It must drive some people crazy that guys like Dancey and Mearls read my blog, write on my sites, and generally hear what I have to say.

Quote from: RPGPundit;742723More specifically, though, it was (regardless of how well-designed) the game that most D&D gamers didn't want.

RPGPundit

It's so different from D&D that that's not surprising - except to WoTC, apparently. I agree with you that 4e was a clusterfuck. The alienating marketing and the lack of continuity from 3e were big mistakes. So were (a) the game being rushed out unfinished and (b) the lack of understanding within WoTC of the game they had made and what it was actually good at, as evidenced by the terrible 4e adventures WoTC produced.
I think 4e is a great game, a great "Fantasy Marvel Superheroes" game. Mechanically, at core it's better designed than 3e in most respects - playing the stripped down D&D-Gamma World game which uses the 4e engine recently really brought that home to me.
But it's not D&D, it doesn't play like D&D, if you try to use it to play D&D you get a highly unsatisfactory experience.

Quote from: Omega;742725This is a recurring theme with WOTC and any sideline product they happen to pick up. Wether or not it is intentional or not is anyones guess. But games like d20 GW and a lesser degree 4eD&D Gamma World seem to have been tailor made to repulse as many fans of the original as possible.

The only problems I could find with 4eD&D Gamma World were (a) the moronic notion of collectible cards for mutations & tech and (b) the complete lack of support after the two expansions and (c) monsters have 2-3 times too many hp, as in 4e.

OK that's quite a lot of problems. But otherwise it's a great game.

Quote from: RSDancey;743280Mouseguard is a Modern Midmarket RPG.  It's more successful than most RPGs published since 2000.  It has probably outsold every "OSR" game combined.  Do you think that game is a failure?

Mouseguard is popular, but I doubt it's played as much as Labyrinth Lord alone (you can download LL free so retail sales aren't the best comparison); never mind when you add in Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and Dungeon Crawl Classics is really an OSR RPG. At the London D&D Meetup the main games after 4e and Pathfinder are probably DCC, Dark Heresy, Labyrinth Lord, FF Star Wars; with individual showings for eg Mage and various homebrews. I see Mouse Guard talked about a fair bit in indie circles but it wasn't being played at the London Indie Games Meetup when I visited, they were all doing their own thing. It's not something you'd see featured on the shelves of London games stores either, unlike the above games (plus Runequest) - even LL has more games store visibility than MG; Dark Heresy Star Wars or DCC have vastly more.

Edit: I guess Mouse Guard was popular six years ago? I had a small baby then, no time for RPGs. Sounds like it made a similar splash to Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which was definitely a big fad at the time.

The most successful game the Forge-Swine ever came up with was Dungeon World, which was so imitative of old-school RPGs that it actually stopped being a storygame.  The fact that they were desperately trying to get DW confused for an OSR game, and that at the same time Storygame Swine were trying to rewrite history to pretend that somehow the Forge had been behind the OSR all along, to hitch onto the bandwagon, shows how much more popular old-school gaming is than game about teenage waitresses dealing with misogyny, or whatever.

RPGPundit

Over the weekend the recent lawsuit over the Hex, the kickstarter game that apparently looks and plays way to similar to MtG, got me thinking of this thread.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/17/magic-the-gathering-clone/

Based on the issues brought up here, I think this proves two things.

1)  WoTC and Hasbro are willing to push the cases where they think the clones are too similar to be a copyright violation.

2)  I suspect the biggest reasons they don't go after retro-clones are both in part because of the OGL safe harbor, and also (and more likely) that the business threat to WoTC of 1e retro-clones is very minimal.

Quote from: JRT;7502481)  WoTC and Hasbro are willing to push the cases where they think the clones are too similar to be a copyright violation.

I imagine they're willing to push cases where they think have a case against someone infringing on their IP.  In the case of card games, they have a patent interest, so they're MUCH more likely to pursue action because of the way IP laws work for patents.  (That is, they don't want to NOT take action and then be subject to an argument that they've abandoned their mark.  That's not a concern for copyright cases.)

For most clone RPGs, patents won't be a concern.  The main concern is copyright.  However, because of the OGL, clones executed with care have explicit permission to use many things that might otherwise be considered possible copyright infringement.  

There are other ways a clone game could screw up and find themselves infringing on WotC IP (e.g., copyright infringement based on trade dress), or breaking the terms of the OGL (e.g., claiming compatibility with a WotC trademark, using prohibited Product Identity terms), but it's possible to avoid or minimize those concerns.

Quote2)  I suspect the biggest reasons they don't go after retro-clones are both in part because of the OGL safe harbor, and also (and more likely) that the business threat to WoTC of 1e retro-clones is very minimal.

I agree with the first part of this statement (i.e., the OGL gives people permission to do what they're doing with clones, providing the "safe harbor" that could make a copyright infringement case difficult).  I disagree with the second part.  If you don't consider an OGL/clone RPG like Pathfinder a significant business threat to WotC, I'm not sure what you would consider a significant business threat to WotC.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;743424I'm not terribly familiar with Mouseguard, but I have heard some things about it's play that lead me to believe that it is a quasi-rpg at best.

This was one of the things that attracted me to Mouse Guard : it seemed like a quasi-RPG and thus was different to other RPGs in that respect. Also it had beautiful production values , it was self-contained in a single book ( no splats to buy ) , it seemed fairly simple , and it was about playing cute mice characters. I just think it is a very good game.

With the diplomacy challenge the GM should have either allowed the characters to ' fail forward ' ( success but with a consequence ) or allowed them to initiate a new combat challenge. That's the way I would have ruled it.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;750253I imagine they're willing to push cases where they think have a case against someone infringing on their IP.  In the case of card games, they have a patent interest, so they're MUCH more likely to pursue action because of the way IP laws work for patents.

Well, the suit is more complex than just based on the patent.  The full text of the suit is here and it deals with copyright and detailed expressions of rules--the argument is the terminology is very similar to magic unlike a lot of the other competing games.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/224144304/Wizards-of-the-Coast-v-Cryptozoic-Entertainment-et-al

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;750253I agree with the first part of this statement (i.e., the OGL gives people permission to do what they're doing with clones, providing the "safe harbor" that could make a copyright infringement case difficult).  I disagree with the second part.  If you don't consider an OGL/clone RPG like Pathfinder a significant business threat to WotC, I'm not sure what you would consider a significant business threat to WotC.

I was more or less referring to "old school" retro-clones--I do not consider 3e a "retro-clone" so much since the OGL was developed at the time for the 3e system, and thus, Pathfinder is probably the safest of the bunch.

When it comes to earlier forms of D&D--Original, Advanced, Basic/Expert, etc., those rules were never released on the OGL and I suspect they could make a case for it since there was never a SRD or license for those earlier games.   But in the case of that, I suspect they don't consider things like OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, etc., commercial threats worth suing over.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;750253I imagine they're willing to push cases where they think have a case against someone infringing on their IP.  In the case of card games, they have a patent interest, so they're MUCH more likely to pursue action because of the way IP laws work for patents.  (That is, they don't want to NOT take action and then be subject to an argument that they've abandoned their mark.  That's not a concern for copyright cases.)

For most clone RPGs, patents won't be a concern.  The main concern is copyright.  However, because of the OGL, clones executed with care have explicit permission to use many things that might otherwise be considered possible copyright infringement.  

There are other ways a clone game could screw up and find themselves infringing on WotC IP (e.g., copyright infringement based on trade dress), or breaking the terms of the OGL (e.g., claiming compatibility with a WotC trademark, using prohibited Product Identity terms), but it's possible to avoid or minimize those concerns.

You've mangled up trade marks, patents and copyright here. They're different IP rights and they all work very differently.

Quote from: S'mon;750283You've mangled up trade marks, patents and copyright here. They're different IP rights and they all work very differently.

Yes, I know they're different and all work differently.  That was the thrust of my point (especially with regard to patents and copyrights).

What did I mangle?  Oh wait, I think see: I lumped trade dress in with copyright, and that's not really correct.  Or were you thinking of something else?

Quote from: JRT;750271Well, the suit is more complex than just based on the patent.

Sure.  I was just saying that a suit that includes a patent claim is much more likely to be pursed because a patent is involved.  A suit based on a copyright claim is also probably more likely when there is no OGL involved.  Those elements aren't as big a worry for most clones games since there aren't patents involved and the clones tend to use the OGL.

QuoteI was more or less referring to "old school" retro-clones--I do not consider 3e a "retro-clone" so much since the OGL was developed at the time for the 3e system, and thus, Pathfinder is probably the safest of the bunch.

Perhaps, although I'd argue that the difference between Pathfinder's use of the OGL and an "old school" clone's use of the OGL is one of degree (e.g., an old school clones makes use of the license's permission to use and redefine terms to a much greater extent than Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean Pathfinder doesn't also do the same thing, in places.)

I do see your point, though.

Thought I'd read through this thread again, hit RSD's rah-rah storygaming cheerleading (which is both pernicious because it's in a place where storygaming isn't very well regarded, and peculiar because hasn't RSD told us all pen and paper gaming is dead anyway?), which is rather a lot like cutting in to a beautiful beefsteak tomato and hitting that patch of horrible black rot that you can sometimes unfortunately get...

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;750302Yes, I know they're different and all work differently.  That was the thrust of my point (especially with regard to patents and copyrights).

What did I mangle?  Oh wait, I think see: I lumped trade dress in with copyright, and that's not really correct.  Or were you thinking of something else?

That was one, mixing up copyright and trade dress (which in the UK is under Passing Off, at any rate nothing to do with copyright).
The other I noticed was "MUCH more likely to pursue action because of the way IP laws work for patents. (That is, they don't want to NOT take action and then be subject to an argument that they've abandoned their mark" - there you mix up patent law and trade mark law.

Quote from: S'mon;750498That was one, mixing up copyright and trade dress (which in the UK is under Passing Off, at any rate nothing to do with copyright).
The other I noticed was "MUCH more likely to pursue action because of the way IP laws work for patents. (That is, they don't want to NOT take action and then be subject to an argument that they've abandoned their mark" - there you mix up patent law and trade mark law.

Gah, you're absolutely right.  I know better, too.  Embarrassing.