|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 16, 2014 9:11:55 GMT -6
One thing I always wanted write was a straight and complete OD&D retroclone, more complete than Swords & Wizardry or Delving Deeper. Thus I wrote Full Metal Plate Mail. It's basically just a clone of the original three OD&D booklets. I did, however, tried to fill the gaps the three booklets have, be it missing monster stats, unclear rules or stuff from Chainmail and Outdoor Survival. Do we need yet another OD&D clone? Maybe we do, maybe not. I wrote Full Metal Plate Mail mostly because I think it's a nice addition to the evergrowing library of OSR games we have. FMPM is exactly 100 A5 pages long (unintentionally, though). You can download the free PDF here and the character sheet here. Critique and comments are welcome, as always.  |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 16, 2014 12:08:06 GMT -6
At first glance, it looks great! Very complete, with solid indexes even. Nice use of the public domain art, too. Out of curiosity, what did you include from Chainmail and Outdoor Survival? |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 16, 2014 13:08:54 GMT -6
I did my best. If you notice any missing or inconsistent stuff, feel free to post it here. The random chart for getting lost in the wilderness is the only thing from Outdoor Survival. Stuff from Chainmail includes racial abilities (e.g. for elves, where OD&D just says that they have certain abilities from CM), information on the catapult, the jousting rules and some combat rules. CM elves are serious business. They are nearly invisible and do extra damage with magical weapons. As I read the rules, only NPC elves get these bonuses, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 16, 2014 16:35:18 GMT -6
Downloaded and took a peek at it. Looks nice in a first glance, and I'll have to look in more detail later.  |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 16, 2014 17:50:19 GMT -6
A suggestion: you're using an abbreviation to mean 2 different things. In your document AC stands for both armor class and anti-cleric. You should leave it for just armor class and either find another abbreviation for anti-cleric or just write it out. That's true. However, AC for anti-cleric is only used in the spell section, where AC does not appear. I could replace it with AnC in future releases, though. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2014 18:18:52 GMT -6
Apologies. Post deleted and I'll just say you did a fine job with your retro-clone. Take care.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251 
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jun 19, 2014 1:44:14 GMT -6
"Straight and complete"? More than S&W or DD?
No way.
Not a bad effort but you're dead wrong about your claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 3:35:15 GMT -6
I didn't claim it's perfect, just closer to the original material. What's missing in your opinion?
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jun 19, 2014 3:49:00 GMT -6
You didn't claim perfection but you did say the following. One thing I always wanted write was a straight and complete OD&D retroclone, more complete than Swords & Wizardry or Delving Deeper. Why don't you tell us what you included with regard to what was left out of other retro-clones? |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 4:01:24 GMT -6
Why don't you tell us what you included with regard to what was left out of other retro-clones? As I'm apparently "dead wrong", I presume you already know. |
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Jun 19, 2014 4:09:13 GMT -6
I meant no offense, man. You asked for comments and I gave you mine. I've neither the time nor inclination to "sell" your product for you. If you want to convince me it's better than the myriad options extant you'll have to do the point-by-point analysis, not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2014 5:37:36 GMT -6
I've gave it a decent look through on the back of the "more complete" claim. It's a fine effort Leonaru, for sure. My impression is that it's a modern interpretation of the original. By which I mean, the overall organisation/presentation style appears somewhat reminiscent of or inspired by 3E, at least to my eyes, and the various rules decisions make it a more modern game. It seems to me pretty close to the kind of game that D&D players who haven't seen OD&D might "expect" OD&D to be. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing--it's good that each of the different titles in the space be subtly different. At first glance, yes, FMPM does appear "nearer" to the original material than the other titles mentioned; e.g., the reader notices right away a bunch of the table details are per the original whereas they intentionally differ in the other titles due to copyright/IP considerations. The reader notes also that FMPM includes the original PC level titles (!!), spell names, monsters (even Balrogs), etc. which the other titles omit in order to be OGL compliant. The original tables and spells names etc. are glorious, for sure, but the rules are what it's really about. IMHO the FMPM rules are more modern than at least one of the titles it is compared to (an observation, not a criticism). Yes, FMPM includes some material that the other titles simplify or even exclude. But my assessment is that the other titles include just as much material that FMPM omits. |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 6:48:28 GMT -6
The Balrog is actually called BaRLog.  That's the name a couple of other games went with, so I decided to use it too. For the spells names: S&W (don't have DD here at the moment) also uses spells like Sticks to Snakes or Massmorph with no SRD equivalent or non-SRD spells names e.g. Wizard Eye instead of Arcane Eye or Conjure Elemental instead of Summon Monster VII. In this light, I don't see stretching the OGL a little bit as prolematic. I disagree that the rules are any more modern, though the presentation certainly is (intentionally). |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2014 7:08:43 GMT -6
I didn't notice "BaRLog", that's neat.
"stretching the OGL" and the rest; well, that's your call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 10:31:15 GMT -6
IMHO the FMPM rules are more modern than at least one of the titles it is compared to (an observation, not a criticism). I don't really understand what you mean by "more modern". S&W, for example, uses a universal attribute modifier. That's what I would consider a "more modern" approach. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jun 19, 2014 10:44:30 GMT -6
Seems like a strait up representation of the original rules. Onlything that stood out was different hp type per class. The six siders for all clases is one of my favorite things about the original rules. Other than that I think it is a great job.
|
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by bea on Jun 19, 2014 10:58:03 GMT -6
I love the format and layout. Very nice use of the illustrations (are they all PD? Who's the artist?)
I haven't had time to read through it properly, but I immidiately became curious when you said you attempted to do something closer to the original than existing clones. Though I've never read the original I seem to recall that some clones attempting to be close make some changes for legal reasons. Also, the OGL really only covers the 3.5 generation of rules, or am I wrong? Have you made reasonably sure that you're legally safe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 11:27:56 GMT -6
Seems like a strait up representation of the original rules. Onlything that stood out was different hp type per class. The six siders for all clases is one of my favorite things about the original rules. Other than that I think it is a great job. Woha, that wasn't even intentional. I copied the tables from another clone of mine (one which includes Greyhawk rules) and forgot to fix that. I'll fix it in the next release; thanks for spotting that. I love the format and layout. Very nice use of the illustrations (are they all PD? Who's the artist?) Most are public domain illustrations by Henry J. Ford, an outstanding artist. Some others (especially the undead monsters) are from old public domain comic books. Rules cannot be copyrighted, only the way in which they are presented. Thus, copying the text directly from a 3.5 book would be a breach of law, but not reproducing the rules with a different presentation. This can include terms like "armour class" or "saving throw" but those are covered by the D&D SRD. I'm as legally safe as most other clones. Swords & Wizardry Complete, for example, contains the spells mentioned above that have not been released under the OGL. S&WC used to be a commercial product and is available on DTRPG for free now, and WotC doesn't seem to care. I don't think they will pay any special attention to other retroclones. Whether those spell names (or any other non-OGL content on the edge) are even copyrightable is a whole different question. But I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't give a professional answer to that. |
|
bea
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133
|
Post by bea on Jun 19, 2014 12:08:30 GMT -6
Well, it does sound like you're at least reasonably safe Good. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jun 19, 2014 12:24:33 GMT -6
Seems like a strait up representation of the original rules. Onlything that stood out was different hp type per class. The six siders for all clases is one of my favorite things about the original rules. Other than that I think it is a great job. Woha, that wasn't even intentional. I copied the tables from another clone of mine (one which includes Greyhawk rules) and forgot to fix that. I'll fix it in the next release; thanks for spotting that. Great, my PDF of OD&D is in an old format that doesn't read correctly on every reader. Having a new copy would help, plus I could give one to all my PbP players if they need one. Are you going to post here when the next revision comes out, I would love to get a copy. |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 13:28:28 GMT -6
Yup, I'll post it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2014 16:52:45 GMT -6
Rules cannot be copyrighted, only the way in which they are presented. Thus, copying the text directly from a 3.5 book would be a breach of law, but not reproducing the rules with a different presentation. This can include terms like "armour class" or "saving throw" but those are covered by the D&D SRD. I'm as legally safe as most other clones. I have genuine concerns about that. The fact that you refer to your rules as a "clone" puts you in dubious territory for a start. The only legal footing you have is obscurity, but that isn't much security at all. Theoretical frameworks can't be copyrighted, true, only printed matter. But all works of creative authorship are the intellectual property of their authors (or whoever has legally acquired those rights thereafter). That covers all the creative authorship in OD&D, including invented/authored tables of figures. The OGL is explicit about what can and cannot be copied. Basically, it allows you to copy anything that appears in the SRD. Everything else from 3E is "Product Identity", and WotC's IP. Everything else from all earlier versions of the game is also WotC's IP. Here's a relevant quote from a post I wrote a while back: The OGL specifies that anyone who abides by the terms of the OGL can legally create a derivative work of the SRD. However, if you don't abide by the terms of the OGL, then you have no legal right to use any of the material in the SRD. It's clear that FMPM is a derivative work (as are most of the games of the OSR). But it's also clear FMPM does not comply with the OGL. Take a minute to think about that. And finally, I'd like to add that the frequently repeated "They're doing too!" argument carries zero legal weight; that's their problem not yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 19, 2014 17:18:41 GMT -6
I have genuine concerns about that. The fact that you refer to your rules as a "clone" puts you in dubious territory for a start. The only legal footing you really have is obscurity, but that isn't really much security at all. Meaningless term. I could call it "OSR game" or "D&D retrogame" instead. "Retroclone" is just the term I use for OSR games. If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I repeated that merely once an never claimed that it offers any legal protection. |
|
|
|
Post by kirbyfan63 on Jun 19, 2014 17:47:51 GMT -6
Seems like the description of the cyborg got cut off at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 19, 2014 17:53:18 GMT -6
I have genuine concerns about that. The fact that you refer to your rules as a "clone" puts you in dubious territory for a start. The only legal footing you really have is obscurity, but that isn't really much security at all. Meaningless term. I could call it "OSR game" or "D&D retrogame" instead. "Retroclone" is just the term I use for OSR games. If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that I repeated that merely once an never claimed that it offers any legal protection. "Clone" is not a meaningless term in copyright law. I didn't mean to imply frequently repeated by you Leonaru. I meant frequently repeated by people in general, in discussions like this one. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 20, 2014 7:25:54 GMT -6
Tangentially, has anyone ever heard of WotC suing, or even threatening to sue, anyone over SRD-related matters? I wouldn't be surprised if it has; I just can't think of an example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 20, 2014 8:11:22 GMT -6
Tangentially, has anyone ever heard of WotC suing, or even threatening to sue, anyone over SRD-related matters? I wouldn't be surprised if it has; I just can't think of an example. produced a couple of D20 books that directly copied from WotC books. They weren't sued, but WotC suggested that they better stop producing these specific books and stop selling the ones already printed and FFE did that. The books already in bookshops were not taken from shelves, though. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 20, 2014 8:17:10 GMT -6
WotC has taken action against at least one of the OSRIC products as recently as 2011/12, see here. Also, this is some of what Ryan Dancey had to say on EnWorld back in 2007 (see here): |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jun 21, 2014 0:33:56 GMT -6
You have to remember that an SRD is useful only insofar as it allows you to use protected IP within the rules of the OGL. That's why the D&D SRDs are useful (mainly because of monsters and spells, tables not so much because they don't really help with re-creating copyright "safe" OD&D tables), the Mongoose RQ SRDs less so, and the Mongoose Traveller one hardly at all. Because there is not a lot of the iconic IP in the 3LLb (until Greyhawk, really), it would be pretty easy to create an OD&D game with the serial numbers filed off and leave the restrictions of the OGL and SRD behind. Although then you would of course lose the benefits brand recognition and out-of-the-box compatibility with other OSR or original D&D products (which you can't name!). This is why I'm a little surprised that games like LotFP that stray so far from the SRD bother with the OGL at all. Anyway, copyright and trademark are greatly misunderstood things in most circles, even by professional publishers, so it's probably not useful to try to dissect them in games forums other than in the most general sense. Back to the topic, fine work leonaru, and an excellent choice of public domain art - my favourite as you can see by clicking the link in my sig! |
|
|
|
Post by Leonaru on Jun 21, 2014 6:28:47 GMT -6
Anyway, copyright and trademark are greatly misunderstood things in most circles, even by professional publishers, so it's probably not useful to try to dissect them in games forums other than in the most general sense. Back to the topic, fine work leonaru, and an excellent choice of public domain art - my favourite as you can see by clicking the link in my sig! You're the Blueholme author? Sweet, I think you wrote one of the best OSR books we have (both in content and style). It's also the reason why I didn't put that dragon illustration the cover of FMPM. |
|
That's the name a couple of other games went with, so I decided to use it too. For the spells names: S&W (don't have DD here at the moment) also uses spells like Sticks to Snakes or Massmorph with no SRD equivalent or non-SRD spells names e.g. Wizard Eye instead of Arcane Eye or Conjure Elemental instead of Summon Monster VII. In this light, I don't see stretching the OGL a little bit as prolematic. I disagree that the rules are any more modern, though the presentation certainly is (intentionally).
