Is the AD&D 1E Revival here to stay?

[Ourph]

The biggest issue for WotC here is likely to be the OGL, although a lot of people have, I believe, an overly expansive view of what it covers.

I agree. The copyright issues concerning games are already more complex than, say, a piece of artwork or a novel because game rules are given special treatment. Adding in the OGL, which covers a massively complex topic in a very short space and without a great deal of detail, makes things extremely muddy. Despite the fact that the OGL is actually quite simple to understand when someone is using it for its intended purpose (to produce material supporting or slightly modified from the original rules) the license is actually quite vague on some points and the language can easily be interpreted to give publishers a much broader set of rights than what might have been originally intended.

Fortunately, it seems that WotC is content to allow people to push the boundaries of the OGL. For me, this has done more to cement my goodwill toward the people there than any product they've produced themselves. I imagine the goodwill garnered from this generous attitude toward OGL publishers is worth much more to them than whatever damages they might receive or economic benefit they might gain from crushing every small project based on a liberal reading of the license.

 

[SuStel]

Racial level limits, inexplicable total lack of ability to use certain weapons or armor, or restriction of some races to not be some classes, or worse, only as NPCs (e.g., elven clerics) are a few example that come immediately to mind that break the fourth wall and thereby blow immersion out of the water.

Role "immersion" was never a design goal of the original D&D creators. D&D is a board game where the "board" and "pieces" are in your imagination, and your "move" can be anything you can think of.

Just as you don't question why you can't change directions in Monopoly, you need not question any of the limitations of D&D. They're not for realism, they're there to configure the playing "board" and "pieces."

Removing, say, level limits from D&D is like putting money on Free Parking in Monopoly. No one's going to imprison you for doing it, even though the rules say you don't do it. You're just changing the configuration of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

I find it odd that Thac0 is considered too hard, yet factoring +2 for bull's strength, +2 for x spell, +4 for x, +1 luck bonus, etc, and does this stack with that, is considered easy.

I find that a pain in the butt, too: too many modifiers. (see the various "buff" threads).

Lanefan

 

[dcas]

Despite the fact that the OGL is actually quite simple to understand when someone is using it for its intended purpose (to produce material supporting or slightly modified from the original rules)

Is that really its intended purpose? If so, then why not put limitations on the OGL similar to those on the D20 STL (for example, no character creation rules)? That would permit supporting material and likely prohibit new games based on WOTC's OGC.

No, I think its intended purpose is broader than that. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why.

 

[Storm Raven]

Role "immersion" was never a design goal of the original D&D creators. D&D is a board game where the "board" and "pieces" are in your imagination, and your "move" can be anything you can think of.

This is not really true though. Many of the play guidelines and advice in the 1e books talked about immersing oneself in the character and gameworld while playing. Just look at the introduction to the 1e DMG, for example.

 

[Henry]

No, I think its intended purpose is broader than that. However, for the life of me I can't figure out why.

Because Ryan Dancey is a gamer god (I know I get flak for saying it, but he was a main instigator in its conception.)

His purpose in initiating the OGL was multi-fold, but one was to have all innovations able to funnel back to the market leader, and to remove the hurdle of mechanics ownership to product innovation, as well as make the core d20 mechanics (not the rules, but the most basic fiddly bits) the lingua franca of gamers and systems. I can't find it now, but somewhere buried on the WotC website is an old piece he wrote on the reasons of the OGL, which says it eloquently and in more detail than I can. What was Wulf Ratbane's old quote? "Every OGL / d20 product enlarges the event horizon of the d20 singularity."

It definitely didn't have all the effects he desired, and some serendipities on top of that (he hoped other game systems would buy in to using it to share mechanics, too, and some definitely have that I doubt he envisioned, like OSRIC). But his main thought was very far reaching. NO one profited from locking up the rules to D&D under lock and key forever. This way, not only can fans make D&D compatible stuff in perpetuity, as long as the term is meaningful, but they can take it in a direction that the majority prefers legally by "splitting the code base" if needed. If by some insanity WotC creates a new version (4E, 5E, whatever), that alienates 75% of its fans, then that fanbase can create their own version that will take the crown that D&D loses.

 

[T. Foster]

This is not really true though. Many of the play guidelines and advice in the 1e books talked about immersing oneself in the character and gameworld while playing. Just look at the introduction to the 1e DMG, for example.

It's a different sort of immersion, though. OD&D/1E-style immersion is specifically in the situation -- imagine that you're in these circumstances (with the resources and abilities of this character); how do you react? -- whereas in other games (and later editions of D&D) immersion is more generally in the character and setting -- imagine that you're this other person living in this other world.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's a different sort of immersion, though. OD&D/1E-style immersion is specifically in the situation -- imagine that you're in these circumstances (with the resources and abilities of this character); how do you react? -- whereas in other games (and later editions of D&D) immersion is more generally in the character and setting -- imagine that you're this other person living in this other world.

No, go back and read the stuff in the 1e books, a lot of the advice and guidelines for play talked about imagining you were another person living in another world.

 

[Lanefan]

It's a different sort of immersion, though. OD&D/1E-style immersion is specifically in the situation -- imagine that you're in these circumstances (with the resources and abilities of this character); how do you react? -- whereas in other games (and later editions of D&D) immersion is more generally in the character and setting -- imagine that you're this other person living in this other world.

That's a pretty fuzzy difference, when you think about it. Immersion in a series of situations will by simple extension result in immersion in the world, while immersion in the world will de facto lead to immersion in a series of situations that you are expected to react to.

Lanefan

 

[Ourph]

Is that really its intended purpose? If so, then why not put limitations on the OGL similar to those on the D20 STL (for example, no character creation rules)? That would permit supporting material and likely prohibit new games based on WOTC's OGC.

No, I think its intended purpose is broader than that.

The D20 STL doesn't allow modification of existing mechanics in the SRD. The broader scope of the OGL was (from my understanding) meant to allow for development of products like Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed or Mongoose's Conan RPGs which provide alternate rules with the same underlying mechanics as D&D. Such products are theoretically competing with the D&D core books but, in actuality, probably enhance the overall market for WotC (especially since aspects of WotC corebooks, splatbooks and setting books can be used with these products).

However, the brevity of the OGL leads to a situation where the language allowing those types of modified rules systems also allows OGL systems which operate under completely different mechanics while still being able to legitimately use all of the content made open under the SRD.

However, for the life of me I can't figure out why.

IMO if you were to rewrite the OGL so it allowed for Arcana Unearthed and Conan but specifically prevented projects like (for example) Castle's & Crusades and OSRIC it would become so lengthy and complex that many potential publishers would no longer feel comfortable using it. As it stands, the OGL is brief enough and clear enough that any reasonably literate person can comprehend its terms well enough to produce a compliant product (barring the occasional mistake or misunderstanding) without the help of legal counsel. I think increasing the complexity with a lot of qualifiers and restrictions would be a serious bar to entry for many publishers - which would defeat the purpose of creating an OGL in the first place.