My Discussion with Wizards of the Coast

[Lance Hawvermale]

I've been chatting with a WotC staff member regarding the recent spate of 1E-compatible publications. This individual works as a customer-service rep. WotC's company line is to not recognize material written for games they no longer support. However, when I asked specifically about using OSRIC to produce modules that could be sold for a profit, this was the response I received:

"So long as they are staying within the Open Gaming License (OGL) that we provide for free to the public, there is no problem."

Anyway, I thought I'd share.

Peace out,

Lance

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Thank you, Lance!

That tidbit's particularly fascinating to me, conflicting as it does with previous information I had received.

[Daniel Proctor]

Very interesting, thanks for the info!

Lets hope that WotC sees the old-school revival trend as a positive thing. It looks like their PDFs do well on RPGnow.

[JCBoney]

I know a couple of other boards where that tidbit needs to be shared. Thanks Lance.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

"So long as they are staying within the Open Gaming License (OGL) that we provide for free to the public, there is no problem."

I'd say that's a pretty non-committal statement. Sounds like lawyer-speak to me (no offense Myth and RA ) for "as long as they're not doing anything we don't want them to do, we don't care if they do it.". Note that the rep didn't specifically say "OSRIC is staying within the terms of the OGL".

(Not that I don't appreciate you posting it Lance, since it does imply that WotC just doesn't care at this point, which can't be anything but good news AFAIC).

[dcs]

Yep, BPOM is right -- it's a non-answer; he didn't reference OSRIC at all.

[Lance Hawvermale]

You're right, of course.

I explained to the best of my ability the nature and purpose of OSRIC. He simply said, "Sure, it's totally fine, as long as it abides by the OGL."

No, he didn't say OSRIC does abide by the OGL, but if it does, then it's perfectly okay with WotC.

So I guess the question remains: Does it?

Though I am not as familiar with it as some, I believe that indeed it does. I own Spycraft 2.0. I find it to be like OSRIC in the fact that it completely borrows from WotC (in this case, from D20 Modern), but it does not require any WotC book to play. In other words, the writers invented their own experience-level advancement charts and all the other tidbits not provided in the SRD, just as the OSRIC authors did.

From what I've seen in the OSRIC rulebook, everything is completely okay according to the OGL. I've yet to find one thing that isn't. I honestly don't know why there's even a debate. Unless you're out there reprinting experience-point charts from the Player's Handbook or using mind flayers and Mordenkainen, you're perfectly legal.

Take our recent PPP offering, Tower of Blood. It is 100% indistinguishable from a 1E module. Every stat block in it looks exactly like those found in any classic adventure. There is only one instance where I absolutely couldn't avoid using an Intellecutal Property monster. So instead of facing an umber hulk, your PCs will now face a lumbering hulk.

So write faster, OSRIC authors, and crank out those books. And write faster, Gary, for somehow Zagyg avoided the IP brand . . .

[Falconer]

So write faster, OSRIC authors, and crank out those books. And write faster, Gary, for somehow Zagyg avoided the IP brand . . .

Heh, well there are a lot of TSR products from the '80s where if you check the copyright page it says "Copyright Gary Gygax" not "Copyright TSR, Inc.". As I understand it, when Gygax and TSR went their separate ways, TSR had to negotiate to buy some IP from him. Zagyg is a property that Gygax retained rights to, as it is his name backwards and he wanted the rights to his own name. He also retained the rights to Saga of Old City and Artifact of Evil, as well as the right to write sequels. Regards.

[dcs]

So write faster, OSRIC authors, and crank out those books. And write faster, Gary, for somehow Zagyg avoided the IP brand . . .

Heh, well there are a lot of TSR products from the '80s where if you check the copyright page it says "Copyright Gary Gygax" not "Copyright TSR, Inc.".

Sure, look on the inside cover of Unearthed Arcana or Oriental Adventures.

As I understand it, when Gygax and TSR went their separate ways, TSR had to negotiate to buy some IP from him.

Just so.

Zagyg is a property that Gygax retained rights to, as it is his name backwards and he wanted the rights to his own name. He also retained the rights to Saga of Old City and Artifact of Evil, as well as the right to write sequels. Regards.

I know that there are references in later TSR stuff to "Zagig." I don't know if Gary has the sole rights to Zagyg or if he is just allowed to use it.

[Falconer]

Hm, Gygax always (WoG and WG6, for example) used Zagig Yragerne to refer to the Mad Archmage and Zagyg to refer to the demi-god.

I think TSR kept using both names, but I'm pretty sure I recall Gary stating that he actually owns Zagyg, and just doesn't mind/doesn't care to do anything about it if TSR/WotC use it sometimes. Regards.

[AxeMental]

Lance: "So I guess the question remains: Does it? "

That would be an interesting point blank question to ask. I doubt it would do any good though.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

Lance: "So I guess the question remains: Does it? "

That would be an interesting point blank question to ask. I doubt it would do any good though.

Anyone at WotC who would be qualified to give an expert answer to that question is probably prohibited from doing so by corporate policy.

[dcs]

Exactly. We should all recall the TSR days when they wouldn't even publish a list of their trademarks.

Probably only their legal department is qualified to answer that question, and it's not their job to help another company or individual determine whether their work adheres to the OGL.

[Lance Hawvermale]

. . . it's not their job to help another company or individual determine whether their work adheres to the OGL.

Bingo.