Wizards of the Coast’s New OGL 1.2 Sparks Controversy in D&D Community

Wizards of the Coast’s intention to release a new Open Game License (OGL) has ignited a firestorm of debate in the Dungeons & Dragons community. They have deemed the document’s January 19 draft unacceptable.

Since the January 5 revelation made much of the inner workings of the new document public. The OGL 1.2 dispute has persisted. After hearing the opinions of players and creators, WOTC declared that they will be making changes. Including a channel for direct feedback in any next OGL iteration.

Although the updated draft has been delivered, there is still a lot of resistance among the community.

D&D Enthusiasts Reject Wizards’ New OGL 1.2 Update

The revised version includes a number of significant modifications. The first is that the “fundamental mechanics” of D&D (as described in the System Reference Document, which is a companion to the OGL) are being made available under Creative Commons.

Since fan creation is a separate community within the game. This would mean that Hasbro and WOTC would no longer directly control how those rules are applied in the future. This would be a significant development for the franchise as a whole.

Even though that aspect of the change has received excellent reviews from all quarters, other content management policies continue to raise questions. There is a passage in the new document that reiterates that version 1.2 will completely replace the present OGL. Which was published on Wizards-owned D&DBeyond.

The content that was initially licensed under the present agreement may continue to be used. But any new content will be subject to a new set of restrictions. Executive Producer Kyle Brink said, “We can’t employ the protection measures in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish abusive, racist, or unlawful content under 1.0a.

One angry supporter complained that it wasn’t protected. What it accomplishes is to grant you the sole authority to select what is published based on arbitrary ideas. Another commentator referred to this passage as “ripe for abuse” and expressed concern regarding the future casting of the role of “moral arbiter.”

The concept that the existing version has to change at all is being resisted by other supporters. With many of them labeling the entire scenario as “pointless” or “greedy.” As promised, WOTC has launched a survey to gather opinions on the matter, and if the Twitter discussion is any indication, further revisions might be forthcoming.

Comments are closed.