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

[Mythmere1]

Well, actually I was trying to avoid discussing any of those.

Yeah, but you know how nitpicky I am about law. I can't help it. Sorry.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

This is not legal advice, but I see absolutely no problem with doing what was proposed above (OGL adventures using 1E terms also contained in the SRD with no OSRIC at all)...I've considered doing this.

Clark, I would *love* to see something like this from Necromancer. Like Mythmere, I'm a big fan of your products, despite the fact that I'm using a different edition. If you do decide to do this, how about Sword of Air?

 

[Orcus]

Sorry PJ, thats just not our focus. Or plan is to make sure 1E feel stays in the current version of the game. Just like JG always adapted and adopted the most recent rules, that is our same approach. I dont want to fragment the market and confuse things. But like I said, I understand the desire.

Clark

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Yeah, but you know how nitpicky I am about law. I can't help it. Sorry.

No worries!

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Why settle for the 1e "feel" when you can grab that 1e bull by the horns and ride the real thing all the way to the dungeon?

Just sayin. 'Cause that's the way I roll.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have a vested interest in the legal questions brought up by this issue, since I'm getting ready to publish my first couple of modules (for Labyrinth Lord, not OSRIC, but the issues are the same).

I find the Napster analogy brought up earlier to be both fallacious and misleading. It's far more accurate to say that old-school analogue systems are rather a lot more like video game emulators.

You cannot copyright algorithms (the very definition of what an algorithm is makes such an idea nonsensical), and algorithms form the foundations of all software (to say nothing of game rules -- you can't copyright the underlying processes themselves, even if you can trademark the name and presentation). This is why console emulators, so long as they are not distributed with any required BIOS roms, are not illegal of and in themselves. Only copyrighted rom images (including both games whatever OS software might be required to operate the emulator) are illegal. This hasn't stopped clever programmers from creating emulation software (and even "cloned" hardware), and from writing entirely new roms that contain no copyrighted IP and can thus be played on emulators, or even dumped to carts or burned to CDs, without any legal issues whatsoever. Newly invented roms are never illegal; but distributing a copyrighted BIOS rom needed to run a program that emulates a console most certainly is.

The upshot of this? If I were to scan and sell (illegally) copies of the 1e Player's Handbook and modules U1 and Q1, that would be tantamount to selling illegally cloned consoles (with BIOS roms included) and also selling illegal copies of Mario Bros. and the Legend of Zelda. (In point of fact the 8-bit NES is one of those systems that does not need a BIOS rom, and so a n NES emulator is legal -- but a Mario or Zelda rom image is still quite illegal.) If I were to write my own AD&D 1e compatible module, and release it in 100% compliance with the OGL (whether I mention its OSRIC compatibility or not), that's the same as if I were to program my own 8-bit platform or adventure game that just happened to come in a format that could be run on an NES emulator.

So the question is, are books like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord more like NES and Atari 2600 emulators, or more like, say, Atari 5200 and PSX emulators? That is, do they contain only algorithms, or do they contain both algorithms and IP (in the way that the later sort of emulators contain both alorightms and copyrighted BIOS roms when operational)? I would have to answer that OSRIC and other such games are indisputably more like the former, especially when they themselves have been created under the terms of the OGL.

What IP is there for WotC to sue over? Name and presentation? The phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is never mentioned, and you can't copyright the idea of an RPG (or else there never would've been "Tunnels & Trolls"). Elves, dwarves, and halflings? I think the Tolkien estate might have a better chance of winning that suit. Magic Missile? Clerics and Paladins? Experience levels? Those things are either in the SRD or allowed under the broader OGL. No, folks, I think the old-school retro-clones are quite safe from a legal standpoint.

Although it certainly doesn't hurt that at the moment, we're still too unimportant for WotC to bother with.

 

[Crothian]

What is Labyrinth Lord?

 

[T. Foster]

What is Labyrinth Lord?

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

 

[dmccoy1693]

What is Labyrinth Lord?

A retro-clone of BD&D. It features an OGL setting so a 3rd party publisher can write setting material about some area in their setting.

I find the Napster analogy brought up earlier to be both fallacious and misleading. It's far more accurate to say that old-school analogue systems are rather a lot more like video game emulators.

You cannot copyright algorithms (the very definition of what an algorithm is makes such an idea nonsensical), and algorithms form the foundations of all software (to say nothing of game rules -- you can't copyright the underlying processes themselves, even if you can trademark the name and presentation). This is why console emulators, so long as they are not distributed with any required BIOS roms, are not illegal of and in themselves. Only copyrighted rom images (including both games whatever OS software might be required to operate the emulator) are illegal. This hasn't stopped clever programmers from creating emulation software (and even "cloned" hardware), and from writing entirely new roms that contain no copyrighted IP and can thus be played on emulators, or even dumped to carts or burned to CDs, without any legal issues whatsoever. Newly invented roms are never illegal; but distributing a copyrighted BIOS rom needed to run a program that emulates a console most certainly is.

The upshot of this? If I were to scan and sell (illegally) copies of the 1e Player's Handbook and modules U1 and Q1, that would be tantamount to selling illegally cloned consoles (with BIOS roms included) and also selling illegal copies of Mario Bros. and the Legend of Zelda. (In point of fact the 8-bit NES is one of those systems that does not need a BIOS rom, and so a n NES emulator is legal -- but a Mario or Zelda rom image is still quite illegal.) If I were to write my own AD&D 1e compatible module, and release it in 100% compliance with the OGL (whether I mention its OSRIC compatibility or not), that's the same as if I were to program my own 8-bit platform or adventure game that just happened to come in a format that could be run on an NES emulator.

So the question is, are books like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord more like NES and Atari 2600 emulators, or more like, say, Atari 5200 and PSX emulators? That is, do they contain only algorithms, or do they contain both algorithms and IP (in the way that the later sort of emulators contain both alorightms and copyrighted BIOS roms when operational)? I would have to answer that OSRIC and other such games are indisputably more like the former, especially when they themselves have been created under the terms of the OGL.

What IP is there for WotC to sue over? Name and presentation? The phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" is never mentioned, and you can't copyright the idea of an RPG (or else there never would've been "Tunnels & Trolls"). Elves, dwarves, and halflings? I think the Tolkien estate might have a better chance of winning that suit. Magic Missile? Clerics and Paladins? Experience levels? Those things are either in the SRD or allowed under the broader OGL. No, folks, I think the old-school retro-clones are quite safe from a legal standpoint.

Thank you. The napster analogy really needs to be put down like Ol' Yeller.

 

[Crothian]

way too many colons but I get the idea