As previously mentioned at https://reddit.com/r/osr/comments/16bjlpx/comment/jzf3o1i/ (among various places/sites), new changes are afoot for OSRIC!

Read-up, get current, and provide feedback on the Knights & Knaves Alehouse discussion thread started by Matt Finch at https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?t=18254

Allan.

Quoted so I can avoid goign to Reddit for the hellhole it is:

QuoteSince the "OSRIC's Path Forward" thread, there has been more discussion about OSRIC, licensing, and so forth.
Stuart and I are working on an OSRIC 3.0, but it will be under the AELF License (a Mythmere Games license that's similar to the OGL). OSRIC 3.0 will be produced by Mythmere Games, and we are planning (tentatively) for a Kickstarter in September or October of this year.
A few points:
1) Simply maintaining OSRIC under the OGL is possible at this time, but in the long run I think it's a bit of a risk. WotC can probably cut off access to new users of the OGL at any time by "withdrawing the open offer". I don't think I'm giving WotC a roadmap here; they almost certainly are aware of this approach to the license. They wanted to do more than that to kill it quickly, but there's a much more reliable way to poison it over time, which is simply to withdraw the offer to "sign on" to the OGL. But after the massive backlash to their attempt to kill the license at one blow, they will have to wait a while before mentioning the OGL again. This potential future withdrawal of the offer would create a problem for anyone new who wanted to publish something for OSRIC, so it behooves us to move to a different license now, before the axe eventually comes down.
2) The ORC license has some problems with easy usability. I won't go into those because it's complicated and also because there's discussion about it in lots of other places. The AELF License, since it works in the same way as the OGL, is familiar enough that it can be adopted relatively easily by anyone familiar with the OGL.
3) OSRIC 3.0 is intended to be completely backward-compatible with OSRIC 2.0, and it shouldn't require any "new versions" of adventures that have been published in the past. There might turn out to be minor glitches in terms of backward compatibility, but those will be the exception.
4) The reasons for coming out with a new version:
a) First, the license, as mentioned above.
b) Secondly, it's to meet the needs of a younger batch of gamers in a context where the PDFs of the original books are available from WotC (which wasn't the case when we originally published OSRIC 2.0). This means several different avenues of approach.
--- The writing style will use bullet points and other visual call-outs to avoid the "wall of text" effect. Even those of us raised in pre-internet days are starting to find the bullet-point arrangement preferable to a long block that doesn't visually separate and organize the more important elements of the text.
---We're going to include a VTT-friendly method of scale since so many people now game online.
---We're going to try to make this version what EOTB calls a "teaching edition," meaning lots of guidance for playing the game. The "how to play" information is in the original books to a degree, but it can be presented at the forefront and that's what anyone new to the whole OSR needs. Also, AD&D is simply more complex than other OSR games like B/X, so it needs to be presented in a step-by-step format that draws the learner into the process.
More information to come later.

Matt Finch is starting his own lil empire here. How does that bode for Sword and Wizardry? He's going to be printing 2 'competing' rulesets on his site?

Very unimpressed with their decision to issue their own corporate license (" In consideration for Your agreement to abide by the terms of this License, Mythmere Games LLC and each other Contributor grants You...").

The problem, I think, with these company-specific licenses is that they try to carve up a little kingdom. While everyone could theoretically play in the fenced in area defined by the OGL (up until last year, of course), the issuance of these sorts of license would become a mess if you wanted to write anything that refers to more than one of them.  For instance, assume you wanted to write something based on OSRIC, but also based on some version of D&D... do you license some parts with AELF and others with OGL?  In practice, no one will use AELF unless they want to reproduce or add to OSRIC.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had gone ORC or some Creative Commons, difficulties notwithstanding? That would put it in the same pool with anyone else who does so, allow for more compatibility.

I think the real lesson of the OGL was what was learned in the software industry late last century- putting anything out under a license issued by one company, instead of a license meant to share things and written and approved by lawyers hired for that purpose, is a recipe for huge regret.

If you were writing something to release under AELF, you'd need a lawyer to tell you what the heck this is all about:

"OTHER PROVISIONS: (a) If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. (b) You agree that before you use this License, you will seek such advice, including legal counsel, as you deem appropriate, and will take such advice into consideration before using this License. As a result, the interpretation of this License shall not be construed against the drafter. (c) This License shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas." 

Is this routine?  I'm not used to seeing such languages in the software world, but I'm no expert.  It looks weird as heck to me.

Hey on this note, is the AELF finalized?  My quotes are from some draft version.

Whatever.  This just seems like if you wanted to use this you'd absolutely have to lawyer up first.

If it's really a teaching edition, it could be great. I'd love to see that, but that would entail a lot of work.

Yeah, WotC made the OGL specifically to avoid the fracturing that was the case before. Now WotC shit the bed even worse than 4e and the hobby is returning to those days.

Just use Creative Commons!

It's dumb to think the OGL will be canceled now. They lost that battle. And then the threat they were concerned about (Pathfinder) cut to ORC anyway. They don't care about OSRIC. It's not even a rounding error to them. OGL will be fine indefinitely under OGL.

I suppose given recent ttrpg events (and just pop culture in general since 2016ish) I should ask which if any characters will they be race/gender/rainbow swapping...   

Quote from: RNGm on May 17, 2024, 11:58:53 PMI suppose given recent ttrpg events (and just pop culture in general since 2016ish) I should ask which if any characters will they be race/gender/rainbow swapping...   

I do kinda hope Cat Lord becomes a cat lady...

Quote from: Mistwell on May 17, 2024, 11:20:33 PMIt's dumb to think the OGL will be canceled now. They lost that battle. And then the threat they were concerned about (Pathfinder) cut to ORC anyway. They don't care about OSRIC. It's not even a rounding error to them. OGL will be fine indefinitely under OGL.

All the same, was I to make a retroclone I would take the CC By SRD as a basis, since that can't be revoked.

Since I would be using a CC By thing I would feel obligated to publish at least my own SRD under the same.

Not sure about the legality of taking a CC By SRD as your base and publishing the resulting document under a different more closed license.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 18, 2024, 03:04:47 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on May 17, 2024, 11:20:33 PMIt's dumb to think the OGL will be canceled now. They lost that battle. And then the threat they were concerned about (Pathfinder) cut to ORC anyway. They don't care about OSRIC. It's not even a rounding error to them. OGL will be fine indefinitely under OGL.

All the same, was I to make a retroclone I would take the CC By SRD as a basis, since that can't be revoked.


Since I would be using a CC By thing I would feel obligated to publish at least my own SRD under the same.

Not sure about the legality of taking a CC By SRD as your base and publishing the resulting document under a different more closed license.

From the CC 4.0 BY license:

Section 5 Downstream Recipients
"No downstream restrictions . You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

Standard disclaimers apply. IANAL. But I think CC BY offers the best licensing options for my projects.

Quote from: swzl on May 18, 2024, 07:08:34 AMFrom the CC 4.0 BY license:

Section 5 Downstream Recipients
"No downstream restrictions . You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

I'm not a lawyer either, but as it reads, as long as the license for your material doesn't prevent others from using the material covered by CC-by-4.0 in it, then you're fine.

Throw in a line that says "CC-by-4.0 material used in this product is available free at [insert site here]" and you could even use a standard copyright for your material additions to the finished product (though you could only use it for violations of the original material you produced).

Why? Because you have added no additional restrictions on the rights to use the covered material (you even provided a link to the unfiltered covered material).

I agree it would be tacky to do that given the spirit of the material you're using, but tacky is not the same as illegal.

It's also why I write all the system material I intend to publish from scratch so then I'm free to use whatever licensing I wish (including standard copyright) for it.

A teaching edition?  Compatible with 1E?

That sounds good to me.  Just imagine; if someone new to rpgs today, tried to learn everything from Gary's core 3 books. Most people would really struggle.  It's not like B/X, at all.  I started with 1E, back in the mid 1990s; and it was peculiar. I also purchased the 2E books, but then it confused me that the rules were different in presentation.

Most people today, won't dig deeply enough to grasp it all.  1E was awesome, but it's a little scattered in presentation.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 18, 2024, 12:24:56 AM

Quote from: RNGm on May 17, 2024, 11:58:53 PMI suppose given recent ttrpg events (and just pop culture in general since 2016ish) I should ask which if any characters will they be race/gender/rainbow swapping...   

I do kinda hope Cat Lord becomes a cat lady...

That would be awesome-so long as she is crazy.

Again the problem with not using the OGL is that AFAIK, the Tome of Horrors was not released under the CC license. Maybe it has, I dunno, Necromancer/Frog God has been milking the heck out of it re-releasing it over and over and over and the last one I own is from the 2000s.

But look at the OGL of OSRIC 2, like 90% of it's Section 15 is from the Tome of Horrors.

Quote from: JeremyR on May 19, 2024, 04:50:04 PMAgain the problem with not using the OGL is that AFAIK, the Tome of Horrors was not released under the CC license. Maybe it has, I dunno, Necromancer/Frog God has been milking the heck out of it re-releasing it over and over and over and the last one I own is from the 2000s.

But look at the OGL of OSRIC 2, like 90% of it's Section 15 is from the Tome of Horrors.

Do what I'm doing for my Pulp game, make your own monsters, bonus points if you release them under CC By.