recent Ryan Dancey quote about SRD and OGL

ggroy · November 28, 2010, 11:19:56 AM

I haven't seen this quote before. (That is, assuming the poster is really the real Ryan Dancey and not an impostor).

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/mikeMearlsHasOpenGamingBeenASuccess&page=4#156

"I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners. I know just how close that came to happening. In 1997, TSR had pledged most of the copyright interests in D&D as collateral for loans it could not repay, and had Wizards of the Coast not rescued it I'm certain that it would have all gone into a lenghty bankruptcy struggle with a very real chance that D&D couldn't be published until the suits, appeals, countersuits, etc. had all been settled (i.e. maybe never). The OGL enabled that as a positive side effect.

...

I sleep pretty well at night. I think the OGL was a benefit to the industry and to the players, and I think it is still generating good works.

RyanD"

This was indeed Dancey's true underlying intentions with the 3E SRD and OGL ?

If I didn't know who Dancey was, I would have thought this was the work of a Marxist or somebody who drank the "open source" kool-aid and became an "open source software" zealot.

danbuter · November 28, 2010, 11:26:42 AM

I am really glad he did it. Our hobby would be in poor shape today if the lawyers had gotten D&D.

estar · November 28, 2010, 11:43:56 AM

As open source goes somebody somebody like Richard Stallman is an extreme not only he is an open source advocate (and the founder of the movement); he REFUSES to use propriety software or hardware (yes there is open source hardware). You read it here (http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html)

RyanD's position is more pragmatic and representative of main stream open source advocate and reflects my positions.

It is not "marxist" Marxism involves coercion in that you are forced to share the results of your labor regardless of how you feel about it. Open source involves the original author allowing free use of his or her work under certain conditions. The most common is that you have to give anybody using your detritive work the same rights the author gave you. The original author still own the original copyright and still can do whatever they like with this including releasing material based on it that is NOT open source.

At the time Wizards was doing this much of the original idealism of the original founds was found throughout the organization. TSR's death throes nearly deep sixed D&D and regardless of the abuse heaped on it, it is the defining game of our hobby and industry. It death would be a severe blow as it would shred the social network which allows us to find games to play in.

The OGL is a partial fix in that it allows somebody to attempt to pick up the ball if company that holds the D&D copyright falters. It is partial because of the d20 glut people flocked to trusted name brands

Benoist · November 28, 2010, 11:48:44 AM

Quote from: ggroy;420564This was indeed Dancey's true underlying intentions with the 3E SRD and OGL ?

No, it was not. It was one of many intentions as discussed in the post you quoted. You can't cut and paste one particular component and call it the one absolute underlying intention, no, because there are others he expressed, but it was part of a pattern of intentions on his part, for sure.

Zachary The First · November 28, 2010, 12:03:29 PM

Quote from: estar;420572As open source goes somebody somebody like Richard Stallman is an extreme not only he is an open source advocate (and the founder of the movement); he REFUSES to use propriety software or hardware (yes there is open source hardware). You read it here (http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html)

Wow, that guy's single at 55? For the life of me, I can't imagine why.

Cole · November 28, 2010, 12:13:17 PM

Quote from: Zachary The First;420580Wow, that guy's single at 55? For the life of me, I can't imagine why.

It's probably hard to find someone who wants to get an open source marriage.

ggroy · November 28, 2010, 12:53:25 PM

Quote from: danbuter;420566I am really glad he did it.

As a side effect (whether anticipated or not), it gave some others motivation to "OGL" their rulesets with SRD-like documents, such as the first Mongoose Runequest, WEG's d6 system, etc ...

Insufficient Metal · November 28, 2010, 12:54:22 PM

I don't see how wanting to keep one of your favorite things alive and out of the hands of lawyers constitutes zealotry, really. You can be into open source without being a total nut about it like Stallman.

John Morrow · November 28, 2010, 01:23:23 PM

Quote from: ggroy;420564If I didn't know who Dancey was, I would have thought this was the work of a Marxist or somebody who drank the "open source" kool-aid and became an "open source software" zealot.

What makes the OGL better than many other open source/document licenses is that it was specifically designed to appeal to commercial publishers and contains protections for them to sell copyrighted works using the open material. That was something else Dancey explained in great detail, why the OGL is structured the way it is from a commercial standpoint.

Settembrini · November 28, 2010, 02:40:03 PM

In a sad way, it was a self-fullfilling prophecy:

One could construct an argument that goes basically like this:

4e was the only option, to get the IP back into WotC's hand.

ADD: I think the OGL is awesome, but you basically cannot make any money out of D&D only because it is D&D and nobody else has it (monopoly).

Daedalus · November 28, 2010, 06:27:00 PM

Quote from: estar;420572As open source goes somebody somebody like Richard Stallman is an extreme not only he is an open source advocate (and the founder of the movement); he REFUSES to use propriety software or hardware (yes there is open source hardware). You read it here (http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html)

That guys is a wackjob. No wonder he is still single. Using all of that free software to hobble together what you need sounds like it wastes more of your time because it takes longer to do things.

Me, I am happy to pay for software and keep people employed

People like him don't surprise me, since the rise of the internet the "freeloader culture" has become a problem. Everyone thinking that everything should be free, the problem is in the real world that doesn't work so well.

Daedalus · November 28, 2010, 06:30:28 PM

Quote from: ggroy;420564I sleep pretty well at night. I think the OGL was a benefit to the industry and to the players, and I think it is still generating good works.

RyanD[/I]

While I am glad that D&D was saved from doom, I think the OGL did more damage to the industry then good. There was a boatload of crap products created and games shoehorned into a system that didnt work well for the setting. Which of caused the glut which caused many people to go back to using systems made for the specific setting.

Kyle Aaron · November 28, 2010, 06:39:46 PM

Had D&D (TM) been killed off in 1997, the retro-clone movement might have started a decade earlier.

Gamers like to create game material. d20's OGL channeled the creative urges of gamers, it did not make them creative.

ggroy · November 28, 2010, 06:50:26 PM

Quote from: Daedalus;420710While I am glad that D&D was saved from doom, I think the OGL did more damage to the industry then good.

For sure, such as the Osseum debacle.

Quote from: Daedalus;420710There was a boatload of crap products created and games shoehorned into a system that didnt work well for the setting.

Some notorious d20 cases: Deadlands, Call of Cthulhu, Traveller, Silver Age Sentinels, Legend of Five Rings, 7th Sea/Swashbuckling Adventures, etc ...

Quote from: Daedalus;420710Which of caused the glut which caused many people to go back to using systems made for the specific setting.

Wonder if this had more to do with people just burning out on d20, after 7-8 years.

TheShadow · November 28, 2010, 07:18:42 PM

I don't buy into the glut-as-disaster narrative. So people created some crap products, then their customers wised up and only the better producers survived? That's capitalism in action and it's a good thing.