FRPG supplements with Frank Mentzer’s The Convert (1987), an adventure that he’d written for the RPGA and gotten permission to bring with him to New Infinities. But, he didn’t have that permission in writing, and so TSR was able to file an injunction against publication of The Convert and even after that was lifted, they were able to keep New Infinities in court for the rest of the young company’s life.

GDW (1992, 1992). Gary Gygax’s next try at publication was a brand-new game called “Dangerous Dimensions”, to be produced by the publishers of Traveller (1977). This time, TSR took the name and trade dress as the attack point on Gygax’s new product, issuing a C&D because they said it was too similar to D&D. So GDW changed the name to “Dangerous Journeys”, no problem, and soon published their core fantasy book for the system: Dangerous Journeys: Mythus (1992). TSR sued, saying the game was derivative of AD&D (1977-1979), using claims so broad that they could have sued the majority of the roleplaying field under the terms. GDW held out for nearly two years of court proceedings but in the end they were so financially exhausted that they sold Dangerous Journeys to TSR. They closed up shop less than two years later.

The Internet (1994). For (nearly) their final act, TSR sued the whole internet — or at the least they sent C&D notices to all the internet fans hosting D&D sites, and even to fans of other systems such as Ars Magica (1987), who at the time wanted nothing to do with TSR because of their years of litigiousness (and that would include this author). Much fan material was removed; some of it moved to TSR’s officially blessed site, MPGNet; and TSR looked very bad in the process.

The WOTC Years

2000

The OGL (v1.0a) was originally published by Wizards of the Coast in 2000 to license the use of portions of the third edition of Dungeons & Dragons, via a System Reference Document (SRD), thus allowing third-party publishers to produce compatible material. This move was spearheaded by Ryan Dancey.

 

2004

Wizards of the Coast addressed what would occur if the license was changed – the OGL “already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there’s no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway”.

 

2008
Wizards of the Coast transitioned to a new, more restrictive royalty-free license called the Game System License (GSL), which is available for third-party developers to publish products compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition.The GSL is incompatible with the previous OGL. However, by its own terms the OGL is irrevocable, and remains in widespread use.

Greg Tito, for The Escapist in 2011, commented that the GSL “released in conjunction with 4th edition took away many of the freedoms that the industry had come to expect with the D&D rules, such as reprinting text for clarity in new products.

2016
Wizards of the Coast released the 5th edition SRD under v1.0a of the OGL, marking a return to the Open Gaming format.

Additionally, content creators can access an additional license option by publishing through the Dungeon Masters Guild storefront; this license goes a step further by allowing individuals and third party publishers to create and sell content based on specific Wizards of the Coast intellectual property such as the Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Eberron, and the Magic: Gathering planes. Content creators are allowed to set their own price, however, Wizards of the Coast and OneBookShelf take a 50% cut of the proceeds.

August 2022
Wizards of the Coast launched a public playtest of the next version of Dungeons & Dragons under the One D&D initiative. In November 2022, there was reported speculation that the OGL would be discontinued for this new iteration of Dungeons & Dragons based on unconfirmed leaks.

In response to the speculation, Wizards of the Coast stated in November 2022: “We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we’re too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time”.

December 21st, 2022
WOTC announces they will be producing a new Open Gaming License (note that the previous OGL 1.0a will still exist, and can still be used). However, for those who use the new OGL 1.1, which will be released in early 2023, there will be some limitations added with regards the type of product which can use it, and — possibly controversially — reporting to WotC your annual OGL-related revenue. They are also adding a royalty for those third party publishers who make more than $750K per year.

End of 2022
At the end of December, a number of hastily arranged meetings with ‘key’ third party creators under a strict NDA agreement were set up with WotC’s licensing department in order to share the company’s plans regarding licensing of D&D going forward.

– NOTE ON D&D/HASBRO STOCK PRICE –

Jan 5th, 2023
D&D fandom is in uproar again about purported upcoming changes to the Open Gaming License, and rumors are flooding social media regarding WotC’s intentions to ‘de-authorize‘ the existing Open Gaming License in favor of a new one.

iO9 Gets A Copy
However, Linda Codega over at Gizmodo/iO9 got hold of a copy of the current draft of the OGL 1.1.

  • It’s long. It’s ten times the length of the current OGL, at 9,000 words.
  • No bigots. It prohibits NFTs and bigoted content.
  • Print/PDF only. It also prohibits apps and video games. And pantomimes, apparently. The wording says “including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes?”
  • Deauthorizes the previous OGL. The license states that the OGL 1.0a is “no longer an authorized license agreement”.
  • It’s soon! Pressingly, the draft also indicates that publishers who wish to sell SRD-based content on or after January 13th (which is just 8 days away!) have only one option: agree to the OGL: Commercial. That gives companies very little time to evaluate the license or make any necessary changes.
  • Clear OGL declarations. The new license contains other restrictions which effectively prohibit companies from identifying their OGC via a separate System Reference Document (which is what games like Pathfinder do); instead the reader must be alerted to Open Gaming Content within the product itself.
  • Royalties. As previously noted, creators who make over $750K will need to pay royalties to WotC. WotC does indicate that it might reach out to successful creators for a more ‘custom (and mutually beneficial) licensing arrangement). Creators are divided into three tiers – under $50K, $50K-$750K, and $750K+. The royalty is 20% or 25% of ‘qualifying revenue’, which is revenue in excess of $750K. The term used is revenue, not profit.
  • They want you to use Kickstarter. Kickstarter — their ‘preferred’ platform — attracts the lower 20% royalty, and non-Kickstarter crowdfunding attracts 25%. It’s interesting that WotC even has a preferred crowdfunding platform, let alone that they are trying to influence creators to use it over its competitors like Backerkit, IndieGoGo, Gamefound, and the like.
  • New logo. An identifying badge will be required on products which use the new OGL, and creators will need to send WotC a copy of their product.

The architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, was asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to ‘deauthorize’ the current OGL in favor of a new one. He responded as follows:

My public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.

As has been noted previously, even WotC in its own OGL FAQ did not believe at the time that the license could be revoked. d

Kickstarter
Jon Ritter, Kickstarter’s Director of Games, clarified why creators making over $750K using the new Open Gaming Licence v1.1. will only have to pay WotC 20% royalties on revenue over that $750K instead of 25% like they do on other platforms.

Kickstarter was contacted after WoTC decided to make OGL changes, so we felt the best move was to advocate for creators, which we did. Managed to get lower % plus more being discussed. No hidden benefits / no financial kickbacks for KS. This is their license, not ours, obviously.

When asked whether he was aware that those royalties would cut out the majority of most successful Kickstarter profit margins, Ritter acknowledged this with the words “Very much aware of the numbers.”

Jan 9th, 2023
This Open Letter, posted under the social media hashtag #OpenDnD, has already been signed by over 4,000 people, including many small publishers. Behind it are Mike Holik (Mage Hand Press) and Noah Downs (an IP lawyer).

If this new license gains wide adoption, the tabletop industry will shrink to a fraction of its current size, shuttering the small businesses that populate your local cons and putting a stop to their creations. Innovation in the gaming industry will evaporate; your favorite games will be trapped in the past, instead of being allowed to migrate to your phone, virtual reality, and beyond. Diversity in the industry will shrink away, as projects from marginalized creators are effectively written out of the future.

This isn’t the only such Open Letter — there’s another one authored by Jon Brazer Enterprises which has a number of signatories from various OGL publishers.

As small publishers and individual creators who create considerable content under the OGL 1.0a, we the undersigned call upon you to reverse course in regards to the leaked, alleged text of OGL 1.1. As the leader of the tabletop roleplaying game industry, your direction guides us all. We believe that this new version of the OGL will hurt both us and, by extension, you, and we ask that you hear our concerns.

There are also several petitions on change.org.

Jan 9, 2023
Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It’s not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

The doc can be found at: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

Jan 10th, 2023
While many publishers are still holding frantic meetings and consulting lawyers, and others are still in ‘wait and see’ mode, some have already indicated how the new draft OGL v1.1 affects them and their plans going forward. Here are a couple of examples:

Kobold Press has announced it is “Raising the Flag” and developing a new game. Kobold Press has been and always will be committed to open gaming and the tabletop community. Our goal is to continue creating the best materials for players and game masters alike.

This means Kobold Press will release its current Kickstarter projects as planned, including Campaign Builder: Cities & Towns (already printed and on its way to backers this winter). In particular, Deep Magic Volume 2 will remain fully compatible with the 5E rules. We are working with our VTT partners to maintain support for digital platforms.

As we look ahead, it becomes even more important for our actions to represent our values. While we wait to see what the future holds, we are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.

Frog God Games/Necromancer Games posted a lengthy statement:
Frog God Games and Necromancer Games will not sign the new Open Game License (OGL) Version 1.1. We believe that what Hasbro subsidiary Wizards of the Coast (WOTC) is doing is wrong, in bad faith, and likely illegal. We fully believe that the strength of the industry is based on multiple people with diverse approaches to making rules, settings, and adventures for our favorite game.
We are offended that unless we give them the permanent right to use and sell our intellectual property with no compensation, we cannot continue to operate. We are offended that unless we give them the right to let them revoke our ability to publish at any time with only 30 days’ notice, we cannot make any more books. We are offended that even though we have spent thousands of dollars on making virtual tabletop versions of our games, we can’t do it anymore. WOTC sounds like Darth Vader talking to Lando Calrissian in the Empire Strikes Back “… I am altering the deal, pray that I do not alter it further.” Deauthorizing the 1.0a OGL is deeply unfair, likely illegal, and evil.

WOTC, in bad faith, is breaking a promise, clear and simple. Now, they want to pull the rug out from under us. They are intentionally damaging not only Necromancer Games and Frog God Games, but the entire industry.

WotC’s previous Executive Producer of D&D, Ray Winninger, who left the company in October 2022, tweeted in support of open gaming.

I believe it’s not in the long-term interests of either the D&D community or the D&D business for WotC to move forward with something like the leaked plan. I hope the people running the show either reverse course or prove me wrong.

Jan 12th, 2023

First — it is rumored that 1/12 at 3pm ET Wizards of the Coast will make some kind of video statement about the current Open Game License situation.

Second — an email has been circulating from an anonymous WotC insider. Again, I must reiterate I cannot myself verify this, so read this with that in mind, but the email says:

I’m an employee at WotC currently working on D&Dbeyond (DDB) and with D&D business leaders on the health of the product line. If you want I can provide proof of this.

I’m sending this message because I fear for the health of a community I love, and I know what the leaders at WOTC are looking at:

-They are briefly delaying rollout of OGL changes due to the backlash.

-Their decision making is based entirely on the provable impact to their bottom line.

-Specifically they are looking at DDB subscriptions and cancellations as it is the quickest financial data they currently have.

-They are still hoping the community forgets, moves on, and they can still push this through.

I have decided to reach out because at my time in WotC I have never once heard management refer to customers in a positive manner, their communication gives me the impression they see customers as obstacles between them and their money, the DDB team was first told to prepare to support the new OGL changes and online portal when they got back from the holidays, and leadership doesn’t take any responsibility for the pain and stress they cause others. Leadership’s first communication to the rank and file on the OGL was 30 minutes on 1/11/23, This was the first time they even tried to communicate their intentions about the OGL to employees, and even in this meeting they blamed the community for over-reacting. I will repeat, the main thing this leadership is looking at is DDB subscription cancellations.

Cancel Your DDB Account
The D&D community begins canceling their D&D Beyond accounts enmasse, which results in WOTC canceling their announcement.

ORC!
Paizo, the maker of Pathfinder, has just announced a new open license for use with RPGs. The license will not be owned by Paizo – or by any TTRPG company, and will be stewarded by Azora Law, a company which represents several tabletop gaming companies, until it finds its home with an independent non-profit. This new license is designed to be irrevocable.

We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.

The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation). 

Jan 13th, 2023

With The Guardian picking up the story this morning, here’s a list of media outlets covering the Open Gaming Licence controversy.

The initial story came from Gizmodo/iO9, which recieved a leaked copy of the OGL v1.1., and YouTube channel RollForCombat.

Friday at 3:55 PM – Statement from Hasbro:

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 purposes.

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, live streams, 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.

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.

The Fallout Going Forward — DDB

https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-wizards-hasbro-ogl-open-game-license-1849981136

After a fan-led campaign to cancel D&D Beyond subscriptions went viral, it sent a message to WotC and Hasbro higher-ups. According to multiple sources, these immediate financial consequences were the main thing that forced them to respond. The decision to further delay the rollout of the new Open Gaming License and then adjust the messaging around the rollout occurred because of a “provable impact” on their bottom line.

According to those sources, in meetings and communication with employees, WotC management’s messaging has been that fans are “overreacting” to the leaked draft, and that in a few months, nobody will remember the uproar.

Meanwhile, the “#DnDBegone” campaign encouraging fans to cancel their D&D Beyond subscriptions continued to gain traction on Twitter and other social media sites.

In order to delete a D&D Beyond account entirely, users are funneled into a support system that asks them to submit tickets to be handled by customer service: Sources from inside Wizards of the Coast confirm that earlier this week there were “five digits” worth of complaining tickets in the system. Both moderation and internal management of the issues have been “a mess,” they said, partially due to the fact that WotC has recently downsized the D&D Beyond support team.

Wizards of the Coast stated in the unreleased FAQ that it wasn’t making changes to the OGL just because of a few “loud voices,” and that’s true. It took thousands of voices. And it’s clear that Wizards of the Coast didn’t make the latest changes purely of their own accord. The entire tabletop ecosystem is holding Wizards of the Coast to the promises that they made in 2000. And now, the fans are setting the terms.It is clear that WotC has damaged the goodwill they’d created over the last decade.

And according to new reporting from Gizmodo, sources from inside WotC say that things are “dire” and that Hasbro is worried more about the IP of D&D than its public image:

“According to multiple sources, these immediate financial consequences were the main thing that forced them to respond. The decision to further delay the rollout of the new Open Gaming License and then adjust the messaging around the rollout occurred because of a “provable impact” on their bottom line.”

Jan 17th – DDB Artificial Intelligence?
Roll for Combat is reporting Hasbro is planning to have DND Beyond subscriptions tiered up to $30 a month per player that will come with AI DMs (explaining the OGL, purchase of DNDB, hiring or programmers).

  • Buy DDB for 140m, putting 300+m into a new DDB VTT environment.
  • Supposedly DM’s account for 80% of wotc’s D&D sales. Is it really a good idea to replace your best customers with robots?
  • Sounds like an MMO? Threat to DDO?

Jan 18th – WotC: We Are Not Making AI Dungeon Masters

  • Rumors of a $30 subscription fee are false.
    No one at Wizards is working on AI DMs. We love our human DMs too much. If you’re looking for a DM, we suggest heading to our Discord where DMs and parties are looking for players.
  • We have designers whose core job it is to compile, analyze, and then act upon your feedback. Your feedback has made the game better over the past decade, and your feedback is central to D&D’s future.
  • Homebrewing is core to D&D Beyond. It’s not going away, and we’re not going to charge you for it. Your homebrew is, and always will be, yours. We’ve always been excited to see your creations both on and off D&D Beyond!

Jan 18th – WOTC OGL Retort
Following last week’s partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

They also list a number of points of clarity —

  • Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
  • The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being ‘De-Authorized’

However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it’s being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn’t mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is “Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.” — as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can’t publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been deauthorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

Jan 19th – New OGL 1.2 announcement
As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

Rules are going to be moved to a Creative Commons license in 1.2+, which would enforce 1.0a going away.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make — how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable. The OGL v1.0a is still being ‘de-authorized’.

Quotes from 1.2
Before you scroll down and grab it, let me give you more details on what’s in there:

  • Protecting D&D’s inclusive play experience. As I said above, content more clearly associated with D&D (like the classes, spells, and monsters) is what falls under the OGL. You’ll see that OGL 1.2 lets us act when offensive or harmful content is published using the covered D&D stuff. We want an inclusive, safe play experience for everyone. This is deeply important to us, and OGL 1.0a didn’t give us any ability to ensure it.
  • TTRPGs and VTTs. OGL 1.2 will only apply to TTRPG content, whether published as books, as electronic publications, or on virtual tabletops (VTTs). Nobody needs to wonder or worry if it applies to anything else. It doesn’t.
  • Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can’t use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
  • Very limited license changes allowed. Only two sections can be changed once OGL 1.2 is live: how you cite Wizards in your work and how we can contact each other. We don’t know what the future holds or what technologies we will use to communicate with each other, so we thought these two sections needed to be future-proofed.

For completeness, let’s sum up what else is in OGL 1.2 and supporting documents:

  • Virtual Tabletop Policy. We will continue to support VTT usage for both OGL creators and VTT operators. The Virtual Tabletop Policy spells this out.
  • Ownership disputes. You own your content. You don’t give Wizards any license-back, and for any ownership disputes, you can sue for breach of contract and money damages (versus holding up products other players are waiting for while we sort it out).
  • No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.d
  • Creator Product Badge. You’ll have the option to include a badge on your OGL works. Once we get your feedback on the badge, we’ll create a guide on how to use and display it.

Comments on 1.2

  • They’re still “de-authorizing” the OGL 1.0a and using it as an excuse to fight discrimination.
  • The draft of the 1.2 OGL only covers the 5.1 SRD – it says nothing about the 3.x SRD which many games were built on and are still using.
  • Most 5E fans and companies refuse to be swayed by the idea of “we have to kill the OGL to save the OGL (from racists, who for twenty-plus years have been waiting to publish their OGL racist content)!”
  • WOTC is calling it an open license, but reserve the “sole right” to terminate that license. In this specific case “only” for hateful content, but since WotC reserves the sole right to determine what’s hateful.
  • “No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action“
  • “Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Class Action Waiver. This license and all matters relating to its interpretation and enforcement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and any disputes arising out of or relating to this license will be resolved solely and exclusively through individual litigation in the state or federal courts located in the county in which Wizards (or any successor) has its headquarters, and the parties expressly consent to the jurisdiction of such courts. Each party hereto irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action with respect to such a dispute.”

Jan 20th – OGL 1.2 and the Survey

WOTC puts out the official 1.2 draft for public review, and launches the public survey on its contents.

https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/7182208/OGL-1-2-Feedback-Survey

*** Note on IP tracking and finishing the survey ***

More thoughts on 1.2:

Revocability. It says it’s irrevocable, but it’s not — while WotC can terminate your license at any time (they just say your content is ‘harmful’ or ‘obscene’ at their discretion, and you cannot even challenge them about it), it is still revocable at their whim. They can put an OGL publisher out of business with the flick of a pen.

The key phrase is — “We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.”

Termination. Linked to revocation, above. The text says “We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).”

OGL v1.0a. They’re still revoking OGL v1.0a.

The Good stuff? Is there good stuff? Well, there’s an absence of some of the leaked bad stuff. But the bad stuff already isn’t in OGL v1.0a, so ‘not doing bad stuff’ is a low bar. No royalties, no ownership issues, that’s good. Not being able to change it at-will, that’s good (but they can still just take it away from you). I say ‘good’; I just mean ‘not bad’.

Works covered. It needs clarity on web pages. Right now it covers “printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs)”. What about a web page with game content on it? Is that a static electronic file? Probably not, if it’s managed by some kind of content management system or database. They claimed this was about NFTs. Well, make it about NFTs then.

Creative Commons. Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that sounds generous, but it’s actually a reduction in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the revocation of 1.0a is valid).

Class Action Waiver
Creators using OGL 1.2 waive all right to participate in class, collective, or joint action. Wizards of the Coast may take legal action against creators individually without the possibility for peers in the industry who would also be affected by such a ruling to participate or aid in that legal action. Every individual creator becomes responsible for maintaining that every clause in the OGL 1.2 is valid and enforceable in any legal action, otherwise WOTC could declare the license void for all creators.

Creators adopting the OGL are looking for a license which inspires confidence that the foundation for their personal and financial investment is secure and stable. These clauses provide too much wiggle-room for Wizards of the Coast to take away a creators’ rights if they deemed it necessary to do so.

1.2 – Unwitting Acceptance???

If a creator uses content from the SRD version 5.1 – the current version of the SRD which has been available since May 2016 – they implicitly agree to the terms of the OGL 1.2 license. This means that simply by publishing content that was developed under 1.0a and SRD version 5.1, many creators will unknowingly accept the 1.2 terms. This could be avoided with an explicit grace period for ongoing projects and an obvious version number increase to the SRD which makes it clear that by using that game content you are accepting OGL 1.2.

1.2 – The VTT Policy???

https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/?fbclid=IwAR0q2dHKyHbahyaZmQFZk5WYUgP7IfftwnADFImHVCzmT96otnFYkxKO58k

The draft OGL 1.2 license references a separate document, the “Virtual Tabletop Policy”, which covers the terms under which virtual tabletops and VTT content for may be offered under the OGL. Unfortunately, this policy is severely flawed.

A crucial issue with this document is that it is a policy rather than part of the legal terms of the OGL itself. As a policy, it may be changed without altering the terms of OGL 1.2. If Wizards of the Coast were to decide in the future that they are not actually “big fans of VTTs”, this could easily become a restrictive policy which states that VTTs are not permitted. Just as print publishers have rightly insisted that the OGL must be irrevocable, the rights granted to software projects must also have a secure and trustworthy foundation to justify the investment required to create digital tools.

In addition to the concerning fluidity of the policy, the document is frustratingly vague with regards to what is permitted, stating:

Thou shalt not animate

The perplexing focus on animation of spell effects is an absurd heuristic as the primary example of what makes a virtual tabletop different from a video game. If differentiating between a VTT and a video game is essential (we contend it is not), there are far more cogent classifiers to use. Are the actions of both player and non-player characters controlled by a human? Does the game experience provide a framework for collaborative storytelling? Can the gamemaster invent new rules on the fly? Surely virtual tabletops and video games alike may both have animation present in the way they communicate information visually to users.

Even if a focus on “animation” is removed, it is concerning that Wizards of the Coast would choose which software features are appropriate for a virtual tabletop to implement and which are not.

Is this really about NFTs?
Equally absurd is the emphasis on NFTs as an insinuated threat of what virtual tabletops would do if left unchecked by a governing policy from WOTC. This paragraph reads as a sort of confused fear mongering that seeks to limit the quality of virtual tabletop software. The virtual tabletops that are used and beloved by the community do not incorporate NFTs, nor would they remain beloved by the community if they were to do so.

Under this policy, virtual tabletops should only replicate (but not improve upon) the experience of sitting around a physical table. This myopic perspective neglects that modern VTT software augments the experience of traditional play by heightening the quality of experience for players at the table, regardless of whether the game is played in-person or remotely. For many gamers virtual tabletop software is an integral part of the TTRPG experience and not just a fallback option when a traditional mode of play is unavailable. We would have expected a team who are “gamers and big fans of VTTs” to understand this.

Dissecting the clumsy wording of this policy is ultimately a distraction from a more fundamental question. Is it right for an open gaming license to restrict product formats at all? If a goal of the OGL 1.2 license is to foster creativity and further grow the profile of D&D as a game and as a brand, its authors are misled in attempts to suppress technological innovation that can enrich the quality of play or empower storytellers to deliver immersive experiences.

The D&D OGL controversy, explained – The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2023/01/19/dungeons-and-dragons-open-game-license-wizards-of-the-coast-explained/

Conclusion

What should you do? … or … what can you do? … or … what are you going to do?

 

Donations

We currently have 13 supporters on Patreon. If you would like to help support DDO Players, Simply go to the donation page where you can support The Players Alliance on Patreon. Your money is used for our podcast hosting, website hosting, and the pay for our live shows.

 

If you would like to just donate without using patron, please send Drac and email at drac@ddoplayers.com

 

Feedback

Reviews

This week we did not receive any reviews but would love your support! This helps out a lot so drop us a review on your favorite Podcast App of choice!  If you leave us a review, let us know! 

 

Featured Comments

This week we have no featured comments

 

Emails

This week we have no emails.

 

Contact Us

Email us!

podcast@ddoplayers.com

 

Final Thoughts

The Players Alliance LIVE Shows

Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m.Eastern  – DDO Players News

Saturdays at 8:30 p.m. Eastern – LOTRO Players News

Join Us For Our Live Shows!  ddoplayers.com/live/

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply