Getting OSRIC/AD&D into FLGS and publishers

[Ariosto]

As to getting OSRIC into retail distribution, maybe the Goblinoid Games model could apply; I think Swords & Wizardry is going into some sort of wider release. The size of the book makes it very expensive to produce, though, without efficiencies of scale (as evident in the Lulu price of the color hardbound).

The main thrust, I think, is just to have it out there for those who want it. The free PDFs give the widest possible access. While actual 1E books remain readily available and affordable, there's not so much incentive to look into putting together capital for bringing OSRIC into its own (which would involve more formal organization and work). From the start, it's been mainly about supporting the AD&D fan community.

Publishing a module in print entails significant expense, on top of whatever is spent in securing artwork (as skilled writers tend not to be skilled illustrators as well). For some (such as Expeditious Retreat), getting into retail distribution is worthwhile.

The way to support them is to ask for their products at FLGS. Increasing visibility by hosting games in a shop is (when feasible) also a good move. I don't think it really makes much difference which rule book(s) one uses, if the demand for the modules and other supplements a shop can sell is clear.

 

[Mark]

I suppose that TLG (with C&C), Kenzer (with Hackmaster) and Necro (with their whole publishing style) do each have a stake in attracting old school style players, so technically they would be competition for OSRIC. I doubt it is any more fair to cite that as a reason for their stances on the legality of OSRIC than it is for them to make a public statement against the legality of OSRIC without putting forth some concrete proof.

Does anyone know of anywhere that something specific was cited by someone with a legal resume or even a stong publishing background to back up the claims that OSRIC might be in murky waters? Anywhere? I'm giving this one last effort for something specific and then I'll be satisfied for myself that this notion of illegality can be laid to rest. Anywhere at all?

 

[jdrakeh]

The way to support them is to ask for their products at FLGS. Increasing visibility by hosting games in a shop is (when feasible) also a good move. I don't think it really makes much difference which rule book(s) one uses, if the demand for the modules and other supplements a shop can sell is clear.

The problem is that most retro-clones aren't available through wholesale distribution channels, meaning that your FLGS will have to pay full retail price for the books via Lulu. Most retailers won't do this as there is no way for them to profit. Until retro-clone publishers establish a concrete retailer distribution plan that makes it profitable for retailers to carry their products, I don't suspect that many stores will (carry such products, that is). I think that's the #1 step in getting more retro-clones onto store bookshelves.

 

[nightraven]

Magan, for companies to make public statements claiming OSRIC is illegal is slander (in spirit if not by the law) and require some sort of explanation (other then "spirit") or those statements should have never been publically made. I think your head is in the sand my friend. I have no problem with any company saying "hey, its not profitable enough for us to run OSRIC or put OSRIC on the cover of our modules", non what so ever. Just don't slam another product as illegal and not show the evidence (what TLG did for one).
The problem with threads like this is that they start people talking about how others find OSRIC illegal continuing the mud slinging. Why? Shouldn't we just say "hey, its legal in that it follows the OGL, and so far no one has challenged it in court or even attempted to stop it"? Do we have any evidence that OSRIC is any less legal then say LLs or S&W, or even C&C? TLG doesn't even allow OSRIC to be talked about on its boards because they think thats somehow illegal? Come on, wake up.

Imagine if Coke started saying "Pepsi is slowly poisoning its customers, we can't say how for legal reasons but don't drink it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole". That would be challenged in court by Pepsi. Yes, OSRIC isn't a company out to make profit, so its not going to fight these others making such claims. But its still dirty pool. And we shouldn't be spreading the rumor (exactly what this thread is doing).

As far as the impact that OSRIC was to make. I suspect anyone willing to spend a year of their lives writing a 400 page book with editing and layout standards (and art) equaling or surpassing anything else on the market, that yes, they indeed hope to make more then a small impact. Given the revival I'd say they have. Those pushing the "1E compatible" are still going to need OSRIC regardless (as new players don't own the 1E books). Plus, they won't be able to use the OGL (so we get to see Troll 30 HPs, yippie! rather then a full description). Honestly, I think its ego at this point. They didn't write OSRIC so they won't use it. What should logically happen is that they all use OSRIC as a single platform. Print the book and sell it along side their modules and be done with it. Its a no-brainer (espl. considering the legal argument is history).

 

[jdrakeh]

Plus, they won't be able to use the OGL (so we get to see Troll 30 HPs, yippie! rather then a full description). Honestly, I think its ego at this point.

Well, you're wrong about this at the very least. Basic, system-neutral, descriptions of monsters (i.e., fluff) are included in the d20 SRD documents and made available under the OGL. Anybody can use that text as long as they are in compliance with the terms of the license in question. The descriptive text for trolls can be found here.

 

[Ariosto]

Jdrakeh, I was (I thought about as clearly as possible) referring to modules, etc., that the shop can in fact sell profitably -- such as Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Adventures. (It seems like mere common sense, really!)

Making a fetish of one brand or another (LL versus S&W versus OSRIC versus "First Edition") does not strike me as especially helpful. Demonstrating breadth of demand for "old-school" modules seems to me more telling.

It's all about what a retailer can sell!

 

[Maggan]

I think your head is in the sand my friend.

Fair enough. I prefer to think of my stance as being pragmatical and realistic, but each to his own.

/M

 

[jdrakeh]

Jdrakeh, I was (I thought about as clearly as possible) referring to modules, etc., that the shop can in fact sell profitably -- such as Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Adventures. (It seems like mere common sense, really!)

What I said still applies. Without an established wholesale distribution channel in place for the source material that the specified derivative works (i.e., adventure modules, etc) reference, brick and mortar retailers are unlikely to sell subtantial numbers of said derivative works.

Carrying Y product that requires X product to be useable, but not carrying X product is a great way to ensure that Y product doesn't sell. It's like a model train store that sells the trains but not the tracks, or an RC Car store that sells car kits, but not the remote control units.

Again, I maintain that the #1 step toward getting retro-clone products into brick and mortar stores is establishing retailer distribution plans that make it worth a retailer's time to carry those products. So far, not many retro-clones have that kind of plan in place (LL comes closest with its B&N/Amazon distribution).

 

[Ariosto]

LL also has hobby game shop distribution.

 

[jdrakeh]

LL also has hobby game shop distribution.

Yes, but I believe it's a 'spit and a handshake' arrangement with Dan at present, not distribution via a wholesaler (I could be wrong, though). IME, most retailers either don't have time for that or simply won't order from sources other than their regular wholesale distributor for reasons of comfort and convenience.