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.

​

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However the players will take a minor hit

I don't agree. I've played RPGs for 34 years. When an RPG stops getting content, what matters is how that RPG was designed. Some games, like Worlds Without Number or Dungeon World, don't really need expansions or support, because they're designed to self-generate content. Others though, like PF1/2, and most "adventure-centric" games (I'd include DCC and stuff in that) benefit heavily from support. PF2 particularly would be painful.

I noted a post by a PF person which I'll comment on later though which suggests either Paizo have signed a sweetheart deal or the OGL 1.1 is changing (or both).

And I have watched pathfinder players do exactly what I said I would not... sing victory songs and dance on the grave of 4e.

I watched a lot more people than PF1 players do that, indeed the most aggressive celebration was from people who never even swapped to PF1, because they wanted the D&D brand as well as the mechanics they wanted, and more to the point, PF1 didn't cause it. WotC did.

So blaming people who cheer, not people who do seem to me to be pretty wrong. There were also quite a number of PF1 fans, I was surprised to note, who felt bad when 4E got replaced, and expressed sympathy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The OGL:Noncommercial exists because: "We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever."

I don't get it. Can you explain further?

 

[Maxperson]

They can still purchase it under OGL 1.1 if section 9s wording is taken literally. Hell Enworld Publishing can make modifications to that set of published material under OGL 1.1 and continue to sell it without having to adhere to the other terms of OGL 1.1 (like the royalty clause). Based on the terms of section 9. EWP just can't create NEW works without having to then adhere to the new terms (ie the royalty ones)

This can be false, depending on how 1.1 is written. If 1.1 is written with a clause that requires anyone using it to give up their rights to use all prior OGL's, ENworld could not do what you suggest.

 

[Vaalingrade]

because when I look at this, i don't see it.

Okay, but why keep on trying to compare and equate harm? What is the value of it? Why did the entire post after this quote just go on to basically enumerate who does and does not get to be worried, concerned with or hurt by this?

It's just being pointlessly nasty for no one's gain but WotC's because you better believe their defenders are going to use the 'you aren't actually being hurt' as a rallying cry.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So blaming people who cheer, not people who do seem to me to be pretty wrong. There were also quite a number of PF1 fans, I was surprised to note, who felt bad when 4E got replaced, and expressed sympathy.

again. I have my sympathy for anyone that can't buy new content. I also have sympathy for people who's favorite TV show gets canceled. I just don't see where that is anywhere near the same scope as losing your lively hood.

 

[Maxperson]

I never said it wasn't possible they change the fan policy, I said there is no reason to assume they will and worry about it now. So far the new OGL isn't fully open and isn't as generous as the old... but it still allows for 80-90% of creators (those making less then $750k a year) to keep on going with only a little change.

This really isn't true, though. WotC can deny people access to the new license whenever want(with 30 days notice), and produce that content when and if they want with no payment to the creator. They can also lower the threshold to 30k or even $1 a year if they want.

Many of the smaller creators are not going to want that hanging over their heads and will turn to other ways to make money.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This really isn't true, though. WotC can deny people access to the new license whenever want(with 30 days notice), and produce that content when and if they want with no payment to the creator. They can also lower the threshold to 30k or even $1 a year if they want.

Many of the smaller creators are not going to want that hanging over their heads and will turn to other ways to make money.

Honestly I think this could lead to an explosion of original systems, something we haven't seen in the hobby on a broad scale since before the OGL (there have long been other systems but d20 has been so dominant and replicated that it often feels like there aren't alternatives out there to many). This also may have created the first opportunity in a number of years for D&D to be challenged by serious competition (it could also seal D&D as the one true game depending on how things go). I think if they yank the license, and people don't want to sign on for the new one, they've essentially produced a spark like the one that motivated Paizo to launch Pathfinder but on a much larger scale and spread out across many more companies. So they may have created the opportunity for more competition and given the competition real motivation to beat them. We will see how that plays out

 

[payn]

Honestly I think this could lead to an explosion of original systems, something we haven't seen in the hobby on a broad scale since before the OGL (there have long been other systems but d20 has been so dominant and replicated that it often feels like there aren't alternatives out there to many). This also may have created the first opportunity in a number of years for D&D to be challenged by serious competition (it could also seal D&D as the one true game depending on how things go). I think if they yank the license, and people don't want to sign on for the new one, they've essentially produced a spark like the one that motivated Paizo to launch Pathfinder but on a much larger scale and spread out across many more companies. So they may have created the opportunity for more competition and given the competition real motivation to beat them. We will see how that plays out

I dont know if folks have the resources or market to really launch a bunch of independent systems. Most of them have limped along because of the OGL. Now, if the third party community along with say Paizo creates their own OGL, I could see a major competitor to D&D rising.

 

[darjr]

@RyanD did you write the OGL 1.0? Did a lawyer write it? Or did you write it and a lawyer reviewed/edited it?

 

[Scribe]

I noted a post by a PF person which I'll comment on later though which suggests either Paizo have signed a sweetheart deal or the OGL 1.1 is changing (or both).

? This is relevant to my interests.