A question for those in the know, involving the word OSRIC

[demiurgent]

Hey gang -- a quick question to the RPG developers in the crowd. And you know who you are.

Does anyone know if OSRIC's been juried or otherwise 'acknowledged' to be legitimate? I know they believe that they're in the clear, but their contention that the underlying algorithms of First Edition AD&D are reverse-engineerable without trouble sounds... I dunno. I'm not sure about it, and I don't want to get too far in the project I'm working on without knowing more.

Thanks!

Comments

Reverse-enginer AD&D 1st Edition?

[ubersoft.livejournal.com]

This sounds like one of my comics.

I think it would be difficult to prove in court how someone could duplicate THAC-0 independently of AD&D. I'm not sure how reverse engineering would work in a game, but for it to be legal in computers the safest thing to do (from a legal perspective) is to black-box it:

1. One person examines and documents how an application works (i.e., when I press "a", "b" happens, only in much more detail than that).

2. Another person, who was not involved with the examination part of the project in any way, programs a new application based on the first person's documentation.

It would be hard to do that for a printed game that has been one of the foundations of RPGs. It would be really hard to prove it in court. That said, not a lawyer, and I might be more paranoid than the situation warrants.

It'd be cool if they could do it, though.

Re: Reverse-enginer AD&D 1st Edition?

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Pedantically speaking, THAC0 is second edition, not first. :) First edition, we had elaborate to-hit tables.

I'm still right!

[ubersoft.livejournal.com]

I never played 2nd edition. I'm talking about the AD&D that had the wicked hit tables that sprawled out for each class and covered at least two panels of the DM's cardboard screen.

They were always called "To Hit Armor Class 0" even though they were more extensive than that, and ranged from AC 10 to AC -10.

I'm not losing my mind, am I? I mean, we really did call it that.

Re: I'm still right!

[ardaniel]

Yeah, the fundamental equation, even in first ed, is based on AC 0, as far as I recall. My books are 3200 miles away, though.

Re: I'm still right!

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

You are undoubtedly right. They codified it into a specific mechanic in second edition -- it became something of a cornerstone. Which then got expanded and made more general for the "d20" part of d20, even as THAC0 was retired.

2nd Edition... my unseen nemesis

[ubersoft.livejournal.com]

When 3rd edition came out, I assumed that 2nd edition was AD&D and 1st Edition was the blue rulebook. I had no idea they'd ever created something between the two.

So every once and a while I'd get into a discussion about 2nd edition with someone else and we'd both get utterly lost and confused... nice to see I haven't lost the touch!

[mishamish.livejournal.com]

I think this is one of those unfortunate instances that falls smack-dab in the middle of the current IP debacle and -as such - won't be definitively answered until there's a suit decided ABOUT OSRIC ITSELF.

Damn gub'mint.

[robotech-master.livejournal.com]

Not a lawyer and all that, but yeah. It's like they always say about Fair Use—it's not a "right," as in you have the ability to do it without challenge. It's a defense, so you have the ability to say, "Hey, Fair Use," when you are challenged, and the court has to decide if it is or not.

There's no way to know unless someone sues OSRIC's writers—and even then, they would have to have the backing/money to put up a legal defense (against one of the megaconglomerates of the toy/game industry, I might add) rather than just quietly folding. Does that seem likely?

[mishamish.livejournal.com]

Well, depending on the venue, EF or the CBLDF might get involved to help fight it... especially if they thought they could win and make a precedent out of it.

[sben.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, my non-professional understanding has always been that mechanics are not copyrightable, but their presentation (i.e. text) is. (Even if true, this does not mean that the IP holder wouldn't go after these guys anyway.)

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

You copyright a specific work and a halo of "derivative works" around it.

You trademark terms.

You patent a process.

Absent a patent (and the chance to do that lapsed ages ago), the main argument that Hasbro's lawyers can make is one of copyright and derivative copyright, since OSRIC isn't actually using any specific TSR terms (I presume...doing so would be so stupid that we wouldn't need to have this discussion).

So, using any actual to-hit charts is out. Any presentation that's too close to a to-hit chart or to the THAC0 system is also out. Being a fairly simple concept, that doesn't leave a lot of ways to present the unpatented mechanic without infringing on a copyrighted presentation, especially since the derivative works halo has no set size...the more money you're willing to pour into lawyers, the bigger the halo gets, in general.

thank you

[(Anonymous)]

well done, guy