Troll Lord Games

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:29 am**

papercut wrote:
I really can't tell you how much I like the art. It really adds an eerie flavor to the book. When he stated he was just going to use old Dore prints I was not too sure about how it would work. But it adds a whole new twist, akin to how C&C is not just a clone. Dark Dungeon indeed.

I do agree that the art is good.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:48 am**

Lord Dynel wrote:
I'm with you. With respect to the players and publishers of retro-clones that visit this board, I personally am tired of clones. That's my personal opinion I do not intend that to come off as a C&C elitist standpoint in the least. The above statement has nothing to do with C&C being my game of choice...I just want to state that for the record in case it's interpreted that I am bias against clones in favor of C&C. I'd be bias against clones whether I played C&C or not.
I've said before, in the beginning I agreed with the concept of clones - to provide a means of publishing older edition material in the present day. Somewhere along the line, that changed to, "reprint the original rules, change a few things I don't like, and call it done." I don't know, I just don't agree with that reasoning. I understand JG's point about playing an older game (such as OD&D) that is getting harder to acquire. Maybe that's enough justification for some. For me, if I really wanted to play the OD&D rules and to me, thats the only system that really needs to have a clone from an I cant afford it standpoint - I'd acquire them...somehow.

As far as clones and derivatives go, I agree with DD about C&C. From what I've read of clones (and I've read through a few) C&C is nowhere near the clone status. It removes huge swaths of d20, replaces them with a whole new, and original, mechanic. They worked purposely at streamlining the system to bring back the focus of role-playing. I wouldn't even call it a derivative, but if it's between the two words I'll go with derivative. Sure it's rooted in d20 and the SRD, as was the purpose of the license. But the Trolls didn't reprint the rules wholesale, change a few things they didn't like, and call it done. They used the OGL and the SRD (which, at that point, if someone wants to call their work "unoriginal" then I guess you can) to make something all their own. And with their rsum of modules and accessories, their intention wasn't even in the retro-clone ballpark.

Hmph...I was tired of simulacra from the beginning. It's why I tend to stay away from discussions of the accursed things. Nobody wants to hear cranky ole me rail on about how these games are a solution in search of a problem.

Acquiring a copy of OD&D does cost money if you want a dead tree copy. Currently the 6th printing, aka the Original Collector's Edition of OD&D by itself is about $100 for a decent copy. The copy I own was given to me, but the person who actually won the ebay auction for it a few years ago (thanks Dave!) spent $50, and that was with a damaged box and a torn back cover on the first book. I ended up spending $60 total on Supplements I-III. I don't have Supplement IV, Chainmail, or Swords & Spells in dead tree (have them in PDF though).

The simulacrum games are simply the 21st Century equivalent of what people did in the days before the Internet. I have an AD&D simulacrum game from 1985. Printed and spiral bound, it had some interesting tweaks along with a few copyright infringing races (Vulcans, Hobbits, Andorians). It can't have sold well, as the gaming store in the area was the only one to have it and people ignored it until I bought it in a bargain bin.

Gamers in the pre-Internet days and the gamers of today will continue to create D&D simulacra and will continue to try to make some money from them. Don't expect to buy a house with the profits however. There may be enough though to buy a pot to pee in.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:20 am**

How can you be tired of clones? Not like their advertising budget is huge and you turn on TV to the sound of, "MONSTER CLONE JAAAM!"
Of all the clones I've gravitated to Swords & Wizardry. In my S&W game I used C&C material and in my C&C games I use S&W material. They're all kin of the game we love.

And gee willikers, if I print Swords & Wizardry on nearly 40 year old paper, sketch up the art and stuff it into a beat up greeting card box does that mean that it will provide a more kick ass game experience? The cool factor about playing an original OD&D isn't in the game play it's in being around the artifact of history.

When I want to get a D&D fix I don't want to go back to AD&D. Not till years later did I realize that I ignored most of the rules and that I ran the game much closer to as presented in WhiteBox Swords & Wizardry. I was not quite 1 when the original was released.

I personally know of folks who weren't born yet when zero and first editions of D&D were released who have discovered old school game fun through clones. What a bad wrong thing.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:42 am**

Traveller wrote:
Acquiring a copy of OD&D does cost money if you want a dead tree copy. Currently the 6th printing, aka the Original Collector's Edition of OD&D by itself is about $100 for a decent copy. The copy I own was given to me, but the person who actually won the ebay auction for it a few years ago (thanks Dave!) spent $50, and that was with a damaged box and a torn back cover on the first book. I ended up spending $60 total on Supplements I-III. I don't have Supplement IV, Chainmail, or Swords & Spells in dead tree (have them in PDF though).

That's the thing though. I have similar thoughts about the need of all these 'simulacrum rulesets' but part of the reason some of these are popular has to do with a question of availability of the originals. I would love an original 'dead tree version' of the OD&D set and supplements but prices aren't exactly friendly to a guy who is on a limited budget. These days, there are a few people who are in a similar position. When WOTC finally decided to make some of this classic material available as PDF, there are a bunch of people that bought them.

And now you can't buy any of it.

So, depending on your stance, the only route to go is currently pirating someone else's PDF copies or adopting a game like Swords & Wizardry (WB Edition). At least S&W appears to follow the OGL which makes this 'copy' legit.

If Hasbro can make money by selling a '40th Anniversary Collectors Edition of a game like Risk', I'm sure they could re-release a bunch of this stuff. As a collector's edition, I'm sure they could jack up the price and it would / could still be cheaper than acquiring original printings of the books. I'm certain a bunch of people on the boards would buy them.

The problem is that a company is not taking advantage of the obvious interest in these items. This has prompted the growth of the OSR movement and the creation of these 'retro-clones'. If Hasbro / WOTC reversed their policy and did a variety of limited print runs, I'm certain the interest in the various clones would drop significantly.

That said, I love a degree of innovation and evolution in my games, and I see a few minor things done to a classic design being 'innovative enough' to meet my needs with a game like C&C.

I would prefer to see more innovation happen in game design.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:45 pm**

And on top of it you have to be careful with the PDFs. The PDF copy of Eldritch Wizardry (Supplement III) is missing some information on one of the pages. If I recall, it's vital information too regarding one of the demons in that volume.

When OD&D came out in 1974, it got pirated. It was so popular people mimeographed the books just so they could play. The same thing happens today with PDFs. Is it legal? Nope. Are you likely to get busted for it? Depends on whether you're trying to sell the copies or not.

A person seeking the real thing isn't going to be satisfied with a simulacrum. They want the real thing, and they will do anything they can to get their hands on it. If they mimeographed it in 1974, they'll be hunting it down in PDF today.

On the flip side, I agree with you that there's not enough innovation in game design today. I believe that to be a lingering side effect of the d20 System's "one system to rule them all" design philosophy. It will take quite some time to counteract that side effect and see real innovation in game design again.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:00 pm**

Unless you are a member of the Forge where innovation means something completely different.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:08 pm**

There's a lot of innovation going on in game design. I have a shelf full of games that aren't anything like D20 nor use any of its trappings.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:42 pm**

At it's best the whole OSR/clone thing is a cottage industry. Sure there are some that are moving into a semi-professional area but the amount of gamers that truly know about it is rather small. This is one reason I do not recognize it as a true movement.

The irony is that I doubt the OSR would even exist if it wasn't for C&C which did spawn the first true clones. In the end it is all tied together in a mess of clones, derivatives and attempts to bring back the pre-D20 era of the hobby. Which leads into the other irony in the fact that it is all based off the SRD and OGL making the whole thing still tied to D20 and WOTC.

Detractors and defenders on each side can throw out accusations of non-originality and such but the truth is we are all here using a derivative of the work of other designers.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:49 pm**

Julian Grimm wrote:
Detractors and defenders on each side can throw out accusations of non-originality and such but the truth is we are all here using a derivative of the work of other designers.

Hear, hear! We stand on the shoulders of giants.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:51 pm**

Giants who unearthed titans. One could argue, whether successfully or not would depend on your agreement, that all wargames are derived from Chess (or some early form of it) and then, from there, came RPGs...
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:56 pm**

There is a big difference between derivatives and clones.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:00 pm**

Regardless of what a game is, or if it gets people to play, or I can take an idea/s from it, to me, it is worthy. Dark Dungeons clears up some problems that the Rules Cyclopedia had, but also adds a lot more stuff from Wrath of the Immortals and the like. So Dark Dungeons is clearly a derivative of the original RC.

Again, if it gets players to want to play, I'll gladly run this with my copies of RC nearby and WotI next to me.

~O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:03 pm**

And while I'm not a fan of clone systems, I am all for AD&D, OD&D, BECMI whatever compatible modules and supplements.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:15 pm**

DangerDwarf wrote:
And while I'm not a fan of clone systems, I am all for AD&D, OD&D, BECMI whatever compatible modules and supplements.

Yep. Been buying a bunch of those. A new one just got released by XRP a couple of days ago, 14th in their product line.

Personally I love the clones, especially the derivatives, in particular C&C itself.

Despite people thinking I speak sacrilege, the clearer rules, cleaned up presentation, errata included, new spins on the old ideas, etc... are all greatly appreciated by me. Not to mention, since they are "clones", they are highly compatible with the original stuff, so when I want to retire my old books, rather than buy another old book to replace it, I get to buy a new one that may allow me to use it for another 20 years rather than finish ruining my original old copies. Or original old copies I buy to replace my original old copies that are getting too worn out.

So a win across the board for me.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:30 pm**

DangerDwarf wrote:
There is a big difference between derivatives and clones.

Clone or derivative your work is still based on the work of another.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:33 pm**

Technically a clone implies copy. Derivative implies inspired by, but not necessarily the same. Sort of like a Hollywood "true story." Both have the same source, but go in, usually, different directions with the material... whether that direction is appealing to you is your preference. Derivatives have deviation -- clones do not.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:41 pm**

I think it's pretty neat. I love my RC, but it does have some organization problems. My biggest complaint is a minor thing, but it really bugs me; RC buries the page numbers in a useless curlique graphic at the bottom middle of the pages. The new tables look nice and clean. I have never cared much about art in books; I tend to prefer the old line drawings because they evoke a certain feel for me, but a book devoid of graphics is fine with me. The woodcuts or lithographs or whatever in DD are consistent at least.

Only thing though, I don't use Weapon Mastery and it seems to have been promoted to non-optional status in DD, so I may give it a pass on those grounds.

If I run an RC game though, and some players don't have it, I'll certainly point them to it at least as a choice.
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:59 pm**

Aergraith wrote:
If I run an RC game though, and some players don't have it, I'll certainly point them to it at least as a choice.

That underscores my inherent dislike of clone systems. If I can use the core book for one game to sit down at a table of folks playing another game and jump in with them, I don't like it.

While I can appreciate the ease of availability, it just sits wrong with me.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:01 pm**

We really need a head scratching emoticon.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:09 pm**

Or a hair splitting one.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:13 pm**

Julian Grimm wrote:
Or a hair splitting one.

LOL Indeed.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:16 pm**

DangerDwarf wrote:
That underscores my inherent dislike of clone systems. If I can use the core book for one game to sit down at a table of folks playing another game and jump in with them, I don't like it.

While I can appreciate the ease of availability, it just sits wrong with me.

But that is exactly why they are "clones", they are similar enough so you can do exactly that.

The only reason they are as different as they are is to protect them from WOTC's legal hounds.

Except LL and BFRPG, those two are more like house ruled versions. But OSRIC and Dark Dungeons are about as loyal as they can be without getting cease and desists letters or taken to court.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:19 pm**

Julian Grimm wrote:
Clone or derivative your work is still based on the work of another.

So? They still are not the same. Derivatives can be very different. Like I find the SIEGE engine of C?&C to be pure genius, and wonder why it took so many decades to come up with it. Sure, its based on the work of others, what RPG today is not?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:22 pm**

Eisenmann wrote:
We really need a head scratching emoticon.

_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:26 pm**

Aramis wrote:

LOL Awesome. I shoulda looked harder.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:38 pm**

Treebore wrote:
So? They still are not the same. Derivatives can be very different. Like I find the SIEGE engine of C?&C to be pure genius, and wonder why it took so many decades to come up with it. Sure, its based on the work of others, what RPG today is not?

This is true. The point is that one side will inevitably accuse the other of non-originality. Basically be derivative or clone the basis is a work of another and the non-originality accusation can go both ways. I would just like to see that particular straw man burned.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:39 pm**

Eisenmann wrote:
LOL Awesome. I shoulda looked harder.

Yep, all kinds of awesome under "View more emoticons":
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/posting.p ... llordgames
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:13 pm**

Julian Grimm wrote:
This is true. The point is that one side will inevitably accuse the other of non-originality. Basically be derivative or clone the basis is a work of another and the non-originality accusation can go both ways. I would just like to see that particular straw man burned.

That's just it - the difference is, it would seem, is how much is taken from the original work. That, to me, if the difference between the clone and derivative. I think C&C is at a point where it is so far removed from the original d20 SRD that it can't be called a clone. But that's my opinion.

Game A is very, very similar to the original work, with a few things changed due to the author's tastes - clone.

Game B is similar to the original work, but with large sections taken out, changing the mechanics and nature of the game considerably, and new mechanics added that are new and the feel of the game is totally different than the original work - a derivative.

So, if we are to assume that neither work is original, what game becomes the "more original?"

I think a major point is being glossed over to prove a point - a clone and a derivative, while possessing a similar point of originality - are as different as night and day.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:31 pm**

80% of both sides are so similar you can play one with the other very seamlessly. There is no glossing that over or denying this fact. In fact, if you remove the SIEGE factor (Which is not that original as it is derived from ideas given in 3.X's UA and other sources) both sides become closer to almost 90% similar with the other 10% being more in dress.

If you still want to argue derivative then look at this:

C&C Stat bonuses: Exact copy of RC D&D bonuses.

XP for class levels: Pretty much 1e AD&D's tables.

Spell Levels: nearly straight across copy of 3.X spell levels.

Spell Lists: 1e AD&D lists

Classes: Mostly borrowed from 1e AD&D. Except for some changes which mostly is chopping spells from some classes.

Class Abilities: AD&D 1e again

SIEGE: Good portion is from 3.X UA page 81 I believe.

So, with this in mind I cannot say C&C is that original. It is a good game but not that original.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Posted: **Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:42 pm**

Quote:
SIEGE: Good portion is from 3.X UA page 81 I believe.

As one of the people who originated the SIEGE Engine idea, I can gladly tell you: wrong.

Similarity does not equal derivation. Though convincing anyone of that can be impossible.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Troll Lord Games

Dark Dungeons RPG and Dark Dungeon RPG