What use for OSRIC?

[Geron Raveneye]

Not trolling at all. Just looking for honest answers since the developers refuse to address these issues elsewhere. I knew they'd be addressed here. That's the bottom line. All discussion about legal issues or reevance at DF is stifled due to political affiliations and favoritism. If anyone doubts me, then feel free to go read the threads there.

Then you better check the tone of postage you adopt. Your first post, as well as your second now, make you sound like you have your own stakes and favoritisms to playing a role here. They have nothing neutral and "just looking for honest answers". I don't care what happened in other threads on other boards. Your posts here are accusative and borderline insulting, without you backing it up with anything more than hearsay. If that's how it went elsewhere, it's no surprise you were shut up.

That's not my question though. I've never denied their right to publish and use OSRIC. My point is that it serves no purpose to the OOP community(ies) that isn't already served in other ways using other publishing systems or methods. So why bother?

You mean like half a dozen D&D 3E "Lite" versions? You choose a weird context for something serving a purpose other than somebody wanted to create it, had fun doing it, and so did it. And what other ways of publishing 1E compatible material do you know that is so close to the original rules? Examples would be nice.

There are indeed legal questions. More than a few people believe it violates certain copyright laws or IP laws. WOTC is indeed looking into it, it is being investigated by them. These things don't happen overnight. Until there is a definitive answer, there are some troubling questions that have been raised elsewhere.

So, you work for WotC legal department or something? Or are "legal questions" anything that somebody might post on a message board as layman speculation? Just because "more than a few" people believe it violates certain copyright or IP laws doesn't mean that's actually a fact, or that it is of any interest. As long as WotC hasn't said anything about it (and I doubt we will be the first to hear it, rather than PapersandPaycheks), there's no reason to sound as if there's any legal action going on, except for rabble-rousing.

Regardless of how you feel about the crowd surrounding and developing OSRIC, they do have a certain reputation, and others agree. And in any case, that is all irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that certain publishers have indeed warned against being involved with OSRIC due to the reputation of some of the developers and promoters and their internet history of controversy. Now you can boil that down to politics if you like, but it is a fact that it exists. And I'll be the first to admit that many of those who'd write for OSRIC would probably not be writing for the publishers who've blacklisted OSRIC-affiliated members, in which case it's a moot point. However, for some aspiring authors, it certainly may become a problem, and then there's the legal issue that has not been resolved. So it is a legitimate question/issue.

This has nothing to do about how I feel about any of the involved persons, especially since I don't know any of them on even a casual basis. What I object to is somebody coming here, and in his first post, he starts to accuse a few other members of this board of being of an unsavory reputation. And on top of that, all he brings up as anything even remotely similar to "evidence" is the reference to "certain publishers" and "blacklisting", without giving a direct quote, link, or anything else that enables posters here to first-hand satisfy their curiosity, and which would enable the accused to give their side of the matter. That's one thing, and one thing only: slander. And I don't like that kind of stuff. So as long as you don't back up your accusations, be prepared to be called out for that. And then there's the legal issue that is none, because it hasn't yet be raised in the first place.

So once again, my point is that OSRIC has been billed as some sort of saving grace that allows people to publish 1E-compatible material. However, that can already be done any number of ways without resorting to OSRIC.

Any number of ways being, for example?

Hence, it serves no useful purpose. It doesn't allow anything new or revolutionary as it's being billed as doing. It's like trying to reinvent the wheel, the way I see it.

And what's the problem with that, aside from it maybe being redundant? Last time I checked, that was WotC's best marketing strategy. That's why this board is abounding with 4E rumor threads again after all. I don't see any reasons in that to come in and start playing the alarmist, and slandering other posters.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Regardless of how you feel about the crowd surrounding and developing OSRIC, they do have a certain reputation, and others agree.

Citation? If you've got some facts to back up your statements, I recommend you pull them out of your back pocket and lay them out on the table. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you don't actually have any facts to show. And this is coming from someone who really could care less about OSRIC. You're not doing a very good job of convincing me, at least.

 

[Henry]

Actually, I'm going to take a different stance on this "unsavory characters" business: Let's drop any character aspertions on the creators. We mods don't fancy ENWorld becoming a place for name-dragging or mud-slinging, even if people start posting supposed proof, etc. -- All it does is deflect from actual discussion and make the thread nothing but a shooting match.

So I ask fellow posters, including Halaster, to do this -- please drop the character assertions. If you have something to say about the whole OSRIC concept - it's not needed, it's legally shaky, etc. by all means let's talk about it. But no more mudslinging or even, "in 2001 so-and-so did this" types of facts. I really don't feel like cleaning up after a mud-wrestling match, no matter how attractive the contestants, OK?

Thanks, all.

 

[Henry]

Now, with that out of the way:

That's not my question though. I've never denied their right to publish and use OSRIC. My point is that it serves no purpose to the OOP community(ies) that isn't already served in other ways using other publishing systems or methods. So why bother?

These two seem at cross intents. Are you saying there's no benefit to the OSRIC execution? I myself am unaware of any de-facto or widely available standards similar to the OGL concept that are available to publish in, especially not ones that are any more legally sound. Can you give any examples of systems that fill the niche that OSRIC seeks to fill (that of a license for commerically-published product)?

 

[dcas]

That's not my question though. I've never denied their right to publish and use OSRIC. My point is that it serves no purpose to the OOP community(ies) that isn't already served in other ways using other publishing systems or methods. So why bother?

As you're not investing any time in OSRIC, the question of "why bother?" shouldn't really be all that important to you.

There are indeed legal questions. More than a few people believe it violates certain copyright laws or IP laws.

Who?

It's interesting that all of the actual lawyers I've seen comment on it haven't opined (informally, of course) that OSRIC violates the IP of another company. But some folks who have shown themselves to be not very knowledgeable about IP law have so opined.

WOTC is indeed looking into it, it is being investigated by them. These things don't happen overnight.

Though I'm sure that people bringing it to their attention helps to expidite the "process."

Until there is a definitive answer, there are some troubling questions that have been raised elsewhere.

It's only potentially "troubling" to the parties involved -- the developers of OSRIC, those seeking to produce OSRIC materials, and WOTC. For the rest of us it isn't really "troubling" at all.

The fact of the matter is that certain publishers have indeed warned against being involved with OSRIC due to the reputation of some of the developers and promoters and their internet history of controversy.

Which publishers?

However, for some aspiring authors, it certainly may become a problem, and then there's the legal issue that has not been resolved. So it is a legitimate question/issue.

Then you should do aspiring authors a favor and name the publishers who have blacklisted OSRIC, eh?

 

[Henry]

DCAS, you probably didn't have a chance to see my above post while you crafted yours, but -- could you edit out the non-OSRIC related parts I mentioned? I'd appreciate it.

 

[dcas]

DCAS, you probably didn't have a chance to see my above post while you crafted yours, but -- could you edit out the non-OSRIC related parts I mentioned? I'd appreciate it.

Done, sir. I hope it meets with your approval.

Cool, and thanks. -H

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I don't know how well cross-board-linking is being taken here, so if this is not acceptable, I'd ask one of the mods to delete this.

In case anybody is interested in checking out what thoughts and comments were already brought up about the "legality problem" of OSRIC, the cited thread on Dragonsfoot can be found here.
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...tdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=osric&start=0

In order to get a better picture of the allegiations that have been made about the "shaky legality" of OSRIC here, I really recommend taking a peek in there.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

[EDIT] D'oh! Crossposted with Henry as well. Rather than try and edit non-Osric stuff out, I'll just get rid of the post altogether (I don't think it's all that inflammatory, but better safe than sorry, right? )

You are a fast, fast man, 'drew. Thanks for the refocus. - Henry

 

[Ourph]

I myself am unaware of any de-facto or widely available standards similar to the OGL concept that are available to publish in, especially not ones that are any more legally sound. Can you give any examples of systems that fill the niche that OSRIC seeks to fill (that of a license for commerically-published product)?

I think the point being made is that a restatement of the entire ruleset isn't necessary to facilitate writing AD&D compatible modules under the OGL. This is true. Judging by comments he's made at his Pied-Piper-Publishing message boards, Rob Kuntz is considering using the OGL to allow him to use his Creations Unlimited style stats with actual D&D-style terminology (using the OGL licensed "Armor Class" instead of "Armor Type" for example). It's not necessary, IMO, to restate all the rules in order to do that kind of project.

On the other hand, I can see two benefits to OSRIC. First, a restating of the rules in Open Game Content format makes rules supplements a lot easier to handle. If you want to create an alternate psionics system or an alternate unarmed combat system you can reference material from OSRIC that wasn't previously Open Game Content (for example, AD&D style initiative rules). That means, as the author of an alternate unarmed combat system supplement, I don't have to work out how to restate the rules I need myself. The OSRIC folks have already done that for me (and if they've made any mistakes, THEY get to take the heat for it, not me).

Second, use of the OSRIC document comes with the right to use a trademark. If I decide to create and market an adventure as "OSRIC compatible" I get to take advantage of the advertising and promotional efforts of everyone else who is creating "OSRIC compatible" material. If Joe Browning spends $200 marketing Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom as an "OSRIC compatible" product, my "OSRIC compatible" adventure gets at least some benefit from those advertising dollars too, as opposed to a completely unrelated product from Ourph Publishing Inc. that's not tied to Sinister Shroom in any way.

In fact, most of the arguments Ryan Dancey has made in favor of the d20 System License apply directly to OSRIC. Same idea, different game system.