The OGL Fiasco. Did we get lucky?

[robertsconley]

I’m not being down on the genre or the products, I just think creators can’t assume that a customer will have the same idea of what OSR is as they do.

My counterpoint is based on

if something is OSR anymore as it has mostly become a meaningless marketing term.

Which implies that there was a time when it wasn't meaningless market terms. The OSR is strongly associated with classic D&D. And used the most by those who play, publish, and promote the classic editions.

The fundamental issue that vast majority of think that classic D&D is about something specific like dungeon crawling. But support for dungeon crawl is only one part of what folk using the OSR label promote, publish, or play.

It seems to me the closest the community got to trying to enforce a standard was when Dan Proctor tried to do an OSR Lulu storefront and people squabbled over the inclusion of Carcosa.

The OSR Lulu storefront was uncontroversial at the time. Plus it disappear pretty quickly as the number of OSR labeled releases outstripped the ability of a single individual to handle.

The squabble over Carcosa was part of the folks efforts establish TARGA a fan and publisher association to formally promote classic D&D products in game stores and conventions. Geoffrey McKinney Caroca was controversial. Plus the most of the early OSR was strongly against anybody telling others what they ought to be doing creatively. But at the same time held strong opinions about what was acceptable in a game product. So after a few months of drama, the whole TARGA effort fell apart.

My position as part of the discussion was the proposed structure was too formal as even the smaller OSR of the time was like herding cats. I didn't know what kind of conflict would erupt but I knew conflict would happen and as loose as the proposal was it was still too rigid.

In the end the OSR found it own solution as small groups started putting to together old school conventions like GaryCon, North Texas Con, and Shire Con that wound up doing what TARGA would have done if it had been successful.

 

[robertsconley]

I think people on forums are waaayyy more concerned about this whole topic than your average buyer of OSR games.

Sure if you talking specific minutiae and personalities. But Lamentation of Flame Princess line of product has a very different feel from Old School Essentials, versus the work of Hydra Cooperative versus my Bat in the Attic stuff. So in the end it does influence the average buyer of OSR games.

Where it differs is that the average OSR buyer doesn't spend a lot of time before deciding X is shit, and Y is awesome and certainly doesn't bother debating their choice to others.

 

[sharps54]

My counterpoint is based on

Which implies that there was a time when it wasn't meaningless market terms. The OSR is strongly associated with classic D&D. And used the most by those who play, publish, and promote the classic editions.

The fundamental issue that vast majority of think that classic D&D is about something specific like dungeon crawling. But support for dungeon crawl is only one part of what folk using the OSR label promote, publish, or play.


The OSR Lulu storefront was uncontroversial at the time. Plus it disappear pretty quickly as the number of OSR labeled releases outstripped the ability of a single individual to handle.

The squabble over Carcosa was part of the folks efforts establish TARGA a fan and publisher association to formally promote classic D&D products in game stores and conventions. Geoffrey McKinney Caroca was controversial. Plus the most of the early OSR was strongly against anybody telling others what they ought to be doing creatively. But at the same time held strong opinions about what was acceptable in a game product. So after a few months of drama, the whole TARGA effort fell apart.

My position as part of the discussion was the proposed structure was too formal as even the smaller OSR of the time was like herding cats. I didn't know what kind of conflict would erupt but I knew conflict would happen and as loose as the proposal was it was still too rigid.

In the end the OSR found it own solution as small groups started putting to together old school conventions like GaryCon, North Texas Con, and Shire Con that wound up doing what TARGA would have done if it had been successful.

That is a good point about it never being a locked down term but I think the idea OSR is mostly associated with classic D&D isn’t true anymore. These days OSR is used for Troika, ItO, GLOG and so. When you have Matt Finch calling Mothership OSR in interviews the definition has lost any meaning in that classic D&D sense.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure if you talking specific minutiae and personalities. But Lamentation of Flame Princess line of product has a very different feel from Old School Essentials, versus the work of Hydra Cooperative versus my Bat in the Attic stuff. So in the end it does influence the average buyer of OSR games.

Where it differs is that the average OSR buyer doesn't spend a lot of time before deciding X is shit, and Y is awesome and certainly doesn't bother debating their choice to others.

I think a lot of that difference is at least somewhat apparent on the DTRPG previews or in a review. Not entirely, but to some extent. I don't actually think that many people like everything OSR, but rather they like whatever slice of the OSR really scratches their particular gaming itch.

 

[robertsconley]

A game that isn't up front and just uses the phrase OSR would make me a little suspicious.

It been my experiences when the publisher is on the up and up is that it is their first or second product and they haven't quite realized what the deal is with using OSR as a marketing. Nearly everybody I know who has stuck with publishing winds up marketing their brand or personal name as it just easier in the long run.

 

[sharps54]

I think a lot of that difference is at least somewhat apparent on the DTRPG previews or in a review. Not entirely, but to some extent. I don't actually think that many people like everything OSR, but rather they like whatever slice of the OSR really scratches their particular gaming itch.

And it would be helpful if creators went the extra mile to help us know what slice of the OSR they are trying to sell to.

 

[Fenris-77]

And it would be helpful if creators went the extra mile to help us know what slice of the OSR they are trying to sell to.

I've never had a problem, but I also own rather a lot of OSR products, which helps.

 

[robertsconley]

That is a good point about it never being a locked down term but I think the idea OSR is mostly associated with classic D&D isn’t true anymore. These days OSR is used for Troika, ItO, GLOG and so. When you have Matt Finch calling Mothership OSR in interviews the definition has lost any meaning in that classic D&D sense.

Sure the use of OSR has spread beyond the classic D&D community. But if you look any storefront that has a OSR category like DriveThruRPG the bulk of the product remains something related to classic D&D.

There been attempts to quantify this with terms like nu-OSR but even then it flounders because people realize personal promotion of your brand or person name just works better for what you are trying to do.

The key thing to remember about the term OSR is that for the most part it is fun and useful to use in passing. The alliteration with TSR is evocative and it roll off of the tongue. Plus it was never controlled by anyone so it free to be reinvented every few years.

But names like Blackmarsh, Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Lamentations of the Flame Princess are far more valuable and useful when it comes to getting folks aware of specific projects.

 

[robertsconley]

And it would be helpful if creators went the extra mile to help us know what slice of the OSR they are trying to sell to.

Well the OSR way is just to ask them. The vast majority of folks using the label are readily accessible through various forms of social media. The ones who not, like Kevin Crawford, leave enough of a trail that a straightforward google search will turn up what they are about.

 

[Voros]

I think it mostly means anti-Dragonlance.

The fellow who designed Into the Unknown, one of the best OSR rulesets, is a fan of Dragonlance and discussed various ways to use it on his blog, including a sharp analysis of the sandbox-play of the Tales of Lance boxset here:

Dragonlance was a Unique Sandbox

My OSR Blog about fantasy world building and rules analysis for D&D. Also home of the B/X inspired 5e-clone "Into the Unknown."

mythlands-erce.blogspot.com

 

[Sable Wyvern]

I don’t think we need any more systems, we already have more games than any of us could ever play and honestly I’m sick of trying to keep up with all the new releases. I realize companies have to sell things to stay in business but I’d rather see new adventures, supplements and settings for existing games.

If you're sick of trying to keep up with all the new releases ... then, don't? It's not that hard.

I see this attitude a lot, and I can only assume it's people who are afraid that if they're not constantly up on top of everything, they might miss some amazing gem of a game. But, if it's that good, chances are you'll hear about it. And, if you don't? Well, you've just said you already have enough systems, so what's the problem if you miss one? Your preference would have been for it never to have been made, anyway.

I don't go actively looking for games at all, unless I have a particular need in mind and I'm trying to hunt down a game that meets it. Yet, every now and again, I will come across a game that gets added into my list of games to play at some point in the future. There is no effort and no stress involved, and occasionally I get a cool new game out of it. That's all win, as far as I'm concerned.

I do wonder if we have, in fact, taken the bullet. There appears to be an increasing tide of D&D/AI dreck flooding the channels. Part of me wishes WoTC could make D&D a walled garden so that everyone else could avoid its effluvium.

In my experience, D&D communities are already a separate thing to general RPG communities online. Where is all this D&D/AI dreck? It's not in the Dark Sun community, that I've seen. I haven't been hanging out in OSR places recently, but I've never really seen it there either. Even on EnWorld, which is D&D focused, I'm not noticing people pushing it. I can only assume that, based on my own experience, unless you're actively looking for new D&D products, you're not likely to see this stuff.

 

[SJB]

In my experience, D&D communities are already a separate thing to general RPG communities online. Where is all this D&D/AI dreck? It's not in the Dark Sun community, that I've seen. I haven't been hanging out in OSR places recently, but I've never really seen it there either. Even on EnWorld, which is D&D focused, I'm not noticing people pushing it. I can only assume that, based on my own experience, unless you're actively looking for new D&D products, you're not likely to see this stuff.

Mm … lets see what we’ve been offered today: the Flying Swordmaster class, the Chronomancer class, the Scavenger class, Arcane Containment Ward, Riverside town map with some coy reference to a D&D starting town, Legacy of Giants - 100+ pages on D&D giants, Cavern Crawls for VTT, NPCs for VTT, Sword Dancer sub-class, etc, etc. Of course one can ignore all this but it just feels relentless.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Mm … lets see what we’ve been offered today: the Flying Swordmaster class, the Chronomancer class, the Scavenger class, Arcane Containment Ward, Riverside town map with some coy reference to a D&D starting town, Legacy of Giants - 100+ pages on D&D giants, Cavern Crawls for VTT, NPCs for VTT, Sword Dancer sub-class, etc, etc. Of course one can ignore all this but it just feels relentless.

Where are you going to get these offers?

The list of RPG products I've been offered today is:

Edit: Someone in the Mythras Discord mentioned the Book of Schemes, so I guess that might count as one, if I squint. But it's certainly not D&D dreck, in any event.

 

[Malckuss]

Actually doing this requires like tobacco industry level money, and Hasbro is a seck of dust compared to that (any single big cig compagny outrevenues them 7 to 1, let alone combined).

I would like to remind folks that even with all of the stable of potent lawyers and nearly bottomless pockets at the disposal of both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma, they have both been taken to task.

I'd be a little skeptical of those lawyers. A couple of those guys came barreling into the Discord early on, and one thing that became very clear right away is that they didn't understand the OGL hardly at all, its history or its verbiage.

In addition, the OGL lawyers and the individuals who were at WotC behind the project were also a part of the ORC. It's fine if you don't want to use the ORC, but when people start warning others away, I want to know why.

 

[sharps54]

I would like to remind folks that even with all of the stable of potent lawyers and nearly bottomless pockets at the disposal of both Big Tobacco and Big Pharma, they have both been taken to task.

In addition, the OGL lawyers and the individuals who were at WotC behind the project were also a part of the ORC. It's fine if you don't want to use the ORC, but when people start warning others away, I want to know why.

The loudest voice against ORC, or at least against certain parts of it, is the lawyer that does the Roll of Law YouTube channel. I also find it telling that other lawyers like Matt Finch are going to the hassle of rewriting their own version instead of ORC.

 

[Moracai]

Shadowdark is decidedly OSR in it's goals and execution. The only people who wouldn't welcome it into the OSR are those that have a very narrow view of what OSR means. That's fine and all, but that definition doesn't really throw open the doors in welcome. I know I've referred to Shadowdark as an OSR game many times, so at least for me its already there.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. There are no short-range teleports in old school games (at least on lower levels), but there are those in Shadowdark. Thusly, I don't count Shadowdark into the OSR.

 

[pawsplay]

The loudest voice against ORC, or at least against certain parts of it, is the lawyer that does the Roll of Law YouTube channel. I also find it telling that other lawyers like Matt Finch are going to the hassle of rewriting their own version instead of ORC.

Roll of Law's has two major points of contention. First, he doesn't like that you have to share your game mechanics. For whatever reason, he wants to be able to protect the unique, creative expression of his rules, even though, IMO, it's unlikely much of that is protectable, and moreover, you're just asking people who want to create similar works to recreate the ideas. I feel like he kind of misses the point of open gaming.

Second, he doesn't like that the originators of certain rules can open some content, but not other content, meaning that downstream publishers are locked out. His solution? Allow the creators to lock everyone out in the first place. I guess?

I wasn't going to name names, but Roll of Law is someone specifically who barreled in to the ORC discord, with no prior OGL experience. He has stated a number of serious factual errors about the license, some of which he has been corrected about, and some of which he keeps repeating. While he may be knowledgeable in other areas, I want to warn others that he is not a good authority on the OGL, and, in my view, a lot of his axe-grinding has to do with promoting his own E.L.F. license as an alternative. He has stated on several occasions that he considers any share-alike provisions to be "immoral," and didn't (doesn't?) seem to understand that the OGL was modeled in the first place on the GNU open source model. By all means, watch his channel. But take what he says with a grain of salt, unless you, also, are actually hostile to open gaming in the first place.

I don't know Matt Finch's deal, but there is plenty of room in the world for more licensing schemes.

 

[sharps54]

Roll of Law's has two major points of contention. First, he doesn't like that you have to share your game mechanics. For whatever reason, he wants to be able to protect the unique, creative expression of his rules, even though, IMO, it's unlikely much of that is protectable, and moreover, you're just asking people who want to create similar works to recreate the ideas. I feel like he kind of misses the point of open gaming.

Second, he doesn't like that the originators of certain rules can open some content, but not other content, meaning that downstream publishers are locked out. His solution? Allow the creators to lock everyone out in the first place. I guess?

I wasn't going to name names, but Roll of Law is someone specifically who barreled in to the ORC discord, with no prior OGL experience. He has stated a number of serious factual errors about the license, some of which he has been corrected about, and some of which he keeps repeating. While he may be knowledgeable in other areas, I want to warn others that he is not a good authority on the OGL, and, in my view, a lot of his axe-grinding has to do with promoting his own E.L.F. license as an alternative. He has stated on several occasions that he considers any share-alike provisions to be "immoral," and didn't (doesn't?) seem to understand that the OGL was modeled in the first place on the GNU open source model. By all means, watch his channel. But take what he says with a grain of salt, unless you, also, are actually hostile to open gaming in the first place.

I don't know Matt Finch's deal, but there is plenty of room in the world for more licensing schemes.

That’s fair. I don’t have a dog in the fight as I’m a consumer not a creator but those are the two lawyers I know of that aren’t using it for whatever reason.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. There are no short-range teleports in old school games (at least on lower levels), but there are those in Shadowdark. Thusly, I don't count Shadowdark into the OSR.

That seems like such a minor detail, no? I think what makes something OSR seems a bit more meaningful than that.

 

[carpocratian]

That seems like such a minor detail, no? I think what makes something OSR seems a bit more meaningful than that.

I judge such things by how many magic rings I can wear. If I can't put three on each finger, one on each toe, and six somewhere else, it's not true old school gaming. Back in my day we knew how to stack our rings, dammit. None of this "only one magic cloak at a time," either. If you don't think I can wear 5 layers of clothes at a time, you haven't seen me trying to avoid paying luggage fees on airlines. I was but a wee lad of six when I read "Caps For Sale" and realized that it was possible to wear 17 magical hats at the same time.

 

[David Johansen]

You can have your multiple rings and cloaks but expect to encounter monkeys.

 

[Sharrow]

You can have your multiple rings and cloaks but expect to encounter monkeys.

By the barrel?

 

[robertsconley]

The loudest voice against ORC, or at least against certain parts of it, is the lawyer that does the Roll of Law YouTube channel. I also find it telling that other lawyers like Matt Finch are going to the hassle of rewriting their own version instead of ORC.

In the world of open content there is a divide between those who believe sharealike is the only ethical way to go. And those who content with sharing where the only requirement is attribution.

In essence it is the BSD license versus GPL license debate that now is played out in the RPG world. And it gets passionate because often those who require share-alike view it as a ethical position versus those like Roll of Law who view it as a form of coercion.

Nobody is going to convince those who embrace the ORC license that they are wrong. The same situation exists with those who embrace CC-BY as the way to go.

As for Roll of Law his ELF License is redundant. My recommendation is to use CC-BY. Your primary work should have the proper credit for the content you use. Then, release a separate document with the content you are willing to share under CC-BY.

The OGL requirement of clearly marking what is open content versus product identity was mostly ignored. OGL was a weak copyleft style (whereas ORC is a strong copyleft license) that required you to make anything based on OGL-licensed Open Content open as well.

But luckily for folks who felt copyleft was coercion Roll of Law, many publishers were able to get away with not clearly marking their open content. Instead adding the very unclear declaration

Anything based on the Open Content of the X SRD is declared open content. The rest of the product is product identity.

Using CC-BY content there is no requirement to share other than adding the required comment. However where CC-BY is in theory weak at is helping an author release a work that only partially open. However in practice it is easy to resolve. Release your book with the credit. Don't open anything within the book. Anything you want to share, release that as a separate text or Word document under CC-BY with the credit you want to appear.

You don't have to spend any time figuring out a proper declaration of what you are sharing like you would under the OGL or ELF. And what you do want to share you can put into a lightly formatted text or word document.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't know Matt Finch's deal, but there is plenty of room in the world for more licensing schemes.

Matt Finch likes to share his material, but after the OGL debacle, he is concerned about using any IP he doesn't control, in this case, the license he decides to use for sharing. Since the new version of Swords & Wizardry uses the 5e CC-BY SRD open content, he has used the opportunity to make a fork of the OGL to share his material.

As for me I intend to release my SRD for the Majestic Fantasy RPG under CC-BY. I have talked to Matt Finch about it and listed out the content from Swords & Wizardry I used for him. He given me permission to use CC-BY for my take. You won't be able to replicate Swords & Wizardry Complete from the content I use for the Majestic Fantasy RPG despite the compatibility I design in.

The basic reason is that the Majestic Fantasy RPG is based on Swords & Wizardry Core, 2nd Printing, and partially on the S&W Monster Book. Not the later Complete edition or the Monstrosities he has released.

 

[pawsplay]

To clarify, the ORC license itself exists independently of any entity. It's a document referenced by a Library of Congress number, and you simply use it. There is no relationship but that between you and your licensor, and you and your licensees. There is no possibility of the ORC being "cancelled" by any entity because it is an unchanging, public document, not a license owned by Paizo or Azora or anybody else.

 

[Moracai]

That seems like such a minor detail, no? I think what makes something OSR seems a bit more meaningful than that.

The Devil's in the details

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think people on forums are waaayyy more concerned about this whole topic than your average buyer of ANY TTRPG games.

Small edit to make this universally true about pretty much every topic on these forums :B

 

[ribonucleic]

As a practical matter, the amount of money Hasbro could squeeze out of OGL creators would be sofa cushion change compared to the amount they're hemorrhaging on a quarterly basis. For them to pursue litigation on any basis other than sheer spite would be madness on the order of Hitler relying on the Steiner counter-attack.

That said, no one has any legal protection other what they can afford to pursue. And even the Creative Commons license has never been tested under the kind of assault that a Fortune 500 (-ish) company could afford to mount.

Any sane gaming company should treat the SRD 5.1 as cheese in a mousetrap.

 

[arjunstc]

For them to pursue litigation on any basis other than sheer spite would be madness on the order of Hitler relying on the Steiner counter-attack.

Regardless, das war ein Befehl! Der Angriff Steiners war ein Befehl!

 

[Malckuss]

Roll of Law's has two major points of contention. First, he doesn't like that you have to share your game mechanics. For whatever reason, he wants to be able to protect the unique, creative expression of his rules, even though, IMO, it's unlikely much of that is protectable, and moreover, you're just asking people who want to create similar works to recreate the ideas. I feel like he kind of misses the point of open gaming.

This sounds like Roll of Law missed the whole point of the OGL, to the point that, somehow, they don't understand that at least in the US, you cannot protect your rules, only the expression of your rules.

 

[joetheok]

I may be an outlier and unusual here, but in the better part of 40 years I've never looked for gamers in the wider community, so what some random gamer wants to play has no effect on me. My group consists of people I already knew, who I've invited, or people known by existing members of the group and invited by them. I've had one new-to-the-group but experienced player baulk, but that wasn't because they wanted D&D only, and instead that OSR specifically wasn't for them (and they were entirely willing to give it a go).

If you don't rely on the wider gaming community to create gamers for you, you're not stuck with what the wider gaming community provides.

This is my experience as well, and for about as long. The only thing that some of my playing group has balked at is Rules As Written Traveller, though they would be perfectly happy to try a science fiction game under a BRP homebrew if I did the writing for that.

 

[joetheok]

There are times when I wish that they had been able to get away with it, if only to see what many designers would then come up with.

Like if folks needed to stop leaning on the D&D system, what else might we have at this point? I don’t need anymore versions of D&D at this point.

I’m not really intrigued by most of the games that seem to be coming out in response from the larger publishers. I don’t know… having Agility instead of Dexterity and Defense Score instead of Armor Class doesn’t really seem that interesting to me.

I’d prefer to see entirely new games.

When Chivalry and Sorcery 1st edition reached my neck of the woods in the early 1980's, that was the end of Dungeons and Dragons in any iteration as far as I was concerned. Since then I have shifted over to Call of Cthulhu/Cthulhu Dark Ages/Cthulhu Invictus/BRP for my mechanics, the old Avalon Hill Powers and Perils setting maps for my continent and national map, various editions of Chivalry and Sorcery to give me the world building tools to fill in that map, and Harn and especially the Lythia fan site to give me the local sites within that map and scenario ideas.

I built my own years ago, in other words, and have been running off that ever since for fantasy games.

 

[pawsplay]

As a practical matter, the amount of money Hasbro could squeeze out of OGL creators would be sofa cushion change compared to the amount they're hemorrhaging on a quarterly basis. For them to pursue litigation on any basis other than sheer spite would be madness on the order of Hitler relying on the Steiner counter-attack.

That said, no one has any legal protection other what they can afford to pursue. And even the Creative Commons license has never been tested under the kind of assault that a Fortune 500 (-ish) company could afford to mount.

Any sane gaming company should treat the SRD 5.1 as cheese in a mousetrap.

There are Fortune 500 companies who would have their legs cut out from under them if WotC successfully broke an open license in court. People are not seeing this in the proper perspective. Your email runs on open source software. There are plenty of companies and other entities who would be alarmed by even a single open source case go the wrong way.

 

[robertsconley]

That said, no one has any legal protection other what they can afford to pursue. And even the Creative Commons license has never been tested under the kind of assault that a Fortune 500 (-ish) company could afford to mount.

CC Legal Database

This database contains case law and legal scholarship about CC licenses and the issues that relate to their enforceability and interpretation.

legaldb.creativecommons.org

Background information
Tim Pierce is a photographer who uploaded a photo to Flickr, which was available under a Creative Commons license that requires users to give the photographer credit and indicate if any changes were made to the photo. Lifezette owns and operates the website "www.lifezette.com" and used Pierce's photos without attribution or permission and altered the photos on multiple occasions. Pierce filed a copyright infringement complaint against and served Lifezette, but Lifezette never responded. Pierce filed a motion for default judgment and requested "at least $75,000 in statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504," "at least $200,000 in statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 1203," and (3) "full costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees . . . under 17 U.S.C. §§ 505 and 1203."


Case summary
The court granted default judgment for copyright infringement because Pierce's complaint established that he owned a valid copyright to the photo and Lifezette copied original aspects of the photo; the court also granted default judgment for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim because Pierce established that there was copyright management information in the photo and Lifezette removed the information from the photo. The court awarded Pierce $139,000 in statutory damages and held that Lifezette is permanently enjoined from using the photo without abiding by the terms of the license.

For a general overview of the enforceability of open source/open content license I recommend starting here.

Open source license litigation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org