Are the Retro Clones doing well?

[ggroy]

What defines a retro clone? Is Pathrinder a retro clone?

Pathfinder is definitely a derivative, if not a clone. Whether it is "retro", is highly dependent on how one defines "retro".

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Which would make it the regular kind of clone. Except it's not really a clone, since it has the same sort of changes you would expect in a new edition. Is 3.5 a retroclone of 3.0?

 

[pawsplay]

Pathfinder is definitely a derivative, if not a clone. Whether it is "retro", is highly dependent on how one defines "retro".

I generally don't define retro as "contemporously popular."

 

[Snoweel]

I generally don't define retro as "contemporously popular."

Maybe once upon a time, but these days 'retro' is very popular.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Which would make it the regular kind of clone. Except it's not really a clone, since it has the same sort of changes you would expect in a new edition. Is 3.5 a retroclone of 3.0?

But it's not being published by the original publisher. Would that be part of the criteria?

 

[pawsplay]

But it's not being published by the original publisher. Would that be part of the criteria?

Necessary, but not sufficient.

 

[Ourph]

I would define a retroclone as a rulesystem which replicates an earlier, out-of-print rules system and adheres to that previous rules system as close as legally possible in order to preserve that system in some kind of evergreen format.

It's the underlined portion that disqualifies Pathfinder and C&C in my opinion. The "preservation" aspect of those systems is diluted by an effort to improve on the predecessor systems. True retroclones like OSRIC, S&W and LL (for example) are 100% about preservation and differ from their predecessor systems only where it's legally necessary.

 

[Hairfoot]

I would define a retroclone as a rulesystem which replicates an earlier, out-of-print rules system and adheres to that previous rules system as close as legally possible in order to preserve that system in some kind of evergreen format.
...
True retroclones like OSRIC, S&W and LL (for example) are 100% about preservation and differ from their predecessor systems only where it's legally necessary.

I think the "clone " part of the definition is becoming outdated. The genuine clones are now being joined by "new old school" games like X-Plorers, which take the rules-light, player-skill-focus of retro games and apply it to new systems.

 

[darjr]

Hmmm...

doesn't the nature of many of the clones, i.e. available for free, mean that it almost doesn't matter how well they do? They are out there and it only takes a few dedicated fans to keep the flame. I really like that aspect.

 

[Darrin Drader]

But it's not being published by the original publisher. Would that be part of the criteria?

I don't think that a new edition of any game has to be by the original publisher for it to be considered a new edition as opposed to a clone. Earthdawn is on its third edition, but it is no longer published by FASA. Traveller, RuneQuest, Babylon 5, Star Wars, and more have either switched systems or are being done by different people. The last editions of Gamma World and Ravenloft, also by a different company. In fact, D&D itself is no longer published by the original publisher. It really shouldn't matter if the new edition is possible because of a buyout or a license. In fact, the name itself is only important in making trivial distinctions if it's based on the same game engine.

Incidentally, I'd be excited to see someone do a Star Frontiers retro-clone. I've always considered it the best d100% system I've seen.