Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Matthew wrote:

bobjester wrote: I wouldn't even buy my own set of campaign notes, why would I want to buy his?

Wait until you see mine; I plan to sell them wedged into an adult magazine in a brown paper bag. You will buy them, do not fool yourself thinking otherwise!

I can hear you Matthew.. "These ARE the campaign notes you're looking for."

Chainsaw wrote:

Matthew wrote:

bobjester wrote: I wouldn't even buy my own set of campaign notes, why would I want to buy his?

Wait until you see mine; I plan to sell them wedged into an adult magazine in a brown paper bag. You will buy them, do not fool yourself thinking otherwise!

I can hear you Matthew.. "These ARE the campaign notes you're looking for."

All at once, it feels as dirty as FATAL, but somehow....successful!

James's website ( http://lotfp.blogspot.com/ ) has a free pdf of his rulebook (click on "Grindhouse Edition Rules and Magic Art-Free PDF Download").

Here is the skinny: James published a number of modules before he published his retro-clone. James tried to get RPG stores over in Finland (and perhaps elsewhere) to stock his modules. Several game stores told him: "These are for an out-of-print game? We can't stock supplements for an out-of-print game!"

Thus James's retro-clone was born. By publishing it, the RPG stores started stocking his modules right beside his retro-clone game.

I myself have never purchased a retro-clone game. I simply use their art-free downloads. My copy of James's game consists of two small stapled booklets that I printed-out from the free PDFs. My total cost was about $4. (This is precisely the format in which I own physical copies of the 1974 OD&D rules and Supplement I: GREYHAWK. I prefer dirt-cheap rulebooks so as to not be afraid to write in them, dog-ear the pages, toss them across the room to a player, spill a drink on them, etc. If and when a booklet gets too trashed to use anymore, I simply pay about $2 to replace it. )

Curiously, I think I've heard the same rants, almost verbatim, from Rob Kuntz and Tim Kask.

Admittedly, that's what I find so disappointing about the OGL, because while it may have "freed" the D&D ruleset to the masses, it also instituted a huge copy and paste mentality, to the bane of other game systems. In the last decade, way too many people got on the d20 bandwagon, and I feel it hurt the other competing game systems.

I'm in agreement with the general gist of the message--I think people need to be more creative. Cloning a ruleset is not very creative. Coming up with your own is probably the ideal. A lot of people talk about "Gygaxian principles" and IMO designers should do what he did--come up with new games. Dangeous Journeys and Lejendary Adventures may not have been as successful, but at least he didn't clone himself and tried to do new things each time even if some of the themes are the same. That's the only place true innovation comes from.

I think the OSR should focus on modules and campaign settings, and not loads of retro-clone rulesets.

Matthew wrote: You will buy them, do not fool yourself thinking otherwise!

Okay, but only for the biographies.

JRT wrote:I think the OSR should focus on modules and campaign settings, and not loads of retro-clone rulesets.

This is what I expected from the beginning, but the sets of cloned rules keep piling up! There are now 2 (TWO) planned clones of 2e in the works right now!

There are a few modules & settings coming out, and not all of them have been solely for one clone rule set or another. There are a few that are not specifically stated for 1e, (I guess because the author(s) cannot just say "This is meant for AD&D1e...") but are worded in a way that tips the reader off that they should break out their old rule books & plan to run the module with it, which I really enjoy.

bobjester wrote:

JRT wrote:There are a few that are not specifically stated for 1e, (I guess because the author(s) cannot just say "This is meant for AD&D1e...")

It is my understanding you can say exactly that so long as you carefully avoid the use of any copyright text or phrases. Also, you really can't make your product look so much like theirs so as to create product confusion.

So, you can say "Compatible with First Edition AD&D" but you cannot use the company's distinctive font, logo, or coloration/layout. I think you also have to make certain you always use the trademark symbol every time you reference the other company's material (and you'd best do that sparingly). This doesn't mean they can't take you to court, but it does mean they won't (or shouldn't) win. Of course, if they bankrupt you in the process then they've won anyway.

I think the gray area comes in as to what, exactly, is trade dress or trademarked. Is the term Dungeon Master, for instance? Hit point? Obviously, monsters made up by an employee of the company would be, but what about a monster referenced from folklore or myth? If a popular line of modules has a distinctive trade dress prominently featuring a bright shade of blue, and you use a similarly bright shade of blue on your "knock-off" but otherwise avoid duplicating (even indirectly) the trade dress, is that actionable? I believe, in the long run, companies like Mayfair et al. were just fed up with the hassle and threw in the towel. But, now that gaming companies have fought the big $$$ battles over who could produce a game cartridge for a video game console the borders are a bit clearer.

I wouldn't hesitate to put Compatible with First Edition AD&D on a module, if I actually had one to publish.

Edit to add: Oh, yeah .... and you have to say something like "This is not an official TSR AD&D Product, nor is it endorsed by TSR in any way blah, blah, blah ..." right on the front cover.

bobjester wrote:There are a few modules & settings coming out

Correction, there are a FUCKING TON of modules and settings available. Modules and settings outnumber clone games by at least 100 to 1, and that is only counting the ones that are for sale. Of course, people looking for things to complain about* know all about the clone games and generally appear to be clueless about all the options available for items they claim to be interested in.

*note: The fact that I am quoting you doesn't indicate that I'm including you in this group, bobjester.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:

bobjester wrote:There are a few modules & settings coming out

Correction, there are a FUCKING TON of modules and settings available. Modules and settings outnumber clone games by at least 100 to 1, and that is only counting the ones that are for sale. Of course, people looking for things to complain about* know all about the clone games and generally appear to be clueless about all the options available for items they claim to be interested in.

*note: The fact that I am quoting you doesn't indicate that I'm including you in this group, bobjester.

Aww, none of the infamous KnKA love for me, eh?

I have been living under a rock lately, having moved & have to put up with less than stellar internet connection, so I admit to being ignorant of the modules & settings that are available. I have my DriveThruRPG under my thumb for some products, and I see some scattered releases announced on DF, but to truly know when a lot of these things are coming out or are available, I have to pay attention to over 50 blogs a day.

Since I check everything via email notification, rather than trying to figure out my blog dashboard or RSS feed, I am blithely unaware of a lot of shit that goes on on a day to day basis.

Piper wrote: It is my understanding you can say exactly that so long as you carefully avoid the use of any copyright text or phrases. Also, you really can't make your product look so much like theirs so as to create product confusion.

As long as you do not use the OGL, sure. If you you use the OGL then part of the agreement is not to use the name of the game, even to indicate compatibility.

If I were putting out a module, I'd be very tempted to not use the OGL and to simply indicate compatibility while acknowledging proper ownership of any trademarks mentioned. My interest in the retro clones has always been focused on them as tools to support D&D and AD&D, not as games and systems to play. A few years ago, when the retro-clones were first getting off the ground, there was a lot more uncertainty about some of the legal questions and the best strategy for publishing compatible material. Thanks to the retro-clones, things are a bit different, these days.

With that said, some of the retro clones seem to have developed into brands in their own right, at this point. That is, it might be worthwhile to use OSRIC or S&W because of the brand recognition and support network (which includes fans/blogs/word-of-mouth, but also publishers and perhaps even distribution) that is developing around them.

As for LotFP, I'm not interested in it as a game, but I've got no big problem with its existence, either. And if a LotFP adventure or supplement strikes my fancy and works well with my D&D or AD&D game, I'd use it. I take a "sink or swim" outlook on this kind of thing.

bobjester wrote:Aww, none of the infamous KnKA love for me, eh?

I think you're a-okay!

Matthew wrote:As long as you do not use the OGL, sure. If you you use the OGL then part of the agreement is not to use the name of the game, even to indicate compatibility.

Rats! Right you are, Matthew. I didn't even think of it and it is an excellent point to raise.

Oh Look! Someone who might conceivably have an original thought rattling around upstairs.

http://www.autarch.co/