http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3724
The second link, directly below this paragraph, discusses strategy in marketing OSRIC and derivitive products such as Labyrinth Lord. It is relevent to this post because the two tie together.
http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3693
Daniel Proctor started the morality discussion with this post:
We've all seen a lot of buzz on the internet about retro-clone games. People say OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and GORE are (if not illegal) in bad taste, immoral, rude, or other things in this vein. How do you address this? I have come to think that this perception is one that needs to be dealt with in order for these efforts to flourish.
There is a reason I have put these two links in the same thread. What Daniel asks does walk hand in hand with marketing OSRIC and LL in an attempt to make them bigger. I'm only going to quote bits from Daniel's thread here, and I'm not quoting from the other thread. The links will allow you to see the erntire points made. I'm making a point now that the two tie in together.
You wanna sell copies of these retro clones? Go go for it. I wish them luck, and I don't disagree with them doing it. But there is the specter of a lawsuit hanging over their heads. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't happen. Only Wizards of the Coast knows if it will happen. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. The fact that other companies such as Goodman Games, KenzerCo and Troll Lords Games have voiced concerns, doesn't matter one bit.
So the one thread asks what needs to be done to better position OSRIC? You wanna know what I think about that? If you are that confident in the legality, go for it. Make a web page. OSRIC can be the legal document, but you need a better name than that for the game. Daniel has Labyrinth Lord, and the name works, in my opinion. Slap the Advanced Labyrinth Lord name on OSRIC, and go for it.
Make a web page with the game's name. Start a new forum to market LL & ALL. Create a blog. Do a podcast. Start a line of modules for each with the best work submitted. Make it happen. It's the best chance to get noticed and make money. THEN, we'll find out what's legal and what isn't. My guess is that if Wizards is concerned, they aren't saying anything because OSRIC is minor league to them. Proceed at the current level, and there may never be a challenge, step things up if you really wanna know what's legal according to Wizards. But there are concerns, even in the OSRIC community.
PapersAndPaychecks (One of the OSRIC document creators) states:
Controversy is marketing. That's why film producers count reviews in terms of column-inches, not whether they're favourable. I don't care what people say about OSRIC, provided they talk about it as passionately as possible. That's what makes other people curious enough to download it and judge for themselves. Anything worthwhile will have its detractors. We're only in danger when nobody cares any more.Very true there. Controversy does attract interest. They are gonna get good and bad comments, and some people are gonna accuse them of stealing. He knows this, and he's been dealing with it since day one.
Mythmere (One of the OSRIC Crerators) says:
I think there's definitely more to it than just the legal side of these games. I don't believe that just because something's legal it's therefore okay to do. In the case of OSRIC, we've got a system of rules that can't be copyrighted (the legal argument), but those rules were certainly assembled by a person using his own creativity - just like someone produced the rules of checkers and poker (the moral argument).
And further in...
In terms of OSRIC, here are a few points:
1) P&P didn't contact EGG (that's Gary Gygax) during the production of OSRIC because any contact might have caused WotC to think that EGG had been involved in the project - a good attorney could make it look that way. And if EGG had been involved, OSRIC might have caused much more heartburn for WotC. OSRIC would have created a legal risk for EGG if he'd responded with anything other than "no comment." P&P had no desire to cause a legal risk to EGG. Same with Rob Kuntz, Dave Arneson, Frank Mentzer, etc.
2) There's perhaps an outside chance that EGG considers OSRIC to be competition for Lejendary Adventures. While this is a much more valid moral question than an author disliking a retro-clone game in which he no longer has a financial stake, I don't see it. If this were the case, he'd have issues with the fact that he doesn't get paid on sales of the C&C game rules.
3) Troll Lord Games is one of the proponents of the idea that OSRIC is "immoral," and they have clear financial reasons to take that position - OSRIC competes with their C&C game. Whether or not they truly believe the position they've got Peter Bradley stating on their boards - and they might believe it honestly - I tend to ignore "moral" positions coming from people who have a vested interest.
Let's look at the logic of the position that TLG has taken. First, a year ago, they say that OSRIC is illegal because it violates copyright law. Once the pure legal position has been eroded by WotC's silence for a year after the WotC discussions with P&P, suddenly TLG changes course and takes the high road, considering OSRIC to be an "insult" to EGG for using his creativity without paying him.
.
Um, what is C&C? C&C doesn't use EGG's creativity when the entire introduction to the game says that it does? This particular "moral high ground" they're taking on OSRIC is hypocritical given that TLG uses EGG's original creativity (the d20 SRD is based on D&D - duh) all the way from their d20 products to C&C, and never once considered themselves to be immoral or insulting. They don't see the link between their own activities and the argument they're making.
While that may be true, Troll Lords is using the D20 license as laid out by Wizards, and they are making money. If there were anything illegal behind what they are doing, you can bet a lawsuit would come. Similar arguent for OSRIC you say? Well, that may be true, but it may just be that OSRIC isn't big enough yet. Until Wizards speaks on the subject, we just don't know, and that's part of the problem with getting on board with it. Do you take the risk and put the effort into building it up, only to be sued and have things taken away.
I do have an idea on how to reshape OSRIC and try again, but I'll save that idea for the rainy day if anybody on the project asks me.
You can read this full post in the thread linked above, Mythmere ends with this point:
To be clear on the thread's primary topic, if WotC were paying EGG royalties on 1e module sales from the Paizo pdfs, I would not have been interested in doing OSRIC. It would be a sad situation for us gamers not to have any new modules, but the only solution to my mind would have been the "fan-fiction" approach taken by Dragonsfoot. Also, if TLG pays EGG a royalty on all their d20 sales and C&C sales, then I retract any suggestion of hypocrisy on their part. To the best of my knowledge, they don't pay him a royalty for what others write using the SRD he founded.
It's noble sentiment. If Gary were still getting money for AD&D 1st edition, OSRIC wouldn't exist. Gary may appreciate it, but Wizards? They do own it. Two things to consider.
#1-KenzerCo. had a licensed agreement to create Hackmaster using 1st & 2nd Edition rules, sliced with parody. The agreement ran for seven years and just recently expired. OSRIC's creation overlapped the end of the Hackmaster run under these rules. Did it effect Kenzer's profit margin on the project?
Also, there were OSRIC fans who blasted Hackmaster (and praised OSRIC) for what they did with the rules under agreement with Wizards (with the legally required humor and parody). OSRIC may not have encouraged this talk, but did it's very existance encourage it?
From a moral srandpoint, as Daniel's first post elluded to, was OSRIC taking money from somebody who was using the rules set legally?
2-There are at least two web sites selling old D&D products on pdfs and making money:
RPG Now
Paizo
.
Did OSRIC impede the ability to legally make money on 1st Edition products? Is that moral? They want to allow for new material to be made and sold with OSRIC, that's true. However, there is a plethora of old modules available for sale on those two sites, and if one plays with those long enough, they can learn to design their own mods for their personal campaigns.
Stormcrow says in that thread:
.
I'm not going to take a position on the morality of these projects. However, I don't think it's quite right to say that because someone isn't making a profit on a product means that you're not competing with them when you make a clone. One reason to own a product is to remove it from the market, so people will buy your other product. (Symantec loves to do this.)
.
One can easily see how something like OSRIC could draw customers away from Hasbro's d20 offering. Every declaration by a gamer that shows how he used to play d20 before he discovered "old-school" gaming is a potential gamer lost to Hasbro.A very good point here. Most old schoolers who hate the new game will say they never would buy any of that stuff, even if OSRIC weren't there. That may be true, but this is a point Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro would likely make if it ever came down to a lawsuit.
rogatny posts this comment:
In other words: OSRIC and efforts like it are an inevitable product of demand not being met in a market. If WotC has a problem with it, the real solution is for WotC to serve the market in a better way than the "bootleggers" are. If WotC decides that they cannot do so in a cost effective way (and to be truthful, I think it's quite likely that WotC would not be able to meet the demand in a cost effective way), "bootlegging" is simply something they are going to have to live with. Sure, they can take legal action against the "bootleggers," but it won't stop different "bootleggers" from continuing to pop up so long as the demand exists.
A fair argument. There's nothing there in the market, so OSRIC is there to take the business. This is likely the biggest argument OSRIC creators used to get things started. It's a good point, but the lefality of ir may still be in question. Ever see the movie Barton Fink? The publisher took the book that he was so proud of and put it on the shelf, never to be sold or read by anybody? It was he publisher's legal right to do that. Well, Wizards owns ALL editions of D&D, and they are theirs to do with as they want. Fact is, if they think 1st Edition sucks and nobody wants it, so why bother? It's their right to leave it on the shelf.
Actually, until Hackmaster's license with Wizards ran out, there was a way to play the game and get new books. And RPGNow and Paizo offer pdf's for sale. Morally speaking, just because you don't like these two options, does that give you the right to create something from an IP that you don't own as a third alternative? THAT'S the question that is unanswered still. Does OSRIC have a right to even exist under Copywrite law and the OGL?
Just because Kenzer has voiced concerns (He told me at Gencon that he would stay away from OSRIC. One of his concerns is that every time certain concerns are voiced to one of the creatos, they say that they are on an island and the rules don't apply to them there.)
Just because Troll Lords has concerns with it
Just because people at Goodman Games have voiced concerns
Just because an author of the D20 & OGL documents voiced concerns at enworld recently
It doesn't mean a damn thing. Only Wizards of the Coast may have the voice that matters and issues the challenge that puts an end to OSRIC or is unable to.
THIS is what concerns some people with OSRIC and is why moral discussions are being held on forums by people who are involved. Do you feel confident that this document is indeed legal and can hold up in a court of law? Even if it can, do you have enough money to take it there? WotC and Hasbro does. If you are confident, then phase two of the evolution of OSRIC is ready to be discussed, and a plan for the growth for this community is ready to be made. It will take time, money and work, but there is a market for it. You won't get rich, but a few bucks are possible.
Otherwise, we'll just be sitting here five years from now having these same tired arguments and getting nowhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment