Hi. I've never posted here before, but after reading the most recent Ryan Dancey interview I feel the need to comment in some form of public forum that may reach his ears.
Mr. Dancey's enthusiasm for the OGL is obvious, but he seems to be overlooking a lot of things in his article, a lot of legitimate concerns gamers have about the course of their industry. And make no mistake, it belongs to us.
First, he chews out publishers for noncompliance with the liscence. While I can understand his feelings in regards to those publishers who have entirely neglected to include the lisence (I recall the AEG Evil book had a sticker on the back page), he should make an effort to understand that the gaming industry is not comprised of lawyers; we are all fans. My initial enthusiasm for the lisence was based off the fact that it would allow the "little guy" easier access to the roleplaying market, and a chance for more backyard operators to get their stuff out there. If the motivation behnd the lisence is to open gaing up, rather than simply subvert pre-existing companies with resources to using the system promoted by WotC, then efforts must be made to help these small publishers, rather than threatsof litigation.
But my biggest gripe comes at the end of the interview, where he challanges other game designers for doing eactly what WotC did and creating the own OGL's. He asks why they can't simply use the pre-existing system.
Well, where I come from, people are hardly unanimous in their support of D20 system. I myself have many reservations about it. I think it works great for games that already have the d20 system in mind and that are primarily fantasy based. However, my experience with the system in more modern or science fiction settings is that it works less well. Others may disagree; that's their right. However, the d20 system is by no means a "universal" system. It evolved out of a very specific set of rules, for a specific style of game play. However much it may have changed, the original influences are still there. I think that this is perhaps most graphically illustrated in example of Star Wars, which is being re-written less than two years after it's release. So I can certainly understand why people might be inclined to write their own system for an OGL; one that more readily adapts to different genres (If I had to put my hand up and name a system I'd like to see with an OGL attached, I'd say for pure versatility you can't go past the Feng Shui system).
This is not a condemnation of the d20 system or the OGL; I think that there is great things about both. But Ryan's article comes perilously close to the "One System to Rule them all" accusations that have been levelled at WotC since the opening of the Lisence.
Reuben.
Mr. Dancey's enthusiasm for the OGL is obvious, but he seems to be overlooking a lot of things in his article, a lot of legitimate concerns gamers have about the course of their industry. And make no mistake, it belongs to us.
First, he chews out publishers for noncompliance with the liscence. While I can understand his feelings in regards to those publishers who have entirely neglected to include the lisence (I recall the AEG Evil book had a sticker on the back page), he should make an effort to understand that the gaming industry is not comprised of lawyers; we are all fans. My initial enthusiasm for the lisence was based off the fact that it would allow the "little guy" easier access to the roleplaying market, and a chance for more backyard operators to get their stuff out there. If the motivation behnd the lisence is to open gaing up, rather than simply subvert pre-existing companies with resources to using the system promoted by WotC, then efforts must be made to help these small publishers, rather than threatsof litigation.
But my biggest gripe comes at the end of the interview, where he challanges other game designers for doing eactly what WotC did and creating the own OGL's. He asks why they can't simply use the pre-existing system.
Well, where I come from, people are hardly unanimous in their support of D20 system. I myself have many reservations about it. I think it works great for games that already have the d20 system in mind and that are primarily fantasy based. However, my experience with the system in more modern or science fiction settings is that it works less well. Others may disagree; that's their right. However, the d20 system is by no means a "universal" system. It evolved out of a very specific set of rules, for a specific style of game play. However much it may have changed, the original influences are still there. I think that this is perhaps most graphically illustrated in example of Star Wars, which is being re-written less than two years after it's release. So I can certainly understand why people might be inclined to write their own system for an OGL; one that more readily adapts to different genres (If I had to put my hand up and name a system I'd like to see with an OGL attached, I'd say for pure versatility you can't go past the Feng Shui system).
This is not a condemnation of the d20 system or the OGL; I think that there is great things about both. But Ryan's article comes perilously close to the "One System to Rule them all" accusations that have been levelled at WotC since the opening of the Lisence.
Reuben.
