Getting OSRIC/AD&D into FLGS and publishers

[JohnRTroy]

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.

There's an exception in copyright law.

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.

Game rules are a LOT of text.

The simple fact is there is very little case law to back any of this up. The closest thing is Mayfair vs. TSR. Allen vs. Academic games is probably the most popular precedent.

The SRD OGL released 3e to the public. However, it did not release all of WoTC IP. I would say using the SRD to create a game that emulates an actual WoTC version of D&D/AD&D that wasn't released under OGL (4e, 1/2e, OD&D, BECMI, whatever) is adding more risk.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

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

Great. Now i hear a song called "more than an opinion" constantly playing in the back of my head.

 

[Ariosto]

John, I think you may be conflating the technical (and applicable) meaning of "rules" with colloquial usage that refers to a specific text.

It is a rule in the former sense that a first-level character hits AC X by rolling (20-X) or greater on 1d20. That is a procedure, easily expressed mathematically; a set of data produced by applying it is not copyright.

On the other hand, some old D&D tables giving factors for (e.g.) character classes by level exhibit "funky" variations the removal of which is among the reasons some people consider later designs "better". They cannot be reduced to a simple rule other than "see the table". In such cases, the tables are clearly "creative literary or artistic expression" and cannot legally be duplicated. Thus, we find differences when comparing corresponding tables in simulacra with those in old D&D editions.

There's not much of a leg on which to stand in claiming that the tables are similar in concept, because the concept does not belong to anyone -- and there are in any case only so many ways to present such a matrix!

The intent of the law is very clearly NOT to prevent anyone from copying the rules of a game. Indeed, it seems to me that it should be legally possible to duplicate even many such odd rules as mentioned above by presenting them in a sufficiently different literary or visual (or whatever) form. In not doing so, the creators of simulacra are being scrupulous in the extreme, hedging their bets in light of the "chilling effect" that frivolous lawsuits have had.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

I know a LOT of people hemmed and hawed over the "redefinition" clause in the GSL, and I think THIS is specifically why it exists. So you CAN'T redefine strength scores with percentiles/decimals/base ten blocks/whatever. So you can't make a ranger have 2 HD at 1st and do their level in damage to humanoid foes. I think its something even Ryan Dancy never foresaw; using SRD/OGL to weasel around copyright and produce "not-D&D" editions of 1e, 2e, OD&D, Basic, etc.

C&C is on firmer ground because its using 3e to define an "old school" play. The thief skills are called by their 3e names. The spells are mostly SRD ports. It uses the default d20 mechanic, and even uses an ability score modifier more akin to 3es (just with wider windows and small bonuses). It also doesn't reintroduce old concepts like the 5 save categories, level limits, or downward AC/Thac0. The closer a retro gets from "inspiration" to "emulation", the closer it gets to that gray area of "Lawyers and Semantics".

I restate my theory: Clones work fine as long as they are fan productions used to create games in the spirit of the old rules as a labor of love and not a capitalistic venture; recouping your print cost on Lulu is fine, but as soon as soon tries to make a buck off WotC's IP, they will release the lawyers.

Morale: Its in OSRIC's best interest NOT to be in every bookstore in America. The less attention it draws to itself, the better off it is.

 

[Ariosto]

We depend on common language for communication of all ideas. We depend on ideas for all our livelihood and progress. Patent law exists to encourage -- by securing temporary ownership -- the publication of ideas of utility to the public, that they should not be lost to the commonweal by being kept secret for personal profit. The law would be turned against itself if it could be used to remove from the commons ideas that are already in currency.

To use copyright law as an "end run" around that would impoverish not only our wealth of ideas but the fundamental tool of language.

 

[nightraven]

John OSRIC is a restatement of the rules, thus 100% percent legal (the fact that it walks talks and acts like a duck doesn't really matter…as far as I can see its never been tested in court).
The OGL was cleverly used along with this restatement (something WOTC didn't see coming no doubt...whoops!!! Too bad their legal team wasn't paying attention).

The fact that lawyers and owners of companies in the business were making statements of legality about OSRIC (casting doubt) is seriously unethical (and possibly illegal). Chanault's attorney (and wife) should have warned him not to make such doubts publicly known. A judge could see a "response to a question" by such a person as a means to an end (a smear campaign). The fact that OSRIC was designed to be used by 3rd party publishers and that TLG would be in direct competition with these 3rd parties would likely be relevant in such a case.

In any event, the last thing WOTC would want to do is bring this to court and clarify the law in a way that was not to their favor. The impact could be massive (possibly hurting all of Hasbro its parent company). The most likely scenario would be for WOTC to offer OSRIC's owner(s) cash to make it disappear (and for all I know they have and it was turned down).

I believe the only stipulation is that OSRIC can't claim to be compatible with AD&D (which is the one big disadvantage of OSRIC). That's why we are seeing companies launching "1E compatible" or "1E AD&D compatible" (its more clearly AD&D related to those not clear about what OSRIC is). I think EXPR monster book is less reliant on OSRIC because they are all new monsters. Modules are much more dependent (as they allow the OGL and a widely available system to reference).

 

[Maggan]

The fact that lawyers and owners of companies in the business were making statements of legality about OSRIC (casting doubt) is seriously unethical (and possibly illegal).

Nah, you can't have it both ways. If OSRIC is legal because it hasn't been tried in court and WotC hasn't sued, then it's legal for people to express doubt over the legality of OSRIC since the creators haven't sued, and it hasn't been tried in court.

/M

 

[JohnRTroy]

The fact that lawyers and owners of companies in the business were making statements of legality about OSRIC (casting doubt) is seriously unethical (and possibly illegal). Chanault's attorney (and wife) should have warned him not to make such doubts publicly known. A judge could see a "response to a question" by such a person as a means to an end (a smear campaign). The fact that OSRIC was designed to be used by 3rd party publishers and that TLG would be in direct competition with these 3rd parties would likely be relevant in such a case.

It is not unethical or illegal for people to state an opinion based on case law and their own legal knowledge about a third party, even if they are in the industry. I suggest you read up about legal ethics and libel law.

You seem to be saying that anybody who makes a statement regarding legality of OSRIC (usually in response to a pointed question like "why don't you support OSRIC"), if they have a competitive game should STFU. I don't think that's right. Note that neither company is doing things like accusing them of illegality, they are simply stating that they think its risky.

In any event, the last thing WOTC would want to do is bring this to court and clarify the law in a way that was not to their favor. The impact could be massive (possibly hurting all of Hasbro its parent company). The most likely scenario would be for WOTC to offer OSRIC's owner(s) cash to make it disappear (and for all I know they have and it was turned down).

But then there is a risk of WoTC winning and setting legal precendent that would threaten a lot of the clones.

The threat of a lawsuit is big enough to make people risk adverse. I think C&C was developed very carefully because, while Gary wasn't directly involved in its creation, he was going to release Castle Zagyg through that game system. EGG was a target before. Take a look at this lawsuit.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_gdw2.txt

Now, Dangerous Journeys was VERY different from AD&D. But look at that discovery line-list. Mr. Gygax had stated they could have probably won the case, but all the parties couldn't afford it. So they settled. A game was destroyed, GDW likely suffered from the results (which might have contributed to their eventual shutdown--not sure exactly), and even TSR accrued some debt to the lawyers. (I suspect they more or less feared EGG working for the competition--while that was unlikely to happen with the WoTC of the early 3e days, you can never trust that a company won't change).

This is the type of risk involved. Each company has to evaluate risk and make their choices. Answering questions honestly is part of that.

 

[Ariosto]

A basic problem here is that the purpose of copyright law is not merely to "permit" but actively to encourage the spread of ideas.

That's not very comforting to a commercial enterprise that would like to have a monopoly on certain game ideas merely by conveying them in a book. The fact is that only the particular expression of the game ideas -- the specific construction of language -- in the book is "intellectual property".

(Even in terms of derivative works, this is in the case of games a bit different from, for instance, a musical composition.)

Not only is language versatile enough to admit of various restatements of ideas, but that capability is something to be protected from being stolen away. One cannot rob the world of arithmetic by claiming ownership of the phrase "1+1=2", or pull off any similar heist. Any claim of copyright that would have such an effect is wrong on its face.

The text of AD&D is copyright, and WotC has in the OGL given permission to use certain portions of text. The ideas in AD&D belong to all of us.

 

[Jack99]

Do I recall hearing that David Kenzer is a lawyer? Is there a link to some place where he might have posted his feelings on the matter?

Isnt he an IP lawyer?