D&D 4E 4E boon or bust for Old School support?

[Valiant]

ORCUS thankyou for answering my questions. I appreciate that greatly.

Maggen, you may be right about WOTC not looking at manuscripts at all. For some reason I thought I read someplace they did check on request for some companies, but can't remember now where I saw this. I wonder if it was a limited case, a one time thing. I'm sure ORCUS or Goodman or Joe B. would know the answer to this (it is WOTCs choice I suppose to provide assistance on occasion).


ORCUS wrote: -does not provide an unassailable shield for domestic companies who choose to use it and its contents and refeer to it on their products that they either create or distribute here.- (bolding is mine)

This bit seems critical to me.

ORCUS, are you saying that if you just put on the cover of your OGL module that your "OSRIC COMPATABLE" you've suddenly increased your risk of legal action against you?

Also Did you mean "using OSRIC and its contents" would invite a legal challange, or just simply "referring to OSRIC on the product" (ex. on the cover) is enough?

If that is true (referring is enough to cause a problem), then I'd be curious to see supporting evidence if you have any (it just seems a big assertion).

For instance, in Pod Caverns (an EXPR Joe B. product) you have a product that appears to be OGL compliant, and on the cover it basically says "OSRIC COMPATABLE". If Joe had removed "OSRIC Compatable" he would somehow be safer?

If this is what you are saying, and it is true, then companies like EXPR would be far better off simply writing 1E or First Edition compatable on the cover of their modules.

How I understand it, a court would at least have to find OSRIC RULE BOOK in violation of copywrite laws. Is that true IYO?

Thanks in advance, and I appreciate your opinion as a publisher.

 

[Orcus]

Valiant, I'm not really sure why I continue to discuss this. It just leads to people being unhappy. So maybe the smart thing to do is just put it to bed. But I've never been accused of being smart, so here we go...

"OSRIC compatible" concerns me. Lets leave it at that. I believe it is better to simply not make that reference at all. I think it is better to just make your 1E module using the OGL and leave it at that. The reasons behind this are both legal and practical. I dont see any real gain by tying a product to OSRIC. Heck, go to Cannonfire and pimp your product. That should do the trick.

In my view, the less affiliated you are with OSRIC the safer you are. If you can do it with the OGL without OSRIC why add the extra layer of risk? Its not like that name/logo/whatever actually has significant recognition. If it did, you guys wouldnt be here tryijng to drag it into the limelight with these otherwise useless and highly repetitive discussions just to say OSRIC OSRIC OSRIC over and over again. But hey, its my fault. I'm getting baited into it

I think I've said my bit. You all go ahead and do whatever you were going to do anyway. You can call it scaretactics if you want. But I dont like OSRIC on any level--legal, practical or ethical. Its a copyright violation (IMHO), it is bad business and it is an attempt to take stuff that clearly the owner of the content is trying to protect when you have a different and totally risk free alternative way to do things.

YMMV. Rock on.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

But back to the title of the thread.

I see 4E as a boon for old school support.

I guarantee Necro will be there pumping 4E full of 1E feel. Can we do it? We did it with 3E. I dont see any reason why we cant do it with 4E.

Clark

 

[MerricB]

G'day, Clark!

I'm almost sure you mean Dragonsfoot rather than Canonfire.

Dragonsfoot is the place for a lot of OOP D&D fans to go.
Canonfire is the place for a lot of Greyhawk fans to go.

Cheers!

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Its not like that name/logo/whatever actually has significant recognition. If it did, you guys wouldnt be here tryijng to drag it into the limelight with these otherwise useless and highly repetitive discussions just to say OSRIC OSRIC OSRIC over and over again.

I know how you feel, dude.

It's like when people were dragging Rappan Athuk into the limelight over and over again with repetitive and useless discussions.

 

[Valiant]

ORCUS: " If it did, you guys wouldnt be here tryijng to drag it into the limelight with these otherwise useless and highly repetitive discussions just to say OSRIC OSRIC OSRIC over and over again."

First point, I am the only person in this thread being repetitive about OSRIC, there is no "you guys", only me. And I am not doing it to increase public awareness. Infact, I think if anything, it probably is annoying (thus hurts OSRIC). However, I was trying to get an answer to a simple question. If being obnoxious is what it took to get a clear answer from an established publisher, so be it.

"OSRIC compatible" concerns me. Lets leave it at that. I believe it is better to simply not make that reference at all. I think it is better to just make your 1E module using the OGL and leave it at that. The reasons behind this are both legal and practical. I dont see any real gain by tying a product to OSRIC. Heck, go to Cannonfire and pimp your product. That should do the trick.

In my view, the less affiliated you are with OSRIC the safer you are. If you can do it with the OGL without OSRIC why add the extra layer of risk? Its not like that name/logo/whatever actually has significant recognition. If it did, you guys wouldnt be here tryijng to drag it into the limelight with these otherwise useless and highly repetitive discussions just to say OSRIC OSRIC OSRIC over and over again. But hey, its my fault. I'm getting baited into it
YMMV. Rock on.

Clark

(Highlights are mine)

Thanks ORCUS, what I highlighted is the information I was after. I think you have presented an answer that is as "crystal clear" as I'm going to be able to get from anyone in the industry. I don't share your opinion of an increase of legal risk by putting "OSRIC COMPATABLE" on the cover of an otherwise OGL module (and I would be interested in seeing the case law that supports this "increase in legal risk" opinion) but I understand you do not want to get into that, which is fine). It just seems like a bold claim to throw out their, considering there have been several modules sold using "OSRIC COMPATABLE" on them, and their are several in the works (EXPR I believe has a few planned for release relatively soon).


As for your accusation that I am "baiting you" and that I am trying to increase recognition of OSRIC on this board, I deny both. I simply wanted to get a publisher to explain their position more clearly (particularly the difference between printing OSRIC the RULE BOOK and OSRIC COMPATABLE modules, in terms of legal risk). You have done that (to a limited degree) and I appreciate it. As for increasing the recognition of OSRIC, I think everyone at ENworld already knows about it. If I wanted to spread the word I would do it at other boards, not here.

The only reason I'm harping on OSRIC is because it seems to be the system singled out as "untouchable" by several publishers (including for example TLG on their web site forum). For such a strong "old school" industry reaction I had hoped to find some legal rather then ethical reasons (ex. case law) which so far I have seen none.

As for 1E style modules written for 4E, I think thats great. However, I don't think that will increase the number of people playing 1E, I think it will increase the number of people playing 4E, so I see it as a net "bust". When I posted the initial question I was referring to people actually using the rules system (the PH and DMG for AD&D 1st edition) not just playing 1E style modules with a different system (such as 3E, 4E C&C etc.).

However, I do hope you persue publishing some 1E compatable modules (under 1st Edition or what ever) and I will very likely buy them (assuming they don't get bad reviews).

 

[Goblinoid Games]

At one time people thought RoleAids was unethical.

 

[Melan]

Valiant's views don't necessarily reflect those of the OSRIC writers (Stuart, and to a much lesser extent me). I don't know who Valiant is.

By writing style, phrases (e.g. 1Eers) and typical mistakes (e.g. you are --> your), my guess would be "Axe Mental".

As for OSRIC, the funny thing about it is that the document doesn't do anything the basic documents don't allow you to do: you can create the same stuff working from the SRD. Its value is in being a recognisable label publishers can point at, a nice source of publicity (as demonstrated by this thread, among other things), and probably as an "orientation post" for people who are not quite that familiar with the SRD (although, if they want to do the for-profit thing, they'd better be - and with the OGL too!). Outside the OSRIC document, the supplements are on par with Role Aids material... and contrary to some online myths, those had never been ruled to be in violation of TSR's copyrights and trademarks. With the OGL, a case would be even harder to make.

As for publishers being supposedly "afraid" of OSRIC... that's irrealistic. When and if OSRIC products will be selling over 1000 copies, I guess some may be. Right now, I don't think any of them have come close.

 

[RFisher]

Honestly, I don't find Clark's comments any better or worse than P&P's occasional, "I have correspondence from Wizards of the Coast that I can't show you or even tell you much about." (Edit: I should be clear that this isn't a direct quote, but my own lousy characterization. (^_^))

I'm happy to have both points expressed. Even happier to have both of them in the community. & I honestly believe (or choose to believe (^_^)) that both of them are sharing their thoughts (mainly) as members of the community rather than because of any agenda.

OSRIC:Labyrinth Lord::1E AD&D:1981 Basic/Expert D&D

The nitpicker in me would rearrange that as LL:B/X::OSRIC:AD&D.

 

[francisca]

who knows.

Exactly.

And in my case, who cares? I mean, I snap up the Goodman 1e modules at GenCon, buy the stuff Kuntz puts out, and own most of the OSRIC products. I appreciate it, like most of it, and support the authors and their efforts through my purchases.

However, if it all dried up tomorrow, or never happened, I'd still be running 1e AD&D. We (me and the 3 other 1e AD&D DMs I know here in town and in Indy) went years w/out "support", and kept going strong. We'll continue no matter what the industry does.

I think a better question is "do publishers find old grognards a viable demographic to market to?", regardless of what the current edition is, and the direction WotC is taking the D&D brand.