Talk:Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Role-playing games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Forgotten Realms work group.

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Variant Dungeons & Dragons games be merged into this article, as the content is mostly redundant, and this article has more information and is better organized (and has a better name, in my opinion). The other article talks a little more about the topic of fan dissatisfaction, which would be nice to add to this article if it can be sourced properly. I've heard multiple claims that Pathfinder is now outselling D&D, if there's a reliable source for that, it could be relevant. I'd also like to see this article's title corrected to "simulacra", which is the proper plural, but that would come later. Any thoughts? As neither of these articles get much attention, I may just make the change in the next couple of days if no one objects. zorblek (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't yet an opinion about the plural of simulacrum since it's an English-assimilated Latin word. Thus, it could be ruled by English grammar... or not. Concerning the main purpose of this discussion I see no obstacle to procede by merging Variant Dungeons & Dragons games into Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums... Kintaro (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know. I looked it up in various dictionaries, and they all listed "simulacra" but not "simulacrums". I'm not really a stickler for linguistic standardization, but I figured someone would eventually complain so we might as well fix it now. zorblek (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
My own English dictionary is the 1993 edition of the [New] Shorter Oxford. It states that both plurals are correct (Volume 2, page 2867). Regards! Kintaro (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, what if we just merged both into something like Dungeons & Dragons variants and simulacrums? bad idea? Kintaro (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Having checked the American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster and Webster's Standard, I get two for "simulacra" only and one for either. I suggest that "simulacra" is the more widely accepted and traditional form, and that "simulacrums" is an English bastardization that is slowly gaining ground. We should probably avoid the controversial word and use something else, like "clones". This is supported by other related Wikipedia articles that refer to them as "retro clones". Canonblack (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe you have two different things confused here:
Firstly there is the idea of a merger, which I would support if it was a true merger, rather than just the zapping of one article and it becoming a redirect.
Secondly there is the idea of the article name not being as good as it could be, this is a valid thing to talk about, but you have people voting on one of two merger options and I think that is confusing. Plus, User:Kintaro is right. The commonly used term for these games is actually 'retro-clone' That currently redirects to Open gaming#Retro-Clone_systems, but I think that it should be pointing to an article such as this one (or that the open gaming article should be merged with both of these articles). I think that players of these systems are much more likely to be searching for 'retro-clone' or 'variant' than 'simulacrum'. In fact I think that some Dungeons & Dragons players would expect this article to be about the Simulacrum spell from the 3rd Edition rules.
Considering making this article about 'retro-clones' would make the merger/non-merger and name decision easier, as it would then be about deciding if all the systems mentioned on both articles qualified as 'retro-clones' or if two terms would need to be used. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a variant of Dungeons & Dragons, but would not easily fit into the term 'retro-clone', as it promotes itself as being 'more advanced' than the rules it copies, while most of the games on this article and the 'variants' article promote themselves as being 'emulations of earlier rules'. I would support the merger, but I'm not really happy that either article does the job. These games are not actually based on D&D, but are based on the System Reference Document, which I believe that Wizards of the Coast intended to get people to support the 3rd Edition rules, not make retro-clones or variant rules. It is a pedantic distinction, but as it is the legal defence of the people that created the 'retro-clones' and variants, I think the article we end up with needs to be a bit more clear about the games not being directly based on Dungeons & Dragons. I also think that the article that we end up with should have a 'Response to open gaming/retro-clones/variant rules' section that states that the creation of these games was a contributing factor towards Wizards of the Coast moving away from supporting the OGL and releasing 4th Edition under the GSL. I think that the inclusion of background information like that will show these games in the culture (of fans and commercial companies showing support for old out of print versions of Dungeons & Dragons and Wizards of the Coast wanting to do what they can to ensure that fans buy their current D&D products.
I think the whole area is unclear, and does not tell the whole story. I think I'll talk to User:BOZ as he is pretty good at untangling this sort of thing.Big Mac (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)



Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games into Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums
(If you support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

  1. I support this merger.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  2. Sure; "Variant Dungeons & Dragons games" sounds like it should be about Arduin Grimoire or RoleMaster instead of its current content. Ben Standeven (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  3. I also support this merger. I can see the reasons why one would want to distinguish between variants and simulacrums, but unless the variants page is significantly reworked, it seems to me that a merger would be in the interests of both. My preference would be to see the variants page expanded, but I have not the time available myself. --M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. support. A merged article would be more useful, but it could get large rather quickly. Web Warlock (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)



Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games into Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums
(If you do not support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

  1. Oppose based upon the recognizability and naturalness criteria of WP:TITLE. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)



Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games AND Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums into Dungeons & Dragons variants and simulacrums
(If you support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

  1. Kintaro (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)



Merger of Variant Dungeons & Dragons games AND Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums into Dungeons & Dragons variants and simulacrums
(If you do not support that motion just add # ~~~~ at the end of the following list):

title and the usage of "simulacrum"[edit]

I've heard and read about "retro-clones" in the context of D&D rpgs a lot, but never simulacrum. Not used in this sense, anyway - to a gamer like me, that term refers to the various in-game magic spells that duplicate creatures; creating more or less false copies of persons or monsters. So I did a google search, getting 139K results for "d&d retro clone" and 91K results for "d&d simulacrum". Okay so that could be taken to mean I'm wrong, or at least uninformed. But all first-page results clearly refer to simulacrums as the in-game spells (and their creations). Except one: this very page. I know you're in the middle of a merger vote, and I don't have an opinion either way, thus this separate section: I propose that the usage of "simulacrum" in the page name is removed.

Any term you end up using that do not refer to these variant games as "simulacrum" (in any singular or plural form) whatsoever will be fine. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Late to the discussion, but I oppose this change. A quick Google of "Dungeons & Dragons Retro-Clones" reveals around 7,000 hits and of "Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums" around 30,000 (most being copies of the original article). Either way, at Dragonsfoot where these games were originally championed the "simulacrum games" subforum was created way back when to harbour them. Whilst retro-clones is a popularly used term it is not an accurate description, especially when applied to modern simulucrums (or simulcra) of Dungeons & Dragons, such as Path Finder. Moreover, the article is now utterly confusing, using simulacra throughout in preference to "retro-clone" despite its title. Worse, Dungeons & Dragons simulacra has virtually no hits on Google. What a mess. --M.J.Stanham (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested renaming[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: common name according to section above, and disambiguates according to Hekerui. DrKiernan (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


Dungeons & Dragons simulacrumsDungeons & Dragons retro clones –Per above. In short, I contest the usage of "simulacrum" in this context and argue a phrase such as "retro clone" is much more widespread. Thanks Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC) CapnZapp (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Retro-Clone is the accepted term. Web Warlock (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The question is, do we have any reliable source - and for this purpose, I'd say even one would do - which tells us what the "proper" name should be? If it's "retro-clone" then fine, but I would rather have something (even just one thing) to confirm it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose retro clone seems to be jargon and not adequately descriptive. There can be no proper name, only a useful one for readers. Of course simulacra would be more understandable than simulacrums. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment The IP is right—we could use sources in this discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "simulacrum" has an in-game meaning and may confuse for that reason. Hekerui (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

For Gold and Glory[edit]

Hi, there is AD&D 2E clone, named For Gold and Glory. It is available on Lulu, but I can't find more information about this game (except fora, of course).

Below is the sole more or the less official info (not even homepage) I could find (link to download included): http://osrcompatible.org/products/

I think it deserves at least a "see also" mention, but given low info, I won't make it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.34.42 (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you need more reliable sources before you add any information about this. 2601:D:9400:3CD:C478:3823:8325:BCC2 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)