More specuations on the lisence

[Havard]

Just picked up some old statements by Dustin Clingman:

( http://mmrpg.zeitgeistgames.com/index.p ... ight=#4365 )

There are plans to show more of the world, but licensing limitations are likely to preclude the expansion from detailing Ten or Thonia in name.

And further down:

Dave has had a vision for the world surrounding Blackmoor for years. At such time when we really wish to expand, we'll be most likely to forge ahead with his vision rather than rely on licensed property to do so.

What should be read into this? Why would Ten and Thonia be left out of the lisence? Or was this rather part of a backup plan to keep publishing material from Blackmoor if the lisence ended? This was posted back in 2007...

Havard

[Big Mac]

Maybe research into the Ravenloft licence can tell you why these elements were not included.

Ravenloft (like Spelljammer and Planescape) was a transitive campaign setting, with links to multiple other campaign settings. I don't know them all (having never played it), but I do know there was a major link to Dragonlance via Lord Soth and recently found out (via The Piazza) that they have a Mystara-connected NPC there.

So if you licence Ravenloft "as is" you give people secondary access to other settings. I think that the non-RL stuff might well have been pulled in the 3e RL licence.

If I am correct, and I might not be, the elements "missing" from the Blackmoor licence might be elements of Mystara and/or Greyhawk. (You would probably know this better than me.)

I know that you, personally, think of Blackmoor as "Mystara's past", but if a company wanted to buy Blackmoor under that basis, they really should be paying to use both settings.

I think the same applies to any Blackmoor/Wilderlands connnections. If Blackmoor was actually owned by Dave Arneson, I'm sure he would have sat down and thrashed out some sort of cross-setting licenece that allowed both Blackmoor and Wilderlands to make limited use of each other's intellectual property. But with a big company on one end - one that was not especially keen to bring back Blackmoor - and a tiny company on the other end, I can see why this cross-setting licence never happened. And I can't see anyone wanting to do it in the future. (Not unless Wizards of the Coast bought out Judges Guild and wanted to make a grognoid-friendly setting for 4e. Even then, I think the non-WotC Blackmoor means that it would need to wait for 5e.)

I've got to say that I think that the politics behind Blackmoor really seem to have held the setting back. If things had been different, the First Fantasy Campaign and something like the ZGG line, would have been published as OD&D or perhaps AD&D products by TSR and the 3e product line would have been an evolution of earlier work, rather than the first chance to get some of the stuff out there.

If there was an OD&D Blackmoor, folllowed by a 1e Blackmoor, 2e Blackmoor, 3e Blackmoor and 4e Blackmoor, it would be really interesting to see how the world fitted in with those different rules.

And if the breaks had been taken off of Blackmoor before the ZGG licence, there might have been more time for Dave Arneson to do world building and make something of the same magnitude as Oerth.

I really do not like all these legal twists and turns because, while they make commercial publishing posible, they really do seem to hold back a number of "inactive" D&D settings.

I'll be interested to see what your thoughts on Ravenloft crossover elements are.

[Havard]

Maybe research into the Ravenloft licence can tell you why these elements were not included.

It is possible, but I wonder how much it would be relevant as I believe the Blackmoor lisence was quite unique due to the past history of Dave Arnson and his claim to the D&D trademark.

OTOH, you may be right. There is a Duchy of Tenh in Greyhawk and a Thonia in Mystara, though I would be surprised if WotC knew about the Mystara one.

Then again, it is possible that WotC deliberately wanted to limit Arneson's options with the lisence he had obtained.

I've got to say that I think that the politics behind Blackmoor really seem to have held the setting back. If things had been different, the First Fantasy Campaign and something like the ZGG line, would have been published as OD&D or perhaps AD&D products by TSR and the 3e product line would have been an evolution of earlier work, rather than the first chance to get some of the stuff out there.

Certainly. The problem is that Dave contributed to the DA modules, he had no chance of knowing that there would be an OGL which would have allowed him to publish Blackmoor for D&D independently of the company which owned D&D.

If there was an OD&D Blackmoor, folllowed by a 1e Blackmoor, 2e Blackmoor, 3e Blackmoor and 4e Blackmoor, it would be really interesting to see how the world fitted in with those different rules.

There was an OD&D Blackmoor and a BECMI Blackmoor, both which are easily usable with AD&D. Also, there was a 3e and 4E Blackmoor.

I really do not like all these legal twists and turns because, while they make commercial publishing posible, they really do seem to hold back a number of "inactive" D&D settings.

Very true.

I'll be interested to see what your thoughts on Ravenloft crossover elements are.

You mean as a principle, or specifically about Ravenloft?

Havard

[aldarron]

Havard, I suspect you hav had some friendly contact with Dustin Clingman in the past. Why don't you invite him to join this board and do a Q and A?

[Havard]

Havard, I suspect you hav had some friendly contact with Dustin Clingman in the past. Why don't you invite him to join this board and do a Q and A?

I have mentioned it to him, but he seems to be a bit too busy to do some for the moment. I hope he will pay us a visit eventually though

Havard