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 not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.

Ryan also maintains the Open Gaming Foundation.

As has been noted previously, even WotC in its own OGL FAQ did not believe at the time that the licence could be revoked.

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

​

 

[Tazawa]

It's like open source all over again. Yeah, it's a somewhat viral license. That's how the open source community builds up material that is open source.

Also I don't think you can declare stuff as PI. You can declare OGC to give things away. You can't declare PI to hold content back. Certain things just are PI based on the definition.

You most certainly can declare stuff as Product Identity. If you are publishing your own setting, characters, plots, etc. you would be foolish not too. The only thing you need to make Open Game Content is, not surprisingly, game content.

And only game content that is derived from Open Game Content. If you come up with a completely new game mechanic that has nothing to do with existing Open Game Content you can protect it by saying it is Product Identity.

 

[mamba]

Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that

or maybe we do, MCDM has the following for its Flee Mortals packs

"The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All content which is not included in the Systems Reference Document version 5.1 or has otherwise been specifically designated as Open Game Content, including empyrean stag, dancing lady, Dohma Raskovar, Hanging Tree, hulking brain"

the list of monsters continues

 

[Simplicity]

Personally, I would be furious! That's completely broken! Plonk 5?! I could see, maybe, Plonk 4 for an elite goblin. But 5? Come on.

Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that

What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?

My understanding is that in an undesignated stat block would be OGC. The name of it (Sniveling Snerksucker) would be PI. The textual descriptions of abilities might also be PI, but they could be rephrased to do the same thing in someone else's work.

Same with a weapon. The Hammer of Kaboosh. PI. It's flavor text, PI. What the hammer does is OGC.

 

[kenada]

Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that

You can declare the name and description are Product Identity. If the mechanics “embodied” the Product Identity, you could also declare them Product Identity. However, the default is that mechanics are OGC.

Of course, some publishers use very expansive Product Identity declarations. I’d guess the only way to challenge those would be to create a derivative work, get sued, and then try to argue the classification was improper. Probably not worth the fight.

What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?

Mechanics are OGC by definition. If that 1d8+1 embodies Product Identity (perhaps it is evocative of Plussy-One the deity of swords), you could declare it as Product Identity. Or you could just do like other publishers and declare it regardless (see above).

 

[mamba]

You most certainly can declare stuff as Product Identity. If you are publishing your own setting, characters, plots, etc. you would be foolish not too. The only thing you need to make Open Game Content is, not surprisingly, game content.

And only game content that is derived from Open Game Content. If you come up with a completely new game mechanic that has nothing to do with existing Open Game Content you can protect it by saying it is Product Identity.

So it is up to me whether my 'Goblin Dragonarcher' is OGC or not, there is nothing that says it has to be... which was my point

 

[kenada]

or maybe we do, MCDM has the following for its Flee Mortals packs

"The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All content which is not included in the Systems Reference Document version 5.1 or has otherwise been specifically designated as Open Game Content, including empyrean stag, dancing lady, Dohma Raskovar, Hanging Tree, hulking brain"

the list of monsters continues

This is the thing I was complaining about up thread. I don’t think it’s in the spirit of the license to declare everything outside of the source SRD as Product Identity, but what’s you can do about it? Probably not much of anything.

 

[Tazawa]

Is creating something that needs an existing OGC mechanic to be used in game derivative of that mechanic? Can my monster not be product identity (like Nazgul for LotR probably are)? I do not think we have a clear answer on that

What if I created a weapon and said it does 1d8+1 damage, derivative ?

The monster name and description (and perhaps the non-mechanical description of abilities) can be product identity. You would need to be explicit in your declarations.

1d8+1 damage is derivative. Everything else you use to describe the weapon could be product identity if it was not derived from open game content.

 

[mamba]

My understanding is that in an undesignated stat block would be OGC. The name of it (Sniveling Snerksucker) would be PI. The textual descriptions of abilities might also be PI, but they could be rephrased to do the same thing in someone else's work.

Same with a weapon. The Hammer of Kaboosh. PI. It's flavor text, PI. What the hammer does is OGC.

so basically all statblocks are OGC in your view, I can keep the art and flavor text PI. Not sure there is an official / definitive answer though

 

[Simplicity]

I rechecked the license. It does say that you can declare PI. I was wrong about that.

 

[mamba]

This is the thing I was complaining about up thread. I don’t think it’s in the spirit of the license to declare everything outside of the source SRD as Product Identity, but what’s you can do about it? Probably not much of anything.

I understand the complaint, I was just wondering about the actual rules