Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 6:41:30 GMT -6
A right masterful handling of reproducing OD&D. I have been doing a lot of reading since I joined these boards.
I just had one comment/question: As I understand it, from my reading in order to claim compatibility with S&W for a published module or what have you, I would have to include the Ascending (d20) AC. Is that correct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 8:52:41 GMT -6
You are correct. In order to comply with the S&W open license, all public releases (free or commercial) of your S&W material must include both DAC and AAC (descending AC and ascending AC).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 18:32:11 GMT -6
You are correct. In order to comply with the S&W open license, all public releases (free or commercial) of your S&W material must include both DAC and AAC (descending AC and ascending AC). That is what I understood, but was hoping I was wrong. Thank you for the confirmation.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Feb 1, 2010 19:38:53 GMT -6
Good gosh, man. It's not like a couple of extra numbers is going to cramp your style that badly. Besides, I prefer when modules only include stats for monsters unique to themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2010 21:28:39 GMT -6
Good gosh, man. It's not like a couple of extra numbers is going to cramp your style that badly. Besides, I prefer when modules only include stats for monsters unique to themselves. I fully agree that modules only need stats for unique monsters or new monsters. And I don't mean any offense to anyone, as I said a masterful job was done putting S&W together, I just can not endorse Ascending (d20) AC. As long as I do it for free I can make it 100% compatible with OD&D, but I can't sell it that way, but if the only way to sell it is to endorse Ascending (d20) AC, then I will just have to forgo selling anything. No hard feelings and no big deal really, I just can't go there. Let's just leave it at that, it is really not my intention to rain on someone else's parade.
|
|
|
Post by apeloverage on Feb 1, 2010 22:29:49 GMT -6
As long as I do it for free I can make it 100% compatible with OD&D, but I can't sell it that way... That's not true, anyone can indicate compatibility with someone else's copyrighted game. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Feb 1, 2010 22:54:09 GMT -6
I can't fathom this whole "cannot endorse ascending AC" thing. It's also a sticking point for James M. of Grognardia. AC of 7? Oh no! I can't bear to put [12] next to it!
One might argue that the line must be drawn somewhere...but one would think it would be drawn somewhere more...meaningful.
(I use descending AC.)
Edit:
I'd also like to note that I'm not trying to be antagonistic. If you really don't like including ascending AC, so be it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 0:52:00 GMT -6
I fully agree that modules only need stats for unique monsters or new monsters. And I don't mean any offense to anyone, as I said a masterful job was done putting S&W together, I just can not endorse Ascending (d20) AC. As long as I do it for free I can make it 100% compatible with OD&D, but I can't sell it that way, but if the only way to sell it is to endorse Ascending (d20) AC, then I will just have to forgo selling anything. No hard feelings and no big deal really, I just can't go there. Let's just leave it at that, it is really not my intention to rain on someone else's parade. Okay, I'm going to try and give you the straight story here, but you'll probably read lots of posts around the 'net that contradict what I'm about to say. The usual caveat applies, consult a lawyer if you have specific questions. What I'm about to tell you, however, is gleaned from folks who I feel are authoritative in this area. Whether you sell something or give it away for free makes no difference. Infringing on someone's intellectual property (IP) is actionable. Whether this is likely or not depends on a lot of factors. Fan fiction, for instance, is largely ignored by IP holders. Indicating compatibility with someone's IP on your own commercial (or free) product is acceptable, so long as you don't use their "trade dress" (distinctive fonts, coloration, markings, etc.) and further indicate your material is not endorsed by the IP holder. The main problem comes in when you begin to use specific references strongly identified with that company. In the case of AD&D, for instance, the use of Beholders or Displacer Beasts. Keep in mind that selling or giving away a product for an out-of-print gaming system would probably not raise the ire of most IP holders. At most, you would receive a "cease & desist" letter from some legal firm. In most cases you will be ignored. Dragonsfoot gives away free AD&D gaming modules and holder of that IP has (so far, at least) not uttered so much as a peep. In the case of S&W, you could always send Matt (Mythmere) an e-mail describing what you specifically intend to do and ask him what he thinks. He is a very approachable guy. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Feb 2, 2010 5:56:10 GMT -6
They're right. The benefit of making it (officially) compatible with S&W is the fact that you can slap a big fat Swords & Wizardry logo on it. If you stated compatibility with OD&D, you'd have to put "Unofficial product for use with the original Dungeons & Dragons game" or something like that on it, and you certainly wouldn't want to mimic the font from the original game (although Geoffrey hasn't been sued, so go figure).
For those of us in the choir, it's not going to matter one bit. For some random person who might encounter your module, S&W is easier to look up and see what it's about (because you can read it for free, and buy a hardcover copy for half the price of bargain OD&D on eBay).
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Feb 2, 2010 10:19:46 GMT -6
I'm in the same boat as the "WTH" over the reaction to AAC. I grew up with DAC, I use DAC all the time, but I have absolutely zero problem to putting AAC stats in the stuff I write. If we want to keep the flames alive, having DAC/AAC seems to be a no-brainer in terms of expressing a concept of Armor Class. We have a zillion skill systems - and yet AAC seems to make people die inside. I honestly do not get it.
It's not like we're forcin' ya to have gnomes, ferchrissakes!
|
|
zendog
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 125
|
Post by zendog on Feb 2, 2010 10:21:31 GMT -6
I wasn't keen on dual AC stats at first, I mean I have no preference either way, ascending, descending. I just thought it would be less fussy to pick one of the other. However, the more I use both, the less of an issue it becomes. I've just go used to writing AC: X [Y]
|
|
|
Post by moonlapse vertigo on Feb 2, 2010 10:47:30 GMT -6
If it's really that much of a sticking point, why not just take the Raggi approach and list the armor they're wearing? Seems like a PITA of a workaround, but if you're absolutely inflexible it might be an option.
|
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Feb 2, 2010 11:41:58 GMT -6
Personally, I find the single saving throw category much more off-putting than the AAC stuff. But even then, there's nothing stopping me from using my old screen's saves or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by verhaden on Feb 2, 2010 12:09:51 GMT -6
I'm mulling using a modified version of Delta's Target 20 system for saves.
His default system is as follows: d20 + level + type bonus >= 20
Type: spells +0, breath +1, stone +2, paralysis +3, and death +4
--
So for a 3rd level OD&D fighter, you need to roll a 12 to save vs. death ray or poison. In Delta's Target 20 system, you need to roll a 13 (+3+4) to save vs. death. In S&W, you need to roll a 12 (13-1 fighter bonus) to save vs. death or poison.
--
So what if we assumed that the S&W save is roughly a general save vs. death? Use Delta's Target20 system modifiers and make the following flat modifiers for all saving throw rolls: -4 to spells, -1 to breath, -2 to stone, and -3 to paralysis.
--
3rd level OD&D fighter: roll a 16 vs spells (>=16) Delta's Target 20: roll a 17(+3) vs spells (>=20) S&W w/ Delta modifiers: roll a 17 (-4) to save vs spells (>=13)
--
I've yet to really do a numbers comparison, but I'd imagine it works out fairly well. Of course, you might as well use Delta's Target20 system wholesale if you're going to go through all that.
|
|
|
Post by Random on Feb 2, 2010 17:47:13 GMT -6
Personally, I find the single saving throw category much more off-putting than the AAC stuff. But even then, there's nothing stopping me from using my old screen's saves or whatever. Well the classes have a couple of bonuses built in to give a small bit of variety. The starter set I began with had a single save category (and I used it for half a decade), so the concept doesn't seem quite as blasphemous to me.
|
|