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

[Morrus]

WotC told us 20 yrs ago that OGL could not be rescinded (we've seen the FAQs, statements from those who wrote it, that's what they told us) so we all agreed to not make other games but to make stuff for their game. Now they are reneging. Legality aside, they are not a reliable business partner.

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

A hundred companies would have spent the last 20 years developing their own competing games if they'd known that WotC would simply change their minds 20 years later. Who knows what the industry would look like now? The OGL wasn't a 'gift' it was a bargain, a deal. We committed years of work and money to support their game and helped create a network which reinforced itself, benefiting us and WotC.

We agreed to support their game instead of making our own games, they agreed to let us use their content. That helped make their game better, more popular. They wanted everybody playing D&D, not a thousand different systems. That was the whole point of the OGL.

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.

 

[Greggy C]

One could argue small creators have been waiting for WotC to slip up.

WotC did slip up, though. The OGL 1.1 was insulting to everyone, absolutely everyone, regardless if you are writing your own TTRPG.

The arrogance of the new Hasbro Microsoft Executives and their lackeys thinking they can just come in, monopolize the product, add micro transactions and justify their overpaid existence without adding any value? It is not the 90s.
They needed to understand the customers, who the whales are, and their influence on social media. I blame these slimy, politically savvy people who thought they could come from an environment of dominance ONLY because you own the operating system.

I do not blame the artists and game designers of Wizards of the Coast.

Hasbro backed up, stunned by the ferocity of the response. Suddenly aware of the very small barrier to entry into this industry.
Paizo can whip up Pathfinder 3 in a year. Critical Role a new RPG in likely 6 months.

With their last statement on D&D Beyond they changed their position, gave ground, and returned ownership.

But I am still offended by the walkback.

I am offended that in the second sentence, you (Hasbro) would pretend that the new OGL was #1 only about combating bad actors.
I am offended that you are acting like we got it all wrong and all your actions were altruistic.
I am offended you consider us so stupid with your statement trying to misdirect this community about your intentions.

You didn't just "roll a 1", we caught you cheating.

And I am inspired by the response:

 

[Clint_L]

I'm not offended by their obvious attempts to save face. I think it's entertaining."It's all NuTSR's fault!"

 

[Mageman]

I'm sorry you're offended by my cheating. Lol screw Wizards

 

[Reynard]

I agree wholeheartedly but wanted to add: even though the motivation was not altruistic, it still resulted in actual Good. Open Gaming (not just Open D&D) is a valuable and powerful thing that gained traction because of the success of WotC's OGL. That a number of non-WotC SRD based games ended up using the OGL to make their rules available to the community is a testament to this.

 

[delericho]

Yeah. Back when WotC first mooted the OGL there was a huge amount of scepticism about their motives - about whether they'd try to steal our stuff, about whether it was really irrevocable, etc. Sad to see much of that proven right belatedly.

I've decided to view it like a big flower garden - the gardeners have taken umbrage at all the bees flying around and drinking their nectar, and especially at the sweet, sweet honey that the bees have made from it. So they're driving off the bees, not considering that they're not parasites; they symbionts who help pollinate the garden.

 

[delericho]

I think it's entertaining."It's all NuTSR's fault!"

Yeah, that's particularly amusing. AFAIK, there are two companies who have used WotC to produce problematic material recently. The smaller, and less well known, one was nuTSR, who didn't use the OGL.

The larger of the two didn't use the OGL either: WotC.

 

[Greggy C]

We agreed to support their game instead of making our own games, they agreed to let us use their content. That helped make their game better, more popular.

It also stagnated the industry, all the creators, rather than innovating new games, just reproduced 5e content because it was low effort, high reward to get profits.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

 

[Morrus]

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.

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

 

[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.