Ryan Dancey Interview and the OGL

[BiggusGeekus]

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

I think you'll see more publishers following the path of Godlike. That is to say, write their own games with their own system, and use the OGL to legally have d20 conversions so as not to intimidate people (there is a LOT of people who won't touch a game because they don't want to learn new rules).

 

[dcollins]

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?

Look, as a bunch of other people have already said, you have misread Dancey's final comment. Go back and check it again here: http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20020228a

I'll just quote the specific question: "Q: What do you think of the recent attempts by third-party publishers to create Open or semi-Open licenses for their RPGs?"

So, the issue is not that you should be using D&D, or d20, or SRD-compatible materials. The issue at hand is: you have your own, brand-new, non-d20-in-any-way RPG. You want other people to extend and publish compatible things for it. What legal technique do you use? Dancey heartily recommends that the Open Gaming License (OGL) be the legal mechanism, but many publishers have come up with different legal licensing schemes. Dancey thinks it would be better to just have one legal mechanism, so gamers only have to ingest a particular set of legal terms and structures, and not continually be hiring lawyers to look at different licensing structures all the time.

This is a completely separate question from the type of game, or its rules-basis, being licensed for extension.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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.

IMO, you are the one doing the misinterpreting.

Ryan made it clear that he knows there are weaknesses in d20 that make is less suitable for some game types.

At the same time he made it clear that he thinks to many distinct (and questionable quality) game systems were harming the iductry as a whole. I tend to agree. There are several quality d20 publishers out there who would probably never be seen if they had to develop their own system. Most probably would not bother, a few would make marginal games and become part of the noise, MAYBE one or two would make a good game, but they would still be lost in the noise. If a few OGL game systems are out there, the cream will rise to the top and the gaming community will be better off for it.

I think it is a total win for everyone, except those who can't be bothered with the rules.

Christian,

I am sure there are some WoTC suits very concerned, but probably not very many. The d20 license prohibits any rules for the creation of characters or for handling the advancement of characters. So everyone who puts out a d20 system game is forced to require anyone else who wants to play to purchase some WoTC product.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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.

http://www.wizards.com/D20/main.asp?x=welcome,3

 

[EOL]

I love the fact that WoTC has opened up D&D with the OGL/D20, but I do get a little weary every time they talk about this million dollar gift they've given people. If I write a book and say it's compatible with D&D that is a statement of fact, just like if I write a computer game and say it's compatible with Windows 2000. The only reason I need the D20 lisence is to use the trademarked image.

You can't copyright a game system (you could probably patent though I've done a patent search and I can't find 3E patent). Now the courts have never chimed in directly on exactly how this issue works, but if someone with really deep pockets wanted to force the issue you would probably end up with a situation very similiar to OGL/D20/SRD only without WoTC calling the shots. They're just being smart by making a pre-emptive strike against this sort of thing, and it's been great for the hobby, but it's not as if WoTC has decided to do it for purely philanthropic reasons even correcting for the additional traffic they hope to drive to the Core Books.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

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.

 

[Henry@home]

They're just being smart by making a pre-emptive strike against this sort of thing, and it's been great for the hobby, but it's not as if WoTC has decided to do it for purely philanthropic reasons even correcting for the additional traffic they hope to drive to the Core Books.

Of course not! No one, Ryan himself, would ever insinuate that WotC is doing this by the "goodness of their heart." They are doing this for two reasons, by Ryan's admission: To improve the rules mechnics of D&D through the "monkeys and typewriters" philosophy, and to make money. Both are goals that are sufficient to WotC to open their game rules and many of their trademarks to 3rd party use. His theory is to remove the barriers that created tons of "reinventing the wheel" in the game industry in the first place.

Look to Sleeping Imperium's offerings for Guns, Psionics, and Grim 'n Gritty Hit points for the kind of innovation that Ryan is talking about. Without the OGL, this kind of innovation would be hampered, at the least. This is the kind of now-legal experimentation that will allow the d20 system to change and grow as new gamers and designers find cooler ways to do things.

 

[Christian]

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

One could argue that the reason many people were 'shut down' by TSR is that they couldn't afford a lawyer to defend their case. WOTC has made explicit exactly how far you can go in using their material; someone who is in compliance with the OGL and/or the d20 license, who then receives a cease-and-desist order from WOTC, could almost certainly get a lawyer to take the case under contingency, since it would be blatantly obvious that WOTC would lose ...

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

And under the OGL, you couldn't even use the term 'd20'-the system is OGL'd, but the name is product identity. Go figure. But in theory, you could take the SRD, develop a system for level advancement that used nothing from the D&D system, and publish it under the OGL. If you want to take advantage of the existing experience point system, you need to publish under the d20 license and refer the readers to the PHB for details. But at least then you could use the term 'experience points' in your system/adventure/whatever.

Since I'm pontificating already, I'll go one with the bit I alluded to up above. An interesting point to ponder is that, if the PHB et al had been published under the OGL, WOTC would not have been able to reserve the experience point system-it's clearly not eligible to be labelled as 'product identity'. By publishing the rules under copyright, and publishing d20 as a separate system, they effectively bypass this OGL provision ... If you look at the SRD, you'll notice it hasn't been updated in several months. Dancey says that's because they're focussing on adding additional material to the 'unreleased' section; but I'd be willing to bet that another reason is that there are long debates going on about how to release the spells, monsters, and magic item sections without reference to xp costs for casting and crafting, and xp awards for CR. Because once a reference to experience points makes it into the SRD ...

 

[EOL]

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

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

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

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.

 

[EOL]

Of course not! No one, Ryan himself, would ever insinuate that WotC is doing this by the "goodness of their heart." They are doing this for two reasons, by Ryan's admission: To improve the rules mechnics of D&D through the "monkeys and typewriters" philosophy, and to make money. Both are goals that are sufficient to WotC to open their game rules and many of their trademarks to 3rd party use. His theory is to remove the barriers that created tons of "reinventing the wheel" in the game industry in the first place.

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.