For more than 20 years, the Open Gaming License has allowed tabletop role-playing game companies to operate under the rules of Dungeon & Dragons without paying royalties to owner Wizards of the Coast or risking lawsuits. It is now possible to create a product using The OGL was so broad that some tabletop RPG designers adapted it to allow others to publish their work using their own set of rules unrelated to D&D. The threat that the status quo could change has wreaked havoc in the D&D community.
As reported by Gizmodo (opens in new tab), and backed by several publishers of OGL works, Wizards of the Coast drafted the “OGL 1.1” license, which places much tighter restrictions on D&D-based content. Companies earning more than US dollars, or companies raising the same amount or more through crowdfunding, were asked to pay WotC a license fee. We asked that the company be granted more rights and control over these third-party works, including the power to revoke the license altogether. The previous OGL would have been declared no longer valid by this new document despite being an old document. Frequently Asked Questions (opens in new tab) It once said, “Even if Wizards made changes you didn’t agree with, you could continue to use the previous acceptable version at your choice. The game license disagrees because the community will just ignore the changes anyway.” prize.”
The OGL 1.1 draft states, “The Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to grow and creatively extend D&D. It was not intended to subsidize major competitors. We didn’t.” The intent is clear: to give companies greater control over who benefits from D&D and how.
First released during the 3rd Edition era, the original OGL played a major role in expanding the reach and popularity of D&D. By making it easier for independent publishers to create content for D&D, WotC is helping competitors who previously designed their own rules or published unofficial supplements that circumvented the trademark. While enclosing, it has cultivated a huge ecosystem that fills gaps and niches where WotC has not been able to monetize. Competitors were encouraged to support WotC’s products by gaining access to WotC’s established fan base, and in return helped sell copies of the primary rulebook and supplements.
When D&D 4e was released, it was done with a new license (Game System License). This, like the proposed OGL update, was more restrictive and incompatible with the original OGL. Coupled with the relative lack of success of the 4th edition, that iteration of the game saw a significant drop in third-party content, and widespread support for his previous incarnation, 3.5. This eventually led to the creation of Pathfinder by a company called Paizo, and the 3.5 save and update was so successful that it was at one point a serious competitor to D&D itself, and more recently has continued to expand into video games, board games, etc. increase.
Following 4e’s poor performance and game system licensing, D&D 5e revitalized the brand and ushered D&D into a new era of popularity. A return to many elements of the 3.5 design and strategy, including a return to the original OGL, leading to a new explosion of 3rd party content. The era saw the rise of hugely popular real-life playstreams and podcasts, the launch of his massive Kickstarter campaign for third-party material by publishers, and the unprecedented mainstream success of the game. was given.
WotC is now working as a new incarnation of D&D, abandoning the convention of edition numbers. “One D&D” aims to mimic in some respects live service video game updates while maintaining backward compatibility with existing content. But with that new development came the initial stir of the updated OGL and questions about WotC’s intentions for the future of D&D.
A leaked draft of OGL 1.1 has thrown the community into turmoil and appeared to threaten the vast ecosystem of D&D-related products. It also clarifies that the new license applies only to written works, not “videos, virtual tabletop or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphic novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes.” , and this was considered problematic.Status of real-world play channels, video games, and more Solasta: Magister’s Crown (opens in new tab).
The reaction from both fans and publishers was overwhelmingly negative, with many RPG companies moving away from OGL altogether. Confusion over the possible impact of OGL 1.1 caused panic across social media, with many players abandoning D&D and looking for alternative RPGs.
Especially Paizo’s reaction was bullish. Pathfinder is currently 2nd Edition and proprietary, but it still relies heavily on the rules of D&D 3.5.so violent remarks (opens in new tab), Paizo disputed the idea that the original OGL could be revoked in a legal sense, announcing that he was “ready to argue that point in court if necessary.” A bold line. Paizo has been successful, as tabletop RPG companies do, but its legal resources are tied to his WotC and parent company Hasbro, even if the original wording of his OGL gives a strong argument. must be much smaller than that of
Paizo further cements its stance by announcing its own “Open RPG Creative License”. This is a new legal document that allows publishers to share the use of their own game systems in a manner similar to the original his OGL. With publishers Kobold Press, Chaosium, and Legendary already on board, it could point to a new avenue for this hobby, but without the power of the hugely popular rule system behind it. , it is difficult to say what its overall impact will be.
Many other publishers have issued their own statements, condemning the leaked changes, and in some cases moving away from D&D entirely in favor of creating their own systems. The majority of publishers in the TTRPG industry are small, enthusiastic companies, and there is a common fear that they will simply be crushed by this kind of corporate behavior rather than a powerhouse like Hasbro. As it stands, D&D already has a near monopoly. If a third party were to succumb to the stricter OGL, the concern is that its control could be further strengthened, shutting companies and entire groups out of the hobby.
WotC finally responded with: Open Game License updates (opens in new tab) On January 14th, it began by emphasizing that the leaked draft was only a draft written with three goals: Second, I wanted to address people trying to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making it clear that OGL content is restricted. In addition to tabletop roleplaying content such as campaigns, modules, and supplements, third, we wanted to ensure that OGL was for content creators, homebrewers, aspiring designers, players, and communities. for commercial and promotional purposes.”
References to “hateful and discriminatory products” have been accused of cheating, claiming they own the rights to the name and logo of D&D’s original publisher, TSR It may be part of an attempt to eliminate further products from TSR Games. “Sympathy for the Nazis (opens in new tab)“, as documented in exhaustive detail by No place for hate in the game (opens in new tab).
On the other hand, the “web3, blockchain game, NFT” part seems to be a reference shimmer (opens in new tab) And potential projects like that. Glimmering is an RPG based on D&D 5e with optional NFT Heroes (opens in new tab) “All NFT heroes are intended to be played within an open gaming license”, and used as player characters that “become more rare and valuable through gameplay” as they level up and earn treasure It is a controversial idea, and Gizmodo says, “NFT is here to ruin D&D (opens in new tab)’, and it wasn’t great coverage per se.
Finally, the “large companies” suggested to be using D&D “for their own commercial and promotional purposes” are OGLs such as Paizo, which is smaller compared to WotC and its owner Hasbro. It may not be the publisher. The Embracer Group conglomerate owns tabletop his publisher Asmodee, through which he owns several 5e RPG lines, but otherwise the majority of TTRPGs are tiny, barely breaking even. company’s work.
But as D&D has become a recognizable cultural touchstone, it has become part of the language of marketing. In 2019, his fast food chain Wendy’s released its own D&D 5e knockoff. legendary feast (opens in new tab) as a free promotion. No, it’s not. Wendy’s has created an RPG where heroes defend Beef’s Keep from ice jesters. With movies and television productions underway and D&D becoming more and more mainstream, Hasbro decided that instead of releasing public documents suggesting that anyone could use D&D, promotions that could potentially be profitable. you want to keep tight control over. feel like
WotC’s answer goes on to say: To address discriminatory and hateful behavior and to clarify the types of products that OGL covers, our draft includes the following: It was not our intention to influence the majority of the community.It is clear from the response that we put out one. “
It’s not clear when the revised OGL will be announced, but WotC’s statement said the revised OGL will only cover “content of TTRPGs” and will include “educational and philanthropic campaigns, livestreams, It does not cover other expressions such as cosplay, VTT, etc. Uses, etc.” It also includes a way to “license back” products released under his OGL as amended and the royalty structure without affecting those released under previous versions of his OGL. not As we continue to invest in the games we love and pursue partnerships in film, television and digital games, the risks are too great to ignore. “
Finally, he explained the community reaction and how the statement itself was received, stating: They won—and so did we.
“Our plan is everytime Seek community input before updating the OGL. The draft you saw was trying to do just that. We always want to please our fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. I am aware that I did not do so this time and I am sorry. Our goal was to get the exact kind of feedback on which clauses worked and which didn’t. This is what I finally got from all of you. This major change could only have been successfully done if we were willing to accept that feedback, no matter how it was provided. “
For many, the damage has been done no matter what WotC says at this point. The trust that was there has been destroyed, and some of those who felt forced to find new ways to do things outside of WotC’s possible control are likely to never return. The leak of one document changed my tastes irrevocably. Countless creators and players are waiting to see what happens next.
