Getting OSRIC/AD&D into FLGS and publishers

[Aus_Snow]

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.

Indeed. And, what's more, jumping down the throat of anyone whose opinion differs does more damage to the image of, for example, OSRIC, than any amount of opinions - or, for that matter, even accusations! It's rather like those rabid 4e fanbois screeching and clawing at anyone they perceive to be threatening the sacrosanct maidenhood of their chosen game: Probably hasn't done 4e's image any favours, either. Well, in the view of some folks.

Surely, these retro-clones are not so fragile / precarious that they need to be protected from doubt or dissent.


Anyway, regarding the OGL, AFAIK all one needs to do is follow the *letter* of it, not the 'spirit', whatever that might be interpreted as being. I don't have a degree in legalese, so I honestly have no idea whether they've done exactly what they needed to do there. I hope so, and it seems likely. . . but that's as confident as I would be, at this stage.

 

[Mark]

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

No doubt. Especially when it comes from someone who either should know or should know better.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The thing is, none of these game companies or people have outright said OSRIC is illegal, they have said they have personal reservations about using OSRIC because of potential legal issues. That is NOT the same thing. If it was the former, it would be libel, the latter is an expression of opinion.

From what I understand, OSRIC is using the 3e SRD to justify use of terms and other elements while also using copyright law to "reverse engineer" the older AD&D rule set. I think combining the two is risky. A subset of 3e D&D was released as an SRD under the OGL. AD&D was never released by that, and by licensing the game in the past to Hackmaster they've shown that there is still value in the product. I believe the author thinks the twin legal principles can create a 1e clone without risk. But I can see WoTC getting upset with it. From what I've seen, the "games can't be copyright defense" works better the more differences there are, such as using "health" instead of "hit points", or different terms for the stats.

I can see a reasonable concern for risk. Even if combined these are affirmative defenses under law, a trial can be a crapshoot, and the threat of litigation alone can hurt. So I can see companies avoiding this for those reasons, among others. Sometimes winning a trial is more than just the skill of the lawyers and the wisdom/logic of the judge or jury--it can come down to luck as well.

I don't think WoTC wants to sue, mostly because they don't consider 1e very valuable--if they did they'd probably start publishing a revised 1e ruleset themselves and take advantage of the market. I do think anybody who tries to use the OSRIC method to reverse engineer a 4th edition version of AD&D WILL get sued. However, they will probably never say they will "never sue", as somebody could try to create a game supplement/module that violates the rules they had to create for the SRD after "Book of Erotic Fantasy" came out. In that case, I could see the legal team using every weapon in their arsenal.

I suggest everyone stop giving the impression OSRIC is anything but legal. your really doing harm to the owners of the IP of OSRIC. Intentional or not, Your rumor spreading and fear mongering by just repeating over and over the opinion of "industry experts" (who happen to be in direct competition with OSRIC pushing their own brand of cola). YOU ARE HURTING SOMEONE ELSES CAUSE WITHOUT LEGAL OR MORAL FOOTING. Personally, if I held the IP for OSRIC I would go after some of these clowns for defamation.

I find this a bit laughable because of the IP statement. Intellectual Property? You mean a game who's purpose is to effectively clone the Intellectual Property of Wizards of the Coast? I mean, that's the whole main point of OSRIC, to release a game as close as the AD&D ruleset as possible. I mean, none of the retro-clones would have much value if they weren't meant to emulate the 1st (or 2nd) Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game.

 

[nightraven]

Aus Snow, you might be correct about causing a negative reaction (pointing out how unfair and damaging it is to make/or repeat accusations OSRIC is illegal (without any proof). But so what? I don't have a horse in this race.
My objections didn't relate to some master goal of "spreading OSRIC" like some messiah, my comments were made to remind people how damaging slander is (repeating something is illegal (or might be illegal) when it is not is a classic case of slander).

And btw, its just as damaging to a game like C&C (for one) when its fanboys bring up the legal issue concerning OSRIC (usually in some off handed way). It doesn't make me want to go out and support C&C by buying its products, it just annoys the tar out of me.

Personally, if C&C or Pathfinder etc. was under the same kind of labeling by its competitors (and repeated by the rumor train) I'd be calling foul just as loud.

John, when companies say "they have personal reservations about using OSRIC because of potential legal issues." that IS the same thing (in the effect that it has). And I'm sure a court of law wouldn't make much of a destinction either (for example: Coke saying "Pepsi is slowly poisoning its customers", vs. "Pepsi might be poisoning its customers") in both cases there would be a big reduction in those drinking Pepsi (many of whom would switch over to Coke), is that not correct? You see, the customer assumes the Coke comapany official "voicing his opinion" is an industry expert (as well they should) with more information. Voicing "worries" isn't kosher, not when its the competitor.

John, as to your other comments, all I can say is that I agree, the WOTC legal department are probably pissed, I would be. You mention OSRIC is on shakey ground, but don't give any specifics. Point to a single violation, show us some evidence (other then "spirit" and pointing out "WOTC is mad"). OSRIC is no more in danger of being taken to court by WOTC then C&C or any of the retro clones. As for your last comment on IP, its ironic but yes. If a company (even WOTC) started spreading rumors that OSRIC was illegal and "not to touch it" but didn't say why it was illegal, I suspect OSRICs owner could take WOTC to court and confidently win. Why? Because OSRIC is legal (there are no laws being broken).

 

[Ariosto]

JohnRTroy: As I understand it, the SRD includes not only terms such as "hit points" (which are in the public domain anyway), but passages copied from old D&D editions -- or close enough to be extremely useful. Much of the AD&D spell corpus, for instance, was carried forward into 3E.

By giving permission to use that copyrighted material under the terms of the OGL, Wizards very intentionally cut through the ambiguity, due to a shortage of litigation precedent, that kept third parties from contributing to the body of D&D-compatible material. OSRIC, Pathfinder, etc., were made possible by the same means as the many, many products from Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, and so on.

A process, procedure or idea cannot be copyright; to own it requires a patent. Maybe WotC would like to change that, but I am sure that many bigger industrial fish would not!

 

[Remathilis]

Its as if we (the community) took a handful of mud and smeared it all over OSRIC's nice new white shirt.

You think that's bad? You should see what this community thinks of Fourth Edition!

 

[JohnRTroy]

John, when companies say "they have personal reservations about using OSRIC because of potential legal issues." that IS the same thing (in the effect that it has). And I'm sure a court of law wouldn't make much of a destinction either (for example: Coke saying "Pepsi is slowly poisoning its customers", vs. "Pepsi might be poisoning its customers") in both cases there would be a big reduction in those drinking Pepsi (many of whom would switch over to Coke), is that not correct? You see, the customer assumes the Coke comapany official "voicing his opinion" is an industry expert (as well they should) with more information. Voicing "worries" isn't kosher, not when its the competitor.

It may not be "kosher", but it IS legal. Defamation law doesn't cover opinion unless it's a key area that could be harmful to the business. From what I've seen, people like Clark Peterson (who's a lawyer) and Steve Chenraut (who's wife is a lawyer and also works with a few) have made opinions based on what they know. They are not "shouting it from the rooftops", they answer the questions when it is asked.

Questioning the legal status of a game that depends on WoTC IP is not the same as saying "Coke might be poisoning people". It simply isn't the same thing.

John, as to your other comments, all I can say is that I agree, the WOTC legal department are probably pissed, I would be. You mention OSRIC is on shakey ground, but don't give any specifics. Point to a single violation, show us some evidence (other then "spirit" and pointing out "WOTC is mad").

Did you read what I wrote? I pointed out the fact that 1e AD&D was never released under the OGL. If this was taken to a court of law, I could see WoTC arguing that rather than this being an evolution of the 3e base released under the SRD, they might be able to prove that its the 1e game with the OGL stuff only used to defend their use of existing WoTC IP. I think the closer you come to a 100% reproduction of AD&D 1e the riskier you are. C&C is probably safer because reading the rules it is clear they are using 3e as a base. You can see a little bit of the evolution.

From the copyright office:

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

The closer you get to the original text and descriptions the riskier it gets. For instance, OSRIC has percentile strength, although using decimal rather than percentile systems.

OSRIC is no more in danger of being taken to court by WOTC then C&C or any of the retro clones. As for your last comment on IP, its ironic but yes. If a company (even WOTC) started spreading rumors that OSRIC was illegal and "not to touch it" but didn't say why it was illegal, I suspect OSRICs owner could take WOTC to court and confidently win. Why? Because OSRIC is legal (there are no laws being broken).

WoTC doesn't have to "spread rumors", they can sue. A cease and desist statement is not a rumor and not subject to libel law.

Let's keep in mind something...ALL the retro-clones depend on WoTC not trying to sue them, and they would be nothing without AD&D--the whole point of their existence is to clone a game. And while I respect other author's rights and they can do what they want, I also don't believe we have a fundamental right to publish AD&D just because WoTC don't want it in print anymore.

 

[Ariosto]

These fan efforts seem to me likely to increase the value of WotC's properties. Printing books and modules for such a niche market is probably not practical for the corporation. Selling PDFs of old material is pure "gravy", though, and I think the fan texts built demand for classic works by bringing them to wider attention along with the hearty recommendations to be had from the "old school" community. OSRIC is a "sales pitch" for 1st ed. AD&D. A "collectors' item" deluxe reprint of the Gygaxian canon might be a blow-out-the-doors opportunity even before 5E, due in no negligible part to the efforts of enthusiasts.

Depending on one's fixation on mechanical particulars, many products of those efforts may be quite useful to someone playing (just for instance) 4E D&D. Anything that brings in, or keeps in, more players is a potential long-term asset to the industry leader in sales and brand recognition. If there has in the short term been collateral damage, I think it pales next to what WotC itself has done to fragment its market.

 

[JohnRTroy]

These fan efforts seem to me likely to increase the value of WotC's properties. Printing books and modules for such a niche market is probably not practical for the corporation. Selling PDFs of old material is pure "gravy", though, and I think the fan texts built demand for classic works by bringing them to wider attention along with the hearty recommendations to be had from the "old school" community. OSRIC is a "sales pitch" for 1st ed. AD&D. A "collectors' item" deluxe reprint of the Gygaxian canon might be a blow-out-the-doors opportunity even before 5E, due in no negligible part to the efforts of enthusiasts.

I'm still surprised that WoTC doesn't try to release an official 1e AD&D re-release.

They must think that either there's not enough market for it, or it might cause brand confusion and take away from 4e sales. Or it could be an executive's ego getting in the way.

 

[Ariosto]

I could see WoTC arguing that rather than this being an evolution of the 3e base released under the SRD, they might be able to prove that its the 1e game with the OGL stuff only used to defend their use of existing WoTC IP.

Which appears to be precisely what OSRIC's developers claim; as both parties are in agreement, court may adjourn!

The rules of 1E (or any other game) are not subject to copyright, and even if some theoretically could have been patented once upon a time, I think that ship has sailed.

The explicit purpose of the OGL is to let people use certain of WotC's copyrighted texts.