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.

​

 

[Reynard]

OneD&D is in danger of making the same mistake. The network effects of 5e are arguably stronger than they were in the 3.0/3.5 era. If WotC is not careful, their biggest competition will become 5e or a clone that is closer to 5e than

1D&D isn't (as far as we have seen) a radical (or even moderate) departure from 5E. Prior to the OGL debacle, no one had any reason to jump ship during to the evolution, least of all successful 5E 3PPs.

 

[wingsandsword]

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 it indirectly helped D&D, because it kept gamers that rejected 4th edition because it was so unlike third edition in the hobby. They didn't quit gaming, they stayed involved, and they were still around when fifth edition came out

 

[Greg Benage]

What? No, they weren't. They were always separate licenses. It was expected that most 3PP would use both, but they were always separate.

Obviously, by the time they were released, the OGL and d20 STL were two separate licenses. But they were originally conceived as a single license, according to Ryan. Perhaps he can confirm if he returns to answer my follow-up question.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

4e abandoned the previous network and ended up essentially being the newcomer trying to beat the successor of its more established prior version.

OneD&D is in danger of making the same mistake. The network effects of 5e are arguably stronger than they were in the 3.0/3.5 era. If WotC is not careful, their biggest competition will become 5e or a clone that is closer to 5e than OneD&D is.

this is my only issue with the OGL and I find it funny. Coming out in 2000 when there were so many changes from 2e. Today (and 2008) when you try to make such stark changes you end up with not just "Well I will just stay with the last edition and never get new content" but "Well I can stay with a retroclone and people still supporting it like it's the current edition" and I have to wonder if there was a 'pathfinder' of 2001 if 3e would have caught on at all.

I played 2e, I loved it, but my biggest issue trying to go back would be Thac0 and saves... but I still have a player and hear people on here and elsewhere talk like those two things were amazing.

4e COULD have done better if marketing hadn't been as bad and if the OGL had not been abandoned... but people from PF say they were not going to support it anyway... leading to that split being almost a forgone conculsion.

If there were no 3rd parties I wonder how many people that didn't try 4e would have after a year or so said "Well I guess I could try it" the way I saw people slowly come in from 2e (and even my group only slowly came into 5e)

now llooking at the changes for 1D&D I can see somethings I like and some I don't (and lets be honest there are some people that hate most of the changes even here on this board), so I wonder if WotC is doing this now to be like "If you want to stay behind you get left behind"

 

[overgeeked]

Hmm, that sounds familiar...

Exactly. They were worried about another Pathfinder so instead of one they created dozens.

 

[Art Waring]

Exactly. They were worried about another Pathfinder so instead of one they created dozens.

The more they tighten their grasp, the more 3pp's will slip through their fingers.

 

[overgeeked]

The more they tighten their grasp, the more 3pp's will slip through their fingers.

But, unless they are grossly incompetent, they could not have even hoped in their wildest dreams that any 3PP would sign this disaster. So, assuming they’re not grossly incompetent, why would they do this? What benefit does it give them to drive away all the companies who’re actively supporting their game?

 

[Reynard]

Exactly. They were worried about another Pathfinder so instead of one they created dozens.

That's still better for WotC. A single, unified 3PP front could potentially be a real competitor.

 

[Art Waring]

But, unless they are grossly incompetent, they could not have even hoped in their wildest dreams that any 3PP would sign this disaster. So, assuming they’re not grossly incompetent, why would they do this? What benefit does it give them to drive away all the companies who’re actively supporting their game?

Its very possible that the decisions were compartmentalized, and the people who could have made a difference from within didn't find out until it was too late.

 

[Branduil]

But, unless they are grossly incompetent, they could not have even hoped in their wildest dreams that any 3PP would sign this disaster. So, assuming they’re not grossly incompetent, why would they do this? What benefit does it give them to drive away all the companies who’re actively supporting their game?

I think they absolutely thought 3PPs would sign on.

Let this be the year people start realizing you are not necessarily intelligent or good at making decisions just because you're wealthy or run a massive corporation.