Troll Lord Games

Then why is a good chunk in UA predating C&C?
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Julian, I don't consider this an argument.
C&C got rid of tactical movement

C&C got rid of the skill system

C&C got rid of feats

C&C got rid of iterative attacks

C&C got rid of the save system

C&C got rid of the CR system

C&C got rid of the unified experience table

C&C got rid of the umpteen casting classes

C&C got rid of...need I go on?

For the record, I never said original...I agreed with DD's postulation of C&C not being a clone, but being a derivative.

Your points are very interesting. Instead of being a derivative of just one D&D system, it's derivative of many. That's something I never thought about!
In all honesty, JG, I'm not dissing you or anyone for liking the clones. I just think there are big...nay, huge...difference between works that borrow almost everything from an existing work and ones that use an existing work as a framework to build something almost completely different.

I can't speak for a clone system, but after a couple of months of C&C, one of my longtime players said at the end of one session, "you know, this doesn't even feel like a d20 game." That's when I knew C&C was something special - it is a d20 game, but one that's so far removed from the field that it has a much different feel to it. I'm not saying that to express the "uberness" of C&C - I think it's relevant to this conversation and expresses the point of C&C's originality. Would he had said that if he was playing a clone system (assuming he played the original system for some time)? Some people like the closeness to the original system that a clone system offers. I would not argue that benefit in the least. My point is the clone systems exist because of that closeness. C&C does not, in my opinion, express the same closeness to its parent system, despite the fact that it has a parent system. And that, to me, is where the difference lies between C&C and the clones.
_________________
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.

Obviously, the d20 version of Unearthed Arcana was written before C&C was, but that does not mean the inspiration was drawn from it. In fact, most of my desire to see C&C came out of The Arcanum, some 20 years (roughly) older than the d20 UA, which is, again, similar, but not exact. There are numerous systems out there that do a SIEGE-like mechanic; most of them have been based on a percentage roll. A d20 is a different type of d%, so, again, similar, but not the same.

Would you say that the d10 dice pool mechanic of Vampire was derived from Shadowrun's d6 dice pool mechanic? What about Savage World's step dice coming from Alternity's step dice?

As I said, people can see similarity all they want, but convincing them of anything they don't want to believe is a waste of time.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Julian Grimm wrote:
Then why is a good chunk in UA predating C&C?

They both came out in '04, so I'd be hard pressed to say which one came out first. It comes down to who thought of what first? Personally, I'd tend to take the word of someone who worked on the game. *shrug*
_________________
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.

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

Which is exactly why I dislike them.

Julian Grimm wrote:
Then why is a good chunk in UA predating C&C?

Well, if by 'Siege Mechanic' we are solely adding level to a d20 roll plus whatever modifiers and not adding level if it is a 'cross class skill', much of the basics were already inherent in the system to start with. Keep in mind that similar systems have existed and have been used prior to 3rd edition all together. However, the Siege Mechanic is not just basic task resolution since it wraps in a saving throw mechanic and the system of prime vs non-prime attributes. It was also not intended as a system for opposed rolls and so on but could be used that way if you chose to.

Besides, just because an idea predates another does not mean it got borrowed or adapted from that idea. My idea for Multiclassing existed 2-3 years prior to the 'Class and a Half' style of multiclassing. I had shared my version of multiclassing back then and I was a bit shocked when I saw how identical the two were when I saw the 4th printing of the PHB. I assume that this is just a coincidence and both versions came about by resolving certain issues in a similar way.

In all seriousness though, sometimes similar ideas can come about quite independently from the other and sometimes is there is a whole bunch of work which might have led up to the final form of those ideas which may be very different in comparison.

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

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

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.

And actually, derivative works are required to have sufficient originality if you plan on copywriting the derivative work.

A thesaurus and a copy of an out of print book lacks a whole lot of originality. Enough so that I feel comfortable in denouncing the creativity of such works.

Did the d20 UA come out in 2004? That would mean it was congruent with the release of the Spartan 300 C&C box set. I don't recall. I do know at that point I was not interested in anything with the d20 logo on it; whether other people involved in the final writing were or not I can't say... but, the original concept for SIEGE had nothing to do with d20, other than using a 20-sided die.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

serleran wrote:
Did the d20 UA come out in 2004? That would mean it was congruent with the release of the Spartan 300 C&C box set. I don't recall. I do know at that point I was not interested in anything with the d20 logo on it; whether other people involved in the final writing were or not I can't say... but, the original concept for SIEGE had nothing to do with d20, other than using a 20-sided die.

1st printing was Feb.2004 for the UA

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

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

If it was printed in Feb 2004, that means that WotC came up with it in the later half of Jan 2004. So, technically C&C had it first.

DangerDwarf wrote:
And actually, derivative works are required to have sufficient originality if you plan on copywriting the derivative work.

A thesaurus and a copy of an out of print book lacks a whole lot of originality. Enough so that I feel comfortable in denouncing the creativity of such works.

While this may be true, I think I have shown that C&C is not as original as those who claim it to be say. Now, I will concede the SIEGE point as it possible the ideas between it and the variant in UA came from separate sources.

I stand by what I have said before; C&C is not as original as some claim it to be. With using the SRD as a source, and pulling straight across from other versions of D&D the system is a hybrid of derivative and clone but the only thing original is how the pieces were placed together. Anyone wanting to dismiss a clone on the pure basis of non-originality is failing to see where the pieces came from.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

I can't use my C&C PHB, roll up a PC and sit down at a table with some 3e'ers and play their game.

I can't use my C&C PHB, roll up a PC and sit down at a table and play with some AD&D'ers.

Of course it pulls some stuff from various iterations of D&D. Thats what derivative means.

Cloning bothers me (and I wish it didn't because it would be handy to have in print versions of the old games I still play) because it simply repackages another persons IP. Yes it is (likely)legal, but that doesn't make it right in my book.

This being a C&C forum and all, I would have to say that any negative comments expressed towards it should be kept to minimum and within the realm of constructive criticism to help improve the product and not disparagement of the product. That can be taken elsewhere. This is just a general observation, and not an indictment of anyone's specific post. I hope that it doesn't become necessary to point it out to anyone specifically.

_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf wrote:
I can't use my C&C PHB, roll up a PC and sit down at a table with some 3e'ers and play their game.

I can't use my C&C PHB, roll up a PC and sit down at a table and play with some AD&D'ers.

Of course it pulls some stuff from various iterations of D&D. Thats what derivative means.

Cloning bothers me (and I wish it didn't because it would be handy to have in print versions of the old games I still play) because it simply repackages another persons IP. Yes it is (likely)legal, but that doesn't make it right in my book.

Split all the hairs you want but, at the end of the day, C&C and the clones are in the same boat.

As an aside it seems my views are not welcome here. So I will end this discussion and take myself and my views somewhere they are welcome.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Of course they're in the same boat -- they're adventure games. Splitting it down further is another waste of time.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Julian Grimm wrote:
Split all the hairs you want but, at the end of the day, C&C and the clones are in the same boat.

As an aside it seems my views are not welcome here. So I will end this discussion and take myself and my views somewhere they are welcome.

Dammit, Julian. I hate it when you do that.

It's okay to think one way. You think "C&C and the clones are in the same boat." You're entitled to think that, if you want. Others don't feel that way. Others, myself included, have pointed out very valid reasons why we fell it's not. You're rebuttal is basically, "Despite what's said, C&C and the clone games are cut from the same cloth and it's not an original game."

But I'm not mad about that. I'm mad about the "I'm going to pick up my ball and go home" attitude that you have every time you're disagreed with. Bro, I'm sure you know that this is an internet forum. This is an internet forum devoted to a specific game. The view is going to be bias here. The same way it's bias at the WotC, Steve Jackson, and the White Wolf forums. I would expect to be disagreed with if I went to the GURPS forums and started talking about my perceived flaws with the system. It's the nature of the beast.

I like you. I've never had any issues with you. You speak your mind. That's a good thing, but it's also something that you have to realize that sometimes is not going to be widely accepted. That's just a fact of life, and not just here on the internet. At some point, you agree to disagree and move on. Sometimes, those very rare times, you see the other person's point or they see yours. That's usually not the case, though, and the conversation is usually a stalemate. But, I think you are taking some of the conversation a bit too personal.

Maybe I'm way off base. But in case I'm not, the only advice (which is what this whole post is, honestly) is to lighten up a bit...or grow a bit thicker skin. No ones likes getting their corn flakes pissed in. But I can say that I've participated in plenty of debates on this board and never been offended by the opposing viewpoint. I just ask you to take it for what it is and try not to take it too personally.
_________________
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.

Isn't using "fighter", "ranger", "illusionist", and saving throws, hit points, and so on *just* repackaging IP? If that's a problem then wouldn't derivatives even be taboo?

I don't have a problem with you or your views JG. I am just trying to keep things civil. I don't think that should be a problem, nor was I trying to disbar you from the discussion. Your opinions expressed here are as meritorious as any others. My point is simply that I don't want this discussion to slide into a p*ssing contest which will only engender bad feelings and add nothing to the discourse. If you disagree or feel that my previous post on the matter is unfair, then please feel free to PM me.

I think it's best if we leave JG alone if he has truly recused himself from the discussion. Here, too, I will invite anyone who feels this is unfair to PM me so we can talk about it.

Eisenmann wrote:
Isn't using "fighter", "ranger", "illusionist", and saving throws, hit points, and so on *just* repackaging IP? If that's a problem then wouldn't derivatives even be taboo?

Claiming that reformatting and rewording someones exact game is no different than someone using a game for inspiration and using deritives is a little absurd.

Me drawing a picture of Raistlin is one thing. Me photocopying one of Elmore's depictons of the mage, flipping it the opposite direction and putting my name on the bottom is another.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Claiming that reformatting and rewording someones exact game is no different than someone using a game for inspiration and using deritives is a little absurd.

Me drawing a picture of Raistlin is one thing. Me photocopying one of Elmore's depictons of the mage, flipping it the opposite direction and putting my name on the bottom is another.

Apples and oranges there, DD. My question is not absurd. I'm not talking about cloning or derivatives. I'm talking about IP reuse since that's what you stated the problem was.

Guys who are doing the clones aren't photocopying pages out of a book or even OCRing them and then slapping on a new cover. Have you looked at any of the clones? Swords & Wizardry is the one I'm most familiar with. They even include the OGL and their assembly process is very open. It's not quite as off the cuff as you may think.

And comparing a clone to a derivative is apples to oranges as well.

I'm not familiar with S&W to say whether it is a clone or a derivative. My litmus test for determining the difference would be could I take a clone to the table with the original game and jump right in with a character I made using the clone.

If I can make a S&W character and take it to a OD&D game and jump right in with no problem then I would consider S&W to be jenky.

DangerDwarf wrote:
And comparing a clone to a derivative is apples to oranges as well.

I'm not familiar with S&W to say whether it is a clone or a derivative. My litmus test for determining the difference would be could I take a clone to the table with the original game and jump right in with a character I made using the clone.

If I can make a S&W character and take it to a OD&D game and jump right in with no problem then I would consider S&W to be jenky.

Again, I'm not making the comparison between derivatives and clones. That's neither here nor there since the OGL is in the mix.

I suggest checking out Swords & Wizardry instead of arguing about state and nature on a forum.
Interestingly, a C&C character's external interface allows me to take my C&C characters and play some variant of AD&D without the siege engine.

Eisenmann wrote:
I suggest checking out Swords & Wizardry instead of arguing about state and nature on a forum.

So says the guy arguing with me.
And S&W is one that I have been tempted to check out because I have heard that it is more than a rewritten carbon copy. I waver though because I figure it'll be too close.

DangerDwarf wrote:
So says the guy arguing with me.
And S&W is one that I have been tempted to check out because I have heard that it is more than a rewritten carbon copy. I waver though because I figure it'll be too close.

Danged straight. I've already checked it out.
On your deathbed do you really want to regret the gaming path not taken?

I've checked out a couple clones too.

Hah! I'm already going to have to live to be at least 120 to get in all the gaming I can out of the systems I already own! I think I'll be ok.

DangerDwarf wrote:
I've checked out a couple clones too.

Hah! I'm already going to have to live to be at least 120 to get in all the gaming I can out of the systems I already own! I think I'll be ok.

Slacker!

I know.

Eisenmann wrote:
Isn't using "fighter", "ranger", "illusionist", and saving throws, hit points, and so on *just* repackaging IP? If that's a problem then wouldn't derivatives even be taboo?

That in no way, shape or form has anything to do with "IP".
_________________
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