Quote from: EOTB;584618And no, I am not delusional to think that if there weren't all the current rulesets that old school games would move a hundred thousand units.  Just that whatever that potential maximum is, I doubt the current approach is a path to that.

Earlier I stated I had reasons to believe why the multitude of rulesets wouldn't be a long term issue. The biggest is because of the network effect. The popular retro-clones will remain that way because they all enjoy a substantial player base. In Northwest PA there are a lot of players playing Swords & Wizardry because that what I introduce people too. And in the past six months I am seeing gamers show up at local cons and the game store who have used Swords & Wizardry because of the people I originally introduced it too. And it just goes on from there.

Swords & Wizardry along wth OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and a few other retro-clone enjoy a large and diverse player base that for the foreseeable future will keep growing. Note it is now it not a lock, after all Pathfinder did manage dethrone D&D 4e. People make mistakes when publishing commercially and the right combination of misjudgments and mistakes could sink any of the big retro-clones. But that all that means, that another retro-clone would supplant it and inherits its audience.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;584641This is an example of what you speak of:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/104202/A-Curious-Volume-of-Forgotten-Lore

No OGL to speak of. Explicit mention of usability with AD&D, OSRIC, and Labyrinth Lord on the cover.

(There are modules that take a similar approach.)

Hmmm. The prevalence of clones made me think you'd get locked up (exaggeration) for saying 'My supplement is for the three core AD&D books'.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;584641This is an example of what you speak of:
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/104202/A-Curious-Volume-of-Forgotten-Lore

No OGL to speak of. Explicit mention of usability with AD&D, OSRIC, and Labyrinth Lord on the cover.

(There are modules that take a similar approach.)

Any time I hear or read "more realistic" in an ad blurb about a fantasy rpg, especially D&D, I cringe a little inside.

You know, Zak, I can say five nice things about you in five different places, and you never appear, one allusion (well, and I did comment on that one YDIS picture, but you did look silly in that, come on) and BANG! there you are.


I will say, for the record, that I think that Zak is a good writer and a decent illustrator, it is just a few other things I don't agree with.

Quote from: _kent_;584637Is it possible to release a supplement without creating a clone and yet avoid legal problems? If for example someone independently created a magic system and classes which could be used with AD&D, OD&D, and recent clones how do you pitch it in the market?

Could you for example turn your website into a 50 page pdf and sell it?

Is it possible, perhaps. A publisher would be advised to talk a intellectual property lawyer. Understand it not just about copyrights, it also about trademarks, trade dress, and several other related concepts.

For example Wizards could sue an publisher for violation of trade dress. That the fact they used AC, HP, THACO, and the entire package of AD&D terms confuses the customer into thinking that it is a officially endorsed product of Wizards of the Coast.  Under United State Law, a person/company can't sell a product of their own creation if it confuses a person into thinking that it was made but another person/company. Even if patent, trademarks, or copyright wasn't infringed. Now the problem is knowing what that line is and that what IP Lawyers are needed.

This issues is mitigated by using the D20 SRD and the OGL. Because all the terms mentioned above were released in the SRD.

It is about risk. The OGL greatly reduces the risk of publishing for older editions. If you can handle the risk by affording a IP lawyer, or having no assets worth suing over then you can try to forego using the OGL. But many of us are not in that position, and OGL is what makes it possible for many of us to publish for older editions without putting our homes and assets at risk from a lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast.

Quote from: _kent_;584643Hmmm. The prevalence of clones made me think you'd get locked up (exaggeration) for saying 'My supplement is for the three core AD&D books'.

Sadly, the simple existence of the OGL makes people think that too.

But there are ways for a commercial product to legally indicate compatibility with someone else's trademark, even without a license. Companies and individuals have been doing that for D&D and AD&D for many years.

Quote from: estar;584646A publisher would be advised to talk a intellectual property lawyer. Understand it not just about copyrights, it also about trademarks, trade dress, and several other related concepts.

Yes, agreed, especially with the recommendation to talk to a lawyer.

QuoteThis issues is mitigated by using the D20 SRD and the OGL. Because all the terms mentioned above were released in the SRD.

For completeness, THAC0 isn't covered by the D20 SRD.

QuoteIt is about risk. The OGL greatly reduces the risk of publishing for older editions. If you can handle the risk by affording a IP lawyer, or having no assets worth suing over then you can try to forego using the OGL. But many of us are not in that position, and OGL is what makes it possible for many of us to publish for older editions without putting our homes and assets at risk from a lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast.

While the OGL gives you a safe-ish harbor, it doesn't actually guard against a lawsuit from WotC. Being that they have plenty of money, they could (in theory, and in some, but not all countries) effectively bully you into submission, even if you were in the right.

(It's arguable that that's what TSR did to Mayfair in order to establish their 1984 (IIRC) trademark agreement.)

Also a publisher can potentially be in the wrong, even if they use the OGL. So you really ought to get legal advice either way.

Quote from: estar;584646Is it possible, perhaps. A publisher would be advised to talk a intellectual property lawyer. Understand it not just about copyrights, it also about trademarks, trade dress, and several other related concepts.

For example Wizards could sue an publisher for violation of trade dress. That the fact they used AC, HP, THACO, and the entire package of AD&D terms confuses the customer into thinking that it is a officially endorsed product of Wizards of the Coast.  Under United State Law, a person/company can't sell a product of their own creation if it confuses a person into thinking that it was made but another person/company. Even if patent, trademarks, or copyright wasn't infringed. Now the problem is knowing what that line is and that what IP Lawyers are needed.

This issues is mitigated by using the D20 SRD and the OGL. Because all the terms mentioned above were released in the SRD.

It is about risk. The OGL greatly reduces the risk of publishing for older editions. If you can handle the risk by affording a IP lawyer, or having no assets worth suing over then you can try to forego using the OGL. But many of us are not in that position, and OGL is what makes it possible for many of us to publish for older editions without putting our homes and assets at risk from a lawsuit from Wizards of the Coast.

Is it naive to think WotC would just never bother going after the author of an 'AD&D supplement' which is unlikely to sell above 1000 units?

Quote from: _kent_;584649Is it naive to think WotC would just never bother going after the author of an 'AD&D supplement' which is unlikely to sell above 1000 units?

Yes, that would be naive.

Number of copies sold is not necessarily relevant, depending on the sort of issue WotC has with the material.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;584648For completeness, THAC0 isn't covered by the D20 SRD.

True, but as a mathematical expression it not likely to be protected. But it is more riskier to incorporate it. In fact I would agree that the retro-clones are in a more riskier area than what Paizo did with Pathfinder. But the increase in risk is minimal due to the prevalence of alternative RPGs that were derived from the D20 SRD.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;584648While the OGL gives you a safe-ish harbor, it doesn't actually guard against a lawsuit from WotC. Being that they have plenty of money, they could (in theory, and in some, but not all countries) effectively bully you into submission, even if you were in the right.

True, but you need to look at the past behavior of Wizards in regards to the OGL as well. For me personally I feel their past behavior doesn't leave me with much concern that they will take any type of action against an OSR publication, unless there is outright copying from older books.

Quote from: Guy Fullerton;584648Also a publisher can potentially be in the wrong, even if they use the OGL. So you really ought to get legal advice either way.

I done that for a few things but invariably it boiled to me explaining to them what is all about. It just not an area where there are a lot of lawyers who understand it.

Basically the rule is simple. don't copy other people's work or look unless you have explicit permission. And even when there is an open license, it just better if you email them and explain what you are doing. You don't have to do this for every thing you use, but for the stuff that is crucial to your product, the courtesy make it work out better in the long run. For example I talked to Matt Finch, the author of Swords & Wizardry,  prior to the release of Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: _kent_;584649Is it naive to think WotC would just never bother going after the author of an 'AD&D supplement' which is unlikely to sell above 1000 units?

No, because Wizards did just that in the d20 days when people used material they weren't supposed to. For example the proper names of demons and devils that were unique to D&D.

Quote from: Gib;584594Nothing new to see here folks, the rational changes but the attitude remains the same.

My dear "Gib" if that is even your onlinename, it is of course 18th century eurocentrism.

Quote from: Settembrini;584655My dear "Gib" if that is even your onlinename, it is of course 18th century eurocentrism.

You are correct, of course. As for the name, my feelings on it are much the same as yours at this point.

Somewhere upthread, someone suggested tha JM could have been more open with the problems.
In many parts I agree. The negative feelings I have towards JM are 99% fueled not by what he does specifically, but how he goes about it.
Do I care if somebody blathers boring stuff about ARES magazine? Usually I do not. Is it suprrising that converting DM notes into a publishable product takes huge efforts? Been there, done that.

So, to the upthreadian idea I say: if he had the grace to speak openly and with some respect to his audiences intelligence and empathy...and if he had some online-empathy himself...which he does not seem to have...then there would not have been any kerfuffle at all. But now? Heavily censoring his blog?

But the way it has been presented...deception is definitely going on. And again, the xxk$ already on his bank account is the thing that seperates a hobby project in development hell and sympathy for a writers block from deception and fraud.

The more honest kickstarter would have been eerily similiar to what some of the great Old Ones (Kuntz?Mentzer? i forgot) once tried: Pays us for a year and pray we come out with something good.

ADD: And what about the big elephant in the room?
Say JM already was having financial problems? And the money was ARLEADY SPENT? What then?

The cycle
financial problems-desperate measures-depressive moods-inability to work-financial problems -etc.
is a staple of fiction and fact.

Quote from: Gib;584597As for the OSR, whatever the fuck that is, enterprise has gradually replaced enthusiasm as its motive force. While enterprise was an acceptable, and even desired element, as a prime mover it is shit and leads to the proliferation of shit.

Yes, that's a valid distinction, and a damaging attitude. I will gladly pay money for someone's homebrew supplement - but paying money by itself neither interests, nor satisfies me.