|
Post by jmccann on Feb 18, 2012 18:35:40 GMT -6
TSR published their game nearly 40 years ago. The first 5 books are clearly in the public domain in the US, any minor googling will make this obvious. In theory, you should be able to make a work based off of those 5 books and be in the clear. Yes, anyone can publish those 5 books. That doesn't mean anyone can publish a game or other derivative works based on those books using recognizable names and depictions. If someone were to publish a game based on Barsoom with John Carter they would quickly hear from these guys: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Rice_Burroughs,_Inc., and no doubt the Walt Disney company. It might be possible to legally make a game based on only the first 5 books without a license, steering clear of any unauthorized use of a trademark or copyrighted element, but even if you did I am 100% sure you would have to defend it in court at very high cost against a company which has very deep pockets. The attempt to do so would also require a lot of legal research with an IP lawyer to determine just what was legal and what might be infringing. Any company with those resources would just buy a license if they wanted to publish such a game.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 18, 2012 11:43:53 GMT -6
The first 5 books are public domain in the US, so (AFAIK) it should be perfectly legal. Which, I would imagine, means a Barsoom RPG would be as well. But IANAL, so take that with a grain of salt. I don't think that's right. TSR obviously thought so and they were wrong. Now Disney has an obvious interest, that makes it even less likely. The empire of the evil mouse will not permit a game to be published that we on a ODD board will like.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 11, 2012 23:14:49 GMT -6
Wow.
That is a pretty interesting document. I will certainly be snapping it up soon after release.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 11, 2012 18:40:03 GMT -6
But I have to confess I don't quite know what you mean by "GH or BM campaign models" - what are you thinking here? GH=Greyhawk BM= Blackmoor I know what these stand for, that is not the question. GH or BM model as compared to what? Your point implies a contrast and I don't know what contrast you are trying to point out.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 9, 2012 23:20:28 GMT -6
I would ask whether or not the language in OD&D points one towards the Greyhawk or Blackmoor campaign models - if the structure of OD&D - in that sense - leads one to these kinds of structures. It is interesting to read this today since earlier I read in a blog post pointed to from these boards that initially (before publication in '74) Gygax and his players just called their game Greyhawk. But I have to confess I don't quite know what you mean by "GH or BM campaign models" - what are you thinking here?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 9, 2012 1:02:42 GMT -6
Does it have an option for personal/private projects? THAT is what I did not see in my browsing about and account creation and it stopped me dead in my tracks. I had to move on to other responsible work, but if anyone else finds out first, please share! The prices shown there are for "member orders" which means either proofs or you can buy as many as you like. Before the book gets released you have to set up the distribution, so as far as I can tell you could upload your files and order as many physical copies as you like and simply not set up distribution. Ditto, and Jim, what're you gonna be selling?? My science fiction/ fantasy magazine will come out in April. Before that, I'd like to get a little test project done - I calling it Campaign Atlas. It will be either perfect bound or saddle stitch, letter sized, with graph paper on the left and hex paper on the right. I don't know if it will sell much, it is just a test project. The other items I am working on are a booklet for my wilderness mapping project odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=workshop&action=display&thread=6765 and a book on setting up outdoor campaigns in general.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 8, 2012 20:17:39 GMT -6
I seem to remember that CreateSpace also doesn't offer a hardback option. Is that still the case? Yeah, I think they only do perfect bound paperbacks. So that is a strike - but for me, I'll make a spine to save $5 per copy. I'll address some of the other questions later. I am still investigating Lightning Source who have a longer setup process involving communication by email with an actual human. Weird. -- corrected spelling of Lightning Source
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 7, 2012 23:08:14 GMT -6
I finally found a price calculator on Createspace and played around with it. It is so much cheaper than Lulu to print a book that I can't believe anyone uses Lulu at all. www.createspace.com/Products/Book/www.lulu.com/publish/books/?cid=nav_bksThere used to be a $39 setup fee per title but that has been eliminated. They do have a $25 option for some kind of expanded distribution, but w/ the basic distribution you get on Amazon. You also can get onto the Kindle marketplace. Is there something I am just not getting? I priced a 64 page letter size B&W booklet - $2.15 each on CS, $7.10 on Lulu. Shipping in smallish bulk, it looks like I can get 10 copies of the book sent to my house for less that Lulu charges w/out counting shipping! I have not dug into the ins and outs of the CS royalties, but the difference is so great that if Amazon's cut is too big, I'd just have the books shipped to me and fulfill them myself (I realize I'd need to get non-free ISBNs of my own to best do that).
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 5, 2012 14:32:11 GMT -6
I am located in Seattle. I see a few recent postings from Seattle - any interest in a (heavily house-ruled, variant) OD&D campaign? I run a bi-weekly 1e ad&d game at garys games in seattle (greenwood). If you are interested in joining us sometime we use this as a group page to discuss and schedule games etc. games.groups.yahoo.com/group/InSearchOfTheUnknown/cheers, Scaly Thanks - I'll join the yahoo group and see how the scheduling works. Gary's Games is reasonably close to me.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Feb 1, 2012 23:31:06 GMT -6
And bees don't intend to build hexes, they just try to build circles and fail... Not so. The real story is more interesting. Charles Darwin devotes a chapter in Origin of Species to this which you can read here: www.classicreader.com/book/107/58/
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 31, 2012 20:43:14 GMT -6
My read is that he's looking for a community blog - with multiple posters - since he won't produced enough volume to keep up a personal blog. Yes that's it.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 31, 2012 20:42:08 GMT -6
...are the two that spring immediately to mind. I know there are at least a few others. I'd be interested in such a project... Of these two, only "Mule Abides" seems to be alive. The other has no posts since September despite having tons of contributors. I knew of both of these but did not realize they were group efforts. I'd be interested in such a project... I'll keep that in mind. Are you saying you'd be interested in reading it or contributing? If contributing, how often do you think you would post?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 30, 2012 23:55:39 GMT -6
I am interested in finding out if there are any OSR group blogs. I have some ideas which I think would be nice to publish in a blog but I am positive that I don't have enough posts in me to sustain my own blog. There is nothing worse than an infrequently updated blog and I don't want to have one of those. But I think with a couple of other like-minded bloggers with similar interests, an interesting blog could result.
Are there any blogs like that?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 29, 2012 18:36:07 GMT -6
AAC is completely optional, and multiple saving throws are included since S&W Complete in every version. Those advices (or suggestions) are useful for some people - especielly those, who are new to old-school gaming. I don't understand why did you find them so offensive. They rub me the wrong way but they're not so bad. The other things I mentioned were more important in forming my preference for S&W over LL.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 28, 2012 17:15:39 GMT -6
I would avoid this as multiple dice give a bell curve and weight toward the center of the range. That's assuming you want middle of the range for the result. =) mako's gives a nice flat result across the whole range, which provides more randomness to the result. I've used both methods in campaigns depending upon what I was looking to do. Yes it depends on what you are trying to do. If you are interested in simulating real world population size phenomena often a normal probability curve will be called for, and using multiple dice is a good way to simulate this. It is still random although it is less uniformly random. If you don't care it doesn't matter. I like verisimilitude, if not realism. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 28, 2012 13:48:54 GMT -6
I don't like AAC and single saving throw. The many suggested house rules in sidebars also bug me. Don't suggest my house-rules for me thanks!
These are not huge issues. In addition to this though, the fact that LL seems to be reliably in print with a core book and some options, while S&W is split across multiple confusing releases with some kind of kerfuffle over authorship (which I can't figure out) in the recent past is enough to sway me toward LL. I don't have time to read S&W white box, core rules and whatever else there is to figure out how to play S&W or which version I want.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 28, 2012 12:18:25 GMT -6
I would avoid this as multiple dice give a bell curve and weight toward the center of the range.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 28, 2012 12:03:20 GMT -6
I'm going to go against the flow here for just a moment. Don't misunderstand, Matt's S&W is a fine product and you'll do just fine if that is the way you go. Still, I'd like to give mention to Proctor's "Labyrinth Lord" and the (cough-cough) original edition supplement to LL: "Original Edition Characters". The OEC makes for an OD&D gaming experience that is a hard combination to beat! www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htmlI looked at S&W and LL and picked up LL instead and OEC. I think it is more faithful whereas S&W takes some liberties.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 25, 2012 0:16:52 GMT -6
If there was a slight it was done by Gygax back in the late 70s. Part of the motivation of putting out AD&D was to cut Arneson out of royalties. It is not WOTC slighting Arneson.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 24, 2012 20:35:52 GMT -6
Cool, thanks. I'm looking forward to continuing to read the rest of the series.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 23, 2012 23:23:50 GMT -6
I read a couple of the entries and they were interesting but it is difficult to read them in series because the links are not in place. Could you put together an index post, or else put in links from each one to the next?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 21, 2012 21:54:04 GMT -6
The real problem is whether ebooks of the LBBs or other older material would generate enough sales that Amazon, B&N, or Apple would be willing to sell them at all. In other words, it may be too high a cost for the *distributor* to consider. I work at Amazon, and Amazon will happily host your digital files with a detail page on the retail website even if no one ever buys one. They will also happily store as many physical items as you like with a detail page as well. There will be a monthly fee, but there is no lower limit to sales for Amazon to sell your products.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 21, 2012 14:20:29 GMT -6
4. The thing that I wonder about is that much of the clone product line is based on the fact that OD&D is out of print and not supported. If WotC was to put OD&D back in print, I wonder if that could have a legal impact on the way clones are written and/or marketed. On the other hand, if we had OD&D again we really wouldn't need the clones any more. As long as the retro-clone rule sets are carefully written to be compliant with the OGL there should not be a legal issue based strictly on the reissue. I don't think they would be more likely to pursue violations of long-published works as a result of reissuing the LBBs. I think there could be a chilling effect if WOTC decided to start throwing their weight around since the tiny OSR publishers are not going to be willing or able to put up a legal defence in most instances, but I think that would be largely independent of a LBB reissue decision. It will be interesting to see how OSRIC, a the clear 1e AD&D retro-clone is treated. I don't have any kind of data to back this up, but I think that WOTC would not want to risk the loss of goodwill that going after a retro-clone would result in. They seem to be interested in bringing old edition enthusiasts back into the fold, so I think that is unlikely as a move like that would piss off everyone who plays an edition < 4. Regarding your second point about need, I have to disagree - new people now are not going to have the patience to slog through the LBBs. We love it and think it is charming, but I don't think that demand for the clones will dry up as a result of a LBB reissue. Just look at the recent back and forth about when HP are rolled for - a basic, crucial point that affects all characters is poorly specified enough to support multiple interpretations. And that is not an anomaly. The clones perform a valuable service by expressing some (more or less) compatible and coherent interpretation of the LBBs.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 21, 2012 0:40:07 GMT -6
It's weird... 5 years ago I would have bought these, as at that time 1e was my fave. But now, exposure to the OSR renewed my interest in Basic and especially 0e, which is now my go-to edition. I'd love to see (and would buy) not a strict reprint of the LBBs, but a reorganization and merging like what was done with the fan-made Frazetta art version. I can see the appeal of that, but I think the danger is that, just like the fan-based reorganizations, some editorial changes will be made. Personally, I'd just take a nicely cleaned up scan and drop in some Frazetta line drawings and other similar art (maybe including some DAT, DCS, Otis etc.). The only changes I'd like to see made are fixed typos. I'd leave all the references to OS, CM etc. as is.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 21, 2012 0:34:41 GMT -6
I started writing up an off-topic response on the Delving Deeper thread and thought it would be better to put it here as it is kind of a tangential reply to a tangential reply which has basically nothing to do with Delving Deeper's final round of copy editing. Since WotC has done a 180 in many ways, nothing is certain anymore. Personally, I do not expect to see an OCE reprint any time soon (though, believe me, I would love to be proven wrong!) just due to lack of mass appeal. This conversation has gotten me thinking about a few things. What I don't get is why they don't just POD release it and sell PDFs. Are they worried that it would cannibalize sales of their recent editions? I think it must be, but I think the effect would be small, and the good will might result in some grognards buying 5th e. (hey don't laugh, this is all hypothetical!) if it turns out to be a all-editions-welcomed kumbaya love-in. Then I wondered if it would have a chilling effect on the OSR, cannibalizing sales of newer games including DD. After thinking about it, I don't believe it will for a few reasons. Back in the day I and others had OD&D, basic, advanced, MA, GW, Stormbringer, CoC, etc. etc. etc. some of which I never played or played only once or twice. In other words, there is always room in most people's collections for one more game (or a dozen. But there IS a problem of where to stash them all....) If DD gets good reviews I will probably buy a copy to mine for ideas even if it isn't my primary rule set. Another reason I don't expect it to have much impact on sales of more modern games is that OD&D is (how to put this diplomatically) perceived as being written in a somewhat unclear, oddly organized, obscure and occasionally opaque way that with the benefit of decades of RPG reading and writing that modern game rules avoid, and a lot of referees will welcome having a modern set of rules even if they keep a set of LBBs at the table. And finally, even if as in my case OD&D is referenced as a rule source, I think most OS campaigns are so heavily house-ruled that easy availability of OD&D will have little practical effect. I think it would have a slight opposite effect and if they did it would shine a light on the OSR as more WOTC fanboys would notice the OSR than otherwise, and a few would be attracted to the newer games as well. As for whether the LBBs being released not under OGL would have an impact on OSR titles due to OGL issues, I doubt that it would. Having DD published would probably make it marginally harder for WOTC to establish rights to some aspects of PI but I doubt that it would really have a significant impact. I suspect, despite not being a lawyer, that the existence of S&W, LL, OSRIC and Basic Fantasy (I am probably leaving a few things out) for years means that horse is well and truly out of the barn. One more rule set will change little with regard to publication under OGL. I am curious to read what others think about this.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 19, 2012 14:41:57 GMT -6
I was a bit skeptical when I first saw this, but I confirmed with Jim Ward directly that this is in fact legit. Awesome news! Now why won't wotc do this for od&d?
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 14, 2012 20:24:59 GMT -6
We used White box, then White box + MM, then White box + MM + PHB and then DMG. I never saw basic, really, I played some Holmes + MM I think in '77, but even to this day I haven't actually played Basic. We always saw it as a way for people who missed white box to get into the game. And since we already were, we never even looked at it. We had something similar, but with us, most people I played with starting in 78 used Holmes + MM + supplements till the DMG came out, then everyone pretty much switched to AD&D.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 14, 2012 16:34:36 GMT -6
Anecdotal evidence suggests that most people were blissfully unaware of the Basic/Advanced split. They learned the game from Basic, got the PHB + MM as soon as they could, never bothered to master the DMG (but probably got some cool stuff from it), and indiscriminately used modules from both lines. I doubt many people continued to treat race as class for very long, but it is a useful introductory simplification. This is how we played while waiting for the PHB and then the DMG. I remember blissfully reading the PHB in our backyard, partly due to the cover and the greatly improved interior art. I never heard of race as class till 2009 or so. I don't think any of us ever systematically read the rules.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 13, 2012 20:03:26 GMT -6
Oh I get it now -
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jan 13, 2012 10:04:26 GMT -6
Can someone please update this? What is the point of bumping the thread if there is no coupon code?
|
|