Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 4528887" data-attributes="member: 20854">For the record, I don't play 2e, either.&nbsp; My opinion is rooted in the credibility issue.&nbsp; If you want to make a 2e clone, and you spread the word on that basis, then you should make a 2e clone.&nbsp; If you want to make an &quot;inspired by 2e&quot; game, then don't emphasize the &quot;clone&quot; aspect, or you'll be setting yourself up for a lot of unnecessary flak from the community.The benefit to a clone is the instant market potential.&nbsp; It's a known quantity that is compatible with the books on gamers' shelf, and with all those 2e adventures, settings, et cetera.&nbsp; You can immediately mix and match old rulebooks, new rulebooks (PDF or POD), old adventures, new adventures, et cetera.&nbsp; New players can be given a free set of PDF rules.&nbsp; This is a strong foundation to build on, not only because of numbers and credibility, but because the rules are now OGL, which encourages publication and customization.&nbsp; A new skill system for &quot;SERF&quot; can be published and everyone knows it works with SERF, but it also has mind-share credibility and compatibility with 2e, itself.&nbsp; If you make a &quot;fantasy heartbreaker,&quot; that isn't really 2e, I think you lose a lot of mind-share that you would have enjoyed, otherwise.&nbsp; People who prefer RAW 2e, or who don't agree with some of your changes will just reject SERF out-of-hand.&nbsp; Word will spread that &quot;this isn't really 2e.&quot;If SERF is *really* a 2e clone, you'll get a lot of buy-in and activity (e.g. there are a lot of 2e players on the DF 2e forum), and you don't lose the ability to offer improvements or innovations in supplements, down-the-line.&nbsp; In short, I think you gain more than you lose, with this approach.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 4528887, member: 20854"] For the record, I don't play 2e, either. My opinion is rooted in the credibility issue. If you want to make a 2e clone, and you spread the word on that basis, then you should make a 2e clone. If you want to make an "inspired by 2e" game, then don't emphasize the "clone" aspect, or you'll be setting yourself up for a lot of unnecessary flak from the community. The benefit to a clone is the instant market potential. It's a known quantity that is compatible with the books on gamers' shelf, and with all those 2e adventures, settings, et cetera. You can immediately mix and match old rulebooks, new rulebooks (PDF or POD), old adventures, new adventures, et cetera. New players can be given a free set of PDF rules. This is a strong foundation to build on, not only because of numbers and credibility, but because the rules are now OGL, which encourages publication and customization. A new skill system for "SERF" can be published and everyone knows it works with SERF, but it also has mind-share credibility and compatibility with 2e, itself. If you make a "fantasy heartbreaker," that isn't really 2e, I think you lose a lot of mind-share that you would have enjoyed, otherwise. People who prefer RAW 2e, or who don't agree with some of your changes will just reject SERF out-of-hand. Word will spread that "this isn't really 2e." If SERF is *really* a 2e clone, you'll get a lot of buy-in and activity (e.g. there are a lot of 2e players on the DF 2e forum), and you don't lose the ability to offer improvements or innovations in supplements, down-the-line. In short, I think you gain more than you lose, with this approach. [/QUOTE]

Verification