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.

​

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I do not count 3.0 and 3.5 as two editions, and I do the same for 4e and essentials.

I don't count 4e essentials but I totally count 3e and 3,5 the same way I count 1e and 2e.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd define it as "don't have to try a reboot in two years and sunset in four." Anyway, while I missed it all, I know this is a fraught subject and I wasn't trying to edition war.

okay, then can we all just agree to disagree and walk away form the 4e talk?

 

[Steel_Wind]

well, Solasta has a license, so there is no need for that

Looking online, they are simply sheltered under the 1.0a 5.1 SRD. It's royalty free.

Am I missing something? Solasta: Crown of the Magister

Yeah, that stone in my WotC shoe is still there it seems.

 

[Simplicity]

From a Hasbro exec's position, I would personally take great umbrage at Tactical Adventures and Solasta under the OGL. It hasn't exactly been a smash hit -- but Solasta is a game that if I were at WotC, I would see that as using MY DAMN IP FOR FREE -- and I would not be okay with that if I were at WotC. That would move the needle, for me. To be clear, I am not saying the publisher of Solasta has done anything legally wrong (great game!) but in terms of an emotional, visceral reaction? That would be a stone in my shoe if I were an exec at WotC/Hasbro, no doubt about that.

I mean Wizards explicitly said that the SRD could be used for software. If the suits at Hasbro could be bothered to shamble down from their golden coin piles, they would realize that they could be licensing D&D videogames such that all the good ones weren't like 20 years old. I'm certain Solasta team would have loved to have used more than the SRD. And in fact they would probably pay to include some non SRD stuff in a DLC. But no. Get angry because someone did something fairly simple (directly translate the game) that they couldn't bother to do.

 

[mamba]

again, I'm not claiming we have info we don't. We have EXACTLY what I said. it also comes from a bias source. There is NO REASON to trust WotC wouldn't spin those numbers too. BUT you don't get to make up facts just cause we don't have them. so

either 1) we go by the little we know, or 2) we go by gut. neither way will either of us convince the other of our beliefs.

Well, we cannot go by what WotC said for the obvious reason I already pointed out, they were talking about initial sales and cannot have meant lifetime.

So we are left with how did WotC act, and having a revision 2 years after the initial release is not a sign of health. That revision being dropped two years later altogether is not either. Product lines being cancelled before they even started (Dragonlance 4e) because sales fell off a cliff also does not improve that picture.

So yes, we have no definitive numbers, but if 4e had outsold 3e, then WotC behaved pretty erratically during that time.

 

[bedir than]

Well, we cannot go by what WotC said for the obvious reason I already pointed out, they were talking about initial sales and cannot have meant lifetime.

So we are left with how did WotC act, and having a revision 2 years after the initial release is not a sign of health. That revision being dropped two years later altogether is not either. Product lines being cancelled before they even started (Dragonlance 4e) because sales fell off a cliff also does improve that picture.

So yes, we have no definitive numbers, but if 4e had outsold 3e, then WotC behaved pretty erratically during that time.

Four people who would know

 

[Cadence]

Four people who would know

Are they like talking about over the respective product lifespans in total (which I don't think I've seen anyone argue otherwise), or that PF never outsold 4E in any given month/quarter when they were both being put out?

 

[Mecheon]

Nobody ever talks about the Paizo online store and direct sales of the time...

That'd be because that's an unknown. All I know is on Amazon, 4E outsold Pathfinder. Was Amazon an outlier? Could have been. Certainly a far off time to its modern dominance. But, well, with Paizo's numbers not really being known we can never know for sure

 

[Steel_Wind]

I mean Wizards explicitly said that the SRD could be used for software. If the suits at Hasbro could be bothered to shamble down from their golden coin piles, they would realize that they could be licensing D&D videogames such that all the good ones weren't like 20 years old. I'm certain Solasta team would have loved to have used more than the SRD. And in fact they would probably pay to include some non SRD stuff in a DLC. But no. Get angry because someone did something fairly simple (directly translate the game) that they couldn't bother to do.

I'm not blaming TA & Solasta. I like the game a lot.

I am, however, trying to see WotC's point of view here and their reasonable commercial interests -- and that one would push me over the cliff on the OGL. The rest I might ignore -- but not that.

 

[mamba]

Looking online, they are simply sheltered under the 1.0a 5.1 SRD. It's royalty free.

Am I missing something? Solasta: Crown of the Magister

Yeah, that stone in my WotC shoe is still there it seems.

did not see any terms in the announcement that they licensed the SRD and would have been surprised to find any. They are under an NDA, so I would be surprised if all they had were the OGL and free access. Assuming they paid nothing, your initial point stands