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.

​

 

[Ondath]

I’m not keen on Paizo being seen as a leader. How did all that mess go in 2021?

AFAIK, they ended up unionising, so I'm still hopeful about them to be honest. Add to that the fact that OGL was something they championed from the start, so it feels like abandoning it with a private deal with WotC would be fairly opposite to their current image.

 

[billd91]

If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest. They've branded themselves as the place where OGC thrives (even making a considerable portion of their game rules available under the OGL), and if they suddenly go "eff you, I've got mine (own deal with WotC)", that branding could cause the uproar to target them as well.

Oh, I don't see Paizo getting away with anything without ponying up royalties to WotC, whatever they may be able to negotiate. They'd be one of the bigger OGL dogs that the monetizers at WotC would want to milk for royalties.
I just don't see Paizo easily knuckling under OGL 1.1 for the reasons you've laid out - being champions of open game content.

 

[Morrus]

AFAIK, they ended up unionising, so I'm still hopeful about them to be honest. Add to that the fact that OGL was something they championed from the start, so it feels like abandoning it with a private deal with WotC would be fairly opposite to their current image.

I would be disappointed.

 

[Tazawa]

Yeah, I expect Paizo will be able to negotiate a better contract for themselves, which would be cheaper and easier than going to battle in court. I imagine that’d only happen as a last resort if they and WotC can’t come to terms.

I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.

I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.

I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.

I hope you’re right!

 

[Alzrius]

Oh, I don't see Paizo getting away with anything without ponying up royalties to WotC, whatever they may be able to negotiate. They'd be one of the bigger OGL dogs that the monetizers at WotC would want to milk for royalties.
I just don't see Paizo easily knuckling under OGL 1.1 for the reasons you've laid out - being champions of open game content.

To be honest, the whole royalties thing seems to be targeted at Kickstarter and other crowdfunding campaigns more than anything, with larger third-party companies looking almost like an afterthought.

That said, while Paizo has had some leadership changes since 2007, when WotC took the magazines away from them, their upper management still has enough institutional memory present that I suspect they'd never agree to any license which allows WotC to terminate their product lines. So whether it's negotiating a private license that's perpetual and irrevocable, or by openly challenging WotC's ability to revoke the OGL v1.0a, I don't see them going quietly along with what WotC's trying to do now.

 

[S'mon]

I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.

I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.

I agree. Their offered terms would surely have to be vastly more generous than the OGL 1.1 for them to be tempted.

If they or another 3PP does get sued, there needs to be a crowd sourced defence fund and lots of publicity. This is about the clearest case of bad action in the games industry I've seen since the last Games Workshop litigation. WoTC need to be seen to fail.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

AFAIK, they ended up unionising, so I'm still hopeful about them to be honest. Add to that the fact that OGL was something they championed from the start, so it feels like abandoning it with a private deal with WotC would be fairly opposite to their current image.

Yeah and the leadership did elect to accept the union without them forcing the issue in the end, I think it really worked out well from what we've seen, ultimately the Union is incentivized to make sure the company can operate and no one is under any illusions about Paizo's position in the market-- which is positive, but ultimately precarious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think that is likely. To do so would be to accept WOTC’s position that OGL 1.0a can be non-authorized. It would also put them in a position where their future success is dependent on an agreement with WOTC that could be terminated. They’ve been through this before and I would doubt they want to be in that situation again.

I think they are more likely to say “no thanks” and continue to publish open game content under OGL 1.0a. The leadership of Paizo is very experienced with the OGL and understand how it works. If it comes to a court case, I believe they would have a good chance of success.

I hope you're right. Ignoring the 1.1 and continuing on with 1.0a would be best case scenario at this point, if it's legally feasible.

 

[Ondath]

This is about the clearest case of bad action in the games industry I've seen since the last Games Workshop litigation.

I have to admit I laughed a little when WotC's biggest breach of trust with the larger community in the last 20 years is just a regular litigation for Games Workshop in terms of severity.