We All Won – The OGL Three Years Later

[Retreater]

This one's a little weird to me in that your wife told them you weren't playing D&D, which is specifically the game this person wanted to learn. Why did they come anyway?

Maybe the neighbor didn't understand that there was such a wide difference? Maybe just wanted to see what a game session looked like? Wanted to be social? There's a few reasons.
I don't hold it against her. Honestly, it's probably the best idea since we're at 6th level in Daggerheart (over halfway through the 10-level game) - it would be a lot to try to get her up to speed with a character from a rules perspective and in the final arc of the campaign from a story perspective.

 

[nyvinter]

I'm not sure if Daggerheart was created directly in response to the OGL issue (though the timing lines up).

Based on what Spenser Starke has said of the development, Daggerheart had been in development for a year to a year-and-a-half when the OGL trouble happened. So it's not directly tied to it, but they did do the announcement a little earlier than planed due to it.

 

[Reynard]

Based on what Spenser Starke has said of the development, Daggerheart had been in development for a year to a year-and-a-half when the OGL trouble happened. So it's not directly tied to it, but they did do the announcement a little earlier than planed due to it.

Yeah,that debacle seemed to accelerate other folks plans more than create them.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think the point is, burning down the OGL put a fire under people to create their own games, safe from Wizards.

So the other games are not whataboutism they are options that exist because companies wanted distance from Wizards and the now tainted OGL?

Maybe.

I get it. But there's just soooo many dots there that aren't an obvious line from one point to the other. And I don't see any actual evidence of a connection there beyond "Hey guys, the industry is doing okay now, right?".

Show me the interview where someone said they made Daggerheart because of the OGL fiasco. Show me the sales data that could imply a game had sales go up when they implemented ORC or any of the other OGL alternatives. Show me anything to back it up?

Folks get so emotional about this, like WotC came to their house and took all their gaming stuff. I roll my eyes with all of the "Never again!" style posts when it comes to WotC.

There's a difference between randomly shouting about not liking something, and discourse when someone asking your opinion. But the OP didn't even ask us what our opinion was - it told us we're supposed to take what we have and celebrate it.

I have never said "never again". I still play 5e and buy WotC products. But isn't it obvious that the higher you start the pendulum, the more it's going to swing to both sides?

 

[Argyle King]

For me, the vast array of high-quality RPGs we have with vastly different takes on the game is an example of a big change. That's why I think right now is the time to look at it. Last year we had so many fantastic RPGs released that, in my mind, are of equal production quality to D&D and I think a lot of that energy came from companies going their own way after the OGL crisis.

That's true, but many of those games never needed the OGL and still don't. I suppose there is a valid point of view from which some of those games wouldn't have been brought to market and/or gained enough attention from buyers to be successful had WotC behaved in more palatable manner. So, that could be seen as a win.

 

[Scribe]

I get it. But there's just soooo many dots there that aren't an obvious line from one point to the other. And I don't see any actual evidence of a connection there beyond "Hey guys, the industry is doing okay now, right?".

Show me the interview where someone said they made Daggerheart because of the OGL fiasco. Show me the sales data that could imply a game had sales go up when they implemented ORC or any of the other OGL alternatives. Show me anything to back it up?



There's a difference between randomly shouting about not liking something, and discourse when someone asking your opinion. But the OP didn't even ask us what our opinion was - it told us we're supposed to take what we have and celebrate it.

I have never said "never again". I still play 5e and buy WotC products. But isn't it obvious that the higher you start the pendulum, the more it's going to swing to both sides?

I think there have been interviews, I would have to dig into it, that creators went another direction post OGL.

I have no dog in the fight really, I am done with Wizards, and have Shadowdark.

 

[Pedantic]

What would that look like?

There's a lot of ways they could have done it. An address saying "we were wrong to pursue this, we acknowledge the value open gaming has had to TTRPGs" followed by a breakdown of why they pursued it to begin with, and an acknowledgement that that's outside the scope of business norms is where I'd start. Frankly, I'd love to hear "those involved have been moved to more suitable projects" but no corporate entity is interested in that level of accountability. More specifically, the harmed they caused was the fracturing of what used to be a consistent safe common harbor, so some legal effort to repair that would have been much more ameliorative than chucking the SRD in the CC and wiping their hands.

Whataboutism? That's not . . . sigh.

WotC didn't burn down the OGL. They tried, failed, and then course-corrected and we got something better. WotC isn't a person, it is a corporation made of lots of people, with different ideas and agendas. During the OGL "crisis", some people in charge wanted to burn down the OGL . . . but there were voices in the company arguing against that, and they ultimately "won" the day.

We don't really know, as Mike points out, what the gaming landscape would look like today had the OGL crisis not happened. We don't have access to an alternate universe to test hypotheses. But the publishing community most certainly reacted, and things most certainly would be different. The industry is definitely (IMO) in a stronger position BECAUSE of the "OGL Crisis" than it was before. How much so? What individual events are at least partially a result of the crisis? Shrug.

Folks get so emotional about this, like WotC came to their house and took all their gaming stuff. I roll my eyes with all of the "Never again!" style posts when it comes to WotC.

This is simply missing the point. WotC absolutely did burn down the OGL. The prior environment, where everyone treated access to the SRD and classic D&D rules/elements as a commons, and felt comfortable putting the OGL on their games to add to that commons is gone. The rise of bespoke licenses is a direct result of norms collapsing. It's certainly possible that WotC can't actually repair the damage they did, but they didn't really try.

I don't really see crediting the rise of new games to the situation as credible; it maybe shifted some timelines, but those products were already in development or ideation already. There's really no reason to believe we wouldn't have seen those same games under the OGL.

 

[Dire Bare]

But the OP didn't even ask us what our opinion was - it told us we're supposed to take what we have and celebrate it.

OP did? I think I read a different original post . . .

Shea put forth an idea, an argument, then asked for feedback. He's not telling you what to do or how to feel. He's definitely putting a positive spin on the aftermath of the "OGL Crisis" . . . but some folks have positive outlooks on life. Weird, I know, especially in fan communities often dominated by negativity.

Most of the newer, "big" games outside of D&D started work before the OGL crisis . . . Daggerheart, Tales of the Valiant, etc . . . would they all have gone to print otherwise? Would they have enjoyed the support and attention otherwise? Maybe. Maybe not.

I think a counter to Shea's argument, that the impact of the "OGL Crisis" on the industry and community is overstated, most everything we have now we would have gotten anyway, if on a slightly different timeline, is a fair counter. It's the overly emotional tone and negativity I'm seeing in some of the pushback here that gets me.

Like, relax man (non-specific man, not @Deset Gled specifically), it's just a game. We don't really know, and we won't until Jon Peterson writes his history of this era 20 years from now . . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

There's a lot of ways they could have done it. An address saying "we were wrong to pursue this, we acknowledge the value open gaming has had to TTRPGs" followed by a breakdown of why they pursued it to begin with, and an acknowledgement that that's outside the scope of business norms is where I'd start. Frankly, I'd love to hear "those involved have been moved to more suitable projects" but no corporate entity is interested in that level of accountability. More specifically, the harmed they caused was the fracturing of what used to be a consistent safe common harbor, so some legal effort to repair that would have been much more ameliorative than chucking the SRD in the CC and wiping their hands.

Oh the "apology" was very corporate, to be sure. Didn't sit well with me, but then I shrugged and moved on. Personally, I focus more on what the creatives on the design team are doing and saying than what the marketing folks or c-suite folks are doing, saying, and pushing on those actually making the game.

This is simply missing the point. WotC absolutely did burn down the OGL. The prior environment, where everyone treated access to the SRD and classic D&D rules/elements as a commons, and felt comfortable putting the OGL on their games to add to that commons is gone. The rise of bespoke licenses is a direct result of norms collapsing. It's certainly possible that WotC can't actually repair the damage they did, but they didn't really try.

Missing the point? No. Disagreeing with your point? Yes.

 

[Cergorach]

I think Micah meant in the thread. No need to be snarky when someone just asks a question.