We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
While this is true, WotC/Hasbro have not (yet) released any official or unofficial statement (AFAIK) denying the veracity of this leaked draft, so at the very least if it is real then even if it's not the final version, it does give us a great deal of insight into their plans, and we should let them know how we feel about what's in this draft so that they (hopefully) can take that in to account before they finalize the OGL 1.1.
Side note - it's hilarious but apparently on the D&D Discord they have banned all talk on the subject because it violates either the policy against spreading false information OR the policy against spreading IP that was illegally obtained, but they won't say which policy even though they are mutually exclusive. Either it is not accurate and spreading false info or it's accurate and is being spread illegally - but we won't tell you which! Schrodinger's OGL. LOL!
I’m confused. Idk much about business, but it seems like WOTC has been incredibly generous letting people use their intellectual property without charging them for it. And even now they’re only charging royalties if you make a lot of money (over $750,000), which apparently very few companies do. Why is this such a bad thing?
The biggest issue, IF true, is that you would grant WotC an irrevocable, royalty free license to do whatever they want with your IP (including just republishing it as their own without crediting you) in the supposed new OGL. It's a big IF at the moment though.
Honestly, there are several big issues. The one you mention is definitely among them.
There's also the royalty levels they are requiring are far greater than any profit margin of any company in this industry. From what I've heard, more typical royalty rates for even greater uses of IP are about 1/10th of what they are asking, which lends credence to the theory that it's less about getting those royalties than it is strong-arming those at that level into a custom license rather than the OGL. I can assure you Paizo, MCDM, and others at that level are not turning enough profit to eat a fee of 25% of their revenue even if it doesn't kick in until $750k.
The $750,000 cut off is also revisable at any time with only a 30 day notice. So, say you are a small time publisher who manages to make a living at this but in September or October, WotC lowers the cut off so now all of your income that year is suddenly over the royalty threshold and you need to pay WotC 25% of what you've earned so far with only 30 days notice that it is coming.
So, this part fascinates me:
I wonder why, rather than have this draconian measure of an OGL, why they don't create an actual OGL but with broader usage terms. Hey, you want to use Forgotten Realms? You fall under 1.1. Those of you crowding out there for Dark Sun? Great, use OGL 1.1. Yep, that's right its gotta go through our new moral standards board, and your paying a higher percentage of your sales, but you are now authorized to use our IP. Kingdoms of Kalamar? Yep, no problem, 25% off everything above $750,000.
I have no empirical evidence, but my feeling is that should they do this, create a broader OGL that allows use of some of their IP's, they could lower that threshold of revenue, create a tiered royalty list, and make bank. If Kobold Press or another outstanding publisher produced Dark Sun, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
This OGL 1.1 is a big deal, because it'll make or break D&D as we know it. Maybe it's gonna change before the official announcement. In my opinion it reeks, and tbh I'm pretty heated about this.
The actual reason (my speculation) the OGL is being updated is because:
D&D has grown a lot in general (ever since CR S1 started running tbh).
Playing D&D online has grown huge since the pandemic.
D&DBeyond is at the core of 5e online play, and seeing record numbers.
WotC purchased D&DBeyond and want to increase monetization.
OneD&D is on the horizon.
D&DBeyond is being pushed to fulfill the central role of all online D&D 5e play (VTT, encyclopedias, automation of rules, character sheets, encounter builders, campaigns, portal for homebrews and a marketplace) and they are in a position to do so and continue to do so, because they're owned by WotC.
Most important thing for this role to be fulfilled, is the VTT. The new OGL will allow WotC to push out competing VTTs as they choose, unless they have a separate deal (Roll20 & Fantasy Grounds) - which they can choose not to make any more of.
OGL 1.1 is being published to protect (monopolize) OneD&D content, while remaining "the same edition" because it's "backwards compatible" with 5e and therefore compatible D&DBeyond and existing stuff.
It's all to protect their investment in D&DBeyond. I can't disagree that D&DBeyond is the #1 at what it does atm, but it's #1 because it's the best that we have - not because it has a monopoly on this stuff.
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
While this is true, WotC/Hasbro have not (yet) released any official or unofficial statement (AFAIK) denying the veracity of this leaked draft, so at the very least if it is real then even if it's not the final version, it does give us a great deal of insight into their plans, and we should let them know how we feel about what's in this draft so that they (hopefully) can take that in to account before they finalize the OGL 1.1.
Side note - it's hilarious but apparently on the D&D Discord they have banned all talk on the subject because it violates either the policy against spreading false information OR the policy against spreading IP that was illegally obtained, but they won't say which policy even though they are mutually exclusive. Either it is not accurate and spreading false info or it's accurate and is being spread illegally - but we won't tell you which! Schrodinger's OGL. LOL!
Yeah, I already ditched the official D&D Discord.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
It's possible that by 'unauthorized,' the (presumed) leaked document meant that - by signing into the 1.1 license you were agreeing that the 1.0 license no longer applies to you. So there wouldn't be confusion if a creator started saying 'well I don't have to report this book because it counts as 1.0. I only have to report this book that's under 1.1'
So if you wanted to create with the 1DnD SRD you just have to assume the 1.1 license applies to anything you make.
They are probably also trying to make sure that Paizo doesn't make a 1DnD version of Pathfinder the way they did 3.5 and 5e. At least that was my first thoughts when I read about it. Not so much destroying what had already happened, but preventing it in the future.
Not saying that's the case, just that it might be what they were trying to do. Legal contracts go through hundreds of revisions because of bad wording. It might be the very reason this wasn't the final draft and it wasn't released on time.
They have already said the OGL won't apply to things like VTTs, and that those companies work though different agreements the way a miniature manufacturer would. It wasn't the intent of the original license. And they are already negotiating with the big players.
20-25% is a massive chunk, even if it's only over a high threshold. If it's true, then yeah it's probably intended to just stop those high dollar projects altogether. There will be a lot of ways around it, but that might be the goal. And just to clarify because of the way it gets presented a lot, they aren't telling companies that they have to report all of their financials to them. Just the money they make on products that fall under the license. It might not feel much different to some people, but it is worth mentioning.
All in all, I'm not going to freak out over a leaked draft of something that isn't final. After we see the real license and the web portal they set up to help creators, we can decide if it's too much or not. And if they really screw it up, well they will feel it where it matters to them, the bottom line. Until then it's all just a bunch of people guessing
Considering if the leaked OGL doc comes to fruition, anyone who thinks it is ok, and still would support WotC after that, is part of the problem. This is corporatism at its worst.
Remember, they can change the amount of money they want at any point, with only an email. It will give them the power to crush anyone at any time. It will also allow them to publish the same work without that cost. So they can now undersell anyone that makes third-party content while threatening to cut you off at any time for any reason. Anyone that willing to participate in this business agreement is a fool.
Side note - it's hilarious but apparently on the D&D Discord they have banned all talk on the subject because it violates either the policy against spreading false information OR the policy against spreading IP that was illegally obtained, but they won't say which policy even though they are mutually exclusive.
It doesn't actually matter if they're mutually exclusive. As long as you know that one of them is true, you can state that it's against the rules (this is not a statement in favor of the reported changes... just if you're going to argue, make valid arguments).
It's possible that by 'unauthorized,' the (presumed) leaked document meant that - by signing into the 1.1 license you were agreeing that the 1.0 license no longer applies to you. So there wouldn't be confusion if a creator started saying 'well I don't have to report this book because it counts as 1.0. I only have to report this book that's under 1.1'
Unfortunately, this is one of the parts that was directly quoted in the article. Now, of course, this can (and hopefully will) change, but the direct quote from OGL 1.1 is:
"this agreement is…an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement."
Section 9 of OGL 1.0a allows you to use any "authorized" version for distributing any open gaming content. WotC-2000 stated this was to prevent future WotC from making any changes the community would disagree with since they could always use the best version of the OGL, including 1.0a, perpetually. Basically, WotC-2000 believed OGL 1.0a was irrevocable.
But that line quoted from the OGL 1.1 draft is WotC-2023's attempt to do exactly what WotC-2000 tried to prevent them from doing, revoking OGL 1.0a so that it is no longer a valid license for anyone to use. If they wanted to make anyone who agrees to OGL 1.1 to no longer use OGL 1.0a, there is language in the original 4e GSL, if I recall, that does that. But that are not choosing to do that here. They are specifically claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized. It's legally questionable and there is and will continue to be a ton of debate of whether it's possible, but either way, in this OGL 1.1 draft, WotC-2023 is trying to revoke OGL 1.0a from any use for anything in the future.
Side note - it's hilarious but apparently on the D&D Discord they have banned all talk on the subject because it violates either the policy against spreading false information OR the policy against spreading IP that was illegally obtained, but they won't say which policy even though they are mutually exclusive.
It doesn't actually matter if they're mutually exclusive. As long as you know that one of them is true, you can state that it's against the rules (this is not a statement in favor of the reported changes... just if you're going to argue, make valid arguments).
Of course, I'm not denying that or trying to read anything into it. I just find moderators having to officially state it violates one of those policies but they can't say which is funny. That's all.
Considering we never heard a peep about the Dragonlance launch debacle, I doubt we will hear anything about the OGL unless it is advantages to WotC. You can guarantee it will be full of fluff and legalese that will sooth the fanboys.
I've canceled my Dndbeyond master subscription and will no longer make WotC purchases until I am confident that "OGL 1.1" will not to attempt to de-authorize OGL 1.0. Royalties are indeed a concern for me, but the bigger issue is the proposed OGL 1.1 draft (which has been corroborated by independent journalists and Kickstarter) would grand WotC unrestricted licenses to undercut any 3rd party publisher content. That's incrediblyconcerning and would be surely contested in court.
And while I understand that there may be some conflicts of interests, it's been even more disappointing so see that community members defending WotC and those with some minor authority (i.e. Reddit and Dndbeyond mods) are actively stifling negative community response on this. That and the silence of major creators (they're probably under NDA and may unfortunately have to fall in line to protect their bottom lines) in the space has been frustrating to observe. I get the feeling the WotC will ultimately succeed in consolidating control.
Revenue (the wording in the leaked "OGL 1.1") does not equal profit. If a Kickstarter brings in $750,000 of revenue, and then has to spend money on things like artwork, printing, distribution, testing, etc... then they will now have to pay a portion (percentage?) of that money collected to Wizards. It doesn't matter what the product's actual profit is. That's why this is deceptive.
I don't think the changes to the OGL will be the end of the world for 3rd party creators. Think of it as an additional cost of doing business. Ultimately, the changes will likely increase their costs, and they will have to increase their prices in order to maintain their desired profit margin, but at the end of the day WoTC knows that 3rd party creators are essential, and would never outright kill the golden goose. (Much like 3rd party modders in the PC game industry)
If the leak is correct and it's what's WotC goes with for the updated OGL it absolutely could be the end of the world for third party creators.
The document gives Wizards "“nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. It also says “can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice.”
Wizards could tell a third party content creator that they can no longer sell anything under the new OGL after 30 days and start selling the content created under the license without paying a penny to the creators. Or WotC could start selling it or even just give it away for free on DND Beyond as soon as it's created.
I don't think the changes to the OGL will be the end of the world for 3rd party creators. Think of it as an additional cost of doing business. Ultimately, the changes will likely increase their costs, and they will have to increase their prices in order to maintain their desired profit margin, but at the end of the day WoTC knows that 3rd party creators are essential, and would never outright kill the golden goose. (Much like 3rd party modders in the PC game industry)
If the leak is correct and it's what's WotC goes with for the updated OGL it absolutely could be the end of the world for third party creators.
The document gives Wizards "“nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. It also says “can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice.”
Wizards could tell a third party content creator that they can no longer sell anything under the new OGL after 30 days and start selling the content created under the license without paying a penny to the creators. Or WotC could start selling it or even just give it away for free on DND Beyond as soon as it's created.
They could, but I don't think they would take it that far. Bad will can be very costly for a corporation, and if they systematically start screwing 3rd party creators to the fullest extent of the contract, that's exactly what will happen. In the age of the Internet, it's not easy to sweep this kind of behavior under the rug.
Really disappointed to see this controlling, corporate attitude from WOTC. The value of d&d is the community around it, and the open collaboration - and this move is about pure greed, destroying something good for a moment of profit. My group is happy to go elsewhere. Certainly going to stop giving WOTC our money for the time being, but more importantly, you've lost a big chunk of our trust. Gonna have to roll pretty good persuasion to get it back.
Revenue (the wording in the leaked "OGL 1.1") does not equal profit. If a Kickstarter brings in $750,000 of revenue, and then has to spend money on things like artwork, printing, distribution, testing, etc... then they will now have to pay a portion (percentage?) of that money collected to Wizards. It doesn't matter what the product's actual profit is. That's why this is deceptive.
I'm not advocating this practice, but it's not unheard of. It's not uncommon for rental contracts to contain a provision where a (business) tenant agrees to pay the landlord a percentage of their revenue. If the business in question is otherwise viable, the fee is just another cost of doing business.
It's possible that by 'unauthorized,' the (presumed) leaked document meant that - by signing into the 1.1 license you were agreeing that the 1.0 license no longer applies to you. So there wouldn't be confusion if a creator started saying 'well I don't have to report this book because it counts as 1.0. I only have to report this book that's under 1.1'
Unfortunately, this is one of the parts that was directly quoted in the article. Now, of course, this can (and hopefully will) change, but the direct quote from OGL 1.1 is:
"this agreement is…an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement."
Section 9 of OGL 1.0a allows you to use any "authorized" version for distributing any open gaming content. WotC-2000 stated this was to prevent future WotC from making any changes the community would disagree with since they could always use the best version of the OGL, including 1.0a, perpetually. Basically, WotC-2000 believed OGL 1.0a was irrevocable.
But that line quoted from the OGL 1.1 draft is WotC-2023's attempt to do exactly what WotC-2000 tried to prevent them from doing, revoking OGL 1.0a so that it is no longer a valid license for anyone to use. If they wanted to make anyone who agrees to OGL 1.1 to no longer use OGL 1.0a, there is language in the original 4e GSL, if I recall, that does that. But that are not choosing to do that here. They are specifically claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized. It's legally questionable and there is and will continue to be a ton of debate of whether it's possible, but either way, in this OGL 1.1 draft, WotC-2023 is trying to revoke OGL 1.0a from any use for anything in the future.
That interpretation could be correct. What I was saying was based on the fact that 1.1 is a license you have to actively opt into. You have to sign on with it. So the language in it applies to the people that use it. There could be an interpretation that it means if you sign onto the 1.1 license, that the 1.0 version is unauthorized for you specifically. It could be the fact that it is badly worded and out of context that it appears to be an attempt to unauthorize 1.0 for everyone. Which is why it might be the draft needed a revision. A legal document like a 9000 page license is going to have a lot of context at the beginning that would be helpful here. Things that say stuff like "by agreeing to this license you are agreeing to the terms within." Again, not saying this is what it is, just that there are other possible interpretations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Side note - it's hilarious but apparently on the D&D Discord they have banned all talk on the subject because it violates either the policy against spreading false information OR the policy against spreading IP that was illegally obtained, but they won't say which policy even though they are mutually exclusive. Either it is not accurate and spreading false info or it's accurate and is being spread illegally - but we won't tell you which! Schrodinger's OGL. LOL!
So, this part fascinates me:
I wonder why, rather than have this draconian measure of an OGL, why they don't create an actual OGL but with broader usage terms. Hey, you want to use Forgotten Realms? You fall under 1.1. Those of you crowding out there for Dark Sun? Great, use OGL 1.1. Yep, that's right its gotta go through our new moral standards board, and your paying a higher percentage of your sales, but you are now authorized to use our IP. Kingdoms of Kalamar? Yep, no problem, 25% off everything above $750,000.
I have no empirical evidence, but my feeling is that should they do this, create a broader OGL that allows use of some of their IP's, they could lower that threshold of revenue, create a tiered royalty list, and make bank. If Kobold Press or another outstanding publisher produced Dark Sun, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
In my head, that OGL now makes them money.
This OGL 1.1 is a big deal, because it'll make or break D&D as we know it. Maybe it's gonna change before the official announcement. In my opinion it reeks, and tbh I'm pretty heated about this.
The actual reason (my speculation) the OGL is being updated is because:
It's all to protect their investment in D&DBeyond. I can't disagree that D&DBeyond is the #1 at what it does atm, but it's #1 because it's the best that we have - not because it has a monopoly on this stuff.
Yeah, I already ditched the official D&D Discord.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
It's possible that by 'unauthorized,' the (presumed) leaked document meant that - by signing into the 1.1 license you were agreeing that the 1.0 license no longer applies to you. So there wouldn't be confusion if a creator started saying 'well I don't have to report this book because it counts as 1.0. I only have to report this book that's under 1.1'
So if you wanted to create with the 1DnD SRD you just have to assume the 1.1 license applies to anything you make.
They are probably also trying to make sure that Paizo doesn't make a 1DnD version of Pathfinder the way they did 3.5 and 5e. At least that was my first thoughts when I read about it. Not so much destroying what had already happened, but preventing it in the future.
Not saying that's the case, just that it might be what they were trying to do. Legal contracts go through hundreds of revisions because of bad wording. It might be the very reason this wasn't the final draft and it wasn't released on time.
They have already said the OGL won't apply to things like VTTs, and that those companies work though different agreements the way a miniature manufacturer would. It wasn't the intent of the original license. And they are already negotiating with the big players.
20-25% is a massive chunk, even if it's only over a high threshold. If it's true, then yeah it's probably intended to just stop those high dollar projects altogether. There will be a lot of ways around it, but that might be the goal. And just to clarify because of the way it gets presented a lot, they aren't telling companies that they have to report all of their financials to them. Just the money they make on products that fall under the license. It might not feel much different to some people, but it is worth mentioning.
All in all, I'm not going to freak out over a leaked draft of something that isn't final. After we see the real license and the web portal they set up to help creators, we can decide if it's too much or not. And if they really screw it up, well they will feel it where it matters to them, the bottom line. Until then it's all just a bunch of people guessing
Considering if the leaked OGL doc comes to fruition, anyone who thinks it is ok, and still would support WotC after that, is part of the problem. This is corporatism at its worst.
Remember, they can change the amount of money they want at any point, with only an email. It will give them the power to crush anyone at any time. It will also allow them to publish the same work without that cost. So they can now undersell anyone that makes third-party content while threatening to cut you off at any time for any reason. Anyone that willing to participate in this business agreement is a fool.
It doesn't actually matter if they're mutually exclusive. As long as you know that one of them is true, you can state that it's against the rules (this is not a statement in favor of the reported changes... just if you're going to argue, make valid arguments).
Unfortunately, this is one of the parts that was directly quoted in the article. Now, of course, this can (and hopefully will) change, but the direct quote from OGL 1.1 is:
Section 9 of OGL 1.0a allows you to use any "authorized" version for distributing any open gaming content. WotC-2000 stated this was to prevent future WotC from making any changes the community would disagree with since they could always use the best version of the OGL, including 1.0a, perpetually. Basically, WotC-2000 believed OGL 1.0a was irrevocable.
But that line quoted from the OGL 1.1 draft is WotC-2023's attempt to do exactly what WotC-2000 tried to prevent them from doing, revoking OGL 1.0a so that it is no longer a valid license for anyone to use. If they wanted to make anyone who agrees to OGL 1.1 to no longer use OGL 1.0a, there is language in the original 4e GSL, if I recall, that does that. But that are not choosing to do that here. They are specifically claiming that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized. It's legally questionable and there is and will continue to be a ton of debate of whether it's possible, but either way, in this OGL 1.1 draft, WotC-2023 is trying to revoke OGL 1.0a from any use for anything in the future.
Of course, I'm not denying that or trying to read anything into it. I just find moderators having to officially state it violates one of those policies but they can't say which is funny. That's all.
Us: "Is this leaked document real or is it fake?"
WotC: "Yes, one of those."
Exactly, why would we agree to a set of terms that we cannot view or read?
Considering we never heard a peep about the Dragonlance launch debacle, I doubt we will hear anything about the OGL unless it is advantages to WotC. You can guarantee it will be full of fluff and legalese that will sooth the fanboys.
I've canceled my Dndbeyond master subscription and will no longer make WotC purchases until I am confident that "OGL 1.1" will not to attempt to de-authorize OGL 1.0. Royalties are indeed a concern for me, but the bigger issue is the proposed OGL 1.1 draft (which has been corroborated by independent journalists and Kickstarter) would grand WotC unrestricted licenses to undercut any 3rd party publisher content. That's incredibly concerning and would be surely contested in court.
And while I understand that there may be some conflicts of interests, it's been even more disappointing so see that community members defending WotC and those with some minor authority (i.e. Reddit and Dndbeyond mods) are actively stifling negative community response on this. That and the silence of major creators (they're probably under NDA and may unfortunately have to fall in line to protect their bottom lines) in the space has been frustrating to observe. I get the feeling the WotC will ultimately succeed in consolidating control.
Revenue (the wording in the leaked "OGL 1.1") does not equal profit. If a Kickstarter brings in $750,000 of revenue, and then has to spend money on things like artwork, printing, distribution, testing, etc... then they will now have to pay a portion (percentage?) of that money collected to Wizards. It doesn't matter what the product's actual profit is. That's why this is deceptive.
If the leak is correct and it's what's WotC goes with for the updated OGL it absolutely could be the end of the world for third party creators.
The document gives Wizards "“nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”. It also says “can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice.”
Wizards could tell a third party content creator that they can no longer sell anything under the new OGL after 30 days and start selling the content created under the license without paying a penny to the creators. Or WotC could start selling it or even just give it away for free on DND Beyond as soon as it's created.
They could, but I don't think they would take it that far. Bad will can be very costly for a corporation, and if they systematically start screwing 3rd party creators to the fullest extent of the contract, that's exactly what will happen. In the age of the Internet, it's not easy to sweep this kind of behavior under the rug.
Really disappointed to see this controlling, corporate attitude from WOTC. The value of d&d is the community around it, and the open collaboration - and this move is about pure greed, destroying something good for a moment of profit. My group is happy to go elsewhere. Certainly going to stop giving WOTC our money for the time being, but more importantly, you've lost a big chunk of our trust. Gonna have to roll pretty good persuasion to get it back.
I just had a thought...
I wonder if WoTC intentionally leaked the data as a way to surreptitiously gage the communities reaction (to judge how far they can go)...
I'm not advocating this practice, but it's not unheard of. It's not uncommon for rental contracts to contain a provision where a (business) tenant agrees to pay the landlord a percentage of their revenue. If the business in question is otherwise viable, the fee is just another cost of doing business.
That interpretation could be correct. What I was saying was based on the fact that 1.1 is a license you have to actively opt into. You have to sign on with it. So the language in it applies to the people that use it. There could be an interpretation that it means if you sign onto the 1.1 license, that the 1.0 version is unauthorized for you specifically. It could be the fact that it is badly worded and out of context that it appears to be an attempt to unauthorize 1.0 for everyone. Which is why it might be the draft needed a revision. A legal document like a 9000 page license is going to have a lot of context at the beginning that would be helpful here. Things that say stuff like "by agreeing to this license you are agreeing to the terms within." Again, not saying this is what it is, just that there are other possible interpretations.