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

[dcas]

I think that was concerning fanzines with a circulation of 500 or less, not slickly-produced modules by professional outfits.

 

[Storm Raven]

... and much to lose.

Not really.

I'd certainly ask a British court for a declaration that, since I'm a British citizen, the alleged wrong took place in Britain, and WOTC is an international with offices in the UK, it should be a British court that presides. Then there's the question of which law applies -- it could end up being US law in a British court -- and the thorny issue of a possible counterclaim under antitrust law for triple damages...

Sure, you could do that. But that wouldn't prevent WotC from obtaining a judgment against you in a U.S. court anyway. Then you have dueling judgments. And your antitrust claim almost certainly fails, since they would probably (successfully) define the market as "games", and Hasbro is nowhere near holding a monopoly position in that market. Leaving you with a declaration that you should be sued in Britain, and WotC holding a judgment alliowing them to seize any of your products that enter the U.S.

I can imagine that WOTC's lawyers might well want to avoid that situation. It's not even as if OSRIC were making any money; it's a non-profit.

Profit or non-profit is almost entirely beside the point in copyright litigation. But, on the whole, my guess is that WotC has decided not to worry about OSRIC because it is too small potatos for them to bother with. Not that they fear some sort of difficult litigation situation.

 

[Storm Raven]

My friend who is an artist found some artwork on t-shirts for sale online that were very similar to her own design...to similar. She contacted the manufacturer who claimed the design was there's. They refused to do anything about it. She contacted an attorney who said, you'll have to take them to court if you really want them to stop...and since it wasn't exact it might be difficult to prove. She also asked could she wait for years before acting. The attorney said she should act sooner rather then later if she wanted to improve her chances of winning. This is the only artist I know of personally who had this problem. But according to her you can go on forums and find other artists with the same problem. I suppose this could just be the attorney trying to generate business immediatly? If so thats kinda pathetic.

In a copyright action you need to prove not only that the work is similar, but also that is was copied. Unlike a patent holder, a copyright holder has no right to prevent independent creation of a similar artistic work, provided that work was truly created independently. So, for example, when an obscure songwriter in Chicago sued the Bee Gees claiming they had copied the music from one of his original creations to make the melody to How deep Is Your Love, he lost. He could not demonstrate that the Bee Gees had ever heard his song, let alone that they had copied it. So, unless your artist friend can show some sort of nexus between her work and the company's creation, she is probably going to have troubles in an infringement action.

As to whether you should bring an action now rather than later, that is almost always the case, no matter the area of law. This isn't something that is a part of copyright law, but rather a practical issue related to litigation. If you wait, then there is the liklihood that memories will fade, witnesses will move and their forwarding addresses lost, evidence misplaced and so on. If I were advising clients contemplating litigation, I would recommend sooner rather than later unless there was some compelling reason to do otherwise. Not because of any kind of oddity about copyright law, but because litigation is harder to conduct two, three, or four years down the line.

Anyhow, what if OSRIC was legally challanged. Worst case scenario Papers and Paychecks cracks. "OK I give up". So then he asks what exactly do I need to change to comply. Lets say they give him a list and he changes those things. He's still left with OSRIC. The publishers are still left with OSRIC. So whats the big deal? How will publishers loose money if OSRICs owner caved?

The worst case scenario from Papers and Paychecks perspective is that WotC could gain control of the copyright (forfeiture of rights is a often applied remedy), or injunctive relief against distributing anything using the OSRIC as a backbone. Not that either is likely at this point, since we have no indication that WotC is contemplating taking any action at all. But that would be the worst case scenario.

And what are the most likely costs that Papers and Paychecks would be required to pay? I mean, could they prove thier present company was damaged? They can't charge royalty since OSRIC is free. And the publishers...they can say "AD&D whats that. My module is based on this thing called OSRIC".

A copyright holder with a properly registered copyright is entitled to statutory damages - that is damages in an amount defined by statute, per infringing event. These damages are entirely unrelated to the amount of economic harm the copyright holder may have suffered. In the case of incidental infringement, statutory damages can range from $750 to $30,000 per infringement, and in the case of willful infringement, up to $150,000 per infringement.

And derivative works of an infringing work are also infringements. So publishers under OSRIC, even if they thought it was kosher to use could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights.

And what if this sucker did go to court and WOTC looses...what then?
This would be a crushing blow to them in not just lost claims to IP but in PR to the public, then there's the chance this court case could be used to topple other monoliths of gamedom. Its dynomite. Case in point, didn't Gygax settle out of court for a big load of cash? Or did it go to trial?

Gygax's case didn't just involve IP from what I understand, there were stockholder issues and business contracts and so on mixed in. I do recall that Gygax did lose control of most of the IP he produced while working for TSR, so I don't think he is a very good example to cite on this.

But as to WotC losing? They would lose control of OSRIC, which people now assert they don't control to being with, so I don't see how that would hurt them. They would keep their copyrights on their books and so on, those don't get invalidated if they lose. The antiturst angle is mildly interesting, but there isn't any reasonable definition of the market that would make WotC a monopolist (and the fact that you think WotC is a "monolith of gamedom" shows that you don't understand what a bit player WotC is in the ranks of game publishers as a whole). The PR issue would be the most worrying if I were WotC.

 

[tx7321]

"and the fact that you think WotC is a "monolith of gamedom" shows that you don't understand what a bit player WotC is in the ranks of game publishers"

Storm Raven I was referring to HASBRO/WOTC not just WOTC, so my bad there buddy.

Q: "The worst case scenario from Papers and Paychecks perspective is that WotC could gain control of the copyright (forfeiture of rights is a often applied remedy), or injunctive relief against distributing anything using the OSRIC as a backbone."

So say he folds. Agrees to give WOTC OSRIC without a fight. Then 2 weeks later, SEDRIC (another rewrite of the 1E rules) shows up, correcting many of the errors of OSRIC, perhaps WILMA and BESSY all AD&D 1E rules with original presentation. The publishers of AD&D 1E are back in business in a yawn. WOTC stamps these out and more pop up.

Another question Storm Raven. Can a company like WOTC pick and choose willy nilly who they will go after (say ignoring GG, DF, C&C etc.) and single out OSRIC, if each of these others were commiting the same infrindgements? Especially in this case, its not like OSRIC is reproducing actual text or images...its a bit more removed from that (like the concept that a half-elf fighter is limited to such and such level etc.). Couldn't it be said, "hey you didn't think a crime was going on before, but now suddenly with this one company you do"?

BTW thanks for your partisipation in this thread. Though I think your "cold" to OSRIC for some reason, I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

 

[Melan]

In any case, the output so far has been promising. I don't care one bit for the OSRIC book except for curio value (which I don't value that much, nowdays - the PDF is fine, but see no reason to buy it), but Pod-caverns of the sinister shroom was an inspired module (I hope to run it in january or so) and Red mausoleum seems decent enough as well. That's what matters - small modules, and a low volume of supplementary material.

Regarding market viability, I remain skeptical about OSRIC "taking the gaming world by storm". That is unlikely to happen; early growth is often impressive, but once it has passed that initial stage and the early buzz subsides, it becomes much harder to gain new adherents. What we can hope for or work towards is a small crafts culture growing up around the game. There would be little profit in that, but quite a lot of fun - and that's fine, even great for a hobby culture.

 

[EditorBFG]

I don't have a problem with AC going up, and I don't have a problem with AC going down. To me, the differences that matter between the editions, system-wise are stuff like skills, feats, how balance is addressed, and the degree to which DM judgment plays a role in play.

For me, AC is emblematic of many counter-intuitive rules that dogged the older system. I'm not knocking the old system for what it was-- things evolve over time, sometimes improving, sometimes not-- but I think that a counter-intuitive ruleset is part of why the AD&D craze won't last. Something that is more balanced and easily applicable to differing situations out of the box is going to gain and retain more popularity. Every game requires the GM to be on top of things, but I think his attention is better focused elsewhere than ensuring that encounters tough enough to challenge the cavalier don't annihilate the fighter, for example. I think every game has its niche-- I find Bunnies & Burrows to be a surprisingly good read, though not my cup of tea to play-- but to my mind, old school D&D's recent emergence from its niche into relative popularity is temporary, at least as far as the rules themselves go, rather than long-term. But as I said, I think the "feel" is here to stay, just not the nuts and bolts.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Sure, you could do that. But that wouldn't prevent WotC from obtaining a judgment against you in a U.S. court anyway. Then you have dueling judgments.

In this rather unlikely case, the issue of venue would be complex and I imagine it would take months or even years to resolve.

I would certainly ask my solicitor to write to the US Court and say something along these lines:

1. A US court is not the proper venue for the case; and
2. There is no breach of copyright. Both parties agree that game rules, systems and mechanics aren't subject to copyright (WOTC have published this statement in the past). Both parties agree that the OGL applies. The OGL permits me the use of gaming terms (such as "armor class" and "alignment") which are admittedly WOTC's property, and it permits me to "modify" the meaning of those terms however I wish. The artwork is clearly new. Therefore, all these items should be subtracted from the document.

WOTC should then show substantial similarity between whatever's left of OSRIC after you've taken out all the rules, systems, mechanics and gaming terms, and something that they own and I challenge them to do so.

Since you won't read the document and look for similarities, please take it from me: no such substantial similarity exists.

And your antitrust claim almost certainly fails, since they would probably (successfully) define the market as "games", and Hasbro is nowhere near holding a monopoly position in that market.

I beg to differ.

I don't know what case you're using as a source for that, but I wouldn't necessarily need to bring the action in the US in any case. WOTC quite clearly believe that there's a separate market in pen and paper roleplaying games. That's their specialist niche, and they publish market analyses and other documents which treat pen and paper roleplaying games as a specific market in themselves. I think that in the UK it would be very hard for them to argue that pen and paper RPGs isn't a market.

Leaving you with a declaration that you should be sued in Britain, and WotC holding a judgment alliowing them to seize any of your products that enter the U.S.

*shrug*

If WOTC somehow get past the preceding issues, the consequence is that print copies of OSRIC would be scarce in the US for a while and I have to host the .pdf of OSRIC in the UK. No judgment or legal issue will stop US citizens downloading a free .pdf.

Profit or non-profit is almost entirely beside the point in copyright litigation. But, on the whole, my guess is that WotC has decided not to worry about OSRIC because it is too small potatos for them to bother with. Not that they fear some sort of difficult litigation situation.

It's highly relevant to issues such as consequential loss. Perhaps that matters less in the US.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

For me, AC is emblematic of many counter-intuitive rules that dogged the older system. I'm not knocking the old system for what it was-- things evolve over time, sometimes improving, sometimes not-- but I think that a counter-intuitive ruleset is part of why the AD&D craze won't last. Something that is more balanced and easily applicable to differing situations out of the box is going to gain and retain more popularity. Every game requires the GM to be on top of things, but I think his attention is better focused elsewhere than ensuring that encounters tough enough to challenge the cavalier don't annihilate the fighter, for example. I think every game has its niche-- I find Bunnies & Burrows to be a surprisingly good read, though not my cup of tea to play-- but to my mind, old school D&D's recent emergence from its niche into relative popularity is temporary, at least as far as the rules themselves go, rather than long-term. But as I said, I think the "feel" is here to stay, just not the nuts and bolts.

I simply don't understand the complaints about descending AC. It seems perfectly intuitive to me; it's hardly advanced math!

 

[tx7321]

EDITOR BGF posted: "but to my mind, old school D&D's recent emergence from its niche into relative popularity is temporary, at least as far as the rules themselves go, rather than long-term. But as I said, I think the "feel" is here to stay, just not the nuts and bolts."

I think most players of AD&D 1E would argue the 1E rules more or less followed are a huge part of what creates the unique old school feel (its not just giant spiders with poison that kills its rules like fixed archetypes and the use of tables).

C&C and Microlight20 are both very similar to one another IMO, a quick and efficient D20 experiance, if you will...BUT, without 1Es tables, flexible rules, and the philosophy of complete power of the DM, those 2 systems will never really produce the same late 70s "old school" 1E feel that OSRIC can. They are both great systems, just not 1E (as OSRIC attempts to be).

BTW, I'm not saying buy OSRIC, I'd prefer people buy the original 1E books and play (at least give it a shot). But if you want a free downloadable copy or an inexpensive "in print" "current" 1E substitute (which in some ways is clearer then the original), and that (hopefully) a dozen publishers will be supporting in the very near future...well then OSRIC is your ticket.

EDITED to say, as a long time troll of ENworld, I never hoped to see such a positive and warm reception to AD&D 1E and OSRIC. Its nice to see the edition wars are over. That each game can be seen as special and unique rather then "broken" or "superior".

 

[RFisher]

I think, like all things, the nostalgia craze will fade in time. So will the idea that a 30 year-old ruleset is better than everything that followed it.

My c. 1981 vintage D&D game is proving as much--nay more fun for me & my group that it was when I bought it. While I think 3e is an amazing work & I do enjoy it, I don't enjoy it as much as the 20+ year old game. For me, the older game is better.

Granted, I'm not going to say that--in general--the old game is better than everything that followed it for everyone. I like, admire, & happily play 3e. I recognize that for some people it is a better game. There are plenty of newer games that, even for me, are better than classic D&D for a specific campaign. But I suspect "better than everything that followed it" is a strawman or hyperbole.

I'll happily agree, though, that nostalgia plays a role in my group's enjoyment of the old game.

Even without the experience, it had a feel. Unlike 2E or 3.whatever, which look and feel like "marketing", there was a 1E ambience that seemed forbidding and arcane-- somehow, the often poor artwork and black-and-white all added to that rather than detracting.

Even if it wasn't intentional, I think the fact that early TSR didn't manage the artwork too closely was brilliant. While something like a Greyhawk or Realms product can be made better by a certain amount of uniformity in art direction, a game like D&D shouldn't have a unified look. It's about limitless possibilities.

That said, there is a limit to how great the old stuff was, and how much we should return to. Going back to hit rolls going up but Armor Class going down? That way lies madness.

<shrug> I tried using ascending AC with classic D&D & it just wasn't worth the hassle. While ascending AC is more aesthetically pleasing, descending AC just isn't worth getting worked up over. The players simply have their line from the combat table copied to their character sheet & I use the single monster combat table.

Now, I can't defend AD&D, but for the majority of mechanics, I prefer the way classic D&D handles them v. 3e. At the very least (like AC) the reward of changing isn't worth the cost. In some of the more esoteric cases, it's easy enough to import the 3e version if I want.

I think that the best way to marry basic D&D to the now is something like Microlite 20, created here on EN World, which is just golden and simplifies the current system without returning to the weaknesses of the old.

I've tried the "simple d20" thing. It's more work to make d20 into the game I want to play than to just play classic D&D.