New Open-Source Tabletop RPG

ClintonRNixon writes "A new open-source tabletop RPG has been released, The Shadow of Yesterday. People have been putting RPGs online for free for years, and Wizards of the Coast has their Open Game License, but this is the first time a game has been written and published using only open-source tools, and is published under a Creative Commons license. To make the online version, vi and Python Docutils were used; the published game was laid out using Scribus, The Gimp, and OpenOffice."

Comments

GPL Tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the first time a game has been written and published using only open-source tools, and is published under a Creative Commons license.

While the CC license is good, I don't understand the fuss over OpenOffice and the GIMP. Did people really care earlier about what RPGs were developed with? Were there really groups of people proclaiming "this RPG was written on a typewriter instead of with a pen"?

The license is what matters. It allows players to modify and redistribute the game, according to the rules stated in the license. Whether or not it was typed in OpenOffice, or written on a stack of napkins, is relatively insignificant.

Re:GPL Tools?

[LordNimon]

It has some value. Academically, it shows what can be done with open source tools, although that's probably not really news to the average Slashdotter. But more importantly, if you want to modify the content, you know you won't have to buy any software to do it.

Re:GPL Tools?

[Alpha27]

I agree the level of fuss that might be associated with the game because OSS was used in the entire development process. It's not the key point I personally look for in a RPG.

But, that the development of the game using OSS is good for those looking for a real-world example on how someone used OSS to create and publish a piece of work.

Re:GPL Tools?

[ClintonRNixon]

That's exactly why I submitted the story. Scribus in particular is something that needs highlighting. It's a great open-source DTP publication, but I haven't seen anything of any size or, to be honest, complexity come from someone using it. The interior of this game is lush, and Scribus did a great job handling it.

Re:GPL Tools?

[OAB_X]

It has some value. Academically, it shows what can be done with open source tools

As previously mentioned, pen and paper is the ultimate in open source. You can modify your pen without breaking the liscense, decompile it, recompile it, change it, mod it, refil it, upgrade it, and no-one will care.

Paper is also the uultimate in open source. Its been around for a few thousand years so there is no patent on paper anymore. You can find how it works by just looking at it. Its a flat surface where people write on using the open-source device above called a pen.

You don't even need to use comercial software to get the boards printed. Just make a nice board, go down to your local Office Place/Stables/Buisness Depot and ask them to run you off a few thousand copies of your board game. Made with the pen/paper. Multiple colours of pen may be used. Or even paint, which can be manufactured using ground up plants and rock. Its been around for even longer then paper or pen has.

But more importantly, if you want to modify the content, you know you won't have to buy any software to do it.

I never knew. So those new question cards for Trivial Pursuit, my new Monopoly land deed prices and community chest cards, and that board game I made back in grade 3 (using OSS materials known as pen/paper) was all done using software? Im shocked.

Does not windows come with a built in word processor (Wordpad/Notepad), an image editor (msPaint), and printing drivers so that you can use your printer to run off copies of the game?

Re:GPL Tools?

[swdunlop]

I find Paranoia XP's development process, namely the use of a Wiki to develop the rough draft, a lot more intriguing than "We used the following word processor.."

For free-as-in-beer games out there, Active Exploits is a good diceless game, and their more traditional Impresa system is good for people who are easily frightened by games that take away the dice.

Another GM in our RPG group is currently using JAGS, which I find to be a horrible system but it seems to appeal to GURPS masochists.

Re:GPL Tools?

[ClintonRNixon]

You've got a good point on the tools used. I'm still extremely excited about using Scribus, but part of that is that I am something of a ranting prophet on DIY RPG publishing. (I've been running the biggest site on the Internet for RPG creator-publishers for the last three or so years.) The tools used are more important to those people who don't already know about them. As for free-as-in-beer games, they're great. They're not truly free, though. JAGS, while not being my cup of tea, is cool. I haven't seen another RPG (besides, well, some others of mine) that are specifically licensed to be freely used to create derivative works without restrictions.

Re:GPL Tools?

[dstone]

The license is what matters. It allows players to modify and redistribute the game. Whether or not it was typed in OpenOffice ... is relatively insignificant.

Actually, "not tested on animals", "union made", or "built with OSS tools" are examples of appealing to social, ethical, or economic belief systems. Those qualities don't necessarily result in a different product at all, but as with any product, some gamers may prefer to use products built in ways they agree with or wish to bring awareness to.

Re:GPL Tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

some gamers may prefer to use products built in ways they agree with or wish to bring awareness to.

I agree. It's nice to know that I can buy or copy a game without Microsoft or Adobe having profited from the author of the game on the tool side.

Re:GPL Tools?

[digitalgiblet]

"Actually, "not tested on animals", "union made", or "built with OSS tools" are examples of appealing to social, ethical, or economic belief systems."

You do whatever you want to do, but I for one am NEVER, EVER going to play an RPG that wasn't THOROUGHLY tested on animals.

Re:GPL Tools?

[swdunlop]

For a different audience, your selection of tools would probably be more intriguing, but its mention in the article, here, just invites a little good natured amusement from me.

Your daring selection of the GPL-like Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license is commendable -- as you pointed out most of the free beer projects I pointed out above are commercial efforts which all exert some modicum of control over derived works in the style of WotC's OGL.

Re:GPL Tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use GNU/Bic

Re:GPL Tools?

[Anonymous Coward]

GNU/Bic!? What a loser! GNU/Crayola is far superior!

Re:Wow

[Planesdragon]

Fun fact:

Wizards of the Coast, in many ways the geekiest mecca of nerdom, was for many years home to a literal swinging community.

Trust me, nerds rarely stay virgins. Chicks dig the whole "roleplaying" thing, too.

Common Definitions

[BrookHarty]

I noticed they dont use Strength, Reflex, Intelligence, Stamina, etc.

Are these terms copyrighted for RPGS? I Thought these where too generic, so why not use what the standard is..


Athletics (Vigor)
This is a measure of raw physicality and fitness. It is used for running, jumping, swimming, or any other strength-based task not listed as a separate ability.
Reaction (Instinct)
This measures the quickness of a character's body and mind. It is as much "how quick the character notices something" as "how quick the character moves." It is used in a variety of situations, from who goes first in Bringing Down the Pain, to dodging blows, to noticing danger.
Resist (Reason)
"Resist" is the strength of a character's will, and is used to prevent compulsion of a natural or supernatural type. This includes physical compulsion: "Resist" would be used for a character to keep his cool under torture, for example.
Stay Up (Special)
"Stay Up" may well be the most unique ability in the game. In one sense, it answers the question, "how much damage can this character take?" Since damage isn't solely of the physical variety in The Shadow of Yesterday, though, it is as much a measure of "how much suffering this character will take before he gives up." "Stay Up" does not have an associated pool: instead, all pools are associated with it. When a character is damaged, the associated pool for "Stay Up" is the same as the associated pool for the ability used to damage the character.

Re:Common Definitions

[Planesdragon]

Are these terms copyrighted for RPGS?

No. They are too general to be trademarks, and you can't copyright single words.

In fact, you can't even copyright single rules. Whole games neatly put together--maybe. RPG books --yes. Single rules or names for rules? Not unless they're Exalted style "power of obscure poetry."

Re:Common Definitions

[Golias]

What a shame. There is nothing more broken in all of RPG's than the combat damage system, and this system follows in the same tradition.

D&D used it, because the creators borrowed the concepts of "armor class" and "hit points" from a naval-combat simulation tabletop game. Not much thought was put in to it... like most of the original Chainmail and D&D rules, it was all about keeping things simple for experienced war-gamers.

The vast majority of RPG's have borrowed the concept, as have most combat and RPG computer games. I like to call it the "Big Red Bar" system of damage. You fight like nothing is wrong with you as you continue to take generalized "damage" from combat, until a wound to your big toe takes away those last couple "points", and then you drop dead.

It was understandable in 1978, but there's no reason for it in this day and age. In my RPG group, everybody has a laptop. Why not come up with a combat system where the computers calculate for you just how much harder it is to swing a sword with a deep shoulder laceration (or a bruised hamstring, or a slight concussion, etc.)

For that matter, on-line RPGs and combat games should be doing this already.

Armor does not evade blows, it distributes impact to mitigate potentially lethal damage. Yet even the latest computer RPG's, such as World of Warcraft, use armor as a means of calculating a "to hit" target number. There's no reason it has to be this way.

A few maverick games out there have come up with some very novel solutions. The fact that this one does not is further evidence that the Open Source community rarely, if ever, really innovates. Linux is a UNIX-alike. StarOffice is an MS-Office-alike. KDE is a Windows-alike.... and this game is an Open Source D&D-alike. (Except D&D is already Open Sourced now, so nobody really needed it.)

Re:Common Definitions

[Golias]

The fact that this one does not is further evidence that the Open Source community rarely, if ever, really innovates.

Oh... I should point out that emacs is the exception which proves the rule. That program is a shining example of totally insane creativity unleashed.

I'm more of a vi user myself, but props where credit is due...

Re:Common Definitions

[Vaevictis666]

Armor does not evade blows, it distributes impact to mitigate potentially lethal damage. Yet even the latest computer RPG's, such as World of Warcraft, use armor as a means of calculating a "to hit" target number. There's no reason it has to be this way.

Actually, if you mouse over your Armor rating in WoW, its purpose is to mitigate damage. It will tell you that fighting a mob of your own level, your armor will block 15.3% of the damage (for example).

The to-hit stat for WoW is (IIRC) Agility.

Re:Common Definitions

[ClintonRNixon]

You're wrong on the open source D&D-alike comment: the damage system in this game does not pretend to bear even the most fleeting resemblance to blood-and-flesh damage. It's a meter of how close you are to being eliminated from the story.

I know a game that does do what you're looking for, though. You should check out The Riddle of Steel, which has a damage system almost exactly like what you describe.

Re:Common Definitions

[Golias]

I'm very pleased to stand corrected in this case.

-Aud, level 17 Warlock, Silverhand server

Re:Common Definitions

[msuzio]

I think no one does it because that approach isn't fun or interesting. Plenty of games have tried other approaches, of varying complexities. I've never liked any of them.

I do like location-based damage systems, and I do think wounds to certain locations should result in certain penalties, but I'd prefer to keep it very simple.

Top Secret SI was a good compromise system... you had 10 locations (2 arms, 2 legs, head, 2 chest, 1 abdomen, 2 hands) and equal hit points in each. Loss of all points in the 4 critical areas was basically incapitation, and I think loss of 2x the points was death. In arms, legs, and hands 1x was incapitation of the limb, 2x was amputation. Roll a d10 for the location an attack hits, or you could also do called shots at a penalty.

I'd use a system like that, I guess. Of course, most of the time now, my sessions are pretty combat-lite, so I don't really sweat the details.

Re:Common Definitions

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

The fact that this one does not is further evidence that the Open Source community rarely, if ever, really innovates.

Bravo! and how quite unlike the Microsoft model:

• WinXP based on Win2K
• Win2K derived from WinNT + Win98
• Win98 based on Win95
• Win95 based on Win3.1
• Win3.1 based on [various older Windows]
• [various older Windows] gui shell on top of MSDOS
• MSDOS derived from CPM
• CPM is a microcomputer shell based on Bourne Shell
• Bourne shell ripped from UNIX(tm)

wow. That's a lot of innovation there, buddy!

Glad to see that Free Software devs aren't the only ones with a creative block...

Re:Common Definitions

[buffer-overflowed]

You want something like ICE's Rolemaster(you mentioned laptops and intense calculations/table lookups), one of the old FASA RPGs, or even.. I guess... some of the White Wolf stuff.

Re:Common Definitions

[Anonymous Coward]

Heheh. Rolemaster. It's really kind of sad when someone explains that a storytelling system is "better" because "It's really hard to hit a squirrel, but once you do, man, it's dead."

Give me historical accuracy or a clever theme anyday.

BTW, how old of a FASA RPG do I need to look at? SR2 certainly had a 10 hitpoint system (although it separated stun and physical damage), and I inferred from the SR1 conversion rules that its predecessor did too.

Re:Common Definitions

[nathanh]

the Open Source community rarely, if ever, really innovates. Linux is a UNIX-alike. StarOffice is an MS-Office-alike. KDE is a Windows-alike...

UNIX is a MULTICS-alike. MS-Office includes a Wordperfect-alike and a 123-alike. Windows is a MacOS-alike.

It's turtles all the way down. Anybody who thinks any of the market players are "innovators" is a naive fool. It's all about imitation and incremental improvement, no matter if you're from FLOSS or otherwise.

Re:Common Definitions

[swdunlop]

To Hit is based off your weapon skill, compared to the defensive skill of the defender, and is supposed to be about 95% for a single weapon wielder engaging a target of equivalent skill; dual wielders experience a much diminished 75% accuracy as a penalty in the same situation.

There are, of course, a tremendous number of mitigating factors. The dodge ability is pretty widely distributed through the classes, and the parry and block abilities also provide other ways to fail. These are compared against your weapon skill and the skill being checked.

As the parent poster states, Armor has little to do with it in this respect. Missing is actually pretty rare, but parrying and dodging makes it seem more frequent. You certainly seem to get a more lively combat than just watching Grognarr the Barbarian whiff-whiff-whiffing while he tries to hit an elephant.

Re:Common Definitions

[cpt kangarooski]

No, you cannot copyright a game. A game is just rules, and rules are a form of method (i.e. the rules are the method to play the game) which is uncopyrightable subject matter per 17 USC 102(b).

However, an EXPRESSION of the rules MAY be copyrightable. That is, the underlying mechanic is not, but how you describe it might be. The trick here is the merger rule: if there's a substantially finite number of ways to reasonably express the rule, then no expression of it is copyrightable lest it in effect act as a copyright on the underlying rule. There have been contest rules in the past that merged with expressions rendering them uncopyrightable. I would expect that this is possible to some degree with rpgs.

Of course, other expressions, art, pieces, etc. are all generally copyrightable. (art and pieces may be subject to the utility doctrine, but it depends on what kind of piece we're talking about -- most are probably copyrightable, though)

This is why I always found the d20 license to be bizarre. They can't actually stop people from making compatable works, or from indicating compatability so long as there's no confusion as to source, etc. You really don't get anything out of it. And yet people just keep on going for it. Weird.

Re:Common Definitions

[zephiros]

Actually, the game uses a reductionist damage system, which only consists of three levels (normal, bloodied, broken). The ill-named "stay up" stat is apparently used to determine whether or not a particular activity causes a character to transition from one damage state to the next.

While it's not as sophisticated as, say, the old Cyberpunk 2020 damage system, it certainly isn't a "Big Red Bar" system.

Re:Common Definitions

[Planesdragon]

No, you cannot copyright a game.

Try making an RPG that's rules-identical to Storyteller 2.0. Watch how fast you wind up in court for "violation of copyright upon trade dress" or even the very untested "game as a character" theory. You can't copyright Monopoly or Football or Roleplaying Game, but there's enough credible legal theory to aruge that an RPG is complex enough to deserve copyright protection that, at the least, you'd have to go to court to fight it.

This is why I always found the d20 license to be bizarre. They can't actually stop people from making compatable works, or from indicating compatability so long as there's no confusion as to source, etc. You really don't get anything out of it. And yet people just keep on going for it. Weird.

Not all that weird, when you realize three very important things:

1. Most folk who try making indie RPGs are not wealthy enough to hire a lawyer to fight off a lawsuit. They have to be browbeaten to even hire one for a one-day review before publicaion.
2. The Open Gaming License is a trade where you agree not to bugger on about compatability, and in exchange you get to use *prewritten text* of the world's most popular RPG
3. The d20 license is only necessary if you use the OGL (which is a "get out of court free" pass), in that it gives you the right to use a registered trademark

Factor in the shrinking viability of the public domain due to MPAA/RIAA and the "software as art" crowd, and you've got a cottage industry that would much rather spend its dollars making RPGs than fighting lawsuits.

To say nothing of the commericial value of being able to use a specifically designed trademark that WotC markets as meaning "uses the same basic rules as D&D", and uses on every RPG book they print.

Re:Common Definitions

[cpt kangarooski]

Watch how fast you wind up in court for "violation of copyright upon trade dress" or even the very untested "game as a character" theory.

Where the hell are you getting these from?

there's enough credible legal theory to aruge that an RPG is complex enough to deserve copyright protection that, at the least, you'd have to go to court to fight it.

Got a cite? I'd like to see something dicussing this.

Most folk who try making indie RPGs are not wealthy enough to hire a lawyer to fight off a lawsuit. They have to be browbeaten to even hire one for a one-day review before publicaion.

Tell me about it. Cheap bastards.

you get to use *prewritten text* of the world's most popular RPG

Ah, that's something useful.

3. in that it gives you the right to use a registered trademark

And yet, if you create a game that actually is compatable with d20, the nominative use doctrine is pretty clear that you can say so explicitly. Maybe you don't get to use the fancy d20 logo, but big whoop.

Still doesn't seem worth it to me.

Re:Common Definitions

[alva_edison]

Part of the reason that this hasn't happened is the sheer amount of math and dice-rolls involved in a more complex combat system. This means that the only way the game stays fun (although rolling 4d6 + 5d10 + 3d20 + 2d12 to resolve a single hit might be fun) is to use a laptop. However, laptops aren't dice, part of the appeal of the tabletop RPG is that it's a pencil-and-paper game. Basically what I'm saying is -- Thou shalt not part a gamer and his/her dice!

Re:Common Definitions

[Planesdragon]

Got a cite? I'd like to see something dicussing this.

I wish I did. Most of the conversation happened on the OGF-L listsev, which as long since degerated into an impotent group with no meaningful discussion and no archives. :(

Re:Common Definitions

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, fortunately I've got Lexis at hand, and its treasure trove of law review articles to do quick and dirty legal research for me.

Didn't have anything even vaguely on point.

And between 102(b), and Feist (killing the sweat of the brow theory) I just don't see how the argument can be made.

Rules: not copyrightable because they're methods.

A compilation of rules into a cohesive game is still just one big method; it's not going to be a copyrightable compilation.

An expression of a rule in any form: maybe copyrightable, depends on applicability of the merger doctrine. Doesn't protect the underlying rule itself, just how you say it.

2D and 3D art: subject to the utility doctrine.

Mere 'complexity' is not sufficient to make something copyrightable. It has to fulfill the constitutional and statutory requirements. There's no getting around it.

Re:Common Definitions

[Planesdragon]

Look up the arguments for "copyrightability of software" if you have Lexis. You won't find the same ones I listed, but you'll find what would probably be referenced by the plantiff's attorney to stop a "duplicate and sell" RPG.

It's really an academic exercise, though. Anyone with the artistic ability to re-create a whole RPG system without infringing on the clear copyrights RPGs do have (layout, expression, et al) has the artistic ability to just make an RPG distinct enough to stand on its own. And is probably smart enough to exploit whatever advantages they can find.

You could also subscribe to OGF-L at the opengamingfoundation.org website, and ask if anyone has the arguments.

Re:Common Definitions

[buffer-overflowed]

Well, FASA is defunct, so any one of them would do. Shadowrun used a staged damage system depending upon the severity of an attack, so while it did have 10 hitpoints, it used wound categories(Light, Moderate, Severe, Deadly). For cyberpunk 2020 with elves and magic, it was a pretty realistic system.

Or you could go with Paranoia... which had no real rules to speak of.

Re:Common Definitions

[Tyreth]

A couple of thoughts...
The rules are there for fun and simplicty, not realism. It would be dull, but realistic, if you had to balance a healthy diet for your character. Hit points and AC are merely convenient measurements that don't subtract enough from realism to take away believability. Besides, our group has always viewed HP as something more like your ability to avoid the final blow. 100HP means you can dance and dart around blows that would have landed on a normal person. The Star Wars d20 system called it "vitality".

Check out White Wolf's Exalted roleplaying game (or Vampire which is similar). In that, armour reduces the damage potential but doesn't eliminate it. As you lose health from damage, you become less capable of performing. It's a simple system, but it works well.

Re:Common Definitions

[cpt kangarooski]

copyrightability of software

I know about software copyrightability: it barely squeeks in, it's so close to the wrong side of the idea-expression dichotomy.

Games are pretty close in terms of their mechanics. Storylines for scenarios that take place in a game, or artwork depicting the characters in a game and so forth are all easily copyrightable, just as they'd be in a program.

However, what I'm interested in is the functional portion of the work, since that's what's key for people that want to make compatable games, supplements, etc.

Anyone with the artistic ability to re-create a whole RPG system without infringing on the clear copyrights RPGs do have (layout, expression, et al) has the artistic ability to just make an RPG distinct enough to stand on its own.

Meh. I've been thinking of writing some supplements for GURPS that I plan to publish. I don't plan on getting permission to use their mechanics or indicate that my material would be compatable with theirs. Of course, it might be easier than usual with GURPS since there's such a great divide between their rules and the settings.

Let's quote now:

To the extent that an accounting text and a computer program are both "a set of statements or instructions . . . to bring about a certain result," 17 U.S.C. 101, they are roughly analogous. In the former case, the processes are ultimately conducted by human agency; in the latter, by electronic means. In either case, as already stated, the processes themselves are not protectable. But the holding in Baker goes farther. The Court concluded that those aspects of a work, which "must necessarily be used as incident to" the idea, system or process that the work describes, are also not copyrightable. 101 U.S. at 104. Selden's ledger sheets, therefore, enjoyed no copyright protection because they were "necessary incidents to" the system of accounting that he described. Id. at 103. From this reasoning, we conclude that those elements of a computer program that are necessarily incidental to its function are similarly unprotectable. ...

We think that Whelan's approach to separating idea from expression in computer programs relies too heavily on metaphysical distinctions and does not place enough emphasis on practical considerations. Cf. Apple Computer, 714 F.2d at 1253 (rejecting certain commercial constraints on programming as a helpful means of distinguishing idea from expression because they did "not enter into the somewhat metaphysical issue of whether particular ideas and expressions have merged"). As the cases that we shall discuss demonstrate, a satisfactory answer to this problem cannot be reached by resorting, a priori, to philosophical first principals.

As discussed herein, we think that district courts would be well-advised to undertake a three-step procedure, based on the abstractions test utilized by the district court, in order to determine whether the non-literal elements of two or more computer programs are substantially similar. This approach breaks no new ground; rather, it draws on such familiar copyright doctrines as merger, scenes a faire, and public domain. In taking this approach, however, we are cognizant that computer technology is a dynamic field which can quickly outpace judicial decisionmaking. Thus, in cases where the technology in question does not allow for a literal application of the procedure we outline below, our opinion should not be read to foreclose the district courts of our circuit from utilizing a modified version. ...

This process entails examining the structural components at each level of abstraction to determine whether their particular inclusion at that level was "idea" or was dictated by considerations of efficiency, so as to be necessarily incidental to that idea; required by factors external to the program itself; or taken from the public domain and hence is nonprotectable expression. ...

In ascertai

Re:Common Definitions

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are suggesting adds a level of complexity that is out of the relm of what a player can control. Not fun.

Let me explain. A simple system like many games use is perfectly fine because the level of control you have of your character is also simplistic. For example, in real life there are many, many factors that go into how well I can sword fight. Due to my own instincts and goals I might decide to perform a particular parry and risk losing an arm rather than a leg. An RPG simply can not provide all that control. I don't want some random role of the dice to determine that I got a stomach wound when if I was really in the fight I would have sacrifaced other things to make sure I never got that wound.

Only when when we get holodecks/Rekal where we can actually experience the real thing will that type of complexity make sense.

You need more control to balance the added complexity.

Re:Common Definitions

[Clover_Kicker]

| 123-alike

I think the Visicalc people would like a word with you...

| Wordperfect-alike

Anyone know what was the first word processor?

Re:Common Definitions

[swdunlop]

Bah. There were plenty of rules in Paranoia, you must not have sufficient clearance to know about them.. Er.. Forget I said anything!

Re:Common Definitions

[nathanh]

I think the Visicalc people would like a word with you...

I didn't say that 123 was the first spreadsheet program. I said that Excel was Microsoft's answer to 123. That is simply common knowledge.

Anyone know what was the first word processor?

As I said in my earlier comment, it doesn't matter. It's turtles all the way down. The "first" word processor would have been an incremental improvement from something else. There's no such thing as "first". It's an arbitrary line drawn in the sand when somebody says XYZ was "first".

Re:Common Definitions

[buffer-overflowed]

Not really citizen. Friend computer decided what happened more often than dice were rolled in that particular gem of a game.

Re:Common Definitions

[Grab]

That's a bit of a BS comparison. There's a very real difference between "new features added to an earlier version" and "new features added to imitate another platform". Not to defend MS wholeheartedly, but they have had some good ideas. New versions of MS products are not just iterative development of old stuff, but actually add new features.

Some of the features turn out to be crap, of course. The Office Assistant and MS Bob were/are horrible and unuseable - but at the time they were developed, there were lots of op-ed articles saying that the reason computers were so hard to use by Joe Average was because they didn't have an easy way to understand them, didn't know how to go about doing what they wanted, and didn't even know how to find out how to do stuff. To their credit, MS tried to fix that - OK, it was a pretty half-assed effort and everyone hated it, but the danger of innovating is that your new innovation doesn't succeed, so respect to them for trying something new.

Of course the OS community have had some good innovative ideas too. Tabs in browsers, for instance, or skinnable apps, or Paul Graham's anti-spam algorithms. Trouble is though that innovation doesn't just need clever people thinking up stuff, it also needs people to implement it, and it's easier for a rich company to push through the second part of that. That's why OS software tends to be playing catch-up - if you're only developing stuff in your free time, you simply can't keep up with someone who's coding 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. (Unless you have no social life or other hobbies, of course. ;-)

Grab.

Re:Common Definitions

[Clover_Kicker]

Actually, Visicalc was a "first".

There is some innovation, just not very much.

Re:Common Definitions

[drinkypoo]

I'm not really sure that emacs is a first, though. Or that it's all that brilliant. In fact I sincerely wish that no one had put together something like that until perl, because right now we could all be using a perl-based environment along the same lines :) (Imagine the insanity!) Seriously though, I'm pretty sure emacs was not the first scriptable user environment with an editor.

Re:Common Definitions

[Golias]

Pardon me, did I say anything about Microsoft being innovative? Ever? In my life?

So... what was your point?

Re:Common Definitions

[Golias]

Except for the fact that most open-source projects are not conceived as "incremental improvements" to existing software.

They are free-as-in-speech mimics of existing software, which endeavor to behave as much as possible like the original.

GIMP does not aspire to be the world's best image editor. It aspires to be "just about as good" as Adobe Photoshop (which is the world's best image editor) while also being free.

Linux these days has a few advantages over some versions of *nix, but the project still began when Linus T. decided, "I would like to build a free kernel that works just like Unix."

Re:Common Definitions

[msoya]

Your GM was running it wrong! The Computer specifically advises the GM to roll dice all the time, make little secret notes behind his screen, and laugh evilly. It helps it your players don't know the dice are meaningless, though :P

Re:Common Definitions

[nathanh]

Actually, Visicalc was a "first".

The first commercial success for the Apple II, perhaps. The first spreadsheet? No. The first electronic spreadsheet? No.

Remember what I said about incremental improvement? Dan Bricklin himself says that he saw Visicalc as an incremental improvement to a Texas Instruments calculator.

The idea for the electronic spreadsheet came to me while I was a student at the Harvard Business School, working on my MBA degree, in the spring of 1978. Sitting in Aldrich Hall, room 108, I would daydream. "Imagine if my calculator had a ball in its back, like a mouse..." -- http://www.bricklin.com/history/saiidea.htm

Even then, the idea of spreadsheets didn't come from Bricklin. They have been used by accountants for 100s of years. So even from that perspective, Bricklin's contribution was an incremental improvement over pen and paper spreadsheets.

Even then, Visicalc was not the first electronic spreadsheet. That honor goes to Mattessich who wrote an electronic spreadsheet in Fortran.

In the early 1960s, Richard Mattessich (then at the University of California at Berkeley; since 1967 at the University of British Columbia) pioneered computerized spread sheets for business accounting--first in a paper "Budgeting Models and System Simulation" (The Accounting Review, July 1961: 384-397) and later in two books Accounting and Analytical Methods (Chpt. 9 which contains the mathematical proto-type model) and Simulation of the Firm Through a Budget Computer Program (both, Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin, Inc., 1964) which contains, among others, print-out illustrations and the computer program (the latter written in FORTRAN IV by two of his research assistants, Tom C. Schneider and Paul A. Zitlau). This contribution (anticipating such best-selling spreadsheet programs for Personal Computers as VisiCalc, Lotus 1-2-3, Excel, et.) has variously been recognized in the accounting and related literature,

In any event, I think it's unhealthy to focus on "being first". Everything is built upon what was learnt before. That's why technology continues to advance, rather than starting from scratch with each generation.

Re:Common Definitions

[Clover_Kicker]

Visicalc was much more useful then either a calculator or the paper spreadsheet, I think of it as something new and innovative. Obviously YMMV.

I wasn't aware of the Fortran stuff in the 60's, very interesting.

Re:Common Definitions

[gbjbaanb]

You've not played Runequest then.

To-hit was a measure of attacker's skill (with chance to parry based on opponent's shield, dodge, etc skill). Damage was based on rolled number, minus armour value. It still didn't take into account tye of damage - eg a spear point against mail (compared with a sword slash, the mail doesnt; pretect against the spear nearly as well)

Unfortunately, one of the criticisms levelled at RQ was that characters would die (or run around amputated) far too often.

The other game I know about is Traveller - where, in the first incarnation at least, combat was deadly. The whole point there was not to get hit.

Oh, and Cyberpunk - the rules for combat there were similar to RQ in damage is mitigated by armour, but later rulesets took it too far (where a few kevlar tshirts(!) would protect you from a missile).

Re:Wow

[BrookHarty]

Trust me, nerds rarely stay virgins. Chicks dig the whole "roleplaying" thing, too.

My wife has all girl D&D parties, of course booze and munchies are always required.

Shes been watching me play World of Warcraft, not sure if she wants to try an Online game, but I'm thinking it will make a nice christmas gift.

So, yes, lots of women dig RPG's, SIMS online is very popular with women. In fact, SO says they are geared towards women...

Stay Up?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this had something to sexual performance. For male characters of course........

Misleading?

[Kleedrac2]

I understand OSS. I try to understand the FSF. But open-rpg's? Why do we need this? It's not like if your group comes up with a pamphlet of home-brew rules for D&D WotC is going to break into your parents basement and arrest you! The Open Gaming license is great, don't get me wrong I like the CC license as well, but Open Gaming is good enough for me. Also, when I read the article and it talks about the open gaming license I thought this RPG was d20, why it's not I don't understand.

Kleedrac

Re:Misleading?

[geminidomino]

It's not like if your group comes up with a pamphlet of home-brew rules for D&D WotC is going to break into your parents basement and arrest you!

Put them on the net or otherwise try to share them, and you can expect a C&D right quick when they find you. TSR and now WotC have been dicks about such things for at least the past 15 years.

As for the so-called "Open Gaming License," that's WotC's way of trying to coax competetors to use their crappy new system, supposedly "for the good of the community." If you read the OGL carefully, you'll quickly realize that's a load of balls. Take special care to read the section on "product identity" which includes such things as creating fscking characters.

Re:Misleading?

[Planesdragon]

If you read the OGL carefully, you'll quickly realize that's a load of balls. Take special care to read the section on "product identity" which includes such things as creating fscking characters.

Product Identity means that you or WotC or White Wolf can seperate character from stat-block. You can make all the stat-blocks you want for all of the characers you want, and use WotC's system (pure or highly tweaked) to add all the stat-blocks you want.

You just can't write "Elminster on Slashdot" or "Geminidomino does Dragonlance" and point to the OGL to say "but you said it was open!"

(Oh, and WotC/Hasbro is pretty good about online bits. They assume that if you're sharing new rules you're using the OGL, and will tell you what you need to fix if you cross the line. And if you're not using rules, but just running a "fan-site" -- well, even back to WotC's inital purchase of TSR they were sane about it.)

Re:Misleading?

[geminidomino]

In theory, that's true. In FACT though, their SRDs are utterly worthless unless you go out and buy a PHB (or whatever the hell they're called now). They're not contributing fsckall to "the community," just their own coffers.

Not that I have a problem with that. They're a business and businesses are out to make money. Big Duh. But it's right up there with MS "shared source" crap, and bullshit must be called.

Re:Misleading?

[Planesdragon]

Not so at all.

Without so much as a phone call between the publisher and WotC, all of the following have become D&D-compatible RPGs:

• Babylon 5
• WarCraft
• Everquest
• Conan
• Lone Wolf
• Slayers
• Traveller
• Trinity (A failed product line from White Wolf!)
• Judge Dredd
• Stargate SG-1

Not to mention all of the new-RPGs that have a market they never would have reached without the OGL and the SRD:

• Engel
• Mutants & Masterminds
• Dawnforge
• Grim Tales
• Arcana Unearthed
• Darwin's World
• Testament
• Spycraft

.
The OGL does exactly what Ryan Dancy said it would do: make more RPGs on the market, which means that those who want to write have a better chance of making a profit and those who just want to play have a MUCH wider range of choices.

And all this happened without a single red cent being passed from the producers of any game I mentioned to Wizards of the Coast, aside from the authors buying one copy of their books. (Which was unnecessary at the very start, and isn't necessary now if you open the book to check for chargen in the RPG shop.)

Comparing the OGL to MS's "Shared Source" program is as petty and wrongheaded as complaining that Apple's shoveling bullshit by not forcing Mach to become GPL.

Re:Misleading?

[geminidomino]

Comparing the OGL to MS's "Shared Source" program is as petty and wrongheaded as complaining that Apple's shoveling bullshit by not forcing Mach to become GPL.

I'm just going to have to stare at you blankly, since the last Apple I used was a IIe and I have no idea WTF "Mach" is. As to "petty and wrongheaded," I'm talking as one trying to put together a game, not play one. I looked at the SRD to try and save myself the pain and agony of working out a dice system, and saw way too many restrictions in WotC's FAQs.

Re:Misleading?

[Planesdragon]

I'm just going to have to stare at you blankly, since the last Apple I used was a IIe and I have no idea WTF "Mach" is.

And you're on slashdot?

Mach is the BSD layer that OS X runs on, licensed using the BSD license.

Contact me off-list or go to www.theFGA.com for a better way to use the OGL. WotC's FAQs are for people who create supplements and don't want to bother with a lawyer; they're far more restrictive than the actual OGL istself, in large part due to the d20STL.

Re:Misleading?

[geminidomino]

And you're on slashdot?

Yeah, Apple is on my "disabled topics" lists, since I don't use em and don't care much about them (too expensive, mostly).

I'm at www.theFGA.com now. Looks interesting, I'll read up on it. Thanks for the link.

Re:Misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too expensive!? What are you a homeless, jobless bum?

Re:Misleading?

[geminidomino]

No, a guy with bills to pay, a stomach to fill, and rent. Apples don't have remotely the Cost/Benefit ratio for me to even consider buying one when I can roll my own PC for a fraction of the price.

Level 99

[superpulpsicle]

Since this is opensource, I'd like to customize my characters to begin the adventure at level 99 with all stats maxed out.

Re:Level 99+

[chris_mahan]

Since this is opensource, I'll start my character at level 0.01 and have buggy abilities. Oh, but watch out! It'll take The Evil Overlord (MS) down once I power up with all my custom-coded utilities^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpowers.

Oh, and I'll go to the Source Forge to get my weapons of See++, have a Python handy for quick bytes, and dazzle you with my Ruby of OSS.

Finally, I'll let other people use my character, and before you know it, I'll have a full-color anti-aliased avatar with more forks than a german restaurant.

patents and copyrights

[Johnny Mnemonic]

IANAL, but I thought there was some debate if a game can be patented or copyrighted at all? Can anyone with a clue clarify?

Re:patents and copyrights

[softspokenrevolution]

Sure it can, how else do you think TSR could go around suing everyone and their mother back in the day. It also works to explain the insane variety of rules systems, what with all of the dice, you have an endless array of systems you could make up. Random Guy: I came up with a new system that uses eight sided dice, whenever you roll an eight you get to roll again, and when you roll a one, it's a 'mess up'. Other RG: Isn't that the story teller system? RG: no, it's different, I use an eight sided die.

Re:patents and copyrights

[cpt kangarooski]

I discussed game copyrightability here. Basically it varies from none to total depending on what part of the game and the materials connected to the game we're talking about. There's also a copyright office circular on their website.

Game rules can be patented -- but only if they meet the requirements for patentability, which is pretty rare. The only game rule I ever heard of being patented was something to do with Magic cards. Most rules though are so non-novel or obvious that it's not an issue, and anyway game developers don't seem to be worried enough about it to act before the 1 year time limit to file expires. (and n.b. that there's a 0-day time limit in most foreign countries -- you'd have to start the process before publishing the game, which would require great confidence as it's very costly)

Rulebooks

[secolactico]

I've never played a tabletop rpg. Not exactly for lack of oportunity, but because it doesn't really attract me.

I love RPG rulebooks and guidebooks. I've read some shadowrun, vampire the masquerade and d&d books. I like background stories, the kind that set the ambiance for the game (I guess). I like looking at the maps. I don't actually care if some super duper villain dwells in a dungeon and needs to be killed, but I'm interested in the the kind of society that gave birth to the incident. The politics between noblemen and guilds. The rise of a mega corporation whose chairman managed to acquire power that rivals those of a small nation, etc.

What does this have to do with this story? I read a bit of it and tought "meh... average at best". But the license will allow people to extend the story and make it available to the public at large without fear of repercusion. Or maybe make a scenery using Never Winter Nights of some other engine. Or maybe release short novels or whatever.

Re:Rulebooks

[Golias]

Most people who play a lot of RPGs don't care much about any of the things you are looking for in an entertaining "world sourcebook" to read.

Tabletop RPG folk like to creat their own worlds, their own histories, and their own mythologies, and then let the games take place in those worlds. Any setting info is simply used as a guideline for the tone which is supposed to be represented. (Or a template... I wish I had a dollar for every time I pulled out the old "Keep of the Borderlands" map that came free with the old D&D box-set because I quickly needed a generic military outpost in one of my campaigns.)

The only exceptions I can think of are the famous "Ravenloft" scenario book from AD&D, and the entire Paranoia & Acute Paranoia line. Both of those were such fantastic works that almost any game master who thumbed through them immediately wanted to take their players through them, right out of the box, with minimal changes. (I'm sure there are others, but those seem to be pretty universal stand-outs.)

Re:Rulebooks

[softspokenrevolution]

How does that seperate it from the OGL? There are plenty of generic fantasy worlds out there and this doesn't really seem like anything that great outside of the concept.

Re:Rulebooks

[travail_jgd]

RPGs are meant to be played -- I've seen some really dry text "come alive" when it's actually used. And I've seen wonderful writing, background, and rules wasted in poor gaming sessions.

What you're doing is watching football (soccer for us Americans), and not understanding why the players don't just pick up the ball.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I'm not a huge fan of tabletop RPGs. I've never even played one, not once. But I'm pretty sure that they don't have any source code to be "open" or "closed"...

Purity Tests!

[Austerity Empowers]

The pedigree behind this open source RPG reminds me of another type of pen and paper RPG: Purity Tests.

"Have you ever drank so much that you puked?" (1 point)
"... and passed out afterwards?" (3 points)
"... and woken up next to a stranger?" (3 points)
"... and couldn't remember her name?"(1 point)
"... and fathered her children?"(10 points)

etc.

I had to level up a lot after the first time I played, I was too far behind everyone else =/

So what?

[softspokenrevolution]

How is this amalgam of other gaming systems even noteworthy? Seriously, in the text of the 'core rules' he makes this explicit: "This is definitely the game with the most blatant theft I've written."

Granted that it's a small community, and what one group does influences another (to some extent), but what is the virtue of this sytem? It's a nice effort, but it doesn't bring anything new to the table, or that interesting.

Re:So what?

[ClintonRNixon]

I'd rather respond to this via e-mail, because I don't want to come off like a shill, but since I can't:

I've been designing for a long time. Every game is a group of good ideas that a designer got from other games and put his own unique twist on. The difference is that I say so up-front. It's not really an amalgam, as much a bibliography of influences.

As for "new to the table," I'm not going to try and sell the game. If you want to know why it's not the suck, feel free to read this post on an RPG forum:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=160951

Or. feel free to contact me via e-mail - the e-mail's on my website - and I'll explain to you why it's pretty much the best role-playing game ever.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

He obviously meant that the teenager was so geeky as to want to play by himself in his dark suburban basement, with his dice and minatures. There he could play out his visions of ultimate power...

That's great

[ilyanep]

How long before some smart teenager figures out how to hack the game and get himself to level 350,000 (out of 100)?

Re:That's great

[djdavetrouble]

I think its safe to say either you didn't rtfa, or you misunderstood it wildly. Either way, you completely
missed the point here. There is nothing to 'hack', this is an old school RPG, a la Dungeons and Dragons.

Re:That's great

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the grandparent did understand. Perhaps they are just confused about how to use an eraser and a pencil to change stats. Kids these days aren't very bright, you know.

Article fails to mention:

[Pxtl]

Is it good?
.
.
.
or is it whack?

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, chicks dig roleplay, and not just the geeky girls. Most the girls that I know in our gaming or roleplay groups are very pretty and lead rather interesting lives. The whole geeks don't get laid thing is finally finally dying.

Re:Wow

[Reapy]

It'll probably never die, but it was never true to begin with.

Re:Wow

[Flunitrazepam]

I'd rather be a virgin than have a wife who has D&D parties

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for providing explanation.
Unfortunately, people don't even notice that you're the one who wrote the game they're talking about.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre living your wish!

Re:Level 99+

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you are a fucking shmendrik!