Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[RFisher]

After looking at OSRIC, the resemblance to non-open pre-3e material is striking to me. IANAL, but judging on some past litigation I have seen involving games in the past, I don't think it would be difficult at all to put up a case against OSRIC.

You are not a lawyer. Osric was begun by a lawyer & has been reviewed by lawyers. () Well, you've convinced me. Everybody stop work on any Osric material & start changing "hp" back to "HTK". (^_^)

 

[Garnfellow]

I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC. The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules. OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera). It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.

I had considered a project like OSRIC shortly after the draft SRD was released -- my goal would have been to create a stripped down version of the 3e ruleset that simulated the old basic D&D red book.

The big stumbling blocks I encountered were the ability modifiers and the XP tables. Almost every other piece of the red-book system could have been simulated by playing with or excluding pieces of the open toolset. But there didn't seem to be a way to re-create the quirky ability mods or XP tables without dipping into closed content.

Because that information was not derived from a mathematical formula, I couldn't see how someone could claim they developed that information without pulling it from closed, copyrighted materials. A thousand monkeys banging on a thousand typewriters would need a couple of eons to independently develop something like the baroque "percentile strength" charts.

Does OSRIC use 1e ability mods and XP tables? And if so, how is it justified as open content?

 

[Psion]

You are not a lawyer. Osric was begun by a lawyer & has been reviewed by lawyers. () Well, you've convinced me. Everybody stop work on any Osric material & start changing "hp" back to "HTK". (^_^)

And after my post a lawyer opined that it could be possible. And again, my opinion is based on the scope of verbage of actual suits.

So, who do you believe?

I think that many publishers who aren't willing to touch it are right not to risk it. If you are a publisher and wish to risk it, feel free. It's your money.

Again, however, I'll reemphasize that it's not so much a matter of what can be proven in court. People who are making money off of this are not making enough that it would be worth soaking up court costs. It's a matter of WotC deciding whether it's worth paying some lawyers to sink it.

Really, many people have opined about the OGL that it's not so much about legalities as risk, anyways. People could use the same "careful wording" and "game mechanics omissions" to copyright laws to publish material for some time. Most avoid it unless they feel that they have genuine reason to believe they will not be sued.

 

[RFisher]

The big stumbling blocks I encountered were the ability modifiers and the XP tables.

There's a fan-created class-creation system for classic D&D that reverse engineered some math behind the classic D&D XP tables.

C&C & TLG's earlier work, the S&S system, used a ability modifiers table exactly like the classic D&D table--except for extending beyond the 3-18 range.

What would you've done for saving throws?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The question of whether a copyright can lose validlty through non-enforcement is one we can settle quite quickly - it can't. At least not under U.S. law.

No argument from me on that.

Copyrights can be enforced even if the infringing use has no bearing whatever on the market for the copyrighted work.

Sure; my comment about competition and the market, et cetera, wasn't meant to be a legal argument; I see that part as more of a business/strategic question than a question of law.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

However, copyright also protects derivative works that are spawned by the original work. It is possible that OSRIC could be found to have violated the copyright as a derivative work. Cluttering the issue is the fact that the OGL is out there, making some of the work open for use. But that is a factual question that requires more information than we have right here.

Yes. I still think that would be a difficult position to argue, though, because of the OGL complicating things and because it doesn't matter if the game rules are derivative, it only matters if the presentation is derivative. On the surface, it looks obvious that OSRIC is derived from 1E, but once you focus solely on the presentation (rather than the rules) and add in the complication of the OGL, then you have quite a minefield to navigate.

Oh well, as you say, we don't have enough information to really say. I know the creators of OSRIC have obtained legal advice, and created the document with the legal questions in mind, though.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I had considered a project like OSRIC shortly after the draft SRD was released -- my goal would have been to create a stripped down version of the 3e ruleset that simulated the old basic D&D red book.

Have you seen Basic Fantasy?

Does OSRIC use 1e ability mods and XP tables?

There are some differences. OSRIC uses a variable in the XP advancement tables. I think the ability mods are the same numbers, although OSRIC doesn't present strength with percentages, but rather as decimals. So there's no 18(00) strength: it's listed as 19 in the table. I haven't really been over it looking for differences; those are things off the top of my head.

 

[Garnfellow]

There's a fan-created class-creation system for classic D&D that reverse engineered some math behind the classic D&D XP tables.

C&C & TLG's earlier work, the S&S system, used a ability modifiers table exactly like the classic D&D table--except for extending beyond the 3-18 range.

What would you've done for saving throws?

I didn't get that far conceptually -- I basically started with character creation, and the weird ability score modifications were an immediate (and seemingly significant) hurdle. Had I ever gotten to combat, saving throws would have had similar issues -- now I think I understand why C&C handles saving throws the way they do.

Because game rules and algorithms can't be copyrighted, it seemed *possible* to pull some of those closed, missing mechanics out of the old rules, but it's a long way from *possible* and *a sure thing*. The lawyer I talked with thought it would be a serious potential exposure.

But aside from the legalities, it seemed like trying to back door closed (but much desired) content on technicalities really violated the generous spirit of the OGL and abused WotC's good will. At the time (and keep in mind, this was back in the early days of the OGL), it seemed much, much more beneficial to not push the issue -- I would have rather had WotC willingly release new open material to the SRD rather than try to forcefully open up content they wanted closed.

In the end, it was the goodwill consideration that really gave me pause.

To tell the truth, I haven't thought much about this since I abandoned the idea. But since WotC seems to have abandoned the SRD (just when WAS the last update?), it's a bit harder to argue on goodwill grounds that folks should play nice with the OGL.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

If he is under no obligation to keep the response private he should probably scan it and make it available for those "skittish" about OSRIC. At the very least send certified copies to the variosu 3rd party publishers and request that they keep the info private.

What say you, P&P? Can you make the response public? Or at least communicate it to other third party publishers so they can all collectively assure everyone else that WOTC is OK with it?

I'm sorry, Treebore, but private correspondence is exactly that. The WOTC representative with whom I exchanged communications is entitled not to have their words repeated elsewhere, and I think they quite clearly had an expectation of privacy.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This is just plain wrong. Their is no responsibility to defend in copyright law. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from statues, codes, regulations, or court cases.

Are you a lawyer?

If so, could you explain why, in your opinion, copyright isn't subject to laches or estoppel?

If not, could you just shut up please?