Thoughts and analysis of Wizards OGL response.

Wizards of the Coast is not affiliated with this blog, which is their loss..

First, it is important to say that I am not a lawyer and I do not work in corporate media relations. I am a decades long D&D player and creator of D&D content. When the leaked Open Game License 1.1 (OGL) was release, it worried me a bit. Was Wizards going to shut down my blog, or demand I make changes? I didn't think so, but you never know.
A week passed, then two, with no response and I started to worry a little bit more. Was everything true? Then, on the 13th of January, 2023, they released a response to the leak and backlash of their OGL plans. I decided to put my thoughts and predictions for what their response is really saying. I tend to be a pessimist though, which may be why I like Dark Sun so much.

I have included the Wizards of the Coast statement below, but I interrupt it with my own responses. To read the uninterrupted statement, click here.

WotC Statement: "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."

My Response: "Who gets to decide what is "hateful" and "discriminatory?" Basically, if any product has anything Wizards of the Coast doesn't like, Wizards wants the ability to proclaim that it is hateful or discriminatory. Would this include products that are selling better than Wizards products? Who knows, because it's such a wide premise.

The biggest hateful or discriminatory scandal in the gaming community, as of late, has come from Wizards of the Coast themselves, with the hadozee controversy. The hadozee entry in Spelljammer: Adventures in Space was called out as hateful by the gaming community, after it was approved by Wizards editors. There is no reason to believe a third party product would not be exposed by the community as well, so there is no reason for Wizards to act as a product police force."

WotC Statement: "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."

My Response: "This is just a way for Wizards of the Coast to say that they don't want anyone making money, but them. There are a plethora of D&D podcasts, YouTube videos, how-to gamemaster guides, and virtual tabletops. Wizards obviously believes that their is money to be made with these other mediums. Their specific targeting of web3, blockchain games, and NFTs leads me to believe that they are looking to use these in a series of products soon."

WotC Statement: "And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community-not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose."

My Response: "Wizards wants to shut down the competition. If anyone makes too much money, using Dungeons and Dragons-like material, Wizards wants their cut or to shut them down. It's also very common for shows to have roleplaying game episodes. Would Wizards want these media companies to pay for the ability to portray D&D-like games?"

WotC Statement: "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 waved for a second."

My Response: "This is nonsense. Their goal is make money, which is not inherently a bad thing. However, when you look at Dungeons and Dragons history, when TSR became obsessed with squeezing out as much money as they could, the game suffered and they made less. Wizards of the Coast made the same the same mistake during the fourth edition era and looks to be making the same mistake again. When TSR and Wizards focused on making a good game, and allowed gamers to help them, the game was more successful and they ended up making more money."

WotC Statement: "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."

My Response: "First, they admit that everything in the leaks were true. This is important. They are also saying that they intended to release the new OGL and get feedback on it. I do not think this is true. The fact that it took Wizards two weeks to craft a response to the OGL leak, shows that they were unprepared for it. A simple statement, such as: "These are preliminary ideas that have been submitted and are being reviewed for a new OGL, it is likely very few of these ideas will be in the new OGL." would have waylaid fears in the community. My responses above cover the rest of their statement."

WotC Statement: "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."

My Response: "What Wizards is basically saying is: "We thought gamers were stupid. Please don't boycott Dungeons and Dragons, we like your money.""

WotC Statement: "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 is covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-users, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

My Response: "This is, perhaps, the most important part of the statement. First, roleplaying games are already inclusive, so this is utter nonsense. They used this language to try and make the next part more bearable. 

If you want to run a dungeons and dragons game for your sixth grade class, to help them with math, you better get Wizards permission. You want to run a dungeons and dragons game to raise money for cancer research? Better get Wizards permission, I'm sure they'll want a cut first. You want to livestream a game? Better get Wizards permission. You want to dress up as Elminster for Halloween? That costume better be certified by Wizards of the Coast. Ridiculous.

Here's the biggest one: Wizards is going to try and shut down all virtual tabletops that are not theirs. I find it frightening that they state that they are going to go after the users, not the virtual tabletops themselves. I believe this is because the virtual tabletop programs will know not to use dungeons and dragons intellectual property, but user might upload a token with a copyrighted picture from a dungeons and dragons product, or use a copyrighted monster in their virtual table top game. And if someone is going to do that, they better get ready to be sued by a major corporation with hundred of millions of dollars.
Next, they state that content under 1.0a will be unaffected, but you can guarantee that their statement only pertains to those things not outlined above. I believe they're going to send out many "cease and desist letters" to company's and individuals, who are using and have been using the OGL 1.0a to make products and provide entertainment."

WotC Statement: "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."

My Response: ""The lady doth protest too much, methinks." That quote from Hamlet perfectly sums up my thoughts on this part of the statement. Perhaps there was not a royal structure "in mind," it seems a license back provision was. They even state that, while a license back provision "never crossed their minds," they wrote license back language, so it DID cross their minds. Because the response to this aspect of the new OGL was so negative and many creators were pointing this out and asking, "Why would anyone create content for dungeons and dragons anymore?" Wizards was forced to back peddle on this point.

I haven't read, or heard, anything about people claiming Wizards of the Coast stole their stuff, so the claim that "This was to protect us from mean 'ol content creators" seems like nonsense."

WotC Statement: "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."

My Response: "These are just platitudes, to try and calm down the gaming community. As I stated above, I do not think they had plans to solicit input from the fan base. If so, they would have released a damage control statement much earlier.

But that is just what I think. I could be right, but I could also be wrong. What do you think? Comment below and let me know.

Thank you for reading and have a great day!"