How Dungeons & Dragons created an uproar over intellectual property
Christopher Hutton
Video Embed
The publisher of the roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons is attempting to recover from angering players and creators after releasing a new set of licensing rules that would have threatened the intellectual property of third-party creators and forced them to pay additional royalties.
The uproar could hurt the company, Wizards of the Coast, and give its competitors an edge, as well as set new precedents relating to copyright.
Wizards moved Thursday to rework the licensing after weeks of backlash and anger from fans, who accused the company of predatory practices and threatened to boycott it.
But what did Wizards do that was so angering? That requires understanding its Open Game License.
VIRGINIA FAMILY OF 6-YEAR-OLD WHO SHOT TEACHER SAYS CHILD HAS ‘ACUTE DISABILITY’
THE OPEN GAME LICENSE
The OGL is a public copyright license released by Wizards in 2016, which allows people outside of the company to create, modify, and redistribute content for the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Public copyright licenses are widely defined and can grant additional permissions for using an intellectual property to any and all persons in the public, depending on the conditions of the license. The OGL allows third-party creators to use the same rule sets or game mechanics as Dungeons & Dragons in their material without fear of being sued for copyright theft. The license also allows others to take settings or worlds from official D&D books and produce their own content, such as how former Dungeons & Dragons writer Keith Baker has expanded on his setting Eberron after leaving Wizards.
Wizards has been working on updating the game’s rules through One D&D, a new set of game rules that it was publicly testing with players for future release. These changes were supposed to come with an update to the OGL. Third-party creators leaked the update in early January. The updated document, known as OGL 1.1, would have nullified the 2016 OGL and forced users to abide by a far more restrictive license.
The new license would force third-party creators and virtual tabletops — software that allows users to play Dungeons & Dragons online — to log their profits and product with Wizards of the Coast and to force certain creators to pay the company royalties on all content they create.
THE REACTION
The license drew the ire of fans, who accused Wizards of trying to squeeze more money out of them despite the company’s high profit margins.
It also led to several third-party publishers stating that they were stepping away from making Dungeons & Dragons-specific content to make material that doesn’t rely on Dungeons & Dragons’s rule set.
And Paizo, the publisher of the Dungeons & Dragons alternative Pathfinder, announced that it was creating an Open RPG Creative License that would allow third-party publishers to use its rules without fear of the license changing.
Wizards remained quiet for several days after the initial leak but apologized to fans on Wednesday. “Our language and requirements in the draft OGL were disruptive to creators and not in support of our core goals of protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment and limiting the OGL to TTRPGs,” wrote D&D Executive Producer Kyle Brink in a blog post. “Then we compounded things by being silent for too long. We hurt fans and creators when more frequent and clear communications could have prevented so much of this.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
WHERE THINGS STAND
The company released an OGL 1.2 “playtest” on Thursday for players to review. The new set of rules operates under Creative Commons, a copyright license allowing creators to use said content with proper attribution freely. It also added a “perpetual, irrevocable” license that will ensure that products created under the original OGL 1.0 will still be able to do so. While initial responses have praised the updated license, Wizards is seeking feedback via survey to ensure the agreement pleases users. Others have criticized the license for how it regulates virtual tabletops and its approach to “harmful” or “obscene” content.