# Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?



## tx7321 (Nov 28, 2006)

C&C, PPP, GG, OSRIC (about 5 publishers from my count) are putting out or promising to put out a good amount of 1E compatable material in the very near future.  The pace of OSRIC products alone is remarkable.  Yet, given the sales numbers (under 500) for each product, it seems a "revival" is still a long way off (if at all).  

True, you have to start someplace, but do these sales numbers suggest a revival of 1E is under way, or are these a few old-time players from the late 70s who are getting nastalgic.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 28, 2006)

old timer from the 70's here.

i'm not really interested in that new fangled edition.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


----------



## Ian the Mad (Nov 28, 2006)

I wouldn't say that nostalgia and a revival are mutually exclusive terms.  My personal criteria for reviving a game system (economically, at least) would be enough people buying the new stuff to keep the authors making new stuff.  If nostalgia accomplishes this, then so be it.


----------



## Henry (Nov 28, 2006)

A little bit of both, actually. I've known several individuals who have "evangelized" AD&D to new gamers, and there is a small movement of people who enjoy it. For the most part, I imagine the sales of such material is mostly to those who still use AD&D in their weekly gaming, and in all likelihood, these are people that never stopped using it.

I hope it does prosper, at least to the point of being a self-sustaining niche, because I do feel the need in general for a D&D that isn't as codified as 3E as an alternative.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 28, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> ... because I do feel the need in general for a D&D that isn't as codified as 3E as an alternative.





just like Crothian i'll get you to convert one of these days.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 28, 2006)

There is enough cash in the 1E market to float a few companies. Not enough for a companie that has the bottom line as their driving goal, but maybe that is for the best.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> I hope it does prosper, at least to the point of being a self-sustaining niche, because I do feel the need in general for a D&D that isn't as codified as 3E as an alternative.



Same here.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 28, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> C&C, PPP, GG, OSRIC




Castles and Crusades, Pied Piper Publishing, and OSRIC I recognize. What is GG?


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 28, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> or are these a few old-time players from the late 70s who are getting nastalgic.




That one.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 28, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> True, you have to start someplace, but do these sales numbers suggest a revival of 1E is under way, or are these a few old-time players from the late 70s who are getting nastalgic.




I don't know about revival, but I think it just shows there is a decent number of players who get by fine with older editions, don't care about new books with shiny art, and will purchase materials that fit their style.  Hell my group is currently playing The Fantasy Trip while on hiatus from my C&C game and apparently there is still new material being made for it. So there is a market for old school gaming.   However IME most players of older editions are fine with the stuff they have and aren't really searching for new materials unless they happen to run across them.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 28, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Castles and Crusades, Pied Piper Publishing, and OSRIC I recognize. What is GG?



Goodman Games.


----------



## Voadam (Nov 28, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Goodman Games.




But they publish C&C modules. Or do they have another 1e type system I'm not thinking of?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 28, 2006)

I don't know if this is a "revival" so much as it is a "publishers recognizing that there's an untapped market".  Meaning that I don't expect this is going to create many new players, but will merely be serving the players who already exist.  A growth in the number of available products does not imply a growth in the number of gamers playing under the system.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 28, 2006)

Voadam said:
			
		

> But they publish C&C modules. Or do they have another 1e type system I'm not thinking of?




They've published at least one 1st edition module (a conversion of a 3.5 edition one).


----------



## diaglo (Nov 28, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't know about revival, but I think it just shows there is a decent number of players who get by fine with older editions, don't care about new books with shiny art, and will purchase materials that fit their style.  Hell my group is currently playing The Fantasy Trip while on hiatus from my C&C game and apparently there is still new material being made for it. So there is a market for old school gaming.   However IME most players of older editions are fine with the stuff they have and aren't really searching for new materials unless they happen to run across them.




i gotta say i've been buggin TSR/WotC/Hasbeen since 1979 to produce OD&D(1974) material.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i gotta say i've been buggin TSR/WotC/Hasbeen since 1979 to produce OD&D(1974) material.




They'd just mess it up.  It's perfect as is.


----------



## Aeson (Nov 28, 2006)

Do you think there will be new 2nd ed. stuff? I started playing with 2nd and have fond memories of the games but, then again it is the time I spent with my friends rather than the game itself I think.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 28, 2006)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> They've published at least one 1st edition module (a conversion of a 3.5 edition one).



Which one?

I'd love to see a 1e conversion of Forge of Fury...or the Rappan Athuk series.

Lanefan


----------



## T. Foster (Nov 28, 2006)

I think that right now the market for 1E-compatible products is mostly, if not entirely, made up of the existing 1E fanbase who have been starved for new product for so long that they'll jump at anything (and I suspect that a large proportion -- even larger than the already large proportion in rpg fans as a whole -- are buying these products to read or collect rather than to actually play -- even if you haven't played the game in 20 years and are never likely to play it again, a new "AD&D" module by Robert Kuntz that looks exactly like something TSR might've published in 1982 is a tempting purchase). 

My _hope_ is that as more products are released and buzz continues to build that some new fans might be drawn in who will look upon these games/products not merely as a nostalgia-trip but as an actual alternative approach, both rules-wise and aesthetics-wise, and that the two can eventually co-exist. But I don't think that's happened yet.


----------



## T. Foster (Nov 28, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Which one?
> 
> I'd love to see a 1e conversion of Forge of Fury...or the Rappan Athuk series.
> 
> Lanefan



 Goodman Games released a limited-edition "1E" conversion of DCC #12.5: Iron Crypt of the Heretics at GenCon Indy. They later did a second printing that was available directly from their website. I'm not sure if copies of the latter are still available or not.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 28, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Goodman Games released a limited-edition "1E" conversion of DCC #12.5: Iron Crypt of the Heretics at GenCon Indy. They later did a second printing that was available directly from their website. I'm not sure if copies of the latter are still available or not.



they had to do a second printing. heck, Joseph Goodman didn't even get a copy if rumor is true.

a bunch of people bought 20 or 30 copies at Gen Con of it to sell on ebay.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> a bunch of people bought 20 or 30 copies at Gen Con of it to sell on ebay.




There is a Buy It Now for 145, and a regualr auction for a buck


----------



## tx7321 (Nov 28, 2006)

Diaglow wrote: OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.  I find AD&D 1E an improvement in its complexity.


Yeah, I also think the majority of sales from these indys are late 30-50 somethings, not younger 3E players getting interested in a simpler more freewheeling system.  Too bad...and I hope that changes.  I don't like the way WOTC/HASBRO is going.  There has been a fair amount of chatter amongst the 3E players about wanting to learn more about 1E since OSRIC gained in popularity.  Also, I personally know 3 individuals that switched from 3E to 1E in the last 3 months...if that means anything (they have purchased from PPP and ER as well as TLG).  


You know, I wonder if these companies (ER, TLG, PPP, OSRIC) have any way of keeping track of who is buying or downloading there products.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 28, 2006)

The revival's here to stay.

OSRIC is an Open Game product and I couldn't revoke it even if I wanted to -- so there's a 1e-compatible ruleset that won't be going away.  And any publisher can use it.

There are people who've been playing their 1e homebrew in their little silos for upwards of twenty years, and a lot of them have publishable material that they've written during that time.  So there's a glut of stuff to publish and there's also a glut of 3/3.5e conversions to be made -- most of the OSRIC releases so far have been stuff that people wrote last century and just had floating around.    There's a deep well of material to be dipped into there.

So the only question that remains is how many people will keep buying the products.  I think that's down to whether they feel they've had value for money, so it's really up to the publishers to keep delivering.

For the record, I will just say that I think OSRIC products so far have been very good value.  My personal favourite -- aside from my collaborator Matt Finch's excellent _Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom_, of course -- is James Boney's _Red Mausoleum_.


----------



## Dykstrav (Nov 28, 2006)

I'd love to get my hands on some 1E stuff.

I started playing D&D when I was about eight years old, back in the good ol' 1E days. My parents wouldn't buy me any of the material so I just had to check it out from the library every weekend I wanted to have a game. 

It wasn't until about 1993 (when I was 15) that I was actually able get a job and start buying gaming material. I spent most of the rest of high school assembling my 1E collection. Fortunately for me, alot of people wanted to clean out their attics when I put the word out that I was looking for old gaming stuff.

These days, I have a sizable 1E and 2E collection. The older material is GREAT, it just has a much more epic, legendary feel to it than the 3E material. I like the 3E rules set but I still tend to bring 1E or 2E material into 3E rather than play 3E-specific stuff. My next campaign is going to be based around Pommeville (from _Cleric's Challenge_) and include the "first adventure" with Castle Mistamere included in the D&D basic set in 1983.

I loved _Rappan Athuk_ and the _Dungeon Crawl Classics_ series. When I see flashy art, it makes me think that they may be trying to distract you from sub-par content. Like the old NES system, the games had to be fun to play, you couldn't rely on graphics to try to get players in. I really grew up on 2E and 3E but I'd buy all kinds of new 1E adventures.


----------



## RFisher (Nov 28, 2006)

Ian the Mad said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that nostalgia and a revival are mutually exclusive terms.  My personal criteria for reviving a game system (economically, at least) would be enough people buying the new stuff to keep the authors making new stuff.  If nostalgia accomplishes this, then so be it.




That's the thing to me. I've already got enough role-playing material to probably last me the rest of my life. Sure, I still buy things, & I'm quite happy to see the Osric-based products, but I don't see my hobby as something that _needs_ an industry behind it.

(Heck, the most interesting new material to me these days tend to be free. e.g. at the moment: Dungeon Squad, Pace, Wushu.)

The revival I'm looking for is kids--not just old nostalgic geezers like me--discovering the fun of the classic games.



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> They'd just mess it up.  It's perfect as is.




Exactly!


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Nov 28, 2006)

I'm happy to see a 1stEd revival.  Personally, I fervently dislike the system; but that's just my preference.  There's a pretty decent untapped market out there for such things, and it's good to see that Third Party types are taking the bait.  I love the work that Goodman Games and the Castles & Crusades kids have done.  Bravo.

[edition tomfoolery] That being said, I've played all the editions from OD&D to 3.68345E; and I've gotta say, I like the new stuff more.  It's like Zelda II vs Zelda: Twilight Princess; just because it was around first doesn't mean I'll like it better. Of course, YMMV. [/edition tomfoolery]

-TRRW


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Nov 28, 2006)

I took eight copies of Castles and Crusades and twelve copies of Lejendary Adventures and some modules/campaign setting books for Troll Lords to a military base that only gets 3.5 DnD, last Saturday.  It garnered enough interest that I was left 3 Lejendary Adventure copies, and one C and C set (the two rulebooks) remaining.  I heard a lot of grumbling from buyers that they wanted an alternative to the painstaking time DnD 3.5 takes to play.  

I advertised C and C as 2nd edition DnD imagined by Gary Gygax and a team underneath him.  I would say that the interest was surprisingly high once the gamers heard I was there.  And generally, people really liked the artwork.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 28, 2006)

I see no AD&D revival.

I see a few nods to that game engine but that is all.


----------



## greywulf (Nov 28, 2006)

I think it's a response to the "too many rules" syndrome. All those "Complete...." books, etc have made us hit saturation point.

So, we're looking for something smaller. Simpler. Less complex. We want rules that don't get in the way of the role-playing and put the fun back into the game.

That why I made Microlite20, anyway, and I'm sure that the folks behind C&C. Quick20 and all the rest feel the same.

And the music was better in the '70s


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 28, 2006)

I know of at least two gaming groups that were active until a few years ago that never stopped playing AD&D 1e.... in fact, my informal experience from talking with bearded gaming store guys is that people over a certain age definitely tend to stick with AD&D rather than embracing D&D 3e, HARP, and the like.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 28, 2006)

D&D 3.5 is the only true game.  All other editions were just half finished beta versions.


Wow, that's fun, isn't it? 


That being said, I wouldn't mind playing a game of 1E every now and then.  But not on an ongoing basis.  

I've still got all my books.  I read my 1E DMG just for fun every once in a while.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 28, 2006)

I'm glad to see this interest in old school gaming.  There's definitely a market for it, and a lot of ways that companies tap into that market.

I like the revival of old school gaming modules.  In particular, I like the Dungeon Crawl Classics.  Old school art combined with fun adventures is good.  I'd like to implement _The Transmuter's Last Touch_ into the Dragonlance Age of Mortals campaign.  That one looks fun.

Necromancer Games' motto is "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel."  It is a reputation well earned.  I've enjoyed their _Tome of Horrors_ and _Eldritch Sorcery_ books especially.

Troll Lord Games have impressed me with _Castles & Crusades_.  I love the rules.  Very simple, very elegant, and you can add any number of subsystems to it.  It is designed for any number of house rules, and yet works nicely on its own.  It feels old school, but uses some of the better parts of new school.  Plus, Castle Zagyg is a real treat.  The Trolls are really nice guys, too.  

And kudos to all the other efforts out there too, such as OSRIC.  

Though we all share a love of gaming, we are all different in our tastes.  It is good to see that there are options out there for all different types of gaming.


----------



## tx7321 (Nov 28, 2006)

So, I wonder how to push this wagon up the hill to the top so it can role on down the other side.      Seriously, how do you get New Schoolers to even try AD&D (even though everyone has a copy of OSRIC by now, few really read it or run it). 

What about some kind of AD&D 1E online game competition, maybe use online DMs who worked GENCON back in the day, use the same modules (maybe slightly shorter) rules (timed play etc.).  Like an OSRIC online GENCON.   Or is this just insane? 

You could host it at Knights and Knaves, or here.  Maybe sell stuff that relates to AD&D, have guest speakers.  I bet some of the new publishers would put up prizes (ER could put up Pods, Kuntz something he autographs   .


----------



## CRGreathouse (Nov 28, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> old timer from the 70's here.
> 
> i'm not really interested in that new fangled edition.
> 
> OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.




diaglo, while I like the current editions (3.0/3.5), I'd like to get to know more about the original game (1974 boxed set, not 1E). I'm trying to find a copy of the game -- is there anywhere better than eBay to get it?  (I'm bidding on a boxed set now, but I have not particular reason to think I'll win.)

Edit: This is a bit off-topic, I suppose.  You can email me (via my profile) if you'd like.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 28, 2006)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> diaglo, while I like the current editions (3.0/3.5), I'd like to get to know more about the original game (1974 boxed set, not 1E). I'm trying to find a copy of the game -- is there anywhere better than eBay to get it?  (I'm bidding on a boxed set now, but I have not particular reason to think I'll win.)




You might get lucky at places like Noble Knight, but I do think e-bay is the place to find them.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 29, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You might get lucky at places like Noble Knight, but I do think e-bay is the place to find them.




hitpointe, noble knight, crazy igors, and the like have them.

but your best bet if you just have patience is ebay or other auction sites.

i've purchased them for as little as $45. mostly they run for about $100-120.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 29, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> hitpointe, noble knight, crazy igors, and the like have them.
> 
> but your best bet if you just have patience is ebay or other auction sites.
> 
> i've purchased them for as little as $45. mostly they run for about $100-120.




Is it available to buy in .pdf form?


----------



## T. Foster (Nov 29, 2006)

Not legally (though, oddly enough, all of the supplements are).


----------



## Garnfellow (Nov 29, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> hitpointe, noble knight, crazy igors, and the like have them.




Crazy Igors? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a while. Is he still doing business?


----------



## grodog (Nov 29, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> So, I wonder how to push this wagon up the hill to the top so it can role on down the other side.      Seriously, how do you get New Schoolers to even try AD&D (even though everyone has a copy of OSRIC by now, few really read it or run it).
> 
> What about some kind of AD&D 1E online game competition, maybe use online DMs who worked GENCON back in the day, use the same modules (maybe slightly shorter) rules (timed play etc.).  Like an OSRIC online GENCON.   Or is this just insane?




Or, go one better:  do the online con, sure, but run AD&D events at your local and national conventions.  Jon Hershberger, who did the 3.x-->AD&D conversion of Iron Crypt of the Heretics for Goodman Games, ran four slots of the event at GenCon last year, and had to turn away players (IIRC).


----------



## grodog (Nov 29, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Crazy Igors? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a while. Is he still doing business?




Yes, on eBay mostly, though Crazy Egor's website has been offline for some time IIRC.


----------



## Xyanthon (Nov 29, 2006)

Well, I'm glad that there is new 1e stuff being made again.  I like pretty much all of the editions but 1e AD&D is my favorite.  I think that there is nothing nostalgic about it for me.  The later editions just have a different way they present fantasy.  Much like how there is a different feel within the fantasy fiction genre (i.e. Michael Moorcock is very different from Tolkien which is very different from China Meiville which is different from Neil Gaiman which is different from George RR Martin.....)  I like them all, there is just some that I prefer more than others.  So 1e just feels more like what I prefer when I want a fantasy game.  C&C Goodman Games, Necromancer are all cool, but they still don't quite capture the feel of the older edition to my satisfaction.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 29, 2006)

To me, 1e will always score the 'bizarre' point. Actually, it heads the lineup for that debatable honour. And I've seen some pretty wacky RPGs - most of them though, were just _trying_ to be wacky. Or worse.

But that byzantine quality is actually something I like about 1st ed: the rambling text, the sprawling rules base, the occasional random bouts of sheer inconsistency. Hm, and the quirky artwork, alternating between truly atmospheric and mind-bogglingly daft.

I'll always have a soft spot for it, even if I never end up playing it again. Enough good memories will stay with me, either way.

OD&D, I've read. Blech. Didn't appeal. RC D&D (BECMI) though, I'm fond of too.

Back firmly on topic, I haven't seen this "revival" in the world outside of the internet. Of course, it might well be happening in other places - that's a given. But yeah, I in fact know a number of oldskoolers who've fairly recently turned to that which they despised only a year or 6 ago - 3e. That, or other d20 things. I've seen more movement in that direction than in any other, and none in the opposite direction at all. Meh, I dunno. Beats me.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 29, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i gotta say i've been buggin TSR/WotC/Hasbeen since 1979 to produce OD&D(1974) material.




Diaglo, why don't you do it yourself?  I'd be interested if you made a pdf supplement.  The existence of Osric shows how it is possible without getting sued.  Or you can just stay "rules absent" and do something that works with many versions of rules.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Nov 29, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> The existence of Osric shows how it is possible without getting sued.




I know several people in the business who are staying away from Osric because of legal issues -- essentially, they're waiting to see how WotC/Hasbro reacts and/or how much they sue for.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 29, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> But that byzantine quality is actually something I like about 1st ed: the rambling text, the sprawling rules base, the occasional random bouts of sheer inconsistency. Hm, and the quirky artwork, alternating between truly atmospheric and mind-bogglingly daft...OD&D, I've read. Blech. Didn't appeal. RC D&D (BECMI) though, I'm fond of too.



Much as you indicate, I find that much of the appeal of 1E is in its presentation and feel, for me.  As far as rules go, I prefer B/X, BECMI, or OD&D.  OD&D is a curious beast.  The rulebooks, themselves, are underwhelming; the appeal of OD&D is the ability to fashion the game into anything (and exactly) what you want.  If I were to run OD&D, today, I'd probably end up using B/X encounter/combat rules, allow separate races/classes (like AD&D), and generally treat it is as "D&D cafeteria" where I take what I like, and leave the rest.  (Actually, that sounds a lot like my current C&C game...)



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Back firmly on topic, I haven't seen this "revival" in the world outside of the internet.



Probably, the market is small enough that the Internet is mainly where it would manifest.  I know I order pretty much all of my "old-school" products direct from the source, over the Internet.  My FLGS doesn't stock much RPG material, and what they do stock is mostly 3E D&D.  (I do, however, spend quite a bit on board games, there -- I'm sure they're always happy to see me walk in.)

I'm not much of an evangelist, though.  I converted my main group from 3E to C&C, and have been introducing C&C and BECMI to my son and nephew.  I also started a second C&C game with a different group.  (They were mostly playing RoleMaster, before.)  That's it, though.  My FLGS has asked me to come run some RPGs that "aren't 3E," but it's difficult for me to do that, since my wife plays, too, and we have four children.  We'd have to find a sitter, and if we're going to do that, she'd probably rather go to the ballet, or dancing, or something.  Although, come to think of it, I haven't asked her -- that's worth a shot.  (Whew, going off on quite a tangent, there...)  

As for the possibility of moving back to 3E: I doubt I'll ever make 3E my main game, again, but I won't rule out one-shots or maybe something longer, someday.  I'm not a member of the "one system to rule them all" crowd.  I prefer old-school systems and style, but I think 3E has its own set of charms.  If I ever run anything big in 3E, again, it will probably be Ptolus, which strikes me as "quintessential 3E."


----------



## grodog (Nov 29, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Diaglo, why don't you do it yourself?  I'd be interested if you made a pdf supplement.




I'd be interested in some of diaglo's work!


----------



## Gundark (Nov 29, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.




In all seriousness how do you keep getting away with such statements? I thought "edition wars" was a no-no. I've have had my hand slapped by a mod for an "edition wars"  comment the mod thought I was making. Funny thing was I wasn't even making an edition wars comment (and IMHO I thought the mod was taking a big stretch with the interpretation ). I guess I felt that it was pretty unfair. Maybe I caught him/her on a bad day (I don't even remember who it was now).

okay rant over


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2006)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I know several people in the business who are staying away from Osric because of legal issues -- essentially, they're waiting to see how WotC/Hasbro reacts and/or how much they sue for.




How would they know how WotC/Hasbro reacted?  Are these people expecting me to post my private correspondence on a public forum or something?

Suffice it to say that WotC have reacted, and OSRIC remains available.


----------



## tx7321 (Nov 29, 2006)

Originally Posted by Aus_Snow
Back firmly on topic, I haven't seen this "revival" in the world outside of the internet.

There are alot of people who don't mess with geek forums though, that just play at home and hit places like ebay.   Of the 50 or so D&D players I know (about 2/3 3E, 1/3 AD&D) only 2 post online and maybe 3 more regularly lurk Enworld, DF etc.  The other 45 could have a revival and we wouldn't know about it here.  WOTC says there are 5 million active D&D/OOP D&D players out there, and this site and others have only a few 1000 posters and lurkers.  So, there could be a "revival" out there, and we wouldn't know about it.
Its like poker.  I play it once a month with a group of friends...have for years, but none of us (to my knowledge) has ever visited a poker forum.

EDITED-  Moved Con to con discussion.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Sometimes It takes bricks and mortor activity to revive or launch something.  But who'd organize that (as Grodog was suggesting).  An online Con could be advertised with flyers at gaming stores nationwide.  This would help online vendors as well as the host forum.
> 
> I could see this being profitable for PPP, ER, GG, and the other small Indys supporting OSRIC and 1E.  Would anyone volunteer to organize something like this (Papers and Paychecks, Grodog maybe)?




I'm afraid I lack the technical skills to organise an online con, sorry.  I'd very happily participate in one.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 29, 2006)

grodog said:
			
		

> Garnfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




and if my mind wasn't playing tricks on me he was at Gen Con Indy this year too.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 29, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Diaglo, why don't you do it yourself?  I'd be interested if you made a pdf supplement.  The existence of Osric shows how it is possible without getting sued.  Or you can just stay "rules absent" and do something that works with many versions of rules.




i submitted my version of it for the WotC setting search.   

i don't think they took me seriously.


----------



## Ant (Nov 29, 2006)

greywulf said:
			
		

> We want rules that don't get in the way of the role-playing and put the fun back into the game.



I've never really understood this statement.  

About an hour ago I finished playing in a D&D 3.5 game.  We used the 3.5 rules extensively -- we referenced the players handbook, we had variant classes, used attacks of opportunity, used combat modifiers, cast spells, used magic items, had an animal companion, did grappling, took into account move equivalent actions and standard actions, players readied attacks and used Knowledge checks.  We used minis and battlemaps and Dungeon Tiles.  We only played for 3 hours but explored a sizable number of areas, had four seperate combats, used clever (?) tactics to defeat the monsters, blindly jumped down holes, hobnobbed with the locals, used Bluff and Sense Motive checks, enjoyed interparty conflict and laughed as the barbarian dropped to an owlbear _again_.

At the end everyone was grinning like idiots.  We'd had a blast.  The non-d20 fan was grinning the most.  We stood outside talking about the game we'd just had and I can't even remember the last time we did that.  And not once did anyone comment about the game system being used ...

Back on topic I sincerely hope that the revival, such as it is, stays and grows.  I love AD&D despite itself which is exactly how I feel about Basic and 2.0 ... and 3.5.

Ant

ps Greywolf, I'm greatly impressed with Microlite d20 and I'm encouraging a friend who recently dropped d20 Modern to give it a go.  Thanks for all of your effort!


----------



## Umbran (Nov 29, 2006)

Gundark said:
			
		

> In all seriousness how do you keep getting away with such statements?




If you have questions about moderation, please e-mail one of the moderators, rather than risk derailing threads with them.  Our e-mail addresses are available in a thread stickied to the top of the Meta forum


----------



## RFisher (Nov 29, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> So, I wonder how to push this wagon up the hill to the top so it can role on down the other side.      Seriously, how do you get New Schoolers to even try AD&D (even though everyone has a copy of OSRIC by now, few really read it or run it).




There was a great post by...if I recall correctly...Stormcrow on Dragonsfoot on this subject once. Basically it boiled down to: Find a FLGS. Find out what evenings they host role-playing. Go there & run AD&D. If you have no takers, keep coming back until you do. Run the best sessions you are able & _show_ people what's great about AD&D.

Do the same at any cons that are close enough.

If you want to see more Osric & C&C products, buy what's available. (As long as it's good. I reject the idea that consumers buying bad products will encourage companies to create better products.)


----------



## Will (Nov 29, 2006)

I find that in comparisons between editions, the 'rule complexity' issue often confuses things.

3.x has more rules than earlier editions (though it can be argued how much).

Thing is, liking a certain amount of rules doesn't necessarily mean that a given edition is 'best' for you. Personally, I found the rules in pre-3rd edition not to my taste.

So I am interested in the folks who are taking a different direction; starting with third edition and simplifying, sometimes with an eye on what previous editions had.

Is there a revival? I don't know, but I think there is a general blossoming of experimentation sparked by the OGL and D20, and spreading through the various permutations of D&D and related games.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 29, 2006)

Is the AD&D 1E revival here to stay?

First, let me state that the following is in no way intended to be read as me forcing my truth at anyone. This is what I think is the current situation, nothing more, nothing less. To start with I don't think there is a simple yes/no answer to the question. Looking at the situation I don't think there is more of a revival today, than say six months ago, or a year ago. At the same time, I don't think there is less of a revival either.

At the moment, there is much talk about OSRIC being the herald of the AD&D 1E goodness,. But before that, C&C was the herald of the change back to the basics of the early D&D/AD&D. And before that Hackmaster was that herald (and a herald that hewed very closely to AD&D, it being for most intent and purposes, AD&D in another suit of armor). So OSRIC is picking up a gauntlet that is passed from other initiatives, that have more or less been rejected as the vehicle for a "new but old" AD&D feeling. C&C has found it's own niche, and Hackmaster has floundered for reasons I'm not really sure of. To me, this indicates that OSRIC is the current focus for a latent wish for a "modern" rule set for the AD&D experience. Hence, no "revival", but rather a continued interest that has found another focal point. Which is due to Papers&Paychecks sterling work and vision.

So will this last? Yes and no.

I suspect that OSRIC will be met with interest and excitement for a while. Right now, before many people have had a hard look at the rules, it still carries with it the promise of delivering the AD&D experience of old. A promise that will be harder and harder to fulfill, as more people download the rules and start using them. Because the experiences of AD&D is very much different from group to group. When we're still talking about a vague "promise of AD&D", everyone can agree that OSRIC is a good thing.

But when we as a community start to get down to the nitty gritty, the rules, we will probably want to change OSRIC to fit our needs and tastes. And maybe some realise that that good old feeling wasn't really that much dependant on rules, but more a question of style. So the unified vision in the community of OSRIC will be diluted, and it will not continue to be the common solution for that "new but old" AD&D feeling. And the community will start looking for the next herald of the good old AD&D feeling.

Having the strong vision of Papers&Paychecks and several commercial publishers to back him up could negate that. And that vision is in my opinion more important than the rules themselves. So, is the revival here to stay? Well, the wish for an old but new AD&D never went away and there are people constantly looking for something/someone to carry the torch forward. So the interest will stay. I'm just not sure the rules that carry the banner of AD&D will have the same staying power.

/M


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 29, 2006)

Will said:
			
		

> I find that in comparisons between editions, the 'rule complexity' issue often confuses things.
> 
> 3.x has more rules than earlier editions (though it can be argued how much).
> 
> ...




I did that and I ended up with something similar to C&C, so I just switched to that.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 29, 2006)

greywulf said:
			
		

> All those "Complete...." books, etc have made us hit saturation point.




My problem isn't the publication of "Complete" books. I actually liked the majority of the 2e Complete Books despite the horrid mechanics and unbalance of some kits (problems that I associate primarily with the ununified mechanics of ADND).  No, my problem with the current edition Complete Books is, despite the overall excellent core mechanics of the current edition, the majority of WOTC's content in those books (and the majority of the WOTC generic DND line) is, imo, just terrible.

As for an alternative to the current edition of DND, I am looking at True20 or perhaps going back to Rolemaster.


----------



## Contrarian (Nov 29, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> and if my mind wasn't playing tricks on me he was at Gen Con Indy this year too.




Yep, they were there.  Even had a coupon in the swag bag.

Egor's ebay store, in case anybody needs it: http://stores.ebay.com/Crazy-Egors


----------



## CRGreathouse (Nov 29, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> How would they know how WotC/Hasbro reacted?  Are these people expecting me to post my private correspondence on a public forum or something?
> 
> Suffice it to say that WotC have reacted, and OSRIC remains available.




Drop that question on OGF-l and ask there -- that's where I hear most talk about it.


----------



## Allensh (Nov 29, 2006)

about the question of how to get today's gamer's to try AD&D...it was simple. I sent out an e-mail that went something like:

"Guys, its the Saturday after Thanksgiving and I am bored to tears. I want to run a game. Problem is, the adventure that I want to run is not for D&D 3.5 and I don't have time to convert it. So..would you be willing to play a game of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition?"

I got six takers. Three of them were high school kids who had never played any form of D&D except 3.x (although one had a mom who played AD&D1 extensively in college). They loved it! There are people out there who just want to game. I think it might actually be easier to get young people who have never played AD&D than people who have and moved on for whatever reason. There was some amusement at some of the "weird" rules (and I laughed along with them), but we had a wonderful time, even if the 12th level halfling thief did get a Daern's Instant Fortress dropped on top of him...

Allen


----------



## greywulf (Nov 29, 2006)

Ant said:
			
		

> ps Greywolf, I'm greatly impressed with Microlite d20 and I'm encouraging a friend who recently dropped d20 Modern to give it a go.  Thanks for all of your effort!




Ant, thanks for the kind words. What you say is true - D&D 3.5e is a blast to play, and I love all the options and rules  too (except AoO). Some of my bestest gamer memories come from full-on D&D, and long may it continue.

Sometimes though, we want something simpler, as a break from having to remember stuff. And a little nostalgia thrown in never hurt no-one either !

Myself, I wouldn't trade my D&D Rules Cyclopedia for all the dire rats in Faerun.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 30, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I [tried a house-ruled and simplified version of 3E] and I ended up with something similar to C&C, so I just switched to that.



I did this, too.  Prior to switching from 3E, I simplified and cut it down with an eye towards previous editions.  It worked, but I ultimately switched to C&C, too.  The slimmed down 3E rules met with resistance and there was a tendency to push for adding back what had been removed.  Even for me as a DM, I found that the 3E rules had a certain amount of "gravity" that was hard to resist.  Oddly, that tendency and sense of "rules entitlement" isn't present when using a different system (i.e. C&C, B/X).  I guess making a clean break worked better for us.  YMMV.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 30, 2006)

I initially switched simply because I heard it allowed the use of all editions. Which I found out be true. I was initially moving towards a primarily 2E version fo C&C, but the more I ran it, well I just ultimately kept C&C as the core and just add in the bits and pieces from other edtions I like.

Which means the cool stuff made for something like OSRIC it is something I am "free" to check out, because if I liked it I could easily use it. It also helps that I also fell in love with Mythusmage's module. SHROOMS RULE!!! I'm still trying to figure out why I like it so much. The Shrooms must of struck some kind of primordial chord with me.

As for actually participating in an on-line Con? I would definitely check it out, and it would sure be awesome if it works, no matter what edition of D&D is at the "core" of the Con.

Besides, I hope to participate in TacoJohn's 1E game at next years GenCon. Simply because TacoJohn seems like a cool guy and I think that I would have a blast playing in his game, no matter what rules set he uses. Revisiting the 1E rules set is just going to be a pleasant bonus.

On line can work. I have noticed the C&C games I have played on-line go along much better than the 3E versions I played in or followed. Fewer "mechanics" is much better for on-line gaming IMO. At least for chat and PbP. Now if your talking a video conferencing type of game session, then I think any rules set will work just as well as it does on a normal table top.


----------



## tx7321 (Nov 30, 2006)

Maggen, that was a thoughtful post.   You brought up some very interesting points: 

"At the moment, there is much talk about OSRIC being the herald of the AD&D 1E goodness,. But before that, C&C was the herald of the change back to the basics of the early D&D/AD&D. And before that Hackmaster was that herald"

I think with OSRIC though there is an important difference.  This system is 99% AD&D, Hackmaster was too wacked and commical and C&C is its own thing (not AD&D 1E but more like Gygaxian 2E or something hovering between 1E and 3E).  

Osric is also different in that its designed to be used by many publishers (not just 1 as is C&C and HM), and "spinning" will be publisher bias.  You will get the hard core 1E late 70s/early 80s style "real deal" from certain publishers (I suspect like ER) and altered stuff from others, but the OSRIC rules will always be AD&D...from what I've read, no one can get any closer.   

The marketing efforts of C&C seems to be one of appealing to the broad market (including both 1E players and 3E players).  Thats not going to be every OSRIC publishers goal, you'll get more niche development.  And with this niche development your going to get competition of who's the most "hard core AD&D 1E", and this will prevent the kind of fuzzy drift your referring to.  At least thats how it seems to be developing so far.  

I also kind of disagree with your notion that the 1E rules played by different people result in majorly different results.  Sure to a degree results are different, but if you stick to the rules as written, there are things that will always carry over (unless you do some major house rule changes): like specialized archetypes (resulting in character balance) and having to use the tables rather then rolling D20.   These are big differences between 3E and 1E, and there are many others.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 30, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I think with OSRIC though there is an important difference.  This system is 99% AD&D, Hackmaster was too wacked and commical and C&C is its own thing (not AD&D 1E but more like Gygaxian 2E or something hovering between 1E and 3E).



I generally agree with this.  Fairly or not, I think the satire/comedy aspect of Hackmaster hurt it as a torch-bearer for "old school goodness."  And C&C is certainly it's own thing, even though it has a great deal of old-school feel.  OSRIC is definitely the closest to 1E rules (practically identical), and has the "publishing" approach that you mention.

I don't agree with the contention that C&C "has been rejected" as a system that provides old-school feel, though.  Certainly it isn't 1E, and there are those who have rejected it on that basis, but I'd consider it a growing and successful part of the "old-school" market/movement in gaming.  While I have my favorites, I see "old school" as embracing multiple related systems that I'd be happy running: OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, Hackmaster, Basic Fantasy, and C&C.  I know the old-school community is (sadly, IMO) fractured on this, though (e.g. there are die-hard 1E fans who refer to 3E gamers as "3-tards" and C&C gamers as "C-tards").  Unfortunate all the way around. 

I do think that "old school" is more than just feel and style (or nostaliga), though.  All of those elements go into it, but the rules do make a difference, IMO.  Where you draw that line is subjective, though.



> I also kind of disagree with your notion that the 1E rules played by different people result in majorly different results.



I agree; I don't think the differences between 1E games with their house rules are significantly greater than the differences between 3E games with their house rules.  The fact is that different groups house-rule their chosen system to taste.  Some use group initiative, some individual.  Different feats allowed.  Different classes allowed.  Different prestige classes.  Action points and optional 3E rules from _Unearthed Arcana_, et cetera.  The variation between groups exists no matter what the system.  I know it's there, I just don't see it as very significant.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 30, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I don't agree with the contention that C&C "has been rejected" as a system that provides old-school feel, though.




Thank you for your comments (both you and tx7321). I will digest your points, and see if I can make any more contributions to the discussion later.

One thing though. What I meant by "has been rejected" was not that it doesn't provide old school gaming, I meant that it is now not generally seen as the vehicle for recreating AD&D.

For all C&C fans out there, this is not a slam against the system. It's just that C&C from concept to released product to play sessions evolved into something different. Which is why OSRIC is getting that part of the action, so to speak.

IMO and all that.   

/M


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 30, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I also fell in love with Mythusmage's module. SHROOMS RULE!!! I'm still trying to figure out why I like it so much. The Shrooms must of struck some kind of primordial chord with me.




I love Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom too, but it's by Mythmere (Matt Finch), not Mythusmage.


----------



## Melan (Nov 30, 2006)

The interest was probably always around. It is the organisational potential of the Internet - and the existence of sites where a critical mass of people with an interest in old style D&D exists - which make it possible to support this niche with actual products.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 30, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i submitted my version of it for the WotC setting search.




Does that mean that you lost the rights to publish it?  If you have submitted something and have the rights, either you or a pdf maker savvy friend can make a pdf from it.  I would be interested.  You obviously put your heart into your work.


----------



## grodog (Nov 30, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> One thing though. What I meant by "has been rejected" was not that it doesn't provide old school gaming, I meant that it is now not generally seen as the vehicle for recreating AD&D.




I think that this is a very important distinction to make, and to understand:  it is possible for a product to have been rejected by the AD&D fan core market (as with Hackmaster, and perhaps C&C), but to still be a commercially viable system with a dedicated fanbase.  If the product is self-sustaining, like C&C seems to be, then the difference becomes somewhat academic and immaterial---the differences between AD&D and C&C can then be lumped into the stylistic execution category that Maggan originally alluded to.  If the product is not a sustained commercial successor to AD&D (Hackmaster), then it's easier to point to it and say "yes, that's been rejected by the AD&D core market" and be "right" FWIW.  



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> For all C&C fans out there, this is not a slam against the system. It's just that C&C fon concept to released product to play sessions evolved into something different. Which is why OSRIC is getting that part of the action, so to speak.




And again, I think this dovetails nicely with your points about style (how the game is played, what kinds of adventures are being published for it, the publishers' vision, etc.) vs. substance (what the rules tell you to do to resolve combat or drowning or whatever).


----------



## grodog (Nov 30, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i submitted my version of it for the WotC setting search.




You submitted Greyhawk too?


----------



## RFisher (Nov 30, 2006)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> Drop that question on OGF-l and ask there -- that's where I hear most talk about it.



I wonder, though, how many of the people expressing a wait-&-see attitude have any interest in producing Osric-compatible products in any case.


			
				Allensh said:
			
		

> There are people out there who just want to game.[...]



My group asked me to DM D&D. We play lots of different games, but the group was really wanting to play some D&D, & the other guy who usually DMs had his hands full with the 3e game he was running for their Saturday group.

The fact that I'd decided I didn't want to DM 3e anymore hadn't come up before. So, I put it out there: Does it have to be 3e? I'd prefer classic D&D. Perhaps C&C as a compromise?

In the end, they were happy to let me use the system I wanted.

Which has been my experience with the vast majority of people I've played with: If someone is willing to run it, they are willing to play it. I've seen gamers constantly bad-mouth a system & claim they'd _never_ play it, only to be the first one to agree once someone offered to run that system.


----------



## WSmith (Nov 30, 2006)

I think the timing was right, nay, perfect for OSRIC, and I am not just saying that cause my name is on the inside cover. In the tabletop gaming industry, there is always a "turn around." Right now, a lot of the younger gamers out there that do play 3e, and are curious. Retro is cool right not, (though I do suspect that the whole return to retro retail marketing movement is about the jump the shark soon, but that is for another board.) Anyway, Most of us Dragonsfoot and Knights and Knaves regulars have heard this story over and over (which is actually a nice story to hear)...



> I am so glad I found this place. I haven't played AD&D since college, X years ago. Last week I was emptying out my stuff from my Mom's basement and discovered all my old D&D books I had packed away; the Players Handbook, the Monster Manual, the DMs Guide and tons of other stuff. I started reading and couldn't put the books down. I am glad to see others still share the same interest in old style D&D.




For whatever reason, basement and attics that were once loaded with  AD&D treasues are being looted across the land as we speak.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 30, 2006)

While I am a C&C fan, I hope that OSRIC publications do very well, as anything published for OSRIC is easily usable for a C&C campaign.


----------



## tx7321 (Nov 30, 2006)

Melan originally posted: "The interest (in 1E) was probably always around."

I think your right.  I feel hidden below the carpets of 2E and now 3E is a hardwood floor of 1E.  Not dwelled on, but not forgotten.  Below that hard wood floor is the subfloor of OD&D, and below that is Diaglo....trapped and scratching to get noticed.    

In all respect to the above poster, the Trolls have stated that they wanted to create a system that was equally inviting to 3E players as it was to 1E and 2E players.  It was there stated goal NOT to recreate AD&D.  And Gary Gygax's involvement I think proves that (as he is not the type to live in the past, and wouldn't associate with a C&C that = an AD&D 1E clone IMO).  

TLGs market strategy was an interesting one, but with 1 possibly fatal flaw:
The risk of this kind of market strategy is "you can't make all of the people happy all of the time".  C&C goes after too broad a market I think.  Its saving grace is, in fact, Gary Gygax.   If you took Gary out of the picture, I think C&C wouldn't be able to hold onto the 1E crowd as it has.  What would really be cool to see is Gary Gygax doing an OSRIC module for ER or someone with a hard core 1E track record.  That would really help out the "revival" movement IMO.  I don't see why he couldn't do both.  And for that matter, I'd like to see TLG start publishing OSRIC material, why should they stick to only C&C (which is a different game, even if it is similar).  They could really corner the market and still keep pumping out C&C stuff, (given their size, funding and access to Gary they could jump start the revival).
And by splitting their focus (C&C and OSRIC) they wouldn't step on 3E players toes who have made the switch to C&C (thus could keep the same C&C artists, focus and what have you/ while hiring some of the late 70s artists and writers to do basically new early TSR modules (without TSR written on them, rather "OSRIC compatable").  I mean, who wouldn't love to see that?  And, if I understand Papers and Paychecks correctly, he isn't charging any royalty (what a great guy   )


----------



## Maggan (Nov 30, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> In all respect to the above poster, the Trolls have stated that they wanted to create a system that was equally inviting to 3E players as it was to 1E and 2E players.  It was there stated goal NOT to recreate AD&D.




Yes. But the reception of the news of C&C brought forth a lot of interest from people wanting it to be a vehicle for the recreation of AD&D. And there was a lot of talk about how this would be done by C&C, mostly outside of the Troll's realm. I remember long threads about requests for rules that brought it closer to AD&D than D&D3e.

As far as I remember, the vision of C&C was kinda confused for a long while. Playtesters were very excited, but couldn't say anything due to NDAs, which meant that there were those who pinned their hopes for a reborn AD&D on C&C. But I might be misremembering the events as they occurred.

Which is exactly why a clear vision is paramount for a thing like OSRIC to prosper.

/M


----------



## diaglo (Nov 30, 2006)

grodog said:
			
		

> You submitted Greyhawk too?






using the OD&D boxed set rules.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 30, 2006)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Does that mean that you lost the rights to publish it?  If you have submitted something and have the rights, either you or a pdf maker savvy friend can make a pdf from it.  I would be interested.  You obviously put your heart into your work.




i was one of the 11000 or so rejects.   

not the 11 asked to submit more. nor the 3 of those 11 asked for even more.

basically... i'm not that good i guess.


----------



## the Jester (Nov 30, 2006)

On the subject of 1e, I've taken to running a 1e pickup game when we want to game but none of our regular games are on. 

Currently the party is all captured and half "brainwashed" by the Cult of the Reptile God (I'm running N1 for the first time...)


----------



## tx7321 (Nov 30, 2006)

Maggan posted: "Yes. But the reception of the news of C&C brought forth a lot of interest from people wanting it to be a vehicle for the recreation of AD&D."

Thats true.  And ironically, C&C has its own forum at DF (the home of AD&D 1E) continuing that perseption, despite the Trolls saying there not AD&D 1E, but "there own thing"....and OSRIC (which claims to be 99% AD&D) isn't even a topic there (but is here at ENworld...a 3E focused site).  The world is upside down I tell you!  :\


----------



## RFisher (Dec 1, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> basically... i'm not that good i guess.



Nah. That just means your submission didn't fit with their goals. (Part of which was probably to highlight aspects of 3.11forWorkgroups.) Which isn't so surprising, is it?



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> ....and OSRIC (which claims to be 99% AD&D) isn't even a topic there (but is here at ENworld...a 3E focused site).  The world is upside down I tell you!  :\



Well, since Osric isn't really meant to be played but a catalyst for publishing 1e compatible material, there's an argument to be made that an Osric forum at DF would be redundant with the 1e forum.

I did notice a couple of Osric threads in the "Other" forum last I peeked in on it. I don't venture beyond the Classic D&D forum much these days, though.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 1, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Well, since Osric isn't really meant to be played but a catalyst for publishing 1e compatible material, there's an argument to be made that an Osric forum at DF would be redundant with the 1e forum.
> 
> I did notice a couple of Osric threads in the "Other" forum last I peeked in on it. I don't venture beyond the Classic D&D forum much these days, though.



Oddly (IMO), OSRIC threads in the Dragonsfoot "1E" forum are pretty much verboten.  As you mention, OSRIC discussion is allowed in the "Other" category at Dragonfoot.


----------



## grodog (Dec 2, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Oddly (IMO), OSRIC threads in the Dragonsfoot "1E" forum are pretty much verboten.  As you mention, OSRIC discussion is allowed in the "Other" category at Dragonfoot.




I had no idea OSRIC was being discussed in the Other RPGs forum there, thanks!


----------



## rgard (Dec 2, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> C&C, PPP, GG, OSRIC (about 5 publishers from my count) are putting out or promising to put out a good amount of 1E compatable material in the very near future.  The pace of OSRIC products alone is remarkable.  Yet, given the sales numbers (under 500) for each product, it seems a "revival" is still a long way off (if at all).
> 
> True, you have to start someplace, but do these sales numbers suggest a revival of 1E is under way, or are these a few old-time players from the late 70s who are getting nastalgic.




It could be, but not for me.  Completely given myself over to the 3E darkside.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## RFisher (Dec 2, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Oddly (IMO), OSRIC threads in the Dragonsfoot "1E" forum are pretty much verboten.  As you mention, OSRIC discussion is allowed in the "Other" category at Dragonfoot.



<shrug> The point is that every 1e thread _is_ an Osric thread. The game is AD&D1e; Osric is simply code for "AD&D1e compatible". (& a tool for publishers)

I could even believe that Osric's creators would prefer Osric's pecularities not be discussed in a 1e forum & that there not be an Osric-specific forum as such would tend to emphasize the differences instead of the similarities, which seems contrary to their intentions.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 2, 2006)

Another thought about promoting oAD&D: Print out copies of Osric & hand them out on game night at your local FLGS. As the manager if you can leave some copies on the counter with a "take one" sign.

I knew a guy who would leave copies of Gurps Lite[sic] all over the place. (More as general evangelism for the hobby than for the system itself.) It had a bit of "what is this" text that Osric is missing, though.


----------



## grodog (Dec 2, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Another thought about promoting oAD&D: Print out copies of Osric & hand them out on game night at your local FLGS. As the manager if you can leave some copies on the counter with a "take one" sign.
> 
> [snip]It had a bit of "what is this" text that Osric is missing, though.




That's a great idea, RFisher.  I've discussed creating an OSRIC "Jump Start Kit" modelled after the Ars Magica JSKs, which would include an adventure, "What is OSRIC" info, details on how to run combat, how OSRIC rules differ from 3.x/d20, etc.  I haven't had a lot of time to foodle with this recently, but will start to work on it again during the holidays.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 2, 2006)

From my understanding, the managment of Dragons Foot is worried about legal issues (will OSRIC be challanged or not) and how this will effect them.  I'm not sure what they think WOTC could do to them for just having a forum, but oh well.  

Anyhow the window of time to challange OSRIC and its publishers (like ER) has long passed.  WOTC would be laughed out of court if they tried to shut OSRIC down (or publishers using it) this late in the game (judge furrows brow and peers at WOTC lawyer: "why did your client wait so long, why didn't they send a SD letter?"  etc.).  Yep, that time has come and gone.  In the eyes of the law OSRIC is IMHO officially "safe" (as are OSRIC publishers). 

No....I don't know what DF is waiting for.  It could be they don't want to take away attention from C&C (which seems to have made DF its unofficial co-home). If so, this is silly as OSRIC("AD&D 1E in Print") and C&C (more of a D20 ultra-light) go hand in hand.   I know I buy both.  Maybe someone just needs to ask DF for an OSRIC Forum.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 2, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> From my understanding, the managment of Dragons Foot is worried about legal issues (will OSRIC be challanged or not) and how this will effect them.  I'm not sure what they think WOTC could do to them for just having a forum, but oh well.



I think it's because they produce modules, as well. 



> No....I don't know what DF is waiting for.  It could be they don't want to take away attention from C&C (which seems to have made DF its unofficial co-home)



I doubt that's it.  There are a lot of C&C fans at DF, but I get the impression that 1E has long been the main focus at DF, and I know there are regulars, there, who prefer to keep the main focus on 1E.  

(Incidentally, I agree with you that OSRIC and C&C go hand-in-hand.  I'm using OSRIC products in my C&C game, and it would be just as easy to use C&C products in a 1E/OSRIC game, too.)



> Maybe someone just needs to ask DF for an OSRIC Forum.



Well, early-on, OSRIC created a huge furor over at DF, complete with multiple locked threads, etc.  Perhaps now that some time has passed, the idea might be broached, again.  I've always thought DF and OSRIC should go hand-in-hand.  Not everyone agrees, unfortunately.  I think Papers & Paychecks decided (after seeing the reaction at DF) not to rock the boat, there, which is one reason there isn't a stronger OSRIC presence at DF.  He can address that or correct me if my impression is mistaken, though.


----------



## Mycanid (Dec 2, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is a "revival" so much as it is a "publishers recognizing that there's an untapped market".  Meaning that I don't expect this is going to create many new players, but will merely be serving the players who already exist.  A growth in the number of available products does not imply a growth in the number of gamers playing under the system.




I agree with this one ... of course it is interesting that it pops up en masse during the past one or two years though.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 2, 2006)

I think the place to talk about Dragonsfoot is on Dragonsfoot, folks.


----------



## Rothe (Dec 2, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> From my understanding, the managment of Dragons Foot is worried about legal issues (will OSRIC be challanged or not) and how this will effect them.  I'm not sure what they think WOTC could do to them for just having a forum, but oh well.
> 
> Anyhow the window of time to challange OSRIC and its publishers (like ER) has long passed.  WOTC would be laughed out of court if they tried to shut OSRIC down (or publishers using it) this late in the game (judge furrows brow and peers at WOTC lawyer: "why did your client wait so long, why didn't they send a SD letter?"  etc.).  Yep, that time has come and gone.  In the eyes of the law OSRIC is IMHO officially "safe" (as are OSRIC publishers). ...




 How long has OSRIC been around?  I seriously doubt the statute of limitations has run if OSRIC is in violation of WoTC IP, OGL, etc.  Assuming for the sake of conjecture WoTC is gunning for OSRIC, they may be biding time gathering evidence, waiting to see if it's worth the time and money to shut down, etc.  Since their attorneys probably cost upwards of $400 per hour they are not necessarily going to jump into anything.  Maybe their attorneys are rather busy and haven't got that memo done yet on OSRIC.  Maybe WoTC contacted OSRIC, WoTC was told to pound sand, now WoTC is getting its ducks in a row.  These things could play out over months each iteration when big money is not involved.

DF may, and I say may because I really have no idea, also be concerned about their use of AD&D logos and providing AD&D modules.  I don't know if they have permission to use these marks or not, but I doubt they have a perpetual license to do so.  Upset WoTC, even if they can't legally stop OSRIC, and they could pull the plug on the AD&D use.  Why risk it?


----------



## Mythmere1 (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> How long has OSRIC been around?  I seriously doubt the statute of limitations has run if OSRIC is in violation of WoTC IP, OGL, etc.  Assuming for the sake of conjecture WoTC is gunning for OSRIC, they may be biding time gathering evidence, waiting to see if it's worth the time and money to shut down, etc.  Since their attorneys probably cost upwards of $400 per hour they are not necessarily going to jump into anything.  Maybe their attorneys are rather busy and haven't got that memo done yet on OSRIC.  Maybe WoTC contacted OSRIC, WoTC was told to pound sand, now WoTC is getting its ducks in a row.  These things could play out over months each iteration when big money is not involved.
> 
> DF may, and I say may because I really have no idea, also be concerned about their use of AD&D logos and providing AD&D modules.  I don't know if they have permission to use these marks or not, but I doubt they have a perpetual license to do so.  Upset WoTC, even if they can't legally stop OSRIC, and they could pull the plug on the AD&D use.  Why risk it?




The statute of limitations obviously hasn't run, but TX7321 is right; the time to challenge OSRIC is past.  There are other constraints than statutes of limitation involved.  In essence, you can't just bide your time in a situation that you're later going to claim was damaging to you.  You have to object if you know about it.  WOTC asked to discuss the situation, discussed it, and then dropped the matter months ago.  Having done that, they are in a situation where a court would see an enforcable right on the part of OSRIC to continue, because the OSRIC people relied upon the lack of continued objection.

You're absolutely not allowed to "rack up" damages; you're also not allowed to "see if a situation gets serious" when the legal standard isn't on a sliding scale.

WOTC would face an almost insurmountable legal hurdle if they suddenly decided to try and do something at this point.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Dec 3, 2006)

I think of OD&D as it's own game.  I started with it, but before I got to the later supplements AD&D had come out (remember the Hollow World, anyone?)

  I like to lump 1E and 2E into one game, not two.  2E was backward compatible.  So if there is a 1E revival, I see a 1E/2E revival, as it were (yeah, the very thought of a 2E revival makes many people faint with horror.  But there it is.)

  3E is the Lost Game.  It is a GREAT game, a great concept, but WOTC has rushed 3.5 out in only 5 years (to 2E's 15 years) and now 3E is lost in a sea of 3.5 changes and errata.

  3.5?  It's much like 2E, growing and changing with each new supplement.  I personally like all those additions and the growth in general.  Others want more simplicity.

  To sum it up:  Cheers to any 1E (and thus 2E) revival.  Bring it on.  I'll have a heaping plate of 1E/2E, with 3E and 3.5 thrown in for dessert (or, perhaps, the other way around.)


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe, it is the obligation for the company holding the trademark or patent to defend it.  Mythmere is correct.  Lets say you started a soda company and your package design was very similar to Pepsi's.  However, your just 1 person in your small shop plugging away supplying a few local shops.  Pepsi contacts you and requests samples which you provide.  They ask you to stop informally, but you tell them "take a walk buddy".  At that time Pepsi (following your logic) chooses to wait and see.  Well 8 months later you land a huge deal with a multi-state grocery.  Pepsi sees you suddenly as a threat.  When they take you to court the judge laughs at Pepsi and throws the case out.  Not only do you get to keep using the package design, but so do other companies.  That would be the big "risk" involved in going after OSRIC in court.  They have much more to loose then to gain. 

I am not an attorney, but I'm sure there is plenty of case law which would support OSRIC's case.  This applies to the publishers making OSRIC compatable modules as well. WOTC "gave up" basically.  Perhaps they see zero value in this market...and given the little progress made by OSRIC in "changing the market" they may be right.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 3, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I am not an attorney, but I'm sure there is plenty of case law which would support OSRIC's case.  This applies to the publishers making OSRIC compatable modules as well. WOTC "gave up" basically.  Perhaps they see zero value in this market...and given the little progress made by OSRIC in "changing the market" they may be right.




I am not a lawyer, but I've been involved in small law suits over contract breeches. My experience is that law is not clear cut. 

IMO ifWotC wants to fight OSRIC, they can and will do so, even if it's ten years from now. They don't even have to be sure of winning, as OSRIC lacks the resources to fight a legal battle. Hasbro is known to do this to protect their interest even when it's a really silly thing to do (as in the case of www.clue.com).

Basically, if WotC/Hasbro decideds to throw money at a law suit, it doesn't matter if it's now or later. At least that's what I think, but as I said I'm not a lawyer.

Logic may dictate that OSRIC is safe, but law isn't about logic, it's about the application and interpretation of law. And there's no way of guaranteeing that WotC wpn't go after OSRIC at some time or the other.

I don't think they will, but I wouldn't bet my future on it.  

Then again, reading Mythmeres ost, I might just be totally wrong.

/M


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> IMO ifWotC wants to fight OSRIC, they can and will do so, even if it's ten years from now. They don't even have to be sure of winning, as OSRIC lacks the resources to fight a legal battle.




That's the US court procedure.  I'm not a US citizen and I don't submit to US law.

I distributed OSRIC from the United Kingdom, and it's the Law of England and Wales that would apply.

In the UK, our system is that the loser pays the winner's costs and legal fees.  Thus any attempt to destroy OSRIC would have to be won on the legal merit of the case.  Nobody could simply spend OSRIC into submission.

I would welcome any attempt, however, because I'm advised that my countersuit under antitrust law could make me a wealthy man.


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 3, 2006)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> WOTC asked to discuss the situation, discussed it, and then dropped the matter months ago.



I must say that I'm not surprised in the least... I really couldn't see WotC doing something against OSRIC.

I also think about all the "well informed" people that were claiming how unsafe OSRIC was...


----------



## Maggan (Dec 3, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> That's the US court procedure.  I'm not a US citizen and I don't submit to US law.
> 
> I distributed OSRIC from the United Kingdom, and it's the Law of England and Wales that would apply.
> 
> ...




Well, entities in the US have sued people in other countries before. The founder of Skype is in a lot of trouble, even though he's Swedish. And some guy in Norway was even brought to Norwegian court because the RIAA in the US demanded it. But then again, we're not talking those magnitudes here. But it has happened, and will happen, that US law will try to get their laws to bear on foreign nationals.

That said, I'm glad you have good legal counsel, and that you feel safe in your endeavor.

/M


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 3, 2006)

But apart from the laws... why would WotC even care about OSRIC?


----------



## Rothe (Dec 3, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Rothe, it is the obligation for the company holding the trademark or patent to defend it.  Mythmere is correct.  Lets say you started a soda company and your package design was very similar to Pepsi's.  However, your just 1 person in your small shop plugging away supplying a few local shops.  Pepsi contacts you and requests samples which you provide.  They ask you to stop informally, but you tell them "take a walk buddy".  At that time Pepsi (following your logic) chooses to wait and see.  Well 8 months later you land a huge deal with a multi-state grocery.  Pepsi sees you suddenly as a threat.  When they take you to court the judge laughs at Pepsi and throws the case out.  Not only do you get to keep using the package design, but so do other companies.  That would be the big "risk" involved in going after OSRIC in court.  They have much more to loose then to gain.
> 
> I am not an attorney, but I'm sure there is plenty of case law which would support OSRIC's case.  This applies to the publishers making OSRIC compatable modules as well. WOTC "gave up" basically.  Perhaps they see zero value in this market...and given the little progress made by OSRIC in "changing the market" they may be right.





I think not being the lawyer is key.  Unless mythmere is a lawyer with experience in this area I'll reserve judgment.  I can say from personal experience that companies can wait and do  what you describe in your Pepsi example, at least to the extent I understand your example.  I think we need to leave it at that to prevent this from being too much of a legal discussion.  If mythmere is an lawyer I'd love to hear if he has some cases on point or simply see a citation; no need to opine on their content I can get the cases.  Now all this is by no way saying OSRIC is in violation of anything, that I really don't know especially when it comes to the OGL, which I've never read.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Well, entities in the US have sued people in other countries before.




Yes, and they could attempt to sue me in Britain too.  I think they'd lose.

A key point here is that the OGL does NOT specify which law governs the agreement; and since I'm a UK citizen who distributed OSRIC from Britain, any attempt to sue would have to take place in the UK.

Depending on precisely what was alleged, under the Berne convention, it would be possible to argue that US law should apply, but in a British court and (critically) under British rules of procedure -- i.e. the loser pays for both parties' counsel even if US law is deemed to apply.

Therefore the only thing with which I need concern myself is the law.  I can't be swamped by court costs.

OSRIC is lawful, so I think I have nothing to fear.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> I think not being the lawyer is key.  Unless mythmere is a lawyer with experience in this area I'll reserve judgment.




Mythmere is a retired US attorney (although none of us are his clients and nothing he says should be construed as legal advice.)

*Edited to add:*  I see you asking for citations, but as I'm sure you'll understand, I don't intend to rehearse all of my legal arguments on a public messageboard.


----------



## Goblinoid Games (Dec 3, 2006)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> I also think about all the "well informed" people that were claiming how unsafe OSRIC was...




Well, you can't really hold it against people for being fearful and careful. When I decided to "go for it," so to speak, I felt that I really didn't have much to lose. I started Goblinoid Games as a small press publisher to exclusively support OSRIC (at least in the foreseeable future).

But, you can't hold it against other publishers who have established businesses and really do have a lot to lose. Many publishers have spent years building something and they don't want to see everything they have worked so hard for crumble from a legal hassle. When livelihoods are on the line, it is natural to be afraid. 

I think that it would be most productive at this point to not worry so much about who is/was skeptical. It is smart to be skeptical. Rather, I think that as time goes on and OSRIC continues to be around, we should welcome all publishers who want to create OSRIC material, whether they were skeptical about it before or not.

Anyway, just IMHO.

Dan


----------



## Rothe (Dec 3, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> That's the US court procedure.  I'm not a US citizen and I don't submit to US law.
> 
> I distributed OSRIC from the United Kingdom, and it's the Law of England and Wales that would apply.
> 
> ...




Does the OSRIC product land in the US and do you purposely avail yourself of a channel of commerce that lands the product in the US?  Is your argument that the situs of any actionable act is only the UK?

I'm also pretty sure the US and UK are both signatories to international treaties on the enforcement of intellectual property, contracts, etc.; in addition to extradiction treaties.  The OGL may also have provisions on governing law and where you agree you can be sued when you operate under it.  If your lawyer really advised you that you have only the UK law to worry about when you distribute something through the internet to the US, and you can't be extradited, I'd be amazed, especially if Knights & Knaves Alehouse or this site are on servers in the US. 

The antitrust claim is interesting, if conducted in the UK do you have the same problem that if you lose you pay the other sides fees?


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 3, 2006)

Goblinoid Games said:
			
		

> Well, you can't really hold it against people for being fearful and careful. When I decided to "go for it," so to speak, I felt that I really didn't have much to lose. I started Goblinoid Games as a small press publisher to exclusively support OSRIC (at least in the foreseeable future).
> 
> But, you can't hold it against other publishers who have established businesses and really do have a lot to lose. Many publishers have spent years building something and they don't want to see everything they have worked so hard for crumble from a legal hassle. When livelihoods are on the line, it is natural to be afraid.
> 
> I think that it would be most productive at this point to not worry so much about who is/was skeptical. It is smart to be skeptical. Rather, I think that as time goes on and OSRIC continues to be around, we should welcome all publishers who want to create OSRIC material, whether they were skeptical about it before or not.



Yes, you're right of course. It's just that I was a bit perplexed by the preachy tone that was used by some back then...

As for welcoming new publishers, that's a given for me. Even if I disagreed with something said by someone in the past, it doesn't certainly mean that I'm not going to look into their products... after all, that would be silly even for purely selfish reasons...


----------



## diaglo (Dec 3, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the place to talk about Dragonsfoot is on Dragonsfoot, folks.





ha ha hee hee...
you said Dragonsfoot.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Does the OSRIC product land in the US and do you purposely avail yourself of a channel of commerce that lands the product in the US?  Is your argument that the situs of any actionable act is only the UK?




Are you suing me, Rothe?  On what grounds?  



			
				Rothe said:
			
		

> I'm also pretty sure the US and UK are both signatories to international treaties on the enforcement of intellectual property, contracts, etc.; in addition to extradiction treaties.




The international treaty in question is the Berne Convention.  Extradition, I think you'll find, is for criminal law.



			
				Rothe said:
			
		

> The OGL may also have provisions on governing law and where you agree you can be sued when you operate under it.




Read it; it's freely available.



			
				Rothe said:
			
		

> If your lawyer really advised you that you have only the UK law to worry about when you distribute something through the internet to the US, and you can't be extradited, I'd be amazed, especially if Knights & Knaves Alehouse or this site are on servers in the US.




I'm not distributing it from this site, and I strongly doubt if ENWorld would come into the equation.  Having said that, Morrus is British, and it's quite possible that the servers are physically situated in the UK (I don't know and don't think it matters.)

I'm not distributing it from K&K either.  Someone else is (and they won't be the target of any successful action).  The only place from which I've distributed OSRIC is my UK email address.



			
				Rothe said:
			
		

> The antitrust claim is interesting, if conducted in the UK do you have the same problem that if you lose you pay the other sides fees?




I see no reason why I should specify under what law I might issue a possible antitrust claim.


----------



## Goblinoid Games (Dec 3, 2006)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right of course. It's just that I was a bit perplexed by the preachy tone that was used by some back then...




I understand what you mean. It's really hard to say. Aside from the legal issue there could be other feelings involved.


----------



## Rothe (Dec 3, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Mythmere is a retired US attorney (although none of us are his clients and nothing he says should be construed as legal advice.)
> 
> *Edited to add:*  I see you asking for citations, but as I'm sure you'll understand, I don't intend to rehearse all of my legal arguments on a public messageboard.




Fair enough, also saw you have looked at the OGL terms regarding governing law, etc.  Sorry about the confusion on Mythmere, it makes sense now, sometimes he seems like he is going over the legal picture, sometimes not.  I guess he is just cahnneling your counsels advice, heck for all I know your counsel is (and probably is) a UK attorney.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> Fair enough, also saw you have looked at the OGL terms regarding governing law, etc.  Sorry about the confusion on Mythmere, it makes sense now, sometimes he seems like he is going over the legal picture, sometimes not.  I guess he is just cahnneling your counsels advice, heck for all I know your counsel is (and probably is) a UK attorney.




*grins*

She's a solicitor and former barrister; the system and terminology are somewhat different here.  Her view is that the potential case "presents interesting complexities" and she "wouldn't want to be acting for the other side."  

Myth's in a slightly awkward position because he's the original author of OSRIC.  The concept was his, and I think it could only have come from someone like him: a legally-qualified mind, with the time available really to drill down into the case law and think through the possible arguments, backed up by a profound love of the 1e ruleset.  We'd been told so often that the OGL could NOT be used to create 1e-compatible material that I think most of us had come to believe it, and I suspect only a real lawyer would challenge the view that prevailed at the time.

Myth shared his original vision with me, and with the help of various editors, I expanded upon it and substantially rewrote it.  The decision to publish it was mine.

The original, central nugget of OSRIC (as well as certain rather elegant mechanics, like the variable experience point rule which enables so much of the rest of the system) were Myth's ideas, even though they're now my property.


----------



## Rothe (Dec 3, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Are you suing me, Rothe?  On what grounds?



  Not at all.  Just some of the conceptions people have about jurisdiction on the internet do not seem to be the product of a reasoned opinion of experienced counsel. 




> The international treaty in question is the Berne Convention.  Extradition, I think you'll find, is for criminal law.



  Fair enough.  

I've gone a little beyond my original point, which is really be careful, and if you feel secure, feel secure for the right reasons based on opinion of counsel experienced in the appropriate areas of law.  Of course, we all can't necessarily afford that luxury. 

Back to the OT, I think OSRIC counts as a revival of 1e AD&D.   It has spurred the production of commercial 1e compatible material.  Even if it is sold primarily to the 1e loyal, that counts as a revival to me.  Is it here to stay?  Sadly I think not, I feel P&P RPGs (3.x e included) will go the way of wargames, as game appliances (e.g., X-Box, Playstation, etc.) take over.  I hope I'm wrong, especially about the wargame part.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe, I didn't mean to say Pepsi Cola couldn't take legal action (anyone at any moment can in the good ol' USA) and I'm not saying they couldn't drag this out forever (effectively sealing your fate under attorney bills)...that said, waiting around for years until a violator starts making money before legally objecting is frowned upon by the courts  (Mythmere wrote:  There are other constraints than statutes of limitation involved. In essence, you can't just bide your time in a situation that you're later going to claim was damaging to you.") without saying too much on a public board, these "other constraints" are extremely important.  Something else I alluded to in my example: what if Pepsi lost in court...what happens to their IP?  They might loose the rights for that intellectual property forever.  Whoops!   So, speed of action is paramount.  And just an informal "stop" isn't considered much of anything.  There is a procedure (customary as it is) companies protecting their IP are expected to follow.  

But all that said, your basically right, this is not a "clear cut" area of law.  

One thing to remember which I think most of you are missing is this: what if OSRIC or ER did get challanged in court, whats the worst thing that could happen.  Likely the offender would simply have to correct the violations.  Big freakin' deal (I seriously seriously doubt they'd have to pay the other sides legal bills).  And with todays printing technology you can POD or do very small runs and still make a profit 50 at a time, 500 or what have you), you don't have to worry about being stuck with alot of inventory (like 10,000...the old minimum run in the 80s when I was in the bizz...and that was considered a small run).  Where in some industries this could devistate a company (say a major publisher sitting on 100K books), I don't think the small publisher like ER (or even TLG or GG if they chose to) would ever have to worry.  WOTC would first have to give you a chance to correct any violations in good faith (and thats just changing the source document held by your POD printer).  Assuming WOTC did make those demands, and the company corrected the product in question, that product would still be closer to AD&D 1E then C&C or any other system for that matter.  OSRIC would still be "out there" building Brand identity which gets shared by all the little printers.   And then there's the negative hype this would generate for WOTC, HASBRO would just love that....the big guy beating up the little guy...just what they need.  :\


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 3, 2006)

originally posted by Phil. "(Incidentally, I agree with you that OSRIC and C&C go hand-in-hand. I'm using OSRIC products in my C&C game, and it would be just as easy to use C&C products in a 1E/OSRIC game, too.)"

Agreed.   infact, I'm using C&C material in my AD&D game.  Reminds me of the old Recee's Peanut Butter cup commericals of the 70s, "someones got chocolate in my peanut butter...".     

BTW, how many OSRIC publishers are there, and what are the company names? I think they deserve a round of applause; it takes balls to stick your neck out like that...to be the first.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

Rothe said:
			
		

> I feel P&P RPGs (3.x e included) will go the way of wargames, as game appliances (e.g., X-Box, Playstation, etc.) take over.  I hope I'm wrong, especially about the wargame part.




I hope you're right!

Any RPG that's half as profitable as (for example) Warhammer 40k is a runaway success.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> BTW, how many OSRIC publishers are there, and what are the company names?




Counting only those with material that you could buy today, there are five.  In the order they produced material:

Expeditious Retreat Press
Ronin Arts
Mob United Press
Goblinoid Games
0one

Counting those who propose new releases in the future, there are about a dozen.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 3, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> D&D 3.5 is the only true game.  All other editions were just half finished beta versions.
> 
> 
> Wow, that's fun, isn't it?
> ...




Exactly.

I fear that whenever 4E does materialize, whether in 2007 or 2020, I may join the grognard crowd.  It's finally come to the point that I have enough rules, ideas, and gizmos that I'm not sure I could ever explore all the bits I want.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 4, 2006)

Dykstrav said:
			
		

> It wasn't until about 1993 (when I was 15) that I was actually able get a job and start buying gaming material. I spent most of the rest of high school assembling my 1E collection. Fortunately for me, alot of people wanted to clean out their attics when I put the word out that I was looking for old gaming stuff.
> 
> These days, I have a sizable 1E and 2E collection. The older material is GREAT, it just has a much more epic, legendary feel to it than the 3E material. I like the 3E rules set but I still tend to bring 1E or 2E material into 3E rather than play 3E-specific stuff. My next campaign is going to be based around Pommeville (from _Cleric's Challenge_) and include the "first adventure" with Castle Mistamere included in the D&D basic set in 1983.




We're about the same age and that sounds almost exactly like the same "journey" I took to collect 1E stuff...well, outside of the parents saying no and all that jazz.

And point the 2nd: Pommeville!!! EEEEEEEEEE!!! Every homebrew setting (and published ones I flesh out) I've made has a Pommeville in it.


----------



## Dykstrav (Dec 4, 2006)

Yeah, somehow Pommeville always seems to click.    It just seems like the neat little village where adventurers would be sitting on their hands looking for a ruin to loot.

I still use the dungeon generator from the 1E _Dungeon Master's Guide_. I mostly read my 1E material for inspiration for my 3.5 games. To me, the 1E appeal is in presentation more than rules. I tend to enjoy the games where everyone is single-classed (or perhaps with one other class such as a prestige class), all the monsters are straight out of the _Monster Manual_, the DM has hand-drawn the dungeon on graph paper, and no one seems to care if all the rooms are 20 x 30  chambers with locked doors and a monster or trap behind them. 

I've played games like this in 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5. The rules kind of fade into the background in fun games like this. You don't always have to have a printed sheaf of adventure notes, a map you made in _Campaign Cartographer_, and a boatload of carefully selected minis to have a good time at the table. Just seems like 1E players cater more to this type of game. Maybe it has something to do with how common computers are these days...


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 4, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Oddly (IMO), OSRIC threads in the Dragonsfoot "1E" forum are pretty much verboten.  As you mention, OSRIC discussion is allowed in the "Other" category at Dragonfoot.




You must remember that the "1E" forum at DF is dominated by the BtB crowd and as such OSRIC is considered to be heretical.   Nice folks really, just take the homebrew stuff someplace else.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 4, 2006)

OSRIC is AD&D 1E BTB, and these BTB rules were figured out largely at DF over the years by its members, and most confirmed by AD&D's creator, from what I understand.  Infact, if you don't understand the AD&D 1E rules, OSRIC is supposed to be a great place to read them in an understandable form (unlike the core books which I find sometimes confusing).  OSRIC combat rules exclude a few things, but those are optional in the AD&D 1E game anyway; its differences are also due to legal reasons.  DF does not object to OSRIC for its accuracy.  Its the legal issues that worry them "will DF suffer if OSRIC is attacked by WOTC".


----------



## Treebore (Dec 4, 2006)

Well, Papersand Paychecks has said that WOTC responded to OSRIC. Considering his plans to move forward the language of the response must have been very non-threatening.


 If he is under no obligation to keep the response private he should probably scan it and make it available for those "skittish" about OSRIC. At the very least send certified copies to the variosu 3rd party publishers and request that they keep the info private.

What say you, P&P? Can you make the response public? Or at least communicate it to other third party publishers so they can all collectively assure everyone else that WOTC is OK with it?


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 4, 2006)

*chuckles* Since when has WotC been EVER okay about sharing the market with ANYONE? I mean before the advent of 3rd edition?


----------



## Treebore (Dec 4, 2006)

Before 3E? WOTC never had much reason to share the market. They had their card games and other companies had theirs.

As for TSR, no they didn't want to share. Kind of understandable considering how small the market was, but others managed to create a lot of cool stuff, such as Judges Guild.

I also don't believe the OGL would have happened if Peter Adkinson hadn't still been at the helm of WOTC. If the OGL had been talked about afterwards, when the Hasbro mooks had the final say, I don't think the OGL would have ever happened.

I've only met Peter A. once, and only talked to him for a few minutes, but I definitely don't think he is a fundamentally greedy guy, and he seemed to me to love D&D just as much as anyone else I know.

So I think everyone who has been making a go of it under the OGL should be very glad that he was at the helm when this OGL ball started rolling. Hasbro would have blown that ball to bits.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 4, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> OSRIC is AD&D 1E BTB, and these BTB rules were figured out largely at DF over the years by its members, and most confirmed by AD&D's creator, from what I understand.  Infact, if you don't understand the AD&D 1E rules, OSRIC is supposed to be a great place to read them in an understandable form (unlike the core books which I find sometimes confusing).  OSRIC combat rules exclude a few things, but those are optional in the AD&D 1E game anyway; its differences are also due to legal reasons.  DF does not object to OSRIC for its accuracy.  Its the legal issues that worry them "will DF suffer if OSRIC is attacked by WOTC".




DF management worries about the legal issues, the 1E forum dominant group; however,  is not worried about legal issues. If you followed the posts against OSRIC by that 1E froum dominant group, it is obvious that the legal issues are not the basis of their outright hatred of OSRIC, again OSRIC although very BtB is also the ultimate homebrew since it is completely rewritten. Again they are a nice group of folks, but they are not going to go for any rewritting of the canon materials. At least that is the conclusion I have come to from reading the posts against OSRIC.  The non-BtB crowd who embraces homebrew/house rules is very much in favor of OSRIC and how it can bring a lot of "old school" materials into print for AD&D 1E. Although, as an aside, as one who started playing in 1971 with the Chainmail Fantasy rules, I have a hard time calling AD&D 1E old school, I (with no disrespect intended) consider it new school and tend to forget that anything has been published after it.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 4, 2006)

I'm with Nightfall on this, WOTC likely didn't say "we have no real objections" I'm sure they objected.  What they DIDN'T apparently do, however, is take legal action (usually a SD letter).  That is what the publishers collectively need to realize is important.   Another thing that just occured to me: If HASBRO lost a case like this, it might, just might, put into play alot of other game systems that have been defended on the same bogus grounds over the years.  Yeah, I'd give it a 0.0% WOTC does anything but blow smoke.

Crim: "If you followed the posts against OSRIC by that 1E froum dominant group, it is obvious that the legal issues are not the basis of their outright hatred of OSRIC, again OSRIC although very BtB is also the ultimate homebrew since it is completely rewritten."

PLEASE supply a link to this, do you have an example.  I've also read most, if not all, of those old posts, and don't remember any "hatred" from DF regulars (well there were 2 nuts who were both banned from DF because of their rude behavior).  Also, your above statement is illogical.  "Homebrew" by definition means changed or added rules to give a new flavor.  OSRIC doesn't do that.  OSRIC rewords the AD&D 1E rules so that its new artistic expression...and its BTB.  Thus they are in effect the old game reworded.  Period...end of story.  DF as a community has been VERY supportive of OSRIC, Mythmere and Papers and Paychecks.  Its the management, for what ever reason, that has been unwilling (so far) to  offer it a "home" as it has C&C. 

I suggest you go back and reread those old DF posts.  It was infact the legal concerns that prompted the managers and mods there to remove OSRIC from the AD&D 1E section and to not agree to give it a forum of its own (not wanting to jeaprodize their own efforts to produce free 1E material).   If your really curious though, the easiest thing to do would be to ask at DF in their general forum (as Papers and Paychecks I think suggested above) why the management made those choices.  I'm confident they'd give you the same reasons I just did.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Yes, and they could attempt to sue me in Britain too.  I think they'd lose.




They don't have to sue you in Britain. They can sue you in the U.S., if your material ever makes it into the U.S. via "stream of commerce" (a basis for personal jurisdiction in U,S. law). They could then seize anything that enters the U.S. that you produced.



> _A key point here is that the OGL does NOT specify which law governs the agreement; and since I'm a UK citizen who distributed OSRIC from Britain, any attempt to sue would have to take place in the UK._





This is wrong under U.S. personal jurisidiction rules. They may not be able to attach your U.K. assets with a U.S. judgment, but bringing suit against you in the U.S. is certainly doable under U.S. laws.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 4, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i gotta say i've been buggin TSR/WotC/Hasbeen since 1979 to produce OD&D(1974) material.





That is one of the many reasons that I support OSRIC. WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market. There is zero evidence that this is the case. I hope to see the better of the OSRIC products hit the 10,000+ range of printed copies. Over time I hope to see the OSRIC market grow with no discernible effect on the 3.5E market so that WotC/Hasbro wakes up to the fact that by not reprinting the old stuff with POD, that they are ignoring a small but viable market and that they will finally realize that old school and new school are to a very large extent two completely separate markets. The real irony, if OSRIC does well and grows, is that WotC/Hasbro will be unable to compete in the old school market place with anything except reprints, since they have no one capable of writing original old school materials.

What I also hope comes to pass is that the success of OSRIC would encourage P&P to create an OSRIC of OD&D. A rewritten reorganized three little books and Chainmail in one document along with a completely rewritten reorganized appendix of *clearly labeled optional* rules consisting of the four supplements, and the OD&D materials from the SRs, The Dragon and other sources would be fantastic. If I had the writing and editorial skills to do such a document it would have been done about 25 years ago.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Rothe, I didn't mean to say Pepsi Cola couldn't take legal action (anyone at any moment can in the good ol' USA) and I'm not saying they couldn't drag this out forever (effectively sealing your fate under attorney bills)...that said, waiting around for years until a violator starts making money before legally objecting is frowned upon by the courts  (Mythmere wrote:  There are other constraints than statutes of limitation involved. In essence, you can't just bide your time in a situation that you're later going to claim was damaging to you.") without saying too much on a public board, these "other constraints" are extremely important.  Something else I alluded to in my example: what if Pepsi lost in court...what happens to their IP?  They might loose the rights for that intellectual property forever.  Whoops!   So, speed of action is paramount.  And just an informal "stop" isn't considered much of anything.  There is a procedure (customary as it is) companies protecting their IP are expected to follow.




The Pepsi question isn't really apropos here though. The hypothetical concerning Pepsi is clearly a trademark case, and trademarks (under U.S. law) have to be vigorously defended to preserve their validity. Copyright has no such limitation. You can sleep on your rights under copyright law for as long as you want, and they legally remain as valid as ever. Comparing the Pepsi hypothetical to anything being discussed in this thread is comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 4, 2006)

Copwrites also need to be protected in a similar fashion. Once the person can be shown to be aware of the violation, its thier resp. to act (just ask any fine artist that finds their paintings being sold as prints on t-shirts from e-bay).  If you sit on your arse, a judge won't be impressed.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Copwrites also need to be protected in a similar fashion. Once the person can be shown to be aware of the violation, its thier resp. to act (just ask any fine artist that finds their paintings being sold as prints on t-shirts from e-bay).  If you sit on your arse, a judge won't be impressed.




This is just plain wrong. Their is no responsibility to defend in copyright law. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from statues, codes, regulations, or court cases.


----------



## Grazzt (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is just plain wrong. Their is no responsibility to defend in copyright law. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from statues, codes, regulations, or court cases.




Correct. Copyright is copyright. Trademark/service mark is something entirely different.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Copyright has no such limitation. You can sleep on your rights under copyright law for as long as you want, and they legally remain as valid as ever.



I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC.  The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules.  OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera).  It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.

A suit based on trademarks seems unlikely, since OSRIC avoids using others' trademarks (and even if it did, the longer it goes unchallenged the more difficult such a case would be).

A suit based on copyright seems unlikely, given the OGL, et cetera.

A suit based on patents seems unlikely, since WotC doesn't hold any applicable patents that I know of (the only one I know of is the trading card gameplay patent).

Lastly, there's the argument about OSRIC not being a significant competitor to whatever the current edition of D&D is.  I think there's probably some truth to that.  In fact, a successful OSRIC would probably increase the value of the OOP properties that WotC owns in a market that may be increasingly fractured in the future.  Unless there's an obvious infringement of trademark, etc., then I'd just leave it alone.

(Obviously, nothing I've said here should be taken as legal advice or as an indication that I'm practicing law.)


----------



## Psion (Dec 4, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC.  The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules.  OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera).  It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.
> 
> A suit based on trademarks seems unlikely, since OSRIC avoids using others' trademarks (and even if it did, the longer it goes unchallenged the more difficult such a case would be).
> 
> A suit based on copyright seems unlikely, given the OGL, et cetera.




After looking at OSRIC, the resemblance to non-open pre-3e material is _striking_ to me. IANAL, but judging on some past litigation I have seen involving games in the past, I don't think it would be difficult at all to put up a case against OSRIC.

The only question is whether or not the WotC legal department thinks it would be worth it. I'd wager that they don't consider it significant compared to, say, someone outright scanning and copying their material and putting it on a public website (which has happened.)


----------



## RFisher (Dec 4, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I think the place to talk about Dragonsfoot is on Dragonsfoot, folks.



How dare you try to bring reason into a discussion on the internet! (^_^)


			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> OSRIC combat rules exclude a few things, but those are optional in the AD&D 1E game anyway



Technically, except for the Bard & Psionics, I think _nothing_ is optional in 1e. Or, if you wish, everything is optional. It wasn't until 2e that you had lots of things explicitly marked as optional. (Although, the classic D&D line had explicitly optional bits since at least 1981.)

But that's just picking nits...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 4, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market. There is zero evidence that this is the case.



 

So TSR never had any problems with dilution of product lines and never were able to measure any impact of having two competing D&D lines at the same time?


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC.  The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules.  OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera).  It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.[/i]




This is correct, as far as it goes. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the actual idea itself. However, copyright also protects derivative works that are spawned by the original work. It is possible that OSRIC could be found to have violated the copyright as a derivative work. Cluttering the issue is the fact that the OGL is out there, making some of the work open for use. But that is a factual question that requires more information than we have right here.

The question of whether a copyright can lose validlty through non-enforcement is one we can settle quite quickly - it can't. At least not under U.S. law.



> _Lastly, there's the argument about OSRIC not being a significant competitor to whatever the current edition of D&D is.  I think there's probably some truth to that.  In fact, a successful OSRIC would probably increase the value of the OOP properties that WotC owns in a market that may be increasingly fractured in the future.  Unless there's an obvious infringement of trademark, etc., then I'd just leave it alone._




Copyrights can be enforced even if the infringing use has no bearing whatever on the market for the copyrighted work. If a copyright is properly registered (which is optional, but I think WotC probably has done this), the copyright holder can obtain "statutory damages" which is a set amount of damages per infringement, without the necessity of proving any actual economic harm to his business.



> _(Obviously, nothing I've said here should be taken as legal advice or as an indication that I'm practicing law.)_




I am a practicing lawyer, but no one should rely on legal advice they get over the internet. Including my advice. If you want legal advice, find a lawyer and talk to him face-to-face.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 4, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> After looking at OSRIC, the resemblance to non-open pre-3e material is _striking_ to me. IANAL, but judging on some past litigation I have seen involving games in the past, I don't think it would be difficult at all to put up a case against OSRIC.



You are not a lawyer. Osric was begun by a lawyer & has been reviewed by lawyers. () Well, you've convinced me. Everybody stop work on any Osric material & start changing "hp" back to "HTK". (^_^)


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 4, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think a copyright case would be very difficult for WotC.  The game rules and algorithms, themselves, are not subject to copyright; copyright only applies to the presentation of those rules.  OSRIC is written from scratch (i.e. an original presentation), and it uses the OGL, which means it has permission to use terms that might otherwise be considered part of the "artistic presentation" of the game algorithms and rules (e.g. hit points, armor class, class names, spell names, et cetera).  It's really the OGL that makes OSRIC possible, IMO.




I had considered a project like OSRIC shortly after the draft SRD was released -- my goal would have been to create a stripped down version of the 3e ruleset that simulated the old basic D&D red book. 

The big stumbling blocks I encountered were the ability modifiers and the XP tables. Almost every other piece of the red-book system could have been simulated by playing with or excluding pieces of the open toolset. But there didn't seem to be a way to re-create the quirky ability mods or XP tables without dipping into closed content.

Because _that_ information was not derived from a mathematical formula, I couldn't see how someone could claim they developed that information without pulling it from closed, copyrighted materials. A thousand monkeys banging on a thousand typewriters would need a couple of eons to independently develop something like the baroque "percentile strength" charts.

Does OSRIC use 1e ability mods and XP tables? And if so, how is it justified as open content?


----------



## Psion (Dec 4, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> You are not a lawyer. Osric was begun by a lawyer & has been reviewed by lawyers. () Well, you've convinced me. Everybody stop work on any Osric material & start changing "hp" back to "HTK". (^_^)




And after my post a lawyer opined that it could be possible. And again, my opinion is based on the scope of verbage of actual suits.

So, who do you believe?

I think that many publishers who aren't willing to touch it are right not to risk it. If you are a publisher and wish to risk it, feel free. It's your money. 

Again, however, I'll reemphasize that it's not so much a matter of what can be proven in court. People who are making money off of this are not making enough that it would be worth soaking up court costs. It's a matter of WotC deciding whether it's worth paying some lawyers to sink it.

Really, many people have opined about the OGL that it's not so much about legalities as risk, anyways. People could use the same "careful wording" and "game mechanics omissions" to copyright laws to publish material for some time. Most avoid it unless they feel that they have genuine reason to believe they will not be sued.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 4, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> The big stumbling blocks I encountered were the ability modifiers and the XP tables.



There's a fan-created class-creation system for classic D&D that reverse engineered some math behind the classic D&D XP tables.

C&C & TLG's earlier work, the S&S system, used a ability modifiers table exactly like the classic D&D table--except for extending beyond the 3-18 range.

What would you've done for saving throws?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The question of whether a copyright can lose validlty through non-enforcement is one we can settle quite quickly - it can't. At least not under U.S. law.



No argument from me on that.  



> Copyrights can be enforced even if the infringing use has no bearing whatever on the market for the copyrighted work.



Sure; my comment about competition and the market, et cetera, wasn't meant to be a legal argument; I see that part as more of a business/strategic question than a question of law.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> However, copyright also protects derivative works that are spawned by the original work. It is possible that OSRIC could be found to have violated the copyright as a derivative work. Cluttering the issue is the fact that the OGL is out there, making some of the work open for use. But that is a factual question that requires more information than we have right here.



Yes.  I still think that would be a difficult position to argue, though, because of the OGL complicating things and because it doesn't matter if the game rules are derivative, it only matters if the presentation is derivative.  On the surface, it looks obvious that OSRIC is derived from 1E, but once you focus solely on the presentation (rather than the rules) and add in the complication of the OGL, then you have quite a minefield to navigate.

Oh well, as you say, we don't have enough information to really say.  I know the creators of OSRIC have obtained legal advice, and created the document with the legal questions in mind, though.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 4, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> I had considered a project like OSRIC shortly after the draft SRD was released -- my goal would have been to create a stripped down version of the 3e ruleset that simulated the old basic D&D red book.



Have you seen Basic Fantasy? 



> Does OSRIC use 1e ability mods and XP tables?



There are some differences.  OSRIC uses a variable in the XP advancement tables.  I think the ability mods are the same numbers, although OSRIC doesn't present strength with percentages, but rather as decimals.  So there's no 18(00) strength: it's listed as 19 in the table.  I haven't really been over it looking for differences; those are things off the top of my head.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 4, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> There's a fan-created class-creation system for classic D&D that reverse engineered some math behind the classic D&D XP tables.
> 
> C&C & TLG's earlier work, the S&S system, used a ability modifiers table exactly like the classic D&D table--except for extending beyond the 3-18 range.
> 
> What would you've done for saving throws?




I didn't get that far conceptually -- I basically started with character creation, and the weird ability score modifications were an immediate (and seemingly significant) hurdle. Had I ever gotten to combat, saving throws would have had similar issues -- now I think I understand why C&C handles saving throws the way they do.

Because game rules and algorithms can't be copyrighted, it seemed *possible* to pull some of those closed, missing mechanics out of the old rules, but it's a long way from *possible* and *a sure thing*. The lawyer I talked with thought it would be a serious potential exposure.

But aside from the legalities, it seemed like trying to back door closed (but much desired) content on technicalities really violated the generous spirit of the OGL and abused WotC's good will. At the time (and keep in mind, this was back in the early days of the OGL), it seemed much, much more beneficial to not push the issue -- I would have rather had WotC willingly release new open material to the SRD rather than try to forcefully open up content they wanted closed.

In the end, it was the goodwill consideration that really gave me pause.

To tell the truth, I haven't thought much about this since I abandoned the idea. But since WotC seems to have abandoned the SRD (just when WAS the last update?), it's a bit harder to argue on goodwill grounds that folks should play nice with the OGL.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

Treebore said:
			
		

> If he is under no obligation to keep the response private he should probably scan it and make it available for those "skittish" about OSRIC. At the very least send certified copies to the variosu 3rd party publishers and request that they keep the info private.
> 
> What say you, P&P? Can you make the response public? Or at least communicate it to other third party publishers so they can all collectively assure everyone else that WOTC is OK with it?




I'm sorry, Treebore, but private correspondence is exactly that.  The WOTC representative with whom I exchanged communications is entitled not to have their words repeated elsewhere, and I think they quite clearly had an expectation of privacy.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is just plain wrong. Their is no responsibility to defend in copyright law. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but it isn't from statues, codes, regulations, or court cases.




Are you a lawyer?

If so, could you explain why, in your opinion, copyright isn't subject to laches or estoppel?

If not, could you just shut up please?


----------



## Rel (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I am a practicing lawyer, but no one should rely on legal advice they get over the internet. Including my advice. If you want legal advice, find a lawyer and talk to him face-to-face.




Turns out that he IS, PapersAndPaychecks.  Regardless, I think that telling anybody here to "shut up" was a bit on the rude side and I expect the tenor of this conversation to move toward the calm end of the spectrum.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Are you a lawyer?




Yes. I am.



> _If so, could you explain why, in your opinion, copyright isn't subject to laches or estoppel?_




Estoppel is an equitable doctrine not at all applicable to a stautory scheme in which one party is infringing upon the other's rights, and knows or should have known that they are doing so (as equity requires that the one asserting it have clean hands). Laches is generally inapplicable to situations in which a staute of limitations has been defined, as is the case of copyright.



> _If not, could you just shut up please?_




Reported.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 4, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> The big stumbling blocks I encountered were the ability modifiers and the XP tables. Almost every other piece of the red-book system could have been simulated by playing with or excluding pieces of the open toolset. But there didn't seem to be a way to re-create the quirky ability mods or XP tables without dipping into closed content.
> 
> Because _that_ information was not derived from a mathematical formula, I couldn't see how someone could claim they developed that information without pulling it from closed, copyrighted materials. A thousand monkeys banging on a thousand typewriters would need a couple of eons to independently develop something like the baroque "percentile strength" charts.



%-ile strength is an easy one to "fix": turn each gradation into its own whole number (with 18.01-18.40 remaining as 18), bumping each higher number up by one for each new number added in.  So, (and I don't remember the exact %-age breakdown) 18.98 becomes 23, 18.00 becomes 24, and all the Giant strengths go up by 5 (thus, Storm Giants, once 25, are now 30).  Then, you need to design an exceptional-strength-roll table; easy to do, and can now be broken down to allow different racial maxima for different races (Elves top out at 21, for example).  A useful side-effect is that if you want to include percentile increments (first seen with the original Cavalier) they now function sensibly alongside exceptional strength. That said, whether the use of the very concept of "exceptional strength" will cause trouble is beyond my knowledge...

As for ExP tables, you could design your own formula for each class, work out the bump points accordingly, round to the nearest 1000, and present your players with a set of tables.  As the original ExP tables don't seem to be based on a particular formula (or if they are, I sure don't know it) I can't see how you'd get in trouble for coming up with a formula and using it.

Lanefan


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

My apologies:  over the last six months, I've grown enormously tired of seeing non-lawyers opining that OSRIC is illegal, and my patience with it has worn very thin.  It's a refreshing change to be addressing someone with a legal qualification.

Bearing in mind that the OGL applies to OSRIC, please point out any specific instance in which OSRIC infringes on WOTC's copyrights.


----------



## EditorBFG (Dec 4, 2006)

I think, like all things, the nostalgia craze will fade in time. So will the idea that a 30 year-old ruleset is better than everything that followed it.

What I think has life is the idea of a "1st Edition feel" (as Necromancer Games put it). That is not just applicable to those who played 1E, but those who may have been too young but saw the books in stores or their older brother/cousin's closet. Even without the experience, it had a feel. Unlike 2E or 3.whatever, which look and feel like "marketing", there was a 1E ambience that seemed forbidding and arcane-- somehow, the often poor artwork and black-and-white all added to that rather than detracting.

That said, there is a limit to how great the old stuff was, and how much we should return to. Going back to hit rolls going up but Armor Class going down? That way lies madness.

I think that the best way to marry basic D&D to the now is something like Microlite 20, created here on EN World, which is just golden and simplifies the current system without returning to the weaknesses of the old.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

*Edit:*  Case cite removed; I probably shouldn't tip my legal hand on a public messageboard.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> *Edit:*  Case cite removed; I probably shouldn't tip my legal hand on a public messageboard.




And this relates to laches and equitable estoppel how?

If you go back and actually look at my posts I have said a limtied number of things, none of which are "OSRIC is a copyright infringement". In point of fact, I have explicitly stated that we don't have enough information available to us to determine that here.

What I _have_ said is:

1. Just because someone distributes something from the U.K. does not make them immune to a suit brought in the U.S. Under the "stream of commerce" theory of personal jurisdiction, such an individual could easily be sued in the U.S. if their goods ended up in a U.S. market.

2. Copyright does not expire as a result of inaction. If you don't take action to enforce a trademark, it becomes unenforceable. Copyrights, however, have no such limitation, and neither laches nor equitable (or collateral) estoppel generally applies in cases with a statutorily defined limitation.

3. Fair Use is more limited than most people on the internet seem to think. Among other things, there is no "10% rule", and the proposed use needs to fall into the categories of use that the exception covers (i.e. education, review, commentary, parody, etc.)

I will also note that the Milligan v. Worldwide Tupperware, Inc. case (972 F. Supp. 158) covers a very limited exception. The games in question were very short, and basically involved learning how to do basic math. That is very different from an RPG, in which a large volume of rules are very idiosyncratic to systems. I think you would have a much better chance of proving derivation in a long work, especially since the work claims to be drawn from it in the first place. I don't know enough about the specifics of OSRIC compared to 1e D&D (because I have not done a page by page analysis, which would be required) to make a determination as to whether there is enough similarity to say there might be infringement or not. And unless somebody decides to start paying me by the hour to do so (highly unlikely), I probably won't.

I'd also caution against relying on the Milligan case _too_ much. It is a district court case, and as such, it is useful only for precedential value in the Western Distict of New York. It might be regarded as informative by another District court, but they are under no obligation to pay attention to it.

But, as I said before, I am _not_ offering an opinion regarding whether OSRIC infringes or not. I am only talking about issues of copyright law that have been demonstrably misstated in this thread.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> *Edit:*  Case cite removed; I probably shouldn't tip my legal hand on a public messageboard.




I don't think you have much to gain by "hiding" your basis for making your legal case. If this sort of thing ever comes down to litigation, the copyright law specialists who will be hired to handle the case probably already know about this case. And even if they don't, about ten minutes of research on Westlaw or LEXIS/NEXIS will find it.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 4, 2006)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think, like all things, the nostalgia craze will fade in time. So will the idea that a 30 year-old ruleset is better than everything that followed it.  What I think has life is the idea of a "1st Edition feel" (as Necromancer Games put it).



I think it's more than mere nostalgia.  In my case, "1E feel" has always been my preferred style, but I've also found that the rules you play under do make a difference.  I don't believe any of the older editions are perfect, but I also reject the idea that newer is necessarily better.  I do know the older rules-sets are a closer fit to my style of game and my "rules/DM philosophy."  That, not mere nostalgia, is ultimately why I returned to them (although currently I'm playing C&C, so "returned to" isn't accurate, in that case.  It does apply to BECMI, though, which I'm also playing).

Incidentally, there's a recent discussion of "1E feel" on the Necromancer Games boards.  We talked about some of these thing, there.



> Going back to hit rolls going up but Armor Class going down? That way lies madness.



Hrm.  That's one of those things that I think doesn't really matter that much.  I know it's an oft-cited flaw of earlier editions, but I just can't work up much condemnation or enthusiam about it.  I don't have a problem with AC going up, and I don't have a problem with AC going down.  To me, the differences that matter between the editions, system-wise are stuff like skills, feats, how balance is addressed, and the degree to which DM judgment plays a role in play.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 4, 2006)

It seems strange to me that people are getting so worked up over OSRIC's legality again since (according to Mythmere's post) it seems that WotC has basically decided to treat it as a non-issue.  It seems to me that if no legal gauntlets were thrown after the initial contact it would be highly unlikely that WotC is going to come back a year later or five years later or whatever and reconsider the issue.  Not that they couldn't, but it does seem unlikely.

Either way, I suspect that the "AD&D revival" whether it's spurred by OSRIC products or projects like Rob Kuntz and Goodman Game's recent modules will likely persist as more and more of the huge number of kids who jumped on the D&D bandwagon in the early 80s reach the age where they are taking up the old games again either as part of a nostagic reliving of their childhood or as a means of connecting with their own kids.  I am always amazed by the number of people of my generation who have no current interest whatsoever in gaming but have fond memories of playing D&D in their friends basement circa 1982 and fully expect to pull out their old books and play with their kids "as soon as I can trust them not to eat the crayon".


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I don't think you have much to gain by "hiding" your basis for making your legal case. If this sort of thing ever comes down to litigation, the copyright law specialists who will be hired to handle the case probably already know about this case. And even if they don't, about ten minutes of research on Westlaw or LEXIS/NEXIS will find it.




Thanks for conceding that you don't know whether or not OSRIC infringes.  It doesn't.

There are circumstances where laches are relevant; it depends what's alleged.  

I think I have nothing to fear from a US Court.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 4, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Thanks for conceding that you don't know whether or not OSRIC infringes.  It doesn't.




How is it a concession when I never alleged that it did? I think you are looking for a disagreement where there really wasn't one. I disagreed that you were not subject to suit in U.S. court, that's different from saying that you would lose said suit.



> _There are circumstances where laches are relevant; it depends what's alleged.  _




Not generally in a case with a defined statute of limitations. I haven't seen a case idated within the last thirty to forty years in which laches was applied in which the alleged wrong had a statutorily defined limitations period.



> _I think I have nothing to fear from a US Court._




I wouldn't say "nothing", but since WotC hasn't done anything yet, I doubt if they will. Not because they are barred from doing so, or because OSRIC does or doesn't infringe, but rather because they probably have little to gain from doing so.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 4, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> It seems strange to me that people are getting so worked up over OSRIC's legality again since (according to Mythmere's post) it seems that WotC has basically decided to treat it as a non-issue.  It seems to me that if no legal gauntlets were thrown after the initial contact it would be highly unlikely that WotC is going to come back a year later or five years later or whatever and reconsider the issue.  Not that they couldn't, but it does seem unlikely.




Agreed.  While we may have opinions either way on the legalities, it seems to me that this is a private issue.




> Either way, I suspect that the "AD&D revival" whether it's spurred by OSRIC products or projects like Rob Kuntz and Goodman Game's recent modules will likely persist as more and more of the huge number of kids who jumped on the D&D bandwagon in the early 80s reach the age where they are taking up the old games again either as part of a nostagic reliving of their childhood or as a means of connecting with their own kids.  I am always amazed by the number of people of my generation who have no current interest whatsoever in gaming but have fond memories of playing D&D in their friends basement circa 1982 and fully expect to pull out their old books and play with their kids "as soon as I can trust them not to eat the crayon".




I know that as I get older, I want to share the things that were popular during my childhood with my kids.  My boys both like my Star Wars toys, and my oldest is a fan of Pac-Man Fever.  

Considering how many options are out there for nostalgic gaming, it seems to me that this particular niche in the RPG market is fairly strong.  The market seems to be able to  handle the various methods, so more power to them.  

Also, I don't think that nostalgic gaming is an "either/or" situation.  Sometimes people make it out to where you either game old school style or d20 style.  I don't think that's the case.  For example, in my own Age of Mortals game for Dragonlance, I was looking at inserting a Dungeon Crawl Classic.  So there's a little old school and new school thrown together for ya.


----------



## dcas (Dec 4, 2006)

I must confess that although I am not a lawyer, I find the legal discussion fascinating.

By the way, here is a definition of 'estoppel': http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e040.htm



> Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than she did at an earlier time if the other party would be harmed by the change. For example, if after obtaining the paternity judgment, Leroy sues Donna for custody, Donna is now equitably estopped from claiming in the custody suit that Leroy is not the father.



And here's one of 'laches': http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm



> Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.




Wasn't there a relevant copyright case involving Marion Zimmer Bradley's works?


----------



## MerricB (Dec 4, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Hrm.  That's one of those things that I think doesn't really matter that much.  I know it's an oft-cited flaw of earlier editions, but I just can't work up much condemnation or enthusiam about it.




It's a flaw primarily from 2e-days, when THAC0 was king. It was surprisingly hard for some people to grasp THAC0 minus AC is the target number (especially with negative ACs); I know I had to explain it to a certain player every session of one campaign.  In 1e, with the explicit tables, it was much less of a problem.

Cheers!


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say "nothing", but since WotC hasn't done anything yet, I doubt if they will. Not because they are barred from doing so, or because OSRIC does or doesn't infringe, but rather because they probably have little to gain from doing so.




... and much to lose.  

The interaction of the OGL with international copyright law is very much uncharted legal territory, and much is speculation.  A breach of the OGL might be alleged and defended.

I'd certainly ask a British court for a declaration that, since I'm a British citizen, the alleged wrong took place in Britain, and WOTC is an international with offices in the UK, it should be a British court that presides.  Then there's the question of which law applies -- it could end up being US law in a British court -- and the thorny issue of a possible counterclaim under antitrust law for triple damages...

I can imagine that WOTC's lawyers might well want to avoid that situation.  It's not even as if OSRIC were making any money; it's a non-profit.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2006)

I should clarify that all this legal discussion is speculation.  I have every reason to believe that WOTC will not bring a legal challenge.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 4, 2006)

My friend who is an artist found some artwork on t-shirts for sale online that were very similar to her own design...to similar.  She contacted the manufacturer who claimed the design was there's.  They refused to do anything about it.  She contacted an attorney who said, you'll have to take them to court if you really want them to stop...and since it wasn't exact it might be difficult to prove.  She also asked could she wait for years before acting.  The attorney said she should act sooner rather then later if she wanted to improve her chances of winning.    This is the only artist I know of personally who had this problem.  But according to her you can go on forums and find other artists with the same problem.  I suppose this could just be the attorney trying to generate business immediatly?  If so thats kinda pathetic. 

Anyhow, what if OSRIC was legally challanged.  Worst case scenario Papers and Paychecks cracks.  "OK I give up".  So then he asks what exactly do I need to change to comply.  Lets say they give him a list and he changes those things.  He's still left with OSRIC.  The publishers are still left with OSRIC.  So whats the big deal?  How will publishers loose money if OSRICs owner caved?  

And what are the most likely costs that Papers and Paychecks would be required to pay?  I mean, could they prove thier present company was damaged?  They can't charge royalty since OSRIC is free.  And the publishers...they can say "AD&D whats that.  My module is based on this thing called OSRIC".  

And what if this sucker did go to court and WOTC looses...what then? 
This would be a crushing blow to them in not just lost claims to IP but in PR to the public, then there's the chance this court case could be used to topple other monoliths of gamedom.   Its dynomite.  Case in point, didn't Gygax settle out of court for a big load of cash? Or did it go to trial?


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 4, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> It's a flaw primarily from 2e-days, when THAC0 was king. It was surprisingly hard for some people to grasp THAC0 minus AC is the target number (especially with negative ACs); I know I had to explain it to a certain player every session of one campaign.  In 1e, with the explicit tables, it was much less of a problem.



Count me as one of those to whom THAC0 was nigh inexplicable...I just have a little two-column chart on the back of my DM screen that says if the roll plus modifiers plus fight level add to *this*, it'll hit AC *that*, for each AC from 10 to about -12 or so. (and alongside it is another little chart that gives fight levels for the various classes, smoothed out somewhat from the original 1e tables)

That, and for some reason THAC0 uses AC 0 as a base, which is about in the middle of the range instead of at one end.  If they'd made it THAC10 it would have been more intuitive, at least for me.

Lanefan


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 4, 2006)

I also recall some discussion at one of the websites concerning print runs under 500 not being subject to the same standards of copywrite law?  That was why Goodman Games wouldn't sell more then 500.  Its been a long while, but is this correct?  If so, what are the specifics?  Is this really a law, and if so how would it apply to a free download like OSRIC....after all Papers and Paychecks released one copy...someone else hosts OSRIC right?


----------



## dcas (Dec 5, 2006)

I think that was concerning fanzines with a circulation of 500 or less, not slickly-produced modules by professional outfits.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> ... and much to lose.




Not really.



> _I'd certainly ask a British court for a declaration that, since I'm a British citizen, the alleged wrong took place in Britain, and WOTC is an international with offices in the UK, it should be a British court that presides.  Then there's the question of which law applies -- it could end up being US law in a British court -- and the thorny issue of a possible counterclaim under antitrust law for triple damages..._




Sure, you could do that. But that wouldn't prevent WotC from obtaining a judgment against you in a U.S. court anyway. Then you have dueling judgments. And your antitrust claim almost certainly fails, since they would probably (successfully) define the market as "games", and Hasbro is nowhere near holding a monopoly position in that market. Leaving you with a declaration that you should be sued in Britain, and WotC holding a judgment alliowing them to seize any of your products that enter the U.S.



> _I can imagine that WOTC's lawyers might well want to avoid that situation.  It's not even as if OSRIC were making any money; it's a non-profit._




Profit or non-profit is almost entirely beside the point in copyright litigation. But, on the whole, my guess is that WotC has decided not to worry about OSRIC because it is too small potatos for them to bother with. Not that they fear some sort of difficult litigation situation.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> My friend who is an artist found some artwork on t-shirts for sale online that were very similar to her own design...to similar.  She contacted the manufacturer who claimed the design was there's.  They refused to do anything about it.  She contacted an attorney who said, you'll have to take them to court if you really want them to stop...and since it wasn't exact it might be difficult to prove.  She also asked could she wait for years before acting.  The attorney said she should act sooner rather then later if she wanted to improve her chances of winning.    This is the only artist I know of personally who had this problem.  But according to her you can go on forums and find other artists with the same problem.  I suppose this could just be the attorney trying to generate business immediatly?  If so thats kinda pathetic.




In a copyright action you need to prove not only that the work is similar, but also that is was copied. Unlike a patent holder, a copyright holder has no right to prevent independent creation of a similar artistic work, provided that work was truly created independently. So, for example, when an obscure songwriter in Chicago sued the Bee Gees claiming they had copied the music from one of his original creations to make the melody to _How deep Is Your Love_, he lost. He could not demonstrate that the Bee Gees had ever heard his song, let alone that they had copied it. So, unless your artist friend can show some sort of nexus between her work and the company's creation, she is probably going to have troubles in an infringement action.

As to whether you should bring an action now rather than later, that is almost always the case, no matter the area of law. This isn't something that is a part of copyright law, but rather a practical issue related to litigation. If you wait, then there is the liklihood that memories will fade, witnesses will move and their forwarding addresses lost, evidence misplaced and so on. If I were advising clients contemplating litigation, I would recommend sooner rather than later unless there was some compelling reason to do otherwise. Not because of any kind of oddity about copyright law, but because litigation is harder to conduct two, three, or four years down the line.



> _Anyhow, what if OSRIC was legally challanged.  Worst case scenario Papers and Paychecks cracks.  "OK I give up".  So then he asks what exactly do I need to change to comply.  Lets say they give him a list and he changes those things.  He's still left with OSRIC.  The publishers are still left with OSRIC.  So whats the big deal?  How will publishers loose money if OSRICs owner caved?_




The worst case scenario from Papers and Paychecks perspective is that WotC could gain control of the copyright (forfeiture of rights is a often applied remedy), or injunctive relief against distributing anything using the OSRIC as a backbone. Not that either is likely at this point, since we have no indication that WotC is contemplating taking any action at all. But that would be the worst case scenario.



> _And what are the most likely costs that Papers and Paychecks would be required to pay?  I mean, could they prove thier present company was damaged?  They can't charge royalty since OSRIC is free.  And the publishers...they can say "AD&D whats that.  My module is based on this thing called OSRIC"._




A copyright holder with a properly registered copyright is entitled to statutory damages - that is damages in an amount defined by statute, per infringing event. These damages are entirely unrelated to the amount of economic harm the copyright holder may have suffered. In the case of incidental infringement, statutory damages can range from $750 to $30,000  per infringement, and in the case of willful infringement, up to $150,000 per infringement.

And derivative works of an infringing work are also infringements. So publishers under OSRIC, even if they thought it was kosher to use could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights.



> _And what if this sucker did go to court and WOTC looses...what then?
> This would be a crushing blow to them in not just lost claims to IP but in PR to the public, then there's the chance this court case could be used to topple other monoliths of gamedom.   Its dynomite.  Case in point, didn't Gygax settle out of court for a big load of cash? Or did it go to trial?_




Gygax's case didn't just involve IP from what I understand, there were stockholder issues and business contracts and so on mixed in. I do recall that Gygax did lose control of most of the IP he produced while working for TSR, so I don't think he is a very good example to cite on this.

But as to WotC losing? They would lose control of OSRIC, which people now assert they don't control to being with, so I don't see how that would hurt them. They would keep their copyrights on their books and so on, those don't get invalidated if they lose. The antiturst angle is mildly interesting, but there isn't any reasonable definition of the market that would make WotC a monopolist (and the fact that you think WotC is a "monolith of gamedom" shows that you don't understand what a bit player WotC is in the ranks of game publishers as a whole). The PR issue would be the most worrying if I were WotC.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 5, 2006)

"and the fact that you think WotC is a "monolith of gamedom" shows that you don't understand what a bit player WotC is in the ranks of game publishers" 

Storm Raven I was referring to HASBRO/WOTC not just WOTC, so my bad there buddy.   

Q: "The worst case scenario from Papers and Paychecks perspective is that WotC could gain control of the copyright (forfeiture of rights is a often applied remedy), or injunctive relief against distributing anything using the OSRIC as a backbone."

So say he folds.  Agrees to give WOTC OSRIC without a fight.  Then 2 weeks later, SEDRIC (another rewrite of the 1E rules) shows up, correcting many of the errors of OSRIC, perhaps WILMA and BESSY all  AD&D 1E  rules with original presentation.  The publishers of AD&D 1E are back in business in a yawn.  WOTC stamps these out and more pop up. 

Another question Storm Raven.  Can a company like WOTC pick and choose willy nilly who they will go after (say ignoring GG, DF, C&C etc.) and single out OSRIC, if each of these others were commiting the same infrindgements?  Especially in this case, its not like OSRIC is reproducing actual text or images...its a bit more removed from that (like the concept that a half-elf fighter is limited to such and such level etc.).  Couldn't it be said, "hey you didn't think a crime was going on before, but now suddenly with this one company you do"?  

BTW thanks for your partisipation in this thread.  Though I think your "cold" to OSRIC for some reason, I appreciate your thoughtful answers.


----------



## Melan (Dec 5, 2006)

In any case, the output so far has been promising. I don't care one bit for the OSRIC book except for curio value (which I don't value that much, nowdays - the PDF is fine, but see no reason to buy it), but *Pod-caverns of the sinister shroom* was an inspired module (I hope to run it in january or so) and *Red mausoleum* seems decent enough as well. That's what matters - small modules, and a low volume of supplementary material.

Regarding market viability, I remain skeptical about OSRIC "taking the gaming world by storm". That is unlikely to happen; early growth is often impressive, but once it has passed that initial stage and the early buzz subsides, it becomes much harder to gain new adherents. What we can _hope_ for or _work_ towards is a small crafts culture growing up around the game. There would be little profit in that, but quite a lot of fun - and that's fine, even great for a hobby culture.


----------



## EditorBFG (Dec 5, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with AC going up, and I don't have a problem with AC going down.  To me, the differences that matter between the editions, system-wise are stuff like skills, feats, how balance is addressed, and the degree to which DM judgment plays a role in play.



For me, AC is emblematic of many counter-intuitive rules that dogged the older system. I'm not knocking the old system for what it was-- things evolve over time, sometimes improving, sometimes not-- but I think that a counter-intuitive ruleset is part of why the AD&D craze won't last. Something that is more balanced and easily applicable to differing situations out of the box is going to gain and retain more popularity. Every game requires the GM to be on top of things, but I think his attention is better focused elsewhere than ensuring that encounters tough enough to challenge the cavalier don't annihilate the fighter, for example. I think every game has its niche-- I find Bunnies & Burrows to be a surprisingly good read, though not my cup of tea to play-- but to my mind, old school D&D's recent emergence from its niche into relative popularity is temporary, at least as far as the rules themselves go, rather than long-term. But as I said, I think the "feel" is here to stay, just not the nuts and bolts.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure, you could do that. But that wouldn't prevent WotC from obtaining a judgment against you in a U.S. court anyway. Then you have dueling judgments.




In this rather unlikely case, the issue of venue would be complex and I imagine it would take months or even years to resolve.

I would certainly ask my solicitor to write to the US Court and say something along these lines:

1.  A US court is not the proper venue for the case; and
2.  There is no breach of copyright.  Both parties agree that game rules, systems and mechanics aren't subject to copyright (WOTC have published this statement in the past).  Both parties agree that the OGL applies.  The OGL permits me the use of gaming terms (such as "armor class" and "alignment") which are admittedly WOTC's property, and it permits me to "modify" the meaning of those terms however I wish.  The artwork is clearly new.  Therefore, all these items should be subtracted from the document.

WOTC should then show substantial similarity between whatever's left of OSRIC after you've taken out all the rules, systems, mechanics and gaming terms, and something that they own and I challenge them to do so.

Since you won't read the document and look for similarities, please take it from me:  no such substantial similarity exists.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And your antitrust claim almost certainly fails, since they would probably (successfully) define the market as "games", and Hasbro is nowhere near holding a monopoly position in that market.




I beg to differ.  

I don't know what case you're using as a source for that, but I wouldn't necessarily need to bring the action in the US in any case.  WOTC quite clearly believe that there's a separate market in pen and paper roleplaying games.  That's their specialist niche, and they publish market analyses and other documents which treat pen and paper roleplaying games as a specific market in themselves.  I think that in the UK it would be very hard for them to argue that pen and paper RPGs isn't a market.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Leaving you with a declaration that you should be sued in Britain, and WotC holding a judgment alliowing them to seize any of your products that enter the U.S.




*shrug*

If WOTC somehow get past the preceding issues, the consequence is that print copies of OSRIC would be scarce in the US for a while and I have to host the .pdf of OSRIC in the UK.  No judgment or legal issue will stop US citizens downloading a free .pdf.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Profit or non-profit is almost entirely beside the point in copyright litigation. But, on the whole, my guess is that WotC has decided not to worry about OSRIC because it is too small potatos for them to bother with. Not that they fear some sort of difficult litigation situation.




It's highly relevant to issues such as consequential loss.  Perhaps that matters less in the US.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> For me, AC is emblematic of many counter-intuitive rules that dogged the older system. I'm not knocking the old system for what it was-- things evolve over time, sometimes improving, sometimes not-- but I think that a counter-intuitive ruleset is part of why the AD&D craze won't last. Something that is more balanced and easily applicable to differing situations out of the box is going to gain and retain more popularity. Every game requires the GM to be on top of things, but I think his attention is better focused elsewhere than ensuring that encounters tough enough to challenge the cavalier don't annihilate the fighter, for example. I think every game has its niche-- I find Bunnies & Burrows to be a surprisingly good read, though not my cup of tea to play-- but to my mind, old school D&D's recent emergence from its niche into relative popularity is temporary, at least as far as the rules themselves go, rather than long-term. But as I said, I think the "feel" is here to stay, just not the nuts and bolts.




I simply don't understand the complaints about descending AC.  It seems perfectly intuitive to me; it's hardly advanced math!


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 5, 2006)

EDITOR BGF posted: "but to my mind, old school D&D's recent emergence from its niche into relative popularity is temporary, at least as far as the rules themselves go, rather than long-term. But as I said, I think the "feel" is here to stay, just not the nuts and bolts."

I think most players of AD&D 1E would  argue the 1E rules more or less followed are a huge part of what creates the unique old school feel (its not just giant spiders with poison that kills its rules like fixed archetypes and the use of tables).   

C&C and Microlight20 are both very similar to one another IMO, a quick and efficient D20 experiance, if you will...BUT, without 1Es tables, flexible rules, and the philosophy of complete power of the DM, those 2 systems will never really produce the same late 70s "old school" 1E feel that OSRIC can.  They are both great systems, just not 1E (as OSRIC attempts to be).  

BTW, I'm not saying buy OSRIC, I'd prefer people buy the original 1E books and play (at least give it a shot).  But if you want a free downloadable copy or an inexpensive "in print" "current" 1E substitute (which in some ways is clearer then the original), and that (hopefully) a dozen publishers will be supporting in the very near future...well then OSRIC is your ticket.

EDITED to say, as a long time troll of ENworld, I never hoped to see such a positive and warm reception to AD&D 1E and OSRIC.  Its nice to see the edition wars are over.  That each game can be seen as special and unique rather then "broken" or "superior".


----------



## RFisher (Dec 5, 2006)

EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think, like all things, the nostalgia craze will fade in time. So will the idea that a 30 year-old ruleset is better than everything that followed it.




My c. 1981 vintage D&D game is proving as much--nay _more_ fun for me & my group that it was when I bought it. While I think 3e is an amazing work & I do enjoy it, I don't enjoy it as much as the 20+ year old game. For _me_, the older game is better.

Granted, I'm not going to say that--in general--the old game is better than everything that followed it for everyone. I like, admire, & happily play 3e. I recognize that for some people it is a better game. There are plenty of newer games that, even for me, are better than classic D&D for a specific campaign. But I suspect "better than everything that followed it" is a strawman or hyperbole.

I'll happily agree, though, that nostalgia plays a role in my group's enjoyment of the old game.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> Even without the experience, it had a feel. Unlike 2E or 3.whatever, which look and feel like "marketing", there was a 1E ambience that seemed forbidding and arcane-- somehow, the often poor artwork and black-and-white all added to that rather than detracting.




Even if it wasn't intentional, I think the fact that early TSR didn't manage the artwork too closely was brilliant. While something like a Greyhawk or Realms product can be made better by a certain amount of uniformity in art direction, a game like D&D shouldn't have a unified look. It's about limitless possibilities.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> That said, there is a limit to how great the old stuff was, and how much we should return to. Going back to hit rolls going up but Armor Class going down? That way lies madness.




<shrug> I tried using ascending AC with classic D&D & it just wasn't worth the hassle. While ascending AC is more aesthetically pleasing, descending AC just isn't worth getting worked up over. The players simply have their line from the combat table copied to their character sheet & I use the single monster combat table.

Now, I can't defend AD&D, but for the majority of mechanics, I prefer the way classic D&D handles them v. 3e. At the very least (like AC) the reward of changing isn't worth the cost. In some of the more esoteric cases, it's easy enough to import the 3e version if I want.



			
				EditorBFG said:
			
		

> I think that the best way to marry basic D&D to the now is something like Microlite 20, created here on EN World, which is just golden and simplifies the current system without returning to the weaknesses of the old.




I've tried the "simple d20" thing. It's more work to make d20 into the game I want to play than to just play classic D&D.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> In this rather unlikely case, the issue of venue would be complex and I imagine it would take months or even years to resolve.




Not really. The U.S. court would be concerned with personal jurisdiction. It generally would not care one way or the other if another court was "more appropriate", just whether they were _an_ appropriate court. Once that has been established, under U.S. jurisdiction rules, the court can, and would, proceed.



> _I would certainly ask my solicitor to write to the US Court and say something along these lines:
> 
> 1.  A US court is not the proper venue for the case; and
> 2.  There is no breach of copyright.  Both parties agree that game rules, systems and mechanics aren't subject to copyright (WOTC have published this statement in the past).  Both parties agree that the OGL applies.  The OGL permits me the use of gaming terms (such as "armor class" and "alignment") which are admittedly WOTC's property, and it permits me to "modify" the meaning of those terms however I wish.  The artwork is clearly new.  Therefore, all these items should be subtracted from the document._




The U.S. court would likely ignore your first request (and your second request would concede personal jurisdiction, making it moot). The fact that there is another court of competent jurisdiction that could hear a case is not a defense to personal jurisdiction under U.S. laws. You have to show that you are not subject to personal jurisdiction at all. And I think that you probably are.

But if you make the second request, you are contesting the merits of the case, and conceeding personal jurisdiction. At that point, you are litigating in a U.S. court. And those are factual issues. You might phrase the request as a motion for summary judgment, but there appears to be some unresolved factual issues (how much can you modify the terms, what do the terms of the OGL permit, and so on), so that is not a given (at least based on the information I have now.



> _I beg to differ.
> 
> I don't know what case you're using as a source for that, but I wouldn't necessarily need to bring the action in the US in any case.  WOTC quite clearly believe that there's a separate market in pen and paper roleplaying games.  That's their specialist niche, and they publish market analyses and other documents which treat pen and paper roleplaying games as a specific market in themselves.  I think that in the UK it would be very hard for them to argue that pen and paper RPGs isn't a market._




I think they would argue that the market is for games in general. Their lawyers would push that argument regardless. And it is the only one that makes sense. Arguing that pen and paper games is a seprate and distinct market is like arguing that soft rock is a seperate and distinct market in the music industry, and thus you don't need to consider any other type of recorded music as competitors.



> _*shrug*
> 
> If WOTC somehow get past the preceding issues, the consequence is that print copies of OSRIC would be scarce in the US for a while and I have to host the .pdf of OSRIC in the UK.  No judgment or legal issue will stop US citizens downloading a free .pdf._




Enforcement would be an issue, but it would stop any U.S. publishers from producing anything under OSRIC. Or marketing anything in the U.S. that they made elsewhere.



> _It's highly relevant to issues such as consequential loss.  Perhaps that matters less in the US._




Statutory damages. Up to $30,000 per unintentional infringing event (and that means per copy made) with no need to prove the profitable or unprofitable nature of the product. Up to $150,000 per willful infringing event.

But this is all completely hypothetical. As I have said before, I have not looked at ORIC to compare it to anything produced by WotC to evaluate the factual merits of either side. Given that WotC has shown no interest thus far in bringing any kind of claim, I am making an educated guess that they _probably_ won't. But I can certainly understand if a publisher doesn't want to run the risk of publishing under it, as remote as that risk might be. If I am wrong, I just say "well, I guess I was wrong", if they are wrong, they lose their stock in trade and likely have to pay damages.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Storm Raven I was referring to HASBRO/WOTC not just WOTC, so my bad there buddy.




Even Hasbro is hardly a monolith of gaming. It is the largest toy manufacturer in the world, but it has several competitors. The toy industry is one of the most competitive there is, and one of the most subject to quick market fluctuations.



> _So say he folds.  Agrees to give WOTC OSRIC without a fight.  Then 2 weeks later, SEDRIC (another rewrite of the 1E rules) shows up, correcting many of the errors of OSRIC, perhaps WILMA and BESSY all  AD&D 1E  rules with original presentation.  The publishers of AD&D 1E are back in business in a yawn.  WOTC stamps these out and more pop up._




Or, more likely, other publishers become wary of working in the area, and the product dries up. The publishers of AD&A 1e don't want to risk their capital in a venture that might be swept out from under them in a heartbeat. Will P&P lose OSRIC? Almost certainly not, since WotC hasn't (and does not appear to want to) acted on this issue. But we are talking worst case scenarios here.



> _Another question Storm Raven.  Can a company like WOTC pick and choose willy nilly who they will go after (say ignoring GG, DF, C&C etc.) and single out OSRIC, if each of these others were commiting the same infrindgements?  Especially in this case, its not like OSRIC is reproducing actual text or images...its a bit more removed from that (like the concept that a half-elf fighter is limited to such and such level etc.).  Couldn't it be said, "hey you didn't think a crime was going on before, but now suddenly with this one company you do"?_




The short answer is - yes. It is not a defense to a current suit that there are others out there who could have also been sued.



> _BTW thanks for your partisipation in this thread.  Though I think your "cold" to OSRIC for some reason, I appreciate your thoughtful answers.  _




I don't particularly care one way or the other - I am unlikely to use OSRIC or derived products as I have plenty of AD&A 1e material already, but I am not hostile to it. My participation in this thread was, initially, to correct some legal misinformation concerning a couple technical issues. Since then, I have been engaged in responding to hypotheticals (mostly "what is the worst that can happen" hypotheticals).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

Pardon me, but I don't have to show anything at all to a US court.  End of story.  I might choose to tell them my position, but I don't submit to their jurisdiction.


----------



## WSmith (Dec 5, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> EDITED to say, as a long time troll of ENworld, I never hoped to see such a positive and warm reception to AD&D 1E and OSRIC.  Its nice to see the edition wars are over.  That each game can be seen as special and unique rather then "broken" or "superior".




Not to get all gushy and stuff, but I, a hardline 1e warrior who had sworn off EN World a while ago, am also glad to see interest and a nice recpetion to the older editions being given here. 

Regarding AC, IIRC it was T.Foster that stated on K&KA that one way to think of Descending AC is that 1st class is better than 2nd class, and 2nd class is better than 3rd. So, only a wealthy knight might enjoy the luxury of doning AC 1, 1st class armor. That also leaves that protections  AC of "0" or below are truely magical, and cannot be achieved by other than supernatural means. 

Now, after saying that, I will say I cheat when it comes to attack rolls. While I still use old style AC, I have moved away from the charts of my beautiful DM screen, with the Trampier collage dipicting all that is what makes the Original Advanced D&D game so great, but I digress. I have charts (posted on my site, see sig) that provide the modifer for which the PCs and Monsters add to their attack roll. This is essentially 20-THAC0. 

For example, I roll to hit. My fighter has a +2 attack bonus, (20- (18 to hit AC 0)=2). He rolls an 11, adds his +2 attack bonus, along with other modifiers like STR "to hit" (we will say +1 for now). That is a total of 14. Well, what does that mean?

Easy. In my head, I instantly convert old AC on the fly to a target number by subtracting the AC from 20. 

So, my fighter is attacking a beast with an AC 6, which requires a target number of 14, (20 - 6 = 14.) He has struck the beast, barely, but enough to damage it. 

It is the best of both worlds, old and new. In actual play, it is way faster than I have explained it here. 

However, when using 1st edition, there is one gliche called "repeating 20s", that is simply handled by adding +5 to a natural roll of 20. This rule mimics a rule on page 83 of the DMG, which I won't bore anyone with unless they want to know.


----------



## Henry (Dec 5, 2006)

WSmith said:
			
		

> Not to get all gushy and stuff, but I, a hardline 1e warrior who had sworn off EN World a while ago, am also glad to see interest and a nice recpetion to the older editions being given here.




Don't be totally fooled  -- the edition clamor still emerges from time to time, but we still encourage peaceable discussion and on the whole the peaceable discussion wins out; of course, the fact that some of the staff still enjoy the occasional old-school outing helps that a little bit. 

Me, I don't look forward to the day 4th/5th/whatever edition comes out and it's so different there's yet another schism. 




			
				P&P said:
			
		

> Pardon me, but I don't have to show anything at all to a US court. End of story.




I think Storm Raven's point is not so much about your personal fate and the fate of OSRIC core, but the fate of the sizeable portion of the U.S. audience making stuff for OSRIC now and in the future. If they ever became liable due to a U.S. _in absentia_ ruling, then the U.S. support for it would be cut off or sharply curtailed. Hopefully, WotC has both the business sense and the goodwill for the gamers to avoid that. OSRIC's sales could grow ten times their current size, and I still doubt WotC would see it as worth pursuing in any fashion. At it's biggest, it's a fan movement, not the next Yu-gi-oh or Pokemon.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> I think Storm Raven's point is not so much about your personal fate and the fate of OSRIC core, but the fate of the sizeable portion of the U.S. audience making stuff for OSRIC now and in the future.




Well, if WOTC _were_ interested in litigation, I think they'd be most unwise to go for the publishers rather than me.  Chilling effect, and all that.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> OSRIC's sales could grow ten times their current size, and I still doubt WotC would see it as worth pursuing in any fashion. At it's biggest, it's a fan movement, not the next Yu-gi-oh or Pokemon.




Ten times?  A hundred times or more would still be small potatoes to WOTC.  OSRIC's come a surprisingly long way, but there's a lot more distance still to travel.

OSRIC's very definitely fan-driven, and very proud of it!


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 5, 2006)

Storm Raven, I find this all very difficult to believe.  if these fines are correct, would it help papers and paychecks to incorporate; so: 1. the individual creates material, 2. sells it to his corporation, 3. and then his corporation sells it to another publisher (or publishes itself).  


If incorporating wouldn't help, why woud anyone do commercial art?  Its next to impossible NOT to accidently copy work you've recently seen, esp. if your doing commercial work with deadlines etc. 

I think your missing something.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Storm Raven, I find this all very difficult to believe.




I know why you find this difficult to believe, Mark.    But Storm Raven can be right without saying that the other legal views you and I have both examined are wrong...

Storm Raven's saying that _if_ it can be shown that OSRIC contains a copyright infringement, _then_ all Storm Raven's worst case scenarios apply.

The legal views you and I have both read come at it from a different angle, which is that _because_ OSRIC doesn't contain a breach of copyright, the worst case scenario is X, Y and Z.  

Also, Storm Raven isn't privy to the correspondence, which contains a few remarks that might just possibly have a tiny bit of an impact on his view...


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 5, 2006)

Papers and Paychecks: "I know why you find this difficult to believe, Mark..."    
"But Storm Raven can be right without saying that the other legal views you and I have both examined are wrong..."

I'm still blown away by the damages.  And the fact that just about every professional illustrator and artist I've personally known swares (at some point) they've seen someone  else immitating their work doesn't help.  Also, I don't know a single pro. artist/illustrator who's incorporated (which makes me think it offers no protection regarding copywrite violation).  So, that means if some nut job takes your buyer (say a greeting card company) to court over something they claim you copied, and an idiot judge agrees, you (the artists) could loose your house, your life savings.  Nah.  I just don't buy it.  I've just never heard of this kind of thing happening.  The general rule of thumb in the art community seems to be, as long as you don't actually copy the work, your fine.  So, I could do an impressionistic painting of a photo I've seen, or a sculpture could do a piece based on that painting (as long as none of these were close duplicates).  Now if I wanted to do a photo realistic painting of another artists photo, I "might" need to get that artists permission (and most without a doubt would).


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I'm still blown away by the damages.




Those are ceiling amounts.  



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> And the fact that just about every professional illustrator and artist I've personally known swares (at some point) they've seen someone  else immitating their work doesn't help.




There really aren't that many possible poses for a human figure, and it's a popular subject.  Same with a dragon, or whatever fantasy art subject is being treated.  Coincidental similarities must be extremely common.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Also, I don't know a single pro. artist/illustrator who's incorporated (which makes me think it offers no protection regarding copywrite violation).




Iirc a lawyer's actually _told_ us that incorporation doesn't offer any useful protection against a copyright case.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> So, that means if some nut job takes your buyer (say a greeting card company) to court over something they claim you copied, and an idiot judge agrees, you (the artists) could loose your house, your life savings.  Nah.  I just don't buy it.  I've just never heard of this kind of thing happening.  The general rule of thumb in the art community seems to be, as long as you don't actually copy the work, your fine.




I think games are very different from art in this respect.  For one thing, artworks aren't normally distributed under an Open License.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Pardon me, but I don't have to show anything at all to a US court.  End of story.  I might choose to tell them my position, but I don't submit to their jurisdiction.




You are not understanding this. Among other beses, U.S. Courts use a "stream of commerce" theory of personal jurisdiction. That is, if you introduce something to the "stream of commerce" with a reasonable liklihood of entering the U.S., then they have personal jursidiction over you. Your consent is beside the point. I think it is obvious that there is a reasonable liklihood that OSRIC and products derived from it will enter the U.S., subjecting you to personal jursidiction under U.S. law. You don't have to show up and defend the suit, but then a default judgment will be entered against you. The judgment may or may not be enforceable (likely not outside the U.S., but certainly against anything in the U.S.), but it will be entered.

And if you do choose to tell them your position (by showing up, sending a letter contesting the merits, or anything similar), then you have waived personal jurisdiction. And the whole "stream of commerce" issue is moot.


----------



## dcas (Dec 5, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Gygax's case didn't just involve IP from what I understand, there were stockholder issues and business contracts and so on mixed in. I do recall that Gygax did lose control of most of the IP he produced while working for TSR, so I don't think he is a very good example to cite on this.



I guess it depends on which Gygax case we're talking about. IIRC, he tried to stop the hostile takeover of TSR and lost (just or no). He then sold all of the IP he owned from works published while he worked for TSR.

TSR later brought suit against GDW and Omega Helios (which I think was a corporation formed by GDW and Trigee Enterprises, Gary's company to manage his IP) claiming that Dangerous Journeys infringed on TSR's intellectual property. This case was settled by TSR buying the rights _and _the stock to Dangerous Journeys for a sizable amount of money. Some believe that the legal fees spent by TSR pursuing this case, as well as the settlement money, was a big factor in TSR's later money woes.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 5, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I'm still blown away by the damages.




The damages are an "up to" amount. For inadvertent infringement, the range is from $750 to $30,000 per violation. So, the damages could be as low as $750 for a single instance of infringement. Willful infringement has a much higher damage ceiling, but it is harder to prove.



> _And the fact that just about every professional illustrator and artist I've personally known swares (at some point) they've seen someone  else immitating their work doesn't help._




Similarity isn't enough. You must prove actual copying. In the case of something like OSRIC, that's not an issue, since we know that P&P is using WotC material to produce it. The question there is "is the material subject to copyright to begin with" in the case of systems information, and "was the material made subject to open license" with respect to terminology. But in the case of an artist saying "hey! that t-shirt design looks like one of my paintings!", they have to prove that the t-shirt artist used their painting as a basis for their copy.



> _Also, I don't know a single pro. artist/illustrator who's incorporated (which makes me think it offers no protection regarding copywrite violation).  So, that means if some nut job takes your buyer (say a greeting card company) to court over something they claim you copied, and an idiot judge agrees, you (the artists) could loose your house, your life savings._




I'm not sure what you are getting at here. If they are suing your buyer, how do you stand to lose money? if they sue _you_ and are found to be infringing, then the buyer is on the hook for the material he sold that infringed, but it doesn't travel upstream unless you are brought in on the suit.



> _Nah.  I just don't buy it.  I've just never heard of this kind of thing happening.  The general rule of thumb in the art community seems to be, as long as you don't actually copy the work, your fine._




Funny enough, that's the rule of copyrights. Similarity is not enough - copying is the question. Heck, it's in the name of the area of law: COPYrights.



> _So, I could do an impressionistic painting of a photo I've seen, or a sculpture could do a piece based on that painting (as long as none of these were close duplicates).  Now if I wanted to do a photo realistic painting of another artists photo, I "might" need to get that artists permission (and most without a doubt would)._




if they could demonstrate that you used the artist's work to make yours, then you would likely have created a derivative work, which would infringe. But they would have to show you copied from the photo or painting when you made your impressionistic painting or sculpture, and were not simply inspired by a similar bit of scenery. Proving copying can be easy, or it can be hard. That is an issue that depends on the facts of each case.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 5, 2006)

Well, Storm Raven, I must say that all this confirms that I personally couldn't be harmed by the US courts.  There's no revenue stream coming to me from OSRIC, from the US or otherwise, so a decision from a US court would affect me... well, about as much as a decision from the court in Timbuktoo.  

It is conceivable that, in the future, I might begin to earn tens or even dozens of dollars.    Not worth getting stressed over.

This doesn't mean that I wouldn't fight in the US.  It just means I don't have to.


----------



## WSmith (Dec 5, 2006)

OSRIC or no OSRIC, it won't matter to me cause AD&D takes me back to 1980, when my 20-sider was labeled 0-9 twice, and I had to color on of each number with a crayon for numbers from 11-20!

I love OSRIC, but it is just a way to get mo' newer stuff for the Original.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 5, 2006)

Raven Crow: "if they could demonstrate that you used the artist's work to make yours, then you would likely have created a derivative work, which would infringe. But they would have to show you copied from the photo or painting when you made your impressionistic painting or sculpture"

Hmmm...thats very interesting.  Its always been my understanding if the final image looks somewhat different from the original you were "safe".  But apparently the derivative aspect could stretch into "similar" to almost completely different.  All you have to do is prove in court (there might be a witness, or even the artists own admission) that anothers work was copied (or used as the primary reference) and walla he's toast.  Yet if there was no witness, and no admission etc. the offending artists could have an almost exact duplicate of anothers work and he'd be safe (assuming you couldn't prove copying...despite the fact that its obvious...why am I not surprised).  

EDITED - found answer to that question, so here's another.  


Raven wrote: "And derivative works of an infringing work are also infringements. So publishers under OSRIC, even if they thought it was kosher to use could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights."

So, would OSRIC first have to be found to be in violation of Copywrite law before WOTC could go after the publishers?  Your statement sounds like that. "...could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights"

Also, wouldn't that require a seperate case per offender?   I realize this is all academic, the sales numbers (for now) for these modules are way to low for WOTC to ever mess with.  And, as others have pointed out, WOTC probably has a very shaky case if they did bring it to trial (given the OGL, that it might be in a British court, etc.+ 



Oh, BTW I wasn't referring to Papers and Paychecks situation with OSRIC, but rather just about the law in general.


----------



## EditorBFG (Dec 5, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I simply don't understand the complaints about descending AC.  It seems perfectly intuitive to me; it's hardly advanced math!



I'm not one to shy away from advanced math, even if it were, but I always think whatever makes things go faster at the table is best. Some of us are number crunchers (I certainly am, as you can see by many of the products I write) and some of us aren't-- by aptitude or more likely desire-- and a game is better off appealing to as many people as it can.

This is why I think AD&D 1E will remain a niche market, and it will never gain many more adherents than it already has. There is nothing wrong with that at all-- thanks to the Internet, niche markest can be reached directly and cheaply, resulting in everyone getting what they want. And that is a Good Thing. But I still believe my response to the original poster's question was correct, though only time will tell.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 6, 2006)

I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that,  is considered easy.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Raven wrote: "And derivative works of an infringing work are also infringements. So publishers under OSRIC, even if they thought it was kosher to use could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights."
> 
> So, would OSRIC first have to be found to be in violation of Copywrite law before WOTC could go after the publishers?  Your statement sounds like that. "...could be tagged with statutory damages is it were to be found that OSRIC infringed WotC's copyrights"




No, you don't have to go after the originator first. Making copied works, no matter your relation with the original producer, is an infringement. So if I make prints of an artist's work, and then another person uses those prints to create a derivative work from them, the artist doesn't have to go after me to go after the creator of the derivative work. He could go after me and the other guy, or just me, or just him. It is the plaintiff's choice. Of course, securing a judgment against one of use will make it all the easier to go after the other later.



> _Also, wouldn't that require a seperate case per offender?   I realize this is all academic, the sales numbers (for now) for these modules are way to low for WOTC to ever mess with.  And, as others have pointed out, WOTC probably has a very shaky case if they did bring it to trial (given the OGL, that it might be in a British court, etc.+_




In some cases, yes, it would require a seperate suit. In others, no. That comes down to a fact oriented question in which the answer varies depending upon the circumstances.

The biggest issue for WotC here is likely to be the OGL, although a lot of people have, I believe, an overly expansive view of what it covers. The venue question is really a non-issue: the plaintiff almost always gets to choose the venue, and if WotC doesn't want to go to a British court, they can almost certainly get personal jurisdiction over P&P in a U.S. court, should they so choose. They could go to a British court at their option, but they don't have to.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that,  is considered easy.




In general, people find adding easier than subtracting.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

Thats what I thought.  But, its possible the defendent module publisher may have never heard of D&D, he just has a copy of OSRIC.  What then, OSRIC is legal (until found in violation and ruled against).  So, how is that individual breaking the law.  

If company A and company B both claim copywrite of x, (and lets assume Company A thinks company B copied x from them but has never done anything about it over a period of many years) and then Company B gives Company C rights to use x, can Company A go after Company C (even though Company A  never legally contested Company B's claim of ownership of x).

Wouldn't most judges say "hey buddy, Company C didn't do anything wrong, Company A has just as much ownership rights of "x" as you do. You need to go after Company B first and prove they don't have the right to give Company C x.   At least, that seems like the only logical path. 


Your reproduction of a painting analogy also seems off.  As a module isn't a game system.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 6, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In general, people find adding easier than subtracting.




People also find smaller numbers more intuitive than larger ones, but all this is beside the point.  Objecting to THAC0 just shows ignorance of the system.

Those who understand 1e are much too busy objecting to surprise, initiative, weapon speed factors, spell casting times, material spell components and psionics to care about THAC0.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> People also find smaller numbers more intuitive than larger ones, but all this is beside the point.  Objecting to THAC0 just shows ignorance of the system.




Feh. I understand the system quite well, thank you very much. THAC0 was one of the things I was glad to see go, despite that I think it's far from the most important peice of cruft that was cut out.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 6, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Those who understand 1e are much too busy objecting to surprise, initiative, weapon speed factors, spell casting times, material spell components and psionics to care about THAC0.




There is no Thac0 in 1e. I know that technically that it appears in the DMG and a couple of sources, but it isn't the core mechanic of combat, like it is in 2e. 1e is chart-based combat.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2006)

I never had objection to THACO, regardless, other than the casual players were a major pain in my helping them EVERY SINGLE ROUND figure out what the number to hit was. _(And before anyone cries, "cut the mentally deficient bums out!" Those mentally deficient bums were my friends and good players to boot, when they weren't trying to swing a weapon. )_ Weapon speed and surprise were probably the biggest devils in the details for me and mine, because we never could house-rule them to our satisfaction, and we definitely didn't like the way they were presented, in 1E or 2E.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 6, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> Weapon speed and surprise were probably the biggest devils in the details for me and mine, because we never could house-rule them to our satisfaction, and we definitely didn't like the way they were presented, in 1E or 2E.




I figure you did like most of us and ignored psionics, then.  

We dropped weapon speed from OSRIC completely, but we kept surprise.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I figure you did like most of us and ignored psionics, then.
> 
> We dropped weapon speed from OSRIC completely, but we kept surprise.




Strangely, Psionics was FANTASTIC!  And the rules never gave me or mine any trouble. However, you're right in that we largely ignored them, mostly because no one was ever lucky enough to make the proper roll.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

The use of tables is critical IMO for capturing the 1E experiance.  Not knowing exactly what it takes to hit a monster, or precisely how much your chances improve as you gain experiance in training really helps with the the imersion thing (no distracting calculations) and makes for playing "lets pretend" that much easier. It also puts the power in the hands of the DM, where it should be.  I've always felt the switch away from tables was the biggest mistake the 1E developers ever made.  We reversed the direction and went to a tableless system just before UA came out, just to see what it was like.  And even way back then thought it sucked.  I also think its a good idea for players not to know their exact saves for paralysis, magic etc. hell, change what table you use just to keep them guessing.  Let them wonder, just like they have to do in "real life" how hard it'll be to jump across that wide pit etc.

BTW I realize some people prefer the number crunching and increase in control you get in 3E and other D20 systems.  I also realize some people find the imersion element of FRPGs secondary to "building" and what have you.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Thats what I thought.  But, its possible the defendent module publisher may have never heard of D&D, he just has a copy of OSRIC.  What then, OSRIC is legal (until found in violation and ruled against).  So, how is that individual breaking the law.
> 
> If company A and company B both claim copywrite of x, (and lets assume Company A thinks company B copied x from them but has never done anything about it over a period of many years) and then Company B gives Company C rights to use x, can Company A go after Company C (even though Company A  never legally contested Company B's claim of ownership of x).
> 
> Wouldn't most judges say "hey buddy, Company C didn't do anything wrong, Company A has just as much ownership rights of "x" as you do. You need to go after Company B first and prove they don't have the right to give Company C x.   At least, that seems like the only logical path.




The short answer is no. Even if company C is unknowingly distributing infringing material, the copyright holder can still choose to go after them first, or even exclusively.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> BTW I realize some people prefer the number crunching and increase in control you get in 3E and other D20 systems.  I also realize some people find the imersion element of FRPGs secondary to "building" and what have you.




I find that my immersion needs are much better met by 3e, than that provided by some of the arbitrary rules set forth in 1e and 2e. Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.


----------



## dcas (Dec 6, 2006)

Isn't this turning in to a bit of an edition war? Isn't that _materia non grata_?

Is the 1e revival here to stay? I certainly hope so. _Pod-Caverns_ is a worthy and innovative adventure; so is Rob Kuntz's _Cairn of the Skeleton King_ and Goodman Games' _Iron Crypt of the Heretics_. Kuntz's _Tower of Blood_ also looks promising.

EDIT: Corrected Latin grammar.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 6, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.



Sounds like you have an aversion to the strongly archetyped approach that was used.  Older versions of D&D relied on strong archetypes (or "typicals") to help define concepts.  For example, in B/X, Elf was a class, and was basically a Fighter/Magic-User.  And that was the only option given for elves.  But that didn't mean there were no no elven religious leaders.  Or that every elf knew magic.  The Elf class was meant to define a typical adventuring elf -- an archetype.  And the relatively limited choices for demi-humans in both B/X and in AD&D also upheld a typical vision in fantasy where humans are the dominant, flexible race coming into their own.

For a period, there was an idea out there that B/X and especially OD&D(1974) were for DMs who liked to change things and play with the rules and archetypes, and AD&D was a tournament-system where everything was defined and consistent.  In other words, AD&D's rules and archetype definitions were (for a time) seen as sacrosanct.  That idea was dismissed immediately by most gamers, and gradually lost mind-share. 

So my advice if you don't like the class restrictions (or whatever) is to change them to suit your game.  Now, there's also the possibility that you don't like an archetype-based system at all, and prefer a more fine-grained "build your PC" approach.  That's the direction 3E went.  If you prefer that, it's okay with me.  However, I wouldn't agree that archetype based systems are completely arbitrary and inexplicable, or unrealistic and silly.  They're just operating under a set of assumptions that you don't share.  And I believe the strongly-archetyped systems have some distinct advantages over fine-grained (usually skill-based) systems, in certain areas that are important to me.

3E encouraged "rules mastery": understanding the "behind the curtain" reasons rules were there.  I think that's a good thing, and something that I never really tried to apply to older editions until recently.  When I did, I found that there were things that I had previously dismissed as silly or undesirable, but that I now understand.  (You could even say that learning and playing 3E increased my understanding and appreciation of the older editions.)


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

dcs: "Isn't this turning in to a bit of an edition war? Isn't that materia non gratis?"

Yes it is, and my apologies.  

Psion, I had all those same problems with 1E over the years, and just housed ruled them out (and the game is designed to do that).  I've brought them back however, because they protect a certain "look and feel" (a human-centric world, with fighters in plate armor, magic-users in robes carrying staves) I've come to like.  I'm not opposed to other looks generated by other games like 3E, C&C, etc. I play them.  Anyhow, that wasn't the main issue: I was saying that 1Es tables are a critical part of the unique 1E experiance (which is one that keeps the players in the black (as far as combat and saves go) as much as possible, and keeps the DM forfront and center). I'm not saying IE is "better" its just different.  

EDIT- To add to what Phil said, the archetypes are like todays careers (doctor, lawyer, indian chief).  Each comes with a preset number of skills that generally improve overall as you gain experiance and basic training.  For instance, you don't go to a lawyer to have a broken bone set, and you don't go to a doctor to have your taxes done.  And the doctor after practising 20 years gets better at setting bones in general, though his skill in doing his taxes likely has remained the same (perhaps even gotten worse :\ ).

3E takes the approach that players want to fine tune their PCs (a doctor with some skills in accounting, or skills in lawyering), and thats fine if thats what they like, each to their own.  BUT that doesn't mean the 1E and 0E archetypes were illogical. Even saves work that way.  A thief has a better chance to save vs. a trap (usually petrification) then a fighter because he has extensive experiance in making and getting around traps.  Thats why a fighter with a high dex is still more likely to say fall in a pit trap then a thief with a low dex.  In AD&D 1E natural abilities are seen as pretty much equal between people (thus de-emphasised) what counts most is trade-knowledge.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 6, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that,  is considered easy.




I find both hard. For some reason, I may be able to do calculus, but I'm very slow at arithmetic. These days, I try to eliminate as many special cases whenever I can so that I can have more things pre-calculated. THAC0 is simple enough, but I find using the table faster.

But, yeah, subtraction also tends to be a bit slower for most people than addition.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I find that my immersion needs are much better met by 3e, than that provided by some of the arbitrary rules set forth in 1e and 2e. Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.




I completely see your point. I used to feel much the same way. Though, I don't think, for me, it was about immersion, since many of these things aren't really "visible" from the character's PoV--or only indirectly so. You seldom see people wondering why Gandalf or Merlin or any other magic using legendary or literary character doesn't wear armor. Or question a legendary or literary hero's choice of weapon. The vast majority of the population of a fantasy world aren't going to waste time considering why there are no dwarven wizards. (& for those few sages that do, a dwarf's resistance to magic offers a ready explaination.) The characters don't know that the elfin cleric is an NPC & not a PC.

Although, in the game, an unusual situation is bound to come up that threatens to make these things visible. Most DMs I've known have found a way to handle it: Letting the mage wield a sword, but with a non-proficiency penalty. Allowing the thief to wear plate mail, but his extraordinary thief abilities would always fail as long as he did so. Denying XP to the mage who insists on wearing armor.

One thing that I like about 3e was the way that trade-offs like this were made explicit. Leaving it up to the DM is fine, but the older editions were often completely silent on such issues, not even giving the DM a hint that he could use those kinds of solutions. It's easy enough for me to deal with these days, but when I was younger I could've used more guidance.

I really hated the TSR product that said mages on trial would be locked in armor so that they couldn't cast spells. (9_9)

& I wouldn't really call those rules arbitrary. They were put in place thoughtfully for specific purposes.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 6, 2006)

All rules are arbitrary.  The question is whether they're justified.

The 1e rules are certainly finicky, pedantic, inconsistent, often hard to interpret, and make no real world "sense".  Why can't mages use swords?  Why can't dwarfs be wizards?  To a certain mindset, those limits are ridiculous.

Such players should certainly be playing D20 or Rolemaster or Runequest or GURPS or some other coherent system with unified, logical, consistent, flexible mechanics that make sense in the presumed game world.

1e isn't popular because it makes sense (it doesn't), nor because it's rules-lite (it's probably more complex and certainly less intuitive than D20), nor because it's flexible (it forces the characters into a narrow range of archetypes).

The reason for its continued popularity is because, with all its flaws and sillinesses, 1e has a truly fantastic feel to it that very few games have ever managed to capture.  And because once you know the system, you can resolve a fight between eight player characters and nineteen henchmen on one side against thirty-five orcs with a priest and a couple dozen war dogs on the other, in about half an hour.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

Another thing to remember is that the strict 1E rules protect a particular setting/look Gary Gygax wanted us to play in.  The games look and feel never drifted over time (as it has in other games as people chase novelty) because of the crazy walls and fences Gary put up.  

And thus, AD&D remains VERY popular with some people for the same exact reasons others don't like it.  Sometimes if you want to preserve the core of something, you have to "protect" it.  And I think thats what Gary did (with level limits on races, and armor restrictions on MUs etc.etc......his walls.  But remember, those walls have doors the DM can open any time he chooses).  

Oh, and as Phil. pointed out above, an MU can use a sword, he just gets a minus to hit.


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I completely see your point. I used to feel much the same way. Though, I don't think, for me, it was about immersion, since many of these things aren't really "visible" from the character's PoV--or only indirectly so. You seldom see people wondering why Gandalf or Merlin or any other magic using legendary or literary character doesn't wear armor.




Sure, I understand that. But again, I was talking about immersion and breaking the fourth wall. From an immersion standpoint, having a reason WHY you can't (or rather, wouldn't want to) use armor was more satisfying that being arbitrarily told that you couldn't. (I use arbitrary here in the sense that there was no reasoning presented that made sense in the milieu, not that there was no flavor reason behind the design.)



> & I wouldn't really call those rules arbitrary. They were put in place thoughtfully for specific purposes.




Again, I'll emphasize my use of the word arbitrary above as not meaning "without reason" but "without in-game justification". That said, as far as it goes,
1) While their may have been reasons, I simply didn't agree with them or find them consistent with immersion or suspension of disbelief (like why elves have limits on wizard levels? As best I can tell, the answer was "because Gygax wanted a humanocentric setting." Which is a fine goal, but never really had much of an in-game reason.
2) Some still do seem arbitrary to me, even in the context of "matching archetypes." Why are elven clerics only allowed to be NPCs again.


----------



## dcas (Dec 6, 2006)

I don't see why being told you _can't_ do something is fundamentally less consistent with "immersion" than being told that you _can_. For example, I don't think disallowing halfling wizards (when in Middle-earth "there is little or no magic about them") is any more conducive to suspending belief than permitting half-orc paladins or gnoll druids (I'm deliberately not using ridiculous examples -- gnoll druids were cited in at least the 3.0 PHB). I would find a world in which half-orc paladins or halfling wizards existed at least as unbelievable as the standard BTB AD&D campaign world.

Allowing half-orc paladins seems at least as arbitrary as level limits (IMHO).


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2006)

dcas said:
			
		

> I don't see why being told you _can't_ do something is fundamentally less consistent with "immersion" than being told that you _can_.




I guess we differ in that, then. That's about all I'll say, because to say more would entertain more arguing and tread into dangerous territory.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2006)

dcas said:
			
		

> I don't see why being told you _can't_ do something is fundamentally less consistent with "immersion" than being told that you _can_.




I think the main reason is that saying "you can't" begs the reply "why not", and when the answer is, in many cases "just because" people find that unsatisfying. And in many cases in 1e and 2e the answer is little more than "just because", especially, for example, in cases in which NPCs may be members of certain classes, but PCs cannot.

There is a perception that "you can't" is more arbitrary than "you can" when there is little else justifying either choice.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 6, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The biggest issue for WotC here is likely to be the OGL, although a lot of people have, I believe, an overly expansive view of what it covers.




I agree.  The copyright issues concerning games are already more complex than, say, a piece of artwork or a novel because game rules are given special treatment.  Adding in the OGL, which covers a massively complex topic in a very short space and without a great deal of detail, makes things extremely muddy.  Despite the fact that the OGL is actually quite simple to understand when someone is using it for its intended purpose (to produce material supporting or slightly modified from the original rules) the license is actually quite vague on some points and the language can easily be interpreted to give publishers a much broader set of rights than what might have been originally intended.

Fortunately, it seems that WotC is content to allow people to push the boundaries of the OGL.  For me, this has done more to cement my goodwill toward the people there than any product they've produced themselves.  I imagine the goodwill garnered from this generous attitude toward OGL publishers is worth much more to them than whatever damages they might receive or economic benefit they might gain from crushing every small project based on a liberal reading of the license.


----------



## SuStel (Dec 6, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.




Role "immersion" was never a design goal of the original D&D creators. D&D is a board game where the "board" and "pieces" are in your imagination, and your "move" can be anything you can think of.

Just as you don't question why you can't change directions in Monopoly, you need not question any of the limitations of D&D. They're not for realism, they're there to configure the playing "board" and "pieces."

Removing, say, level limits from D&D is like putting money on Free Parking in Monopoly. No one's going to imprison you for doing it, even though the rules say you don't do it. You're just changing the configuration of the game.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 6, 2006)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that,  is considered easy.



I find that a pain in the butt, too: too many modifiers. (see the various "buff" threads).

Lanefan


----------



## dcas (Dec 6, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Despite the fact that the OGL is actually quite simple to understand when someone is using it for its intended purpose (to produce material supporting or slightly modified from the original rules)




Is that really its intended purpose? If so, then why not put limitations on the OGL similar to those on the D20 STL (for example, no character creation rules)? That would permit supporting material and likely prohibit new games based on WOTC's OGC.

No, I think its intended purpose is broader than that. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2006)

SuStel said:
			
		

> Role "immersion" was never a design goal of the original D&D creators. D&D is a board game where the "board" and "pieces" are in your imagination, and your "move" can be anything you can think of.




This is not really true though. Many of the play guidelines and advice in the 1e books talked about immersing oneself in the character and gameworld while playing. Just look at the introduction to the 1e DMG, for example.


----------



## Henry (Dec 6, 2006)

dcas said:
			
		

> No, I think its intended purpose is broader than that. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why.




Because Ryan Dancey is a gamer god  (I know I get flak for saying it, but he was a main instigator in its conception.)

His purpose in initiating the OGL was multi-fold, but one was to have all innovations able to funnel back to the market leader, and to remove the hurdle of mechanics ownership to product innovation, as well as make the core d20 mechanics (not the rules, but the most basic fiddly bits) the lingua franca of gamers and systems. I can't find it now, but somewhere buried on the WotC website is an old piece he wrote on the reasons of the OGL, which says it eloquently and in more detail than I can. What was Wulf Ratbane's old quote? *"Every OGL / d20 product enlarges the event horizon of the d20 singularity."*

It definitely didn't have all the effects he desired, and some serendipities on top of that (he hoped other game systems would buy in to using it to share mechanics, too, and some definitely have that I doubt he envisioned, like OSRIC). But his main thought was very far reaching. NO one profited from locking up the rules to D&D under lock and key forever. This way, not only can fans make D&D compatible stuff in perpetuity, as long as the term is meaningful, but they can take it in a direction that the majority prefers legally by "splitting the code base" if needed. If by some insanity WotC creates a new version (4E, 5E, whatever), that alienates 75% of its fans, then that fanbase can create their own version that will take the crown that D&D loses.


----------



## T. Foster (Dec 6, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is not really true though. Many of the play guidelines and advice in the 1e books talked about immersing oneself in the character and gameworld while playing. Just look at the introduction to the 1e DMG, for example.



 It's a different sort of immersion, though. OD&D/1E-style immersion is specifically in the situation -- imagine that you're in these circumstances (with the resources and abilities of this character); how do you react? -- whereas in other games (and later editions of D&D) immersion is more generally in the character and setting -- imagine that you're this other person living in this other world.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 6, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> It's a different sort of immersion, though. OD&D/1E-style immersion is specifically in the situation -- imagine that you're in these circumstances (with the resources and abilities of this character); how do you react? -- whereas in other games (and later editions of D&D) immersion is more generally in the character and setting -- imagine that you're this other person living in this other world.




No, go back and read the stuff in the 1e books, a lot of the advice and guidelines for play talked about imagining you were another person living in another world.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 6, 2006)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> It's a different sort of immersion, though. OD&D/1E-style immersion is specifically in the situation -- imagine that you're in these circumstances (with the resources and abilities of this character); how do you react? -- whereas in other games (and later editions of D&D) immersion is more generally in the character and setting -- imagine that you're this other person living in this other world.



That's a pretty fuzzy difference, when you think about it.  Immersion in a series of situations will by simple extension result in immersion in the world, while immersion in the world will de facto lead to immersion in a series of situations that you are expected to react to.

Lanefan


----------



## Ourph (Dec 6, 2006)

dcas said:
			
		

> Is that really its intended purpose? If so, then why not put limitations on the OGL similar to those on the D20 STL (for example, no character creation rules)? That would permit supporting material and likely prohibit new games based on WOTC's OGC.
> 
> No, I think its intended purpose is broader than that.




The D20 STL doesn't allow modification of existing mechanics in the SRD.  The broader scope of the OGL was (from my understanding) meant to allow for development of products like Monte Cook's _Arcana Unearthed_ or Mongoose's _Conan_ RPGs which provide alternate rules with the same underlying mechanics as D&D.  Such products are theoretically competing with the D&D core books but, in actuality, probably enhance the overall market for WotC (especially since aspects of WotC corebooks, splatbooks and setting books can be used with these products).

However, the brevity of the OGL leads to a situation where the language allowing those types of modified rules systems also allows OGL systems which operate under completely different mechanics while still being able to legitimately use all of the content made open under the SRD.



			
				dcas said:
			
		

> However, for the life of me I can't figure out why.




IMO if you were to rewrite the OGL so it allowed for _Arcana Unearthed_ and _Conan_ but specifically prevented projects like (for example) _Castle's & Crusades_ and _OSRIC_ it would become so lengthy and complex that many potential publishers would no longer feel comfortable using it.  As it stands, the OGL is brief enough and clear enough that any reasonably literate person can comprehend its terms well enough to produce a compliant product (barring the occasional mistake or misunderstanding) without the help of legal counsel.  I think increasing the complexity with a lot of qualifiers and restrictions would be a serious bar to entry for many publishers - which would defeat the purpose of creating an OGL in the first place.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 6, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> That's a pretty fuzzy difference, when you think about it.  Immersion in a series of situations will by simple extension result in immersion in the world, while immersion in the world will de facto lead to immersion in a series of situations that you are expected to react to.




I think the main difference here is that many people in our current gaming culture,when they say "immersion", think of it more as immersion in a character rather than immersion in a situation or milieu.  I agree with the notion that the original D&D use of "immersion" generally tended to refer to a viewpoint centered within the setting rather than a viewpoint centered within a particular character's personality.  I don't necessarily think that the newest version of D&D uses that word in a significantly different way, but it seems indisputable that a large part of the current D&D player culture attaches a much different meaning to the word than was originally intended.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 6, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think the main difference here is that many people in our current gaming culture,when they say "immersion", think of it more as immersion in a character rather than immersion in a situation or milieu.



I maintain they are much the same thing.  The character is in the situation; to become immersed in one you kinda have to become immersed in the other.

Not a big deal, though...any immersion is better than a detached metagame style of play. 

Lanefan


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

I think the kind of immersion that one experiances playing AD&D 1E will largely depend on the personality and imagination of the player (despite its creators intentions).  

That said, I think Storm Raven is correct.  Check out pg. 104 "Negotiation"  "Most DMs love communication and neg. for this allows them to assume an active role in actual play.  Your ref. will assume the persona proper to the creature your party is dealing with be it shy or hostile .... " 

I think its logical to assume that if your DM will assume the "persona" then you, the player, are supposed to as well.   I know when I first played the game, not really knowing any of the rules (thats the DMs job) all I was left with was immersion.  Not only seeing and smelling and touching the world in which I explored, but talking, hiding, running...all the things one does in real life, and in a very fluid way.  The DM might be sitting back applying the rules and rolling to see what happens, keeping track of "moves" and such, but lets face it...the first time you played this game you were "there".  At least I was (and the biggest loss to D&D was going to the D20 system where players feel like stacked sandwiches and know the rules backward and forward).  The fact that your PC was usually some average Joe (no bull strength and tumble and what have you) made it that much easier to relate to that character rather then just watch it (this is similar to reading "The Hobbit" and LOTR) as a kid its easy to relate to the halflings, there small and weak like you.  But the elves, Gandalf, even Strider...forget it.  

Now there is a difference between watching your character and being your character.  I think someone like Foster didn't see from the eyes of his character, but rather watched it and made it act like a puppet.  I on the other hand am the kind of player who "is" that character, seeing out of its eyes.  That doesn't mean I behave at the table like some out of work thespian actor, far from it.  I only talk in character when the DM forces me to (usually responding to an NPC).  Otherwise I say "my guy does this or my guy does that", and I never communicate with fellow gamers at the table "in character" its still "I'll trade you this +1 ring for your +2 shield" not "Horthak, what sayith we make a bargain...bla bla".  I find this kind of "acting out" works well online however..but at the gaming table...its just creepy :\ .


----------



## Ourph (Dec 6, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I maintain they are much the same thing.  The character is in the situation; to become immersed in one you kinda have to become immersed in the other.
> 
> Not a big deal, though...any immersion is better than a detached metagame style of play.
> 
> Lanefan




There is certainly a difference between imagining yourself (the player) immersed in a certain situation and imagining Cyril the Red who enjoys singing merry elven songs with his guildmates back in Waterdeep and has an allergy to shrieker spores in that situation.  My experience with D&D circa. 1978-1983 was that, for the most part, a character was a vehicle for transferring the character's own personality into the game world with certain abilities attached, whereas it is expected in many portions of the current culture that a character will have a unique and fully developed personality of their own and that the player will set aside his own personality and "immerse" in the character's personality during play.  I would say that those two concepts of immersion are considerably different.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

O: "whereas a character today is expected to have a unique and fully developed personality of their own and that the player will set aside his own personality and "immerse" in the character's personality during play. I would say that those two concepts of immersion are considerably different."

I think the term imersion was highjacked by the thespian actor crowd myself.  Its original meaning was as you said, " imagining yourself (the player) immersed in a certain situation".  The only thing you added to YOU was your class (I heal, I fight etc.).  And you got to act out being the good guy or bad guy, it was cowboys and indians back then.  Back story was something that didn't really creep in until 2E (infact back story and changing your personality was discouraged by the 1E DMs I sat for, who wanted you to develop your character as you played).


----------



## Psion (Dec 6, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> There is certainly a difference between imagining yourself (the player) immersed in a certain situation and imagining Cyril the Red who enjoys singing merry elven songs with his guildmates back in Waterdeep and has an allergy to shrieker spores in that situation.




While this may or may not be true, I tend to think that fourth wall breaking aspects of a game disrupt either.


----------



## T. Foster (Dec 6, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Now there is a difference between watching your character and being your character.  I think someone like Foster didn't see from the eyes of his character, but rather watched it and made it act like a puppet.  I on the other hand am the kind of player who "is" that character, seeing out of its eyes.  That doesn't mean I behave at the table like some out of work thespian actor, far from it.  I only talk in character when the DM forces me to (usually responding to an NPC).  Otherwise I say "my guy does this or my guy does that", and I never communicate with fellow gamers at the table "in character" its still "I'll trade you this +1 ring for your +2 shield" not "Horthak, what sayith we make a bargain...bla bla".




You've actually got my "position" backwards there. I'm in the same boat as you wrt "immersion" as a player. Ideally, as a player, I want to feel like _I_ am in this situation, facing these challenges, not that I'm watching or directing someone else doing it (that's the GM's role). That, to me, is perhaps the most interesting aspect of rpg play as a player, and why I've lately come to prefer the player role to the GM role -- testing and learning about yourself, seeing how _you_ would react in various situations. 

I think it's unfortunate that this aspect has been co-opted and overshadowed by "actors" for whom the goal seems to be nearly the opposite -- to see how fully they can take on a separate, fictional persona -- to think and react to situations not as themselves but as someone else whom they've created. Not to learn about yourself, but to lose, or submerge, yourself. That holds much less interest or appeal to me, and to the extent I've spoken out against "immersion" in the past, that's what I've been speaking out against, not what you describe.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 6, 2006)

Aha!  Good to know.    Somehow I always missed that.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 6, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Oh, and as Phil. pointed out above, an MU can use a sword, he just gets a minus to hit.



My AD&D group always played it that way, but it's been pointed out to be that strictly by-the-book, an MU cannot use a sword at all.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think the main reason is that saying "you can't" begs the reply "why not", and when the answer is, in many cases "just because" people find that unsatisfying. And in many cases in 1e and 2e the answer is little more than "just because", especially, for example, in cases in which NPCs may be members of certain classes, but PCs cannot.
> 
> There is a perception that "you can't" is more arbitrary than "you can" when there is little else justifying either choice.



It's more accurate to say that the question (no matter how much those of us who learned the game only from the books might think it's an obvious question) wasn't anticipated. The book didn't say, "just because"; it just didn't say anything. I think that to Gygax & co. these restrictions were so natural they never really thought they needed any further explaination.

Everytime over the years I've seen Gygax asked about such things--unless he's in a particularly crotchety mood--he gives an answer other than "just because".

It's not uncommon for wargames--the tradition AD&D was evolving from--to give you restrictions without explaination. They tend to assume that you either can figure out the reason or won't really care.


----------



## Faraer (Dec 7, 2006)

I'd put the mindset difference in terms of using the rules to play in a particular idea of sword-and-sorcery fantasy fiction, rather than to simulate a realistic secondary world. It doesn't break the fourth wall any more than non-realistic (including almost all pre-20th-century) theatre does. I think a great deal is lost by reducing fantastic fiction to realist fiction that just happens to be set in created worlds.

Elven clerics aren't PCs in the original AD&D because it takes many decades to become one and they're valuable elders, not young adventuring types. Also, part of the game's humanocentrism is that demihuman religion is kept mysterious.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 7, 2006)

What is the "fourth wall" ?


----------



## 3catcircus (Dec 7, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> There is no Thac0 in 1e. I know that technically that it appears in the DMG and a couple of sources, but it isn't the core mechanic of combat, like it is in 2e. 1e is chart-based combat.




You bring up an interesting point.

1e's "chart-based combat," 2e's "THAC0," and 3.x's "BAB" are all nothing more than the *same thing* packaged a different way.  The whole purpose is to roll a d20 and, with modifiers, beat a target number.  

In 1e:  a 1st level fighter (with avg. Str) has to roll a 20 to hit an AC0.  In 2e, It is the same.  In 3.x, AC 0 is AC 20 and he has to roll a 19.  At 5th level, he has to roll a 16 (1e), 16 (2e), and 15 (3.x).  

Other than the +1 he gets in 3.x vs. 1e/2e, he has to *roll* the same thing to hit the other guy.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 7, 2006)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> 1e's "chart-based combat," 2e's "THAC0," and 3.x's "BAB" are all nothing more than the *same thing* packaged a different way.  The whole purpose is to roll a d20 and, with modifiers, beat a target number.



Quite true; only the mechanics are handled differently.  In 1e, the player rolled and added the character bonuses (for strength, magic weapon, etc.), and the DM looked at a chart.  In 2e, THAC0 was supposed to simplify this for the DM (and does so mostly in monster stat blocks; the listed THAC0 includes all the bonuses, which is handy - THAC0 elsewhere I found a nuisance) but otherwise all worked the same.  3e takes the DM's chart, breaks it into little tiny pieces, and puts it on the character sheet as BAB...this transfers a tiny bit of work from the DM to the player while taking away some of the mystery.  But the general idea of "do I hit it?" remains exactly the same.

Lanefan


----------



## T. Foster (Dec 7, 2006)

Yup. All 3E did was change from AC being a modifier and THAC0 the target number to AC being the target number and BAB a modifier.

OD&D/1E/2E: Roll d20 + mods (Str, magic, etc.) + target AC >= THAC0

3E: Roll d20 + mods (Str, magic, etc.) + BAB >= target AC

The only difference is that in the first equation the numbers stay relatively small (as the target AC adjustment shrinks and eventually becomes a negative on the one side, and the THAC0/target # shrinks on the other) while in the second one the numbers on both sides just keep getting bigger and bigger.

"But I don't want my players knowing their opponents' ACs!" Two responses: 1) why not? Logically, in melee combat (especially with each round representing a full minute of activity and several exchanges of blows) it makes sense that the opponents will have a good idea of each other's defenses, at least after a round or two; 2) the DM can make the final adjustment -- the player rolls the d20 and makes his adjustments for Str, magic, etc. and tells that number to the DM, who then makes the final AC adjustment and compares to THAC0 (no different than the player telling his adjusted roll to the DM and him comparing it to a table, which was the default in 1E).

These are just two different sets of numbers for accomplishing the same task. Neither is inherently better or worse than the other; it's just a matter of which you're more comfortable with, which you prefer.

I happen to prefer the descending AC/THAC0 system for 3 reasons: 1) it's what I'm used to after 20+ years of play (which some will surely scorn as a reason, but it's true -- my brain is programmed to see AC 5 or AC -3, and know immediately what it means; if I see AC 15 or AC 23 I have to think about it for a split-second, which IMO is a split-second too long); 2) I'd rather add and subtract small numbers (-10 to +10) and compare them to other small numbers (20 or less), than always add increasingly big numbers and compare them to other increasingly big numbers (it's apparently a maxim that addition is easier than subtraction, but my personal maxim is that small numbers are easier than big numbers -- maybe I'm weird?); and 3) I like the symbolic break-point of AC 0 that WSmith alluded to a page or two back -- that positive ACs generally signify "natural" defenses (armor, tough hide, quickness) whereas negative ACs signify "supernatural" defenses -- you can't get "better than the best" (i.e. better than Class 1 Armor) without some kind of magic/divine/supernatural aid. This isn't strictly true in the BtB rules (high Dex + good armor can give a character a negative AC, and characters with magic defenses will often still have positive ACs) but it's "metaphorically true enough," which is what counts for me (and I've considered making it literally true as a house rule -- that no one can ever have better than AC1 without some kind of magic).


----------



## MerricB (Dec 7, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Quite true; only the mechanics are handled differently.  In 1e, the player rolled and added the character bonuses (for strength, magic weapon, etc.), and the DM looked at a chart.  In 2e, THAC0 was supposed to simplify this for the DM (and does so mostly in monster stat blocks; the listed THAC0 includes all the bonuses, which is handy - THAC0 elsewhere I found a nuisance) but otherwise all worked the same.  3e takes the DM's chart, breaks it into little tiny pieces, and puts it on the character sheet as BAB...this transfers a tiny bit of work from the DM to the player while taking away some of the mystery.




Actually, 3e doesn't take away any of the mystery - it was 2e that put the THAC0 on the PC's sheet.

The process in 1e:
* Player announces class/level to DM
* DM cross-references with AC to find target number
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player announces total to DM
* DM announces result

The process in 2e:
(Before play):
* Player writes down THAC0 & static modifiers
(In play)
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player applies formula: AC hit = THAC0 - die total
* Player announces AC hit to DM
* DM announces result

Smart players would have a little table that had the die rolls and the AC hit. 

The process in 3e:
(before play):
* Player writes down Attack Bonus
(In play)
* Player rolls die
* Player adds modifiers
* Player announces AC hit to DM
* DM announces result

Cheers!


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> What is the "fourth wall" ?



Fourth Wall


----------



## Psion (Dec 7, 2006)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> You bring up an interesting point.
> 
> 1e's "chart-based combat," 2e's "THAC0," and 3.x's "BAB" are all nothing more than the *same thing* packaged a different way.  The whole purpose is to roll a d20 and, with modifiers, beat a target number.




Mathematically, yes.

3e, however, takes the load off the DM, involves one less operation per attack, and lacks the explicit subtraction and potential double subtraction which throw off some less math-savvy players.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 7, 2006)

Psion wrote: "3e, however, takes the load off the DM"
I never understood this notion, who says the DM carried a load with 1Es tables?  I never heard a 1E DM complain about running a battle (even a huge one),  but I've heard many 3E DMs complain about even attempting to run a medium sized battle.  Hell even a simple task like a couple rouges sneaking past a dozen variable monsters or NPCs can be a nightmare (having to role for each).  

Thats the rub AD&D 1E was never "broken".   The rules, once understood and properly used result in a fast game with just enough freedom for the DM and mystery for the players to create a fluid and fun game. 

Thanks Aaron.  Should have thought to look it up.


----------



## Psion (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Psion wrote: "3e, however, takes the load off the DM"
> I never understood this notion, who says the DM carried a load with 1Es tables?




It's a matter of process really, unless you were in the habit of letting the players know the AC of the monster, the DM must determine the target number (whether looking it up or subtracting. We, by the way, used THAC0 back in 1e... it was there.)

In 3e, the player rolls and add modifiers, the DM need only compare the result to AC. No table look ups or calculating to-hit numbers.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Hell even a simple task like a couple rouges sneaking past a dozen variable monsters or NPCs can be a nightmare (having to role for each).




Can that even be done in 1e? Hide in Shadows only works if you don't move. Certainly you can Move Silently, but if you move into LoS, even if covered with shadows?

(Though I do agree that 3e combat can be a pain with many disparate opponents for the DM to run).

Cheers!


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 7, 2006)

We always used THAC0, the DM always told us the AC we needed to hit and we never relied on  him to tell us if we hit or not.  He gave us the AC, we rolled and told him if we hit, then rolled damage.  Just like we do in 3E.   

We played 1E til 3E came out.


Game mechanics usually dont intrude into my immersion.  Arbitrary restrictions on my actions and character creation do, however.  To me, the fun of the game is making a character and playing him out, figuring out what he would do if he were real and having him act accordingly.  I'm sorry if some people find this an "unfortunate" way to play.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 7, 2006)

Merric: "Can that even be done in 1e? Hide in Shadows only works if you don't move. Certainly you can Move Silently, but if you move into LoS, even if covered with shadows?"

If it can be done in real life, then sure.   Low brush to crawl behind, dark conditions (esp. if the party has messed up its night vision or infravision with light).  Walk past a picture window at night with people inside and see if you get noticed?  Depending on the situation I'd have the thief role MS or both MS and HIS (as a thief likely moves from fixed location to fixed location).


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> PLEASE supply a link to this, do you have an example.  I've also read most, if not all, of those old posts, and don't remember any "hatred" from DF regulars (well there were 2 nuts who were both banned from DF because of their rude behavior).  Also, your above statement is illogical.  "Homebrew" by definition means changed or added rules to give a new flavor.  OSRIC doesn't do that.  OSRIC rewords the AD&D 1E rules so that its new artistic expression...and its BTB.  Thus they are in effect the old game reworded.  Period...end of story.  DF as a community has been VERY supportive of OSRIC, Mythmere and Papers and Paychecks.  Its the management, for what ever reason, that has been unwilling (so far) to  offer it a "home" as it has C&C.



Here is an example: see the first two posters, they and a few others were quite firm about not wanting OSRIC in the 1E forum as it was off topic i.e. homebrew. The tone later on became more strident in my view.here

I am quite aware of what "Homebrew" means and my statement is not illogical since I was merely pointing out an observed fact. That fact is that the BtB crowd attacked OSRIC and my conclusion on observing that fact (i.e. the attack) was that they must consider it "homebrew" because (even though it is BtB) it is a complete rewriting and because it is not 100% complete (due to legal issues of course). Old game reworded is considered by some as homebrew (I do not consider it homebrew, but some do and pointing that out is not illogical). Again I said:







			
				Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> If you followed the posts against OSRIC by that 1E froum dominant group, it is obvious that the legal issues are not the basis of their outright hatred of OSRIC, again OSRIC although very BtB is also the ultimate homebrew since it is completely rewritten. Again they are a nice group of folks, but they are not going to go for any rewritting of the canon materials







			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> I suggest you go back and reread those old DF posts.  It was infact the legal concerns that prompted the managers and mods there to remove OSRIC from the AD&D 1E section and to not agree to give it a forum of its own (not wanting to jeaprodize their own efforts to produce free 1E material).   If your really curious though, the easiest thing to do would be to ask at DF in their general forum (as Papers and Paychecks I think suggested above) why the management made those choices.  I'm confident they'd give you the same reasons I just did.




Apparently you missed the first sentence of my post:







			
				Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> DF management worries about the legal issues, the 1E forum dominant group; however, is not worried about legal issues.



 I.E. I am fully aware of the reasons that the managers and mods at DF did what they did; however, my comments are in regard to the 1E BtB crowd that dominates the 1E forum.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 7, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market. There is zero evidence that this is the case.






			
				Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> So TSR never had any problems with dilution of product lines and never were able to measure any impact of having two competing D&D lines at the same time?




TSR suffered from bad management by the Blooms and their hiring of numerous non-productive relatives as is well documented in posts on dozens of websites. It did not have anything whatsoever to do with keeping OD&D, Classic D&D and AD&D in print at the same time.

Later on T$R under Loraine Williams did not have OD&D or Classic D&D in print, dropped AD&D completely and replaced it with 2nd ED AD&D. What caused their financial problems were (as is well documented on many websites around the internet) the incompetent leadership, dumping profitable systems such as OD&D, Classic D&D and AD&D, moving to 2nd ED AD&D and losing 50% of their customer base, creating too many campaign worlds that were also too story heavy, chasing away all of the old school quality writers and replacing them with mostly inferior product and losing millions in ill-conceived lawsuits.

OD&D, Classic D&D and OAD&D never competed, they complemented each other. That is the fact that is always missed. OD&D, Classic D&D and OAD&D back in print with POD would complement 3E not compete with it. This is an easily recognizable fact, to assert otherwise is quite simply either ignorant of the historical facts or deliberately dishonest. If this offends anyone then I offer my sincere apology that the truth has hurt you, but it nevertheless does not change the truth that WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market; however, there is zero evidence that this is the case.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 7, 2006)

Crim: "I am quite aware of what "Homebrew" means and my statement is not illogical since I was merely pointing out an observed fact." Fair enough, and sorry if I came off harsh.  

 Rereading that thread...I can't really make much since of it myself.  But it was clear P&P didn't want to put DF out. I suppose the same is true today.  Anyhow, it seems OSRIC has moved to DFs general board.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Crim: "I am quite aware of what "Homebrew" means and my statement is not illogical since I was merely pointing out an observed fact." Fair enough, and sorry if I came off harsh.
> 
> Rereading that thread...I can't really make much since of it myself.  But it was clear P&P didn't want to put DF out. I suppose the same is true today.  Anyhow, it seems OSRIC has moved to DFs general board.




No offense taken, I just wanted to make myself clear.  

Correct, P&P was not and is not, if I understand him correctly not wanting to do anything that hinders what DF and others are already doing, but wants to add opportunities for those who want to publish. And he most certainly was not wanting to put DF out in anyway.


----------



## Melan (Dec 7, 2006)

Regarding chart-based combat, this is one of the reasons I consider Original D&D (accept no substitutes!) superior to 1st edition AD&D. In AD&D, there are multiple charts for attack rolls, meaning you must have a DM screen or the books in front of you to calculate combat. I don't like that at all - screens inhibit the casual gaming atmosphere I am shooting for. In OD&D (as well as EPT), it is elegnace and simplicity itself: all classes use the same matrix, but progress differently on it. So, for example, fighters get better at combat every 3 levels (I think), while it takes 5 for magic-users. The whole system fits on a small index card which I had laminated and could store in a wallet if I wanted to. Granted, I did away with the separate monster attacks chart for my OD&D one-offs, but two little cards are still not bad.

[off]Hi, Axe. I have been thinking it was you for a while, but your stance on immersion was a dead give-away. You also posted on RPGNet as Immortal, didn't you?  [/off]


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 7, 2006)

Getting back to 1st ed, I seem to remember that the to hit charts did have the "20" repeat about 6 times as the AC of the opponent got better and better, presumably to give the characters a chance to hit really, really, tough to hit opponents.  That disappeared in 2nd ed and didn't reappear in 3rd ed.

And didn't the character sheet for B/X D&D have a "mini-chart" that players could fill in, with a printed list of ACs and empty boxes under them in which you could write your "to hit" numbers?


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Merric: "Can that even be done in 1e? Hide in Shadows only works if you don't move. Certainly you can Move Silently, but if you move into LoS, even if covered with shadows?"
> 
> If it can be done in real life, then sure.   Low brush to crawl behind, dark conditions (esp. if the party has messed up its night vision or infravision with light).  Walk past a picture window at night with people inside and see if you get noticed?  Depending on the situation I'd have the thief role MS or both MS and HIS (as a thief likely moves from fixed location to fixed location).




And there's the problem right there.  What you decide can be done in real life and what I decide can be done in real life can be entirely different.  Thus, the players are pretty much beholden to whatever the DM decides is reasonable.  Having had far too many rows in game over exactly this sort of thing, I, for one, am very, very happy to see that taken out of the hands of the DM.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 7, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And there's the problem right there.  What you decide can be done in real life and what I decide can be done in real life can be entirely different.  Thus, the players are pretty much beholden to whatever the DM decides is reasonable.  Having had far too many rows in game over exactly this sort of thing, I, for one, am very, very happy to see that taken out of the hands of the DM.




Then OSRIC really isn't for you, I'm afraid.     Disempowering the GM is pretty far from what OSRIC's about.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 7, 2006)

Oh, I totally agree with that.  I truly think that what you guys have done with OSRIC is a fantastic thing.  But, from my personal view, I wouldn't play AD&D ever again.  I do not have fond memories of the game particularly.  My nostalgia factor is extremely low and, frankly, there isn't a chance I'd go back to that.

On the idea of whether the revival is here to stay or not, I truly hope that it is.  The more people playing D&D, whatever edition, the better.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 7, 2006)

Hussar: "And there's the problem right there. What you decide can be done in real life and what I decide can be done in real life can be entirely different. Thus, the players are pretty much beholden to whatever the DM decides is reasonable. Having had far too many rows in game over exactly this sort of thing, I, for one, am very, very happy to see that taken out of the hands of the DM."

Yet in "real life" you don't really know if something will work or not, but you can take a calculated guess.  The problem with any game is when it gets too predictable, when you can calculate your odds too closely (even exactly).  At least thats when I bore of it.  

Anyhow, 1E is all about "DM is God".  The players are ants moving around in the DMs ant farm.  If a DM chooses to change his opinion about whats reasonable in the middle of a game, then so be it.  Don't like it don't play.  And from your response I guess you probably don't.     What you see as a "problem" I see as 1Es greatest strength. 


Melan,    couldn't you do the same thing with 1E if you really wanted to?  It'd probably have to be color coded though given the number of classes and progressions.  Anyhow, I always liked the charts as DM.  Anything that seems to complicate the game for the players (where they feel left in the dark) is a good thing...helps with immersion (as long as its not really complicated for the DM).  Its good enough to know that when  I play a fighter I have a better chance of hitting something then a thief or MU.  It might require you carry a purse though to carry your DMG, as it won't fit in your wallet.  

Anyhow, since when is "simpler" and "faster" considered better in a game?


----------



## Maggan (Dec 7, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> OD&D, Classic D&D and OAD&D back in print with POD would complement 3E not compete with it. This is an easily recognizable fact, to assert otherwise is quite simply either ignorant of the historical facts or deliberately dishonest. If this offends anyone then I offer my sincere apology that the truth has hurt you, but it nevertheless does not change the truth that WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market; however, there is zero evidence that this is the case.




Hmmmmm ... so having two virtually identical products using virtually the same trademark compete against each other would in your opinion not be a problem for WotC?

It is my opinion, and I don't feel particularily ignorant of historical facts or especially dishonest, that it would be a bad idea for WotC to bring out OD&D and AD&D again, mostly because of the risk of confusing the marketplace (consumers and distributors), thereby running the risk of diluting the brand value.

I have a suspicion that someone will assert that AD&D and D&D most certainly are not virtually identical products, but from a marketing perspective they are. It works for D&D Minis, because that is easily recognisable as an entity of its own. It works with D&D Chess for the same reason. I don't think it would work with D&D and AD&D.

My memories of the confusion I experienced over the difference between Basic D&D and AD&D makes me cringe. Sure, hard core gamers will tell them apart. But hard core gamers can get their fix without WotC having to reprint the stuff.

So from where I look at it, it's really not an easily recognisable fact that having parallel lines of the D&D roleplaying game would benefit WotC.

/M


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 7, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> So from where I look at it, it's really not an easily recognisable fact that having parallel lines of the D&D roleplaying game would benefit WotC.




You don't think WOTC would benefit from a return to the old TSR values?

I ask because I don't see WOTC selling 75,000 copies of their modules.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 7, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> You don't think WOTC would benefit from a return to the old TSR values?
> 
> I ask because I don't see WOTC selling 75,000 copies of their modules.




That was then, this is now. IMO it would be immensly stupid of WotC to act as if it was 1985 again.

The marketplace has changed. Do you think WotC would sell 75,000 copies of an AD&D module today, if it was published parallel to the 3e products?

If so, I've got to know who supplies your crystal balls, cause I'm getting myself one of them!   

/M


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 7, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That was then, this is now. IMO it would be immensly stupid of WotC to act as if it was 1985 again.




That's certainly true; D&D was in decline at that point.    The high point for sales was probably 1980-82.

There's a lot to discuss with this, but I don't want to threadjack.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 7, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> That's certainly true; D&D was in decline at that point.    The high point for sales was probably 1980-82.




Fair enough. I started playng D&D in 1984. Here in Sweden the peak of roleplaying games came in 1985 to 1987. In a country of 8 million, the dominant rpg sold over one hundred thousand copies of the core rules. Most of them in that span.

It was a crazy time for pen and paper roleplaying games. A time we won't see again in a hurry.   

/M


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Anyhow, 1E is all about "DM is God".  The players are ants moving around in the DMs ant farm.  If a DM chooses to change his opinion about whats reasonable in the middle of a game, then so be it.  Don't like it don't play.





Ugh.  I'm sorry, but that doesn't even remotely resemble the 1E we played.  I don't know, maybe it was because just about everyone in our group is a also a DM at one time or another  and know that DMs aren't infallible, and none of us were satisfied to just rely on the arbitrary whims of one person to decide what is possible in the game and allow him to totally change his mind during the course of the it ("yeah, you could do that before, but I've decided I don't want to let you do it anymore.")  

Of course there's still an element of that in any roleplying game with a referee, but the "DM is god and the players are ants" analogy leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.  I'm not playing D&D to be totally subject to the DMs whims.  

If you're going to play like that, why even bothering to have rules?  Just ask the DM if you can do something and have him decide the outcome.  It would be little more than an interactive story with the DM as storyteller, but if everything is left totally up to DM fiat then  thats what it is anyway.  I want some structure and some assurance that what is supposed to happen will happen without the DM just deciding that he doesn't want it to.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 7, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> [...] it nevertheless does not change the truth that WotC/Hasbro has forever had this lame assertion that OD&D/OAD&D would compete with their current products and dilute the market; however, there is zero evidence that this is the case.




Can you cite a source of this WotC/Hasbro assertion? (Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just curious about the source.)

In truth, WotC _is_ selling oAD&D & classic D&D. (& even Mythus!) They may be low quality PDFs, but they are selling them. (It's unfortunate that oD&D--except for the supplements--isn't available, though.)

There's also the possibility that the WotC/Kenzer agreement puts some limits on what WotC can do in support of the older editions.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Anyhow, since when is "simpler" and "faster" considered better in a game?




For me, since I got married & had two kids.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 7, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I started playng D&D in 1984. Here in Sweden the peak of roleplaying games came in 1985 to 1987. In a country of 8 million, the dominant rpg sold over one hundred thousand copies of the core rules. Most of them in that span.
> 
> It was a crazy time for pen and paper roleplaying games. A time we won't see again in a hurry.
> 
> /M




Am I right in thinking D&D was never translated into Swedish?

If so, that seems a bit discourteous to me.  Although every Swedish person I've ever met has spoken better English than I do, there's no justification for _assuming_ you'll speak it!  A market of 100,000 paying customers merits some concessions to their language.

100,000 rules copies in Sweden alone is an amazing statistic.  I had no idea that the game was so popular over there.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 7, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Am I right in thinking D&D was never translated into Swedish?
> 
> If so, that seems a bit discourteous to me.  Although every Swedish person I've ever met has spoken better English than I do, there's no justification for _assuming_ you'll speak it!  A market of 100,000 paying customers merits some concessions to their language.
> 
> 100,000 rules copies in Sweden alone is an amazing statistic.  I had no idea that the game was so popular over there.




Ah, I was a bit fuzzy there. D&D was indeed translated. But the dominant RPG never was D&D, it was a BRP-translation called Drakar och Demoner released in 1982. It basically swept across sweden much in the same way D&D swept across america.

When the translation of D&D was finally done in 1987 or maybe even later, the consumers had decided against D&D. For a long while, asking someone if they played "Dungeons&Dragons" was considered an insult in swedish gamer circles.   

So in Sweden, the market belonged to the first mover. Still, the number of gamers in Sweden during the 80's was truly staggering. Still today, the dominant RPG sells about 8000 copies or more of each release [EDIT: each release of the core rules, of course].

/M


----------



## RFisher (Dec 7, 2006)

You know, if I were to choose how to play based on how I played the game in high school... I'm a completely different person now & have a completely different group. I have a completely different understanding of *D&D today than I did then.

Then we had knock-down drag-out fights about whether something was possible in real life or not. We had knock-down drag-outs over rules.† I was arrogant enough to think that if a rule looked stupid to me, it must be stupid, despite the fact that enough people thought it wasn't stupid--thought it was fun--that it made it into print.

†To some extent, I think we just enjoyed arguing then. So, this was actually part of the fun.

These days, we discuss whether something is possible in real life & what the chances of success are. We discuss rules. Then the DM makes a decision, & we all just live with it. If we later decide that was a bad decision, we're happy to do it differently in the future, consistency be damned. The DM isn't "god", but he is currently granted the final word. A small recompense for the responsibility he's accepted.

These days, when a rule looks stupid to me, I recognize that somebody didn't think it was stupid, & so I try to figure out how that could be. I might still house-rule it, but it is to be hoped that better understanding leads to better house-ruling.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> If you're going to play like that, why even bothering to have rules?  Just ask the DM if you can do something and have him decide the outcome.  It would be little more than an interactive story with the DM as storyteller, but if everything is left totally up to DM fiat then thats what it is anyway.  I want some structure and some assurance that what is supposed to happen will happen without the DM just deciding that he doesn't want it to.




I'm happy to play w/o rules. On the other hand, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. & just because the DM has final word doesn't mean that only what he wants to happen happens.

I appreciate your position, but I can't imagine gaming in an environment in which I feel I need some sort of protection from the DM.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2006)

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> You don't think WOTC would benefit from a return to the old TSR values?
> 
> I ask because I don't see WOTC selling 75,000 copies of their modules.




You might want to give some evidence that "TSR values" were responsible for those sales numbers - as opposed to, say, relative lack of competition from other games and media.  Hobbies and entertainment have changed a great deal in the intervening decades, so there should be little confidence that the old model would would particularly well today.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 7, 2006)

Aaron: "Of course there's still an element of that in any roleplying game with a referee, but the "DM is god and the players are ants" analogy leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I'm not playing D&D to be totally subject to the DMs whims. "

Just the same, that was always the DMs choice.  Of course, I never sat with a DM that just went nuts like that.  You could be assured there was a logical and stable setting to play in.  The advantage to this gaming philosophy is: the players don't always know exactly what there chances are to do any particular task, sometimes (depending on what your talking about...like getting past a trap) it'll be role petrification, other times a D20, or a D100 or maybe 3D6. Not knowing your chances makes you feel more at risk, a higher sense of immersion, and thus less like your playing a game.  (Oh, and it tends to drive away the power player, who typically can't stand not knowing there exact chance to do anyything). The more like reality the better.  

As far as ants...yep, its the job of the PCs to explore the antfarm and create the story as they interact with the DMs setting (which he controls).  

Aaron: "If you're going to play like that, why even bothering to have rules? Just ask the DM if you can do something and have him decide the outcome."

You still role your outcome in the way I play, you just don't know the "magic number" you need to role to save, hit etc..


----------



## dcas (Dec 7, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The D20 STL doesn't allow modification of existing mechanics in the SRD.  The broader scope of the OGL was (from my understanding) meant to allow for development of products like Monte Cook's _Arcana Unearthed_ or Mongoose's _Conan_ RPGs which provide alternate rules with the same underlying mechanics as D&D.  Such products are theoretically competing with the D&D core books but, in actuality, probably enhance the overall market for WotC (especially since aspects of WotC corebooks, splatbooks and setting books can be used with these products).




Ah, I misunderstood your post. I thought that you were claiming that the OGL was limited to facilitating support products like modules and supplements.

But I still don't understand why the OGL would allow for competing core books. The OGL business model was supposed to support sales of WOTC core books by allowing other companies to produce modules and supplements. ISTM that allowing other companies to produce core books undermines this model.


----------



## Sharn (Dec 7, 2006)

I played only a little bit of 1E when I was a small kid, really grew up on 2E, and got back into D&D with 3E.  I have to say that I like 3E the best, and the new game system is what has really kept me playing D&D...again.  I won't support any old school products like 1E and 2E, but that's not to say they shouldn't be produced by someone for the benefit of others.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 7, 2006)

dcas said:
			
		

> But I still don't understand why the OGL would allow for competing core books. The OGL business model was supposed to support sales of WOTC core books by allowing other companies to produce modules and supplements. ISTM that allowing other companies to produce core books undermines this model.




If WotC gives away their core mechanics for free, people who are building competing games have a choice of either 1) making a game with different mechanics which aren't familiar to D&D players or 2) using the D&D core mechanics with different rules that facilitate whatever genre or feel they were attempting to produce.  I think the idea behind the OGL is that it's better to have those competitors choosing option 2.  It's better for them because they automatically have a huge pool of players to draw from who know their basic core mechanics (i.e. people who already play D&D3e), but it's also better for WotC because every gamer who gets into the hobby playing a game based on the D&D core mechanics is also learning how to play D&D.  If he starts out playing _Mutants & Masterminds_, for example, and then decides he wants to try a little sword and sorcery fantasy he can either pick up D&D (with which he's already familiar because of his previous experience) or he can choose a competing system where he has to learn the rules from the ground up (Tunnels & Trolls for example).  Obviously, D&D is still competing with other OGL-based sword and sorcery fantasy games, but since they are the big dogs on the block, the numbers will probably lean in their favor in the end.  Plus, there's still the whole idea that you can easily use a D&D setting book or splatbook for your _Conan_ game with little or no problem.

In other words, it's a way to keep the gaming market "D&D-centric" no matter how many competing games spring up.

I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that go into creating that model, but I do believe that's an accurate paraphrasing of the underlying motive for creating an open license.  IMO the OGL has probably helped WotC's competitors more than it has helped WotC, although I don't believe the OGL has seriously hurt WotC either.  Everyone I know who plays OGL games plays them as an aside to their D&D3e games, so they're still buying lots of WotC products.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 7, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Actually, 3e doesn't take away any of the mystery - it was 2e that put the THAC0 on the PC's sheet.
> 
> The process in 2e:
> (Before play):
> ...



I didn't know this (then again, I never played 2e).  So, what you're saying is I should be blaming 2e for this foolishness.  OK, I can do that. 

Lanefan


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Dec 7, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> -snip- The more like reality the better.




See, this is the core of what I *hate* about this gaming philosophy.  Not only am I not interested in my GM's idea of reality (which may diverge considerably from my own), I'm not the least bit interested in playing in *reality* at all.

When I'm playing a fantasy RPG, I'm interested in playing sword and sorcery.  Its connection to reality is tenuous and grows stronger or weaker as required for dramatic tension.  Telling me I can't do something in-genre because it's not realistic (IYHO, of course)?  How about NO?

There's only two things I want in an RPG - gameplay and genre emulation.  They tend to clash with each other from time to time and I've played games that leaned more one way or the other, but both clash with "realism."


----------



## MerricB (Dec 7, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I didn't know this (then again, I never played 2e).  So, what you're saying is I should be blaming 2e for this foolishness.  OK, I can do that.






2e is notable for how it opened up the rules to the players. In fact, the 2e DMG is fairly bare: almost all the rules are in the PHB. What the 2e DMG had was the treasure & magic item tables and the XP tables. Oh, and the monster THAC0 table.

The stance of "only the DM should know the rules" had been recognised as unsustainable even back in oD&D days. (I seem to remember Tim Kask having a foreword to _Eldritch Wizardry_ saying as much). It's interesting to see the tension between secrets and spoilers...

This was later played out in the early days of Magic: the Gathering, btw. Spoiler lists were not released by Wizards, who thought that the game was best played when people didn't know everything and could be surprised by new cards. (Of course, this was also during the days that they thought that a group would only buy about 5-6 starters and that was it... )

Modern design of both Magic and D&D now accepts that the players will know the rules and quite a few of the options; however, because of the multitude of options, people will still be surprised because (a) they can't remember them all and (b) combinations can be surprising.

Incidentally, don't confuse "options" with "rules".

Cheers!


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 8, 2006)

Moogle: "See, this is the core of what I *hate* about this gaming philosophy. Not only am I not interested in my GM's idea of reality (which may diverge considerably from my own), I'm not the least bit interested in playing in *reality* at all.

When I'm playing a fantasy RPG, I'm interested in playing sword and sorcery. Its connection to reality is tenuous and grows stronger or weaker as required for dramatic tension. Telling me I can't do something in-genre because it's not realistic (IYHO, of course)? How about NO?"

Oh, I agree with you 100%.  What I'm getting at is this, the more you can taste and see and feel like your really there (like reading a really good book or movie, but your the character doing whatever the hell you want) the better.  And that often comes with the fluidity of not knowing whats going on in terms of rules.  Just sitting back and rolling the dice when told to.  

Thats what I mean by "reality", a situation when you forget your playing a game and your totally "sucked in" doing those incredible and epic things...not unlike the heroes of a movie or adventure novel.  The Sword and Sorcery world you play in is your "reality" shared only by you (and the DM and all the other players have theirs' as well).  The DM only controls when you role and what you role (the game part), you control what you imagine.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> ...that it would be a bad idea for WotC to bring out OD&D and AD&D again, mostly because of the risk of confusing the marketplace (consumers and distributors),...




Oh I agree that at this late date, it would create confusion if they were to go back and try to undue the past mistakes of T$R & WotC, but there should have been no confusion if the old stuff had never been allowed to go out of print.  And of course 3rd Ed AD&D should have been left with that name instead of lying to the public and dropping the Advanced part of the name and pretending that it is D&D.  3E and 3.5E are descended from AD&D not D&D and the pretense by WotC that it is otherwise is particulary offensive. This is not to be taken that I am knocking 3E or 3.5E, I am not, but there is no reason to falsely identify them, it is unnecessary.





			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> My memories of the confusion I experienced over the difference between Basic D&D and AD&D makes me cringe. Sure, hard core gamers will tell them apart. But hard core gamers can get their fix without WotC having to reprint the stuff.




Why were you confused? I do not understand what there was to be confused about? 

The purpose of reprints is to replace things that are wearing out. I have been playing since 1971 (starting with Chainmail Fantasy). I have worn out several sets of photo copies. If I could buy reprints I would prefer that highly to using photocopies or printouts of pdfs. My group is up over 2700+ game sessions at an average of 14 hours each and counting. We would buy reprints every few years if they were available, while some things can be had cheaply on ebay, other things are quite pricy if you intend to use them.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And there's the problem right there.  What you decide can be done in real life and what I decide can be done in real life can be entirely different.  Thus, the players are pretty much beholden to whatever the DM decides is reasonable.  Having had far too many rows in game over exactly this sort of thing, I, for one, am very, very happy to see that taken out of the hands of the DM.





The sad thing about this, is that you are serious. I can not imagine playing with a group of people that would disagree with the DMs ruling to the point of it becoming a "row." My group would quickly show the door to a player(s) who would consistenly stoop to wasting valuable playing time arguing about DM rulings. Sounds like a unpleasant group of people that you were playing with. I and the people that I play with don't have time for rules lawyer types that have to have their way all the time to the detriment of the game.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Can you cite a source of this WotC/Hasbro assertion? (Not that I'm doubting you, I'd just curious about the source.)
> 
> In truth, WotC _is_ selling oAD&D & classic D&D. (& even Mythus!) They may be low quality PDFs, but they are selling them. (It's unfortunate that oD&D--except for the supplements--isn't available, though.)
> 
> There's also the possibility that the WotC/Kenzer agreement puts some limits on what WotC can do in support of the older editions.




A number of people in posts have stated that they have personally approached WotC/Hasbro and been told such. If I had the time and inclination, I am confident that I could re-find such posted comments. I feel no obligation to provide a link to everything that I post.

I do not count pdfs, since when you print them you essentially only have a photo copy quality anyway. I want to buy the professionally printed and bound product.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> The sad thing about this, is that you are serious. I can not imagine playing with a group of people that would disagree with the DMs ruling to the point of it becoming a "row." My group would quickly show the door to a player(s) who would consistenly stoop to wasting valuable playing time arguing about DM rulings. Sounds like a unpleasant group of people that you were playing with. I and the people that I play with don't have time for rules lawyer types that have to have their way all the time to the detriment of the game.



Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. The DM might be a petty tyrant - which would not be a first, by any means. The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.

If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.

What was that about absolute power again? 


But by the way, I don't have a stake in 1e/OSRIC/C&C etc., one way or the other. I honestly couldn't care if they became the Next Big Thing, disappeared entirely off the face of the Earth, or something in between (which, OK, is the most likely). I guess that I still don't 'get' what the hoohah is, having been enamoured of 3e/d20 ever since I started playing it, then running it, in '03.


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> What was that about absolute power again?




With absolute power comes an excellent cheese toasty?



joe b.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> With absolute power comes an excellent cheese toasty?



Why yes. And there's no telling where that will lead.

I rest my case.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. The DM might be a petty tyrant - which would not be a first, by any means. The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.
> 
> If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.
> 
> What was that about absolute power again?




If the DM is a petty tyrant, find a different game or start your own. If the DM is incompetent, same answer.

I do not know why you would call either OD&D or OAD&D a "less consistent rules base" that seems to me to be an unwarranted slam against games that you have not played. The DM is "empowered" by the players choosing to play in the DMs campaign and stays "empowered" by being the DM that provides a high quality and quantity of fun. OAD&D and OD&D in particular require a DM that can think on his feet. The pinnacle of DMing is to be able to keep 4-15 players engrossed  in a campaign for 14 hours or more with minimal prep time and do it week in and week out for years at a time.

Absolute power would be the ability to force players to stay in your game whether they had any fun or not, so it is really not applicable to any D&D campaign that I have ever heard of.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> If the DM is a petty tyrant, find a different game or start your own. If the DM is incompetent, same answer.
> 
> I do not know why you would call either OD&D or OAD&D a "less consistent rules base" that seems to me to be an unwarranted slam against games that you have not played. The DM is "empowered" by the players choosing to play in the DMs campaign and stays "empowered" by being the DM that provides a high quality and quantity of fun. OAD&D and OD&D in particular require a DM that can think on his feet. The pinnacle of DMing is to be able to keep 4-15 players engrossed  in a campaign for 14 hours or more with minimal prep time.
> 
> Absolute power would be the ability to force players to stay in your game whether they had any fun or not, so it is really not applicable to any D&D campaign that I have ever heard of.



*sigh*

I have played - and run - 1e. I've played BECMI.

They _are_ less consistent rules bases (though you'll note that I wasn't actually referring to OD&D at all) - this is something that even most diehard oldschoolers will generally admit, and have no issues with.

It's not universally a value judgement, that's the thing. That you took it that way is. . . well, that's your choice; fair enough. Me personally, I do value consistency in the rules of any game I play (or run, _only more so_). To others, it's not nearly as important. I get that, and have no issue with that fact.


Re: power and DMs, sometimes there are not a lot of options for some people. They might feel that they have to put up with whatever is inflicted on them (to a point), just in order to game. There have certainly been enough accounts of somewhat similar circumstances on ENWorld just in recent times, for me to assume that it can't be _that_ uncommon.


edit --- though I do agree that the ability to think on one's feet is a fine trait for a DM to possess.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 8, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 2e is notable for how it opened up the rules to the players. In fact, the 2e DMG is fairly bare: almost all the rules are in the PHB. What the 2e DMG had was the treasure & magic item tables and the XP tables. Oh, and the monster THAC0 table.
> 
> The stance of "only the DM should know the rules" had been recognised as unsustainable even back in oD&D days. (I seem to remember Tim Kask having a foreword to _Eldritch Wizardry_ saying as much).



I've never seen it as unsustainable at all.  The players need to know only those rules that apply to them and-or their characters; the DM needs to know the rest.  There are a great many things players do not *need* to know (THAC0/BAB being but one) but for some reason do.  That was always one of the true attractions in the game for me, at least before I started DM'ing; that I didn't know everything, that there was arcane game knowledge I was not privy to, that everything wasn't laid out on a platter.  Then again, I was fortunate in having a competent DM. 

Lanefan


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> I have played - and run - 1e. I've played BECMI.
> 
> ...





Why the *sigh*?  I understood you previous post to state that you only played 3E or 3.5E, hence my comment about you not playing OD&D or OAD&D, now that I know you have played OAD&D and BECMI, I still do not understand why you call them "less consistent". How does not spelling out everything that could possibly happen make them "less consistent", less detailed yes, that is part of the great thing about the original game, but less detailed does not translate to less consistent.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> Oh I agree that at this late date, it would create confusion if they were to go back and try to undue the past mistakes of T$R & WotC, but there should have been no confusion if the old stuff had never been allowed to go out of print.  And of course 3rd Ed AD&D should have been left with that name instead of lying to the public and dropping the Advanced part of the name and pretending that it is D&D.  3E and 3.5E are descended from AD&D not D&D and the pretense by WotC that it is otherwise is particulary offensive. This is not to be taken that I am knocking 3E or 3.5E, I am not, but there is no reason to falsely identify them, it is unnecessary.




Now you are just looking for reasons to be annoyed. The reason that WotC dropped the "Advanced" is that it was confusing. There is no "Basic" version, and they didn't intend to put one out. It was especially confusing since there was no progression from anything like a "basic" D&D that progressed to "Advanced" D&D, making the designation especially pointless. There was intended to be no other version of D&D. Hence, why confuse people by using a title that implies that there are? AD&D, OD&D, BD&D and so on are just iterations of the same thing. It is not inconsistent to call any one of them D&D, nor is it more proper to call one D&D over the other. In fact, most people, when asked, would identify "AD&D" either 1e or 2e as being simply "D&D" over any other version. Getting all huffy and saying that WotC is "lying" to the public by calling this version simply "D&D" just makes all your other arguments look silly and petty, and pretty much blows your credibility on these issues.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> They _are_ less consistent rules bases (though you'll note that I wasn't actually referring to OD&D at all) - this is something that even most diehard oldschoolers will generally admit, and have no issues with.



They're less consistent in the sense that they don't conform to a universal mechanic, and have various subsystems that work differently.  One might call that "wonky."  I like it, though.  I think universal mechanics are overrated, and that some things benefit from separate treatment.  If the subsystems were hideously complicated, I'd balk, but they're not -- they're all simple, and there aren't that many of them, so I don't see it as a problem.

I've been playing C&C, lately, which uses a universal mechanic for just about everything.  However, I'm not completely satisfied with its application in a couple of areas (surprise and saving throws come to mind), and I'm considering house-ruling it to be more like B/X or AD&D in those areas.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Now you are just looking for reasons to be annoyed. The reason that WotC dropped the "Advanced" is that it was confusing. There is no "Basic" version, and they didn't intend to put one out. It was especially confusing since there was no progression from anything like a "basic" D&D that progressed to "Advanced" D&D, making the designation especially pointless. There was intended to be no other version of D&D. Hence, why confuse people by using a title that implies that there are? AD&D, OD&D, BD&D and so on are just iterations of the same thing. It is not inconsistent to call any one of them D&D, nor is it more proper to call one D&D over the other. In fact, most people, when asked, would identify "AD&D" either 1e or 2e as being simply "D&D" over any other version. Getting all huffy and saying that WotC is "lying" to the public by calling this version simply "D&D" just makes all your other arguments look silly and petty, and pretty much blows your credibility on these issues.




Are you serious??? Surely you can not believe any of what you just said!!!  First of all D&D and AD&D are two completely different games, if you do not understand that it completely blows your credibility on anything to do with D&D or AD&D. To say that WotC dropped the "Advanced" because it was confusing is to pretend that the history of D&D and AD&D started when 3E came out. There was nothing confusing about it to any of the millions of people who had already played D&D and/or AD&D and it would have been simple enough to bring any new fans uptodate on this history; therefore, this "alleged" confusion is a strawman. I am also aware of the mistakes that WotC made in there intention and practice of killing off all that went before 3E, they basically said "play 3E or we don't want your business" and they have certainly done without my business and that of 15 other people that I know personally.

To say that AD&D, OD&D etc are just different iterations of the same thing is just not true. In fact it is a bald faced lie, something that no one could ever honestly say.  How can you be taken seriously when you utter such rubbish! You are the one without credibility when you ignore the vast differences between the different "D&D" games and deny that they are different games. You can poo poo my opinion all you want to, but don't expect me to think it is anything more that the mutterings a very sick person when you utter such dishonest and deceitful nonsense.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Dec 8, 2006)

(off-topic)

  Hey there,  Crimhthan_The_Great.  Your group has played that long?  In that many adventures?  And held together as friends for all these years?
  I am green with envy.  And respect.  And admiration.  Cheers to you and your group!

  And my respects to the other Old-Timers here as well, and to their groups.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> Why the *sigh*? I understood you previous post to state that you only played 3E or 3.5E, hence my comment about you not playing OD&D or OAD&D, now that I know you have played OAD&D and BECMI, I still do not understand why you call them "less consistent". How does not spelling out everything that could possibly happen make them "less consistent", less detailed yes, that is part of the great thing about the original game, but less detailed does not translate to less consistent.



I wasn't claiming that less detail == less consistency. I consider True20 to be (relatively) consistent for example, though it is of course significantly less detailed than 3rd edition D&D.





			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> They're less consistent in the sense that they don't conform to a universal mechanic, and have various subsystems that work differently.  One might call that "wonky."  I like it, though.  I think universal mechanics are overrated, and that some things benefit from separate treatment.  If the subsystems were hideously complicated, I'd balk, but they're not -- they're all simple, and there aren't that many of them, so I've never seen it as a problem.
> 
> I've been playing C&C, lately, which uses a universal mechanic for just about everything.  However, I'm not completely satisfied with its application in a couple of areas (surprise and saving throws come to mind), and I'm considering house-ruling it to be more like B/X or AD&D in those areas.



Ha! Wonky, yeah.  I'd agree with that, surely - based on my experiences and those of countless others. And again (as you've just demonstrated) - not necessarily a value thing, that. Or at least, not necessarily implying _negative_ value, in this case.   (you masochist, you  )

I didn't realise C&C had a universal mechanic - although I have heard of the 'Siege Engine' or 'Siege Mechanic' or something like that, on forums. I'll not be lumping C&C in with 1e then, when I'm rabbiting on about 'inconsistency'.. or 'wonkiness' 

What is it about surprise and saving throws, out of curiosity?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I didn't realise C&C had a universal mechanic - although I have heard of the 'Siege Engine' or 'Siege Mechanic' or something like that, on forums. I'll not be lumping C&C in with 1e then, when I'm rabbiting on about 'inconsistency'.. or 'wonkiness'



Yeah, the SIEGE engine is what I was referring to.  It's basically an ability check, but there are several variables.  The first is whether an ability is "prime" or not.  If it's prime, your base target number for the check is lower.  The second is whether you apply your level as a bonus; if the activity is something central to your character/archetype, then you get your level as a bonus.  Lastly are the situational modifiers common to any such system.

So a SIEGE engine check is used to cover class abilities (e.g. a Rogue's move silently check), skill-like abilities (e.g. a Knight might check against Int to recognize the heraldic device of another knight), feat-like maneuvers (e.g. disarming an enemy), saving throws (e.g. Save vs. Poison is a Con SIEGE engine check), et cetera.  Pretty much everything except attack rolls; those are similar, of course, being a d20 roll to hit a target AC, but they don't use the SIEGE engine mods (i.e. prime, PC level), they use a base attack bonus, etc, just like 3E.  (And AC works just like 3E, too, rather than like older D&D editions.)



> What is it about surprise and saving throws, out of curiosity?



After playing C&C for a while, I find that using the SIEGE engine for surprise has genre and archetype-breaking effects.  In C&C, surprise is handled with perception checks (i.e. Wis-based SIEGE engine checks).  Because primes weigh heavily in such checks (a prime is equivalent to a +6 bonus), clerics are often the best PCs for detecting enemies, because they usually have high Wis scores that are also prime.  This just doesn't feel right to me: I think rogues and rangers should be best at this type of thing.  Also, as levels go up, surprise becomes almost impossible.  I don't like that, either.  This is a case where I think a separate subsystem with a different mechanic would work better.  

I like the B/X way of doing things, but I want a few more modifiers than B/X's approach provides.  AD&D's approach added to the B/X system, but did so in a way that made calculating surprise very difficult in some situations.  I'm adopting the concept, but converted everything to percentages instead of ratios (e.g. 2:6, 1:8, etc).  So my system makes surprise a percentile check.  Rangers and rogues have a modifier, as do certain races.  It's straightforward and seems to work pretty well.  I haven't implemented it in-game, yet, though.  Actually, I've been relying more on common sense and less on die rolls to determine surprise, so it hasn't felt like a critical issue.

With saving throws, it's mostly the "advancing level" and primes issues.  Between the two, saving throws either become trivially easy or harder than they should be for a given PC level.  I think the B/X or AD&D saving throw table better models the way I think saving throws should work; I think your class and level should weigh more than your ability score/bonus/prime. So this is another case where I'd rather have a wonky, separate subsystem, instead of shoe-horning saving throws into the universal mechanic system. Again, I haven't actually changed anything in-game, yet, but if I do, I'll probably just adopt the AD&D saving throw charts.

I really like C&C's SIEGE engine for handling skill-like or feat-like actions, though.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

Hm. Interesting system actually, by the sounds of it. I'm not sure I would like "primes" much, though. But who knows.

I'm tempted to ask a lot of other questions now, but I guess it's either not the right thread, or perhaps even the right forum. Not sure about that one.

Having assumed it was essentially 1e redux, I never paid too much attention to the talk about C&C. Turns out it's pretty much its own beast (right?), but with rather noticable shades of 1e and 3e.


Eh, just one more question - if that's OK. How does it run in actual play? A bit like each of its parents?


----------



## Maggan (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> Why were you confused? I do not understand what there was to be confused about?




To us, the name of the game was Dungeons&Dragons. It didn't really register at first that there were two iterations, BECM D&D and Advanced D&D. We thought that it was the same game, basically.

So we were confused when we bought magazines with D&D adventures that contained rules that weren't what we were used to. We were confused when we bought modules for the "wrong" version of the game. Our parents were confused when they wanted to buy presents .. but I guess that'll never change. 

IMO, WotC did the right thing ditching the "Advanced" moniker, focusing on the important part brand wise: "Dungeons&Dragons". And bringing the rules more up to date.



			
				Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> There was nothing confusing about it to any of the millions of people who had already played D&D and/or AD&D and it would have been simple enough to bring any new fans uptodate on this history; therefore, this "alleged" confusion is a strawman.




It is not an "alleged" confusion. I've seen it with my own eyes and I've experienced it myself. And as a selling point "new and better" is a more powerful marketing tool than "the same as before".

/M


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Hm. Interesting system actually, by the sounds of it. I'm not sure I would like "primes" much, though. But who knows.



The main benefit of primes is that assigning primes lets you tweak your character while keeping the system simple.  For example, if you want a dexterous fighter, then make Dex prime, and your PC will be very good at Dex-based stuff.  It's a broad-stroke short-cut: instead of buying lots of individual skills and feats, you just say "Dex is prime."  The end result is pretty much the same, but much simpler.  So C&C has a simple system for addressing the complaint that classes make for cookie-cutter PCs.  It's obviously not as detailed as the d20 approach, but it works very well, IMO, and the decreased complexity and prep-time is a good trade-off.

Each class has one prime already associated with it (Str for Fighters, Wis for Clerics, etc).  A human gets two additional primes to assign as he likes.  Other races get one additional prime to assign.



> Having assumed it was essentially 1e redux, I never paid too much attention to the talk about C&C. Turns out it's pretty much its own beast (right?), but with rather noticable shades of 1e and 3e.



Yeah, I'd say it's pretty much its own beast.  To me, it's kind of like a modern version of OD&D.  I don't mean the mechanics (mechanically, it's mostly a mix of 3E and AD&D), I mean the freedom and the attitude.  It has some modern RPG design philosophy, but it shares the OD&D attitude of the rules being your servant, not your master, and it seems to encourage tweaking.  If you read the C&C forums, you'll see all sorts of house-ruling and tweaking going on.  A lot of "making the game your own."



> Eh, just one more question - if that's OK. How does it run in actual play? A bit like each of its parents?



Yes.  I sometimes call C&C a "best of" version of the various editions.  (Keeping in mind that's "best of" in my eyes.  And keeping in mind that I don't see any system as perfect -- I'm still tweaking things.)

My C&C games are fast and loose.  I try to keep things moving, and the system is a great help with that.  I also try to encourage a sense of "anything is possible" with my players, which is one reason I like the SIEGE engine.  You say what you want to do, and your class, background, and primes provide the basis for how hard it will be.  That means players are always trying new things, and I'm getting to exercise DM judgment, which I find fun.  In any case, it makes for some dynamic combats!  I have one player who has been using his spear to do stuff like two-legged kicks, or sweeps, or stabbing someone and then trying to move them.  He's been keeping me on my toes, ruling-wise.  But for all of those actions, the basic questions are: is it in keeping with his class/concept (so he gets a level bonus), what ability is it based on (e.g. Dex, Str, etc), and how difficult is it (modifier to the target number).  Anyway, we've been having fun with the system.  3E players take to it very well, and they seem to enjoy being able to try anything and everything: they have a whole list of possibilities to draw on from 3E feats.  The main difference is that they don't need a feat written down in order to try it, they just need to worry about how hard it's going to be to pull it off.   

I give some more details on the Troll Lords' "Why Play Castles & Crusades" page.  Scroll down to the big list (I'm wordy) attributed to Philotomy Jurament.   (I'm not affiliated with Troll Lord Games -- everyone quoted on that page is just a GM or a player.)

(Sorry for the semi-threadjack, everyone...)


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

Thanks for all the info, PJ.

Primes look a bit more appealing than at first blush, what with PCs having two or three. Anyway, I'll be checking out the C&C site(s).

Cheers.

oh and yeah, /tj


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2006)

*Moderator:* I'm sorry to have to drop in with a reminder like this, but please keep it civil, address the discussion and don't make comments about other people.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> If the DM is a petty tyrant, find a different game or start your own. If the DM is incompetent, same answer.





You see, this is the answer I always read from people advocating more DM power.  The DM has to be really great, and if not then it just sucks to be you, find another game or start your own.  

What about all those people who want to be a DM but aren't that great at it yet?  They just get tossed out in the dirt?


I DM.   I'm not good, but I like to do it.  I want consistent, solid rules with as little stuff for me to make up on the fly as possible.  Should I just be SoL because I'm not uberDM?


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 8, 2006)

Aaron: "You see, this is the answer I always read from people advocating more DM power. The DM has to be really great, and if not then it just sucks to be you, find another game or start your own. 

What about all those people who want to be a DM but aren't that great at it yet? They just get tossed out in the dirt?"

I think what people are talking about are DMs that are jerks, not inexperianced.  Inexperianced DMs can be great.  Esp. in 1E when basically all you have to show them are the charts.  The rest is intuitive (such as, movement, if a person could realisticaly try to do something or not).  New DMs are unpredictable, and their worlds are often fresh and imaginative...which makes for an exciting game...at least in 1E and OD&D).  I find DMs aren't given much freedom in 3E/D20 as far as determining saves and combat.  It seems the players dominate those elements of the game (each with their open set of rule books), spending as much time harking on their poor DM (thrusting their PC sheet at the poor guy to "prove" their stacks of modifiers) as they do fighting monsters.  In some respects the 3E DM has fallen to the role of emasculated story teller, a far cry from the days when DM was the final and only say (as it was his world you were playing in) though he'd normally be open for advice, players accepted his role and never pushed the issue.  Read some of the threads people have posted about playing AD&D 1E with Gary Gygax as DM and you'll see what I mean. 
The key to a good game is having a DM who is firm and keeps the flow going, and a really good group of people.  If you game with a bunch of cry baby rules lawyering,"yeah buts", your in for a long night.  My best advice, go find a group of guys who've never played 1E (they can even be 3E players) and DM a game for them.  They'll quickly understand the DM is "Ref", and his opinion is the only one that counts (yep, just like in football).


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (off-topic)
> 
> Hey there,  Crimhthan_The_Great.  Your group has played that long?  In that many adventures?  And held together as friends for all these years?
> I am green with envy.  And respect.  And admiration.  Cheers to you and your group!
> ...




Thank you, yes there were 9 in the original group and 5 of us still live close enough to play regularly. The other 4 show up about 4-6 times a year. They all DM there own campaigns. Of the other 4 original local members besides myself, they DM occasionally but prefer to play. As people have moved in and out of the area over the years due to RL reasons the group has flucuated between 5 and 15, with about 50 or so different players total over that time. Currently we have 8 regular players and a few others that show up now and then. Out of the total about half have been the DM at least a few times and about 12 have their own campaigns. We are hoping to reach 3000 game sessions before any of the original group dies of old age in RL or becomes incapable of playing and with a bit of luck we will reach that goal in a little less than 4 more years. I was born in 1940 and all of the original group are about the same age.




			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> To us, the name of the game was Dungeons&Dragons. It didn't really register at first that there were two iterations, BECM D&D and Advanced D&D. We thought that it was the same game, basically.
> 
> So we were confused when we bought magazines with D&D adventures that contained rules that weren't what we were used to. We were confused when we bought modules for the "wrong" version of the game. Our parents were confused when they wanted to buy presents .. but I guess that'll never change.
> 
> ...




I was 31 when I started with Chainmail in 1971 and lived through BECMI and AD&D so for me there was never any confusion, nor with anyone that I know. When we bought magazines with advertures or modules it was always with the view of converting it and moving the parts that we wanted into our homebrew OD&D or OAD&D campaign. It didn't really matter which form it was in, it wasn't until 2E came along that any significant amount of conversion was required. We don't convert from any d20, it takes too much time, but there is a lot of new material at DF and other places that requires little if any conversion and now with OSRIC and a few other people putting 1E back in print we can hold the modules in our hands again.

 I always find it funny, when people claim that WotC brought the rules "up to date". That is an odd way to put it. They made massive rules changes and continued the move from OD&D (rules lite - maximum freedom) to AD&D (rules medium standarized format - some freedom) to 3E (rules heavy - minimal freedom - and weak DM equals monty haul for all). If you mean up to date in terms of making the game a faux medieval version of Marvel Comics superheros where the standard character is a tricked out munchkin that never loses, I will agree with that. And I am fully aware that the video game generation loves to play that kind of game, albeit they have not been exposed to anything else. But if you mean by up to date that they improved the game in anyway from OD&D & AD&D, then I have to disagree in the strongest terms.

I can think of several different directions that WotC could have taken and have claimed "new and better." As it is, truth in advertising ( I know there is no such thing) would require them to say, "We have improved the game, why back in 1974 you could learn in one gaming session and it only took about 5 minutes to create a new character and you could flesh his background out as you played, now it takes months to learn while wading through hundreds of pages of rules and it takes hours to create a character to get ready to play the first time."  Again if you like that, I am all in favor of it being sold and you playing it, *but* I am also in favor of my being able to buy and play what I want to play. I have no desire to infringe on your rights to buy what you want to buy, I just want you to stop agreeing with those that have infringed on my rights to buy what I want to buy. And no, being able to buy a copy of OD&D for $100 plus on ebay doesn't do it for me, when I should be able to get it print on demand as many copies as I want at $15 or $20 bucks a pop. *I was a steady paying customer from 1971 up until 3E was published, then I was rudely shown the door by WotC and was told by their actions and decisions that I and my money were no longer welcome.*



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> You see, this is the answer I always read from people advocating more DM power.  The DM has to be really great, and if not then it just sucks to be you, find another game or start your own.
> 
> What about all those people who want to be a DM but aren't that great at it yet?  They just get tossed out in the dirt?
> 
> ...




Well it really boils down to is this, do you want a game that moves along at a brisk pace where people can depend on a great playing experience, which is what you get in an OD&D or AD&D game, where the players respect the DM and each other and are commited to the game as a regular fun time where personal egos are checked at the door. Now egos are expressed in the roleplaying of the characters, the only game appropriate place for ego.

If you have a weak DM and players who don't respect the authority of the DM, then I would be amazed as to how you could ever have any of the above. I could see how you could have constant chaos that would drive people off, but not how there would be anything to draw people in.

The DM does not have to be *GREAT* or an *uberDM* in order to have a good game, but the DM and player have to respect each other and check their egos at the door.

There is a huge difference between being an average DM and being a bad DM. I give anyone who wants to a chance to DM and even some of my oldest players who occasionally DM would freely admit that they are no great shakes as a DM, but we still have a massive amount of fun when they DM because (see my "really boils down to is this" statment above).

Now if you have a Bad DM as in "it makes the game really unpleasant" then yes you should move on. Poor or average DMs can get better and most people can learn to DM, but Bad DMs only get worse, they are the only ones who should get tossed in the dirt. BTW if you have a great DM, he or she has a responsibility to help others become great DMs.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimthan, that was an inspired post...you truely are "Great".  

Seriously, there is a huge difference in the "culture" of players between 1E/OD&D and 3E.  
Some of that diff. relates to who WOTC marketed 3E to (Magic players, used to self determination and stacking, and then the 2E players used to backstory and linear plot), but a  bigger reason for the difference in "player culture" between 1E and 3E are the actual 3E rules themselves which empower the player and strip the DM of his godlike status.  The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their in-depth knowledge of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays.  Then watch if the DM trips up, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle.  DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny...    Part of why I returned to 1E I guess...as the above poster noted....there really isn't any room for the 1E mindset in 3E....the 1E player really was shown the door.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> But if you mean by up to date that they improved the game in anyway from OD&D & AD&D, then I have to disagree in the strongest terms.




That's okay by me. We just have to agree to disagree. 3e fixed a lot of things I found not to my liking with BECM D&D and AD&D1st.



			
				Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> I have no desire to infringe on your rights to buy what you want to buy, I just want you to stop agreeing with those that have infringed on my rights to buy what I want to buy.




I don't understand what you are saying. Honestly, you want me to stop agreeing with ... whom? WotC? If I think their strategy is basically sound, why should I stop thinking that?

And what's this about infringing on your rights to buy stuff? They released a new edition without supporting the old one, that's all. And I really, really think that claiming a "right to buy what I want to buy" is a strange right to claim.

For the life of me I can't understand why the WotC strategy is something to get so worked up over. Since you used bold type and larger font size, and judging from the phrasing of your post, this is something that makes you really upset. So I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to write more posts that make you even more upset.

/M


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> Are you serious???




Yes, completely.



> _Surely you can not believe any of what you just said!!!  First of all D&D and AD&D are two completely different games, if you do not understand that it completely blows your credibility on anything to do with D&D or AD&D._




Yes, they were. When they were published. However, the "Advanced" moniker was entirely confusing to consumers in 2000 who were unfamiliar with the history of D&D. There is no "Basic", so calling the only version in print the "Advanced" system is just silly.

I understand that they were slightly different rules sets. I understand that because I have copies of both sitting on my bookshelf at home, and have played both. But, they still remain simply variations on a theme. Both D&D. And if you had asked the average consumer in 1985, 1990, 1995, or 2000 to identify the game "D&D", he would likely have identified the one we specifically call "AD&D", and may not have even thought of the other versions at all.

Which makes continuing the designation "AD&D" confusing. Suggesting that WotC was trying to "lie" to the public by trying to "mislead" them into thinking that their game system was heir to a relatively little known variation of their flagship product that had been out of print for years is simply looking to pick a fight. It is an entirely counterintuitive leap to make, and one that makes you look like you just have an axe to grind, and little more.



> _To say that WotC dropped the "Advanced" because it was confusing is to pretend that the history of D&D and AD&D started when 3E came out. There was nothing confusing about it to any of the millions of people who had already played D&D and/or AD&D_




Sure there was. I know many people who started with "D&D", and then tried to change over to "AD&D" when they had played that a while, thinking that "D&D" was the beginner version of "AD&D". Then they became confused as to why the games didn't mesh perfectly, and why they had even gotten "D&D" to begin with, when they really wanted a pathway to playing "AD&D".



> _and it would have been simple enough to bring any new fans uptodate on this history;_




Yes, because marketing a product with a label that requires the consumer to educate themselves on the historical naming parterns games that have out of print for years is always a wise marketing move.



> _therefore, this "alleged" confusion is a strawman. I am also aware of the mistakes that WotC made in there intention and practice of killing off all that went before 3E, they basically said "play 3E or we don't want your business" and they have certainly done without my business and that of 15 other people that I know personally._




No you are just sounding like a wild eyed consipiracy theorist. WotC made their intention and practice of trying to make a version of D&D that would make them as much money as it could, minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.



> _To say that AD&D, OD&D etc are just different iterations of the same thing is just not true. In fact it is a bald faced lie, something that no one could ever honestly say.  How can you be taken seriously when you utter such rubbish! You are the one without credibility when you ignore the vast differences between the different "D&D" games and deny that they are different games. You can poo poo my opinion all you want to, but don't expect me to think it is anything more that the mutterings a very sick person when you utter such dishonest and deceitful nonsense._




You can rant all you want. However, it remains entirely true that D&D and AD&D (1e, and 2e), and yes, even 3/3.5e are all just different iterations of the same thing. Even more so with D&D and AD&D (both versions), since their mechanics are so similar, more similar, in fact than say, playing two different GURPS games in two different genres (say, GURPS: Supers, and GURPS: Bunnies and Burrows).

You are starting to sound like the comic book guy here. "It is a bald faced lie!" "How can you be taken seriously when you say such utter rubbish!" and so on. Step back, look at the games with a fresh eye. They are incredibly similar if you don't focus on trivialities. And, to the consuming public, with a few exceptions (such as yourself), they are interchangeable as products.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their understanding of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays.  Then see if the DM rules something wrong, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle.  DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny...    Part of why I returned to 1E I guess...as there really isn't any room for the 1E mindset in 3E.




This is a problem with players, not the 3e system. I have played in a half dozen 3e/3.5e D&D campaigns and I have never seen this sort of thing happen. I have certainly never seen the "6 hyena taking down a tired gazelle" meme played out, ever. I certainly saw it _before_ 3e came out, but then again I gamed for twenty years before 3e came out, so there was more time to be present at a group made up of immature players who would act like that.

I don't think that sort of behaviour is new for 3e (in my experience, it has been the opposite), and I think it was at least as prevalent in the "olden days" (which is why the Hackmaster comic has so many cases of the players taking the DM to task for deviating from the rules, and people recognize that sort of thing).


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 8, 2006)

Maggen: "Since you used bold type and larger font size, and judging from the phrasing of your post, this is something that makes you really upset. So I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to write more posts that make you even more upset."

I hope you do not.  I was enjoying reading your posts.    Anyhow, everyone has a different style of communication...his is more passionate thats all.  So far this thread has stayed out of "edition war" status, and I hope it stays that way.

Storm Raven: "This is a problem with players, not the 3e system. I have played in a half dozen 3e/3.5e D&D campaigns and I have never seen this sort of thing happen."

It is subtle sometimes.  Even in my own 3E group I didn't really "get it" until I DMed and realized...hey, these guys are calculating everything, they're telling me what their chances are to climb a rope, or any number of other tasks, and when I disagree (and maybe I'm wrong) they all start pointing out how this and that skill combined with this and that attribute and feat result in this or that chance...And when they ask to try and do something its always in terms of "can I use this skill or that feat" like every action has a little button they press.  hell, thats how I ended up playing 3E for 2 years...thats how long it took before I could put my finger on what was bugging me. 

In AD&D 1E as DM I say, "OK role your dex to climb this rope", or "role your petrification".  The player doesn't start asking why, they just do it (and the way the rules are written in AD&D the DM has that latitude...many situations just aren't covered.  That ability of the DM to just make stuff up in there head and call it "rules" bugs the crap out of alot of todays players, but that was the power of the game...and DMing it was brutally fun.    

The fact that the 1E players don't know what to expect from their DM, but have a basic idea of what chances they might have creates a "feel" much different from 3E, which has that "video game" feel as you progress up in numbers and press "tumble" or "climb" when you need to.  Infact, I often wonder if 3E wasn't an attempt to bring in that huge demographic of Nintendo players used to accumulating powers and pressing buttons.  

Anyhow, yeah, unless you play 1E or OD&D you might not even see what I'm talking about in 3E.  But take it from me, there is a stark difference us 1Eers see between the role of DM between 1st and 3rd editions. 

That you have a good group is cool.  But 3E is written so that if you had a bad group they could rules lawyer the DM to death.  In 1E, even if you had those sorts of players, it wouldn't matter, the DM would just say, "well thats that" and as chance would have it, the leader of the little table rebellion would end up with a spiked green tail before the game was over.


----------



## KenSeg (Dec 8, 2006)

Thanks for the post Crim about your many years of playing in the same group and comments about the DM.

Our group has consisted of myself and my wife along with the DM and his wife with a few assorted other players. We have been playing together for 20 years now and we range from 44 to 54 in age. We hope to still be playing together when we are your age and to love the gaming as much then as ever.   

I have played through almost all of the various phases of D&D, from the old blue paper book boxed set to 3.5E. Each version had its good points and bad points and we have house-ruled all versions to fit our own ideas and desires. One overriding principal has been mutual respect for our DM and mutual willingness to be reasonable and logical in rules interpretation. But in the end we give our DM the last word because he is the one who has done the work of crafting the session and providing us the opportunity to enjoy a game together. 

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> That's okay by me. We just have to agree to disagree. 3e fixed a lot of things I found not to my liking with BECM D&D and AD&D1st.




Herein lies the rub. You are not alone in this.

3e was extensively playtested and surveyed. It was built, perhaps as much as feasible, on what people wanted.

It just sucks to be in the minority.


----------



## XO (Dec 8, 2006)

*Way Back When...*



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. The DM might be a petty tyrant - which would not be a first, by any means. The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.
> 
> If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.
> 
> ...


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Seriously, there is a huge difference in the "culture" of players between 1E/OD&D and 3E.
> Some of that diff. relates to who WOTC marketed 3E to (Magic players, used to self determination and stacking, and then the 2E players used to backstory and linear plot), but a  bigger reason for the difference in "player culture" between 1E and 3E are the actual 3E rules themselves which empower the player and strip the DM of his godlike status.  The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their in-depth knowledge of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays.  Then watch if the DM trips up, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle.  DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny...




What can I say but express that my experience in no way matches this.

The rules baseline of 3e is stable and sensible, and built on common principles. We seldom have rules arguments because of the consistency and solidity of the baseline. And when I have departed from the rules, nobody pounced on me. My "if you can't figure out the rule in a minute, make something up and look it up later" philosophy has never been a source of contention and has handled any rules issue easily.

This is across multiple groups and multiple campaigns.

I find DMing 3e more pleasant and satisfying than any prior edition. And I have played back to BECM and AD&D ("1e").


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> And what's this about infringing on your rights to buy stuff? They released a new edition without supporting the old one, that's all. And I really, really think that claiming a "right to buy what I want to buy" is a strange right to claim.
> 
> For the life of me I can't understand why the WotC strategy is something to get so worked up over. Since you used bold type and larger font size, and judging from the phrasing of your post, this is something that makes you really upset. So I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to write more posts that make you even more upset.
> /M




*I was a steady paying customer from 1971 up until 3E was published, then I was rudely shown the door by WotC and was told by their actions and decisions that I and my money were no longer welcome.* What is not to understand about this????? WotC took the customer base of TSR & T$R and told us in no uncertain terms that we were no longer welcome as customers. And then they wonder why modules (as just one example) sell a fraction of what they did when TSR was at its quaility peak. (As an aside the main reason that sales declined from that point was Loraine Williams and the decline in quality, yeah thats right, the decline in quality is what caused the decline in sales)  I and many others have money to spend and they don't want it, have no interest in it. Right now, today, all they need to do to get my business is to have one little web page on their site where I can replace my old worn out copies with brand spanking new ones at a reasonable price through *P*rint *O*n *D*emand. Yes, I can and do replace some things on eBay, but some are just way to high-priced to justify spending the money. In addition, I would prefer to buy new copies, not used copies.






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sure there was. I know many people who started with "D&D", and then tried to change over to "AD&D" when they had played that a while, thinking that "D&D" was the beginner version of "AD&D". Then they became confused as to why the games didn't mesh perfectly, and why they had even gotten "D&D" to begin with, when they really wanted a pathway to playing "AD&D".




I am totally at a loss as to why and how anyone could have been confused or have thought the things that you are stating above. Everything from before the publication of the Monster Manual in Dec 1977, to the publication of the Players Handbook in June of 1978 to the publication of the Dungeon Masters Guide in August of 1979 made it clear that they were to be two different games. It was completely clear that D&D was for tinkering with and that AD&D was to be standardized, but hey we tinkered with it anyway. I don't understand why you would think you needed a pathway to playing AD&D. If I had never played Monopoly and they published Advanced Monopoly, I can not imagine any reason why anyone would think they needed to buy Monopoly in order to understand and play Advanced Monopoly unless it was marketed as an add on instead of a stand alone game.






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No you are just sounding like a wild eyed consipiracy theorist. WotC made their intention and practice of trying to make a version of D&D that would make them as much money as it could, minimizing costs and maximizing revenue.




If they really wanted to do that, they could have cleaned up the mess that Loraine Willaims created, without alienating the existing TSR/T$R customer base, which is what they chose to do. Their decisions did not achieve the goal of minimzing costs and maximizing revenue, unless you truly believe that the only way they could keep their Magic customer base was to dump the D&D customer base, which of course I do not believe.




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You can rant all you want. However, it remains entirely true that D&D and AD&D (1e, and 2e), and yes, even 3/3.5e are all just different iterations of the same thing.




This is just so completely false, that it is truly comical. I am not ranting, merely stating the truth, I am truly sorry for you that your beliefs in this matter are at complete variance with reality.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> I have no desire to infringe on your rights to buy what you want to buy, I just want you to stop agreeing with those that have infringed on my rights to buy what I want to buy. And no, being able to buy a copy of OD&D for $100 plus on ebay doesn't do it for me, when I should be able to get it print on demand as many copies as I want at $15 or $20 bucks a pop.




You seem to be under the misconception that you somehow have "rights" or entitlement, that the company owes you something for past patronage.  That's not the way it works.

You paid a fair market price for a product a long time ago, and the transaction ended there.  You did not pay for perpetual availability, and have no "rights" to the product in the future.  In general, consumers do not have the right to buy exactly what they want - they have the right to select from what the companies in the market offer, or keep their money in their pockets.

Continued offering of the product does cost the company - and if they don't think sales would cover those costs, they'd be stupid to offer it.  Assertions that sales would be high enough simply don't cut it, in a business sense.


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> It just sucks to be in the minority.




I can testify however that it's quite nice to be in the group who had stopped playing D&D entirely in favor of other systems but came back because 3E suited my desires very well.


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> This is just so completely false, that it is truly comical. I am not ranting, merely stating the truth, I am truly sorry for you that your beliefs in this matter are at complete variance with reality.




Crimhthan, welcome to ENWorld.  I'm a moderator.  Statements like the above, especially when at least two other posts have been made by me and other mods to "tone down the rhetoric", are not acceptable in this thread.  Cut it out.


----------



## robertsconley (Dec 8, 2006)

Perspective from an old time gamer.

I played AD&D from 1979 to 1985. Ran about a dozen campaigns. Ultimately my players and I grew dissatisfied with AD&D because of the lack of options and the limitations of individual characters. This has mostly to do with the segregation of skills via the class system. I was exposed to Champions in 1984 and was really impressed with the system. It was simple and very flexible. (Yes at one time Champions was simple, but still needed a lot of math). So when I heard of Fantasy Hero I knew I found my next system.

So I got Fantasy Hero and ran three memorable campaigns with from 1985 to 1987. However there were some major balance issues. The johnny one-spell and the physics which still relied too much on the Champion Super-Hero model. The defining moment came when the johnny one spell mage blasted somebody through the outside tavern wall, through the tavern, and out through another wall on the other side. Then the guy still could get up and fight. 

So.... Then I found a system called GURPS which wasn't as flexible as Fantasy Hero but was just simpily a better game. And that what I rund from 1987 and continuing to 4th edition today. 

But.. When 3.0 came out I was caught like everyone else. To most gamers I knew it looked like AD&D evolved. To me it looked like a simpler version of GURPS. With Feats instead of Advantage, a few more attributes, a smaller skill list, and instead of buying by the point you get new abilities in a single chunck when you level. 

And at the time I was ready for a simpler version of GURPS and 3rd Edition fit the bill. So I ran some games in it. I had a good time as my skill in using skill based games like Fantasy Heros and GURPS transfered well over to D&D. 

While the release of 3.5 (my attitude is why do I need to buy this?), and 4th Edition GURPS (wow they made this better, and easier) contributed to me returning to  GURPS. The main reason was the shear weight of nearly ten years of running GURPS. I had two milk crate full of notes, npcs, and house rules that worked great with my GURPS fantasy campaign. I didn't want to re-create them for 3/3.5 D&D. 

The reason you see a lot of 1st edition people coming out of the woodwork. Is because there were a lot of 1st edition people still running things over the year. Plus with the hoopla over the release of 3rd Edition a lot of people who were role-players started playing again. And when the they dug into their own stuff most of that was 1st edition edition. 

So now there is a demand for 1st edition product. The internet allowed that demand be heard. The OGL allowed 1st edition work-alike to be created (OSRIC & C&C). So now publishers are finding they can makes some money serving the market. 

I think in the long term the 1st Edition Market will around for the next several years shrinking and growing as gamers get disenchanted with more complex system or disenchanted with 1st edition. The key to all this is the fact that the Internet can allow niche markets to exist and be catered too. (see the communities around Harn, Rifts, Warhammer, Hero Games, etc).

Enjoy
Rob Conley


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

KenSeg said:
			
		

> I have played through almost all of the various phases of D&D, from the old blue paper book boxed set to 3.5E. Each version had its good points and bad points and we have house-ruled all versions to fit our own ideas and desires. One overriding principal has been mutual respect for our DM and mutual willingness to be reasonable and logical in rules interpretation. But in the end we give our DM the last word because he is the one who has done the work of crafting the session and providing us the opportunity to enjoy a game together.
> 
> -KenSeg
> gaming since 1978



Sounds like a good attitutde, to me.  I've also been gaming since 77 or 78 (I can't remember which, for certain), and started with the blue-book boxed set.  I own every edition except for 3.5, which I never bought (I stuck with house-ruled 3.0).  At that point, I got off the carousel.    

I have one current player who has been in my games since 1980, another who started with me in 1987, and another who started in 1992, and yet another who started in 1993 or 94.  The rest are newbies, having joined my game sometime after the turn of the millennium.    

I've also started gaming with my eldest son (who is 10) and his cousin (who is 12).  It's incredible seeing the excitement the boys experience.  They really get into it.  I gave my son a copy of the Mentzer red-box basic set, and he's run a few adventures (the ruins north of Threshold) as DM, too.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 8, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Crimthan, that was an inspired post...you truely are "Great".
> 
> Seriously, there is a huge difference in the "culture" of players between 1E/OD&D and 3E.
> Some of that diff. relates to who WOTC marketed 3E to (Magic players, used to self determination and stacking, and then the 2E players used to backstory and linear plot), but a  bigger reason for the difference in "player culture" between 1E and 3E are the actual 3E rules themselves which empower the player and strip the DM of his godlike status.  The next time you play 3E, take a look around at your other players and see how involved they are with themselves and their in-depth knowledge of the rules, and see what a weak role the DM really plays.  Then watch if the DM trips up, it'll be like watching 6 hyena taking down a tired out gazelle.  DMing in 3E is a horrible job on so many levels its not even funny...    Part of why I returned to 1E I guess...as the above poster noted....there really isn't any room for the 1E mindset in 3E....the 1E player really was shown the door.





We played 1E right up until 3E came out, then we switched over because of the incredible amount of versatility and customization options for characters in 3E.  Apart from being able to make our characters any way we want, we pretty much play 3E the same way we played 1E.  We dont argue over the rules, we dont get into fights about them.  The DM hasnt lost any power.  I've never seen this "DM dis-empowerment" people complain about.  What I have seen is a solid, reliable base of rules which everyone can agree on, a solid "physics engine" that doesn't require the DM to make a lot of houserules and spot decisions to cover things nt in the rules.

But we've never had this "DM is god and the players are peons under his thumb" attitude in any of our games, 1E or 3E.  I dont think thats in any way a "1E mindset," I think thats just something you've ascribed to it.  Were all friends trying to have a good time.  We trust the DM to come up with a good scenario and play intriguing NPCs within the bounds of the rules all the rest of us play by.  Of course he can bend and break rules when necessary to make for a better story and/or game, but usually isn't required because the rules cover a lot of stuff.  I view this as a benefit for the DM, not a penalty, letting him concentrate on making good adventures, not having to make good rules.  


When I DM for the group, I'm certainly very glad of the solid rules framework of 3E.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You seem to be under the misconception that you somehow have "rights" or entitlement, that the company owes you something for past patronage.  That's not the way it works.
> 
> You paid a fair market price for a product a long time ago, and the transaction ended there.  You did not pay for perpetual availability, and have no "rights" to the product in the future.  In general, consumers do not have the right to buy exactly what they want - they have the right to select from what the companies in the market offer, or keep their money in their pockets.
> 
> Continued offering of the product does cost the company - and if they don't think sales would cover those costs, they'd be stupid to offer it.  Assertions that sales would be high enough simply don't cut it, in a business sense.




Get out and go to the stores today, look around. Right now Hasbro is selling every old game you can think of. The idea that it makes sense for D&D to be the one exception to Hasbros business practice with their other products, does not make sense to me. Virtually every other game that I own has perpetual availablity, why would I not expect that with D&D? Why is it a special exception to the rule? I do not believe that there is any valid reason for it to be and no one has ever at any time produced any evidence as to why it should be an exception to the rule and I do not believe that anyone can. Everyone who disagrees with me on this point can only offer their differing opinion, not evidence. So we only have dueling opinions and mine is just as valid as yours. And perhaps I do not have "rights" in the way you are thinking of, that does in no way invalidate the point that I am making. As far as the cost, it seems that no one understands Print on Demand Technology. It is the future of in print product and the sooner that publisher wise up to it the more profit they will make since it eliminates the need to carry an inventory along with everything else it even eliminates the nonsenscial inventory tax which is a healthy boost to profits in and of itself.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> 3e was extensively playtested and surveyed. It was built, perhaps as much as feasible, on what people wanted.



Yeah, I agree.  And at the time, that's what I thought I wanted, too.  I've since changed my mind, though, and found that much of what I thought was silly or broken isn't silly or broken.  (See RFisher's "I used to think..." article for an example of another gamer who thinks this way.)  I no longer see 3E as fixing what was broken, but fixing something that wasn't broken.  Obviously, not everyone agrees.

I still like 3E and think it's a good game.  But I consider it substantially different from the older versions (which were much closer to one-another, as others have pointed out).  The difference isn't very apparent at low levels, but as the levels rapidly go up, the differences stand out more and more, IMO.  I prefer the gameplay of the older versions.  YMMV.



> It just sucks to be in the minority.



Nah, not really.  I'm having some of the best gaming of my life, and that's all that counts, when it comes down to it.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Rel said:
			
		

> Crimhthan, welcome to ENWorld.  I'm a moderator.  Statements like the above, especially when at least two other posts have been made by me and other mods to "tone down the rhetoric", are not acceptable in this thread.  Cut it out.




I was not aware that there were any comments from a moderator being directed my way. I was also not aware that I was not permitted to reply in kind. As far as "toning down the rhetoric, I have already severely self - censored my posts in reply to some pretty nasty comments to the tune of several hundred words, but I will censor even further even though I do not really understand the objection, since I have already made it pretty mild.


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> Get out and go to the stores today, look around. Right now Hasbro is selling every old game you can think of. The idea that it makes sense for D&D to be the one exception to Hasbros business practice with their other products, does not make sense to me.




The following is based on a true story.

We have a game called Electronic Talking Clue. Our family loves it. Great game. Put out by (you guessed it) Hasbro.

My wife and her sister grew up playing this game, and given that this game was such a hit with our family, my wife thought it would be a great Christmas gift.

But alas, she had to come up with another Christmas gift because Electronic Talking Clue could not be found because it is not being made.

This is just one example. Who knows how many other games have come and gone that I never batted an eyelash. At any rate, the point is that just because you don't perceive that Hasbro is allowing other games to lapse out of circulation does not mean it is not happening. It demonstratably is.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 8, 2006)

Aaron, the DM is God mindset isn't meant to be be license to completely drop the rules and be a jerk to the players (who after all showed up to play a certain game). Its about how this is the DMs world, and he is the final say on anything that happens in it.  If he wants to suddenly say your character drops dead of a heart attack, well that happens.  Of course, you'll never sit with that DM again. 

 A DM is no more powerful then a Ref at a football game.  All the fans might disagree, but they know all that matters is what he thinks.  If he's deemed an unfit "ref" after the game he's not asked back..the same goes with the DM.  Like you, our players are all friends, and the DM (well we rotate ours) plays by the rules and is always as nuetral and impartial as possible.  The fact that the DM doesn't have to be (as part of the rules) is always there in the back of the mind to keep the players in line (just like football players in a football game).  

By taking the preasure off the players into thinking they have to "help" with the rules, they can focus on other things (like there imaginations).

BTW the concrete rules the DM has to fall back on in 3E, though good intentioned, have weakened the game.  On the fly decisions are a huge part of what "old school" feel is all about.  "Can I jump over that pit of acid", asks the 1E player.  "You can try" says the 1E DM.  He then figures out what he thinks the player should role based on what he thinks would be most applicable.  Maybe petrification, maybe his dex on a d20, maybe some percentage on 1d100.  Its his call, and the player openly excepts his wisdom.  Infact, the player says, "I'm taking off all my gear, and remember I'm an experianced thief, and am likely used to this kind of thing".  He roles the dice handed to hime (D20, D100 or whatever...not having a good idea of what he has to role, just as  low or high as possible) if he fails he doesn't complain about the rules.  He roles up another PC. 

Now go to 3E.  The player says, "here is a pit of acid, its 12 feet across.  According to the rules you use my "jump" ability.  But I also get these ability and feat bonuses..see it says right here.  So, assuming theirs nothing wrong with the floor on the other side, I need to role a 16 (combined) on a D20 to do this. OK DM watch...watch me go. 

The DM hasn't even said a damned thing yet..."wow good role".  Oddly the player starts thinking of the game as a series of challanges based on odds determined by his tool kit of skills and feats.  This I'm sure, appeals to alot of people (esp. the old Magic players), but it drives me nuts.  If I wanted to play a video game I'd play a real video game (not a table top version).


----------



## RFisher (Dec 8, 2006)

Sharn said:
			
		

> I have to say that I like 3E the best, and the new game system is what has really kept me playing D&D...again.  I won't support any old school products like 1E and 2E, but that's not to say they shouldn't be produced by someone for the benefit of others.




Yeah. 'Cause you never know if at some point you will find yourself changing your mind, as I did. (^_^)



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Thera are other reasons why there might be a "row" over that kind of issue. [...] The DM might be truly incompetent - again, not a first, I'm quite sure.
> 
> If a DM is "empowered" by virtue of their using a less consistent rules base, that DM had better be the very model of not only a good DM, but an excellent person in general. Which is not to say this is impossible, just - I suspect - rather rare.




Here's a secret: How do you make someone a great DM, no matter what game you're playing? You let them do it. You give them the benefit of the doubt. You learn to roll _with_ their decisions that you disagree with. You give friendly advice & make friendly suggestions. Not only does that person then gain the experience & counsel & confidence to become a better DM, you may find that you can actually have fun when you concentrate on enjoying the DM's world rather than dwelling on your disagreements with it.

Of course--like everything involving people--it's not guaranteed to work. But it's your best chance.

& what do you mean by consistent?



			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> They're less consistent in the sense that they don't conform to a universal mechanic, and have various subsystems that work differently.




Bah! It all comes down to: Determine the chance of success. If it is greater than zero & less than 100%, roll some die that's compatible with the chance of success.

If the devil is in the details, that'll still be the case whether you try to force everything onto a d20 or not. Either you gloss over the details, create long lists of details, or leave it to the DM decide the details. (Or some combination.)

The only real cases of inconsistency I can think of is when there are two ways to resolve the same thing that give different results. Like how I felt when NWPs that seemingly duplicated thief skills appeared. (These days I have a _completely_ different view of thief skills & don't use NWPs.)

Though, I suppose I could find more inconsistencies in a particular game if I just thought about it a bit more: Melee/ranged attacks are resolved differently than grappling, which is different from tripping, which is different from disarming, which is different from overrun. A ranged attack roll is modified by Dex instead of Str. Different weapons have inconsistent crit-threat ranges & crit-mulitpliers. Different weapons use different dice for damage. Resolving damage is inconsistent with resolving attack rolls or skill checks. Attack rolls auto succeed/fail on natural 20/1, but skill checks don't. Attack modifiers & save modifiers are hardwired into each class rather than just being skills. Spell failure due to armor uses d% instead of d20 like (supposedly) everything else. (& yes, I know the reason why, but it remains inconsistent.) Rolling hit points doesn't use a d20 either. In combat, the active player makes the rolls (attack & damage); in spellcasting, the passive player makes the rolls (saves). Modifiers with the same "type" do not stack--except for "Dodge" modifiers.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> The following is based on a true story.
> 
> We have a game called Electronic Talking Clue. Our family loves it. Great game. Put out by (you guessed it) Hasbro.
> 
> ...





You are missing the point. The point is that they are keeping many many old games in print for one simple reason, it is making them money. If it is working for them on those old games, there is every reason to believe that it would work for them on other old games.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

What's amusing (and impressive) to me is that despite the old versions of D&D being out-of-print, we're still talking about them, playing them, and (recently) buying brand new modules for them.

I don't hold it against WotC for not bringing them back into print.  At least they're available as PDFs.  (With the notable exception of the OD&D rules -- I do wish WotC would do something about that.)  I'd probably pick up some new books if they did bring them back into print, though.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> What's amusing (and impressive) to me is that despite the old versions of D&D being out-of-print, we're still talking about them, playing them, and (recently) buying brand new modules for them.
> 
> I don't hold it against WotC for not bringing them back into print.  At least they're available as PDFs.  (With the notable exception of the OD&D rules -- I do wish WotC would do something about that.)  I'd probably pick up some new books if they did bring them back into print, though.




That is where we differ, I do hold it against WotC/Hasbro for not keeping them in print and for not bringing them back into print. (And yes, that is a notable exception to what is available in pdf.) The easy way to make money on OD&D with POD would be to do for OD&D & the supplements what was done for BECMI with the Rules Cyclopedia.
And after all, I am not asking them to stock OD&D or OAD&D on the store shelves, just sell it POD. Mininal sales would recoup the startup costs and after that less taxes it would be pure profit.


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> You are missing the point. The point is that they are keeping many many old games in print for one simple reason, it is making them money. If it is working for them on those old games, there is every reason to believe that it would work for them on other old games.




Except they don't have every older version of those games on the shelves and in print.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Bah! It all comes down to: Determine the chance of success. If it is greater than zero & less than 100%, roll some die that's compatible with the chance of success.  If the devil is in the details, that'll still be the case whether you try to force everything onto a d20 or not.



:chuckle:  Yeah, I know.  Like I said, I think the concept of universal and "consistent" mechancis are overrated.  That's usually what people are talking about when they mention consistency, though, so I just accept their definition and meet them, there.  Otherwise you end up quibbling over semantics.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> The easy way to make money on OD&D with POD would be to do for OD&D & the supplements what was done for BECMI with the Rules Cyclopedia.
> And after all, I am not asking them to stock OD&D or OAD&D on the store shelves, just sell it POD.



I wouldn't complain; I could use an extra (and new!) copy of some of my books, for certain.

(The idea of Rules Cyclopedia-type compilation is interesting.  I'd be afraid they'd tinker, though.)


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> You are missing the point. The point is that they are keeping many many old games in print for one simple reason, it is making them money. If it is working for them on those old games, there is every reason to believe that it would work for them on other old games.




And yet, they discontinue a lot of games too. It would seem that once sales dip below a certain point, it doesn't make sense for a company to keep a product on the market, so they don't. This isn't some big conspiracy. If WotC thought they caould make money by selling old versions of D&D, they probably would (one could argue that, as a publicly traded company and a duty to their stockholders to maximize profits, they would almost be required to). But they don't. From this we can come to a couple of different conclusions:

1. WotC has determined that offering old versions of D&D for sale is not profitable.
2. WotC is staffed by people who hate older versions of D&D with an irrational passion.
3. WotC is run by people too incompetent to know how to make money.

I don't think the correct answer is (2) or (3).

Also, while you can purchase older games, many times those older games have had their rules modified. The game "Life" for example, now has substantially different rules from the version I had when I was a kid. However, there are not two versions of "Life" on the market. There is not "Classic Life" and "Updated Life". There is only one version sold. For players of D&D, the situation is fairly similar.


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> You are missing the point.




No, I am making mine.



> The point is that they are keeping many many old games in print for one simple reason, it is making them money. If it is working for them on those old games, there is every reason to believe that it would work for them on other old games.




I have every reason to believe that if they aren't supporting the game, it wouldn't make them money.

There's another thing you have to understand. There are fixed costs associated with every product WotC prints. If they can't sell enough copies to overcome that fixed cost, it's not worth printing. The aforementioned negative impact of splitting the market also has an effect on the product line's bottom line.

There are people who work for producers whose only job is to make a educated guess on whether they will overcome the break-even point, and software that helps them determine this. While most likely less than perfect, if I were a VP in charge of WotC, if it came between a trained professional analyst neutral to the product and a fan who simply wishes that it were true, I know whose guesswork I would be trusting when it came to determining if I should invest in printing a product.

If there is one thing I trust corporations to do, it is to do what they believe will make them more money.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Rel said:
			
		

> Except they don't have every older version of those games on the shelves and in print.





That is true, but in most of those cases the one for sale is the original one, that I bought back in the 60's or 70's and bought a new copy of in the 90's or since.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And yet, they discontinue a lot of games too. It would seem that once sales dip below a certain point, it doesn't make sense for a company to keep a product on the market, so they don't. This isn't some big conspiracy. If WotC thought they caould make money by selling old versions of D&D, they probably would (one could argue that, as a publicly traded company and a duty to their stockholders to maximize profits, they would almost be required to). But they don't. From this we can come to a couple of different conclusions:
> 
> 1. WotC has determined that offering old versions of D&D for sale is not profitable.
> 2. WotC is staffed by people who hate older versions of D&D with an irrational passion.
> ...




The correct answer is also not (1) either. They have not determined anything, they have just made a decision and there is no evidence available to any of us that it has anything to do with profitablity and with POD technology it doesnt take much to generate profits on existing products that you no longer have to pay royalties to the author (both Gygax and Arneson are sans royalties at this point).


----------



## RFisher (Dec 8, 2006)

robertsconley said:
			
		

> The reason you see a lot of 1st edition people coming out of the woodwork. Is because there were a lot of 1st edition people still running things over the year. Plus with the hoopla over the release of 3rd Edition a lot of people who were role-players started playing again. And when the they dug into their own stuff most of that was 1st edition edition.
> 
> So now there is a demand for 1st edition product. The internet allowed that demand be heard. The OGL allowed 1st edition work-alike to be created (OSRIC & C&C). So now publishers are finding they can makes some money serving the market.
> 
> I think in the long term the 1st Edition Market will around for the next several years shrinking and growing as gamers get disenchanted with more complex system or disenchanted with 1st edition.




But what about people like me? When 3e came out, I thought it was the D&D I'd always wanted. I had stopped playing (A)D&D c. 1990 & never thought I'd play that obsolete game again. I'd long since moved on to more "modern" systems. I became a passionate advocate for 3e.

Yet, I found I wasn't enjoying gaming as much as I used to. Here's the game I dreamed about. Here's the game I tried to build from the late 1980s until 2000. But it's frustrating me.

Then, after a lot of exploring & experimenting, one of the things I discovered was a new appreciation for those games I'd long ago dismissed as obsolete. I mean, I wasn't too surprised to find that I prefered another game to 3e, but I was surprised to find that I was considering AD&D or classic D&D again.

I think you might be surprised by the number of "old schoolers" who fall more in between the scenarios we've described.

Not that I really expect the "1e revival" to ever rival WotC's position in the market. I don't expect any mass disenchantment among the 1e audience, though.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 8, 2006)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Otherwise you end up quibbling over semantics.




Yes, yes I do. (^_^)


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> No, I am making mine.
> I have every reason to believe that if they aren't supporting the game, it wouldn't make them money.
> 
> There's another thing you have to understand. There are fixed costs associated with every product WotC prints. If they can't sell enough copies to overcome that fixed cost, it's not worth printing. The aforementioned negative impact of splitting the market also has an effect on the product line's bottom line.
> ...




The fixed cost is very mininal when you go to POD technology. Because of POD this arguement is no longer a valid one. With existing product you have a one time setup cost for it to go POD and that is the end of the fixed cost.

As far as trusting corporations   lets start with Enron and go on from there if you really want to go there. When it comes to corporations and trusting them to make wise decisions that is a censored game.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> I am totally at a loss as to why and how anyone could have been confused or have thought the things that you are stating above. Everything from before the publication of the Monster Manual in Dec 1977, to the publication of the Players Handbook in June of 1978 to the publication of the Dungeon Masters Guide in August of 1979 made it clear that they were to be two different games.




To *YOU* it was obvious. But to the average customer walking into the store it was not. To the new gamer it was not. To the guy who wants to try out this "D&D thing" it was not. Not everyone coming to the game knows as much about the history of the development of the D&D game as you or I do. Many do not. Many casual gamers had (and continue to have) no clue about this sort of thing.

Marketing your product so that it is clear to only a small subset of people who have been gaming for decades and built up a knowledge base to understand the history of the devlopment of the game line is poor marketing.



> _It was completely clear that D&D was for tinkering with and that AD&D was to be standardized, but hey we tinkered with it anyway. I don't understand why you would think you needed a pathway to playing AD&D. If I had never played Monopoly and they published Advanced Monopoly, I can not imagine any reason why anyone would think they needed to buy Monopoly in order to understand and play Advanced Monopoly unless it was marketed as an add on instead of a stand alone game._




This is the most counterintuitive argument I have seen for a while. If you bought a game labelled _Advanced Bunnies and Burrows_ you wouldn't think "hey there is probably a basic version of the game out there"? You would not then see the game labeled _Bunnies and Burrows_ sitting on the shelf next to the _Advanced_ version and think "well this must be the introductory more basic version of the game"? If you wouldn't that puts you in a small minority, because I know dozens of people who did exactly that.

And the fact that the "history of the game" shows that not to be true is _of no consequence to any of these examples_. Why? Because the people who were making these decisions in 1983, or 1986, or 1988 or whatever didn't know or care about the development of the game that occurred years before they decided to play D&D.



> _If they really wanted to do that, they could have cleaned up the mess that Loraine Willaims created, without alienating the existing TSR/T$R customer base, which is what they chose to do. Their decisions did not achieve the goal of minimzing costs and maximizing revenue, unless you truly believe that the only way they could keep their Magic customer base was to dump the D&D customer base, which of course I do not believe._




Yes, because publishing a version of D&D that has proved more profitable than any version of D&D put out in the previous 20 years (and possibly more profitable than any other version of D&D ever) is an indicator of poor decison making.

I'm not sure why you think that they "dumped their D&D customer base" or that they did it to "keep their Magic customer base". I have seen more veteran D&D players attracted by 3e/3.5e than had been playing in years. Most of the current 3e D&D players I know played D&D/AD&D before 3e came out, and happily switched. I know nobody who did not switch. Exactly how is this "dumping their D&D customer base"?



> _This is just so completely false, that it is truly comical. I am not ranting, merely stating the truth, I am truly sorry for you that your beliefs in this matter are at complete variance with reality._




In reality, the differences between OD&D, AD&D1e and AD&D2e are almost trivially slight. Like I said, you get more variation in game mechanics moving between different genres in a game like GURPS than between these different versions. 3e/3.5e is a little more different than those, but still very recognizable as D&D. Saying "only OD&D can be called just D&D" simply exaggerates trivial differences into inordinate significance.

But the more important issue is that in public perception, there is no difference between D&D and AD&D, both are just "D&D" no matter how much you want to rant on concerning their differences. If you aksed the average RPG gamer in 1995 if they played D&D, and they said "yes", nine times out of ten they probably meant that they played AD&D. And didn't even think about the other version, or even think that the distinction was of any importance. In perception "AD&D" was simply "D&D", and calling it "AD&D was just unneccesary and confusing.

Thinking that WotC was trying to "lie" to you because they named their product "D&D" requires that you assume that they would try to mislead people into thinking they were buying a game that had almost no independent recognition in the marketplace. That seems to me to be entirely an unreasonable assumption.


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> The fixed cost is very mininal when you go to POD technology. Because of POD this arguement is no longer a valid one.




 

I don't think POD technology is all you think it is. It does not nullify fixed costs, and the per-copy investment is higher than traditional printing. Print on demand is not a replacement for traditional printing. Traditional publishers who use POD only use it after a traditional run is exhausted and a new print run would not be profitable, but costs for layout, marketing, and distribution are already taken care of. If POD was a panacea that takes care of all print cost issues, it would be the only method, not an alternate one.



> With existing product you have a one time setup cost for it to go POD and that is the end of the fixed cost.




Saying "that's the end of the fixed cost" is redundant. That's the definition of a fixed cost. You'll notice it didn't go away, and you aren't paying attention to fixed costs that have nothing to do with the technology, like layout, distribution, etc.



> As far as trusting corporations   lets start with Enron and go on from there if you really want to go there. When it comes to corporations and trusting them to make wise decisions that is a censored game.




Did you read what you are replying too? I have a deep distrust of corporations, but I trust them to try to make money. WotC is NOT going to not print old versions just to screw you. They will forego printing of earlier versions if it would cost them money.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> The correct answer is also not (1) either. They have not determined anything, they have just made a decision and there is no evidence available to any of us that it has anything to do with profitablity and with POD technology it doesnt take much to generate profits on existing products that you no longer have to pay royalties to the author (both Gygax and Arneson are sans royalties at this point).




You assume the correct reason is not (1). But you have no reason for that other than a boatload of conspiracy theories that make no sense. If it would make them money, they would likely put the product on the market. That's what businesses do - they make money. Those who run the businesses try to market products that will sell, and make money by doing so. That they haven't is an indication that they don't believe that doing so will make them money.

You also have no competing theory to the "they don't think it will make money" theory that makes any sense. Until you come up with one, you will be in the same boat as the comic book guy.

You love POD for some reason. Have you noticed that very little is available POD? There is a reason for that. It isn't a panacea for releasing old material on the market. Despite your assumption that it is a road to profit, there are still start up costs, and my guess is that their evaluation of the market leads them to believe that the amount they will make won't even cover those (and I have no rational reason to believe otherwise).

I suggest you consult some people who have actually tired to sell .pdfs on line, or POD products before you rant about how it would solve everything.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

No. Never mind. It's best if I just leave uh. . . _that_, either for a different board, or for good.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> That is true, but in most of those cases the one for sale is the original one, that I bought back in the 60's or 70's and bought a new copy of in the 90's or since.




Untrue. Many of these games have had their rules modified over time.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This is the most counterintuitive argument I have seen for a while. If you bought a game labelled _Advanced Bunnies and Burrows_ you wouldn't think "hey there is probably a basic version of the game out there"? You would not then see the game labeled _Bunnies and Burrows_ sitting on the shelf next to the _Advanced_ version and think "well this must be the introductory more basic version of the game"? If you wouldn't that puts you in a small minority, because I know dozens of people who did exactly that.




I disagree completely with you and the facts support my position. There is no point in responding further to the bulk of your post so I will not. 

As for you calling my arguement counterintuitive, I acknowledge your difficulty. In the example as you word it above, I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to understand that they are perfectly capable of learning Advanced Bunnies and Burrows without first learning Bunnies and Burrows. While you may choose to buy both or buy Bunnies and Burrows first, there is no logical reason to do so.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> I do not believe that there is any valid reason for it to be and no one has ever at any time produced any evidence as to why it should be an exception to the rule and I do not believe that anyone can.




Please, try to approach discussions here with an open mind.

There is one very simple reason for the difference - the family board game market is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the RPG market.  The board game market is huge, and it spans many economic and cultural divides - lots of different folks buy Clue, Scrabble, and Monopoly.  Heck, Monopoly is arguably the most played game _in the world_, possibly surpassing chess and go.  Meanwhile, WotC market research in 1999 suggested only a couple million people total played RPGs on a regular basis.

That's a big difference - what you do in a big, wide open market, with games played as a casual family passtime may not make sense in a small, specific niche market of hobby-gamers.  RPG players simply don't approach our games the same way folks approach a game of Clue, and so it makes sense to treat the markets differently.



> As far as the cost, it seems that no one understands Print on Demand Technology.




You'd propbably do better around here if you avoid telling folks what they do and don't know.  PoD is good.  And it may sit well for materials that are not popular enough for mass pre-printings that take up shelf space.  But it isn't free. 

Neither is simply converting the old product into the proper medium.  You're talking about many person-hours of work - at least thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars invested just to make it available.  If they don't expect enough sales to cover that investment, selling it doesn't make sense.

Moreover, it has to make as much (or more) profit than other things that they could do with the same money and personnel resources.  With limited resources, there is a balancing act to be played between diversification and focus on the most profitable properties and new ideas.  I am unsurprised that old editions - a sub-niche of the overall RPG niche - fail to make the cut.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> It is subtle sometimes.  Even in my own 3E group I didn't really "get it" until I DMed and realized...hey, these guys are calculating everything, they're telling me what their chances are to climb a rope, or any number of other tasks, and when I disagree (and maybe I'm wrong) they all start pointing out how this and that skill combined with this and that attribute and feat result in this or that chance...And when they ask to try and do something its always in terms of "can I use this skill or that feat" like every action has a little button they press.  hell, thats how I ended up playing 3E for 2 years...thats how long it took before I could put my finger on what was bugging me.




For routine tasks why shoudl this not be the case? Why should I not have a reasonable idea of how good I am at climbing rope? In reality I do, why is in a game that I must somehow operate blind to get a good gaming experience?

And your argument is entirely irrelevant for most of the exciting elements of the game.

"I want to climb the mudslide!"
"Okay, roll a climb check."
"What's the DC?"
"You don't know. I'll let you know if you make it."
"Okay."

This is a much more common exchange in my experience than anything you are talking about. And really, do you want to be bogged down worrying about whether you can do routine tasks like climb a rope or jump over something? Climbing a rope while being chase? That's different, and the circumstances are different, making the DC different (and probably unknown). Jumping over something in combat? Different again, and subject to modifications.

Players don't always know what the DCs of their checks are, or even what the checks are for (when DMing, I have often said "roll a d20" to one, some, or all of the players present for skill checks like Spot or Listen and the like, without even telling them what the check was for). Sure, routine matters they usually will, but that's the nature of the routine matter. Unusual circumstances they almost never know the DC of a check, they just hope to roll high.



> _In AD&D 1E as DM I say, "OK role your dex to climb this rope", or "role your petrification".  The player doesn't start asking why, they just do it (and the way the rules are written in AD&D the DM has that latitude...many situations just aren't covered.  That ability of the DM to just make stuff up in there head and call it "rules" bugs the crap out of alot of todays players, but that was the power of the game...and DMing it was brutally fun.   _




If I want to invent a game on the fly, I'll do that. And it will be a very different game than 1e AD&D. And, to a great extent it was, which is why so many people abandoned the system when they realized that their house rules were as long as the DMG.



> _Anyhow, yeah, unless you play 1E or OD&D you might not even see what I'm talking about in 3E.  But take it from me, there is a stark difference us 1Eers see between the role of DM between 1st and 3rd editions._




I played 1e AD&D. For over a decade. I know how the system played, and know what sort of DM/Player conflicts it engendered on a regular basis.



> _That you have a good group is cool.  But 3E is written so that if you had a bad group they could rules lawyer the DM to death.  In 1E, even if you had those sorts of players, it wouldn't matter, the DM would just say, "well thats that" and as chance would have it, the leader of the little table rebellion would end up with a spiked green tail before the game was over.  _




over a decade of gaming and DMing with 1e AD&D tells me a much different story. I have been involved in fewer rules arguments of any kind in the five years of playing 3e/3.5e D&D than I would typically have in two or three sessions of 1e AD&D. The "DM Fiat" you think 1e embodied was your presonal spin on the system and nothing more. There is a reason comics like Hackmaster are written the way they are with the players rules-lawyering the DM to death in a parody of 1e AD&D gaming. And it is not because that was rare, or easily dealt with.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 8, 2006)

*C&C Stuff*

I thought I'd add in my own experiences and views of C&C to the discussion.  Note that I haven't played it as much as others and I house rule it quite a bit.



			
				Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> The main benefit of primes is that assigning primes lets you tweak your character while keeping the system simple.  For example, if you want a dexterous fighter, then make Dex prime, and your PC will be very good at Dex-based stuff.  It's a broad-stroke short-cut: instead of buying lots of individual skills and feats, you just say "Dex is prime."  The end result is pretty much the same, but much simpler.  So C&C has a simple system for addressing the complaint that classes make for cookie-cutter PCs.  It's obviously not as detailed as the d20 approach, but it works very well, IMO, and the decreased complexity and prep-time is a good trade-off.




Another way of looking at primes is that instead of them lowering your target number, they essentially give you a +6 (?) bonus to various rolls tied to an ability score.  

I'm not a huge fan of primes myself, as I feel you might as well have the higher ability score.  But then again, I've added a skills system, and primes don't work the best with skills.




> If you read the C&C forums, you'll see all sorts of house-ruling and tweaking going on.  A lot of "making the game your own."




To me, this is one of C&C's greatest strengths - the ability to house rule to your heart's content.  I've seen people use non-weapon proficiencies, or feats, or various other subsystems with their game.  It's a sound system as-is, but flexible enough that you can add in the subsystem of your choice.  In my last game, I added a variant of 3e's skills that was similar to 3.0's skills.




> Yes.  I sometimes call C&C a "best of" version of the various editions.  (Keeping in mind that's "best of" in my eyes.  And keeping in mind that I don't see any system as perfect -- I'm still tweaking things.)




Agreed.  I like how it feels old school, yet has the basic unified mechanics of d20.  

I think my only beef with the system is how classes don't have a full 20-level progression.  It's like AD&D in that all your good stuff, save for spell progression, ends around 12th level.  I think I'd prefer if the ability score modifiers followed the 3e modifiers.

Overall, I'm really happy with the system and love how you can use your old AD&D books and new D&D books all in the same game.  It's really fun to use.


----------



## Crimhthan_The_Great (Dec 8, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You assume the correct reason is not (1). But you have no reason for that other than a boatload of conspiracy theories that make no sense. If it would make them money, they would likely put the product on the market. That's what businesses do - they make money. Those who run the businesses try to market products that will sell, and make money by doing so. That they haven't is an indication that they don't believe that doing so will make them money.
> 
> You also have no competing theory to the "they don't think it will make money" theory that makes any sense. Until you come up with one, you will be in the same boat as the comic book guy.
> 
> ...




POD and its use is in its infancy. It has just barely gotten started, and it is the future and major publishers will be the last to really adopt it to any extent. I do not have any conspiracy theories, that is an unjustified assumption on your part. However, since as someone else noted above and as has been noted on many different boards many times, WotC will not release OD&D on pdf, although they have released other things. In light of that, to argue that there is no bias against OD&D by WotC is rather amusing.

I also acknowlege your continued insult, above, and it is a shame that the mods will not permit me to give you the response that you so richly deserve.

Sufice it to say that you and Psion are wrong about this whole thing on so many levels that it boggles the imagination. I do not know why you are both so against OD&D and AD&D, while I am not against 3E/3.5E at all, other than I have no deserve to buy it myself.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 8, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Overall, I'm really happy with the system and love how you can use your old AD&D books and new D&D books all in the same game.  It's really fun to use.



Argh! Curses! 

 It's just that now I'm probably going to have to at least check out the PDF, and see if I can't make it suit some peculiar ideas I have in mind. I said I wasn't going to comment further on this game, but. . . 

That last bit nearly sold it all in one fell swoop. I would love to be able to *easily*, *freely* mix and match old and new sources. Is it really dead simple and quick, doing that with C&C?

I already use some old with my various takes on the new - and some kinds of sideways material - but to have that kind of freedom of access, all the time. . . what can I say. I'm intrigued.


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> Sufice it to say that you and Psion are wrong about this whole thing on so many levels that it boggles the imagination.




Just FYI, "wrong with wrong sauce on top" type statements tend to be interpreted by the mods as "turning up the rhetoric." If you think we are so wrong, then demonstrate that we are. Lacking that, consider the possibility that we aren't. 



> I do not know why you are both so against OD&D and AD&D, while I am not against 3E/3.5E at all, other than I have no deserve to buy it myself.




I'm not against OD&D and AD&D. Indeed, one of my most attended to publishers prints with the mantra "first edition feel." I think every edition had its strong points, and I am glad that at least one publisher caters to them. Further, I was in the same spot as you once. I loved (and still do) MegaTraveller, and stuck with it when The New Era came out. I wish I had as much support as you did from third parties for my continued love for my game of choice back then. In fact, I wonder if I would move forward with a 4th edition were it printed any time soon.

But I really consider your arguments about the economic viability to stem from wishful thinking on your part, and consider it extremely likely that WotC knows quite a bit more about the economic reality of their market than you do.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 8, 2006)

Storm Raven,  I guess your experiance with 3E is just different then mine.  If by now you haven't discovered any problems in game play with 3E, its probably a great match for you.

Perhaps the differences in opinions between the 1E camp and the 3E camp really always boiled down to personality types.  3E isn't "worse" then 1E, its just different, and in all likelyhood is designed for a different personality type (Magic players maybe?) then 1E.  

3E is a slick well thought out system for what it is.  And its presentation (in art and feel) really hit the demographic WOTC was aiming for.  The only thing that bugged me at the time was WOTC online publicity drive (basically a lie that 3E was a return to 1E) which IMO was an attempt to sell books rather then be honest.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 8, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> That last bit nearly sold it all in one fell swoop. I would love to be able to *easily*, *freely* mix and match old and new sources. Is it really dead simple and quick, doing that with C&C?




I think so.  AD&D material is mostly a matter of switching descending THACO and AC to ascending Base to Hit and AC, which is a breeze.  You can convert a module on the fly if you wished.  3e is a little bit tougher to use, but not too terribly bad.  I've heard some people say they convert 3e on the fly too.

For example, I was using materials from the old 2e Arms and Equipment Guide as well as converting the d20 Dragonlance module Spectre of Sorrows, all on the fly.  I've also adapted some prestige classes along the way.  Plus, you can easily adapt your 1e/2e races to C&C.




> I already use some old with my various takes on the new - and some kinds of sideways material - but to have that kind of freedom of access, all the time. . . what can I say. I'm intrigued.




Welcome to the crusade!   




			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> 3E isn't "worse" then 1E, its just different, and in all likelyhood is designed for a different personality type (Magic players maybe?) then 1E.




Also designed for a different demographic.  1e players are all grown up now, and 3e probably is geared more towards college age (taking a guess).  




> 3E is a slick well thought out system for what it is.  And its presentation (in art and feel) really hit the demographic WOTC was aiming for.  The only thing that bugged me at the time was WOTC online publicity drive (basically a lie that 3E was a return to 1E) which IMO was an attempt to sell books rather then be honest.




There has been a drive to use book names from prior editions to sell new products.  That's just marketing.  Despite that, I think some great sourcebooks have been produced in the process.  _Unearthed Arcana_ is a great example of this.


----------



## Psion (Dec 8, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> The only thing that bugged me at the time was WOTC online publicity drive (basically a lie that 3E was a return to 1E) which IMO was an attempt to sell books rather then be honest.




If you dig around enough (and have access to the search function), you could probably find quite a few threads lamenting the "back to the dungeon" mentality being demonstrated in 3e and its releases.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 8, 2006)

Crimhthan_The_Great said:
			
		

> I disagree completely with you and the facts support my position.




What "facts"? The ones you made up?



> _There is no point in responding further to the bulk of your post so I will not._




Conceding the implausibility of your arguments early then?



> _As for you calling my arguement counterintuitive, I acknowledge your difficulty. In the example as you word it above, I would expect any reasonably intelligent person to understand that they are perfectly capable of learning Advanced Bunnies and Burrows without first learning Bunnies and Burrows. While you may choose to buy both or buy Bunnies and Burrows first, there is no logical reason to do so._




You might assume that. And many peopel, of course, have learned AD&D without ever buying or even looking at D&D, but in many cases that was because they didn't even know "D&D" _existed_.

But that doesn't matter. The question is one of _perception_, which is a point you simply don't seem to comprehend. The question is not "whether you need to learn D&D to play AD&D". No one has argued that. The question is whether a new or inexperienced consumer of the D&D/AD&D line of products would think that the games represented a "learning stage" and then a "advanced stage" of the game. The simple fact is that my anecdotal experience _and WotCs market research_ showed this to be true. They even talked about this in the portions of the market research they put out.

This, coupled with the fact that the D&D line as a seperate product from the AD&D line had almost no market recognition (indeed, the majority of RPG gamers did, and probably still do, think of them almost interchangeably) makes the assertion that they dropped the "A" in order to create product confusion of the old "D&D" line pretty much downright silly.

You may want to think of the older D&D line as being markedly different (which I think is just wrong, the AD&D and D&D systems are incredibly similar in just about every significant way possible), but the perception people had is that they were not. And marketing is all about perception. AD&D _was_ simply "D&D" in the minds of most of the relevant consumer base. Dropping the "A" was simply a recognition of that reality. They dropped the "A" because it was pointless, unnecessary, and confusing.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 8, 2006)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Another way of looking at primes is that instead of them lowering your target number, they essentially give you a +6 (?) bonus to various rolls tied to an ability score.



Yep, it's the equivalent of a +6, and quite a few people just adopt that instead of using the 12/18 base target numbers for prime vs. non-prime.  I've also seen some people house-rule it to 10/15, instead of 12/18. 



> I'm not a huge fan of primes myself, as I feel you might as well have the higher ability score. But then again, I've added a skills system, and primes don't work the best with skills.



Yeah, if you're using a skill system, primes lose a great deal of their purpose, IMO.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> It's just that now I'm probably going to have to at least check out the PDF, and see if I can't make it suit some peculiar ideas I have in mind.



If you get the PDF, keep in mind that it's a condensed version of the game.  I'd recommend checking out the C&C Players Handbook, instead: I don't think it's that much more expensive (especially through Amazon).



> That last bit nearly sold it all in one fell swoop. I would love to be able to *easily*, *freely* mix and match old and new sources. Is it really dead simple and quick, doing that with C&C?



Yes, it really is.  This was a huge selling point for me, too, because I have tons of material from all the editions.  I love being able to run B/X or AD&D modules and just converting on the fly.  My wife has pulled out her old 2E Tome of Magic to use with her wizard.  Low level 3E material converts without a problem.  Higher level 3E stuff can be trickier, but by the time you get to the higher levels it isn't really that big of a deal.


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2006)

Thread closed.


----------

