As stated by EOTB:
Quote from: EOTB;1097513From a cold hard marketing standpoint, I don't think there's much benefit to other games trying to use the OSR label when 99% of the consumers buying based on it will be surprised if what they bought isn't for D&D.
Abstract "other games deserve..." aside, if the word "umptyfratz" is associated with circular saws, it doesn't do me any good to use it to market table saws.
This is totally true, so, from a marketing point of view, do we need a "movement" label, acronym, whatchamacallit?
If so, may I suggest Old School Gaming?
Logos by me, released under public domain.[ATTACH=CONFIG]3651[/ATTACH]
What do you think?
What do the D100 retros call themselves? Or the OpenD6 games? Or the Fantasy Trip retro?
AKA, how are they listed for purchase on DriveThruRPG?
And what other old games need to get a retro who don't have one already?
Please (insert your deity here) no.
We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1097555What do the D100 retros call themselves? Or the OpenD6 games? Or the Fantasy Trip retro?
AKA, how are they listed for purchase on DriveThruRPG?
And what other old games need to get a retro who don't have one already?
Under their own ruleset as in D100, D6, etc. Can't find a single non-D&D based game in the OSR section.
Quote from: Omega;1097559Please (insert your deity here) no.
We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.
Game theft?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097562Under their own ruleset as in D100, D6, etc. Can't find a single non-D&D based game in the OSR section.
Is that a bad thing?
What forgotten game do you think needs a retroclone? I'm unsure if there's any forgotten systems left to clone!! Maybe settings to copy, but the retro-clone-craze went hogwild with old systems.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1097572Is that a bad thing?
What forgotten game do you think needs a retroclone? I'm unsure if there's any forgotten systems left to clone!! Maybe settings to copy, but the retro-clone-craze went hogwild with old systems.
Who said it was a bad thing? You asked I gave you an answer.
Not that I think game X needs a retroclone, I'm asking because it's true that as a "brand" OSR is heavily associated with D&D, so from a marketing point of view do we need/want another "brand"?
That's all.
I this as long as the term has 'Old School' in it, then I'm good with that.
However I'm sure the label OSR doesn't need to pertain to D&D OSR, but with games of the pre-1990 era that had similar principles.
Theoretically a Tunnels & Trolls retroclone would be OSR, or a Fantasy Trip retroclone, etc
There is a MERP retroclone called 'Against The Dark Master', which surely would fall under an OSR umbrella
There are entirely new game systems that have the same principles as old-school rpgs, so are these OSR?
Stuff like 'Sharp Swords & Sorcerous Spells' for instance.
Or 'Mothership'?
Hard to say what OSR actually is if the authors come up with new mechanics, but say that their game has an OSR vibe, so therefore it is OSR
Kinda blows away the definitions we have been using...
As an example, here is Ben Milton reviewing 'Mothership' on his Questing Beast channel.
As a reviewer and author, his name is often associated with the OSR, so I guess he is pretty comfortable with it.
He identifies 'Mothership' as OSR, yet it doesn't have TSR D&D-like mechanics, nor does it have a setting similar to the implied setting of D&D.
And yet this product is identified as OSR, so this is pretty interesting...
https://youtu.be/0FewzwxZWs0
Quote from: Mankcam;1097580I this as long as the term has 'Old School' in it, then I'm good with that.
However I'm sure the label OSR doesn't need to pertain to D&D OSR, but with games of the pre-1990 era that had similar principles.
Theoretically a Tunnels & Trolls retroclone would be OSR, or a Fantasy Trip retroclone, etc
There is a MERP retroclone called 'Against The Dark Master', which surely would fall under an OSR umbrella
There are entirely new game systems that have the same principles as old-school rpgs, so are these OSR?
Stuff like 'Sharp Swords & Sorcerous Spells' for instance.
Or 'Mothership'?
Hard to say what OSR actually is if the authors come up with new mechanics, but say that their game has an OSR vibe, so therefore it is OSR
Kinda blows away the definitions we have been using...
I have always been in the camp of anything pre 1990 is OSR, And regarding SS&SS it's based of off TBH (If not mistaken) I would say that if it has an OSR feel it should be considered as such. But the question goes more from a marketing point of view than my opinion.
Quote from: Omega;1097559Please (insert your deity here) no.
We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.
I have used nothing but what Wizards of the Coast has freely provided as open content.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097552If so, may I suggest Old School Gaming?
Logos by me, released under public domain.
What do you think?
Cool logo but what does this tell a person who looking for Traveller material versus Runequest material? (or any other old school RPG?). That was always the rub for an ecumencial old school branding especially since if using OGL open content you can't cite compatibility with specific trademarks.
Traveller has made the leap to an OSR like environment with Cepheus. It took a fuckup to make it happen but now it has people are learning that Cepheus means Traveller or more specifically non-Third Imperium Traveller. In the same way OSR means classic D&D mechanics.
Runequest has not made the same leap. Instead we have specific brands like Mythras, and Openquest. And not all of it based around the open content of Legends. Mythras uses a 3PP model like Savage Worlds.
Largely because Chaosium was successful retaining it leadership in the niche with Mythras a strong second.
I always figured that anything pre-1985 could be fodder for OSR stuff, but you don't see much(if any) of the non-D&D stuff because people just don't care enough. But they theoretically could. Otherwise, the name seems a bit of a misnomer to me. D&D is oldschool, but it's not all of oldschool. There's a lot there even in just the first decade, again if you care enough to look for it/crib from it.
Much of the OSR gained momentum, as I recall it, becasue WotC wouldn't release earlier versions of D&D. Now they have put out PDFs of most of the older versions and so the need to clone them has diminished a lot. Also, D&D could be "cloned" because of the open SRD that Wizards of the Coast released. Other games couldn't really be cloned unless they also have an SRD. (I'm pretty sure that Mongoose had one for Traveller and there may be a few others.)
Now, as to the OP's marketing idea -- it's a valid one in concept but weak in practice, I think. Saying that OSR is D&D and we need an "everything else" sounds good but much of the point of the OSR was creating products which could be used with older D&D editions. You would almost need to have one brand for each game line to be marketed, like OST (Traveller) or OSGW (Gamma World) or whatever. That way a consumer would know what you are trying to sell to them.
Quote from: finarvyn;1097642Now, as to the OP's marketing idea -- it's a valid one in concept but weak in practice, I think. Saying that OSR is D&D and we need an "everything else" sounds good but much of the point of the OSR was creating products which could be used with older D&D editions. You would almost need to have one brand for each game line to be marketed, like OST (Traveller) or OSGW (Gamma World) or whatever. That way a consumer would know what you are trying to sell to them.
Along with this there exist a group of hobbyists interested in playing, publishing, and promoting classic editions of D&D. Along with Traveller, Gamma World and other older RPGs. Each form a distinct group even after considering shifting interest and overlaps.
It not about tribalism but the practical things one has to do to run a classic D&D campaign versus a Classic Traveller campaign, or a classic Gamma World campaign. Or to share or publish material for any of these.
What happens is that people tend to focus on one or two of these as that is all they have time for.
I personally don't need more atomization in gaming. I'm not sure if I'm an outlier - I love checking out new systems, new novel ways (that usually aren't so novel) to "skin the cat". Etc.
I'm not sure that having some sub-tribe of "types" of games to distinguish OSR vs. Non-OSR matters? If so why?
Quote from: tenbones;1097663I personally don't need more atomization in gaming. I'm not sure if I'm an outlier - I love checking out new systems, new novel ways (that usually aren't so novel) to "skin the cat". Etc.
Yes but what do you invest the majority of your time in and how well does that work transfer to system X? I am sure you find it easier for some and more difficult or irrelevant for others.
Make a diagram of that and some of the tribalism will make sense.
Quote from: tenbones;1097663I'm not sure that having some sub-tribe of "types" of games to distinguish OSR vs. Non-OSR matters? If so why?
How easily you think Gypsy Knght Games, a Cepheus/Traveller publisher, can produce a Swords & Wizardry Adventure, or a D&D 5th edition?
I suspect about as easily as I can produce or play a Runequest/Legends product. It can be done but I have to take time away from something else. At some point there only so many hours in the days. It not like I haven't done nothing with the system (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/06/runequest-nights-and-oh-body-parts-flew.html).
Nothing wrong or nefarious it just how it is once you go beyond a certain point with a hobby. The key thing is not to get snotty about one's choices. I am not going to start criticizing Runequest because I don't have the time to spend writing or playing it. But unfortunately some people do.
Quote from: Omega;1097559We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.
Its tradition now. Gary stole the game from Dave. Lorraine stole the game from Gary. Peter stole the game from Lorraine. Ryan stole the game from Peter and released it out in the world for everyone to use.
Quote from: Omega;1097559Please (insert your deity here) no.
We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.
You mean copyright infringement?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097552...from a marketing point of view, do we need a "movement" label, acronym, whatchamacallit?
If so, may I suggest Old School Gaming?
...
What do you think?
I don't think such a movement/logo/label is needed (i.e., personally I don't think I'd find much/any value in it), but I also have no objection to someone trying to gain traction with the concept.
Quote from: estar;1097668Yes but what do you invest the majority of your time in and how well does that work transfer to system X? ...
I suspect about as easily as I can produce or play a Runequest/Legends product. It can be done but I have to take time away from something else. At some point there only so many hours in the days. It not like I haven't done nothing with the system (https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/06/runequest-nights-and-oh-body-parts-flew.html).
...
From your 2010 Blog post:
"...I plan to do some work on what I call Majestic Quests a d20 version of Runequest % system. This session showed me some of the strengths and pitfalls of the original game...."
No doubt Majestic Quests a d20 is still on the shelf, but I'm interested in your thoughts of why you think a d20 a d20 version of Runequest % system would still be "Runequest".
I've gotten a bit of pushback on another thread for suggesting the idea that most players in the hobby would find a d20 roll under version of RQ to be "good enough".
Quote from: Jaeger;1097898I've gotten a bit of pushback on another thread for suggesting the idea that most players in the hobby would find a d20 roll under version of RQ to be "good enough".
I thought we called that 'Pendragon'? :)
I for one, would love to see a few retro-clones of Shadowrun, any edition.
Quote from: estar;1097591Runequest has not made the same leap. Instead we have specific brands like Mythras, and Openquest. And not all of it based around the open content of Legends. Mythras uses a 3PP model like Savage Worlds.
Largely because Chaosium was successful retaining it leadership in the niche with Mythras a strong second.
Possibly also because Jeff spreads BS like this:
https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9809-just-a-reminder-there-is-no-ogl-for-brp-rq-or-coc/
"Q: Can I rely on the Mongoose RQ SRD to publish material?
A: No. Mongoose’s license for RuneQuest was terminated in April 2011. At that point, Mongoose lost all rights to continue using the RuneQuest trademark, or to create and publish material derivative from the previous copywritten material, or to issue any sublicenses based on that agreement. Since Mongoose no longer had any rights to RuneQuest, it has no ability to issue a third-party license to that material (which is all an OGL is)."
Quote from: Vile;1097974Possibly also because Jeff spreads BS like this:
https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9809-just-a-reminder-there-is-no-ogl-for-brp-rq-or-coc/
"Q: Can I rely on the Mongoose RQ SRD to publish material?
A: No. Mongoose's license for RuneQuest was terminated in April 2011. At that point, Mongoose lost all rights to continue using the RuneQuest trademark, or to create and publish material derivative from the previous copywritten material, or to issue any sublicenses based on that agreement. Since Mongoose no longer had any rights to RuneQuest, it has no ability to issue a third-party license to that material (which is all an OGL is)."
What Jeff SaidWhile BS, while there are issues with the first two Mongoose SRD incorporating a trademark as part of the text (the first) and part of the license (the second). However it rendered moot by the release of the entire text of the Legend RPG as open content under the OGL.
Something that when pointed out forced Jeff to state
https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9809-just-a-reminder-there-is-no-ogl-for-brp-rq-or-coc/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-145867
Q: What about Mongoose's Legend?A: Legend is its own thing and not under license from Chaosium or Moon Design Publications. Mongoose was perfectly entitled to take their work, remove from it those elements that were derived from RuneQuest or Glorantha and give it its own name, and then do with it as they see fit. Legend is not RuneQuest or BRP or Call of Cthulhu, and nor does it purport to be.
If Mongoose wants to do a OGL of their original work, that is not Chaosium's issue or concern.
Chaosium's Animosity Next the Chaosium is saying right now is because of the announcement of OpenCthulhu. The whole Licensing FAQ (https://www.chaosium.com/fan-use-and-licensing-q-a/) wasn't put up until June 11.
https://www.yog-sothoth.com/forums/topic/33031-open-cthulhu-announcing-public-beta-release-of-open-cthulhu-srd/
And the FAQ does try to mix in some FUD in to make their case. Which is unfortunate in my opinion.
Deeper IssuesHowever the above has little to do with my point. I been following this for a better part of a decades and when it comes to fantasy nobody is challenging the use of Glorantha like OpenCthulhu is doing with Call of Cthulhu. Instead like the OSR the d100 mechanics are used to prevent general fantasy RPGs and used for original settings.
And not a lot of people taking advantage of this. The various SRDs been out for a few years so there are quite a few works out there and a lot of them are good. But there not a overall sense of movement forward except among specific publishers.
Compare this to Cepheus/Traveller which as of a three years ago was in a similar situation as Runequest/D100 RPGs. Worse even as none of the available open content formed a complete RPG in the way the various D100 SRD did. But thanks to the TAS debacle, Jason Kemp was spurred to do the hard work of assembling everything, writing some original content to cover the gaps, and release Cepheus. More important the existing 3PP community warmly received Jason's work, and it attracted new authors. So now on DriveThruRPG there 300+ products for Cepheus and it growing rapidly at a rate comparable to the early OSR.
But it certainly did not hurt that it has been accepted by Marc Miller and given its own section on the official Traveller RPG forums.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1097593I always figured that anything pre-1985 could be fodder for OSR stuff, but you don't see much(if any) of the non-D&D stuff because people just don't care enough. But they theoretically could. Otherwise, the name seems a bit of a misnomer to me. D&D is oldschool, but it's not all of oldschool. There's a lot there even in just the first decade, again if you care enough to look for it/crib from it.
Some people apparently care since:
Dan Proctor resurrected a number of games published by Pacesetter and Wizard's World.
Chaosium re-released RQ2
Gila Games re-modeled The Arcanum by Bard Games 2nd Edition as a 30th anniversary edition.
Precis Intermedia has brought back Supergame and Timeship.
....among others.
Do we need a movement? It has already begun and is moving along at a turtle's pace, but still not bad.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097552What do you think?
At this point, no. That ship has already sailed. The time to have done so would have been when the OSR moniker was in its heyday. Now that OSR has become synonymous with older editions of D&D, this would look like a reactionary effort which casts as much light on the D&D games as it does on the non-D&D games.
Quote from: Jaeger;1097898From your 2010 Blog post:
"...I plan to do some work on what I call Majestic Quests a d20 version of Runequest % system. This session showed me some of the strengths and pitfalls of the original game...."
No doubt Majestic Quests a d20 is still on the shelf, but I'm interested in your thoughts of why you think a d20 a d20 version of Runequest % system would still be "Runequest".
The math and the system design would be the same just with a d20 instead of d100. Just as OD&D is still OD&D even if you use ascending AC as long as the number reflect the odds of the chart in Men & Magic. However it been 9 years since I looked at it so undoubtly there was some element that would required tweaking and thus not mathematically the same. I think criticals would been a problem area.
Quote from: Jaeger;1097898I've gotten a bit of pushback on another thread for suggesting the idea that most players in the hobby would find a d20 roll under version of RQ to be "good enough".
The consequence of making a d20 Majestic Quest would have meant that I would have to grow the audience myself. It would have different enough to be off-putting to the existing Runequest fan base.
Yeah you can make the math work but it not all about the math their aesthetics as well. Which is why OSRIC was still developed even though Troll Lords did a good job making Castles & Crusades compatible with AD&D material.
I never pursued Majestic Quests because none of my groups was interested in Runequest using a d20 or d100. As it turned we wound up liking the AGE system better.
Idk, I think D&D deserves the OSR treatment the most because people keep making clones of the cool D&D games they remember playing rather than ones that ever actually existed.
Few other games abandon their history like D&D or had enough players that remember it fondly while not owning original books.
No, OSR as a D&D level / class based system makes sense even if the games are not entirely compatible. They generally still share more than similarities than differences.
Some sort of "Old School Gaming" to represent retro-clones of Runequest, HERO, GURPS, TFT, Tunnels and Trolls, Aftermath, Daredevils, Bushido, Twilight 2000, Traveller, Merc, Behind Enemy Lines, Stalking the Night Fantastic, Fringeworthy, Top Secret, Top Secret SI, James Bond, Powers and Perils, Rolemaster, Warhammer etc etc is pretty much meaningless.
There is simply no solid tie between these games beyond all having been developed in the period from the late 1970s to mid 1980s. What attracts a player to a HERO retroclone, may not appeal at all to a player of a James Bond or Traveller retroclone.
The Swedish fantasy RPG Drakar & Demoner Expert from 1985 is something I would like to see a proper retro version of. Riotminds effort was pathetic. I also have high hopes for the upcoming new Swedish version of Chill (there was a straight translation back in the 80s), but the system will be different. I just hope the feel of the original Pacesetter game is respected.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1098063No, OSR as a D&D level / class based system makes sense even if the games are not entirely compatible. They generally still share more than similarities than differences.
Some sort of "Old School Gaming" to represent retro-clones of Runequest, HERO, GURPS, TFT, Tunnels and Trolls, Aftermath, Daredevils, Bushido, Twilight 2000, Traveller, Merc, Behind Enemy Lines, Stalking the Night Fantastic, Fringeworthy, Top Secret, Top Secret SI, James Bond, Powers and Perils, Rolemaster, Warhammer etc etc is pretty much meaningless.
There is simply no solid tie between these games beyond all having been developed in the period from the late 1970s to mid 1980s. What attracts a player to a HERO retroclone, may not appeal at all to a player of a James Bond or Traveller retroclone.
Ten years ago the idea was to get people playing a variety of older style games instead of just talking about them. Now that is happening more and more, little by little. Meaningless? Probably to most. I myself enjoy the variety and enjoy running a variety of games. With increased popularity in role-playing I now, for the first time in over two decades, get to play in a WFRP 1st edition game. And it is a lot of fun, bringing together gamers and those new to gaming.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097552As stated by EOTB:
This is totally true, so, from a marketing point of view, do we need a "movement" label, acronym, whatchamacallit?
If so, may I suggest Old School Gaming?
Logos by me, released under public domain.[ATTACH=CONFIG]3651[/ATTACH]
What do you think?
I like that logo a lot, actually.
Then again, I am a Pepsi fanboy so I may be biased....
I do agree we should see more attention focused on old-school gaming beyond TSR-era D&D (although TSR D&D was awesome and still is) but the one place where I disagree with the thread is that I think the cut off point for old-school gaming is not 1990 but 2000.
D&D 3E and the OGL (along with the resulting d20 boom and subsequent bust) had a huge effect on the RPG industry, I'd say it's probably the second biggest event in the history of RPG's after OD&D being released in 1974.
While the roots of "New School" Gaming as it is commonly understood began firmly in the 1990's, you still had a lot of "Old School" games such as AD&D 2E and the first edition of Vampire: The Masquerade.
I think the only reason why Vampire is considered the beginning of the "New School" has nothing to do with the game itself but rather how it was marketed and how the hobby reacted to it.
Vampire 1E was firmly an old-school game but with the veneer of a modern-day setting which was still considered a novelty in 1991 since most RPG's were either fantasy or futuristic science fiction. There were exceptions, of course.
But most of the successful modern-day RPG settings were superhero-based or licensed tie-ins until Vampire came along.
The problem was that Vampire 1E marketed itself as a "game of personal horror" and a "storytelling game" but that was really just a marketing gimmick that early White Wolf used to sell the game to demographics outside of the traditional RPG hobby.
And it worked. However, the success was a double-edged sword.
After Mark Rein-Hagen, Andrew Greenburg, and the Wieck brothers were ousted from White Wolf, you had a new crop of writers who became dominant at White Wolf who bought into VTM 1E's marketing a little too well and tried to force the marketing term of "personal horror" into an actual defined genre and play style since fun was not pretentious enough for their tastes.
Justin Achilli and Phil Brucato are among the worst offenders in this era for pushing the "Personal Horror Uber Alles" mentality, until the fuckers at Onyx Path saw what Achilli had done to the franchise and said "Hold my vegan soy latte..."
Needless to say, the push for personal horror failed every single time from Revised to Requiem to V5. Each backlash was worse than the last. And they still have yet to learn
A second camp emerged from this marketing, and that was Ron Edwards and The Forge, and when he crashed and burned, the Story Games movement emerged from the ashes.
While the later White Wolf games are most definitely "New School" and the Story Game movement is opposed to old-school gaming in every way imaginable, the first edition of Vampire: The Masquerade is very much an old-school RPG in the vein of Call of Cthulhu but is disregarded by old-school gamers because the success of its initial marketing gimmicks worked a little too well.
Quote from: finarvyn;1097642Also, D&D could be "cloned" because of the open SRD that Wizards of the Coast released. Other games couldn't really be cloned unless they also have an SRD. (I'm pretty sure that Mongoose had one for Traveller and there may be a few others.)
'Castles & Crusades' was 'D&D' cloned without using the SRD or OGL.
'Legends of the Ancient World' was 'The Fantasy Trip' cloned without using any sort of license or permission from Steve Jackson Games (or actually the previous owner).
The issue is that game systems themselves cannot be copyrighted, only patented.
Quote from: bat;1098122Ten years ago the idea was to get people playing a variety of older style games instead of just talking about them. Now that is happening more and more, little by little. Meaningless? Probably to most. I myself enjoy the variety and enjoy running a variety of games. With increased popularity in role-playing I now, for the first time in over two decades, get to play in a WFRP 1st edition game. And it is a lot of fun, bringing together gamers and those new to gaming.
That seems a little different issue than lumping all games older than X into a group. Not all old games are worth revisiting, some are just as viable today as they were 30 years ago, but for reasons they just fell off the field.
I'm not sure how slapping a Grey Haired Gamers Approved logo is going to do anything for them. If you are a fan of an old game get out there and promote it.
Quote from: finarvyn;1097642Much of the OSR gained momentum, as I recall it, because WotC wouldn't release earlier versions of D&D. Now they have put out PDFs of most of the older versions and so the need to clone them has diminished a lot. Also, D&D could be "cloned" because of the open SRD that Wizards of the Coast released. Other games couldn't really be cloned unless they also have an SRD. (I'm pretty sure that Mongoose had one for Traveller and there may be a few others.)
Mongoose Traveller 1e was OGL and did have a SRD. It doesn't really fit with the pattern of D&D OSR retroclones because MgT 1e was already very backwards compatible with Classic Traveller (and most versions of Traveller for that matter).
Quote from: DocJones;1098128'Castles & Crusades' was 'D&D' cloned without using the SRD or OGL.
'Legends of the Ancient World' was 'The Fantasy Trip' cloned without using any sort of license or permission from Steve Jackson Games (or actually the previous owner).
The issue is that game systems themselves cannot be copyrighted, only patented.
SJG didn't own the copyright for TFT, Microgames did, and the owner was MIA. SJG was too big to risk reviving TFT without proper rights so created GURPS. The TFT clones were small and didn't have much to lose at the small risk that the copyright holder who apparently had left the gaming scene would do anything about it.
You can copyright a game, but there is no protection for the system. As long as everything is fresh and in your own words it is not that hard to make a copy of a game. Armor Class might be an issue, but calling it Armor Rank (or some such) would be pretty safe even if it works almost exactly the same. Well used concepts like hit points are fair game.
The larger issue is deep pockets and lawyers, you don't have to be right if you have enough money to crush your opponent with the threat of legal action. TSR and Palladium were notorious for going after new RPGs early on.
That trick goes back well before RPGs, S&W used a dubious patent to prevent other gun makers from using a bored through cylinder giving them a big technical advantage for nearly 20 years. The Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers, used the Selden Patent on the automobile to skim off profits and control auto manufacturing which stifled automobile development during the first decade of the 20th Century. They were successful until Henry Ford was denied a license and then refused to pay royalties. The court battle went on for 8 years with Ford finally wining in 1911. Ultimately the Selden patent was bogus, it was for a very outdated style of automobile that couldn't even be made to work as it was described in the patent. The ALAM still made a lot of money from it before Ford ruined their good times.
Quote from: DocJones;1098128'Castles & Crusades' was 'D&D' cloned without using the SRD or OGL.
Not a rebuttal of your main point, but
Castles & Crusades used the OGL. (And, IMO, it was more of a "pseudo-clone" than a true clone. There are/were some significant differences, especially where C&C leveraged their siege engine approach to things. After I abandoned 3E I tried C&C for a campaign. I found myself house-ruling it to make it more like TSR D&D. Eventually I realized I was being ridiculous, and that since what I really wanted was TSR D&D, I should just play TSR D&D...)
Quote from: DocJones;1098128'Castles & Crusades' was 'D&D' cloned without using the SRD or OGL.
'Legends of the Ancient World' was 'The Fantasy Trip' cloned without using any sort of license or permission from Steve Jackson Games (or actually the previous owner).
The issue is that game systems themselves cannot be copyrighted, only patented.
Firstly, C&C absolutely used the OGL, and secondly, it's not particularly like old school D&D (and while I'm at it, not very good).
OTOH, you have something like Spears of the Dawn which is more or less African Old School D&D but doesn't use the OGL. OTOH, it doesn't use any names of D&D spells or such, it's completely from scratch but with the same mechanics.
That's really that advantage of the OGL, you can re-use a lot of the text, some of which is essentially unchanged from AD&D 1e.
It's true about Kevin Crawford/Sine Nomine. His games don't use the OGL.
I agree with people who think it is not a good idea.
OSR or retro clone was meant in D&D context only. D&D got over-complicated.
About other RPGs -- the term "old school" is so over-used. It's like every game is old school when it is not trying to do something "smart". If it wants to remain simple and traditional, it is automatically "old school". Why can't we have new RPGs that are simple and traditional? "Old school" is a marketing label that people use to improve the sale. Just make better games that sell themselves. If it is old school, maybe it's already been done -- maybe not doing it any more? If it is a new game that deserves it's existence then be proud of it and call it NEW and BETTER! Not label itself as shadow of the former glory.