Let's be clear about the motives behind the original OGL

[DEFCON 1]

Doesn’t matter if it’s 100,1000, or 1.

I imagine it must, otherwise why did you mention '100 companies' rather than just make the statement from your own personal perspective?

 

[Morrus]

I imagine it must, otherwise why did you mention '100 companies' rather than just make the statement from your own personal perspective?

I just picked a random number. Why so combative?

 

[Oofta]

I enjoyed 3.x, but it wasn't a runaway smash hit so I don't know that the OGL had much of a positive impact. I definitely remember a glut of D20 products crowding the shelves which may have caused more harm than good because of the dilution of the market and confusion. The OGL didn't help 4E obviously although it allowed Paizo to make a good chunk of change. It wasn't until 5E that D&D really took off.

Did the OGL contribute to 5E's success? I assume so. So did innumerable other factors. Maybe the OGL saved the TTRPG industry, maybe it didn't. I don't know how anyone can really state with any certainty without a time machine to go back and change things I'm not sure anyone can say for certain.

In any case the OGL was a bit of a poison pill that may well have lead to less innovation and creativity. There was an interesting article published by the Electronic Freedom Foundation that goes into more detail here. It's a little outdated (things have been moving fast) but the basic idea is that, yes, the OGL was kind of a "Pretty please don't sue me" sign people could hang on their products but it was also largely more restrictive than what would have been allowed just by copyright law.

 

[Enrahim2]

In my opinion without the OGL most of those 100 companies would not even exist, let alone make their own games.

You are right, they wouldn't be companies. There would be 1000 small groups of people playing the fantasy heartbreaker the guy in the lokal gaming store or discord group drew up. D&D would likely be gone, as WotC couldn't find any way to profit from the IP. World of Darkness would likely still be the game for the cool kids, and the synonym for Role Playing. A few people still playing using the old books from when they grew up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't let anybody tell you the OGL was a favor or an act of generosity. It was a mutual deal which benefited both parties. And it was portrayed by WotC, it's FAQ, it's representatives, as non-rescindable in order to gain acceptance. And we believed them.

Whether or not this 'de-authorization' stuff turns out to be technically legal, we were all deceived. I made decisions I would not have made had I thought the OGL was revocable. So did a thousand other companies and creators over the last 20 years.

I agree with all of this. While I have been enjoying some of the legal issues, and I also find the acts of Hasbro unsurprising ... I think this really gets to the heart of the issue.

Fairness.

If I recall correctly, a short while ago you wrote a post defending the OGL and telling people not to worry. And I think that was an accurate post, given what everyone knew at the time. For one score and two years, the OGL had been relied upon by so many people when they were thinking about how they wanted to plan their future, their businesses, and, for that matter, how they were going to pay their employees and their independent contractors. And part of the reliance, that completely reasonable reliance, was the belief, fostered by WoTC's own prior statements, that they wouldn't and they couldn't change the terms of the bargain.

I can understand why Hasbro did what they did- they have a brand. But that doesn't make what they did right. It doesn't undo the harm they caused by the uncertainty they have caused.

 

[Alzrius]

In any case the OGL was a bit of a poison pill that may well have lead to less innovation and creativity.

As I posted in another thread, I disagree strongly and think there's evidence to the contrary.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I was designing games before the OGL was a thing. If it never happened, I still would have. Probably not as successful because D&D brand is a big advantage, but I wouldn't have stopped.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I agree with most of the sentiment. My only disagreement would be the idea that 100 companies would have all made their own games if they knew the OGL was revocable.

In my opinion without the OGL most of those 100 companies would not even exist, let alone make their own games. They only existed because they were hitching their wagon to the comings and going of Dungeons & Dragons because it was the best way for them to make money from the work they did.

And that's even the case today. People make material for D&D not out of the goodness of their heart but because they know it's the best way to have people look at, try out, and buy their stuff. Without D&D and the "marketing" that comes with being compatible with it... most people and companies just wouldn't even make the attempt, is my belief.

Yup. The "d20 explosion" happened for a reason. People that were not in a position to make an entire game made companies overnight so they could put out a couple of short 3e adventure modules, a sourcebook for their setting, or a book going into detail about a monster species. Some of those even grew from that to the point where they were in a position to make entire games. Much of the industry as we know it today may never have even gotten started without the OGL.

 

[Yaarel]

I am watching with keen interest the ORC license that Paizo etal are developing.

 

[Reynard]

I enjoyed 3.x, but it wasn't a runaway smash hit so I don't know that the OGL had much of a positive impact.

That's a transparently false statement.