Getting OSRIC/AD&D into FLGS and publishers

[Ariosto]

As I recall, the distributor is Key 20.

That's another layer of "middle man" between Goblinoid Games and the big distributors, but I think that to approach the latter directly would require a much bigger volume of trade.

It disturbs me that www.key20.com is apparently no longer the firm's home page, and I have not found a replacement one.

 

[jdrakeh]

As I recall, the distributor is Key 20.

Key20 was dissolved in February of this year, so that distribution channel was closed. As I said, I believe that at the current time, the hobby shop distribution of LL is limited to informal arrangements made directly with Dan.

 

[frankthedm]

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?

It was in a recently closed thread. A thread started, so it seemed to me, with the intent of getting this question answered by wotc through scott rouse. it was revealed that 3 years ago, the D&D Brand Licensing Manager had already asked for the end of OSRIC.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...09-question-scott-rouse-re-retroclones-4.html

I was, in fact, never in direct correspondence with WOTC legal.

I did receive an email from Rich Redman, then Brand Licensing Manager, but not a lawyer. He wanted me to cease distribution of OSRIC. His grounds were that OSRIC was not compliant with the D20 license.

I wrote back to Mr Redman and explained that OSRIC didn't pretend to be compliant with the D20 license, and was in fact entirely reliant on the OGL.

Mr Redman apologised for not adequately doing his homework and then said he wanted me to cease distribution of OSRIC anyway. His basic point was the duck test: OSRIC looks like 1e, it quacks like 1e, so in his view it must be wrong to distribute it.

I replied highlighting various points of fact and various representations WOTC had already made, both in public and in private correspondence.

Mr Redman said this was beyond him and he would get WOTC legal to contact me.

This was in August 2006 and I'm still waiting for their email. I suspect they've figured it out, though, and will never pursue the matter.

The subtext behind OSRIC, and all the other retro-clones, is around computer gaming. You see, there's a duck test there too: a lot of computer games are, in their underlying concepts and algorithms, very similar.

Representatives of computer games companies are very interested in the possibility of a precedent that would establish, in US copyright law, exactly what constitutes a "rule" and what constitutes "artistic presentation". Any lawsuit involving OSRIC and WOTC could establish important precedents.

What that would almost certainly mean is an awful lot of money in amicus curiae. I don't particularly want to go there, and I think it likely that WOTC don't want to go there either.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

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?

No. All we have are opinions. One of those opinions is "i don´t think OSRIC is completely legal" or "i think OSRIC does not follow the spirit of the OGL." Nothing of that has been proven. They are just opinions.

We are still allowed to have those, though. I hope.

 

[Ariosto]

Someone (Brave Halfling Publishing, I think) a while ago was complaining that although PDF sales were picking up, print sales were flat. The return on PDFs appeared to be higher, but as this is more a hobby than a business there could be other reasons for desiring more print sales.

Going from print on demand to prior print runs is obviously a larger and riskier investment. For a lot of folks now -- and perhaps well into the future -- distribution via "brick and mortar" hobby shops may not be the sensible way to go in this niche market.

Anyone providing direct service, as Brave Halfling does, is probably best supported by availing oneself of that service. There seem to be some problems with Lulu (including high shipping fees) that both publishers and consumers may wish to avoid.

 

[Nikosandros]

Edit: Deleted by poster.

 

[Mark]

It was in a recently closed thread. A thread started, so it seemed to me, with the intent of getting this question answered by wotc through scott rouse. it was revealed that 3 years ago, the D&D Brand Licensing Manager had already asked for the end of OSRIC.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...09-question-scott-rouse-re-retroclones-4.html

Thanks, Frank. That appears only to point out that Rich Redman either was not familiar with the difference between the d20 STL and the OGL and/or that he was overstepping his bounds (not being from the WotC legal department) in trying to warn OSRIC publishers of erroneously perceived missteps (since it was not followed up by the WotC legal department). That, to my reading, makes an even stronger case for OSRIC being safe waters and the general rumors and innuendo to be unfounded. Maybe someone else knows of some other concrete accusations or proof?

 

[frankthedm]

That, to my reading, makes an even stronger case for OSRIC being safe waters and the general rumors and innuendo to be unfounded.

i might agree with you if

1. I had more faith in inter-department communications. IME those get lost a lot.

2. Wotc legal moved at a less glacial speed.

Maybe someone else knows of some other concrete accusations or proof?

I like OSRIC. I also like anime fansubs, emulated videogames & manga scanlation. IMHO OSRIC is less infringing than those.

 

[Mark]

i might agree with you if

1. I had more faith in inter-department communications. IME those get lost a lot.

2. Wotc legal moved at a less glacial speed.

It's probably less than fair to perpetuate rumors of OSRIC illegality based on the possibility that a memo was lost and suggesting that WotC legal needs three or more years to send a C&D letter. Unless something more concrete is forthcoming from somewhere, I'm going to have to elevate my opinion of OSRIC's status and lower my opinion of those casting vague aspersions.

 

[Nikosandros]

No. All we have are opinions. One of those opinions is "i don´t think OSRIC is completely legal" or "i think OSRIC does not follow the spirit of the OGL." Nothing of that has been proven. They are just opinions.

We are still allowed to have those, though. I hope.

The thing is that saying that something is illegal, is more than an opinion, it's an accusation and (IMHO) it should substantiated.