Gary Gygax in the twilight of his gaming career.

[Wiseman]

Holy thread necromancy Batman!

[Doom]

Dreamblade was collectible, but other than that unrelated to M:TG in design. Monsters were summoned via a more controlled process, "mana screw" was much less likely. There were also no counterspells or sorceries or anything like that.

Instead, you played for control of the board, and monsters fought by rolling dice.

It's been a long time, and I'm more than a little vague on the rules, but it was a very playable game. What killed it for me was the figures were totally non-compatible with D&D. They came on oversize bases that were ridiculously hard to pull hacksaw off so that you could use the figures in any other game.

[Bihlbo]

Now I wanna go reading threads from 10 years ago just to find a gem and necro it. But that's annoying and stupid so instead I'll just get it out of my system by posting this.

Hehe, 8 years man.

[Dogbert]

Because of Edison, we didn't have free Telepower for everyone.

Steve Jobs stole all the GNU code used in OS-X and spent his last years trying to destroy Android.

Bill Gates stole Windows from Steve Jobs.

So yeah, I can't say I'm suprised to hear Gygax was no saint, but indeed I had no idea he was a mini WotC during his time.

Thanks for the data, Frank!

[ishy]

Bill Gates stole Windows from Steve Jobs.

That seems like an outlandish weird claim. Do you have a source for that?

[shadzar]

Bill Gates stole Windows from Steve Jobs.

That seems like an outlandish weird claim. Do you have a source for that?

Apple IIe GUI vs IBM-DOS

Windows 3.0 was built to look and function just like the Apple IIe GUI.

just like Windows 8 using little tiles for everything because Apple has been using them for their touch devices long before Microsoft came up with the idea for the MS Surface.

it is pretty well known thing that happens in the late 80s that Microsloth has been trying to copy everything Apple does.

[Blasted]

Judging from This Interview and Mr. Gygax's debate with Sean "Forgotten Rums" K. Reynolds below, I think it's safe to say that his grasp on reality is pretty tenuous anymore.

I'm still charitible enough to chalk it up to senility.

I needed to use the wayback machine to get the interview, which I'll leave here for future readers:

Chatting with Gygax Volume 13: OGL
by Kosala Ubayasekara

[2004-06-01]

Welcome to the 13th edition of our regular monthly debate and informational pieces done in collaboration with Mr. Gary Gygax, the original creative mind behind the Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game. This month we discuss the open gaming license and its implications.

Q1) We know from previous columns with you that you are not a great advocate of open licenses. Before we delve into the details of this lets define your views on this using the OGL as our standard discussion point. Are you against open licenses like the OGL in any form or is it one factor of the licensing model that you think is poor?

It is my opinion in general that an open license is worth every penny paid for it, and returns to the grantor full value for the material offered in the deal.


Q2) WoTC have on many occasions maintained that they went ahead with the OGL to relieve themselves of the all the burden of creating add-ons to the D&D universe so that they could focus on the core products. Is this not in essence a good idea?

If a company cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, then the reasoning is sound. Otherwise, I think it is no more than an excuse to cover an inability to create and produce quality adventure material. If course support material does not have the same profitability as do core books, but the publisher of a game system can certainly manage to generate some income from superior support products, and that is owed to the fans of the game system.


Q3) Now a downside to the OGL is, of course, the mass of mediocre products to hit the marketplace immediately following the release of the license. No doubt this contributes in the short term to a dilution of the brand and a weakening of the market quality. However do you not think that in the long term better products will emerge out of necessity and slowly out compete the poor products, thus reestablishing the strength of the brand AND a larger selection of products for the consumer? Are we not seeing this happen today on a small scale?

I totally disagree with the basic assumption in this question. Why should it have been necessary initially to flood the marketplace with poor products? What guarantee of quality is the D20 logo on future products? There is no quality control involved in regards either the D20 or OGL, so the marks generally only identify material that can be used with whatever new version of the D&D game is current. Finally, what value is there in having a large selection of support material of varying, mostly questionable quality? Quantity of this sort is not valuable in regards to support products, and there is no way for quality to be assured.


Q4) What are your views on WoTC redefining the license after its release to shut out certain types of content and is this is a manifestation of one of the weaknesses in open licenses like the OGL?


There's little for me to say about this. I concur that the license grants undue license, and the lack of control WotC is willing and able to exercise over content is evident. That they put in some minimal decency standards is refreshing in my view.

Had WotC retained control over their IP, and issued only specific licenses to qualifies publishers for development and production of support material, quality would be assured. The D&D logo would have gained further recognition by appearing on such products, and thus all concerned, consumers included, would have benefited.

The excuse that WotC could not afford to control licensees' product content is not valid. Income from royalties paid for use of the D&D game material and logo would surely pay the cost for employees hired to review manuscript material submitted for approval prior to publishing.


Q5) You have mentioned on numerous occasions that WoTC is not taking its responsibility to the industry when it comes to widening the appeal of the RPG game genre and bringing in new gamers. Does the presence of the OGL at all assist WoTC in making steps towards this goal?

No. All the OGL does is to allow virtually any sort of design to utilize D&D game material. The result might develop products that appeal to existing game enthusiasts, but it does virtually nothing in regards to bringing in new players.


Q6) If you would have been present at WoTC when the decision was made to create an open license, how would you have gone about it, assuming that not doing it was not an option.

I would have resigned my position with the company rather than seeing the OGL come into being.


Q7) Lastly, lets confront the reality of the existence of the OGL. Its here and it looks like its going to stay. We have seen some benefits and downsides to its existence. What can we [the industry] do now with the lessons learned so far to ensure that the OGL grows into something that is a benefit to the D&D and d20 genre over the years to come?

Frankly, the D20 and OGL licenses are what they are, and in my opinion they have no real benefit to WotC, and thus they do not benefit the D&D game system. The concept is flawed, and I do not believe that any amount of time will serve to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear.

[shadzar]

how i see Q1:

the company gets no money, and also no quality of product. in the event of slapping the D&D name on things like cross-stitch patterns, frisbees, etc not related to the RPG, it can cause more damage than the marketing to "get the name out" can create revenue.

was OGL helpful to 3.x? probably, but was there a loss due to it in WotC revenue? yes, because other companies made money and are still making money form it, and even doing better than D&D BECAUSE of it. also the dmage done by crappy products, someone had to clean up things and apologize for such as Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Q2:

WotC as a company is a flake, always has been and always will be. MtG cannot be recognized from its origins. WotC only follows fads, and doesn't set standards like TSR did. that is a fact. otherwise they wouldnt be stealing card mechanics from other card games for MtG, stealing video game nonsense for TTRPGs. they always just jump on the bandwagon, because they effectively suck as creators. Dreamblade, 4th VTT, GLEEMAX!, DDi, Chainmail 2000(ish), DDM, Prinal Order, Magic the Gathering...hell MtG was bought from someone else.

4th edition proved this right, as the comments of "multiple 7 digits of dollars spent to create 4th edition" as the reason the GSL was going to disallow people from using the OGL anymore, because they had no faith in their own products, because they know they suck. same for older TSR editions, they fear that the new money spent on a new edition will NOT be made back if people have a chance to play the older editions, and they are right, thus OSR-movement. Hasbro/WotC legal owns the name to D&D, but they no longer make it in the eyes of anyone that wasn't born yesterday.

Q3:

(see my Q2 response)

Q4:

yup, WotC floundered... all the OGL needs is the ability to use the NAMES of iconic D&D things, without inclusion of ANY stats for them to force books referenced to be bought. just like TSR said in Encyclopedia Magica volumes...which were indexes to the magic items found everywhere and told you which module to find the full details of it in. then allow a "Fan D&D" logo on it. require a specific logo to distinguish it from official content and some blurb inside to state that TSR/WotC had never sen the material and is NOT responsible for its contents. even the best would require this bit so that the worst is caught in it too.

then the sharing content part which i am sure everyone understands as it is basically creative commons, or copy-left.

and isn't WotC now taking an OGL product concept and using it in DDN? that inspiration like FATE?

Q5:

true. OGL can in no way and has no provisions to bring in new players.

Q6:

his choice. now i need to make a new thread in case it doesn't already exist...

Q7:

wonder if this made the 4th GSL the way it was? this question and the overall interview and ideas from others outside of WotC?

---

what it really is in what you want and think of how a business works.

some businesses work as co-ops or whatever it is called, while others work from a directed perspective.

we all know Gary probably saw D&D as one of his children, like JKR sees Harry Potter. so wanting to have some control over their creation is reasonable. what would the creator of David say if they were in Italy and saw him wearing pants or some other lower covering today?

remember copyright was created to protect the creator from people stealing IP. now it is in such a way that companies are able to steal IP and the creator is just a person who better have a union to save their ass.

creators today have no rights as the "industry" is controlled by major monopolies that can drown out new things, such as JKR did with that one book i recently heard about, where her books posters paid for more space to prevent a new book from becoming popular, so it would not compete with Harry Potter.

with the OGL it is funny that nobody did that and just drowned out D&D itself and WotC products, and may be a case WotC foresaw and thus created so much product in order to prevent being drowned out?

[nockermensch]

...so the marks generally only identify material that can be used with whatever new version of the D&D game is current...

>the marks
I can be failing hard at reading comprehension here, but did he really use carny slang to refer to D&D players?

[ishy]

...so the marks generally only identify material that can be used with whatever new version of the D&D game is current...

>the marks
I can be failing hard at reading comprehension here, but did he really use carny slang to refer to D&D players?

I think 'the marks' refers to the markings on the books. Like say the d20 logo.

[nockermensch]

...so the marks generally only identify material that can be used with whatever new version of the D&D game is current...

>the marks
I can be failing hard at reading comprehension here, but did he really use carny slang to refer to D&D players?

I think 'the marks' refers to the markings on the books. Like say the d20 logo.

I'm actually glad I was wrong.

[shadzar]

Trademarks, such as the D&D logo, etc....

[flare22]

People asking me to like, pay homage to, or even respect Gary Gygax is like people asking the same of me towards Alexander Hamilton.

Sure he was there when a lot of cool stuff went down. But most of the cool stuff that happened in spite of him, not because of him.

Alexander Hamilton was the founding father who said that it was madness to give power over the land to anyone save for those who owned it.

-Username17

Ok that's just crap sure maybe Gygax was a thief but Alexander Hamilton is a terrible comparison the man was an officer In the revolution from the beggining sure may be not one of the best or most famous but he was fighting willingly fron 1776 till after york town. he also organized the national bank consoladated the united states dept helped found our nations mint and wrote more of the federalist papers the jahn jay and madison combined not to mention he hired jahn jay and madison to write their portions. Yes the man was a border line royalist but he was instramental in passing our constitution. Say what you will about Gygax but don't compare him to hamilton