Proponents of Castles and Crusades insist it is not a retro-clone.

copycat wrote:That's because C&C is not a clone. It has similarities, but it was never intended to copy.

But, I wonder what would happen if the reprint sold out before it was released. If that would make WotC/Hasbro think "oh yeah, maybe people do want this. Guess we can give them more of that." Kill off the "clone" market completely by making it directly available.

At this point I'm thinking they haven't yet decided how many of these to print, or they'd've told us. Probably waiting to see how many orders come in, and then make the decision.

Personally, that would be like a dream come true. Initially, as I (imperfectly, I'm sure) understand it, OSRIC and the other so-called clones were created with the idea that if a current set of the original/advanced/basic/<insert edition here> rules were published via the OGL, then people could write new adventure modules for these systems and legally "get away" with it.

That happened, but I never understood why it couldn't have happened without the OGL and the clones. Mayfair, Creations Unlimited, Reilly Associates, etc. etc. all published modules BITD that were either implicitly or explicitly "for use with" AD&D. In any case, now we have a situation where everybody and his step-cousin has published their own rules system too, I suspect sometimes for no better reason than to look cool. So we've got about a baker's dozen D&D/AD&D clones (OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Microlite74, Swords & Wizardry, Lamentations of the Ruleset, BFRP, et. ad nauseam). And are any of them distinctive or different in a meaningful way? No, they're all friggin' D&D. Yay.

darkseraphim wrote:... still regarded as too unprofitable for WotC to publish, even though Pathfinder built their entire game on quality adventure paths and is kicking WotC's ass from Dyvers to Verbobonc?

... the heart and soul of a new OGL, since abandoning the OGL is what caused the FRPG publishers to abandon D20 and go their own separate ways?

Pathfinder is D20 gaming.  Pathfinder is the OGL.

It's the OGL that's been whoopin' WOTC since they went another way.

copycat wrote:That's because C&C is not a clone. It has similarities, but it was never intended to copy.

I know.  
I was being sarcastic.  
TLG makes excellent products.
C&C seems like a cross between 1E and OD&D.
But it's just different enough to make it tantalizing.

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:They've replaced the Gygax Memorial Fund pics with the covers of the rulebooks over at WotC. The "Advanced" is back in :)... And they've "corrected" the spellings to "Players" and "Masters". Warms the cockles of my heart :) (I've always maintained that the lack of apostrophes was intentional in the originals).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02410000

Good, good, and good, but keep your cockles to yourself :-)

MetamorphosisSigma wrote:They've replaced the Gygax Memorial Fund pics with the covers of the rulebooks over at WotC. The "Advanced" is back in :)... And they've "corrected" the spellings to "Players" and "Masters". Warms the cockles of my heart :) (I've always maintained that the lack of apostrophes was intentional in the originals).

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02410000

Not too much of a fan of these covers. They look a bit cheap and tacky. Almost as if WotC are treating the old school market like a joke they are attempting to humour.

cygnet wrote:
This might be copyright related.  If you ship to other countries where the copyright owner is different you can be attacked by the local owner of the rights.

For example, many books are sold to different publishers in the UK and US.  They each have the rights for their own market.  Amazon UK was attacked a few years ago by UK publishers for importing US printings.

So if GW was still sitting on a bunch of UK copyrights, or an old distribution agreement, selling into the UK could get awkward.

I'm beginning to think it's the case that WotC don't think the oold school market is one for them and they are just pandering to the market in the US because they need to be seen by US players as still being a credible company that can face the threat of modern games. I don't think this has anything to do with international copyrights. The European market they can afford to ignore, and certainly their market in the rest of the world is tiny, so US soil is all that really counts when it comes to the company's main marketshare. Pander to enough of the whimsy in the market there, and you may be able to get 5E off the ground on the back of it. It seems to be a matter of curtailing the resentment people will feel at being told that 4E really was sh'te and will no longer be supported. Now go and buy a whole new set of lovely shiney new 5E books and get over it, cos look, even the dinosaurs are behind us with 5E.

This just looks more and more like a marketting exercise for 5E as its progressing; the same way the fake 'red box' Mentzer rip-off was introduced to try to make 4E look like it had links back to D&D when they pulled the plug last time around.

Zenopus wrote:
Thanks for posting. I stitched the images together for ease in viewing:

[ Image ]

They are better than I was expecting. Nice way to update the covers yet the use part of the old artwork. I would prefer less squiggles/curlicues but they aren't too bad. The color scheme (brown color with yellow and red) reminds me a bit of the World of Greyhawk boxset cover.

The monster manual cover is an improvement over the original.

Wow, I've always loved the original MM cover. 8O
It was first D&D book I ever saw, in a bookstore, before I even had Holmes.
Though I'm a big fan of Sutherland's work in general.

Anybody have an idea how many of these will be printed?  What does a limited edition mean, 1,000, 5,000, or a 6 month print run?

I will pick up one of each for my collection, but I was curious what the consesus is on the collectability of these.  Will these be as rare as the silver anniversary box sets seem now??