More info about this OSRIC thing?
- Thread starter trancejeremy
- Start date
Right (as long as you're not using the legal term "fair use"). They just couldn't use the OSRIC trademark.Cam Banks said:
As long as they were correct about what's a "rule" in the legal sense and what's not, that would work, I think. The difficulty is being right about what's a "rule." RPG books contain a lot that's not just rules. Technically, I wouldn't agree that you've accurately described what we did, but I don't want to sound nitpicky. Still, the major obstacles for your hypothetical person are the legal side (identifying rules and avoiding inadvertent copying of copyrightable material) and the amount of work involved, as you point out. Technically, someone could take the rules and not even use the OGL -- but then a lot of non-rules material that's vital to the game's feel would not be available without violating a copyright. The OGL frees up quantities of copyrightable material - alignments, for example.
Last edited:
Breakdaddy
First Post
bowbe said:
LOL, you're my hero, Casey. Remind me I owe you a beer next Gen Con.
Cam Banks
Adventurer
Mythmere1 said:
Right. Although that really just boils down to how to make it clear to the audience that you're using AD&D-compatible rules without copyrighted trademarks, which is what the trademark "OSRIC" is trying to accomplish. You could release the document with new marketing, such as "compatible with the classic version of the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game" and I think people would know what you meant. "OGL Classic" would work, too.
Cheers,
Cam
The OGL is very much a good faith agreement from WotC not to enact legal action against others that:
1) Would, in the case of using D&D's rules, be almost completely without merit, but:
2) Would, despite being meritless, still ruin anyone subjected to it, thanks to WotC having more money to throw at any such dispute than anyone else.
It's basically a safe harbour. Many, many aspects of the rules should not require the OGL at all. But it's safer to use it, and lots of people are *convinced* that the rules are somehow "owned" by WotC. Undoubtedly, many specific expressions of the rules are indeed owned by them, but separating that protected content would require a . . . painful process.
This is the hand we're dealt. My concern is with the precedent this custom raises (lots and lots of people treating things as being protected, when they aren't), which is pretty much antithetical to the ethos of open source. Then again, this whole scheme was designed to induce a destructive externality for competing systems.
1) Would, in the case of using D&D's rules, be almost completely without merit, but:
2) Would, despite being meritless, still ruin anyone subjected to it, thanks to WotC having more money to throw at any such dispute than anyone else.
It's basically a safe harbour. Many, many aspects of the rules should not require the OGL at all. But it's safer to use it, and lots of people are *convinced* that the rules are somehow "owned" by WotC. Undoubtedly, many specific expressions of the rules are indeed owned by them, but separating that protected content would require a . . . painful process.
This is the hand we're dealt. My concern is with the precedent this custom raises (lots and lots of people treating things as being protected, when they aren't), which is pretty much antithetical to the ethos of open source. Then again, this whole scheme was designed to induce a destructive externality for competing systems.
Last edited:
eyebeams said:
This is a very incisive and informed commentary. OSRIC is intended to help bring matters closer to an efficient market, although we have to carry the negative externality with us like a virus. We are specifically working to create a new market using the flexibility of an open system to reduce the scope of that negative externality.
The legal significance of this is fairly profound. I know I'm sounding crypic to a lot of readers, but I don't want to explain too much in this area at this time.
Janx said:
You have to understand that there are people who feel that, while the current D&D game borrows much from its predecessors, that too much is changed to consider it the same game. To them, the current D&D is no more a modern replacement for AD&D or classic D&D than GURPS 4/e is a modern replacement for Fudge.
(Heck, some of them could even admit to liking the current D&D if it had another name.)
Whether you agree or disagree, it is a fact that some of us feel this way.
As for the business side of things, hardly anyone who writes role playing game products is motivated primarily by money. Of those few that are, yes, you can be sure they'll only be writing for the current D&D.
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
RFisher said:
I couldn't agree more.
There are a relatively small number of fans for games of this style, but they show very strong loyalty and a great tendency to want to own almost everything that comes out. I believe that most of the people who bought the first OSRIC adventure, Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom, also purchased Rob Kuntz' COTSK. These same people are also very likely to have been in the queue to buy Goodman Games' 1e module at GenCon and to own products created under the aegis of C&C.
And although the long, dark dry period for these players may now be coming to an end, I think all of the above could triple their present output and people would still buy everything -- so we're a very long way short of being so glutted that we're competing with one another.
AnthonyRoberson
First Post
The Long Tail
Bingo. I bought COTSK and I am also planning on buying the PDF of Pod Caverns and pre-ordering the 1E adventure from Goodman Games. As an (almost) 40-year old gamer, I am happier than I have been in months! As long as QUALITY 1E products continue to be released - I will buy them. It's all about The Long Tail baby...PapersAndPaychecks said:
