The Washington Post published an article about the WOTC OGL story
washingtonpost.com/video-games/2023/01/19/dun...Posted Jan 20, 2023, 12:52 AM UTC
012
washingtonpost.com
The original OGL was “a masterstroke of community support,” Jarvis said. “It allowed Wizards to thrive, because people were making stuff for D&D, and it allowed creators to thrive, because they were able to say ‘this is compatible with D&D.’”
Tch! Allowing claims of compatability with DnD is the opposite of what the original OGL does Matt (Matt Jarvis of Dicebreaker).
Without using a license there's nothing to prevent someone claiming compatibility with DnD. (Nothing legal at least. Doesn't mean WotC won't harass or sue you to make you give in and stop doing it).
With the original OGL creators lose the right to use a WotC trademark for that purpose (which is why third party publications instead write "compatible with 5e" or similar on their covers).
0†
Without using OGL anyone can claim compatibility with DnD. And can be sued. And will be locked in court for 10 years, paying large sums of money to keep running. You will probably win if you don't bankrupt along the way, and there aren't many competitors who could stand such lawsuit fees.
5
Yes. I said as much.
What the OGL doesn't do is allow you to claim compatibility. It prevents you from claiming compatibility.
0†
So, obviously there should have been a huge wealth of 3rd party material for AD&D.... right?
1
The context at the peak of AD&D and the peak of 5th edition is vastly different. Vastly.
1
Something like this?
1
Ok?
-2
So, where's the mountain of 3rd party material for TSR era D&D? Since apparently the OGL, it was superfluous to publishing it.
2
Do you have a point? I don't know what it is.
0
It’s one of the better articles and, from what I’ve seen, the biggest publication to run one.