D&D 5E SRD5 - A Clone of Part of D&D 5E Basic

[Zireael]

Blood & Treasure used advantage/disadvantage before 5e did, and I seem to remember the author being nonplussed (its original meaning) when it showed up in 5e (somewhat different, but the same concept).

Backgrounds were in more than one OGL game, but OGL Ancients comes to mind as one of them. Also Blue Rose

Flaws was actually released as open content by Wizards themselves, in Unearthed Arcana, though not in the 5e sense (more like anti-feats) and I can't find anything like Ideals or Bonds. But the general system of Ideals/Flaws/Bonds seems to be lifted from other games.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Part-of-D-amp-D-5E-Basic/page8#ixzz37WMGajX3
​

I had a feeling I'd seen advantage/disadvantage and backgrounds in OGL, thanks for confirming it.

Where do you think Ideals/Bonds come from?

 

[Halivar]

The challenge in producing any clone (retro- or otherwise) is to avoid infringing WotC's rights either in respect of its copyrighted works, or in relation to derivative works based upon its copyrighted works. The relevant modes of derivation, when it comes to RPGs, would probably be "abridgment, condensation, or other forms of recasting, transformation or adaptation".

I really don't see how it's possible TO avoid it, if your intention is a clone.

Look, the reason WotC didn't sue the makers of OSRIC into the ground has nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit; Hasbro has enough lawyers to make such a lawsuit untenable for any indie game publisher. And they obviously KNOW about OSRIC, because we talk about it all the flippin' time on a forum we know they read.

The only other explanation is that they know, don't care, or perhaps even silently approve. Copyright ain't trademark, and they are't obligated​ to protect it with a ten foot wall and machine guns.

 

[Dausuul]

Look, the reason WotC didn't sue the makers of OSRIC into the ground has nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit; Hasbro has enough lawyers to make such a lawsuit untenable for any indie game publisher.

Didn't somebody say OSRIC was published in the UK? Civil suits in the UK operate on a "loser pays" principle; if WotC filed suit and lost, they'd be on the hook for OSRIC's legal fees. That doesn't mean legal harassment is impossible in the UK, but it's substantially harder.

The only other explanation is that they know, don't care, or perhaps even silently approve. Copyright ain't trademark, and they are't obligated​ to protect it with a ten foot wall and machine guns.

My guess would be that the design/creative staff - the ones who frequent this forum - know about OSRIC and quietly approve. Hasbro corporate may or may not know. If they do know, they probably consider it not worth the bother to pursue.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, OSRIC is published in the UK.

Stuart Marshall, one of the authors of OSRIC, stated that he was contacted by WotC legal about it, he replied stating his case and the matter was dropped.

 

[pemerton]

I really don't see how it's possible TO avoid it, if your intention is a clone.

I don't think it's quite that open-and-shut. [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] is an academic IP and contract lawyer who posts on these forums from time to time, and we've discussed it in the past. As best I recall, he thinks there's a tenable argument that OSRIC is lawful.

Look, the reason WotC didn't sue the makers of OSRIC into the ground has nothing to do with the merits of such a lawsuit; Hasbro has enough lawyers to make such a lawsuit untenable for any indie game publisher. And they obviously KNOW about OSRIC, because we talk about it all the flippin' time on a forum we know they read.

The only other explanation is that they know, don't care, or perhaps even silently approve.

Hasbro corporate may or may not know. If they do know, they probably consider it not worth the bother to pursue.

I think it's beyond the realm of credibility that WotC/Hasbro management aren't aware of the existence of clones of their multi-million dollar property.

Last I knew OSRIC was free - is that still the case? In which case, WotC may not have much to gain by litigation - no account of profits, and what loss would they be able to prove? And in many ways it suits WotC's purposes to have a thriving OSR community that (i) keeps their game alive in the market, and (ii) provides a potentially receptive market for D&Dnext.

Civil suits in the UK operate on a "loser pays" principle; if WotC filed suit and lost, they'd be on the hook for OSRIC's legal fees.

This is something of an exaggeration. In litigation in the UK, Australia and comparable jurisdictions it is typical for costs to be awarded against the loser of a suit, but costs are measured on a statutory scale - it's not just a matter of handing over all your legal bills to the other side! Even if the OSRIC publishers were to win a lawsuit, it is likely they would still have to pay a considerable sum to defend it.

EDIT: What is a "considerable sum"? I'm in Australia, not the UK, and I'm an academic lawyer, not a practising one. So my sense of fees is probably not all that accurate. But to brief both senior counsel and junior I'd imagine you're looking at $10,000+ per day in court, plus solicitor's fees and possible fees to counsel to prepare your defence. Plus fees to expert witneses to testify about the nature of RPG rules. Even if WotC/Hasbro were to end up with a costs order against them that covered some or all of this, running the litigation will be an expensive matter.

 

[Mark CMG]

UA had OGC on backgrounds but it was seemingly more mechanical and less narrative in nature.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterBackground.htm