|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 6, 2010 10:46:52 GMT -6
What would it take?
I mean, the rules aren't covered under the SRD, but just as early RPGs stripped D&D down to bare mechanics, which aren't copywriteable, couldn't we do the same thing with the three tables that make up the core of the Fantasy Supplement?
The stuff that Dan, Jason and Fin have been working on are great, but you still need the Chainmail rules, which aren't legally available even by pdf anymore. This is a major stumbling block, I think, to getting more actual experimenting with the possibilities of this system.
|
|
|
|
Post by achijusan on Jul 6, 2010 11:14:56 GMT -6
I think it is pretty straightforward... since rules cannot be copyrighted.
just use a 2d6 target number system; with a hit causing 1d6 points of damage.
call movements in numbers of squares or hexes; and note that each square or hex is 10'
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 6, 2010 11:30:14 GMT -6
Well, remembering we're talking about three separate systems here, I think you're right on with the Troop system (pg. 40 in the Chainmail rules), and probably both of the missile-fire tables both earlier in the rules (pg. 11) and the ones connected with the Man-to-Man table (pg. 41), but the Man-to-Man table (pg. 41) and the Fantastic Combat (pg. 44) tables might be a bit trickier.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 6, 2010 20:13:28 GMT -6
Over on my blog, it was suggested that I start by restating the tables and rephrasing anything specific from the FS text. This seems like a solid start to me. So, I see two directions, here: 1. Trying to clone just the Fantasy Supplement, as (ironically) an alternative combat system for D&D. 2. Actually creating less of a clone than what we're calling over on the TARGA Wiki a "simulacrum"---an actual new game in the spirit of the FS, using the restated tables as its mechanical base. I'm not quite sure which way I want to go... |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 7, 2010 7:14:43 GMT -6
Well, Spellcraft & Swordplay already functions as a sort of Simulacrum, albeit based upon the Man to Man and Troop Type systems (with the advent of the mook rules in MM) rather than the Fantasy supplement.
I posted this on your blog, but I'll re-post here (expanded a teensy bit) for everyone to see.
On one hand, I agree that the lack of a legally available version of Chainmail makes it difficult for newcomers to add to the discussion. However, so does the lack of a legally available version of OD&D. Let's face it--in general and especially for this discussion, Swords and Wizardry doesn't cut it. It's a fine (I'd say exceptional) old school game, but OD&D it's just not.
I don't want anyone to think I'm blasting S&W--I don't want to remotely attack the work that was done on either the core rules OR White Box. Both are absolutely fantastic games, and great simulacrums for old school play, and I have purchased both versions. I just think they miss the boat on being retro clones of OD&D. Too many alterations, tweaks and deviations from the original core.
Of course we do have Labyrinth Lord plus Original Edition Characters, which IS 99.5% OD&D...but again, there's no references to Chainmail in there anyway to foster discussion, so that doesn't help us at all. The closest we have to a Chainmail-driven retro game is my own Spellcraft & Swordplay, and that's "inspired by," not "cloned from" (though my combat tables are close enough to Chainmail's MtM tables for gummint work). In any case, it doesn't serve our purposes, either.
In the end, the point is, it's a bit moot that Chainmail isn't legally available because neither is OD&D--at least, not in the sense of a version that suggests the use of Chainmail for combat. That Fin, myself, aldarron, and others have done scholarship about how to use it with OD&D is no different than my Age of Conan or Doc's Warriors of Mars (or Geoff's Carcosa, for that matter). It's just more support for an old school, oop game.
That being said, if you want to clone the rules, then your best bet is to rewrite them as they stand, simply rephrasing what is already there in your own words, and then reproduce the table, but shift all the target numbers up by one (so a 10 on the original table becomes an 11 on yours). You can then--if you want to go for a 100% accurate re-statement, reproduce the mathematical accuracy of the original system by having heroes roll 2d6+1 instead of just 2d6, which shifts the die probabilities to match your new target numbers.
Voila--a retro-clone re-stated just enough to get around copyright infringement.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Jul 10, 2010 13:18:36 GMT -6
Not that it matters, but I'd love to see a retro-clone/simulacrum of Chainmail, whether in whole or in part. It's something that's sorely lacking and, given that we can't assume WotC will ever again make legal PDFs available again, I think it's vital that an alternative come into being.
|
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 11, 2010 19:56:47 GMT -6
What might be an interesting experiment would be to take the S&W Whitebox, scrap the combat system, and replace it with a Chainmail based one. It would certainly make it feel more like OD&D but probably wouldn't be legal.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 11, 2010 20:07:03 GMT -6
I'm not sure why it wouldn't be legal if, as we've been discussing, the tables are revamped to get to their essence.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards the creation of a new game extrapolated from the Fantasy Supplement engine, as it were. I'm about 75% done with a previous project that did this, but made explicit reference to Chainmail. If I re-approach it with this new direction in mind, it hopefully won't take me to long to get a draft done for comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 12, 2010 4:40:25 GMT -6
What might be an interesting experiment would be to take the S&W Whitebox, scrap the combat system, and replace it with a Chainmail based one. It would certainly make it feel more like OD&D but probably wouldn't be legal. Oh, the irony. When I first signed on to the WB project that was actually my plan, since I was using Chainmail that summer to run my home campaign. Folks I talked to said it was too radical a change and convinced me to stay more traditional with combat. In part, that's where my "Ringmail Variant" came from. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 12, 2010 14:07:04 GMT -6
I'm not sure why it wouldn't be legal if, as we've been discussing, the tables are revamped to get to their essence. I dunno, but I was thinking it might not conform to S&W's requirements in addition to whatever Wotc issues their might be. As an aside, Kesher I think you know this but I thought I'd mention that the attack matrix in D@T is a reworking of the Fantasy Combat table. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 12, 2010 15:17:10 GMT -6
Indeed, which is why I just pulled out my copy to start rereading...  As for the other concerns, the more I think about this, I don't think a reworking would be any more at risk for the litigious hammer than, for instance, D@D would be for extrapolating from all its sources. Probably best if I just do the work and hand everyone something tangible, instead of my own abstractions... |
|
|
|
Post by piper on Jul 12, 2010 18:25:27 GMT -6
I dunno, but I was thinking it might not conform to S&W's requirements in addition to whatever Wotc issues their might be. Matt's (aka Mythmere) requirements for S&W are really easy to follow. Basically, if any armor class listings list both ascending and descending values in the text, you are probably okay. Matt is an approachable guy, btw, so if you have a question a quick read of the boilerplate at the end of S&W doesn't answer, drop him an e-mail. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 12, 2010 20:35:42 GMT -6
I dunno, but I was thinking it might not conform to S&W's requirements in addition to whatever Wotc issues their might be. Matt's (aka Mythmere) requirements for S&W are really easy to follow. Basically, if any armor class listings list both ascending and descending values in the text, you are probably okay. Matt is an approachable guy, btw, so if you have a question a quick read of the boilerplate at the end of S&W doesn't answer, drop him an e-mail. Therein lies the problem, though--a Chainmail retro-clone wouldn't use AC at all, but rather simply would list what type of armor you were wearing. You could, of course, introduce AC into the equation, but that would be a step away from cloning Chainmail, back towards D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by piper on Jul 12, 2010 21:39:22 GMT -6
Therein lies the problem, though--a Chainmail retro-clone wouldn't use AC at all, but rather simply would list what type of armor you were wearing. You could, of course, introduce AC into the equation, but that would be a step away from cloning Chainmail, back towards D&D. Really? I'm thinking no AC = no problem. The Ascending/Descending AC is a major characteristic of S&W, if you don't need to use it then that eliminates a big editing problem for you. (I won't mention how sheepish I am that I forgot about no AC in Chainmail ...) |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 13, 2010 7:48:26 GMT -6
I think the problem is that the S&W license requires that you include Ascending AC and Descending AC. I don't think you could put out an S&W branded (or licensed) product without including AC. But of course, I'm not the license holder for those--Mythmere would have to make that call.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 13, 2010 7:49:48 GMT -6
I'd also like to point out that you have a very close approximation of Chainmail implicit in Spellcraft & Swordplay--the base system is inspired by the Man to Man rules, and my Mook Rules and Mass Combat are both inspired by the default Chainmail rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 13, 2010 8:23:52 GMT -6
You know, Jason, I think I need to pick up a copy of S&S....long past due! |
|
|
|
Post by piper on Jul 13, 2010 8:52:20 GMT -6
I am an admittedly rather simple fellow, but I would interpret that requirement as "if you have AC in your S&W compatible work, then you must include both DAC and AAC in your work" and not "you must include both AAC and DAC in your S&W work."
Again, Matt is a real approachable fellow. If someone has specific questions about releasing a S&W product he should just e-mail the guy and ask him what he thinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jul 13, 2010 9:05:06 GMT -6
Kesher, the mook rules are in Monstrous Mayhem, but I also made them available as a free download from my lulu store.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 13, 2010 9:08:05 GMT -6
Piper: I think right now we're just ruminating---I myself wouldn't use S&W as a base for this project. @jason: Downloading now!
|
|
|
|
Post by piper on Jul 13, 2010 10:41:24 GMT -6
I think right now we're just ruminating---I myself wouldn't use S&W as a base for this project. Okay, no problem. The thought occurred to me while I was reading this thread how sad I would be a great product didn't see print because of a minor misunderstanding of compatibility requirements. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jul 13, 2010 11:27:37 GMT -6
I think the problem is that the S&W license requires that you include Ascending AC and Descending AC. I don't think you could put out an S&W branded (or licensed) product without including AC. But of course, I'm not the license holder for those--Mythmere would have to make that call. Yeah, that's exactly the issue I had in mind, but I dunno if there would be other ones or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Haldo Bramwise on Jul 13, 2010 20:05:01 GMT -6
You only have to use ascending armor class and such if you want to claim compatibility with S&W - otherwise the entire text of S&W is Open Game Content.
|
|
