Page 4 of 5
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:50 pm
by Random
Also noteworthy is Ian Baggley. From what pieces I've seen, your rules should have the grooviest art to date.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:25 pm
by austinjimm
Philotomy Jurament wrote:If I were putting out a module, I'd be very tempted to not use the OGL...
And, I believe, you'd be better off doing it this way so far as maintaining the rights of your work are concerned. There is no reason you need to mention any published work in order to put out a compatible product. I've done this very thing in other (non-D&D) venues. That aside, the game mechanics are *NOT* protected by copyright, (let me repeat that: the game mechanics are *NOT* protected by copyright) only the actual *text* of the rules and any trademarked terminology (which is very minimal) are off limits.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:28 pm
by Bargle
Semaj Khan wrote:Oh Look! Someone who might conceivably have an original thought rattling around upstairs.
http://www.autarch.co/
This why I'm excited about "adventurer, conqueror, king". I threw in money to their kickstarter campaign as it really the same as pre-ordering more or less.
"a 9th level Thief gets 2d6 1st level thieves as followers. But (in D&D) there's no game mechanics associated with them. In ACKS, we include rules for what you can do with your thieves. For instance, you can assign each thief follower a "hijink" each month. One possible hijink is stealing. Based on your follower's level, there's a chance he will succeed at stealing, and a chance he'll be caught. If he succeeds, you'll determine what he stole. If he fails, he will face punishment unless you can rescue him somehow."
"high-level wizards can build dungeons as a means to attract monsters for use in magical experiments. But, again, there's no game mechanics associated with this idea. In ACKS, we provide rules for exactly what sort of monsters your wizard's dungeon will attract, at what frequency, how they will populate your wizard's dungeon, how to use treasure to attract more, and so on.
"detailed rules for magical research, which requires the monster parts you've created the dungeon to acquire; and for magical cross-breeding, so that if you get a minotaur and a wyvern in your dungeon and you want to combine them into a wyvotaur, you can."
"In Moldvay's Expert set, an armorer costs 100gp. With 6 assistants at 25gp each, the total cost is 250gp per month. The armorer and his 6 assistants can produce 4 suits of platemail (240gp value) or 12 shields (120gp value) or 20 weapons (200gp value). So it costs more to hire an armorer than the armorer can produce. Anomalies like this show up everywhere in every version of OD&D, D&D, AD&D, and even D&D 3.5, and they make a shambles out of any attempt to have a workable world. In ACKS, the wage rates, costs, prices, and resources all line up."
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:25 am
by Kellri
To get back to Semaj's OP, IMO the only creative reason for new rules is to suit a very different setting or introduce an innovative mechanical whole. LotFP doesn't do that - it attempts to cater to a particular clique by calling style substance.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:02 am
by geezerdm
I don't think that the blacksmith thing is an error. You might can buy cheaper from independent shops, but supply is an issue. The premium price is for having a smith all to yourself, devoting his time and producing goods only for You. A very big deal.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:10 am
by Matthew
geezerdm wrote:
I don't think that the blacksmith thing is an error. You might can buy cheaper from independent shops, but supply is an issue. The premium price is for having a smith all to yourself, devoting his time and producing goods only for You. A very big deal.
It is pretty obviously and demonstrably a systemic error; the armourer prices use one tenth of the sale price as a basis to calculate the cost of materials, so the standard assumption is that ninety percent of the sale cost of any piece of armour is made up of labour and profit. Consequently, some pieces of armour end up costing more to manufacture than buy, whilst others end up costing significantly less. There is no rhyme or reason to this, it is just that not very much thought was put into the system. I have seen people argue the opposite until they are blue in the face, but it is wishful thinking to suppose otherwise. All things are explicable with enough imagination, but the truth is that more effort is put into defending the system that way than went into its design.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:34 am
by Mythmere
austinjimm wrote:only the actual *text* of the rules and any trademarked terminology (which is very minimal) are off limits.
Slight addition to this -- any unique term, like "stirge," may also be subject to copyright even if it's not trademarked. This would generally apply only to monsters and several magic items. The exact scope of this protection isn't something I had to research for the retro-clone stuff, so I'm no expert in this area in terms of how minor or major a change is required in order to bring it into compliance. In other words, "Tenser's Floating Disk" is copyrightable even though it's not trademarked (b/c "Tenser" is an invented name). "Floating Disk," without the proper name in there, probably isn't copyrightable since it's only a two-word phrase using generic words. What I don't know is whether "Enser's Floating Disk" or "Tenzer's Floating Disk" are okay or not.
There are some other tests involved, like how "key" the term is to a work, and the overall presentation of the material, but these are relatively unlikely to be a problem if you're only writing a compatible module, since they are designed to catch the actual duplication of a work itself.
Basically for a module, the rules governing "fan fiction" would apply. So don't write "Castle Tsojacanth," for instance. That's like writing "Bill and Jane attend Hogwarts."
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:56 am
by jgbrowning
Mythmere wrote:austinjimm wrote:only the actual *text* of the rules and any trademarked terminology (which is very minimal) are off limits.
Slight addition to this -- any unique term, like "stirge," may also be subject to copyright even if it's not trademarked.
Strix or Striges could probably work around that particular instance as long as the description of the creature (not its effects) is changed. As you say, however, unique terms are problematic.
joe b.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:35 am
by geezerdm
Matthew wrote:geezerdm wrote:
I don't think that the blacksmith thing is an error. You might can buy cheaper from independent shops, but supply is an issue. The premium price is for having a smith all to yourself, devoting his time and producing goods only for You. A very big deal.
It is pretty obviously and demonstrably a systemic error; the armourer prices use one tenth of the sale price as a basis to calculate the cost of materials, so the standard assumption is that ninety percent of the sale cost of any piece of armour is made up of labour and profit. Consequently, some pieces of armour end up costing more to manufacture than buy, whilst others end up costing significantly less. There is no rhyme or reason to this, it is just that not very much thought was put into the system. I have seen people argue the opposite until they are blue in the face, but it is wishful thinking to suppose otherwise. All things are explicable with enough imagination, but the truth is that more effort is put into defending the system that way than went into its design.
I'd have to see a lot more and a detailed breakdown to be convinced. Not that it's a big deal or anything I'm concerned with, though I'll now end up looking into it for myself.
I would expect a blacksmith to charge more, when on a Lord's staff. It's a different situation, with different demands and when rich people hire Private specialists, they pay for it.
Lord A: "My Blacksmith costs 260 pieces of Gold a month!"
Lord B, with Smug Satisfaction: "Mine costs 300!"
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:25 am
by Bargle
I don't think any corporation (a lord being in the business of raising armies) is going to feel a smug sense of satisfaction knowing he overpaid for equipment and therefore can't "produce" as many units of men at arms as the rival company next door who may have ideas about a "hostile takeover" of the other lords "means of production" aka land and peasants.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:58 am
by geezerdm
Bargle wrote:I don't think any corporation (a lord being in the business of raising armies) is going to feel a smug sense of satisfaction knowing he overpaid for equipment and therefore can't "produce" as many units of men at arms as the rival company next door who may have ideas about a "hostile takeover" of the other lords "means of production" aka land and peasants.
That depends on how much gold he has, how "active" the military is at the moment and how important rubbing it in his rivals face may be. A petty noble has some different considerations that the head of a corporation doesn't.
Said noble might also have to compete for the services of "the best" and would definitely brag about being able to pay for "the best" and securing the services of their desired employee.
And if CEO salaries and recent bank scandals are any indication, corporations overpay for services all the time.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:33 pm
by jgbrowning
geezerdm wrote:A petty noble has some different considerations that the head of a corporation doesn't.
Historically speaking, the most important part of being wealthy is demonstrating one's wealth to others. Overpaying is a sign of being so wealthy that one doesn't have to scrimp and save like lesser men who can only afford mink when you can afford sable.
joe b.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:47 pm
by Bargle
I think there would be a difference between how much money could go toward preening if you're talking Medici-like Italian city state, or Louis the XIV "sun king" or if you're talking about a 5th century warlord trying to hold his land on te wild borders of the German barbarians, or the English king during the war of the roses trying to keep costs as low as possible at the Harlech outpost in wales.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:48 pm
by Falconer
Veering on a tangent here, but: You often read about kings and nobles being generous gift-givers, but social convention has historically been that a gift must be repaid with a greater gift (which in turn is repaid by thanks). So being generous actually put people in your debt, and ultimately made you richer.
I learned that in seminary, and it helped me understand many things in the Bible, as well as interactions with some old-fashioned folk. You know how, with some people, if you invite them over for dinner, they will:
1) bring wine and/or beer with them, AND
2) send a thank-you note the next day, AND
3) invite you over to their place
I admit I find it a bit fatiguing to be caught in an endless cycle of social debts (you had better treat them in kind, and woe to you if you insult them), but at least it’s better to know about it.
Re: No Baby... I Gotta Say It
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:49 pm
by TRP
So, the price of eggs in China, eh?