Ryan Dancey & AEG Part Ways Following AI Comments

COO says that AI could make any of the company's games.
Alderac_brandpage_BS_1200x600_crop_center.webp


Ryan Dancey, the Chief Operating Officer of boardgame publisher Alderac Entertainment Group, no longer works for the company, following statements on social media where he claimed that AI could make most of the company's board games, and that D&D and Magic: the Gathering were the only new forms of gameplay in his lifetime. After another poster on LinkedIn claimed that "AI wouldn't come up with Tiny Towns or Flip Seven or Cubitos because it doesn't understand the human element of fun", Dancey responded that he had zero reason to believe that AI could not do such a thing.

"I have zero reason to believe that an Al couldn't come up with Tiny Towns or Flip Seven or Cubitos. I can prompt any of several Als RIGHT NOW and get ideas for games as good as those. The gaming industry doesn't exist because humans create otherwise unobtainable ideas. It exists because many many previous games exist, feed into the minds of designers, who produce new variants on those themes. People then apply risk capital against those ideas to see if there's a product market fit. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not. (In fact, much more often than not).

Extremely occasionally (twice in my lifetime: D&D and Magic: the Gathering) a human has produced an all new form of gaming entertainment. Those moments are so rare and incandescent that they echo across decades.

Game publishing isn't an industry of unique special ideas. It's an industry about execution, marketing, and attention to detail. All things Als are great at."
- Ryan Dancey​

The Cardboard Herald, a boardgame reviews channel, responded yesterday on BlueSky that "As you may have seen, [AEG] CEO Ryan Dancey stated that AI can make games “just as good as Tiny Towns or Flip 7 or Cubitos”, completely missing the inexorable humanity involved.We’ve spent 10 years celebrating creatives in the industry. Until he’s gone we will not work with AEG."

Today, AEG's CEO John Zinser stated "Today I want to share that Ryan Dancey and AEG have parted ways.This is not an easy post to write. Ryan has been a significant part of AEG’s story, and I am personally grateful for the years of work, passion, and intensity he brought to the company. We have built a lot together. As AEG moves into its next chapter, leadership alignment and clarity matter more than ever. This transition reflects that reality.Our commitment to our designers, partners, retailers, and players remains unchanged. We will continue building great games through collaboration, creativity, and trust."

Dancey himself posted "This morning [John Zinser] and I talked about the aftermath of my post yesterday about the ability of AI to create ideas for games. He's decided that it's time for me to move on to new adventures. Sorry to have things end like this. I've enjoyed my 10 years at AEG. I wish the team there the best in their future endeavors.

I believe we're at a civilizational turning point. That who we are and how we are is going to change on the order of what happened during the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions; and it's past time we started talking about it and not being afraid to discuss the topic. Talking about AI, being honest about what it can and cannot do, and thinking about the implications is something we have to begin to do in a widespread way. Humans have a unique creative spark that differentiates us and makes us special and we should celebrate that specialness as we experience this epic change.

For the record: I do not believe that AI will replace the work talented game designer/developers do, nor do I think it is appropriate to use AI to replace the role of designer/developers in the publication of tabletop games. During my time at AEG I developed and implemented polices and contracts that reflect those views. It's important to me that you know what I believe and what I don't believe on this particular topic, despite what you may have read elsewhere."

Whatever your position on generative LLMs and the like, when the COO of your company announces publicly that all of the company’s games could have been made by AI, it’s a problem. UK readers may recall when major jewelry chain Ratners’ CEO Gerald Ratner famously announced that the products sold in his stores were “trash”, instantly wiping half a billion pounds from the company’s value back in the early 1990s. The company was forced to close stores and rebrand to Signet Group. At the time the Ratners Group was the world's biggest jewelry retailer. Ratner himself was forced to resign in 1992. The act of making a damaging statement about the quality of your own company’s products became known as “doing a Ratner”.

Dancey was VP of Wizards of the Coast when the company acquired TSR, the then-owner of Dungeons & Dragons. He is also known for being the architect of the Open Game License. Dancey has worked as Chief Operating Officer for AEG for 10 years, and was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company, second-in-command after the CEO, John Zinser.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


NGL, but thinking the complaint of "it is terrible making creative works" negates or even in any way mitigates the complaint of "and many creative people will lose their livelihoods" is some charming naivety. People are going to lose their livelihoods, AND the quality of creative output is going to crater. But some of the worst people in the world will get even wealthier! So that's the plus
 

I’ve seen some articles in the news lately about how very recent LLMs like GPT 5.2 Pro have helped mathematicians.


Follow-up on the First Proof testing: OpenAI claims an internal model “probably” correctly solved five of the ten First Proof problems.

Google claims its Aletheia solved six of the ten problems.

Consumer models like GPT 5.2 Pro—which has helped mathematicians solve Erdos problems—performed less well autonomously (more-or-less) solving First Proof problems.

First Proof will do a more rigorous test in mid-March.

The authors themselves only solved two of the 10 problems using Gemini 3.0 Deep Think and ChatGPT 5.2 Pro. And most outside submissions fared little better, apart from OpenAI and a small Aletheia team at GoogleDeepMind. With “limited human supervision” OpenAI’s most advanced internal AI system solved five of the 10 problems, with Aletheia achieving similar outcomes—results met with a spectrum of emotions by different members of the mathematics community, from awe to disappointment. The team behind First Proof plans an even tougher second round on March 14.
 

This is not about debating for correctness points. Folks pushing against AI are not doing so to be "right". They are doing so to prevent unnecessary harm before it happens. So, in the best of possible worlds, the harm never happens.
I don't believe you that people who are pushing against AI are doing so effectively. I've asked on these boards how we can come up with effective actions to help. None of the anti AI folks had any interest in practical actions to reduce the harm that will be caused by AI.

All I see from folks who are anti-AI is "evil evil bad!" and the the most effective actions they support are complete bans/boycotts.
With the current growth and acceptance of AI in the RPG market and world, it's obvious such tactics are not working.

So in effect, anti-AI movement is not going to achieve what such people want, and they are unwilling to actually do anything that will. So all they are doing is voicing their opinions so they can be "right" and say "I told you so".
The point is to make clear that many of the likely outcomes are undesireable, so that those outcomes never occur. Finding proof that they do occur means the harm happened, and it is too late to avoid it.
If it's not too late already, what are the anti-AI people going to do that is effective?
As for who needs to prove what... it seems to me that if new a tool risks widespread loss of livelihood, the burden of proof that it'll be okay is on those arguing for the use of the tool.
Really? Not washing your hands has a risk to evolve a human ending virus/bacteria. The risk is near infitesimally (sp?) tiny and so we all generally ignore that risk to humans. The development of nuclear weapons the risk has generally been considered high, high enough that society has taken action. AI is generally in the same level of risk (to me), but "we" didn't just assume the world was united on accepting that level of risk. Humans did not just assume that the risk was so universally accepted that parts of society did not work on providing data and support educating and discussing the risks associated with the technology.

Sure, go ahead and assume, go ahead and refuse to provide data or support for your views. But don't be surprised when you (anti-AI advocated) voice is ignored, dismissed and your (anti-AI advocated) actions are ineffective in reaching your (anti-AI) goal.

To me, this reply is not about supporting pro or anti, but more to point out that when someone wants to resist some common momentum, then you do need to supply data, rational and such. It doesn't matter how "obvious" the logic is to "you" or so apparent it "should be" to everyone, but since you want to change the default societal behavior, you're going to need to do something effective.
 

I don't believe you that people who are pushing against AI are doing so effectively. I've asked on these boards how we can come up with effective actions to help. None of the anti AI folks had any interest in practical actions to reduce the harm that will be caused by AI.

Responsibility to manage change properly lies with the people who want the change, not with the ones who do not want the change.
 

Responsibility to manage change properly lies with the people who want the change, not with the ones who do not want the change.
That's my point as well.

Where we disagree is what side of the change AI is on. My opinion is that the acceptance of AI is the norm. This can be seen in data and society by the large acceptance of AI in people everyday life. Smart phones now include AI. Most search engines give AI summaries. etc.

To me, acceptance of AI is the expectation, it is the norm. Preventing the adoption of AI is the change.

If I'm right in this perspective, then you/those against AI will be more likely to reach their goals of minimizing the harm that AI will cause if and only if the advice of providing support of their views is provided. Do you want to cover your bases to improve the chance of being effective, or assume I'm wrong and limit the chance of your view being effective?
 

That's my point as well.

Where we disagree is what side of the change AI is on. My opinion is that the acceptance of AI is the norm. This can be seen in data and society by the large acceptance of AI in people everyday life. Smart phones now include AI. Most search engines give AI summaries. etc.

Edit to clarify:

Is "acceptance" an eager adoption, or being resigned that the Powers that Be are forcing it on us?

You must be careful to differentiate between "the provider has decided to put it there" and "the user really accepts it".

If a cell provider pushes AI onto the user's phone, if Google puts an AI summary at the top of the page, and providers otherwise shove it at the user without having an easy way to say no or remove them, that is NOT active acceptance on the user's part.
 
Last edited:

All I see from folks who are anti-AI is "evil evil bad!" and the the most effective actions they support are complete bans/boycotts.
With the current growth and acceptance of AI in the RPG market and world, it's obvious such tactics are not working.
I think the boycott attempt in the rpg community had some success in getting Wizards to declare they weren't going to use AI art. But, I also think those tactics are going to be less effective now that AI is genuinely useful. RPGs are small and networked enough that there's still hope of success, though.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top