I'm Matt Finch, the "Initial Author" of OSRIC. Which, given the vast improvements and reworking of the document made by Stuart, is largely an honorary title. However, what I did do was to originate the idea of what the document's supposed to accomplish. Again, Stuart has refined that concept with the help of a raft of lawyers and editors. However, I think I can respond to questions of "errors" and "bait and switch" because I'm the one responsible for any "errors" or "bait and switch."
OSRIC is not designed to be played. I'm a 1e preservationist, if you will, and the last thing I want to do is to pull people away from playing 1e. OSRIC is designed for publishers, to create a market for OGL based, 1e compatible resources. It gives publishers an umbrella trademark that's a synonym for 1e. Is that necessary?
Well, a publisher (non-OGL, OGL, OSRIC, anyone) can use the term "1e." It is not a trademark claimed by anyone, nor is it likely that anyone could claim it as a trademark at this point. So why not just publish non-OGL material "compatible with 1e"? Well, if you aren't using the OGL, this is fairly risky. A work can be "derivative" of a copyrighted work and thus break copyright law. You're much safer using the OGL and saying "compatible with 1e," and Rob Kuntz is actually doing this as we speak with his module Cairn of the Skeleton King. I have a copy of this but can't read it because I'm going to be a player in it once we reach 4th level. So I can't review it, but the cover looks great. Anyway, sorry: digression. Writing modules using the OGL and the "compatible with 1e" tag (and without OSRIC) doesn't violate the OGL as long as there's no direct accidental copyright violation in the areas not covered by the OGL. This is relatively unlikely in a module, but there are a few danger points if the module steps beyond the "rules, methods, systems, and ideas" and uses something derivative of an older work that isn't in the SRD. In general, I think it's unlikely that most modules would do this, but the publisher may not be so comfortable. OSRIC has already been checked by many lawyers and written in a way that uses only original (meaning not derivative) material except for the underlying numbers and algorithms of the original 1e game and the material permitted by the OGL. It's easier for a publisher of original (new) material to check that something is covered in OSRIC than to check that it's NOT somewhere else. It means that the author/publisher doesn't need to find a roundabout way of saying something and then hope not to get a C&D letter from WotC. If it's in OSRIC, the author can comfortably say that his material is derivative of OSRIC. It's true, and it's allowed by the OSRIC license. Obviously, OSRIC is only for original (new) material, but for the publisher it's a document where the distinctions between "rules" that aren't copyrightable and non-rules open game content covered by the SRD, and the non-usable material have all already been thought through and written out in a format that can easily be referenced while preparing a module.
The benefit is clearer if you consider resources other than a module. The more rules you need to cite in your resource, the larger the concern about inadvertently violating copyright. By using OSRIC, you've got material you can quote.
Now, to the "bait and switch" issue. Yes, there are differences. In some cases, like level titles, these are copyrighted and not included in the SRD and not derivative of numbers or rules. They are flavor. And this means we left them out - we have no right to use them. Name levels only remained, because these are generic terms with an impact on income from strongholds - they tie into the numbers. The other level titles do not.
We also made several judgement calls in which even though we believed we had the right to use numbers exactly as-is, we made small adjustments. If it were to come down to a legal battle, we wanted the document to be absolutely legally bulletproof. So, for example, there is a rule in OSRIC that makes all base experience numbers the core for a random increase/decrease that gives you the exact number of xp required to make level. That is NOWHERE in ANY game. Is it a bait and switch? Consider: OSRIC is not designed to be played. If I publish even a new character class, am I going to need to mention this rule? No. I just give the base experience number. If someone were playing OSRIC by the OSRIC rules, he'd then apply a random factor. But if you're playing by 1e rules, you just use the base number.
The changes are minor and designed to become invisible in a supplement. We're shooting for maximum compatibility in the supplements written by others, not trying to replace 1e as a game. We want to increase the 1e fan base by letting people put product into venues like RPGnow.
Since this isn't designed to be played, it's not a bait and switch. It's designed to allow compatible publications in an open license format. It would be a bait and switch if it were supposed to replace 1e - but it's not designed to be used that way. It's designed to increase the appeal of the original books by making 1e a "living game" again by helping publishers and setting a format for the "market."
Why include an xp system? Because a publisher may want to specify how many xp are granted for an encounter, or make a new class. Do I think WotC could legally stop them from using the original formula? I don't. Is the publisher going to be more comfortable using the OSRIC formula? Probably. So there's a formula. And the results of the calculations, though different, are very, very close.
I personally believe that WotC has less control over the "systems, methods, ideas, and rules" than conventional wisdom believes. This opinion has been echoed many times by other posters with IP experience. What we've done here is to put that to use in a way that helps publishers feel comfortable.
That comfort level is the key to an increase in the publication of 1e resources. It won't arise immediately; lots of people will wait to make sure that there's no legal challenge. Others, like Joe Browning of Expeditious Retreat Press, are already moving to gain position in what they see as a new market.
I do not think there will be a legal challenge. The document is legal. It is written by a retired lawyer (me) and although P&P is not a lawyer the document has been subsequently reviewed by two lawyers I know of. It has been reviewed in the public boards, certainly, by other lawyers who have not raised any legal points. No lawyer I know of has suggested a change anywhere to the document for legal reasons. British law comes into play (P&P is British and I have dual citizenship - there is no author anywhere in the chain who isn't a British citizen). The project should operate to increase WotC's income through the Paizo license to publish OOP rulebooks. Antitrust comes into play since WotC dominates this market under antitrust law. There are no trademark violations whatsoever in the document - that would have been caught right out of the box by the many people who have offered suggestions over the internet.
Anyway, I hope I've answered some of the questions that have been raised with this long post. Hopefully a year from now, people will be happily reading new material that's compatible with the rules of 1e. That's our goal.
