The Cephus Engine verses Traveller

[David Johansen]

Or are unlicensed retro-clones a valid form of artistic expression? My layman's understanding is that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. Clearly, the OGL makes D&D clones legally legitimate. But take Warhammer Fantasy Role Play and Zweilhander or MERP and Against the Dark Master.

I've got mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I do think fans have some investment and claim in a roleplaying game and the game companies are prone to invalidating all their work or rejecting it out of hand, or suppressing it (I've had a cease and desist letter here and there). On the other hand, creators deserve to be paid for their work if you use it. I've run into far too many people with hard drives full of illegal copies of games and as a retailer (albeit a failed one). I'm firmly on the side of copyright though I do think the laws probably need some serious re-working. But copyright is a law and likely too close to politcs to be a reasonable discussion topic on the pub.

This thread isn't for debating copyright. It's for discussing the grey area between where the unlicensed retro-clones dwell.

As far as the Cephus Engine goes, I can understand why the fans grew weary of Marc Miller and Mongoose. Changing the terms of a license might make sense from a business stand point but it leaves people who'd put a lot of work in to their projects hanging. I can also understand why Marc Miller and Mongoose aren't pleased with the Cephus Engine it divides their customer base and creates an alternative that doesn't pay them a cent.

I've gone down that road myself, I've got a dozen pages of a Traveller rewrite. Blood Red future is just a trimmed down Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay variant with its own grim and dark future that just happens to have all the elements of another grim and dark future moved around a bit.

Does it just come down to personalities? Is okay to do something that will financially hurt John Seal just because I dislike how he's handled ICE? I pick that example because he bought the company after the bankruptcy and thus had little or nothing to do with the creative content he made money on. It's an example that divorces ownership of the trademarks from the question of creator control.

This hobby began because people didn't like this or that about D&D and made their own. But it's also incredibly diffuse at the bottom. Everybody's got a game they wrote or are writing. Those recognizable name brands have power in the gaming marketplace and just about everything gets re-released eventually. Precis Intermedia even brought back Time Ship.

So there's a bone to chew on folks. Where's the line? What are the justifications? Would you or wouldn't you jump ship from your favorite game company if someone lightly rubbed off the serial numbers and made a free or cheaper or better clone?

 

[Ragr]

Let the market decide. The line for me is legality - I have no idea about the details of copyright law in either the UK or US - and if that line isn't crossed then there isn't a case for something being suppressed by anything other than what the marketplace and its consumers choose. I'm not sure anything needs justification except to say that I've found there is a correlation between strong motivation or desire to do things well and the final quality of the product, which also goes a long way to addressing whether or not I'd jump from a favourite games company to a third party; the answer to that would be yes if the third party product was as good as or better than the originating one. It's not a binary choice here either though as there's nothing to say you can't support both. If the product of the original company has become inferior and that then results in them losing sales I'm pretty sure they know what they need to do to reverse that slide. I don't have any guilt about shifting my spending somewhere else within any industry if my reasons are sound.

I don't want to name names, although one might be mentioned above, but if a third party company blatantly copies another product and it's inferior to the original then they won't get my cash. They might get other people's cash but that's no concern of mine. It may be there's a very fine line between blatant rip off merchants and clever innovators.

 

[Raleel]

Hot take, pre-coffee: i disagree with the characterization as a grey area. It’s by all appearances legal, and a legal clone is a competitor. Same thing goes for coke snd their formula, which is a trade secret as I remember.

normally Cost is less of a disincentive for me, though there is always a break point there. If the production values are equal, then free or cheaper wins most times. for me that is probably $20 or less difference. This is assuming equivalent writing and the like, because if we are just talking strictly system rules and no production, we are in the realm of SRDs.

If it’s better, then there was a non-cost based incentives and I will go with that, even if it costs a bit. People do pick for other reasons too I suppose - politics or views or friendships or even first one they found and inertia.

despite my rep as a mythras sales bot, I largely stick on because it is good, no one is beating them in their niche, I can use other stuff with them, and the products are reasonably priced. That having been said, I’m a pdf buyer almost exclusively, so the distinction might be “is it good enough to buy a print book” for me.

 

[David Johansen]

Oh right, Mythras and RuneQuest/BRP. Yup that is the stand you would take. And yes whether it's a grey area is debatable but we can't really have a flame war if we're going to be all reasonable about it.

But I won't pay a cent for Cephus, Mythras, Against The Dark Master, or Zweilhander nor download a freebie, and that too is legal.

 

[Bilharzia]

I'm not sure you have this quite right, Cepheus is not a retro clone, it's based on Mongoose's SRD of their (first) version of Traveller, using the OGL licence. I'm not sure Mongoose or Marc Miller are bothered at all by Cepheus, it even has it's on sub-forum on the official Traveller site, I can't see why Mongoose would be unhappy since they issued the SRD! Zweihander is different since it is a re-write and effectively a retro-clone of WFRP. I would guess WFRP4 sales dwarf that of Zweihander, so in this case, again I don't think Cubicle 7 are that bothered by Zweihander and I doubt their sales are damaged at all.

I would question the idea of "jumping ship", I don't think there is a ship. There's no reason why you wouldn't buy whatever you like from any publisher and use what you want, (unless they are jerks) if the systems are similar enough I don't see why you would not. This is how the OSR retroclones have been successful - there's a huge range of published adventures and other material you can probably use very easily because whatever system you use to run your game, you can run and integrate material from different publishers regardless of their base system. This is also broadly true of d100/BRP systems, but there's just less material available and far fewer writers and publishers creating new material today.

I've seen a couple of publishers rip-off RuneQuest 6 and Mythras, I don't think much of what those publishers have produced but they've clearly been underhand or stupid about the way they have gone about things, so that kind of thing certainly turns me off what they are doing. Mongoose's Legend even though it's OGL released some pretty poor books after the authors left and they seem to have left Legend for dead now. The conduct of Chaosium/Moon Design didn't impress so I've largely lost interest in what they are doing these days, even though on paper they are the official publishers of RQ and CoC. Rightly or wrongly they killed off most of the third party publishers of CoC which were doing more interesting work than Chaosium itself, the French 30th edition of CoC is still my favourite. The new Delta Green was re-written to tweak the system and was in part based on Mongoose's Legend OGL and from what I've seen it's a good approach for DG.

Generally the rip-off artists are going to write poor books since if they aren't writing their own rules systems themselves to begin with, it's unlikely anything they produce in the future is going to be any good.

 

[Bilharzia]

Oh right, Mythras and RuneQuest/BRP. Yup that is the stand you would take. And yes whether it's a grey area is debatable but we can't really have a flame war if we're going to be all reasonable about it.

But I won't pay a cent for Cephus, Mythras, Against The Dark Master, or Zweilhander nor download a freebie, and that too is legal.

Er, why do you mention Mythras here?

 

[Raleel]

But I won't pay a cent for Cephus, Mythras, Against The Dark Master, or Zweilhander nor download a freebie, and that too is legal.

i think I unintentionally brought up an interesting distinction. I don’t know about AtDM, but as far as I know, Zweihander and Cepheus have never been the system in question - they were created whole cloth outside of any licensing. Mythras was the licensed product and then lost the license, then became it’s own thing. Is that important for the purpose of this discussion?

then there are things like the Zeb Cook conan clone, which clones a thing totally out of production. Is that a difference to explore here as well? If you can’t buy it, and it’s legal, it’s not even a competitor, though the second hand market exists.

and I suppose there is a question of setting wrapped in as well. How closely are they tied for this?

Edit: and to be clearer - Pdf vs print have different price points, and I do think that matters for your discussion.

 

[ffilz]

I'm a bit confused what the real issue is here.

Legal clones have been used for a variety of reasons:

1. To publish supplementary material that can reference the rules and such without fear of adverse legal action against the supplements. Of course such supplements can not generally be tied to official settings. Often they are used to publish entirely new settings.

2. To make more accessible a now out of print RPG. Sometimes that might come with a reorganization (like Old School Essentials).

3. To allow publishing a complete version of an RPG amended by the author's favorite house rules.

I say let the market decide for each such publication if it's worthy.

I'm glad the clones make it easier to publish supplementary material. Remember that the whole clone business got started because of the attitude of TSR to ANY supplemental material intended for use with D&D. Thankfully WOTC handed out the key to breaking that barrier.

 

[The Butcher]

Or are unlicensed retro-clones a valid form of artistic expression?

Pretty much where I stand. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

And that includes your tinkerings with Rolemaster, which have actually made the game palatable to me — no small feat.

I’m in a big WFRP kick and I’m digging Zweihänder but the more I read it, the more I want to write my own WFRP retro-clone.

Cepheus is very close to MgT1, previously my favorite iteration, and what sold me is that where it diverges, I like it better.

I will spare the rest of the forum of further exposure to my feelings towards ACKS and Mythras.

 

[David Johansen]

And that includes your tinkerings with Rolemaster, which have actually made the game palatable to me — no small feat.

ICE suppressed The Rolemaster's Apprentice under both managements since the bankruptcy but I did write the critical tables for the Combat Companion, which is my only actual official published credit. I also did a few Rolemaster and Spacemaster articles for the Guild Companion magazine.

The Arcane Confabulation is a long ways from being a Rolemaster Clone, it uses three stats per skill and a skill / category divide like Rolemaster Standard System did and hit points are bought as a skill but the similarities pretty much end there. I occasionally describe it as "The Standard System without the Rolemaster" but even that's a bit disingenuous as the talent and flaw system and training and cultural package systems aren't duplicated at all.

On a less rpg related front, there's all the companies that do Warhammer 40k ripoff figures. Yes, Chapterhouse won their court battle but they're not in business the last I checked. But some of the stuff out there is pretty blatant.

Also, what of side lines like squats which GW simply refuses to acknowledge or support? Or dead games like the TSR Conan?

 

[The Butcher]

The Arcane Confabulation is a long ways from being a Rolemaster Clone

Similar arguments can be made about Zweihänder, or about a ton of late OSR designs.

I feel in no way morally committed to privilege the holders of a famous IP if someone else is doing a better (legal) job of catering to my tastes.

 

[Raleel]

On a less rpg related front, there's all the companies that do Warhammer 40k ripoff figures. Yes, Chapterhouse won their court battle but they're not in business the last I checked. But some of the stuff out there is pretty blatant.

or the fan creations on thingiverse and other places.

I think we are sort of discussing the definition of unlicensed retro-clones. I think, sort of by definition, "unlicensed" implies that they must have an IP intersection. By that token, we are not discussing mechanics at all, and we are discussing at what level of detail a setting comes into conflict - at least I think?

 

[chuckdee]

I haven't heard all of this about ICE... is there any reference that I can read up on regarding the bankruptcy? I thought that they were still solvent. And where can I find this "Arcane Confabulation"?

 

[Simlasa]

I no longer have much loyalty toward any company or creator. I only care if the thing that's been made is of use/interest to me. If a company stops making stuff I want (Chaosium) then I'll find the folks who do (TDM, Pagan Publishing, GORE, etc.). The moment a there's a clone of pre-7e Call of Cthulhu that I like, I'll buy it.
IMO I'm not crossing any lines in doing so, and legalities are for the companies to sort out and pursue, or not.

D&D 'borrowed' ideas from Tolkien, Runequest 'borrowed' ideas from D&D... Games Workshop 'borrowed' from all over the place. Sometimes they got caught and hands were slapped, sometimes not.
If someone can 'borrow' from GW and get away with it legally, it's not like GW has the moral high ground.

 

[robertsconley]

This thread isn't for debating copyright. It's for discussing the grey area between where the unlicensed retro-clones dwell.

You can't copyright an idea. Therein lies the opening. It that simple.

But anything in a game that not based on a mathematical formula, natural law, etc is artistic expression. So the problem with cloning a given set of rules is that while the idea of hit points, armor class, levels, the to-hit tables are not protected the specific way each is setup within OD&D is. So without something else, you need to do what Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest, and Palladium Fantasy did. Use those concepts but in a way that clearly your own thing.

So what is that something else, well after 2000 it happens to be open content released under the open game license. Most retro-clone including my own, are based on the fact that if you omit the newer mechanics from the D20 SRD what left is fairly close to one of the classic edition. Tweak a few numbers and you have a clone of a specific edition.

As far as the Cephus Engine goes, I can understand why the fans grew weary of Marc Miller and Mongoose. Changing the terms of a license might make sense from a business stand point but it leaves people who'd put a lot of work in to their projects hanging. I can also understand why Marc Miller and Mongoose aren't pleased with the Cephus Engine it divides their customer base and creates an alternative that doesn't pay them a cent.

The elements of Cepheus were derived from existing open content. Mongoose and Marc Miller have nobody to blame but themselves.

Also keep in mind that Mongoose Traveller 1e went several years without anybody trying to clone the system. The inciting incident was the creation of the Traveller Aid Society as the official third party content program. The no derivative clause of the license chased everybody off who had an original setting. Because there was enough 3PP with original setting, somebody took the time to go through the existing open content and assemble a full ruleset that became Cepheus. However it not a clone of any particular edition of Traveller because there hasn't been one that released the entire set of core rules as open content. So there are several significant points of difference between Cepheus and Mongoose Traveller 1e.

Here is the list of material used by Jason Kemp

• High Guard System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.
• Mercenary System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.
• Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002-2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
• Swords & Wizardry Core Rules, Copyright 2008, Matthew J. Finch
• System Reference Document, Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
• T20 - The Traveller’s Handbook Copyright 2002, Quiklink Interactive, Inc.
• Traveller System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.
  

Does it just come down to personalities? Is okay to do something that will financially hurt John Seal just because I dislike how he's handled ICE?

You are powerless to do anything directly because you have no way of using Rolematers IP for your own work. Your only choice is to compete with them using an original RPG that is a spiritual cousin. But there hasn't been a single successful example. Each time it has been attempted it just resulted in a related but separate slice of the hobby.

The only two success stories I know are Design Mechanics (Runequest 6/Mythras) and Paizo. Both achieved it by using the nearly the same system that the parent company abandoned or mishandled. Both Wizards and Chaosium have recovered from their earlier misstep causing the situation to swing back around to where Paizo and Design Mechanism now have their own separate but related slice of the hobby.

So there's a bone to chew on folks. Where's the line? What are the justifications? Would you or wouldn't you jump ship from your favorite game company if someone lightly rubbed off the serial numbers and made a free or cheaper or better clone?

As a result of the digital technology and the internet the question is not why would you, it is why wouldn't you. It is now very efficient for creators to cater to narrow niches. And just as easy for hobbyist to find them. Doesn't mean everybody is going to be successful but it does make for a constant churn of material both original and derivative.

The effect of open content is that it allows people to do in-between project. You can focus on just writing an adventure, or just writing a setting if the rules you want to use are open content. Or you can make a kitbash and use most of a popular system and add in your unique elements. This is what I do with my material.

 

[Bilharzia]

But I won't pay a cent for Cephus, Mythras, Against The Dark Master, or Zweilhander nor download a freebie, and that too is legal.

Can you clarify what you mean by including Mythras here? Because you are making the implication that Mythras was written and published in some kind of underhand way, which is entirely false.

 

[David Johansen]

Nah, I just added Raleel's example to the list to include it. I'm not sure any of them have anything underhanded in their creation. As robertsconley noted, you can't copyright an idea.

So, is the concensus that outside of the actual text, art, and name recognition of the trademark, nothing in a game design is of sufficient value to deserve protection.?

 

[Bilharzia]

Nah, I just added Raleel's example to the list to include it. I'm not sure any of them have anything underhanded in their creation.

So why did you say "But I won't pay a cent" ?
Including Mythras in this list implies you think Mythras was written as a copy of RuneQuest, I am not sure you know anything about its publication history, it doesn't belong in that list.

 

[chuckdee]

This thread isn't for debating copyright. It's for discussing the grey area between where the unlicensed retro-clones dwell.

I guess I don't get how this is a grey area? That implies that it might be against the law- it just hasn't been challenged. They're well within their rights, so this isn't really a grey area, other than how it might appear to some.

 

[David Johansen]

So why did you say "But I won't pay a cent" ?
Including Mythras in this list implies you think Mythras was written as a copy of RuneQuest, I am not sure you know anything about its publication history, it doesn't belong in that list.

Because I won't. As I said, I added it because Raleel mentioned it. But no, I'm not well versed in the break down of the BRP / d100 system properties. My understanding is that Mythras is one more branch off the BRP tree. Legend, if I remember right was Mongoose Runequest 2.0 after they didn't have the rights anymore.

 

[David Johansen]

I haven't heard all of this about ICE... is there any reference that I can read up on regarding the bankruptcy? I thought that they were still solvent. And where can I find this "Arcane Confabulation"?

Unfortunately, my web space expired recently, though on the upside it'll motivate me to build a website.

The ICE story is basically this. They renewed the Tolkien license in the early nineties and published some adventure game books that sold well but Tolkien Enterprises felt they were too close to being new fiction and required them to be destroyed. This put ICE in dire financial straits that even a successful ccg didn't do much more than pay the licensing costs. As they got further behind they failed to pay a lot of freelancers and when the Lord of the Rings Movies went into production Tolkien Enterprises decided they wanted to yank the license to prevent it from becoming a secondary line where LotR merchandise could be licensed. There was a bit of a court battle with a computer game company backing ICE because they wanted to produce a Middle Earth mmorpg. ICE lost and went bankrupt. There was an attempted fan buyout but a financier from the UK named John Seal won the bid and put ICE back in the hands of its prior management which caused problems with getting the right to reprint some books like the Martial Arts Companion and Essence Companion. After a few years the owner was unhappy with the outcome and withdrew the rights with some prejudice turning the operation over to Nicholas Caldwell and Guild Companion Productions.

 

[Bilharzia]

Because I won't.

"Because I won't." isn't a reason for anyone older than two years old, you're not saying anything other than you won't give a reason, but it's clear you're just trying to sling mud, for whatever your reasons are.

RuneQuest 6 was written and published by the Design Mechanism. It was the current licenced edition for RuneQuest in 2012. The game was licenced directly from Greg Stafford by TDM after the authors had left Mongoose and Mongoose no longer held the licence. RQ6 was the first time the game had been properly re-written from scratch since the RQ3 version in 1984. The supplements that followed it were released as RQ6 publications, by TDM in collaboration with Moon Design. Chaosium later took the RuneQuest name in-house in 2016, at which point they agreed with TDM that the RQ6 rules and supplements could continue under a different name, this is where Mythras came from. Chaosium then went back to RQ2, which is essentially what the current RuneQuest system is from Chaosium.

Characterising Mythras as some sort of un-licenced retro-clone is just bizarre.

 

[Séadna]

I can also understand why Marc Miller and Mongoose aren't pleased with the Cephus Engine

My understanding is that Marc Miller likes Cepheus, that's why he gave it a forum section over at Citizens of the Imperium.

There's a few reports on the web from Cepheus involved people where Miller was quite positive. From the creator of the Clement sector stuff over on the Mongoose forums (regarding Miller's lecture at TravCon 2017):

I'm not sure if Dale recorded the first lecture or the second. In the second lecture, I asked about Cepheus Engine and Marc was very positive about it. He is pleased that it exists, is still happy with open game license, and, in his words, believes that having the rules as being OGL is "paying it forward".

Marc was also very positive about Clement Sector. I spoke with him a bit. He was quite complementary and even offered a bit of advice.

Like all rational thinking beings I agree with The Butcher as Cepheus is my favourite version of Traveller. Specifically Cepheus Light.

 

[Dumarest]

I don't know why this site always has such a difficult time with the very simple concepts of copyright and trademark. Suffice to say Cepheus is to Traveller as Far Out Fruities is to Froot Loops.

​

As long as they aren't mimicking the trademarked name and trade dress and aren't using any copyrightable material (expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves), there's no issue.

 

[David Johansen]

Honestly I just thought it would be something new discuss instead of the same old go round of Forge theory that the Why D&D thread deteriorated into. And I've been a little bit combative to get it going because if we all fall over ourselves to agree with each other there's no discussion.

I don't have any kind of a grudge against Mythras. It's barely on my radar beyond that it came out of RuneQuest development at some point.

I said in the very first post that copyright law is pretty clear. I'm asking if there's some other line. The thing is that rpgs have a huge amount of work that goes into the creation of the mechanics which are very involved as games go. On the other hand, as a fan I know what it's like to just give up on the company that produces the games you like.

 

[ffilz]

It seems like you're trying to create a controversy where there is none. So what is there to discuss?

I think I have a small amount of Cepheus based stuff (Solo maybe?), but mostly I ignore it. I'm not interested in commercial settings fro Traveller and I'm happy with the 1977 rules (with a tiny few bits taken from later releases). But I'm glad its out there and it's cool to see all the stuff that comes out for it. If I'm ever starved for content, I might look to a Cepheus adventure.

 

[TristramEvans]

Or are unlicensed retro-clones a valid form of artistic expression?

I certainly hope so...

Otherwise I've been wasting a long time on an artistically bankrupt RPG

Clearly, the OGL makes D&D clones legally legitimate. But take Warhammer Fantasy Role Play and Zweilhander or MERP and Against the Dark Master.I've got mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I do think fans have some investment and claim in a roleplaying game and the game companies are prone to invalidating all their work or rejecting it out of hand, or suppressing it (I've had a cease and desist letter here and there). On the other hand, creators deserve to be paid for their work if you use it. I've run into far too many people with hard drives full of illegal copies of games and as a retailer (albeit a failed one). I'm firmly on the side of copyright though I do think the laws probably need some serious re-working. But copyright is a law and likely too close to politcs to be a reasonable discussion topic on the pub.

Eh, well, you've simultaneously introduced two unrelated concepts - legalty has nothing to do with artistic vaidity. I would not say that discussing copyright is "political", insofar as the Pub's use of that term, but I find the legal/copyright issue boring, personally - it's complicated, it has little to nothing to do with opinion and thus isn't realy condusive to discussion, and, practically speaking it doesn't matter much.

This thread isn't for debating copyright. It's for discussing the grey area between where the unlicensed retro-clones dwell.

As far as the Cephus Engine goes, I can understand why the fans grew weary of Marc Miller and Mongoose. Changing the terms of a license might make sense from a business stand point but it leaves people who'd put a lot of work in to their projects hanging. I can also understand why Marc Miller and Mongoose aren't pleased with the Cephus Engine it divides their customer base and creates an alternative that doesn't pay them a cent.

I've gone down that road myself, I've got a dozen pages of a Traveller rewrite. Blood Red future is just a trimmed down Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay variant with its own grim and dark future that just happens to have all the elements of another grim and dark future moved around a bit.

Does it just come down to personalities? Is okay to do something that will financially hurt John Seal just because I dislike how he's handled ICE? I pick that example because he bought the company after the bankruptcy and thus had little or nothing to do with the creative content he made money on. It's an example that divorces ownership of the trademarks from the question of creator control.

This hobby began because people didn't like this or that about D&D and made their own. But it's also incredibly diffuse at the bottom. Everybody's got a game they wrote or are writing. Those recognizable name brands have power in the gaming marketplace and just about everything gets re-released eventually. Precis Intermedia even brought back Time Ship.

So there's a bone to chew on folks. Where's the line? What are the justifications? Would you or wouldn't you jump ship from your favorite game company if someone lightly rubbed off the serial numbers and made a free or cheaper or better clone?

So, OK, I'm kinda confused at this point - are we discussing artistic validity, morality, or fair business practices?

 

[Séadna]

In this case it's legal, the original creator has no problem with it (in fact gives over space to it on the main forum) and fans seem to like mix and matching both.

So I think there's just nothing really to discuss.

 

[Gringnr]

Speaking only as a game fan and player, and not an author/publisher here (though I am tinkering with a clone/mashup for shits and giggles, and one of the systems involved is owned by someone whom I have been told by people who'd know, "would sue somebody just because he could").

I like retro-clones. I have several. Their appeal to me is this:

-They make the out-of-print accessible and affordable.

-They give me an alternative to passing my collectors' copies around the table.

-They often make things cleaner and more concise.

The downside, is less nostalgic value, which is negligible as far as I'm concerned.

While clones are legal, I think morally there may be a bit of grey. Like, with those cheesy-ass Asylum movies, no one rents "Transmorphers" expecting a Michael Bay production. And they certainly aren't going to get it. But, unlike films, many RPG retro-clones and knock-offs are capable of delivering a very similar, and in some cases functionally identical, experience to the original property, if that's what one desires. Some cloners are very cognizant of this. Blacky the Blackball, for example, doesn't promote his Codename: Spandex retro-clone of Golden Heroes, largely because GH author Simon Burley, who was trying to promote his successor game, Squadron UK, initially took it as kind of a thumb in the eye. Likewise, Blacky doesn't promote his (excellent) game, Masks, which is a mash-up of MSH and Icons, two OGL (or at least unenforced, in the case of MSH, I think) properties. He has stated that because Steve Kenson has an active commercial interest in selling and promoting Icons, he doesn't want to step on the man's toes. It's also worth noting that Blacky distributes both of these games free in PDF, and at cost in print. So, I guess that's about as ethical as you can get. And that may be why Games Workshop hasn't come after Blacky for Codename: Spandex, and Burley got a cease-and-desist for the first edition of Squadron UK, which was basically Golden Heroes with different art. In gact, it was SqUK 1e being pulled from the market that led Blacky to clone the game he loved.

It's possible that, at some point in the future, some publisher will seek to challenge the whole retro-clone issue, based on siphoned-off profit. I don't think there's any doubt that some of the money spent on Zweihander would have been spent of WFRP 4e. And, hell, suing cloners would likely be easier (and more lucrative) than suing actual pirates.

But, regardless, I will contimue playing clones as long as they're legal, available, and the originals are rare and expensive.

 

[David Johansen]

You're probably right, Seadna. It's mostly just thoughts and notions I've had as I've farted around with ideas for games. And much of it just comes from on-line discussions over the years. I was under the impression that Marc Miller wasn't thrilled with The Cephus Engine but that might be from back when it first came out and there was a fair bit of discussion at the time. He might have changed his mind since then or I might be mistaken. I haven't had a lot of interaction with him.

Some of it comes from looking at doing a GURPS clone a couple times. And, as I've done so, I've generally come to the conclusion that I don't feel right about doing one.

TristramEvans, if I seem unclear, it's because I'm unclear and seeking clarity through discussion. I've pointed at fairly well known instances because they're fairly well known or illustrate a particular situation. The legal situation regarding copyright and trademark seems clear but what if someone uses a reference to a trademark to sell their competing project? Which happens a fair bit with the various clones when you think about it. If I say DURPS (Daves Unfinished Roleplaying System) is a GURPS clone on message boards while directing people to it, I'm guessing I'll get a letter from SJG's lawyers. I'm not actually pursuing such a project at the moment, but it's an example that points at me rather than aggravating anyone else.

 

[Gringnr]

Also, IANAL, but i'm not too sure Burley himself couldn't have told GW to poud sand, and produced something very similar to what Blacky did. Hell, he had already re-written the presentation of the core mechanic and changed the art, he was over halfway there. Not saying I'd have been eager to duke it out with GW in court, but they have a habit of getting spanked for doing dumb shit like trying to copyright the term Space Marines. I kind of suspect that if Burley had bucked to GW they may have folded.

 

[Raleel]

If I say DURPS (Daves Unfinished Roleplaying System) is a GURPS clone on message boards while directing people to it, I'm guessing I'll get a letter from SJG's lawyers.

on the other hand, if you make DURPS a fantastic 3d6 roleplaying game with loads of great supplements, we'll be all over that!

 

[David Johansen]

I don't think it's as much of an issue when it comes to abandoned games, though Steve Jackson waited a long time (28 years?) to recreate The Fantasy Trip to avoid legal issues.

 

[David Johansen]

on the other hand, if you make DURPS a fantastic 3d6 roleplaying game with loads of great supplements, we'll be all over that!

It's tempting. But one other thing I've learned from discussing GURPS on-line is that the fans fracture in a lot of different directions when you start discussing changes. It might even be worse than D&D on that count.

I've been fiddling with a modern game that runs on 1d20 roll under and looked at 3d6 but I wanted to be able to pick up a handful of d20s and roll for autofire.

 

[TristramEvans]

TristramEvans, if I seem unclear, it's because I'm unclear and seeking clarity through discussion. I've pointed at fairly well known instances because they're fairly well known or illustrate a particular situation. The legal situation regarding copyright and trademark seems clear but what if someone uses a reference to a trademark to sell their competing project? Which happens a fair bit with the various clones when you think about it. If I say DURPS (Daves Unfinished Roleplaying System) is a GURPS clone on message boards while directing people to it, I'm guessing I'll get a letter from SJG's lawyers. I'm not actually pursuing such a project at the moment, but it's an example that points at me rather than aggravating anyone else.

Personally, I think there are two valid motivations:

1) Availability

There are so many great RPGs that simply are no longer available to the public, either simply OOP, or because new editions have changed so much that it's the game "In Name Only". If a clone creates an opportunity to present those games to a wider audience, I think that's a wothwhile endeavour, but it is more in the "legally grey" area.

2) Originality

The other is taking an old game system and revising it. This usually gets lumped together with clones, but I don't think it's the same thing. I refer to Phaserip as a "Retro-Vamp" RPG - while I use the framework and certain concepts established by an earlier game, I've made significant changes in the way the game plays that I think, at least, brings something new to the table. I view it not so much as copying someone's earlier work, as building upon it. I guess the question then becomes, how much needs to be changed for it to be considered a unique work of art?

 

[Gringnr]

I don't think it's as much of an issue when it comes to abandoned games, though Steve Jackson waited a long time (28 years?) to recreate The Fantasy Trip to avoid legal issues.

WRT Golden Heroes, Simon Burley thought that someting similar had happened in his case (that the rights had reverted to him after a period of inactivity by Games Workshop. Not sure if the UK is different in that regard, or if it was just the nature of the contract he signed, but he said according to GW, it wasn't going to revert back to him.

 

[Trippy]

I reserve the right to consume any product that is useful to me, but in honesty, there hasn't really been much I have seen produced for the Cepheus engine that appeals.

In terms of the business practices, I think that it is a bit of a cut and paste job masquerading as something new, but that isn't unusual in the hobby these days. They probably could have done with a better, more recognisable brand name (like 'the 2d6 system' or something), and I have no interest in some of the facile attempts at edition warring that a few fans have engaged in in order to justify it's existence.

In terms of the deal between Marc Miller and Mongoose, I dunno what the new contractual terms were, but it is clear that the shift in emphasis in the 2nd edition is to focus more on developing out the Third Imperium setting (which is still pretty vast and unexplored) rather than diversify through multiple alternative settings as with the previous edition. Personally, I'm loving it because the quality of the products is stronger than it has ever been before, and the clear focus allows for more diversity within that one setting.

 

[ffilz]

I don't think it's as much of an issue when it comes to abandoned games, though Steve Jackson waited a long time (28 years?) to recreate The Fantasy Trip to avoid legal issues.

Actually, the the 28 years was so the copyright on the text reverted to Steve Jackson, so he didn't re-create it. He revised the original text. The artwork is all new though.

 

[David Johansen]

Oh, I thought the issue was the trademark. I thought the text was his because he wrote it. But that might relate to the contract with Metagaming as well.

 

[Simlasa]

Some of it comes from looking at doing a GURPS clone a couple times. And, as I've done so, I've generally come to the conclusion that I don't feel right about doing one.

At this point, a well-done GURPS clone might be beneficial to actual GURPS.