Ryan Dancey Interview and the OGL

[monkey]

Hey all.
I think I've been somewhat misinterpreted. All I was saying was the WotC should have some patience with people doing the OGL/d20 (I'm having some difficulty understanding the distinction), not that they should sacrifice their property rights.
In addition, the focus of my post (which was badly organised, on reflection) was on Mr. Dancey's incredulity that people were trying to create their own systems for OGL purposes, as if the d20 system should fulfill all roles. It was this that I primarily took issue with.
Reuben

 

[Welverin]

Hey all.
I think I've been somewhat misinterpreted. All I was saying was the WotC should have some patience with people doing the OGL/d20...

WotC has been patient with companies who haven't properly followed the OGL and D20 STL. Which Ryan pointed out in this article. Despite some serious breaches WotC still has even threatened any sort of litigation much less actually started any.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Here is my own perception of the difference between OGL and d20, as far as licensing is concerned - and I'm wanting someone to correct me, 'cause I know I don't understand it well.

d20 means that you have to stay within certain restriction in order to display the logo, thereby linking your product to d20 and D&D. The main restriction that I'm aware of is that you can't change the way character generation is done.

OGL means you can use the d20 system (or any system, really), and even fundamentally change certain aspects of the game, including character generation. For example, Ryan Dancey makes mention in his interview with Campaign Magazine that he'd like to see someone do classless/levelless d20, but that it could only be done under the OGL, not the d20 license. The main restriction with OGL is that you can make no reference to d20, D&D, or product identity stuff like names (Bigby, for instance). Where it gets hazy to me is whether this means you can't call a paladin a paladin, or armor class armor class, or hit points hit points - sorry if I sound like a Little Caesar's commercial; I hope you see what I'm getting at.

So, show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Christian]

Hey all.
I think I've been somewhat misinterpreted. All I was saying was the WotC should have some patience with people doing the OGL/d20 (I'm having some difficulty understanding the distinction), not that they should sacrifice their property rights.
In addition, the focus of my post (which was badly organised, on reflection) was on Mr. Dancey's incredulity that people were trying to create their own systems for OGL purposes, as if the d20 system should fulfill all roles. It was this that I primarily took issue with.
Reuben

This page shows the full text of the Open Gaming License drafted by Dancey and WOTC. You'll notice that no reference is made to D&D, d20, or any other specific gaming content. Dancey is complaining that other publishers are drafting their own versions of the OGL, when the WOTC version should be acceptable for any sort of 'copyleft' setup.

d20 is the portion of Dungeons and Dragons which WOTC is 'copylefting' under the OGL rather than copyrighting. The d20 SRD is the definitive list of what's included in the d20 release under the OGL.

Does that make more sense now?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Good call, Christian; Dancey wasn't saying "all games must be d20;" he was saying the OGL was written to be used across the board, and used for any game system the designer wishes to designate OGL, not just d20.

Also, the d20 and OGL licenses really do give the "little guy" a leg up, but by "little guy" I think what is meant is the serious small businessperson who is willing to hire attorneys and go through the legalities to establish themselves, not necessarily just anyone who gets the hankerin' to write their own game. It strikes me that it especially helps established game designers, like Monte Cook, to go out on their own and get away from freelancing, and write exactly what they want to write.

But, that's just my view, and I could very well be wrong on any and all counts.

 

[rounser]

Dancey is complaining that other publishers are drafting their own versions of the OGL, when the WOTC version should be acceptable for any sort of 'copyleft' setup.

I can understand the psychology of not using the OGL though. If publishers are doing non-d20 open stuff (perhaps even setting up their own open schemes to "combat" d20), and they resent the d20 for whatever reason, they probably won't use the OGL purely for it's association with d20.

So there's probably symbolic, political, and idealogical reasons not to use the OGL for non-d20 publishers, because of it's origins and what it is associated with. For these publishers, annoying Dancey might even be considered a bonus.

 

[Christian]

For example, Ryan Dancey makes mention in his interview with Campaign Magazine that he'd like to see someone do classless/levelless d20, but that it could only be done under the OGL, not the d20 license. The main restriction with OGL is that you can make no reference to d20, D&D, or product identity stuff like names (Bigby, for instance). Where it gets hazy to me is whether this means you can't call a paladin a paladin, or armor class armor class, or hit points hit points - sorry if I sound like a Little Caesar's commercial; I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Officially, everything listed as 'released' on the SRD is fair game for anyone creating a game under the OGL. Remember that anything you don't mark as 'product identity' in your publication (and there's a fairly restrictive list of what you can so mark) is fair game for other OGL publishers to use! But since the Paladin class and the terms 'Armor Class' and 'Hit Points' are in the SRD, there are *no* restrictions on how you can use those, other than the terms of the OGL. (Part of the reason the SRD is being released so slowly is that the lawyers and designers are all going to want to go over the draft with a magnifying glass ...) If a name of anything is something WOTC wants to control as 'product identity', then they need to delete it from the SRD. And once it's 'released', then the genie's out of the bottle-the OGL says that anything published under that license is available for free use in perpetuity (section 4).

I'm sure there must be some folks at WOTC still thinking to themselves, "What have we done?!" Dancey must be one hell of a salesman.

Maybe I'll talk later about the loophole they left themselves by copyrighting the Player's Handbook (etc.) while publishing only the SRD under the OGL, rather than publishing the PHB (etc.) under the OGL with the product identity marked ...

 

[Corinth]

I still don't understand why any publisher would not leap to use the OGL.

 

[monkey]

Colonel Hardinsson wrote:
Also, the d20 and OGL licenses really do give the "little guy" a leg up, but by "little guy" I think what is meant is the serious small businessperson who is willing to hire attorneys and go through the legalities to establish themselves, not necessarily just anyone who gets the hankerin' to write their own game. It strikes me that it especially helps established game designers, like Monte Cook, to go out on their own and get away from freelancing, and write exactly what they want to write.

Actually, what I meant when I said "Little Guy" was not in reference to individuals who already have extensive background in gaming (like Monte Cook). Those industry freelancers have contacts, acquaintances and friends in the industry already; they don't need a leg up. But if you look at the shelf in your gaming store you find many of the same names repeated across products, across systems, and across companies. What excited me about OGL/d20 is the possibility of individuals who've never written a gaming product before being able to enter the market without having to break down that important "new system, new designer" stumbling block. And I don't necessarily think that someone who writes well is necessarily in a position to be able to navigate legal terminology flawlessly. But, I must confess some ignorance of the substance of the diffence between the OGL and the d20 system; since the concept has been raised, I have never seen the two separated in any meaningful way.
This is further complicated by Ryan Dancey's own comments:
Open Gaming is not a magic bullet. It will not make your game system sell. Open Gaming in and of itself adds little or no value; having an open game license (of any kind) is not going to be the factor that makes your product successful. The value of the Open Game concept is allowing people to retain knowledge about a game system and apply it repeatedly where appropriate. If nobody plays your game system, you can be as open as possible and it won't add any value. If you are bringing a game system to market that is just a clone of a hundred other options already available, it won't matter if your game is open or not -- your game will be successful on the basis of your ability to induce people to play it.

Ryan's implication is that in order for the OGL to work, one (or very few) systems must be involved, or else it becomes useless. My argument is that people certainly have the right to believe that the d20 system is not necessarily the best one to use for such an endevour. And If having the same underlying system is not part of the OGL, then what does it matter how many we have?
Reuben
PS: I don't dislike d20. Just so you know.

 

[Zappo]

I can understand the psychology of not using the OGL though. If publishers are doing non-d20 open stuff (perhaps even setting up their own open schemes to "combat" d20), and they resent the d20 for whatever reason, they probably won't use the OGL purely for it's association with d20.

So there's probably symbolic, political, and idealogical reasons not to use the OGL for non-d20 publishers, because of it's origins and what it is associated with. For these publishers, annoying Dancey might even be considered a bonus.

That kind of reasoning should be left at home when doing serious business. If a publisher isn't smart enough to realize this, he will almost certainly fail anyway.