To start, here is what this thread is not about: It is not about the contents of the alleged draft OGL 1.1.  It is not about wild speculation.  It is not about unproductive commentary like “Wizards is doing this because they are evil.”  If you want to engage in that or respond to any posts others make about that, there are a dozen or so other threads to choose from.

This thread is about addressing a certain argument that has been raised on those other threads - the proposition that the OGL did not need to change.  This proposition is incorrect, as is plainly apparent from actual statements from Wizards and actual facts about recent events and how Wizards operates as a company.

Below, I will spell out the five reasons (presented in no particular order) Wizards has given or heavily implied are their reasons for changing OGL 1.0, all of which follow from this article.  There may be other reasons as well, but this is sticking just with actual facts and statements, and the reasonable extrapolation therefrom in light of other tangible facts.

Reason One: NFTs

As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”

NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.  Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.  As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.

The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.  Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from

Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.

As folks likely know, content published under the OGL must contain various notices of the use of Wizards’ intellectual property.  This very easily could result in racist content that is directly tied to Wizards of the Coast - something which both reflects poorly on the game and on the player base itself.  Wizards has expressed a desire to change the OGL to better limit hate speech and bigotry published under their brand.

Recent events have put this weakness of the current OGL to the forefront of Wizards’ mind.  Ernest Gygax - one of D&D’s founders, son of Gary, and original player of Tenser (which is an anagram for Ernest) - is presently being sued for taking Wizards intellectual property and tarnishing the brand by releasing racist content under that brand name.  Specifically, he is trying to publish a new version of Star Frontiers, which Wizards owns and which Wizards still licenses the same of pdfs of old rule books for, with content like “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others” (actual quote) and worse.

That lawsuit has exposed an inherent weakness in OGL 1.0 - Star Frontiers has a substantial amount of protection from folks who would illegally use Wizards’ IP for racist purposes, but OGL 1.0 opens up publication of D&D-tied content with similarly horrific language contained within.

Wizards has been lucky so far - they have not had a major figure like Ernest Gygax attempt to abuse OGL 1.0 in this manner.  It likely was not even a major concern in their mind when OGL 1.0 was drafted.  But the existence of one such instance indicates the possibilities of others, and luck is hardly the shield explicit contractual language would be.  Rather than risk another Star Frontiers situation, but this time with content Wizards has freely given the community, updating the OGL to prevent this kind of third-party content is the most sensible course of action.

Reason Three: Data collection.

Wizards has consistently said that sales data is one of their most important assets.  For both D&D and Magic, they have talked about how carefully they collect and track product data to know what types of product players like, and determine what settings, themes, and other elements folks enjoy.

When OGL 1.0 was drafted, Wizards likely did not know the extent to which 5e would take off. Many elements in 5e’s success were external - Stranger Things, shows like Critical Role becoming cultural phenomenons, a global pandemic - greatly expanding D&D’s popularity to new heights.

This in turn led to a surge in third party content being created - content Wizards does not necessarily receive sales data on.  This unprecedented surge in third-party sales impacts Wizards’ ability to better tune and target their own products as they do not receive the same level of data collection they historically relied upon.  The reporting requirements Wizards has stated the new OGL will contain for larger third-party developers are all but certainly designed to help recapture this otherwise lost data.

Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.

Right now, there is nothing stopping Amazon or any other large company from mass producing mass-scale products rivalling D&D.  Recently, Amazon dipped its toes in the D&D business with their publication of Critical Role’s Vox Machina.  While Critical Role did an admirable job respecting Wizards’ rights with the show, Amazon is not exactly known for being the most respectful of other people’s products and designs.  An updated OGL will prevent someone like Amazon from releasing a product at a scale unprecedented by existing third-party contributors.

Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.

Almost certainly the most controversial on this list, Wizards is clearly return to recapture revenue from the largest creators (they have said there are only about twenty such creators at the scale for their royalty component to kick in).

D&D is and always has been the largest tabletop RPG - the data saying Pathfinder sold more than D&D 4e is incomplete - it looks only at local game store sales, which are stores frequented by folks already inclined toward gaming.  It ignores big box stores, major bookstore chains, and Amazon, all of which are more frequented by folks who are more casual gamers. Casual gamers are going to gravitate toward the name they recognise, and no name in the industry is more recognisable than Dungeons & Dragons.  Additionally, the LGS data misses the subscription service D&D Insider, which provided the totality of 4e content online. As such, the LGS sales data misses two major chunks of 4e sales, both of which would put 4e above Pathfinder for the general populations

Why is that relevant?  The major third party creators want to make products compatible with D&D - it is better to take a small chunk out of a big pie, than a slightly larger chunk out of a small pie. They have grown to the size they have specifically because they are relying on Wizards’ intellectual property and (more importantly) Wizards’ unrivalled popularity and brand recognition within the industry.

They are successful because of Wizards and the OGL while simultaneously siphoning customers to their products and away from Wizards’, and Wizards wants to reclaim a portion of those lost profits, receiving some compensation for the fact those third-parties would not be as large as they are if they had relied on non-Wizards intellectual property.

Now, there is legitimate reason for controversy on this point - it can be argued that those third parties are providing advertising and increase Wizards’ prestige and encourage folks who might not otherwise buy D&D product to buy official content.  That is a legitimate topic of conversation, and one you can bet Wizards is discussing and negotiating with the twenty or so third party sellers at a sufficiently large scale for royalties to kick in. It is not something we on the forums can really discuss, as it would involve complex financial records and data we simply do not have access to.

TL;DR:  The world has changed a lot since OGL 1.0, in terms of the game’s popularity, threats which did not exist or were not apparent at the time of OGL 1.0 (NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content), and a rise of third party sales unprecedented by early editions.

OGL 1.0 does not address the realities of the world we live in and needs to be updated.  The exact shape of the update is still to be decided—and what form that update should take is one I am sure folks will be debating on other threads up to and beyond the OGL 1.1 release.

(Updated to reflect reasons Wizards stated they are moving away from)

I do agree. The OGL needed an update, but IF the leak is true, it goes too far. I respect that you are not just looking at the bad things.

Updates to the OGL to avoid things like hate speech, NFTs, and the like would not have gone poorly.  Most reasonable people can understand the need for these things.

The 1.1 document, as best we understand it at this time, shows a level of animosity towards third-party creators that cannot be excused by phrases such as "recapturing lost revenue".  The proposed terms are tyrannical and draconian in the extreme, and only an utter fool would agree to them.  The proposed terms are effectively a block on all third-party content, with the penalty for disobeying the block being Wizards appropriating your creation and then discontinuing your contract once you have done what amounts to unpaid product development for them. 

Whether or not Wizards would use the terms of the new OGL to 'steal' creators' work is honestly irrelevant - I'm well aware that licensing requirements often sound scarier than they are, but the proposed terms include the magic trifecta of "we're allowed to take your work and do whatever we wish with it, we're allowed to discontinue your ability to produce work yourself at any time for any reason, and you are disallowed to take any legal action against us for any of it."  That level of maliciousness is not necessary to protect Wizards from new Ernest Gygax situations, and it actively harms Objective 3 because it prevents third-party creators from testing the market with products Wizards would never bother to create and sell and possibly happening upon something the company wouldn't have thought people wanted.

The only conclusion I can draw from the information available to us at this time is that Wizards - or rather, Hasbro - actively desires the complete cessation of all third-party content.  Any businessman worth his criminal portfolio would be able to see that terms this harsh would destroy the thriving third-party ecosystem that has made D&D the de facto industry standard for tabletop gaming.  What this says to me is that Hasbro is targeting the casual markets at the explicit expense of the core fanbase for the product, because that is how Hasbro operates.  Why sell a fifty-dollar game book to a hundred thousand people from a dedicated gaming store when you can sell a five-dollar D&D Brand Travel Game to ten million people from Target?  Hasbro is not interested in serving a dedicated gaming fanbase, that is not their business model and never has been.  Hasbro is interested in selling inexpensive products to the largest possible number of people, regardless of whether those products will be used. 

Wizards, despite my hatred of the company, is not stupid enough to pull this sort of move.  Hasbro, on the other hand?  This fits them to a T.  Hasbro does not tolerate OGL-style third-party usage of their IP, at all.  I can imagine this is a directive from on high, and Wizards is not permitted to back off of it even though the D&D team knows full well how toxic this move is for their brand.

"Freedom of speech" has nothing to do with anything, Slaughter.  First of all, that's strictly a United States thing.  Second of all, it only applies to the government - the U.S. government cannot impinge on your ability to speak.  Wizards is, thank god, not the U.S. government and can impinge on the speech of its customers all they like.  Given the amount of fire large corporations take for screwing up on the Hate Speech thing, updating the OGL to include terms allowing Wizards to disavow any product made that violates their policies of inclusivity is one of the few updates they could make to the OGL that would be lauded rather than lambasted.  As Caerwyn stated, just because Wizards has been lucky so far doesn't mean somebody can't use the current OGL to publish "THE RACIST'S GUIDE TO GENOCIDE" with a Wizards of the Coast logo, and they don't want to have to sort that mess.

One can easily conclude from the whole picture that the "necessary changes" to the OGL you outline can and are also being used as a convenient trojan horse for clearly less-necessary, more extortive changes. The terms "lost profits" and "lost revenue" are just nice-sounding, sympathy-stirring, business-school-speak for "our investors feel entitled to more of your money, and we are coming for it". Otherwise, why not instead come to the entire community with the problems you outline? We are a smart folk, and there are indeed a lot of us. Together, we've got this for sure.

"Hey creators and fans, there are some issues we all did not foresee when we first made the OGL! Let's all work together in good faith and figure these things out together, to protect us all." - A Fictional WoTC Spokesperson

Obviously, this call for working together for common interest did not actually happen. It's hard not to see why. WoTC's behaviour here is not actually about those things at all. The chief aim wasn't a common interest, It was a Hasbro/WoTC business interest - i.e. for investor interest.

Also, I'm curious about your personal definition of "evil" here. What is it exactly? Because despite your opening statement, labelling something "evil" actually does serve useful purpose. That purpose is to rouse and rally resistance, and provoke action when negotiation and dialogue has been terminated - or, like here, has never even been engaged - and the physical or legal strong-arming by the powerful against the individually weak has begun. In other words, it is very much "productive commentary", if for nothing else than to provoke the very dialogue that Wizards yet to engage.

Slaughter Machine - Every one of your points is flawed.  You’ll have to excuse the brevity of some of these responses, since a phone is not exactly conductive to longer posts, but I will try to address your concerns.

Regarding NFTs:  As written, OGL 1.0 is fairly broad in terms of what types of content folks can make.  Hypothetically, someone can make NFTs using OGL content under the current rules.  Yes, there would likely be other mechanisms Wizards might have for enforcement, but those mechanisms would be hampered by the existence of OGL 1.0.  Additionally, I have actually appeared before judges and tried to explain things like blockchain, NFTs, and crypto - it was an abject disaster and the judge clearly did not understand any of it.  More stringent protections that explicitly spell out what can and cannot be done with Wizards’ IP on the blockchain are necessary to address the reality that the court system has not caught up with technology. 

Regarding Freedom of Speech: Unless you contend that Wizards of the Coast is an arm of the United States government (or another government with similar freedom of speech protections in their country) that argument is completely inapplicable.  If you do not know why that argument is inapplicable, I suggest you take a basic civics class, since you fundamentally do not understand the First Amendment. 

Wizards has a constitutional right to their own speech, however, and that means protecting their right to have their brand name only associated with things they see as positive.   After all, anything that is OGL content will say “and we based this on Wizards’ D&D!” in it, they don’t want that disclaimer to be slapped across racist content.  Presently, the OGL does not spell out what type of content is allowed - which gives folks leeway to do what they wish and, again, could complicate any enforcement actions. 

And that is the irony of your post - your “freedom of speech” argument is not advocating for legally protected speech, it is seeking to limit it. 

Your response to reason three: This is nothing but speculation - we do not know how third parties will react as we do not even know the final terms.  Speculation is not the point of this thread - reality is.

Reason Four: Your understanding of trademark is similar to your understanding of the first amendment - flawed.  Under the current OGL, a massive publisher like Amazon could make product for D&D at a scale unprecedented among other third parties - and that is not outside the realm of possibility given Amazon’s recent interest in D&D and habit of releasing knock off products under their own brand.   They could do all of that without violating trademark law - they would just need to rely on the OGL to use what parts of Wizards’ IP Wizards allows others to use, while not touching the things that would get them in trouble. 

Point Five: Again, if you had read the post, you would see I already addressed that third party content can also spur official purchases, so it is not as clear cut as other points.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

To start, here is what this thread is not about: It is not about the contents of the alleged draft OGL 1.1.  It is not about wild speculation.  It is not about unproductive commentary like “Wizards is doing this because they are evil.”  If you want to engage in that or respond to any posts others make about that, there are a dozen or so other threads to choose from.

SNIP!

 Yes, I agree. The OGL is old and needs to be upgraded for the brands growth and to deal with new technologies and competitors. However, the leaked document is valid. It is. Saying it's rumour or whatever dismisses the fact that a journalist has obtained and published this. It's a legitimate leaked document, happens in journalism all the time.

And further, everything you've written refers to what WoTC have said in their post in response to the leak. What they say is their intent. But if you accept that the leaked document is legit, and one should, then you recognize that this legal doc is, frankly, corporate lawyer sop; slash and burn, corporate IP copyright legal over-reach. Most corporations have similar legal documents. So reading this I wasn't shocked at the far reaching position of this doc at all, because it's more or less standard.

Try publishing anything that looks like Mickey Mouse. There's a saying among publishers and artists... "never **** with the mouse".

So, I can't dismiss this leak, and I can't accept the position of WoTC (or the OPs post) since their intent, as put forth in their post, completely contradicts what the leaked document actually says.

First, I said yes. there should be some sort of restrictions for non-gaming content. (NFT, movies, etc)  The OGL should be limited to gaming material.

Second, freedom of speech meaning I (or anyone else) can write an maximumly offensive adventure using D&D name and content and drop it on an Internet and there is nothing WotC or anyone can do about that.  It only becomes a real problem if I attempt to monetize it.

Third: Again, I said WotC should be able to protect their Trademarks.

Fourth: The OGL is the OGL for a reason, because it helps foster the game D&D which WotC owns.  Anyone can compete with WotC, that's what free enterprise is.   If Amazon or anyone else decides to create a competing game.  Then WotC, just like every other company has to do with a competing product comes to market.  Deal with it.  That's life in the business  world.

I will point out this fact.  If you want people to buy your adventures over a competing company's adventures.  Write better adventures.     Most of the adventure books released by WotC are lacking in many ways.  Of course, many 3rd party adventures are too, but some of the best adventures released for 5E are 3rd party adventures.   Of WotC wants to sell adventures over 3rd party adventures, then I suggest they write better adventures and stop republishing less than stellar past adventures.  Or if you are going to republish them.  Don't just port them to <insert version here>  Update them to be better and more immersive.

I mean when artist re-release their music.  It's usually remaster for better sound quality.   They don't just spit the exact same unchanged recording in a new format (cd, mp3, etc)

I'm all for WotC making money. (I'm an investor and a business man.  I do know where they are coming from)   Though, I also know not to shit where I eat and D&D is what it is today because of 3rd parties.  Not just because WotC owns it.

Alevecrys - Your points are either irrelevant or based on needless speculation.  I

NFTs - Wizards’ ability to publish NFTs is not at issue here, so nothing you say here is of any relevance to this thread. 

Sensitivity experts - That is for their own content and is not relevant to third party content. 

Data collection - With better writing, you might have had a cognisant point - does Wizards have the right to third party data?  The OGL is a contract, and contracts can contract for many types of consideration (what a side gives the other side).  In exchange for using things that are copyrightable by Wizards (the mechanics might not be, but the names of spells and such are - your statement at the end of the thread about how the OGL contains nothing of copyright is simply wrong)., Wizards is asking for some data.  That would be a valid term in a contract between two people, and is not uncommon in intellectual property licensing deals of this sort. 

Your response to reason four is based on an alleged draft and thus mere speculation and therefore is not relevant. 

Your response to point five ignores the fact that Wizards has done the vast majority of the work to build the brand name that third party content creators are capitalising on.  There are legitimate reasons to call point five into doubt - I pointed out a few myself.  Laziness is not one of those.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their logo.

 

This is incorrect. The OGL does not and never has allowed the use of any of WotC's logos. In fact, it specifically denies the right to claim compatibility.

The use of "Star Frontiers" as a product name and brand relates to other issues completely unrelated to the OGL, primarily an expired trademark that WotC decided not renew, I believe. But either way, it is currently part of a lawsuit which is, again, completely and utterly unrelated to the OGL.

I feel like OP's initial post is a bit of a strawman argument.

WotC could have created a new license without killing the old ones, thus allowing 3PP to make content for 3e and 5e using those older licenses.

Quote from SlaughterMachine >>

Second, freedom of speech meaning I (or anyone else) can write an maximumly offensive adventure using D&D name and content and drop it on an Internet and there is nothing WotC or anyone can do about that.  It only becomes a real problem if I attempt to monetize it.

I think the rest of your post begins to show an understanding of why Wizards might be inclined to make the changes, so I am not going to respond and engage in circular discussions - there is enough back and forth going nowhere on other threads.

However, I did want to take a moment to address this because it is simply wrong.  Monetising racism is clearly worse than not; but whether monetised or not, Wizards is still harmed.  As Yurei noted above, OGL content, whether commercial or not, has D&D’s name slapped on it—and having your name even associated with racist content can be horrific for a brand, generating bad press.  Even if the racist is not profiting from Wizards’ IP, they are still financially harming Wizards by virtue of linking Wizards and racism.  You’d end up seeing all kinds of articles decrying Wizards for not better preventing the content; all kinds of accusations that they are tacitly endorsing the content by not taking action.  You’d then have to have a legal fight - one which would be expensive (litigation is hardly cheep) and which would be made more difficult because the racist would use Wizards’ own OGL as a shield.  

That is all bad for Wizards, and putting a big “don’t attach our brand name to racism” hole in the shield makes it easier for Wizards to respond to allegations they are not doing enough (“thanks for letting us know about it - they are in violation of these specific terms, so we already have a plan in place for this exact kind of situation.”) and makes their job in litigation easier. 

I want to be clear about where I am coming from. A few years back I had to deal with racism, anti-Semitism, and hate speech from an individual I licensed IP from.  I paid the price for my principles as well. Seeing my income from RPG material dropping from hundreds of dollars per month to tens of dollars per month. 

Surrendering freedom, creative or otherwise, to an oligarchy like Wizards of the Coast will not solve the problems of racism and hate. We are surrendering our power to control our creative works to somebody else's control. We reduce ourselves to supplicants entreating a supreme authority instead being of able to take direct action ourselves. I won't tell you what to do, but as for myself I will not surrender my right to act in the manner I see fit in the form I see fit.

I will remind folks that the reason for the OGL 1.0a existence in the first place was the destructive collapse of TSR in the late 1990s. D&D is important to our industry and hobby. Circa 1995, that was understood but in a more vague way. Faced with D&D publication being entangled in a complicated web of IP conflict if TSR went under, it struck home just how bad D&D's loss would be for the hobby both culturally and financially. Ryan Dancey and crew had the power and foresight to ensure that would never happen again and more importantly acted upon it. Not just in case if the future IP holder of D&D went bankrupt. But also to protect D&D from the type of bad corporate decisions that brought down TSR, to begin with.

Now for the second time since the OGL's creation, we are faced with another round of bad corporate decisions. And the OGL is being tested like never before. 

The OP is an accurate description of the siren song that Wizards is weaving in order to try to entice you into surrender. To reduce the makers among us to creative serfdom. Maybe this isn't the most important issue in the grand scheme of things. But for many, this hobby is a second home, and a livelihood. Don't give in, resist, keep the control you have over your hobby and industry, and let your voices be heard. 

Submitted with all due respect

Robert Conley

Bat in the Attic Games

Quote from KenMarable >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their logo.

 

This is incorrect. The OGL does not and never has allowed the use of any of WotC's logos. In fact, it specifically denies the right to claim compatibility.

The use of "Star Frontiers" as a product name and brand relates to other issues completely unrelated to the OGL, primarily an expired trademark that WotC decided not renew, I believe. But either way, it is currently part of a lawsuit which is, again, completely and utterly unrelated to the OGL.

 
I should have written “brand” not “logo” and will correct that error. What the OGL does require, however, is various disclosures that clearly tie the OGL product to Wizards—even if there is not Wizards’ logo, there are Wizards’ fingerprints all over any OGL content, enough that racist content published under the OGL can and would cause problems for Wizards.

As for Star Frontiers, as acknowledged it is not covered by the OGL.  However, that lawsuit is all but certainly at the forefront of Wizards’ mind - their lawyers are all but certainly telling them “so, you dodged a bullet this time, but next time, if this was under the OGL, we would have problems - we need to update that.”  I know that is what I would say if I were their attorney. 

If you want to look at it through that lens,  the whole DND system is a game of quantifiable racism.  Anything that is one class of things versus another Players vs Monsters, Elves vs Goblins, Orcs vs Dwarves..... You can make claims that player characters are a study in class privilege..... but that is a whole other deep dive.  

 would not the NFT and bigotry problems be substantially addressed by the fact that OGL 1.0a does not cover product identity?

third parties already cannot use the official D&D logos, characters, storylines, tradedresses or trademarks in their own content, which is why 3pps tend to use their own branding as is; the branding on Kobold Press' Creature Codex for example does not resemble WotC's official books in any way for this reason. you acknowledged earlier that Star Frontiers' product identity is not covered by OGL 1.0a, and anything of a similar nature which is actually made under 1.0a cannot bear WotC-Hasbro's branding outside of the mechanical similarities and a small handful of races/monsters

you could still make NFTs or bigoted content featuring like. tieflings. or something, under 1.0a. but at this point the concept of a tiefling is about as synonymous across fantasy products as elves and dwarves are and aren't treated as a WotC D&D exclusive "thing"

If you want to look at it through that lens,  the whole DND system is a game of quantifiable racism.  Anything that is one class of things versus another Players vs Monsters, Elves vs Goblins, Orcs vs Dwarves..... You can make claims that player characters are a study in class privilege..... but that is a whole other deep dive.

alright i'm putting on my official bakunin certified socialist hat and saying for clarity that class in the marxian sense has absolutely nothing to do with character classes in DnD terms. i wont launch into a screed or anything, suffice to say that "class privelege" as lefties use it and character classes in DnD isn't just comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing apples to rare earth minerals. these are different categories of ideas altogether with effectively nothing in common

there is a stronger argument to be made that there's a kernel of racial prejudice in the core of DnD however, and that's something which is quite a bit more difficult to meaningfully address, since the whole "distinct races with distinct physical and mental attributes" thing goes as far back as tolkien and the works he based middle earth off of, though yeah, ernest's, hrrrm, choice of words in describing races is especially poor.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from SlaughterMachine >>

Second, freedom of speech meaning I (or anyone else) can write an maximumly offensive adventure using D&D name and content and drop it on an Internet and there is nothing WotC or anyone can do about that.  It only becomes a real problem if I attempt to monetize it.

 

I think the rest of your post begins to show an understanding of why Wizards might be inclined to make the changes, so I am not going to respond and engage in circular discussions - there is enough back and forth going nowhere on other threads.

However, I did want to take a moment to address this because it is simply wrong.  Monetising racism is clearly worse than not; but whether monetised or not, Wizards is still harmed.  As Yurei noted above, OGL content, whether commercial or not, has D&D’s name slapped on it—and having your name even associated with racist content can be horrific for a brand, generating bad press.  Even if the racist is not profiting from Wizards’ IP, they are still financially harming Wizards by virtue of linking Wizards and racism.  You’d end up seeing all kinds of articles decrying Wizards for not better preventing the content; all kinds of accusations that they are tacitly endorsing the content by not taking action.  You’d then have to have a legal fight - one which would be expensive (litigation is hardly cheep) and which would be made more difficult because the racist would use Wizards’ own OGL as a shield.  

That is all bad for Wizards, and putting a big “don’t attach our brand name to racism” hole in the shield makes it easier for Wizards to respond to allegations they are not doing enough (“thanks for letting us know about it - they are in violation of these specific terms, so we already have a plan in place for this exact kind of situation.”) and makes their job in litigation easier. 

 I agree, but nothing can prevent it if someone wants to write it and post it somewhere on the Internet.

I certainly won't use it, though David Duke and his minions might.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from KenMarable >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

 

Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their logo.

 

This is incorrect. The OGL does not and never has allowed the use of any of WotC's logos. In fact, it specifically denies the right to claim compatibility.

The use of "Star Frontiers" as a product name and brand relates to other issues completely unrelated to the OGL, primarily an expired trademark that WotC decided not renew, I believe. But either way, it is currently part of a lawsuit which is, again, completely and utterly unrelated to the OGL.

 
I should have written “brand” not “logo” and will correct that error. What the OGL does require, however, is various disclosures that clearly tie the OGL product to Wizards—even if there is not Wizards’ logo, there are Wizards’ fingerprints all over any OGL content, enough that racist content published under the OGL can and would cause problems for Wizards.

As for Star Frontiers, as acknowledged it is not covered by the OGL.  However, that lawsuit is all but certainly at the forefront of Wizards’ mind - their lawyers are all but certainly telling them “so, you dodged a bullet this time, but next time, if this was under the OGL, we would have problems - we need to update that.”  I know that is what I would say if I were their attorney. 

What "various disclosures"? The section 15 mention at the very end of a big block of legalese that is usually on the last page of a book in small print? I'm not sure the level of association between OGL products and WotC's brand is enough to force WotC to need to make this change.

Moving against bigotry is good, but the level of association between OGL products and Wizards of the Coast itself is intentionally distant enough that to claim their brand is harmed so that they need to update the OGL just does not hold. In over 20 years of products, the best example you came up with isn't even an OGL issue. Bigoted products are bad and should be shunned. However, the level of impact on WotC's own brand is so trivial or even nonexistent that taking legal steps to prevent it is wholly unnecessary (and likely useless anyway given the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" approach).

Aside from the possible trademark infringement of Star Frontiers, there has not been a notable case in 20 years of a bigoted or problematic product being directly associated with WotC since the Book of Erotic Fantasy in 2003, and that was because it used the d20 logo which was permissible under a different license. (Also that was not even an issue of bigotry but of graphic sexual content.) In all that time, there hasn't been any noticeable issues that I am aware with negative brand association until Star Frontiers and that was from explicitly using their (former?) trademark, not some vague "fingerprints all over OGL content" which is, honestly, a big of a stretch. So, reason two is wholly unnecessary as well as an inappropriate and ineffective "fix" to the problem. There are effective ways WotC and the community can and should progress on this issue, but altering the OGL is not one of them.