|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Feb 16, 2015 6:48:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Feb 16, 2015 9:19:10 GMT -6
It's interesting that he thought there was a gap in the coverage of the retro-clone movement. We're past the point now where there are any gaps, but just redoing the same combinations with minor variations.
Still -- Iron Falcon. I like that name...
~Scott "-enkainen" Casper
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 16, 2015 17:22:21 GMT -6
I actually agree with Gonnerman that this is filling a gap. Swords & Wizardry Core is the only thing in the same space; the other OD&D clones all exclude more Greyhawk material than Iron Falcon is adding in. Now, we're in fine grained differences between them, but from what I've seen so far this may be the first clone that I can just hand to players and have the OD&D game as I'd like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 16, 2015 18:18:50 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure Seven Voyages of Z includes Greyhawk too.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 16, 2015 18:36:14 GMT -6
Not to take this thread on a tangent, but Chris Gonnerman made a curious comment in that DF thread in response to a question. He stated he could not compare his rules to any other game due to the OGL. Is this true? Or did he mean he could not compare his rules to the "original game".
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 16, 2015 18:53:27 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure Seven Voyages of Z includes Greyhawk too. Certainly not in the sense that Iron Falcon does. For instance, Iron Falcon has attribute charts very close to the ones found in Greyhawk, while Seven Voyages of Zylarthen has completely sui generis attribute bonuses listed. And of course, Zylarthen uses 1d6 damage, while Iron Falcon has variable weapon damage. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Feb 16, 2015 19:26:38 GMT -6
I took a close look at IF at the stage it's in. It looks really solid. More the merrier I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 16, 2015 20:33:41 GMT -6
Not to take this thread on a tangent, but Chris Gonnerman made a curious comment in that DF thread in response to a question. He stated he could not compare his rules to any other game due to the OGL. Is this true? Or did he mean he could not compare his rules to the "original game". The OGL prevents an OGL-publication from explicitly associating itself with any non-OGL IP. I.e., if I were to write an OGL-based fantasty RPG, it could not (legally) include or refer to the D&D identify specifically, or any other protected/non-OGL IP belonging to WotC or any other publisher. But it could refer to and reuse anything published as open-game content. Certainly not in the sense that Iron Falcon does. For instance, Iron Falcon has attribute charts very close to the ones found in Greyhawk, while Seven Voyages of Zylarthen has completely sui generis attribute bonuses listed. And of course, Zylarthen uses 1d6 damage, while Iron Falcon has variable weapon damage. The tricky thing is that hardly anything of the OD&D game/supplements is represented verbatim in the SRD. Everything else is legally WotC's IP. So there's a very fine line for the retro-OGL-publisher to tread between being all legal and OGL-complaint, and not. How "close" can an OGL-publication be to WotC's IP and still be legal? That one's with the lawyers... |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 17, 2015 4:34:13 GMT -6
The tricky thing is that hardly anything of the OD&D game/supplements is represented verbatim in the SRD. Everything else is legally WotC's IP. So there's a very fine line for the retro-OGL-publisher to tread between being all legal and OGL-complaint, and not. How "close" can an OGL-publication be to WotC's IP and still be legal? That one's with the lawyers... It's specific expression, not game mechanics, that can be copyrighted. That much is well known. Since Iron Falcon's expression in the charts is not identical to that of OD&D or Greyhawk, it is copyrightable and therefore can be brought under the OGL. (This is something of a slippery issue, since if they were found to violate copyright the OGL on those products would be invalid, and invalidate the OGL on products that reference them, but OSRIC and BFRPG have been out for almost 9 years now with no major lawsuits, and are much closer to their respective source games than 7VoZ - so I'd think that it is not necessary to make wholesale changes for legality's sake.) |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Feb 17, 2015 5:37:51 GMT -6
It's specific expression, not game mechanics, that can be copyrighted. That much is well known. Since Iron Falcon's expression in the charts is not identical to that of OD&D or Greyhawk IF is still in progress, sure, but it presently includes tables of figures that look to me identical--or near as--to the original work; go check the charisma table, the cleric spell progression, the reaction table. The cleric XP progression is the same, the turn undead table is the same but switched around, just for a few examples skimming though. It also includes the original's PC level titles which are surely WotC IP. I hope the author intends to address these kinds of things before it's all done... we'll see  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Feb 17, 2015 6:13:15 GMT -6
Not to take this thread on a tangent, but Chris Gonnerman made a curious comment in that DF thread in response to a question. He stated he could not compare his rules to any other game due to the OGL. Is this true? Or did he mean he could not compare his rules to the "original game". The OGL prevents an OGL-publication from explicitly associating itself with any non-OGL IP. I.e., if I were to write an OGL-based fantasty RPG, it could not (legally) include or refer to the D&D identify specifically, or any other protected/non-OGL IP belonging to WotC or any other publisher. But it could refer to and reuse anything published as open-game content. The reason I asked is because the question posed had to do with S&W, not any WotC IP. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Feb 17, 2015 7:55:26 GMT -6
The reason I asked is because the question posed had to do with S&W, not any WotC IP. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.) The OGL does two things, basically. First, it lets you use Open Game Content, up to and including reprinting the OGC verbatim, but also covers any derivative works. (It's not really clear in RPGs what constitutes "derivative work," but the OGL makes sure it's definitely covered, since you have full reprint permissions.) Second, it forbids you from indicating compatibility with any other product licensed under the OGL. The only way you can indicate compatibility is by using a trademark license. The intent of this was to get publishers to use WotC's d20 System Trademark License, which has been revoked. (All the mounds of 3e product with the "d20 System" logo were released under the d20 STL.) If you look at the back of any Swords & Wizardry rulebook, there is a "Swords & Wizardry Compatibility Statement License" that explicitly allows products to state compatibility with S&W; there are similar licenses for OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, and probably numerous other similar clones, though S&W is the only one that forbids you from using the license to commit fraud in the state of Texas. There are just some things you shouldn't mess with. But Chris Gonnerman takes the "agree not to indicate compatibility" to mean that he can't do so when discussing the game. Which is probably not a bad idea, although I very much doubt that Matt Finch would ever sue him for indicating that Iron Falcon and Swords & Wizardry are compatible. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Feb 17, 2015 10:12:37 GMT -6
Matt gave Chris written permission to make comparisons and contrasts over on Dragonsfoot. So, now we can talk about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Feb 17, 2015 23:44:34 GMT -6
I actually agree with Gonnerman that this is filling a gap. Swords & Wizardry Core is the only thing in the same space; the other OD&D clones all exclude more Greyhawk material than Iron Falcon is adding in. Now, we're in fine grained differences between them, but from what I've seen so far this may be the first clone that I can just hand to players and have the OD&D game as I'd like it. Just to get this thread back on track (we've all debated the OGL and IP and copyright and trademark matters and misconceptions and confusion ad infinitum, so let's not rehash that here): I think it is a gap, and I wonder how many people actually saw this combination od 3LBBs + Greyhawk as "D&D" back in the day - surely a substantial number? As far as I know 3LBB gaming is really an artefact of the OSR movement rather than something that actually happened at the time. We were just as susceptible to splatbooks back then, it's just that ours came in the form of fanzines and magazines and the occasional supplement or "companion". Come to think of it, though, Mazes & Perils does kind of take this track, by extending Holmes to level 12 and adding in pretty much everything from Greyhawk. Anyway, I am very impressed with BFRP so I'm looking forward to what he comes up with for this game named after an iron-coloured hawk-analogue. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Mar 16, 2015 15:19:43 GMT -6
Always good to remind ourselves of this... |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Mar 16, 2015 15:23:36 GMT -6
From the introduction, this seems to be a pretty succinct statement of what he's after:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Mar 17, 2015 13:55:19 GMT -6
I'm a huge fan of BFRPG and think a lot of Chris and what he has done so far. However, Iron Falcon strikes me as too late to the table. The writing is good and I like the ideas but, games like S&W and Delving Deeper have already covered this ground and I find it hard to find room for Iron Falcon when I already have a good solid game to use. I will be watching things as they unfold but there is a lot that will need to happen for me to have more than a passing interest in this game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 18, 2015 13:01:32 GMT -6
Agreed. One of the first and most influential clones was of OD&D + Greyhawk: …and it has definitely captured the niche. While I agree that Matt did change some things, my understanding is he wanted to play it safe, legally. And it looks like Iron Falcon is going to make its own fair share of changes, so I’m not sure what it has going for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Mar 19, 2015 14:09:35 GMT -6
Not to derail but; I see S&W (especially Complete) as an update of OD&D and a possibility of what the game would look like had TSR went with a second OD&D edition rather than AD&D. Like you said, things were changed, for legalities and otherwise, but the game still feels like OD&D. As well Matt broke ground into and area that was neglected for some time. I have followed the project for some time and am pleased with where it is at. Matt was rewarded for a job well done (at least one Ennie and a solid publisher) and he deserves it.
I really hate to say it but I.F. will have to do something pretty big to compete. Sure I'll pick up a copy to support Chris, he's a good guy. However I am not sure it will see much use.
|
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 20, 2015 15:32:40 GMT -6
Took a break from writing and looked around, and found this thread. Thanks for all the kind words, guys! I'm a huge fan of BFRPG and think a lot of Chris and what he has done so far. However, Iron Falcon strikes me as too late to the table. This may be so. But even though Iron Falcon isn't the kind of collaborative project that Basic Fantasy is, it's still being done as if it were Open Source. (It is OGC, after all.) Open Source is ultimately driven by creators fulfilling their own wants or needs. I started out writing Iron Falcon because I didn't think S&W was as close as I wanted to be to that particular era of game. I set it aside when I decided S&W was already as close as I was... that is, that I was making the same decisions as Matt did. But then I read a blog post (a series of them, actually) berating him for not getting close enough, and when I analyzed the "evidence" I concluded I could get closer. I'll admit I was unaware of some of the other OSR 0E-era clones, but now that I do know about them, I'm finding they don't target quite the "moment" I'm aiming for. But yeah, it's late in the game, and I'm not really bringing anything special or innovative to the table. This isn't BFRPG, and it's not supposed to be. For me, writing Iron Falcon is a way, probably for me the only way, to (a) learn how the early games worked while (b) creating something I can use for my own games. (a) is important. I wanted to know just how far away from the early game I'm targeting that I actually was... using an existing clone might be entirely acceptable, except that I can't compare the fidelity of any of the clones to 0E without understanding it first. So I kind of had to do it. I've been told by a few purists that I'm a bad person because I'm not perfectly representing the 0E experience (though to be fair, it's really the 0E+Supplement-Wargame experience I'm going for). I've been told by a few others that my choices of what to make optional vs. mandatory are, well, not so much wrong as suboptimal. One particularly unhappy fellow freaked because I officially allow Dwarf Clerics. Seriously, is it THAT important? Eh. It sells, or it doesn't sell. People like it or they don't. I don't know how it will shake out, and I'm not really sure that it matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Mar 20, 2015 17:25:17 GMT -6
Keep on keep'n on.
I appreciate the purists view point. It help keeps a sense of tradition so that we know where ideas came from and remember why things are. The additional rules like white box, basic fantasy, delving deeper, blue holme, labyrinth lord, and the smattering of others, I've seen as published versions of other gamer's house rules. I really like them. The 3LBB and Greyhawk were how one man (and obviously many of his fans) like to play the game. Some folks like to make adjustments so that the mechanics sit right in their mind, or maybe they just want to allow dwarf clerics in an attempt to step away from someone else's interpretation of a setting and implement their own.
It is never too late to release a rule-set. Perhaps the OSR movement is dying out and there will be little interest. The movement might continue at a healthy pace. I can't say as I don't track the demographic. Either way, it will always be fun to read other gamer's thoughts on the game. Looking forward to reading the new material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Mar 20, 2015 17:31:34 GMT -6
Chris, just write the game you want. People will like it. Or they won't. Don't let the turkeys get you down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Mar 20, 2015 18:50:28 GMT -6
Welcome to these boards, Chris!  I hope you'll find this place as useful as I did - there's really no better place to winkle out obscure minutiae about OD&D and Holmes than this. These things come into being through love of the hobby, whether they make it "big" doesn't really matter to most of the creators I think. The same thing can be said for the huge majority of clones. So far I think it's pretty interesting, because 3LBB + Greyhawk is of course the Holmes way.  |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Mar 20, 2015 20:17:44 GMT -6
I've been told by a few purists that I'm a bad person because I'm not perfectly representing the 0E experience. James Altucher says that no matter what you create, somebody will hate you for it. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Mar 21, 2015 7:03:39 GMT -6
Now geoffrey, what would you know about that? |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 21, 2015 7:56:41 GMT -6
Chris, just write the game you want. People will like it. Or they won't. Don't let the turkeys get you down. Eh, not all that bothered, actually. Possibly a bit defensive though. Welcome to these boards, Chris! Thanks, but actually I've been a member for a while. I just don't have time to check in as often as I'd like. I hope you'll find this place as useful as I did - there's really no better place to winkle out obscure minutiae about OD&D and Holmes than this. These things come into being through love of the hobby, whether they make it "big" doesn't really matter to most of the creators I think. The same thing can be said for the huge majority of clones. So far I think it's pretty interesting, because 3LBB + Greyhawk is of course the Holmes way. The OSR is a niche of the RPG hobby, and the RPG hobby is honestly still a bit of a niche itself. So Iron Falcon will be a niche of a niche of a niche. I'm not expecting anything huge...  I've been told by a few purists that I'm a bad person because I'm not perfectly representing the 0E experience. James Altucher says that no matter what you create, somebody will hate you for it. Indeed, so it is written, so shall it be. I have to say, though, I do not remember the hissing and spitting being at the level I've experienced lately when I released Basic Fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 21, 2015 8:55:44 GMT -6
So far, I like what you are putting together solomoriah. It seems that these type of projects are received by people of basically two camps- those who think we have enough clones and those who think the more the merrier.I probably fall in the latter category. To me, the process of creating captures the spirit of the OSR. If I'm being honest, whether I'll purchase or adopt such a rule set would rest more on aesthetics and layout at this point, though. These are really things of individual taste. I dig the faded Iron Falcon symbol on the cover, for instance, and I shy away from image heavy layouts and color interior art. What strikes me as odd is, who can really complain about you offering free content? You'll get no hissing or spitting from me |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Mar 21, 2015 12:48:53 GMT -6
I have to say, though, I do not remember the hissing and spitting being at the level I've experienced lately when I released Basic Fantasy. But Chris, according to your own statement (and as was obvious to anyone following the flow of conversation at DF at the time), an anti-S&W blog was the inspiration for your clone. That blog is nasty and hateful, and is probably what set the tone. Openly declaring that you’re going head-to-head against S&W probably put S&W fans within the old school community on the defensive. I doubt there were any analogous hard feelings within our community when you released Basic Fantasy. What strikes me as odd is, who can really complain about you offering free content? You'll get no hissing or spitting from me I haven’t been following the development, but the initial announcement says, “I plan to charge a bit of profit for this one.” Just FYI. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Mar 21, 2015 13:40:49 GMT -6
I have to say, though, I do not remember the hissing and spitting being at the level I've experienced lately when I released Basic Fantasy. But Chris, according to your own statement (and as was obvious to anyone following the flow of conversation at DF at the time), an anti-S&W blog was the inspiration for your clone. That blog is nasty and hateful, and is probably what set the tone. Openly declaring that you’re going head-to-head against S&W probably put S&W fans within the old school community on the defensive. I doubt there were any analogous hard feelings within our community when you released Basic Fantasy. What strikes me as odd is, who can really complain about you offering free content? You'll get no hissing or spitting from me I haven’t been following the development, but the initial announcement says, “I plan to charge a bit of profit for this one.” Just FYI. Now Falconer, don't start stirring the crap and dragging it over here. The blog you referenced happens to be by one of the mods on DF. If I recall correctly, he use to support and contribute to S&W too. Check out the names on the old S&W sites download page hereBeyond that, as you well know, Chris offers all his work for free as a pdf. He sells Basic Fantasy and it's supporting material in print at cost. He's still offering Iron Falcon for free as a pdf, but wants to make a small amount on the physical copies for the time and effort he's putting into it. There's nothing that I seem to be misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
Post by solomoriah on Mar 21, 2015 17:14:03 GMT -6
Derv has it right. I have some sweet, exclusive cover art from Al Cook that will only be available in the print version; there's a small sample on the project page. But the PDF is and will always be free, and the entire content is OGC as usual for my works. I plan to release an adventure or two for Iron Falcon under much the same terms.
Yes, I was influenced by that particular blog. Not by the vitriol, but rather by the facts he presents in between his harsh words. As I said, I started the project and then set it aside when I decided S&W was already as close as I was getting... it wasn't until I read that blog that I understood what Matt changed.
Matt Finch and I have a cordial relationship. He and I have a "separate agreement" as defined in the OGL that allows us to speak about each other's games and compare them to our own, which covers S&W on his side and both BFRPG and Iron Falcon on mine. I have a similar agreement for BFRPG only with Stuart Marshall (OSRIC) and Dan Proctor (Labyrinth Lord). Makes all our lives easier. So anyway, I'm not really competing with Matt... as he said, any material made for one of our games is good for the other.
|
|
