* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Started at 11-09-06 10:47 PM by caeruleus Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=737172 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-09-06 10:47 PM Thread Title : OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Has anyone here heard of OSRIC? It stands for Old School Reference & Index Compilation. Basically, what it does it take the SRD and recreate 1e with it. Now sure, if you want to play 1e, you can just use the 1e books. But what this does (and I believe this is the intent) is allow new stuff to be published for this ruleset under the OGL for d20. In fact, some publishers have already put out some adventures for OSRIC. The OSRIC system is free to download, and you can get it here: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/index.html I only just found out about it today, so I haven't yet read through the whole thing, but I was wondering if others know about this, and what you all think of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : chatdemon Date : 11-09-06 10:59 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) I only just found out about it today Right... It's not OOP and it's not a TSR/WotC product. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-09-06 11:06 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Right... It's not OOP and it's not a TSR/WotC product. And since it's recreating something that's OOP, I thought it might be of interest. Sorry for sharing. :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : chatdemon Date : 11-09-06 11:38 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) while the "srd" may be free, the site is full of links to products that are not, which seems to be a violation of the rules here to me. In addition, I've seen a LOT of these threads around various forums for MONTHS now. There's no opinions wanted, just "hey wow cool!". Anyone who criticizes the thing or questions whether or not it is legal under the ogl is attacked. We don't need that here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-09-06 11:54 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Well, as I said, I was wondering what people thought of it. That's asking for opinions. But if we're not supposed to talk about that here, then let's just ignore the thread altogether. If it needs to be deleted or locked, the WizO's will take care of it, and I'll learn not to post such topics. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Agathokles Date : 11-10-06 04:05 AM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Has anyone here heard of OSRIC? Yes. It's a nice idea, and probably works too, since some publishers are using it -- they wouldn't do so (or there would be a sudden litigation spree ;) ) if it did violate some copyrights. Personally, I've got two issues with it: 1) I don't see the need to use preexistent OGL-covered materials: those really needed (mechanics) cannot be covered by copyright (and therefore a license is not needed), and those covered by copyright should be rewritten from scratches. This would allow more freedom (e.g., it would be possible to use a different licence, such as GNU FDL) 2) I'm old school, but not that much -- I'd rather have a free reference for not-so-old-school (but not that new, either) rpg ;) As to chatdemon's issue on rules violating links, I don't get what you're referring to... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-16-06 10:12 AM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) what you all think of it. I think it's great that some form of the old game can now survive the loss of the printed copies & the apathy of the rights holder. I think it's an interesting exercise in delving the dungeon that is intellectual property law. I think that--for its primary purpose--it was unneeded. I think that--despite that--it has catalyzed further creation of products explicitly compatible with the OOP games many of the denizens of this forum enjoy. I think it better reflects the AD&D that I used to play than the AD&D hardbacks themselves. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-16-06 11:47 AM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) I think that--for its primary purpose--it was unneeded. Unnecessary for being able to publish 1e material? Aren't there copyright issues around that? Or is it's primary purpose something else? I think it better reflects the AD&D that I used to play than the AD&D hardbacks themselves. Do you mean that you didn't play AD&D strictly by the books (and OSRIC , or that it better captures the spirit of what AD&D should have been? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Elendur Date : 11-16-06 03:34 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) I'm not a legal expert so I assume the OSRIC guys have done their homework on this. But personally I think they went too far. They are ripping off the 1e PHC wholesale. All the same experience tables, thief ability charts, etc. The OGL was designed to create content for use with the 3e core books, or you can make up your own stuff that wasn't covered in the SRD like character advancement, etc. OSRIC isn't doing either, it's taking stuff from a non-open source and filling in the blanks with it. Again I'm no expert, but to me things like Thieves Cant and Druid's Cant, Druids challenging others at high levels, Paladin's having to have a 17 charisma, Thieves being non-good, are all examples of content, not rules mechanics. It comes from the 1e PHC; it's not in the SRD. It just rubs me the wrong way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Agathokles Date : 11-16-06 04:48 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Again I'm no expert, but to me things like Thieves Cant and Druid's Cant, Druids challenging others at high levels, Paladin's having to have a 17 charisma, Thieves being non-good, are all examples of content, not rules mechanics. It comes from the 1e PHC; it's not in the SRD. It just rubs me the wrong way. I'm not an expert either, but AFAIK only the wording is copyrightable. Individual terms or names may also be trademarks -- so maybe things like Thieves' Cant may indeed be challengeable, but a minimum score is a game mechanic, not a wording or distinctive name. The fact that these stuff isn't in the SRD is not that relevant -- as long as no part of a text is reused, only game mechanics. Basically, the SRD does not give you the right to use certain mechanics, it just gives you the right to quote/use some text. That's why WotC added the d20 thing: third party publishers cannot use that logo (which is a trademark) unless they agree not to mention certain mechanics (among other things, IIRC). The reason why OSRIC uses the OGL stuff is because the people there found it faster to copy the text of the spell and monster description from the SRD, rather than rewriting it from scratches. Here is the (much more authoritative than me) relevant copyright stuff for US law: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html Specifically: The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-16-06 11:02 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Unnecessary for being able to publish 1e material? Aren't there copyright issues around that? Well, if publishing 1e compatible material based on Osric is legal, then publishing 1e compatible material that follows the same methodologies as Osric is legal. There are plenty of examples--Judges Guild universal fantasy, Creations Unlimited, New Infinities, Inner City Games, & others whose names escape me (not to mention those that I probably aren't even aware of)--of people doing it before Osric. Heck, there was even a fairly standard substitute for hp: HTK (hits-to-kill). In a sense, Osric's existance is proof that it is unnecessary. Yet, something doesn't need to be necessary to have value. Do you mean that you didn't play AD&D strictly by the books (and OSRIC, or that it better captures the spirit of what AD&D should have been? Yeah, we (my high school group) didn't play AD&D strictly by the books. I always knew that, but when I started lurking at DF a couple of years ago, I realized we were even farther from the text than I realized. I suspect most of us began with the (a) Basic set or learned from others who had done so. Although we all jumped to AD&D almost immediately, we didn't bother to really learn the differences, but just latched on to the bits of AD&D that grabbed us. Does Osric (to me) better capture the spirit of what AD&D should have been? I didn't really mean that, but in some ways, yes. Having read about how Gygax plays the game, I find myself wishing he would've just given us the game as he played it rather than trying to incorporate other people's styles as well. I think we (the gamers of the world) would've still created just as rich an array of styles off of that base. Of course, if I could go back in time & change things, I'd really want to have what I've learned about the old game in the past few years either actually written there or--in those cases where it was--have it emphasized. Osric doesn't really address that. I'm thinking about reworking some of the things I've written about classic D&D--trying to capture those lessons--in Osric terms. (Like the "I used to think/now I think" thing that came from a thread here.) The reason why OSRIC uses the OGL stuff is because the people there found it faster to copy the text of the spell and monster description from the SRD, rather than rewriting it from scratches. I believe the bigger reason is that the SRD allows (more clearly) legal access to certain terms, like hp & AC for just two examples. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-16-06 11:33 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Well, if publishing 1e compatible material based on Osric is legal, then publishing 1e compatible material that follows the same methodologies as Osric is legal. There are plenty of examples--Judges Guild universal fantasy, Creations Unlimited, New Infinities, Inner City Games, & others whose names escape me (not to mention those that I probably aren't even aware of)--of people doing it before Osric. Heck, there was even a fairly standard substitute for hp: HTK (hits-to-kill). In a sense, Osric's existance is proof that it is unnecessary. Yet, something doesn't need to be necessary to have value. I see what you're saying. I knew about the Judges Guild stuff (not the other ones, though), and I just always thought they had a special license from TSR. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : chatdemon Date : 11-17-06 01:00 AM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Here is the (much more authoritative than me) relevant copyright stuff for US law: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html Specifically: Sigh One more time: www.wizards.com/d20 Read the OGL Read the FAQs By entering into the legally binding contract that is the OGL (which is done by publishing material using the OGL) you forgo some/most of these "rights". 20 year old legal precedent doesn't apply. The OSRIC fans need to quit claiming it does. Mayfair didn't have access to an OGL. The FAQs there make it perfectly clear that no OOP version of D&D has been, is, or will ever be released as open content. It is also clear in the FAQs and licenses that while the SRD allows use of some terms unique to D&D, namely those included in 3e and the SRD, those not included, such as the names of pre-3e saving throws, for example, are considered Product Identity by WotC, and off limits. You can try claiming the law doesn't support this, but by entering the OGL contract, you agree to respect what WotC says is its PI, period. The fact that WotC has, so far, and for the foreseeable future, decided to ignore OSRIC is likely far more related to the fact they do not see it as even a remote threat to their market than to the fact Hasbro's lawyers are cowering in fear from some moot legal precedents and self serving citations of laws that aren't applicable anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Agathokles Date : 11-17-06 10:50 AM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) By entering into the legally binding contract that is the OGL (which is done by publishing material using the OGL) you forgo some/most of these "rights". Of course, some of those rights are lost in OGL, but the only applicable thing I can see there is this part of the license: 7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. So basically the OGL forces you not to use certain elements, but games mechanics are not product identity by the OGL definition. To my understanding, you can't say that an OGL standalone is compatible with D&D (actually, you can't even mention D&D), nor you can use names of characters or places. The OGL, however, does not appear to prevent you from creating a game that uses OGL contents as well as game mechanics from another game (though it definitely prevents you from using names and other product identity from both sources). 20 year old legal precedent doesn't apply. The OSRIC fans need to quit claiming it does. Mayfair didn't have access to an OGL. I don't know what you're referring to, actually -- had to check on Wikipedia. It seems that the Mayfair case was completely different: that was a trademark infringement suit, for Mayfair advertised their products as compatible with AD&D (which indeed could have been seen as diluting the brand value). BTW, it's interesting to note that Mayfair is now the publisher of a game (Settlers of Catan) for which they threatened legal action against the developers of Gnocatan (a free computer game based on the Settlers of Catan rules), a case somewhat similar to the one we are discussing. It seems to have led to Gnocatan being renamed to Pioneers (though obviously with no admission of infringement). Anyway, while I'd certainly agree that OSRIC should not have used OGL at all (that's one of my bugs with OSRIC, the other being that it represents too old a gaming stlye for my tastes), I'm not as certain as you that OSRIC is using "product identity" -- in that case, though, someone (well, WotC) should tell them. The FAQs there make it perfectly clear that no OOP version of D&D has been, is, or will ever be released as open content. Well, that's obvious. But doesn't really have anything to do with what we're discussing now? The fact that WotC has, so far, and for the foreseeable future, decided to ignore OSRIC is likely far more related to the fact they do not see it as even a remote threat to their market than to the fact Hasbro's lawyers are cowering in fear from some moot legal precedents and self serving citations of laws that aren't applicable anyway. Mah, given the strong drive for protection of intellectual property in the current entertainment and related industry, it seems quite odd. Sure, I wouldn't take a lack of action as proof that OSRIC is not infringing any copyright, but it still pretty odd, considering that there are commercial (however irrelevant in market share terms) uses of OSRIC. So, while I wouldn't maintain for certain that OSRIC itself is infringement-free (at least because I haven't read it fully), I'm pretty convinced that the concept itself (taking the game mechanics of *D&D and use them in a new description built from scratches) would not lead to any particular legal issue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-17-06 04:01 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) I see what you're saying. I knew about the Judges Guild stuff (not the other ones, though), and I just always thought they had a special license from TSR. JG did have a license...at first. TSR pulled it when they decided to enter the module business. They then switched to producing "universal fantasy". There are two versions of the City State of the Invincible Overload, for example: One with the D&D name on it & one under the "universal fantasy" banner. I have a Mayfair product that was also produced when they had a license from TSR, but it still uses HTK & some other "generic" terms. (I think their agreement didn't go much farther than that they could put "compatibable with AD&D" on the cover--under some very specific conditions.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Agathokles Date : 11-17-06 04:55 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) In a sense, Osric's existance is proof that it is unnecessary. Yet, something doesn't need to be necessary to have value. Very nice definition :) Of course, if I could go back in time & change things, I'd really want to have what I've learned about the old game in the past few years either actually written there or--in those cases where it was--have it emphasized. Osric doesn't really address that. Indeed. It's also pretty difficult, since old timers are a pretty diverse bunch, especially when house rules are involved -- quot capita, tot sententiae. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-19-06 10:46 PM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) Indeed. It's also pretty difficult, since old timers are a pretty diverse bunch, especially when house rules are involved -- quot capita, tot sententiae. Well, I was talking about trying to learn more about how the creators played the game. (Mostly aspects that aren't explicit in the rules, but I've learned a lot about how the rules are sometimes contrary to how the creators played.) I find that my own enjoyment of a game increases when I have a better understanding of how the designer intended it to be played--even if my way of playing it deviates from those intentions. But I think there is a problem in that--not only can the written word never convey 100% of the designers intent--I think what each reader "misses" is also different. A single set of clarifications may clarify a lot for me but little for you. (or the other way around) Still, I have to believe that some commentary to the old game trying to further clarify the designers intent could improve most people's appreciation of it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Mythmere Date : 12-08-06 09:37 AM Thread Title : Re: OSRIC (an OGL for 1e) In OSRIC, we used the OGL because without it, one couldn't effectively describe the rules of 1e. An RPG book isn't all rules; a lot of it is obviously subject to copyright (copyright actually goes far beyond the precise text - it covers derivative works as well). In order to describe the unprotected Rules-core of 1e, we needed concepts from the SRD such as alignment, etc. Anyone claiming that there's a lot of text copied from the SRD simply hasn't read OSRIC. I think there's one sentence in the Neutralize Poison spell, and definitly the description of the prismatic spells that actually uses SRD text. The rest is all written from the ground up to describe the rules. The statement that's it's unnecessary but useful is right on target. Until OSRIC, publishers faced the issue of separating the copyrighted material from the rules if they wanted to publish something compatible with 1e. They could each do it from scratch (so it's unnecessary), but that's a lot of work (so it's useful). I'm not going to bother to answer opinions about the degree to which I as the initial designer or P&P as the final author are being self-serving or uncreative, neither the ad hominem comments nor the appropriate ones. But it's worthwhile to clear up the legal misconceptions about what OSRIC does and does not do. 1) It relies on living law, not old precedent. 2)WOTC has addressed it, discussed it, and chosen to drop the matter. 3) It supports products that WOTC sells through Paizo, and thus benefits WOTC. Hope that clears up some of the misconceptions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:22 AM.