What is #OpenDND and why is it trending?
Part 1 of a deep dive into the, uh, riveting world of tabletop RPG licensing.
For weeks, YouTubers and Twitterers have been gossiping about changes to Dungeons & Dragons’s third-party publishing agreements. It’s some inside baseball for the tabletop RPG industry, but without credible sources, I didn’t want to touch it.
Now, a third-party game developer leaked a draft of Wizards of the Coast’s updated Open Gaming License to a journalist. This draft of OGL 1.1 has some big changes, but 99% of Dungeons & Dragons content creators won’t be affected.
The details of the document are about the business of D&D, but the debate is about the spirit of D&D, with the word “open” turning the license into a political manifesto.
If you're hearing words like “Open Gaming License” or “System Reference Document” for the first time, this Polygon article is a quick primer.
I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice. I just read a lot.
Reporting and financials
Creators have to report their OGL products and sales to Wizards. This provides them with some market research and makes it easier to find objectionable content that violates the license. (Content moderation is complicated, so I hope Wizards provides clear, thorough guidance.)
For 99% of creators, OGL 1.1 doesn't change their financials. I know successful 5e OGL creators who are nowhere near hitting $750,000 in annual revenue. Linda also reports that the licensing fee is marginal. Vox has a good explainer of the oft-misunderstood marginal tax.
It's not that if you make $749,999 you’re fine but if you make one dollar more Wizards is going to swoop in, take 25%, and leave you with $562,500. Wizards doesn’t take anything from the first $750,000 you make. Then they take 25% of every dollar over that.
Crowdfunding
Kickstarter's director of games made a comment that suggests that the crowdfunding platform got some concessions from Wizards, but I think it’s mutually beneficial. In the OGL 1.1, Wizards declares Kickstarter its preferred crowdfunding platform. The 25% marginal licensing fee falls to 20% for projects funded there. The crowdfunding platform takes a 5% cut of all funded projects, so effectively, Kickstarter’s fee is coming out of Wizards’ share.
This is a smart PR and business move for Kickstarter. When Kickstarter announced plans to move to a blockchain, enough tabletop developers turned to competitors like Gamefound and Backerkit that Kickstarter’s tabletop revenue fell.
So sure, Kickstarter’s sticking up for tabletop creators. But if Kickstarter pushes too hard, maybe Wizards decides their preferred platform is Backerkit instead. Or, hell, Hasbro’s own crowdfunding platform. Crowdfunding is crowded these days. Kickstarter’s worried about competition too.
Virtual tabletops and software-as-a-service
As Wizards develops its own virtual tabletop, it makes sense that they'd want to nip software companies in the bud. Hasbro’s big on software these days. The company created in the Roll20-OneBookShelf merger might be quietly grateful for this change too, if it kills off Foundry, the virtual tabletop with a one-time fee and a 5e piracy problem.
OGL 1.1 also shuts down operations like Gripnr. Their OGL campaign setting sits alongside D&D NFTs, which put a dollar value on your characters and loot in a play-to-earn quasi-MMO.
“PDFs only” means you can’t publish dynamic content (like a VTT adaptation of your campaign) through the OGL. That sucks, but I’m sure when D&D Beyond launches its own virtual tabletop, we’ll see a separate licensing agreement for that.
In the meantime, the Dungeon Masters Guild (which is run by Roll20-OBS through a license from Wizards) maintains a content community agreement separate from the OGL. At least for now, you can still publish dynamic content that way. (I’ll compare and contrast the OGL with the DMsGuild license later in this series.)
Copyright and ownership
For their i09 article, Linda looked over the draft OGL 1.1 with some lawyers.
A lot of creators are saying “the Open Gaming License v1.0a can't be revoked; we'll just keep making 3.5e and 5e content and they can't stop us.” But even though it can't be revoked, it looks like Wizards plans to deauthorize it, closing a legal loophole. Tabletop gamers with and without law degrees are arguing back and forth over whether they can do that, but the truth is it’s just not settled.
The clarification around novels, graphic novels, and music doesn't change much. You already couldn't use D&D IP (such as beholders and mind flayers) under the OGL. And while the OGL explains the mechanics of Rogues and Paladins, rogues and paladins existed long before D&D.
I’m not worried about tabletop miniatures. They aren’t mechanics! Reaper’s been selling the “eyebeast” since 2003.
And that line about the OGL not covering dances and pantomimes might sound comically paranoid, but Epic Games has been sued over and over for copying dance moves into Fortnite. With TikTok as big as it is, why not remove the ambiguity?
No, Wizards isn’t trying to steal your work
One line of OGL 1.1 says Wizards will have a “nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.”
The Warcraft III modders who made Defense of the Ancients sold to Valve to become DOTA II. When that happened, Blizzard changed their license to say they own modders’ copyrights, and this license is nowhere near that.
In 2020, Hero Forge updated their Terms & Conditions and people freaked out: they discovered language that said they own the copyright to all your original characters you make minis out of! Turns out that was completely wrong; the language was just aggressively legal.
I am not a lawyer, but I used to think: I’m smart. The language may be complex, but I can still read and understand it.
No, I can’t. A single unusual phrase can have specific legal meaning that completely reinterprets a whole paragraph.
Young Robert would have read that line of OGL 1.1 and said, “Wizards can take my PDF and put it on their website for free? They can reprint my work in any of their books without credit?” Old Robert (and Linda, who showed the license to lawyers) knows better. This is cover-your-ass language.
What about D&D actual plays? And Patreon creators?
OGL 1.1 points to Wizards's Fan Content Policy covers “actual play” shows. Here’s the relevant part:
You can’t require payments, surveys, downloads, subscriptions, or email registration to access your Fan Content;
You can’t sell or license your Fan Content to any third parties for any type of compensation; and
Your Fan Content must be free for others (including Wizards) to view, access, share, and use without paying you anything, obtaining your approval, or giving you credit.
You can, however, subsidize your Fan Content by taking advantage of sponsorships, ad revenue, and donations—so long as it doesn’t interfere with the Community’s access to your Fan Content.
This policy suggests that Twitch subs are fine, but “Patreon subscribers can download our Session 0” would not be. If I had an actual play podcast on Spotify, I’d have questions right now.
Established shows like Critical Role and Dimension 20 are certain to have separate licensing agreements.
This also means you can’t paywall your D&D content behind a Patreon subscription. Mapmakers like Czepeku or Tom Cartos don’t have a ton to worry about because who says this battle map is for D&D? They might have to cut some add-ons, though.
But Griffon’s Saddlebag, who makes $31,000 a month making 5e D&D items, is talking with his lawyers.
Does D&D live or die on its third-party community? These days, I’m not sure.
Look, my main platform is Twitter, where everyone’s loud and angry all the time. It really throws off my pressure gauge.
The most prominent voices are creators who have carved out ludicrously successful patreons on the back of the OGL. But their nontraditional approach to publishing means they don't have a business relationship with Wizards of the Coast.
Meanwhile, established publishing companies who do have that relationship—like MCDM, Kobold Press, and Critical Role's Darrington Press—are relatively quiet. Publishers big and small are all considering the same question: is it still worth our while for us to make D&D stuff?
I read OGL 1.1 and for now, I shrug. Industries change. This is the Skyrim community getting mad Valve monetized mods to take a cut.
If you don’t like that “Wizards has a monopoly on tabletop,” consider that the OGL perpetuates that. Third parties now have more incentives to create their own new tabletop games that don't resemble D&D at all.
Maybe Powered by the Apocalypse goes mainstream. Or a game that doesn’t exist yet.
D&D isn’t just a game now, it’s a lifestyle brand. Joe Manganiello has a company for licensed merch and when he shows up on the Late Show, he spends 10 minutes talking with Stephen Colbert about Tiamat and death saving throws. And the trailer for the Honor Among Thieves movie looks better than anyone could have guessed.
Do third-party publishers make or break D&D? In the era of 4th edition, yeah. Now? I’m not so sure.
In part two of this series, I’ll get into the history of the OGL. Once upon a time, 3e D&D books had licensing with product badges too. Those badges have to the first big OGL snafu: the Book of Erotic Fantasy.
I appreciate you taking the time to actually dig into this. Feel like everyone on DND/TTRPG Twitter has been screaming for the past two days.
But you also kinda gloss over what, to me, is the big sticking issue - so much of the current discussion is based on a single article, with a single, anonymous source providing a *draft* of OGL 1.1. Yet everyone's been acting as if this is the version that WotC is planning to put out. There's just so many unknowns, yet everyone seems to be acting as if this is 100% verified fact.
And I find all this especially frustrating because it really wasn't all that long ago that everyone was freaking out over *rumors* that there would be no OGL for OneDnD, right up until WotC finally put out a statement. And even then, some people continued to freak out.
I just want people to use some basic critical thinking, rather than sharing their knee-jerk reaction in an effort to get their take out as quickly as possible.
I was freaking out when news of a leak came out and people aren't taking this well. I'm glad you've posted this. It puts my mind at ease for the time being.
That said, I agree with Sean here. What we're talking about is a leaked draft, something that isn't finalized or official.