Ryan Dancey Interview and the OGL

EOL said:
This actually supports my point they wanted to write the rules of the game, so they created a license which if you want the benefits of the license you have to abide by it's restrictions. But if you're not abiding by the D20 system lisence then legally saying your D&D compatible (as long as you don't use any trademarks) is a legal statement of fact and though WoTC might win in court on the basis of the derivitive work doctrine they would not win over the fact that you had that statement on the front of your book.

Um, Ok.

I guess you are right. All of this could happen.

Of course, then when WoTC does win in court, which they would be in about 3 seconds, they get all the profits you ever made plus some, then they get to throw all the copies of your book in an incinerator. So if you are content to have D&D on the cover of your 100% ash format gaming books, more power to you.

But if you think that someone can simply steal WoTC intellectual property just because they write a book that technically is compatible, you really need a little more legal review.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

EOL said:
No, not at all. It means that no one had the will or the money to really force the issue.

What exactly are you basing this claim on?

Intellectual property laws are very well established.

Do you have the slightest support? Or are you just trolling with absurdity?
 

EOL said:
I'm not arguing with those two points, I'm saying that in addition to these points there is a third point. That WoTC is making a legal pre-emptive strike. Because they guessed correctly that 3E might be very popular, popular enough that someone with the will and the capital might try and get this issue decided once and for all in the courts. And it is this point (in addition to the two above actually) which makes me weary of the assertion they they're giving away millions of dollars of intellectual property.

I'm not nitpicking your use of words, in all seriousness, except in this case your use of the word "weary" seems somewhat unclear. By the context of what you're saying, you could either be "wary" - on guard or suspiciously watchful of the situation - or "weary" - tired of hearing about it. What makes the words even more easy to confuse is that "leery" - suspcious or distrustful - sounds like both of them.

If you're tired of hearing about how great WotC is for making the OGL and d20 licenses, then I can understand - we do hear about it a lot (although I haven't grown sick of hearing it myself, since it's a move few, if any, RPG companies would make).

If you're wary of the situation, I'm not sure why. WotC will likely not want to garner a reputation like TSR's by suddenly pulling some Machiavellian scheme and pulling the rug out from under the d20 publishers. I doubt other game companies think that will happen. For example, here is a thread on the HackMaster boards where David Kenzer agrees with my position to an extent (no one being more surprised than me at that! Scroll down to the 8th and 9th posts - and now I notice that David Kenzer said a couple other interesting things about WotC which may be interesting to read):

http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhmpafrm4.showMessageRange?topicID=218.topic&start=21&stop=40
 

Axiomatic Unicorn said:


What exactly are you basing this claim on?

Intellectual property laws are very well established.

Do you have the slightest support? Or are you just trolling with absurdity?
Well I had a $300/hour IP Attorney read over the OGL, D20 System License and the D20 System TM guidelines. His opinion is basically what I'm basing mine on, but maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about maybe he got to be the head of the IP division of the biggest law firm in the state by sleeping with the other partners...

Maybe the guy who wrote the Unofficial OGL FAQ (linked to from here at enworld) doesn't know what he's talking about either.

http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm#_D.05__

But basically yeah, I think I have the "slightest" support, and no I'm not just trolling.
 

ColonelHardisson said:

If you're tired of hearing about how great WotC is for making the OGL and d20 licenses, then I can understand - we do hear about it a lot (although I haven't grown sick of hearing it myself, since it's a move few, if any, RPG companies would make).
I am in fact weary and I changed that word several times as I was composing my post. I didn't want to give the impression that I was fighting mad, or that I didn't really appreciate the OGL and D20 license. I'm just weary of the "unprecedented philanthropic gift"(as I percieve it) argument. And maybe I'm the one who's being nitpicky with words.

If you're wary of the situation, I'm not sure why. WotC will likely not want to garner a reputation like TSR's by suddenly pulling some Machiavellian scheme and pulling the rug out from under the d20 publishers. I doubt other game companies think that will happen. For example, here is a thread on the HackMaster boards where David Kenzer agrees with my position to an extent (no one being more surprised than me at that! Scroll down to the 8th and 9th posts - and now I notice that David Kenzer said a couple other interesting things about WotC which may be interesting to read):

http://pub18.ezboard.com/fhmpafrm4.showMessageRange?topicID=218.topic&start=21&stop=40
I'm not wary of the situation I don't believe Wizards will pull the plug, but thanks for the link anyway Colonel, it had some good stuff. Somewhat OT but I especially liked your refutation of the Nazi(TM) urban legend. I was just telling one of my players the other day that it was not true.
 

EOL said:
Well I had a $300/hour IP Attorney read over the OGL, D20 System License and the D20 System TM guidelines. His opinion is basically what I'm basing mine on, but maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about maybe he got to be the head of the IP division of the biggest law firm in the state by sleeping with the other partners...

Maybe the guy who wrote the Unofficial OGL FAQ (linked to from here at enworld) doesn't know what he's talking about either.

http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm#_D.05__

But basically yeah, I think I have the "slightest" support, and no I'm not just trolling.

I don't see how anybody's interpretation of the OGL is slightly relevant to the concept of intellectual property.

If you claim that a lawyer told you that you can ignore intellectual property rights, either they are jerking your chain or you are jerking ours.
 

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.

Agreed, but given that he was the brand manager responsible for the revitalization of the industry via D&D3e and D20, I think Mr. Dancey is qualified to offer the insights he did in that interview. He may not always be right, but he has a voice of experience we should at least take into consideration.

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.

And if you are just a small time fan running a site with some D20 stuff on it, Dancey has said repeatedly that WotC (most likely) won't bother you about minor infractions. If, however, you are using the D20 license to it's full potential, and making money off of WotC's generous license, it is your responsiblity as a businessman(person :-P ) to fully comply with their license or face the consequences.

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.


I think you are misunderstanding what Dancey was talking about. Forget about D20 system and the D20 system license for a minute, we're talking about the OGL. Someone like White Wolf or Palladium, or Chatdemon's Lameass Games, could use the OGL to open up their system in the same way WotC did, thus creating a new open system, like D20.

What happens instead, like in the case of Gold Rush Games' Action System open game system, is that they create a whole new base license. It's a simple matter of reinventing the wheel. Dancey obviously feels that the OGL is more than sufficient for opening up any game system, and would like to see it become the industry standard for doing so. Dancey has in the past expressed his opinion that D20/D&D is the 'ideal' system for RPGs, but this is not another reflection of that opinion.
 

Oh, and if you take about 10 seconds, you will find that the so-called support you link to clearly states that Dungeons and Dragons is a trademark and can not be referred to.

Next?
 

Axiomatic Unicorn said:
I think the past 15 years of TSR shutting people down left and right goes against your claim.

As a matter of fact, under the current d20 license, you STILL can not say D&D compatible, only d20 compatible.

Um...

"Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook, Third Edition, Published by Wizards of the Coast"

You CAN say that.

WotC, and Dancey himself in fact, have discussed further additions/revisions to the D20 license that would make it possible to refer to the DMG, MM, and possibly Psi handbook in a D20 product.

The D20 logo isn't the only thing you can use to indicate compliance. It's just the big one. Eventually, most players will see the D20 logo and understand "hey, this is one of those 3rd party D&D things, kewl", so the point becomes moot, but your contention that WotC does not allow you to indicate compatibility with D&D under the D20 license is untrue.

Now, if you are only using the OGL and the D20 srd, but not the D20 license, you can't use either. Even referring to D20 compatibility in this case is a breach of license, so be careful.
 

Intellectual Property rights is a moot point when discussing D20.

You can forgo the licenses altogether and try to use derivative work concepts and laws to publish D&D knockoff products, but why? You'll get sued, by hasbro, can you afford that?

Instead you willingly give up a few of your rights and agree not to contest WotC's claims about their ownership of their IP, and use the D20 license. If you follow their rules, they won't sue you. It's what is known as 'safe harbor', and it's more than fair on their part.

If you know what you are getting into before you proceed, you wont get screwed, its that simple.
 

Remove ads

Top