burntwire brothers wrote:
It will replace the OGL page  

I like your style.  

Well, I'm a regular reader of Grognardia, the blog through which I discovered all the OSR thingy and how I was not alone in the world loving the old versions of D&D (how the RPG culture of Spain is ridiculous compared with the RPG culture of US is a story for another time).

I like James, while as of lately I've found myself disagreeing with him sometimes, but hey, that's normal. And yes, I jumped a few days back reading his post about Insidious, and even more at the comments of some real jerks (othes than James, let's remember). I was going to post too, talking about the hypocrisy of people who play Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters and then obviate such concepts in real life where things truly aren't black or white but, where under their understanding, we all must be Lawful to be Good... but instead used my energy to chase Insidious, and then I found The Acaeum, which I didn't know but now I do, and I'm a happier person since, thank you very much.

So I'm completely sure James hasn't any simpathies for WotC at all, or is responsible for some of his readers having them; heck, even Mike Mearls has commented almost once (to defend 4e, mind you). We can disagree with him, and I myself thougth much better of him until the Insidious post, but he's done (and will do, I guess) some good.

On the issue of the OSR, once I discovered that the OGL is a subterfuge to let people publish what they could anyway withouth it, I myself thought the OSR publishers should be a little more courageous and do what Devon has done. One thing is the law, which is writen by the rulers of the moment, and a different thing is Justice, which trascends any terrenal power (and yes, is NOT an absolute concept); D&D can be trademarked by WotC, but in Justice the game is not theirs. It's of its players, specially those who love it far more than WotC could ever do. That is, I truly believe that what Devon has done is morally right, and f*ck the laws made to favour rich people over the poor.

Which takes me to what Mike said about the OSR only existing in name... Yes, this events in which the people supposedly of the movement can't join together for what is Just and Right make me feel the same way: like there's no movement. And I'd love we all could join together and fight, so there could be a real OSR, because I dream of a true OSR.

Anyway, the so-called-by-now-OSR has put out some pretty good products, far above the level of "garbage". Wouldn't you agree, Jason?:wink:

Good Lord, after this vindicative post, I'm going to get a C&D letter from WotC, too.  

bbarsh wrote:
RangerFlecha welcome to the forum!

Thanks, mate.

bbarsh wrote:
First off, violating anyone's trademark just because you think that the owner sucks and you like the product better than they ever could is not right...EVER.

Trademark laws do not favor the rich. They favor the people who created their product out of hard work, dedication, investment and guts.

I can't agree with the first, and it may be a matter of opinion, or maybe not. In all of History we see that to get the necessary change means fighting against the stablished order; the most opressive the order, the most fierce the fighting. Laws regulate civilization, but civilization evolves and laws grow old. We are experiencing nowadays with the musica and movie industries.

And I would agree with the second, but I'm afraid is only an ideal. In the end, the one that can pay the better lawyers win, and those tend to be the rich.

bbarsh wrote:
The ultimate hypocrasy in all this is that people forget that when TSR was alive and kicking, they did not let anyone publish using their trademark either. TSR would have been all over anyone publishing using any of their trademarks. WotC does the same and suddenly they are the evil, heartless corporation. Give me a fucking break.

Yes, I guess that sometimes our love for those old TSR products that make us so happy don't let us think clearly of how bitching TSR was. You are absolutely right.

bbarsh wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I hate what AD&D has developed into. But I don't own it either.

The simple fact is, DCG violated the OGL and pretty much violated WotC's trademark of AD&D. I like the Hibbs brothers so I am not critical of them in the least. Their company, their choice. I will buy their next product regardless because I support the OSR. I buy pretty much everything in print for OSR because I believe that is what will drive the OSR to be successful. I put my money where my mouth is. Simple as that.

You don't own it by current law, but you should (as the rest of us) because you care for it more and deserve it. IMHO, in some sense, you believe so, because as you say,  you put your money where your mouth is; that is, you support DCG, or otherwise you'd support the Law and wouldn't buy Insidious.

Hey, don't take it literally; keep supporting DCG, please.

bbarsh wrote:And here we go again with the "I like it so I deserve it more" stance. I really like my neighbor's car - more than he does, so it should belong to me. Come on, this is pure bullshit.

Hey, that's the working philosophy of my neighborhood. Goes far beyond just cars. Televisions, lawn furniture, wives...

Don't get me started on the Russian Revolution though. The imperialist Russian system was one of the most oppressive imaginable. Serfdom was out and out slavery, and even when they suppossedly abandoned it, there was only a name change. As bad as soviet imperialism was, the original revolution was far better than what it replaced.

FormCritic wrote:
OK -

First - I just bought a copy of Bottle City.     Why didn't I do that before?

Second - Any chance you can rush through another print run of Insidious before WOTC sends you a cease and desist order?  I would buy another copy if I could.      Reminds of me Palace of the Silver Princess.

Third - Copy of the cease and desist letter.  I must have one!  

Well, if anyone from WoTC has been following any of this madness they will know that we intend to change the cover a bit and lose the OGL so there should be no reason for a C&D letter.  We will try to get a second print done soon but no gaurantee.  

Any OSR publishers worried about this getting them in trouble would have to be doing something wrong in the first place.  Stone throwers.  

burntwire brothers wrote:Any OSR publishers worried about this getting them in trouble would have to be doing something wrong in the first place.  Stone throwers.  

Not yet, but working on it. Now where is that damn stone?  

Go, get 'em boys!

lokiwookie wrote:You know that even in France some people are saying that your module will cause the Neo/Rétroclone bankrupt? And collectors bought a lot of copies only to be able to sell them for a lot of bucks in one or two years...

but of course, it is same kind of people who are saying this... neo/retro defenders... without reading your module of course as ever...

Call me apathetic or unprincipled, but I bought mine simply on the basis of the reports that it's well written (something which I have not found to be the case, generally, with "OSR" stuff) and has high production values. I don't really care if it destroys the so-called OSR, if it's a part of said "movement", or if WotC gets uptight about it.

It's nice to know that if I don't like it it'll probably fetch me more than cover price some day, but I intend to read/use it!

bbarsh wrote:And here we go again with the "I like it so I deserve it more" stance. I really like my neighbor's car - more than he does, so it should belong to me. Come on, this is pure bullshit.

Well, off the top of my head, certain medicines are an obvious case in point.

Yes, it IS expensive to develop some - but imo there should be a low limit on how many years you should own a patent for them - after that they should be at cost.

Cheers,
malc

lawrenson wrote:
Well, off the top of my head, certain medicines are an obvious case in point.

Yes, it IS expensive to develop some - but imo there should be a low limit on how many years you should own a patent for them - after that they should be at cost.

Cheers,
malc

I don't necessarily disagree with you M. But there are so many factors involved it is really hard to work this bug out. Medicine generally cost millions upon millions and take years to develop. There are more failures than successes. Also, there is the liability factor. A drug is approved and we find out 10 years later it causes cancer. The drug company gets sued to no end.
It is a very scary proposition to mandate anything regarding medicine. Anyway, there are so many social welfare plans regarding medicine in the U.S. (before the Obama care disaster) that it really is not a big problem. Are there exceptions? Of course, there always are. But I am not big on government mandates...as most of you can tell by now!
I do think people who require medicine should have supply and if needs to be free for the impoverished, so be it. However, that is far cry from the nightmare policies we now have in the U.S.