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.

​

 

[mamba]

Could dancy have written "I wizard of the cost do forever give D&D to the fans to work on no takes backs" sure... but I am also sure that wouldn't stand up in court either.

which is the point I am lamenting

 

[kenada]

mechanics to me are rules, a monster stat block is not that, it is a set of values that is only meaningful because of the existing mechanics

It’s in a condensed format, but the stat block provides the rules for running the monster. How else does one know how many dice to roll when the dragon breaths or what the DC is to save against the medusa’s gaze?

Let's turn this around, so any OGL monster book has to include the stats in the OGC automatically?

Sure. It seems like they should be to me. That’s (more or less) how Paizo handles things in their OGC declarations. They don’t call out stat blocks or anything like that as something special. They just say the OGC is the OGC as defined by section 1(d).

 

[mamba]

It’s in a condensed format, but the stat block provides the rules for running the monster. How else does one know how many dice to roll when the dragon breaths or what the DC is to save against the medusa’s gaze?

but all of that only is meaningful because you have the mechanics already.

If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.

Sure. It seems like they should be to me. That’s (more or less) how Paizo handles things in their OGC declarations. They don’t call out stat blocks or anything like that as something special. They just say the OGC is the OGC as defined by section 1(d).

but they spell it out, they do not assume that they automatically are

 

[Nikosandros]

If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.

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.

 

[Reynard]

but all if that only is meaningful because you have the mechanics already.

If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.



but they spell it out, they do not assume that they automatically are

You are missing the point. Material derivative of Open Gaming Content is itself Open Gaming Content. Full stop. You can designate other things as OGC -- there are some people and companies that just say "everything but the defined Product Identity is OGC -- or not as you desire. But if it is derivative of any OGC it is OGC. So any monster stat block (not the description unless you specify), any feat or spell or class ability mechanics.

If you came up with a novel system -- say AiME's journey system, or an aerial combat system-- you can not designate those things assuming they aren't based on any OGC in your Section 15 references.

 

[Simplicity]

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.

 

[kenada]

but all if that only is meaningful because you have the mechanics already.

If I gave you a Goblin with Abs 3, Plonk 5 and Wit 4, you would have no idea what to do with it.

You have some of the mechanics but not all of them. Otherwise, the stats wouldn’t be necessary.

but they spell it out, they do not assume that they automatically are

They spell it out because section 8 of the OGL requires them to identify which portions of the work are OGC.

 

[mamba]

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.

you know the rules better than I do

 

[kenada]

If you came up with a novel system -- say AiME's journey system, or an aerial combat system-- you can not designate those things assuming they aren't based on any OGC in your Section 15 references.

I’m having trouble parsing this. Are you saying you can opt not to declare the OGC? The way section 1(d) reads to me suggests mechanics are definitionally OGC except when they “embody” Product Identity or fail to be an enhancement over prior art (i.e., public domain material cannot be declared OGC).

 

[mamba]

You are missing the point. Material derivative of Open Gaming Content is itself Open Gaming Content. Full stop.

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 ?