Much of the life blood of Dungeons and Dragons is not found in the games you play at home or in the campaign books that are routinely released throughout the year, but rather in the community of talented content creators who put Dungeons and Dragons go out into the world From the well-known and tremendously popular series like critical role either Dimension 20Even the humble author with some spare time to publish a module on DriveThruRPG, all of this is possible thanks to the Open Gaming License released by Wizards of the Coast in the year 2000. This morning more details on the contents of the new OGL 1.1 was released. and for those same outside creators who have helped in the rise of D&D, it could explain a difficult situation.
Which is the D&D ogl 1.0?
in 2000 the D&D OGL 1.0a was released. This was a short document that essentially said, as long as you agreed to abide by the OGL and to include a copy of the OGL in works that use D&D SRD content, you were granted a “perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, no.” -exclusive license”. For a game like Dungeons and Dragons where any content can be homemade and unofficial modules shared or sold worldwide, this license has allowed creators to publish D&D content without the need to seek additional agreements from the property owner, Wizards of the Coast. This license has covered large-scale productions such as critical role or the creation of an entirely new TTRPG like Pathfinder, and allows any independent creator to publish their content digitally or physically.
How does OGL 1.1 change what third-party creators can do?
With the change from OGL 1.0 to 1.1 there are many differences that will discourage creators from wanting to create Dungeons and Dragonsrelated table content. One of the first things Noah ‘MyLawyerFriend” Downs noticed, a lawyer specializing in IP in the digital gaming and TT industries, is that unlike OGL 1.0, OGL 1.1 is not an open license. With the addition of restricted sets of licenses for commercial and non-commercial use, this new OGL locks content creators into a series of deals that jeopardize their intellectual property and revenue stream.
As we await the release of the full 9000 word OGL 1.1, here are some key takeaways from the OGL 1.1 review and how it will affect creators. When signing OGL 1.1:
A creator will need to report what they are working on to WOTC, report income if it is over $50,000, and if gross income is over $750,000, pay 25% of royalties to WOTC.
For many projects where gross receipts exceed $750,000, a 25% royalty to cover publishing, printing, distribution, authors, publishers, and artist costs may not be paid. Where a lot of Tabletop revenue generation is done through crowdfunding websites like Kickstarter, MyLawerFriend also highlights that a Tabletop Kickstarter project could ‘accidentally’ overfund in the $750,000 range and suddenly a project that could have been popular and successful for those involved is now going to put the organizer in debt. At any time, this arbitrary line in the sand could also be adjusted to give creators more breathing room or to get closer to popular projects faster.
Interestingly, a successful campaign via Kickstarter is the only place these popular projects will catch a break, as Wizards of the Coast has explained that it’s their “crowdfunding platform of choice. You’ll only pay a 20% royalty on qualifying revenue.” “.
WOTC will receive the rights to your works, you will be allowed to use/publish your works, and you will not have to pay the original creator any additional money.
This note is self-explanatory and doesn’t need much more to highlight how this could be used in nefarious ways.
Can creators continue to use OGL 1.0?
At the moment, there is confusion about what is the validity of continuing to use OGL 1.0 in the midst of the OGL 1.1 leak. Because OGL 1.0 is perpetual, but not irrevocable, WOTC has the power to stop allowing creators to post content under OGL 1.0. Interestingly, part of the OGL 1.1 agreement is that it modifies OGL 1.0 from an open game license so that it is “no longer an authorized license agreement.” This change specifically contradicts section 9 of the original OGL.
9. License Update: Wizards or its Designated Agents may post updated versions of this License. You may use any licensed version of this License to copy, modify, and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
Wizards of the Coast justifies this change by explaining that the OGL was meant to “allow the community to help grow D&D”, but that the change to large corporations publishing D&D-related content is not what it was designed for. This later comment is probably a jab at Paizo and its Pioneer TTRPG which spun off from Dungeons and Dragons Edition 3.5. Whether third-party creators will be able to continue using OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.1, as these two documents contradict each other, is sadly something that will probably have to go to court before it’s resolved.
Is OGL 1.1 all bad?
There are some positive aspects of OGL 1.1 that Linda Codega points out in Gizmodo’s OGL 1.1 Breakdown. One of them is wording related to protecting IP against technology that would not have been predictable 20 years ago, such as blockchain or NFT minting. There is also reportedly a strong stance against creating bigoted content to the point that a creator who posts work that is “racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, bigoted or discriminatory” could have their agreement revoked, leaving them completely unable to publish. D&D contents. This could be used in cases like the ones we saw with TSR posting bigoted materials in 2022.
While this story will undoubtedly continue to unfold over the next several weeks as the biggest content creators offer their voices or the full document is released for public scrutiny at this time, it’s not looking good. Just last month, at an investor meeting, Hasbro executives commented that the hobby had never been more popular, but it wasn’t being monetized. At the time, this caused quite a stir as to what a properly monetized view of Dungeons and Dragons It would seem, but the assault on creator earnings is undoubtedly one of the worst possible outcomes.
Stay tuned to TechRaptor as we continue to monitor and update this story.