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.

​

 

[rknop]

Of course, that was the d20 system license, not the OGL.

 

[Greg Benage]

Of course, that was the d20 system license, not the OGL.

Yeah, true, but we also know they were originally consolidated in one license. I guess I’ll just always wonder if they ever anticipated something like Pathfinder.

 

[RyanD]

Yeah, true, but we also know they were originally consolidated in one license. I guess I’ll just always wonder if they ever anticipated something like Pathfinder.

100%. That's why the D20STL forced you to not make a "player's handbook".

Not only did we expect it, I expected people to publish the SRD as a product and try to make money from it.

 

[Greg Benage]

Not only did we expect it, I expected people to publish the SRD as a product and try to make money from it.

Thank you. If you don't mind a follow up, how did you reconcile this anticipation of something like Pathfinder with the stated business goal, as you articulated it here in this blog post:

The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books. This is a feedback cycle -- the more effective the support is, the more people play D&D. The more people play D&D, the more effective the support is.

 

[Scribe]

Thank you. If you don't mind a follow up, how did you reconcile this anticipation of something like Pathfinder with the stated business goal, as you articulated it here in this blog post:

I mean that kinda looks like 5e life cycle to me?

 

[Greg Benage]

I mean that kinda looks like 5e life cycle to me?

I don’t feel like Pathfinder redirected support to the D&D game, quite the opposite, but it would be really interesting to me if I’m wrong. That’s why I asked the follow-up question.

 

[Scribe]

I don’t feel like Pathfinder redirected support to the D&D game, quite the opposite, but it would be really interesting to me if I’m wrong. That’s why I asked the follow-up question.

I think Pathfinder is different, because Wizards fundamentally changed the game.

Looking at 5e, on release, and how 3PP then supported it, and it grew and then the feedback loop kicks in.

4e/PF is an aberration.

 

[Greg Benage]

I think Pathfinder is different, because Wizards fundamentally changed the game.

Looking at 5e, on release, and how 3PP then supported it, and it grew and then the feedback loop kicks in.

4e/PF is an aberration.

All well and good, but my question was about Pathfinder and whether they anticipated something like it that would directly compete with D&D.

 

[Nylanfs]

Note, this was from BEFORE the OGL and SRD was made. The original idea was going to be that the PHB, DMG, and the MM were themselves the SRD and there by OGC.

 

[Clint_L]

All well and good, but my question was about Pathfinder and whether they anticipated something like it that would directly compete with D&D.

Very likely not, or they wouldn't have done it. I think they anticipated that the D&D community would follow along to the new edition, as had happened in the past, and besides - what choice would they have? But the new edition was quite different, while the OGL suddenly made it possible for Paizo to release a game that played more like what folks were used to, giving them that choice, and, yeah. (Also, WotC kind of made it so Paizo needed to create Pathfinder in order to support their existing and planned material, because they couldn't release it for 4e). WotC kind of shot themselves in the foot, there. With both barrels. Thus the rapid backtracking (rapid by editions standards).

Fortunately, they learned from that and never, ever did anything with the OGL that backfired ever again.