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

[Valiant]

ORCUS, since you are an attorney I'd be interested in your opinion (off the record of course) do you see a difference between the legality of OSRIC the book (which you think might be on shakey grounds) and modules that have OSRIC compatable written on the cover, and are otherwise 100% OGL compliant (thus not on shakey ground)?

For instance, do you own any of EXPRs OSRIC modules; if so do you see anyplace where WOTC would even have a problem...I don't (both seem compliant to me). Or is just referring to a document (that might be found illegal at some point in the future) somehow putting the module publisher at risk? I just don't see exactly what your talking about.

Thanks.

PS, I forgot to mention, I appreciate your good wishes to those involved in OSRIC, and your commitment to bringing 1E style into some of your 4E modules.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

But there is NOTHING stopping anyone from putting on the cover of modules OSRIC compatible (just so people know your market is AD&Ders, and that zero conversion is required) and keeping your information 100% OGL compliant.

This is a very important point, and so far, despite how many times this point has been driven home, I've seen no publisher who cites "legality issues" address this specific point as to why OSRIC will not be supported by them. I notice Orcus skipped it by and didn't comment, which is his right, of course.

I mean, I support any publisher's right NOT to support OSRIC, of course, but if "legal issues" are a reason for not supporting it, then in this particular context that makes no sense. A module written for "OSRIC" is on no more shaky ground than a 1e compatible module from Goodman Games or Pied Piper Publishing. OSRIC is just a name to build brand recognition. True, someone like Rob Kuntz can sell on his name alone, so what need would he have for OSRIC? Some other publishers may be in the same boat, but all of this skirts the issue.

Now, if there is some other reason for not supporting OSRIC, I can respect that, but let's be honest and hear what it is. Is it that there is not enough money in it? is it simply that many publishers don't want to be associated with OSRIC, even if they are safe publishing for it?

EDIT: Here is exactly what I'm getting at. There is a world of difference to say...

1) "OSRIC might be illegal, and my company will not support something that is illegal."

To saying...

2) "OSRIC might be illegal, and my company might be doing something illegal by supporting it."

#1 is a reasonable and respectable position, regardless of anyone's opinion to the truth of it..

#2 is simply false if merely publishing 1e compatible modules.

 

[Valiant]

I think its obvious why OSRIC is treated so poorly (sometimes borderline slander if you ask me) by "Old school" publishers, its just that no one has ever managed to hold them to the flame long enough to get them to admit.


Once again I will ask the question to any "Old School" publisher not already using OSRIC:

How is creating a module with OSRIC COMPATABLE slapped on the cover but otherwise 100% OGL compatable illegal?

-Once again, all a DM needs to run a module are the stats for monsters and how to handle traps. Just listing AC, HD, HP, damage, and special abilities does not violate OGL.

I don't really expect a response, but my hope is that your absense of comment will give each of us "old school fans" reason to question your true motives and character (since you refuse to clearify them in public). If this hurts your bottom line, then you have only yourselves to blame.

In the mean time, I hope to see more OSRIC publishers popping out of the woodwork soon.

 

[Dragonhelm]

There are people who seem to think everything has to be "black and white", but most everyone understands what having a "preference" means.

I think it's human nature to have a "black and white, right-or-wrong" attitude. We see it in many aspects of life.

C&C has become, for me, the middle ground. It's a place where my books from all editions come to meet.

C&C does what I want an RPG to do for me. That definitely doesn't mean everyone is looking for what I am looking for. Nor does it mean I won't play any other edition/version of the game. It just means I'm very unlikely to DM anything other than C&C for my D&D fix.

I had great fun with every version of the game, so why would I refuse to play them again as long as the group looks like a good one? To me games are for fun. As long as I believe I'll have fun I'll play the game.

Amen, brother!

Games should be played for fun. I think a lot of people get so wrapped up in the details, that they forget this simple fact. I will play in any edition of a D&D game so long as the group, setting, and adventure are all fun.

 

[Maggan]

I don't really expect a response, but my hope is that your absense of comment will give each of us "old school fans" reason to question your true motives and character (since you refuse to clearify them in public). If this hurts your bottom line, then you have only yourselves to blame.

I fail to see how "confronting" the publishers, demanding answers and whatnot, will give you any meaningful information. They chose not to use OSRIC, it's as simple as that.

They might just think that OSRIC is a bad set of rules, or that any other option is more viable, or have supreme confidence in the products they develop themselves, or whatever. And IMO they don't have to explain a bit about that reasoning.

They run their business. They decide which risks to take. And supporting OSRIC is a risk.

And I really don't think not supporting OSRIC is hurting any business's bottom line. It's just not that big a market.

In the mean time, I hope to see more OSRIC publishers popping out of the woodwork soon.

Or to put it another way; if supporting OSRIC is without risk, and its impact is so big that not doing it is hurting certain publisher's bottom line, why not step up to it yourself? Show the world that you are willing to risk it. Lead by example, not by questioning peoples' "true motives and character".

I guarantee you it will get you a better result.

/M

 

[Valiant]

I fail to see how "confronting" the publishers, demanding answers and whatnot, will give you any meaningful information. They chose not to use OSRIC, it's as simple as that.

They might just think that OSRIC is a bad set of rules, or that any other option is more viable, or have supreme confidence in the products they develop themselves, or whatever. And IMO they don't have to explain a bit about that reasoning.

They run their business. They decide which risks to take. And supporting OSRIC is a risk.

And I really don't think not supporting OSRIC is hurting any business's bottom line. It's just not that big a market.



Or to put it another way; if supporting OSRIC is without risk, and its impact is so big that not doing it is hurting certain publisher's bottom line, why not step up to it yourself? Show the world that you are willing to risk it. Lead by example, not by questioning peoples' "true motives and character".

I guarantee you it will get you a better result.

/M

Maggen your missing my point. I could care less why the "Old School" publishers don't use OSRIC. I honestly don't. What I do care about is that they spread the notion that its dangerous to publish OSRIC modules because OSRIC the Book may be illegal. This is a falsehood. Anyone can publish OSRIC modules 100% compatable with OGL, without any problem.

Maggen, I don't take publishers to task for not using OSRIC. I take publishers to task for spreading fear that by publishing a module using OSRIC your somehow putting yourself at risk when nothing of the sort is true (for the reasons I stated above). I can only guess to their motivation.

As for me writing modules, no way. I have to make a living.

 

[Maggan]

I can only guess to their motivation.

Their motivation, and probably the basis of their assessment, is that they have a business to run. And even if you say it's totally risk free to publish OSRIC material, I wouldn't base my business and my livelihood on that analysis. There are those who say it is totally risk free, there are those who say they'd rather not take that risk.

And the risk is theirs to take, regardless of your analysis of the situation. Unless you are prepared to guarantee that your analysis is correct, and back it up with an insurance against any problems occurring in the future.

Because then it would be your risk to take, and you could even make money on it, since your assessment is that that is no risk at all. So those who are worried could buy your insurance, to protect them from the risk they aren't wiling to take today.

/M

 

[Li Shenron]

With the coming of 4E, and some sort of open license in the works, it seems like alot of the small publishers we old schoolers depend on for the occasional 1E compatable module may need to completely switch over to 4E. Will this spell the death of the old school revival (or perhaps will this some how increase demand in some strange twist of fait)? I mean, if your a publisher and have to put your efforts somewhere it seems more logical to go for the one that will reward you with greater profits. Certainly 1E support has been primarily a side line for companies who make their bread and butter in the D20 market; and then there's going to be the demand for new 3E modules for those who don't move on to 4E (a larger group by far then 1E players, further shrinking the pot).

It just doesn't look good for us 1Eers. But then, who knows.

I'm not a 1E user, and I have to say I didn't even know there was still something 1E being published!

But if it's been published during 3E years, I don't see any reason why it should stop during 4E years. 3E publishing is more likely to stop than older systems.

And even if it does... well maybe it is time to switch to what in my personal opinion is the ultimate old school (applicable to and enjoyable in any system): do it ourselves

 

[Valiant]

Their motivation, and probably the basis of their assessment, is that they have a business to run. And even if you say it's totally risk free to publish OSRIC material, I wouldn't base my business and my livelihood on that analysis. There are those who say it is totally risk free, there are those who say they'd rather not take that risk.

And the risk is theirs to take, regardless of your analysis of the situation. Unless you are prepared to guarantee that your analysis is correct, and back it up with an insurance against any problems occurring in the future.

Because then it would be your risk to take, and you could even make money on it, since your assessment is that that is no risk at all. So those who are worried could buy your insurance, to protect them from the risk they aren't wiling to take today.

/M

I had a longer post, but erased it.

The bottom line is, making public statements (like the one ORCUS just made) hurts the OSRIC brand (something between P&P and them) and it hurts the 1E community in general.

They stick their noses out suggesting OGL compatable OSRIC modules are "risky" to make, so they should expect to answer people when they ask just exactly how (the details) esp. considering most if not all "Old School" publishers run their modules past WOTC routinely?

If they choose not to respond, well then no one should be surprised when people publically raise doubts to their motivations.

The important thing is that people realize their claims that "publishing OSRIC modules that are 100% OGL compliant are legally shakey" are groundless. If your worried, just make sure the inside is 100% OGL compatable then run it by WOTC to give it a green light. Once WOTC agrees its OK your good to go. The publishers like GG, TLG and Necro know this as well, they just won't show up and admit it.

As Maggen pointed out, there could be any number of reasons why these publishers don't use OSRIC besides the legal issue. Its unfortunate they dont mention those.

 

[Maggan]

I had a longer post, but erased it.

Luckily I read the longer post, and got more out if it than this shorter one.

You've made your point clear.

My point is that even though YOU feel that the claims are groundless, other people, at least one of them an attorney by profession, are reaching another conclusion.

And further on to my second point, calling people out is unlikely to yield the result you wish for: for them to repent. I''d sure as hell wouldn't.

If your worried, just make sure the inside is 100% OGL compatable then run it by WOTC to give it a green light.

WotC don't ok third party material, as far as I know. Isn't it an integral part of the licenses that they don't have to get involved?

/M