|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 16, 2018 17:53:53 GMT -5
I bought my first "clone" at GaryCon this year. It's called "Crypts & Creatures." The reason I bought it is it's complete in 36 pages. The author said "I'm tired of gigantic volumes of rules. We don't need that. All we need are some basic guidelines and then make the rest up. So I wrote a set of rules to do that and sell it for five bucks." I haven't read the rules yet, but dang, I like this guy's style. There was a rumor that were were crafting a set named "Jingoists and Junk"...  |
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 16, 2018 18:34:39 GMT -5
Maybe we have enough clones. The concept of rolegaming is so large that I'd like to see or make something that is significantly different from D&D - any version. (Definitely not another D&D 4.) All I ask is that there are few rules, or all based on one master rule, and that it feels real. (GMs supply the sense of fun.) TnT reacted by "doing the opposite" of many D&D standards, blurring the perceived limitations of classes, the unique SR and generic MR, and a healthy disrespect for rules. Runequest went further and eradicated classes almost entirely. (I'd argue that Rune Lord and Rune Priest are classes though not available to beginning PCs.) Almost immediately, we had the first two salvos in the Rules Lite vs Rules Heavy arguments. I love to read the clones rules, as most address one or more of the weaknesses of various versions of D&D - many of them have been quite clever & each of them are fun to study. Me? Don't much like classes, charts, or (as AD&D kept seeming to do) making up yet another rule each time a new situation came up. Absolutely loved, and still love, the freewheeling seat-of-the-pants GM style that Arneson personified. (Was really disappointed that AiF didn't show any of that. And what was the idea of using radioactive printing?) Or maybe I'm getting too old and impatient for lotsa rules. If I ever wrote my own game, it would probably consist of one page with three rules. Or maybe I should stick with my favorite clones - ice cream clones. I was critical of the clones because of the duplication. If you're going to push house rules, push house rules, do a volume or a compilation of them, like in a magazine or small publication, like variants in 'zine articles in wargaming publications (IW, Panzerfaust, et al) or The Dragon, etc. from bitd. But they just kept on coming (and still are coming!) which has indeed glutted as well as fractionalized the market AND kept the momentum upon back end modules, instead, all of which has not pushed major creative boundaries (except for some house rules and more pre-made adventures to use with them). I get this point. On the other hand, if I am playing with a particular set of house rules, with the availability of open content clone material to start with, the thought of having an edited set of rules for MY game is appealing. That said, what I would of course then like is a clone in editable document (MS Word or Google Docs or something I can import into one of those) so I can make MY edits... It's still worth having a compendium of the house rules separate. I.e. in software terms, give me the end product AND the diff... The diff is helpful for understanding where your game is different from the base rules, the end product is useful for reference in play. That said, I really haven't purchased much in the way of clone material... I have purchased a few OSR products, an adventure or two maybe, a setting or two (like Yoon Suin), I dunno, I haven't really tallied it all up... Frank |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 16, 2018 19:12:49 GMT -5
I was critical of the clones because of the duplication. If you're going to push house rules, push house rules, do a volume or a compilation of them, like in a magazine or small publication, like variants in 'zine articles in wargaming publications (IW, Panzerfaust, et al) or The Dragon, etc. from bitd. But they just kept on coming (and still are coming!) which has indeed glutted as well as fractionalized the market AND kept the momentum upon back end modules, instead, all of which has not pushed major creative boundaries (except for some house rules and more pre-made adventures to use with them). I get this point. On the other hand, if I am playing with a particular set of house rules, with the availability of open content clone material to start with, the thought of having an edited set of rules for MY game is appealing. That said, what I would of course then like is a clone in editable document (MS Word or Google Docs or something I can import into one of those) so I can make MY edits... It's still worth having a compendium of the house rules separate. I.e. in software terms, give me the end product AND the diff... The diff is helpful for understanding where your game is different from the base rules, the end product is useful for reference in play. That said, I really haven't purchased much in the way of clone material... I have purchased a few OSR products, an adventure or two maybe, a setting or two (like Yoon Suin), I dunno, I haven't really tallied it all up... Frank Cool, Really a difference in weighted perspectives only (i.e., macro and micro). |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 16, 2018 19:32:53 GMT -5
Nothing new stated here that Gary did not already note in D&D quotes and other, such as, “...My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them...” -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. If people just think of D&D as Gygax's initial system condition it becomes pretty simple to wrap your head around it. Even though he began "playing god" for them through AD&D most of us now know the reasons for that, just as I did BitD. The problem with clones is not so much the clones, but the ethos that presumes that pre-made adventures will be used with them, which is not congruent with but a minor strand of the concept as I have noted elsewhere but indeed sides with the disposable market side and in due course represent the majority of material published on the back end, just like with latter TSR and Wotc, etc. So I personally see no difference. Just smaller versions of WotC because of the same disposable model. Instead of the pre-made adventures, what products should they be writing to support OD&D directly or to support their own clone? If you had been in charge of TSR in 1975 what would you have published? Just asking for a friend.  But this is a serious question. I have never used a pre-made adventure and I prefer things that are just a collection of unconnected ideas. I was critical of the clones because of the duplication. If you're going to push house rules, push house rules, do a volume or a compilation of them, like in a magazine or small publication, like variants in 'zine articles in wargaming publications (IW, Panzerfaust, et al) or The Dragon, etc. from bitd. But they just kept on coming (and still are coming!) which has indeed glutted as well as fractionalized the market AND kept the momentum upon back end modules, instead, all of which has not pushed major creative boundaries (except for some house rules and more pre-made adventures to use with them). Yeah, house rule supplements are fun to read. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 16, 2018 19:38:35 GMT -5
That said, I really haven't purchased much in the way of clone material... I have purchased a few OSR products, an adventure or two maybe, a setting or two (like Yoon Suin), I dunno, I haven't really tallied it all up... Frank I haven't made a dent in the free stuff yet. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 16, 2018 20:04:00 GMT -5
Nothing new stated here that Gary did not already note in D&D quotes and other, such as, “...My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them...” -- E. Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #2, 1975. If people just think of D&D as Gygax's initial system condition it becomes pretty simple to wrap your head around it. Even though he began "playing god" for them through AD&D most of us now know the reasons for that, just as I did BitD. The problem with clones is not so much the clones, but the ethos that presumes that pre-made adventures will be used with them, which is not congruent with but a minor strand of the concept as I have noted elsewhere but indeed sides with the disposable market side and in due course represent the majority of material published on the back end, just like with latter TSR and Wotc, etc. So I personally see no difference. Just smaller versions of WotC because of the same disposable model. Instead of the pre-made adventures, what products should they be writing to support OD&D directly or to support their own clone? If you had been in charge of TSR in 1975 what would you have published? Just asking for a friend. But this is a serious question. I have never used a pre-made adventure and I prefer things that are just a collection of unconnected ideas. I was critical of the clones because of the duplication. If you're going to push house rules, push house rules, do a volume or a compilation of them, like in a magazine or small publication, like variants in 'zine articles in wargaming publications (IW, Panzerfaust, et al) or The Dragon, etc. from bitd. But they just kept on coming (and still are coming!) which has indeed glutted as well as fractionalized the market AND kept the momentum upon back end modules, instead, all of which has not pushed major creative boundaries (except for some house rules and more pre-made adventures to use with them). Yeah, house rule supplements are fun to read. We were already doing the DIY ethos correctly with the Supplements, Monster and Treasure Assortments, Geomorphs, hex pads. graph paper pads and the variant materials appearing in SR and the Dragon. If left to its own devices more and different design philosophy routes would have manifested (no doubt including something akin to the main matter in DATG where we, much earlier, would have understood what an RPG derives from, that is its whole and not just a limited strand plucked from it to promote a very narrowly conceived market/production cycle); instead it got side-tracked by AD^D and the market driven nature of it all through the pm adventures, tournament stuff, etc. and the original path was literally abandoned; and what remains of it today is really a mix between the two extremes in what we would consider our niche; but the mainstay is still the latter-TSR model. I detailed this in DATG. I have many workable ideas of what to do with the market if it were to be directed more towards the DIY ethic again than it now portrays. But until the current mindset that predominates this market driven hobby exhausts itself of its own repetitious nature, I'm not talking. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Mar 16, 2018 20:09:51 GMT -5
That said, I really haven't purchased much in the way of clone material... I have purchased a few OSR products, an adventure or two maybe, a setting or two (like Yoon Suin), I dunno, I haven't really tallied it all up... Frank I haven't made a dent in the free stuff yet. Denting some of them is the mostest fun part! |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 16, 2018 20:11:49 GMT -5
We were already doing the DIY ethos correctly with the Supplements, Monster and Treasure Assortments, Geomorphs, hex pads. graph paper pads and the variant materials appearing in SR and the Dragon. If left to its own devices more and different design philosophy routes would have manifested (no doubt including something akin to the main matter in DATG where we, much earlier, would have understood what an RPG derives from, that is its whole and not just a limited strand plucked from it to promote a very narrowly conceived market/production cycle); instead it got side-tracked by AD^D and the market driven nature of it all through the pm adventures, tournament stuff, etc. and the original path was literally abandoned; and what remains of it today is really a mix between the two extremes in what we would consider our niche; but the mainstay is still the latter-TSR model. I detailed this in DATG. I have many workable ideas of what to do with the market if it were to be directed more towards the DIY ethic again than it now portrays. But until the current mindset that predominates this market driven hobby exhausts itself with its own repetitious nature, I'm not talking. I can't say I blame you.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2018 22:48:10 GMT -5
Werl, the truth is that convenience sells; it sells big time. McDonalds' dosen't make more money then any other restaurant in the world because of food quality. So I wonder if the market will ever change.
|
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 16, 2018 23:23:24 GMT -5
Werl, the truth is that convenience sells; it sells big time. McDonalds' dosen't make more money then any other restaurant in the world because of food quality. So I wonder if the market will ever change. Nope. But of course there a quality restaurants, and I'm pretty sure there are even restaurants where you pay for the privilege of having them help you cook your food. Frank |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 17, 2018 0:02:02 GMT -5
Werl, the truth is that convenience sells; it sells big time. McDonalds' dosen't make more money then any other restaurant in the world because of food quality. So I wonder if the market will ever change. Burgers produce bowel movements, Ideas produce vowel movements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 0:26:38 GMT -5
I have many workable ideas of what to do with the market if it were to be directed more towards the DIY ethic again than it now portrays. But until the current mindset that predominates this market driven hobby exhausts itself of its own repetitious nature, I'm not talking. I would of entreat you to reconsider your position, Rob. Your knowledge and amazing ideas are a treasure to our community. It would be a genuine loss if your ideas never made it to your fans. Please at least consider committing your ideas to paper for safekeeping. Even if you decide not to release them. Some of us truly want to see a return to the original style of play. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 17, 2018 0:47:52 GMT -5
I have many workable ideas of what to do with the market if it were to be directed more towards the DIY ethic again than it now portrays. But until the current mindset that predominates this market driven hobby exhausts itself of its own repetitious nature, I'm not talking. I would of entreat you to reconsider your position, Rob. Your knowledge and amazing ideas are a treasure to our community. It would be a genuine loss if your ideas never made it to your fans. Please at least consider committing your ideas to paper for safekeeping. Even if you decide not to release them. Some of us truly want to see a return to the original style of play. I'm going to respond to this on the 'morrow. Bed time for Bobby. I leave you with these thoughts. It's all about adjusting your thinking. That comes from Arneson. You must divorce yourself from the present, from the market, like he did, and start over. You must train that thought so that it functions on its own terms apart from others that its apparatus notes as not being its own. You must be aware of why it differs from others. There must be true separation, not just by degree but by kind. That is when the leaps that Arneson accomplished will be earned as he did and when the processes that allowed them to manifest will be understood and retained. You must design your mind or else some one, some thing, some situation, always pressing, will do it for you. TINSTAAFL. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 6:45:08 GMT -5
As many of you know, I have published a few works under the OSR banner one of which is the Majestic Wilderlands supplement for Swords & Wizardry. Currently one of my projects is writing up my own rule set, basically a Majestic Wilderlands 2nd Edition. Am I unhappy with Swords & Wizardry's take on OD&D, no. Am I releasing this into a market filled with at least two dozens takes on the OD&D rules, yup. So why would it make sense for me to do this? Why did I decide to start writing this in 2015? - I been using my supplement since it initial release in 2009. Along the way I created a bunch of stuff that I used in several campaigns now. And when assembled I pretty much have a complete set of RPG rules built on top of the foundation of OD&D.
- I have my works in a half-dozen game stores scattered across the country. As much as I like Swords & Wizardry and the people behind it, it not easy for a game store to order it. Since my primary product is a supplement of Swords & Wizardry it puts a damper on the enthusiasm for people wanting to buy it. It like a store stocking Greyhawk and not being able to order in the core boxed set.
- When I share publicly the material, people seem to like it. The download numbers, sales, social media posts show that more than a handful buy my material and more importantly use it. I don't have any illusion is that it will take the world by storm but I feel it will sell several hundred copies. That many will get used. And that good enough for what I am trying to do here.
- Earning a profit is nice, but the main point to share my material in a useful and pleasing format. And like it or not, more profits you have the more options you have to make the format useful and pleasing.
- Because I can, because this what I choose to do with part of the time I have for my hobby. Because the freedom of OGL allows me to write this up using a language i.e. the rules that millions understand already. That the availability of digital technology allows me to do this in the time and money I normally spend on my hobby.
So if you ever see the Majestic Fantasy RPG on a table at Gary Con or see a link to it on a blog or RPGNow, now you know why that particular clone exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 7:14:44 GMT -5
The freedom to share what you created. The universal "truth" of the Old School Renaissance is the preceding sentence. Why are there so many clones? See the first sentance. Why are are there so many bad clone? Again see the first sentence. Why after year, Gronan found one clone that he consider liking? Again see the first sentence.
Dungeons & Dragon is intellectual property. The right to make copies and derivative copies remains solely with the owner of the IP, currently Wizards of the Coast. It will remain with Wizards until the late 2020s after which it will become public domain and join the ranks of the Ilaid, Oddyessy, and the other great works of adventure and fantasy to be used as a foundation by a new generation for their own creative works.
Except in something of a miracle, in the aftermath of the collapse of TSR, the principles behind Wizards of the Coast decided to release the guts of the latest edition as open content under the Open Game License. As it turns that, if trim away all the newer mechanics, what left of that edition is very close to the classic editions of D&D including the original 1974 release.
By now some of you are going, so what? I know this already.
This means you don't have to way into the late 2020's to do something creative with the D&D rules. You can do it now. But if you don't want to or don't have the time to, that OK too. But I bet it is nice knowing that you always have the option now that it's open content. The situation we see today is the result of the freedom afforded by the open content released for D&D.
To critiicize this I think is hypocritical. Gamers today are doing the the same thing today as Dave, Gary, and the rest were doing in the early 70s. Instead of Hammer Horror, Harryhausen adventures, Oddyessy, Time Machine, Conan, and Lord of the Rings. Now Arneson, Gygax, Moldavy, and other get thrown into the mix. Using the foundation of their culture to build Shoot that is fun for them to play.
Maybe in the mid 80s things became too serious. But now in the late 2010s, open content, the internet, and inexpensive digital technology, means one person can say "freak that Shoot" and actually be heard and seen by more than his immediate circle of friends. And if they are so inclined opt to demonstrate alternative within the time and budget one has to devote a hobby.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 17, 2018 7:32:15 GMT -5
The freedom to share what you created. The universal "truth" of the Old School Renaissance is the preceding sentence. Why are there so many clones? See the first sentance. Why are are there so many bad clone? Again see the first sentence. Why after year, Gronan found one clone that he consider liking? Again see the first sentence. Dungeons & Dragon is intellectual property. The right to make copies and derivative copies remains solely with the owner of the IP, currently Wizards of the Coast. It will remain with Wizards until the late 2020s after which it will become public domain and join the ranks of the Ilaid, Oddyessy, and the other great works of adventure and fantasy to be used as a foundation by a new generation for their own creative works. Except in something of a miracle, in the aftermath of the collapse of TSR, the principles behind Wizards of the Coast decided to release the guts of the latest edition as open content under the Open Game License. As it turns that, if trim away all the newer mechanics, what left of that edition is very close to the classic editions of D&D including the original 1974 release. By now some of you are going, so what? I know this already. This means you don't have to way into the late 2020's to do something creative with the D&D rules. You can do it now. But if you don't want to or don't have the time to, that OK too. But I bet it is nice knowing that you always have the option now that it's open content. The situation we see today is the result of the freedom afforded by the open content released for D&D. To critiicize this I think is hypocritical. Gamers today are doing the the same thing today as Dave, Gary, and the rest were doing in the early 70s. Instead of Hammer Horror, Harryhausen adventures, Oddyessy, Time Machine, Conan, and Lord of the Rings. Now Arneson, Gygax, Moldavy, and other get thrown into the mix. Using the foundation of their culture to build S*** that is fun for them to play. Maybe in the mid 80s things became too serious. But now in the late 2010s, open content, the internet, and inexpensive digital technology, means one person can say "F*** that S***" and actually be heard and seen by more than his immediate circle of friends. And if they are so inclined opt to demonstrate alternative within the time and budget one has to devote a hobby. Well, Gronan said he found a clone that he would buy. Freedom also comes with choice to do or not do. The OSR (even in your imagined view of what YOU yourself believe it is or what it should be) does not control anything let alone the aspect of Freedom; people of free will control their compunctions and at their convenience and according to their individual dispositions. Plus you are misquoting him (in fact you do not quote him at all); as well, you are using a strawman argument based on erroneous assumptions as noted above. I find the whole very strange if not also very propagandistic. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 7:34:04 GMT -5
Last post on this for this morning.
Suppose you think that Dave Arneson, and/or Gary Gygax legacy is being Shoot on. That you are not interested in writing a clone, and think adventures and settings or anything formal really is just a straightjacket on creativity. That people should look at the original material, learn, and focus on running their own darn campaigns.
But if you are not able to share that original material what then? The only people able to look at are a select few through luck or money can read it. Sure Gygax's OD&D books are now easily purchased as PDFs. But what if the next Wizards management team takes them down again? What about the volume of Dave Arneson's notes along with the other papers from gamers from back in the day?
Unless you want to feel like you are part of a select few, it puts a limit on how effective you can be in teaching others about this style of play. Unless of course it was open content, in which case you would be free to use it 'as is' or in a different form.
Remember the point is not the writing, or the debates. The point is to play, to do something that fun, interesting, and challenging. I always assume that the goal of this community and its focus on the earliest editions and writings was to learn in order to run a better campaign. And I submit that without the ability to share, this community will be limited in it impact. That writing about something, is not the same reading the source material yourself, and above all trying it yourself.
Given that it not likely that much if any of the material this group at will be open content anytime soon. Then all that left is for us to share is how the things we learned worked out in our campaign. And if we start writing that down. Well It doesn't look too much different than what many are criticizing the clone authors for. Since it a practice of good writing to including examples of what you are talking about, now we are approaching writing adventures and settings.
In the 2010s it doesn't matter what the other person does for stuff like this. Freedom for them is freedom for you do what you think is best for the material in the manner you think best. And the more others are able to do what they want, just strengthens your ability to treat it how you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 7:46:44 GMT -5
The freedom to share what you created. The universal "truth" of the Old School Renaissance is the preceding sentence. Why are there so many clones? See the first sentance. Why are are there so many bad clone? Again see the first sentence. Why after year, Gronan found one clone that he consider liking? Again see the first sentence. Dungeons & Dragon is intellectual property. The right to make copies and derivative copies remains solely with the owner of the IP, currently Wizards of the Coast. It will remain with Wizards until the late 2020s after which it will become public domain and join the ranks of the Ilaid, Oddyessy, and the other great works of adventure and fantasy to be used as a foundation by a new generation for their own creative works. Except in something of a miracle, in the aftermath of the collapse of TSR, the principles behind Wizards of the Coast decided to release the guts of the latest edition as open content under the Open Game License. As it turns that, if trim away all the newer mechanics, what left of that edition is very close to the classic editions of D&D including the original 1974 release. By now some of you are going, so what? I know this already. This means you don't have to way into the late 2020's to do something creative with the D&D rules. You can do it now. But if you don't want to or don't have the time to, that OK too. But I bet it is nice knowing that you always have the option now that it's open content. The situation we see today is the result of the freedom afforded by the open content released for D&D. To critiicize this I think is hypocritical. Gamers today are doing the the same thing today as Dave, Gary, and the rest were doing in the early 70s. Instead of Hammer Horror, Harryhausen adventures, Oddyessy, Time Machine, Conan, and Lord of the Rings. Now Arneson, Gygax, Moldavy, and other get thrown into the mix. Using the foundation of their culture to build S*** that is fun for them to play. Maybe in the mid 80s things became too serious. But now in the late 2010s, open content, the internet, and inexpensive digital technology, means one person can say "F*** that S***" and actually be heard and seen by more than his immediate circle of friends. And if they are so inclined opt to demonstrate alternative within the time and budget one has to devote a hobby. Well, Gronan said he found a clone that he would buy. Freedom also comes with choice to do or not do. The OSR (even in your imagined view of what YOU yourself believe it is or what it should be) does not control anything let alone the aspect of Freedom; people of free will control their compunctions and at their convenience and according to their individual dispositions. Plus you are misquoting him (in fact you do not quote him at all); as well, you are using a strawman argument based on erroneous assumptions as noted above. I find the whole very strange if not also very propagandistic. If I have a push button, is when other witch about the creative work that others do. Not whether they it good or not, the fact that they are doing it at all. I saw a lot of that in this thread and addressed it. Lest anybody thinks I am picking on this group, I also criticize the other end of the spectrum who criticize groups like Murkhill, Knights and Knaves, and the OD&D discussion forum for their focus on the original material rather than "moving" forward. As for being propagandist darn straight I am on this issue and the issue of open content. I believe passionately that everybody should have the means of realizing their own vision based on what Arneson and Gygax created, including this group. This includes what you do as well. I may not agree with all of what you write, but I think it invaluable that you wrote and shared it. And look forward to more. |
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 17, 2018 8:21:00 GMT -5
Well, Gronan said he found a clone that he would buy. Freedom also comes with choice to do or not do. The OSR (even in your imagined view of what YOU yourself believe it is or what it should be) does not control anything let alone the aspect of Freedom; people of free will control their compunctions and at their convenience and according to their individual dispositions. Plus you are misquoting him (in fact you do not quote him at all); as well, you are using a strawman argument based on erroneous assumptions as noted above. I find the whole very strange if not also very propagandistic. If I have a push button, is when other witch about the creative work that others do. Not whether they it good or not, the fact that they are doing it at all. I saw a lot of that in this thread and addressed it. Lest anybody thinks I am picking on this group, I also criticize the other end of the spectrum who criticize groups like Murkhill, Knights and Knaves, and the OD&D discussion forum for their focus on the original material rather than "moving" forward. As for being propagandist darn straight I am on this issue and the issue of open content. I believe passionately that everybody should have the means of realizing their own vision based on what Arneson and Gygax created, including this group. This includes what you do as well. I may not agree with all of what you write, but I think it invaluable that you wrote and shared it. And look forward to more. There are no universal truths in open association other than what that means for any one person. It is an erroneous and false diatribe. If I create something, its use is dictated by me. I could sell it at auction, donate it to a museum, use it to light a fire, use it as a study, do nothing with it, use it as a dart board or to wipe my arse with. It is mine, get it? Some will share in your conception of the concept, but that of itself does not describe a universal condition resulting from freedom or through free association. It describes the contingent condition of freedom of choice. You should not be misquoting (or mis-summarizng) people to set up false premises and arguments, this stands as I sated above, and which you have not addressed as you appear to be hell bent on your own wild-eyed POV. No propaganda exists here. We logically argue the facts and reach conclusions, which through free association we either accept or reject or extend for consideration, so what you or me or others believe or not about this board is rather a useless POV to begin with, as free association is just that and describes itself without having to reference outside sources to do so; and thus requires no need to be defended by yourself or others. IOW we cannot be responsible for the opinions of others as free association allows for that in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 17, 2018 8:46:43 GMT -5
I haven't made a dent in the free stuff yet. Denting some of them is the mostest fun part! Have an Exalt my young friend. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 17, 2018 8:49:36 GMT -5
Werl, the truth is that convenience sells; it sells big time. McDonalds' dosen't make more money then any other restaurant in the world because of food quality. So I wonder if the market will ever change. Quite true. Nope. But of course there a quality restaurants, and I'm pretty sure there are even restaurants where you pay for the privilege of having them help you cook your food. Frank Also quite true. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 17, 2018 9:11:12 GMT -5
Dungeons & Dragon is intellectual property. The right to make copies and derivative copies remains solely with the owner of the IP, currently Wizards of the Coast. It will remain with Wizards until the late 2020s after which it will become public domain and join the ranks of the Ilaid, Oddyessy, and the other great works of adventure and fantasy to be used as a foundation by a new generation for their own creative works. Minor quibble, the copyright on the original D&D will expire in 2069, but that is only if Disney is not successful in getting the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended again, which is about as certain as death and taxes. To critiicize this I think is hypocritical. Gamers today are doing the the same thing today as Dave, Gary, and the rest were doing in the early 70s. Instead of Hammer Horror, Harryhausen adventures, Oddyessy, Time Machine, Conan, and Lord of the Rings. Now Arneson, Gygax, Moldavy, and other get thrown into the mix. Using the foundation of their culture to build **** that is fun for them to play. So to criticize anything, even in the very mild terms in this thread, is hypocritical robertsconley ? I beg to differ, the desire to promote OD&D and open gaming ahead of the clones is not hypocritical and as many have noted they found out about OD&D because of the clones, so no one here is anti-clone, I don't see anyone including robkuntz as being anti-clone. I do see that many of us including robkuntz do not support the TSR/WotC corporate model of telling new customers and existing customers that creating your own stuff is so difficult, it should be left to experts and here buy this model and don't deviate from it. Instead of telling people anyone can create their own adventures and here are optional resources that can help you get started and advice on how to avoid the railroad mentality and how to let a campaign grow organically and evolve in directions no one could have foreseen. You have your own products and people like them, that is quite cool. I haven't seen any of your stuff yet so I don't know what the level of quality is first hand. Create your own stuff and share it either free or for a reasonable price (not here to debate what reasonable is) is what many of us encourage everyone to do. But calling us anti-clone and to claim that we are complaining about other people creating stuff is just not true and is not going to fly with me. Remember the point is not the writing, or the debates. The point is to play, to do something that fun, interesting, and challenging. I always assume that the goal of this community and its focus on the earliest editions and writings was to learn in order to run a better campaign. And I submit that without the ability to share, this community will be limited in it impact. That writing about something, is not the same reading the source material yourself, and above all trying it yourself. Given that it not likely that much if any of the material this group at will be open content anytime soon. Then all that left is for us to share is how the things we learned worked out in our campaign. And if we start writing that down. Well It doesn't look too much different than what many are criticizing the clone authors for. Since it a practice of good writing to including examples of what you are talking about, now we are approaching writing adventures and settings. Here I thought the goal of the community and its focus on OD&D was to learn how to run your own campaign. I am not trying to measure something and say I run a better campaign than someone else, I am just trying to run my own campaign. It is not about having a better campaign, whatever that means, than someone else. I find it odd that you say that nothing we do or create will be open content anytime soon, we are free to release our own stuff anyway we want as open content or with full copyright protection, our choice. Who is criticizing the clone authors for publishing, no one in this thread and it is disingenuous to say the least that you are accusing us of that. Why are you trying to close the conversation instead of keeping it open? |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 9:29:59 GMT -5
You should not be misquoting (or mis-summarizng) people to set up false premises and arguments, this stands as I sated above, and which you have not addressed as you appear to be hell bent on your own wild-eyed POV. No propaganda exists here. Fact: Gronan bought a retro-clone called Crypts & Creatures. Fact: Gronan has stated numerous times that he is perfectly happy with OD&D when somebody ask have you bought X clone. My Observation: This doesn't surprise me given the diversity of the OSR as enabled by the use of open content. With hundreds of authors each presuing their own creative visions somebody was bound to produce something that would met with Gronan's approval. This goes for you and anybody else in this board. It not a question whether is going to happen, given time it will happen. My original post is a longer version of the above. I don't see how I mischaracterized what Gronan said. What I advocate is for people to pursue their take on what Arneson and Gygax did. Diversity is a good thing in creative fields as it give more for everybody to work from in their own work. I referred to Gronan comments because that a classic example of how diversity in creativity works. Eventually somebody is found who is on the same wavelength and you find a work you enjoy whether it a painting, song, or something for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 17, 2018 9:40:05 GMT -5
You should not be misquoting (or mis-summarizng) people to set up false premises and arguments, this stands as I sated above, and which you have not addressed as you appear to be hell bent on your own wild-eyed POV. No propaganda exists here. Fact: Gronan bought a retro-clone called Crypts & Creatures. Fact: Gronan has stated numerous times that he is perfectly happy with OD&D when somebody ask have you bought X clone. My Observation: This doesn't surprise me given the diversity of the OSR as enabled by the use of open content. With hundreds of authors each presuing their own creative visions somebody was bound to produce something that would met with Gronan's approval. This goes for you and anybody else in this board. It not a question whether is going to happen, given time it will happen. My original post is a longer version of the above. I don't see how I mischaracterized what Gronan said. What I advocate is for people to pursue their take on what Arneson and Gygax did. Diversity is a good thing in creative fields as it give more for everybody to work from in their own work. I referred to Gronan comments because that a classic example of how diversity in creativity works. Eventually somebody is found who is on the same wavelength and you find a work you enjoy whether it a painting, song, or something for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. @gronanofsimmerya can correct me if i am wrong. He said the following with me adding emphais I bought my first "clone" at GaryCon this year. It's called "Crypts & Creatures." The reason I bought it is it's complete in 36 pages. The author said "I'm tired of gigantic volumes of rules. We don't need that. All we need are some basic guidelines and then make the rest up. So I wrote a set of rules to do that and sell it for five bucks."
I haven't read the rules yet, but dang, I like this guy's style.
So he bought it because of the length and because of the author quote. He likes the guy's style. But he has not read the rules yet, so neither he nor we know if he likes it yet, we only know he is predisposed to like the author based on what he does know. I hope he reads the rules and then tells us what he thinks of the rules. Bottom line, we don't know if he likes the game or not, but we hope to find out. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 10:03:17 GMT -5
Minor quibble, the copyright on the original D&D will expire in 2069, but that is only if Disney is not successful in getting the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended again, which is about as certain as death and taxes. There are two ways of determining the length of a copyright on a work. One of which is author life+ X years. So yeah it could be that long depending how things go down. I beg to differ, the desire to promote OD&D and open gaming ahead of the clones is not hypocritical and as many have noted they found out about OD&D because of the clones, so no one here is anti-clone, I don't see anyone including robkuntz as being anti-clone. To be clear I realize that many here have different attitudes towards the clone. People here have supported my own work, offered useful suggestions and I appreciate that. I do see that many of us including robkuntz do not support the TSR/WotC corporate model of telling new customers and existing customers that creating your own stuff is so difficult, it should be left to experts and here buy this model and don't deviate from it. Instead of telling people anyone can create their own adventures and here are optional resources that can help you get started and advice on how to avoid the railroad mentality and how to let a campaign grow organically and evolve in directions no one could have foreseen.? How is my position not supporting the above? On my blog and in forum posts, I explain how one can take an idea, use digital technology, and share it with other in multiple forms. The exact form being whatever your interest, time, and resource allow for. The result may be a blog post, a text file, a CD, a PDF, or a formally published work. I also explain several time how one can take the available open content and realize their own particular vision of the classic D&D rules or even earlier in some cases. I been doing this for a decade and a half now. I am not telling you to submit stuff to Wizards and hope for somebody to notice it. I am saying that right now anybody here with an idea for classic D&D (or earlier) and the time can within a few weeks have their work in a form that other people will find useful. You can share on a blog, you can spend a little money (sub $100) for some stock art and make it a formal publication. Or just leave it as a text file. Whatever you have the time and interest for. And the tone and the content of that work can express exactly what you said above. You have your own products and people like them, that is quite cool. I haven't seen any of your stuff yet so I don't know what the level of quality is first hand. Create your own stuff and share it either free or for a reasonable price (not here to debate what reasonable is) is what many of us encourage everyone to do. PM me and I will comp you some copies. All I ask you post what you think of them. Typically authors ask for a review but that too formal. All I ask is to write whatever you think even even it just one sentence "It's sucks" But calling us anti-clone and to claim that we are complaining about other people creating stuff is just not true and is not going to fly with me. I get the nuance of the criticism here. I said above I realize there are many attitudes here towards the clones and the OSR in general. But honestly are you telling me that you are NOT lumping in Sine Nominae, Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Frog God Games in with Wizard. I picked those three because the principles behind all three (Kevin Crawford, James Raggi, Bill Webb, and Matt Finch) have put in the time and figured how to take their love of classic D&D and turn into a formal publishing company. Some make, like James Raggi, their living from it. The lesson to be drawn from the above for this group at Murkhill is not that everybody here should be producing the kind of works they produce. But rather the tools they used to do what they do is available for everybody here as well. And much of it can be effectively used within one's time and resources that is devoted to a hobby. I find it odd that you say that nothing we do or create will be open content anytime soon, we are free to release our own stuff anyway we want as open content or with full copyright protection, our choice. Who is criticizing the clone authors for publishing, no one in this thread and it is disingenuous to say the least that you are accusing us of that. Why are you trying to close the conversation instead of keeping it open? I reread that and I messed it up. What I meant to say was none of the pre-publication material (like the Dalluhn manuscript to use as an example) will be open content. I apologize for the misunderstanding. My only excuse that I have on constant alert for messed up grammer, dropped words, etc due to issues arising from my deafness. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Mar 17, 2018 10:10:44 GMT -5
Fact: Gronan bought a retro-clone called Crypts & Creatures. Fact: Gronan has stated numerous times that he is perfectly happy with OD&D when somebody ask have you bought X clone. My Observation: This doesn't surprise me given the diversity of the OSR as enabled by the use of open content. With hundreds of authors each presuing their own creative visions somebody was bound to produce something that would met with Gronan's approval. This goes for you and anybody else in this board. It not a question whether is going to happen, given time it will happen. My original post is a longer version of the above. I don't see how I mischaracterized what Gronan said. What I advocate is for people to pursue their take on what Arneson and Gygax did. Diversity is a good thing in creative fields as it give more for everybody to work from in their own work. I referred to Gronan comments because that a classic example of how diversity in creativity works. Eventually somebody is found who is on the same wavelength and you find a work you enjoy whether it a painting, song, or something for a tabletop roleplaying campaign. @gronanofsimmerya can correct me if i am wrong. He said the following with me adding emphais I bought my first "clone" at GaryCon this year. It's called "Crypts & Creatures." The reason I bought it is it's complete in 36 pages. The author said "I'm tired of gigantic volumes of rules. We don't need that. All we need are some basic guidelines and then make the rest up. So I wrote a set of rules to do that and sell it for five bucks."
I haven't read the rules yet, but dang, I like this guy's style.
So he bought it because of the length and because of the author quote. He likes the guy's style. But he has not read the rules yet, so neither he nor we know if he likes it yet, we only know he is predisposed to like the author based on what he does know. I hope he reads the rules and then tells us what he thinks of the rules. Bottom line, we don't know if he likes the game or not, but we hope to find out. Even if he winds up hating it after reading, it a miracle that he used his money to buy a clone. He posts all the time over theRPGsite so the question whether he bought any OSR stuff comes up. In general it has been negative for years. My point has nothing to do with whether he likes it or not. That after years of not being interested that one author finally made something that part of this OSR thing that he was willing to even buy. If he winds up liking it even better especially for that author. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 11:27:22 GMT -5
Just popping in for a quick look around. Robert raises some good points and, to extrapolate, I’d say S&W, LotFP, Majestic Wilderlands, and a few others have acquired their own identity apart from being an emulation of an existing set of rules. This can make blanket statements about D&D clones misleading for others.
Robert worked with the BHP team to provide MJ as a supplement and then, as now, I was impressed by that work. If you, gentle readers, haven’t read it I encourage you to check it out.
Clones have a purpose and ... by gosh? They’re just fun to produce. Even if it’s just to use at your own table. I think it’s wonderful so many gamers still love those rules after all tI thih I think rose years, to poor their time, effort, and money into “making it their own.” No matter, in the final reflection, how different that vision may be.
Thank you for the reminder, Robert.
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Mar 17, 2018 11:52:25 GMT -5
Just popping in for a quick look around. Robert raises some good points and, to extrapolate, I’d say S&W, LotFP, Majestic Wilderlands, and a few others have acquired their own identity apart from being an emulation of an existing set of rules. This can make blanket statements about D&D clones misleading for others. Robert worked with the BHP team to provide MJ as a supplement and then, as now, I was impressed by that work. If you, gentle readers, haven’t read it I encourage you to check it out. Clones have a purpose and ... by gosh? They’re just fun to produce. Even if it’s just to use at your own table. I think it’s wonderful so many gamers still love those rules after all tI thih I think rose years, to poor their time, effort, and money into “making it their own.” No matter, in the final reflection, how different that vision may be. Thank you for the reminder, Robert. No one has challenged that POV here upon the pros (or cons) of clones. It is Mr Conley who has berated Gronan for his POV off of this board (as well as to use that to criticize him for buying a clone through free choice). It genuinely appears that Mr. C. has an axe to grind in doing that. He mis-summarized Gronan's quote in order to do that and I have heard no comment from any corner upon that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 12:09:28 GMT -5
He mis-summarized Gronan's quote in order to do that and I have heard no comment from any corner upon that. Fair enough, and worthy of addressing here. Please, let’s be careful not to misrepresent or make blanket statements about others to make a point. This can lead to discussions getting out of hand rather quickly, as may be seen here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2018 12:31:46 GMT -5
I bought "Crypts & Creatures" because it was 36 pages and cost $5, and because the author said he's tired of huge tomes of rules.
I read it last night. It's 3.5E/Pathfinder boiled down. It does what it does well, but I will never run it myself.
On the other hand I've been asked to collaborate on their strongholds and castle book, and on their mass combat book.
EDIT: GaryCon is the ONLY place I buy anything. I buy stuff from the smallest of dealers. This guy's sales pitch of "complete in 36 pages for five bucks" intrigued me. I wanted to see what he did and how he did it. If more clone authors made small cheap stuff I might buy more. Or maybe not. Fail Squad Games made a six pack of one page adventures for $15, and they're delightful, not least because at least three of them were things I looked at and thought "give me an hour and I can get two month's gaming off these ideas, and give me a weekend and I can run an entire campaign from this".
|
|
But this is a serious question. I have never used a pre-made adventure and I prefer things that are just a collection of unconnected ideas.
