Are the Retro Clones doing well?

[Raven Crowking]

It doesn't seem to me that Hackmaster or Castles and Crusades are at all in the same business you are, RC, so they'll have different success criteria.

Heh. Can you believe I forgot about them? I was thinking of games like LL, OSRIC, S&W, etc.

That said, Hackmaster and C&C must be doing well enough to continue doing it, as they haven't disappeared.


RC

 

[Umbran]

That said, Hackmaster and C&C must be doing well enough to continue doing it, as they haven't disappeared.

True. My point was more to demonstrate that "doing well" is going to mean vastly different things to different people.

Correct me if I am wrong, RC, but you're mostly a hobbyist. You don't seem to be looking for monetary return on your investment of time and effort, and are apt to be happy if some folks on the internet say, "Hey, that's cool!"

Hackmaster and C&C are part of small businesses - they need some monetary gain in order to remain around.

D&D proper is part of a notably larger business, and needs notably larger return on the investment.

It is my opinion that the gaming hobby needs an ecology of this sort in order to really stay viable overall. There are big fish and small fish, and they all have different ideas of success, and that's healthy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Umbran, you couldn't be more right. I am mostly a hobbyist, and want little more than to share my enthusiasm.

I agree with you about the "ecology" thing, too. I hope all gaming companies large & small have a great 2010!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It made me wonder, are the retro clones doing well?

There seems to be continuing interest and growth (new products, new publishers, new blogs, forum activity, two magazines: Knockspell and Fight On!, etc), but I wouldn't say that they're taking the market by storm, or anything (i.e. WotC doesn't need to worry).

Here's one example: the new Swords & Wizardy WhiteBox boxed set is about to be sold out after going on sale on Dec 30th. No numbers are given, but the publisher notes that he underestimated the demand.

What defines a retro clone?

I define a retro clone as a game system which re-presents the rules mechanisms of an older (usually out of print) system, using an original presentation that does not infringe on intellectual property. (The OGL is helpful, here, because it expressly allows the use of terms which might otherwise muddy the waters of what does or does not infringe copyright protection.) A true retro-clone attempts to maintain the highest degree of fidelity to the original rules mechanisms, rather than introducing new rules, "fixes," or innovations.

Is Pathrinder a retro clone?

I wouldn't call Pathfinder a retro clone, because its goal is not to keep as close to the original as possible; it definitely attempts to fix and update the 3.x rules. I'd but Pathfinder in the same category as Castles & Crusades: an "inspired by" system that is close to retro-clone territory, but isn't especially concerned with the highest degree of fidelity to the original rule set that inspired it.

 

[pawsplay]

I wouldn't consider Pathfinder a retro in the slightest. It's a further development of the 3e rules-set.

 

[Grimstaff]

I'd says the 'Clones are doing fantastic, all things considered. Especially Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry, which have both gone from fan-made .pdf to print-on-demand, and now into print/distribution in a very short time.

Keep in mind, the success of these has been driven solely by the fans, none of the RCs were created and just dropped into distribution.

I don't consider Pathfinder to be a Retroclone, but rather a contemporary d20 game, not unlike True20, Conan, or others of that ilk, save that out of all them it hews (by design) most closely to 3.5 D&D. I think to truly be a "retroclone" per se, a game needs to emulate a game longer out of print with no real contemperary support. There are games out there I consider to be "retroclones" of Marvel Superheroes, Fantasy Trip, etc, so it's more the out-of-print qualification, or the "retro" element I'm stressing.

Does that mean Pathfinder could be considered a "retroclone" in 20 years or so? Hmm.

 

[Herschel]

I would call Pathfinder a Retroclone. It's using the 3.5 system with unified/published "house rules/errata" to improve game play, but it's the same system for all intents and purposes.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'd says the 'Clones are doing fantastic, all things considered. Especially Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry, which have both gone from fan-made .pdf to print-on-demand, and now into print/distribution in a very short time.

LL has also been translated in German and Italian.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I will disagree with Darrin that D20 material is necessary for a retro-clone. As he notes, mechanics cannot be copyrighted. All you need for a retro-clone is to extract the mechanics from an old game, and present it with new accompanying IP. Phil Reed's FASERIP/4C project qualifies as retro-cloning, for example, and I don't believe there's any d20s in there.

That's true, and something I didn't take into account. Mutant Future is a retro-clone, but it doesn't use much (if any) IP from D20 or D&D. In fact, it's just a recreation of an early version of Gamma World, while the IP is entirely its own.

 

[paigeoliver]

Sales of my Red Box Fantasy (Paige Oliver's Storefront - Lulu.com) have been coming in faster than I expected. I can't quit my day job, or even make my car payment with the proceeds, but they are still quite regular.

I personally wrote my Retro Clone because of 4th edition basically pulled the rug out from under me as a D&D writer and thus I wanted something I had more control over.

Plus I love playing old material, and sort of loved Castles and Crusades, but something just made it less fun than it should be. I ultimately decided that it just had no soul (I have the same sort of complaint about 4th edition).

Thus I set myself to the task of writing my own SRD based game that did have a soul, as well as basic compatibility with old stat blocks.