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

[Piratecat]

I guarantee that Necromancer Games will give 4E a huge "first edition injection" David Lee Roth style whether it wants it or not... And we've got a big "first edition". You can see it in our spandex pants.

Thanks, Clark, for that particular mental image. Oh yeah. Remind me to... err... "thank" you at GenCon!

 

[Umbran]

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.

What you are missing, Valiant, is that the legality of OSRIC has not been tested. To date, WOTC has not cared to test it, but they could whenever it seemed worth the time and expense. That makes it a risk.

I am going to ask you back off from the suggestions that these folks have some form of ulterior business motive. Unsupported accusations of unethical behavior are rude in the extreme.

 

[Nikosandros]

As for OSRIC, I love the idea but I have huge questions about its legality. Always have.

OSRIC has been around for quite some time. Several products have been published with the OSRIC brand. Papers and Paychecks has stated that he was contacted by WotC... OSRIC is still there and no legal actions have been taken. Quite frankly, I think that one can choose not to support OSRIC for a myriad valid reasons, but legality isn't even remotely one of them.

 

[Valiant]

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.



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

Yes Maggen, that post was a bit more expressive.

You wrote: "other people, at least one of them an attorney by profession, are reaching another conclusion."

From what I've read, the OSRIC RULE BOOK has been found to be at question, but no one (including the person you mentioned) has addressed the legality of OSRIC modules that are 100% OGL compliant. And that was after being asked (as I have done here). That is what I'm a bit peeved about (because it gives the impression the same legal issues exist for OSRIC modules, even if OGL compliant).

My understanding is that WOTC did review upon request (its been a while, and I may be wrong however). It might depend on who's making a request I suppose. I'll bet they'd do it for Goodman or TLG for instance.


In any event, if "would be publishers" just follow the OGL to the letter they should be fine (I don't think saying "OSRIC COMPATABLE" on the cover would be enough to violate the OGL or WOTC policy (from what I've read). That would be easy enough to ask WOTC.

I guess my fear is that people who might have otherwise published using OSRIC haven't, and part of the reason relates directly to "scary" comments made by "old school" publishers. That is something that should really stop.

 

[Nikosandros]

From what I've read, the OSRIC RULE BOOK has been found to be at question

Found by who? All indicators point to the fact that WotC is fine with OSRIC. What others think isn't terribly relevant...

 

[Valiant]

Nik. I was referring to supposed legal advice given to certain publishers). I agree completely. The OSRIC RULE BOOK is legal until proven otherwise.

My point was that certain "Old School" Publishers basically voiced public concerns about OSRIC RULE BOOK legality (based on what their attornies advice etc.), and then by association made it seem as if publishing modules with "OSRIC COMPATABLE" written on the cover (but otherwise OGL compliant) were also just as legally questionable.

What I want to know is this: do these publishers feel that OSRIC THE RULE BOOK is questionable only, or that writing OSRIC MODULES is also questionable....and if yes, then why (since they can be written 100% OGL).

This needs to be cleared up because alot of folks are under the impression that these publishers (who are assumed to be in the know) are warning others to stay away from writing OSRIC modules (Maggen for one seems to have this impression). If they didn't mean this (if they meant the OSRIC RULE BOOK is questionable, but OSRIC modules that are 100% OGL compliant are fine) then let them say so, just incase there are people sitting on the fence about publishing, this clearification might convince them to go ahead and take the plunge. For instance, if ORCUS would answer this question it would help greatly.

 

[Maggan]

This needs to be cleared up because alot of folks are under the impression that these publishers (who are assumed to be in the know) are warning others to stay away from writing OSRIC modules (Maggen for one seems to have this impression).

Um, no ... I'm trying to, without much success, offer a theory as to why it is a futile task to tell people "I think it's ok so you should just own up to the fact that it's ok" when it all boils down to what THEY think is ok for THEIR strategy.

So far I've seen people say "for ME OSRIC is not an option, because I think this and this". I've not seen one publisher say "YOU should stay away, because I think this and this about OSRIC".

/M

 

[Umbran]

OSRIC has been around for quite some time. Several products have been published with the OSRIC brand. Papers and Paychecks has stated that he was contacted by WotC... OSRIC is still there and no legal actions have been taken. Quite frankly, I think that one can choose not to support OSRIC for a myriad valid reasons, but legality isn't even remotely one of them.

Sure it is. The question of legality for OSRIC is in potential copyright issues. While trademarks must be defended to remain valid, copyright does not. WotC can sit back until a case comes up where pursuing a legal option is worth the time, resources, and other costs. Failure to have raised previous hackles is not a guarantee of legality.

Unless there's an explicit license from WotC, or a test case in court, there is some risk. I'd not guess it was a big risk - you have to be making enough money that it'd be fruitful for WotC to pursue, or WotC must have some other financial deal in the works that would find this complication a barrier. But minimal risk is still a risk.

Risk management is, of course, always an opinion. Those who are risk-averse will call it dangerous. Those who don't care so much will not think it a big deal. And everyone is entitled to their opinon.

 

[Valiant]

What you are missing, Valiant, is that the legality of OSRIC has not been tested. To date, WOTC has not cared to test it, but they could whenever it seemed worth the time and expense. That makes it a risk..

Umbran, there are 2 issues here. One is OSRIC the rule book. Now if someone is going to get jumped on by WOTC it will be P&P its owner, or someone who prints part of or all of it.

The second issue is OSRIC (aka 1E) compatable modules. OSRIC on the front of a module is code for AD&D. Inside the module can still remain 100% OGL compliant.

This is an important destinction I believe you may be missing. Both topics (OSRIC THE BOOK and OSRIC MODULES) need to be thought of seperately, that has been the point of my last 10 or so posts, yet nobody but Gob Games seems to "get it".

Put it this way, OSRIC could one day be found in court to be illegal. However, that doesn't mean you can't still have on the front of your modules OSRIC compatable.


[/QUOTE]I am going to ask you back off from the suggestions that these folks have some form of ulterior business motive. Unsupported accusations of unethical behavior are rude in the extreme.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

 

[Orcus]

Let me make one thing clear. I have never been asked to, nor have I ever given, legal advice to anyone other than my own company. I have made comments based on decisions I have made that people are free to take how they want. And, for myself, I have concluded the legality of the OSRIC materials is highly questionable. Another attorney could come to a different conclusion. This is a very complex issue.

TLG has NEVER asked me for any opinion on the matter, nor would I counsel them one way or the other. I would say: hire an attorney. I am not licensed in your state and I work for a competing company so there are all sorts of potential legal and ethical confilicts.

If you do want my reasons, I will gladly share them.

1. As stated above, I find the OSRIC to be of dubious legality. It has copyright violation writtten all over it, IMHO.

2. The fact that WotC hasnt acted is proof of absolutely nothing. It may mean that the potatos are too small right now for them to care. If you are hanging your hat on their inaction, that IMHO is a bad bad plan.

3. I dont buy into this "two tiered" approach to try to shield others from potential copyright issues. Granted, I appreciate the creativity of the approach. The OSRIC Compatible thing doesnt fly in my view. See below with my "Napster compatible" analogy.

Those are legal issues I see. Here are some practical/philosophical ones.

1. I dont want to play like that. Necro has had unprecedented access to WotC content. We have always been good caretakers of the content entrusted to us. Clearly, WotC wanted to open up 3E. Also clearly they do not want to open up 1E. So even if it was legal (which I doubt) I wouldnt want to be a part of it. I think the mutual respect that Necro and WotC has would be violated by the "end around" that OSRIC tries to do.

2. You just know it is wrong. Its like Napster. Sure, back in the day before the courts et all said you couldnt just share songs like that, we could at least kid ourselves that it was ok but we all knew we shouldnt be sharing songs for free. Maybe no one has done anything with OSRIC yet, but that doesnt make it any more ok--you are trying to indicate compatibility with a system the publisher has a long history of keeping closed, whether you like it or not. And, by way of analogy, I wouldnt put "Napster compatible" on my products either. You know they dont want 1E open. Heck, that is the whole reason for the d20 logo and OGL and d20 STL and the SRD.

3. Not worth the risk. Hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe WotC doesnt care. But they arent issuing any advisory opinions on the matter and it isnt worht the risk. I dont care if I win or lose the law suit, I dont even want to be named in one. And let me tell you, neither do you.

Oh, and as an aside, I take offense to the suggestion that I am "harming the 1E community" by saying this stuff.

Clark

Note: this is not legal advice, it is me explaining my opinion when asked. Do not rely on this. Hire your own attorney.