How many copies of an OD&D variant..

[catacomb]

Hi all,i would like to pose a question for your consideration.

I was wondering, in a nutshell: If a game very similar to OD&D was published today, how many copies it would sell?

Let us imagine that WOTC decides to publish its fifth edition of the game, and it happens to be something very old -school, up to the point that it has the flavour, the mechanics, the feeling and atmosphere very similar to OD&D but no one is able to state that is is just a rewrite of OD&D rules, because in fact it is not and it retains its distinctive uniqueness. How many copies would such a product sell nowadays?

Honestly, i am asking because it may be that i have scattered in my mind excerpts of a game and -who knows- i might want to put it on paper someday.

thanks

[darkling]

If you are asking if there is a market then the answer is yes.

However, the ability of any given product to sell any given number of quantities depends on far more than just having a demographic. It would be quite a different matter if WOTC were to release something like that as opposed to an independent press or as opposed to a single person. There are things like brand loyalty, visual design, networking, and advertising to consider that can make pretty much any product sink or float.

(c.f. the current Dr. Pepper 10 thing...the first new soft drink I have liked in years and the company has a terrible ad campaign so it is probably going to flop)

I would be tempted to say that WoTC could pull it off well if they didn't do something stupid (which is always a possibility). And a number of indie groups have already released clones to some level of success, but it isn't going to be at all predictable.

[DungeonDevil]

There may be a market, but only a small one. OD&D was really written for wargamers who were not by default averse to venturing into fantasy wargaming: a microscopic corner of an obscure, labour-intensive niche hobby, in other words. There are very few wargamers left today, most being over 60 years old or more, and predominantly located in the UK. There are more RPGers than wargamers, but the former do not want a 'rough-around-the-edges' kind of game that OD&D was but something more fleshed-out. Mentzer's Basic would be a better business model to go by. Furthermore to be successful any publication would have to have a very aggressive promotions and advertisement strategy with multiple platforms.

[jasmith]

Nov 7, 2011 10:07:29 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

There may be a market, but only a small one. OD&D was really written for wargamers who were not by default averse to venturing into fantasy wargaming: a microscopic corner of an obscure, labour-intensive niche hobby, in other words. There are very few wargamers left today, most being over 60 years old or more, and predominantly located in the UK. There are more RPGers than wargamers, but the former do not want a 'rough-around-the-edges' kind of game that OD&D was but something more fleshed-out. Mentzer's Basic would be a better business model to go by. Furthermore to be successful any publication would have to have a very aggressive promotions and advertisement strategy with multiple platforms.

Thanks to retro-clones and other rules-lite rpg's, the market for this sort of game is growing. It's still small, but I think we can safely say that there is, indeed, a market. ;D

But, that market seems pretty happy with OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, and the other clones. Delving Deeper, which, as I understand, was designed with the intent of hewing as close as possible to the LBB's, comes out this month. In short, you'd be competing with several available versions of Old School D&D. Good Luck!

If WotC published an Old School 5e, they'd be cutting their own throat. Again! They'd lose their remaining base.

And personally, between Brave Halfling, Mythmere Games and Frog God Games, my 0e needs are met! And I like those guys! I like supporting them! I no longer have any sympathy for WotC, though I do have some for my fellow-gamers who play 4e and hope WotC will keep making the game those fellows enjoy.

That's not to say I wouldn't hypothetically buy your hypothetical game. Just depends. I am pretty stuck on 0-1 E D&D games and Clones, though. And my needs in that regard have been well met and then some.

And I would think Warhammer would qualify as a Wargame, no? I'm pretty sure those guys way, way outnumber the 60 year old + grognards, out there.

As an aside, I think the whole "Gaming is Dying" thing is way over-exaggerated. There's even *gasp* teenagers still entering the hobby.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

I think I'll ditto James here in words and spirit!

[Aplus]

114 or so

[Finarvyn]

I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, I think that if WotC were to publish an official re-do of OD&D, done in a similar style to the originals, they might get decent sales. I'm thinking of a rules set which would integrate the supplements with the early 3 LBB, keep a similar layout and artwork, and so on.

On the other hand, if we're talking about another third-party re-do I'm not sure how big the market is anymore becasue there are already several products that fill the void. S&W and my WB come to mind offhand, as does Brave Halfling's new Delving Deeper. Swordcraft & Swordplay caters to a similar market and Labyrinth Lords has a book designed to run those rules with the original game. I'm sure I'm forgetting some and I'm not sure how to classify others (Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example, or BFRPG which is more like B/X but is in some ways similar to OD&D.) Admittedly, each of these variants have some different twists from each other, but in many ways they are all compatible with one another and compete for essentially the same audience.

So, is there room for another? Could be, but it's hard to say.

[catacomb]

Thanks for your answers, but i would like to stress that i was not talking about a third-party re-do like S&W, LL, Delving depper, Swordcraft & Swordplay,etc

I think i explained myself badly.

I was talking about a sort of "alternative" to OD&D, like those that were published in the seventies and early eighties.

Something like this for instance

www.nobleknight.com/ProductDetail.asp_Q_ProductID_E_1569704477_A_InventoryID_E_2147663944_A_ProductLineID_E_1085865996_A_ManufacturerID_E_-1867851241_A_CategoryID_E_1_A_GenreID_E_0

or like this (that i heard was re-published recently..by the way,is it true?)

www.nobleknight.com/ProductDetail.asp_Q_ProductID_E_2147420280_A_InventoryID_E_0_A_ProductLineID_E_2137423671_A_ManufacturerID_E_2145084725_A_CategoryID_E_0_A_GenreID_E_9

[aldarron]

Oh. Honestly, in that case I doubt if you would sell any. There are lots and lots of rules lite to rules heavy alternatives to D&D out there and some of the best ones are free - Microlite 74 for example.

[Finarvyn]

Yeah, I think it's really hard to break into the RPG market. Especially if you don't have a gimmick or edge. For many games, the idea that they are compatible with OD&D/AD&D/3E or some other game provides that edge (even if they can't advertise as such).

A totally new game has to find a market from scratch.

[DungeonDevil]

Beasts, Men and Gods is a new one to me! Sounds great! I'll start hunting around for it, but it sounds like something pretty rare.

EDIT: Based on the extensive preview over on CreateSpace it looks like a *very* meaty, crunchy, wholly or predominantly percentile-based system. Did I mention it's crunchy? Man, it makes OD&D look anemic! And the artwork is flavourful and top-tier. If only it were easier to get my greedy mitts on. ;D

The other one, Wizards World (?), is also new to me. It never ceases to amaze me how much the hobby exploded with plenty of hangers-on and copy-cats, only for them to fade into utter obscurity--whether deserved or not.

[Azafuse]

Nov 9, 2011 18:08:39 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Beasts, Men and Gods is a new one to me! Sounds great! I'll start hunting around for it, but it sounds like something pretty rare.

The author - thanks to the personal request of Acaeum's user vault keeper - has recently released a Revised Edition after years.

wunderwood.com/BMG/

[jmccann]

Nov 7, 2011 10:07:29 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

There are very few wargamers left today, most being over 60 years old or more, and predominantly located in the UK.

I think you are wrong about this point. The point that wargamers are not young is true, but there is a very large contingent in my cohort (mid-40s). And wargamers are well represented on both sides of the pond. The big annual wargame convention Dragonflight here in Seattle (and there are others each year) has 2 large hotel banquet rooms full for an entire long weekend with official events, and while the average age is probably in the 40s there are some younger as well. So there is a point to be made here but what you have stated is wrong.

[catacomb]

Nov 9, 2011 18:08:39 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

The other one, Wizards World (?), is also new to me. It never ceases to amaze me how much the hobby exploded with plenty of hangers-on and copy-cats, only for them to fade into utter obscurity--whether deserved or not.

You are right, it is a shame that they sank into obscurity. As for Wizard's world, contact me through PM or better still post a comment on my blog (look under my avatar) i can help you in tracing it.

[DungeonDevil]

Nov 9, 2011 21:28:23 GMT -6 jmccann said:

Nov 7, 2011 10:07:29 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

There are very few wargamers left today, most being over 60 years old or more, and predominantly located in the UK.

I think you are wrong about this point. The point that wargamers are not young is true, but there is a very large contingent in my cohort (mid-40s). And wargamers are well represented on both sides of the pond. The big annual wargame convention Dragonflight here in Seattle (and there are others each year) has 2 large hotel banquet rooms full for an entire long weekend with official events, and while the average age is probably in the 40s there are some younger as well. So there is a point to be made here but what you have stated is wrong.

Seattle has always been a focal point for hobbies, gaming, whatnot and cannot under any circumstances be regarded as typical for the US. At all. That's like saying that since you see movie stars on a daily basis in L.A., it must be that way everywhere in the United States. Why haven't I bumped into any movie stars in Cornfield, Iowa? I stand firmly behind my statement that most historical miniatures wargamers are in my parent's generation or older (say, 60+), and most reside in the British Isles, with perhaps a very scant sprinkling on the Continent. In my lifetime I've only known two other wargamers, and that was about 30 years ago and they were from Wisconsin (and, incidentally, also played OD&D).

[noffham]

You can stand by your statement, but you are still wrong. Just take a look at www.historicon.org to see just one of the bigger wargaming conventions on the east coast. Look through the pictures from the 2011 show and you'll see quite a range of ages (and both sexes!) participating.

[Deleted]

I don't see many wargamers around, but I see some miniatures gamers (Warhammer and 40K mostly) as well as some board gamers. Not too many hex-and-counter wargamers.

[aldarron]

Nov 10, 2011 20:31:59 GMT -6 @keltset said:

I don't see many wargamers around, but I see some miniatures gamers (Warhammer and 40K mostly) as well as some board gamers. Not too many hex-and-counter wargamers.

Huh!? how are you defining wargame? I think there's a couple very diferent meanings being argued about here, and thus the disagreement is one of understanding rather than fact. For reference, here is a good article on the subject.

faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1.htm

Personally, I would would consider any game that involves the simulation of battle and death, no matter how abstract to be a war game.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2011 10:29:34 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Nov 10, 2011 20:31:59 GMT -6 @keltset said:

I don't see many wargamers around, but I see some miniatures gamers (Warhammer and 40K mostly) as well as some board gamers. Not too many hex-and-counter wargamers.

Huh!? how are you defining wargame? I think there's a couple very diferent meanings being argued about here, and thus the disagreement is one of understanding rather than fact. For reference, here is a good article on the subject.

faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1.htm

Personally, I would would consider any game that involves the simulation of battle and death, no matter how abstract to be a war game.

I would agree and I would definitely consider miniatures gamers to be playing a wargaming in most instances. I consider OD&D to be a wargame, that also happens to involve roleplaying. Remember it says right on the front "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures". I have never played Warhammer and 40K and don't really know anything much about either, but given the pictures provided I would have to say they are wargames.

[Finarvyn]

An interesting discussion. When I think of a "wargame" I think about the old Avalon Hill or SPI games with a hex map and cardboard counters, however so many newer games have cool plastic pieces and such. I think I tend to think of them as my army versus your army and we go at it. RISK would be a wargame and a board game. I guess chess would be a wargame, but it doesn't have that hex-and-cardboard feel to it.

While RPGs could involve battle, I don't think of them as a "wargame" but instead as a totally different category. Maybe it's the one-on-one scale that makes it different in my mind and wargames "should" be army-scale conflict. Squad Leader isn't a wargame to me, either, even though it was an AH product. Also, most board games (to me) aren't wargames, either. For example, Arkham Horror is a board game which has RPG elements but I don't think of it as a wargame.

It's like trying to define "fast food" and finding that most definitions have some exception somewhere. (Steak'n'Shake has a server bring your food on glass plates, for example, but the food is still fast food.) I'm thinking that each person has a slightly different notion and it's going to be impossible for us to arrive at one definition that fits all situations.

__________

EDIT: Strike through on the Squad Leader thought. Clearly me not being well enough informed.

[jmccann]

Nov 12, 2011 5:53:36 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

When I think of a "wargame" I think about the old Avalon Hill or SPI games with a hex map and cardboard counters ... Squad Leader isn't a wargame to me, either, even though it was an AH product.

Huh???

?

SL is the archetypal wargame, hex map and counters out the wazoo. Its direct descendant Advanced Squad Leader is probably the best known, most widely played wargame at this time, with dozens of modules and entire companies (well, they're little hobby outfits) devoted to just this one game. A definition of "wargame" that doesn't include SL is a pretty dubious one in my view.

Is it the presence of the RPG-like optional rules for playing a linked campaign of scenarios that makes you say that?

By the way, if you want I'll make you a leader counter w/ your name on it. Let me know the nationality, name and rank

[Finarvyn]

Nov 12, 2011 12:22:17 GMT -6 jmccann said:

SL is the archetypal wargame, hex map and counters out the wazoo.

Is it the presence of the RPG-like optional rules for playing a linked campaign of scenarios that makes you say that?

I'll confess that I owned a copy of Squad Leader for years, looked at it briefly, never played it.

Clearly I don't know what I'm talking about, but my impression was based in that it was essentially a WWII RPG with counters.

I withdraw my earlier comment.

[Mr. Darke]

If D&D 5e were, at least in spirit, close to the classic forms of the game I would be interested. I will admit I have been following the Essentials line for some time and have become more interested in it over time than I thought I would. If Essentials could be considered close to what 5e would be then I would defiantly check it out.

If we're talking yet another clone that covers 90% of the same ground the other clones have, I can't say I would be interested. I feel that each time we see a new clone we see less in the way of innovation and more in the way of repetition.

Two of my favorite 'clone' games are S&W and C&C. The reason I like them is that the spirit of the source material is there but they have an innovative way of execution. They are not the same material repackaged and resold.

Rather than another clone or yet another module, I would like to see supplemental material. New spells, classes, monsters and magic items are always welcome to me. Yeah, I'm the guy that buys splatbooks.

Of course this is a very relative position. Some like to see how close a clone can get to it's source, others like to see modules for systems considered 'dead'. I tend to like rules expansions and new material to use in game.

[Finarvyn]

Nov 12, 2011 17:09:33 GMT -6 Mr. Darke said:

Yeah, I'm the guy that buys splatbooks.

Interesting. I'm just the other way around. In general I'd like to see the interesting stuff in a core rulebook and find that splatbooks often add details I don't use.

For example, I love the AEG "roll & keep" version of 7th Sea. Bought the player's book and GM book the instant I saw them. Then I went out and bought every nation book I could find. Eventually I realized that the core rulebooks contained all I really wanted and that I never really used the nation books. While the nation books were well done, the total volume of material was more than I wanted since I like to start with something skeletal and fill in details myself.

So I think my "ideal" RPG would have whatever races and classes I want in the main rules so that I wouldn't need to expand.

[Mr. Darke]

Nov 12, 2011 21:38:50 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Nov 12, 2011 17:09:33 GMT -6 Mr. Darke said:

Yeah, I'm the guy that buys splatbooks.

Interesting. I'm just the other way around. In general I'd like to see the interesting stuff in a core rulebook and find that splatbooks often add details I don't use.

For example, I love the AEG "roll & keep" version of 7th Sea. Bought the player's book and GM book the instant I saw them. Then I went out and bought every nation book I could find. Eventually I realized that the core rulebooks contained all I really wanted and that I never really used the nation books. While the nation books were well done, the total volume of material was more than I wanted since I like to start with something skeletal and fill in details myself.

So I think my "ideal" RPG would have whatever races and classes I want in the main rules so that I wouldn't need to expand.

I agree with you that the most interesting stuff should be in the 'core' game. The supplemental material should be later additions that expand on the baseline created by the core, similar to what the supplements for OD&D did.

One thing that has bugged me about the clone games is that much of the material available in the SRD was not utilized or ignored. Now, I am not talking about the more heavy mechanics but material like monsters, spells and magic items.

For example; two of my favorite 'clones' are C&C and S&W: Core. Both are good games but, I am confused as to why the SRD was not fully utilized. Neither used the full spell, monster or magic item roster which leaves two options, that to me, are not desirable. One, you save the material for a later book or the players are left to convert the material themselves.

For me, the ideal situation would be the 'core' game using as much of the available material as possible. Now, for an OD&D based game the amount of classes can be trimmed to the three or four main archetypes but, the rest of the material should be used. I have found myself converting large amounts of the spell and monster lists for both games and wondering why this has to be.

If a good 'core' is made then you have a large amount of material, ideally in a single volume, that you can play with for years. Anything beyond that can, and should, be purely optional and can build upon the base but should be released with care.

I see room for both core and expanded material as long as it is managed well.

[talysman]

Nov 13, 2011 11:59:42 GMT -6 Mr. Darke said:

One thing that has bugged me about the clone games is that much of the material available in the SRD was not utilized or ignored. Now, I am not talking about the more heavy mechanics but material like monsters, spells and magic items.

For example; two of my favorite 'clones' are C&C and S&W: Core. Both are good games but, I am confused as to why the SRD was not fully utilized. Neither used the full spell, monster or magic item roster which leaves two options, that to me, are not desirable. One, you save the material for a later book or the players are left to convert the material themselves.

For me, the ideal situation would be the 'core' game using as much of the available material as possible. Now, for an OD&D based game the amount of classes can be trimmed to the three or four main archetypes but, the rest of the material should be used. I have found myself converting large amounts of the spell and monster lists for both games and wondering why this has to be.

That's something I can't agree with. Now, if there were mythological or legendary monsters in the SRD that haven't been used in the clones, or even just monsters that have been used in older editions, then I would agree they should have been included. But when I think about what turns me off of later editions, it's not just the skill and feat list or proliferation of classes; it's also the number and style of monsters (and spells) that were added.

For one, later monsters and spells often have too much specificity. There's no reason to have a monster that is just like a goblin, but blue, with a single arbitrary immunity; just use goblins and say they are that color and have that immunity, if you really need something like that. And you don't really need separate spells for some specific effects, like a circular wall of fire, or a triangular one, or horizontal one; just reuse the existing spell, perhaps with an added material component.

Additionally, you have the whole Diablo-esque "add a keyword" style of monster and spell creation. Do we really need Half-Fiend Arcane Gelatinous Cubes and Giant Half-Fiend Arcane Gelatinous Cubes?

But also, the sheer number of "core" monsters and spells tends to lure people into thinking they should use all of them, and all should be fairly common. It's better to include a carefully selected list as "core", add a list of possible modifications or twits that could be applied as needed, and publish supplements for monsters and spells that fit a particular setting concept.

And I bet the people who wrote each of the retroclones agree, at least for some of the examples they left out. There's no point in including something, just because you can, if you really don't like it.

[Deleted]

Nov 13, 2011 13:47:53 GMT -6 talysman said:

And I bet the people who wrote each of the retroclones agree, at least for some of the examples they left out. There's no point in including something, just because you can, if you really don't like it.

As the author Delving Deeper, this resembles my thinking. What we included in the boxed set clone was intended to serve as the foundation upon which to build an individual campaign. In my own campaign, for example, there are not many different types of man-type intelligent humanoids. Instead, there are goblins of various size, with larger goblins inhabiting colder regions and the smaller types inhabiting the hotter regions. Similarly, dragons are very rare IMC and the original assortment of them serves me just fine, I don't need a full line of Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful dragons.

Whatever the intent of author of the material upon which the SRD is based, my intent is to mimic the "toolbox" feel of a certain set of rules. We hand you (the world builders) the matrix and you make it your own. Do you need many types of Chaotic humanoids or a complete line of Lawful and Neutral dragons? They are easy to add.

This type of game of campaign building doesn't appeal to everyone; de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum. We are trying to preserve a very specific flavor and color of the game, this was important to us.

If one is looking for an improved, expanded version of the early version of D&D, I can highly recommend Mythmere Games' Swords & Wizardry: Complete. This is an amazing work with a lot of very good material for a more "advanced" flavoring to the old school style of gaming we all know and love.

[jasmith]

Nov 11, 2011 10:29:34 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Nov 10, 2011 20:31:59 GMT -6 @keltset said:

I don't see many wargamers around, but I see some miniatures gamers (Warhammer and 40K mostly) as well as some board gamers. Not too many hex-and-counter wargamers.

Huh!? how are you defining wargame? I think there's a couple very diferent meanings being argued about here, and thus the disagreement is one of understanding rather than fact. For reference, here is a good article on the subject.

faculty.virginia.edu/setear/students/wargames/page1.htm

Personally, I would would consider any game that involves the simulation of battle and death, no matter how abstract to be a war game.

I ran into some books at a used bookstore the other day, for a game called Flames of War, a WWII miniatures wargame. They looked to be printed in the past 10 years or so. I got home and did a quick ebay search and judging from the brisk business in books and materials being bought and sold, there's people out there still playing this historical wargame.

Which makes me wonder how many other wargames I've never heard of (never played that sort of game) are out there being played.

I think folks in our circles are way to quick to declare the death of these hobbies.

Just like people keep trying to prematurely bury Heavy Metal.

My little boy puts aside his DS and Wii to read books.

And lately, I've ran into folks who've quit WoW, due to being utterly sick of online gaming. I tired of video games, years before WoW came out. I never have tired of D&D.

[Mr. Darke]

For one, later monsters and spells often have too much specificity. There's no reason to have a monster that is just like a goblin, but blue, with a single arbitrary immunity; just use goblins and say they are that color and have that immunity, if you really need something like that. And you don't really need separate spells for some specific effects, like a circular wall of fire, or a triangular one, or horizontal one; just reuse the existing spell, perhaps with an added material component.

Have you looked over the SRD? There is precious little in there that describes what you have mentioned. For the most part, what is in the SRD is the most core material that has a legacy that goes back to almost as far as AD&D. There are no palette swapped creatures just to fill space and the spells are not as you described. Later non-ogl material was like that but not the SRD. Leaving no reason that the material should not be used.

But also, the sheer number of "core" monsters and spells tends to lure people into thinking they should use all of them, and all should be fairly common.

My experience has been quite the opposite. I tend to not like kobolds, their inclusion in core material does not make me think that I have to use them at all. As far as spells go I really, honestly, feel that the lists in S&W and C&C are very incomplete, leaving me with little choice but to drag up and convert lists from either the SRD or from earlier material.

Having more in the way of these things provide variety without forcing extra work upon the DM or players. Especially when you have precious little free time to devote to such things.

And I bet the people who wrote each of the retroclones agree, at least for some of the examples they left out. There's no point in including something, just because you can, if you really don't like it.

That is too relative a position for me to take. If I were to write a clone, and base it just off what I like, I can tell you that it would be better off as a set of House-Rules rather than a whole game. When writing for a larger audience what I like takes a back seat to appealing to the larger whole.

[Mr. Darke]

Nov 13, 2011 14:19:57 GMT -6 @dubeers said:

Nov 13, 2011 13:47:53 GMT -6 talysman said:

And I bet the people who wrote each of the retroclones agree, at least for some of the examples they left out. There's no point in including something, just because you can, if you really don't like it.

As the author Delving Deeper, this resembles my thinking. What we included in the boxed set clone was intended to serve as the foundation upon which to build an individual campaign. In my own campaign, for example, there are not many different types of man-type intelligent humanoids. Instead, there are goblins of various size, with larger goblins inhabiting colder regions and the smaller types inhabiting the hotter regions. Similarly, dragons are very rare IMC and the original assortment of them serves me just fine, I don't need a full line of Chaotic, Neutral, and Lawful dragons.

Whatever the intent of author of the material upon which the SRD is based, my intent is to mimic the "toolbox" feel of a certain set of rules. We hand you (the world builders) the matrix and you make it your own. Do you need many types of Chaotic humanoids or a complete line of Lawful and Neutral dragons? They are easy to add.

This type of game of campaign building doesn't appeal to everyone; de gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum. We are trying to preserve a very specific flavor and color of the game, this was important to us.

If one is looking for an improved, expanded version of the early version of D&D, I can highly recommend Mythmere Games' Swords & Wizardry: Complete. This is an amazing work with a lot of very good material for a more "advanced" flavoring to the old school style of gaming we all know and love.

This is why I will probably not buy into DD when it comes out. We have an OD&D clone (three versions, in fact) why do I, or we, need another? Another flavor of OD&D is not what I am interested in, especially if that means more work for me in having to make conversions to fit my game again.

So I stand by what I have stated before. I personally would like to see more support material released, not more clones or more modules. I think we need to supplement what is out there not make the same thing over and over.