Talk:Arduin

Legal battles

I have received an e-mail claiming that there are legal issues with this page. Specific sections noted in the e-mail have been moved to this talk page so they may be discussed rather than continuing the current edit war. The claim is that rights to this trademark and to the related copyrights are currently under litigation. The edit war appears to be over the removal and reinsertion of text related to these matters.

A request was made that the page be pulled till the courts have ruled on the matter, or that it be frozen with wording acceptable to both parties. So far, I have not protected it, but have moved below (what as far as I can tell are) the contentious points. I ask that the parties involved discuss these here before editing the article. A factual dispute notice has been added. As at least one of the people editing this is involved with company in question, a neutrality notice has also been added. --Angela 18:55, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

The parts removed and under dispute are;

1. In the later years of his life, Hargrave and Grimoire Games granted a limited license to Dragon Tree Press who produced 5 of Hargrave's Arduin titles.
2. Grimoire Games sold all rights to the Arduin material to Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures circa 1998. Emperor's Choice has reprinted several titles and the game is seeing a small but steady resurgence.
3. It should be noted, finally, that Arduin is the exclusive Copyright and Trademark of Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures.

Background, 68.128.12.126 Comment

To answer point by point: In the later years of his life, Hargrave and Grimoire Games granted a limited license to Dragon Tree Press who produced 5 of Hargrave's Arduin titles.:

Quoting from The Lost Grimoire,Arduin Grimoire Vol. IV, First Printing, November 1984, inside front cover: "Copyrighted material used by permission of Grimoire Games."

Quoting from Dark Dreams, The Arduin Grimoire Vol. V, First Edition 1985, Page 2: "All text & art (c) 1985 by David A. Hargrave. Published by Dragon Tree Press" and from Page 3 Table of Contents: "Copyrighted material used by permission of Grimoire Games."

Quoting from House of the Rising Sun, Arduin Grimoire VI, First Edition, September 1986 Title page: "By David A. Hargrave Copyright 1986" and "Published by Dragon Tree Press".

Quoting from Shadowlands, Arduin Grimoire VII, First Edition, September 1987, Title Page:"Copyright 1987 by David A. Hargrave" and "Published by Dragon Tree Press".

Quoting from The Winds of Chance, Arduin Grimoire VIII, First Edition, October 1988, Table of Contents page: "This entire volume, to include all artwork contained herein, is the sole copyright and legal property of David A. Hargrave (c) 1988. All rights are reserved by the author. The Dragon Tree Press publishes their Arduin materials under a specific "permission" contract from Grimoire Games of El Cajon, California, allowing the limited use of their proprietary rights."

Thus we see that from the outset, all the way through to the final volume the consistent theme; that the totality of the Arduin material remained the property and copyright of David A. Hargrave and Grimoire Games. We see Dragon Tree's acknowledgement that the Arduin content thereof is not theirs and is published through permission from Grimoire Games; further,that this permission is of a limited nature. Those are the facts, in plain print, in the noted publications. As such I, as an interested observer, would suggest these facts stand on their own merit and are indisputable. They are in print as quoted in the Dragon Tree publications as noted.

Grimoire Games did publish/produce the Arduin Grimoire trilogy, Arduin Adventure, Complete Arduin and, through a limited permission contract with Dragon Tree Press, the five grimoires cited. Grimoire Games was the owner of the Arduin rights and the owner of the copyrights to all the Arduin material. Dragon Tree Press has said so in their published editions as noted. That fact is indisputable and stands upon its own merit.

Grimoire Games sold all rights to the Arduin material to Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures circa 1998. Emperor's Choice has reprinted several titles and the game is seeing a small but steady resurgence. AND It should be noted, finally, that Arduin is the exclusive Copyright and Trademark of Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures.:

Arduin is a registered trademark and copyright of Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures. Don't take my word for it, ask the Federal Government where the proper forms etc are filed for all to see. Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures obtained these copyrights and trademarks, along with all other rights to the Dave Hargrave Arduin material from the former owner, Gimoire Games. That fact is indisputable and stands upon its own merit.

That is my point of view as an interested observer with no ties to either company involved in litigation over these issues. The courts will inevitably sort all the legal nuances out and make their decision, by which all parties shall be bound. I have no bone to pick aside from the accuracy/neutrality issue. I believe this has been adequately answered, particularly in view of the Facts of Dragon Tree's own publications and the statements published in them as noted.

Background, Dragon Tree comment

Here is the background of our objections to the statements above.

In the 1980s, David A. Hargrave wrote and signed author/publisher contracts with Dragon Tree Press for Grimoires IV-VIII, which Dragon Tree has kept in print ever since.

In spring of 2003, Emperor's Choice released their (disputed) editions of Grimoires IV-VIII and filed suit against Dragon Tree, challenging those Hargrave contracts.

Dragon Tree has always been willing to co-exist, with both companies printing and selling material from IV-VIII, as we think this would please Dave. But we prefer not to sell Emperor's Choice ALL of OUR rights (though we will consider offers from third parties).

Dragon Tree's filed counter-claim says that Emperor's Choice does not hold copyright to Grimoires IV-VIII, as Hargrave's contracts assign those copyrights to Dragon Tree.

Thus the statements which contributor 68.128.12.126 presents as facts, are matters under litigation. Neither side should present such as fact, till decided by the court. Nor should phrases appear such as "granted a limited use license", which suggests a position on a litigated issue; as does saying "Dragon Tree produced" in contrast to "Grimoire Games published." In context, "Grimoire Games sold all rights" suggests that Grimoire Games owned all rights, which is in dispute; "Grimoire Games sold all THEIR rights" would be a neutral phrasing.

However, we at Dragon Tree think that no such details belong in an encyclopedia article! As long as the disputed items #1-3 are on the 'Talk' page, our side needs equal time. However we would suggest eliminating all reference to ownership and other legal issues (till legally settled).

We would be happy to contribute to an article focused on the content of all the different world of Arduin books (not just IV-VIII) and how they have actually been used by gamers over the years. This would be useful to readers, as content varies greatly and different books are usable by different markets. Some books reference one or another Arduin 'combat systems'; others are more generic, appealing to a wider group of gamers including players of various TSR(R) systems (such as "Dungeons and Dragons(R), AD&D(R), etc).

Many quotes from Hargrave would be available, showing his vision of taking the world of Arduin(R) into multiple markets, not rule-specific.

Perhaps we should put such an article on our own website, where it would not be subject to 'edit war'.:-) Though that term would probably amuse Dave. :-)

Mary Ezzell, Dragon Tree Press, mary@dragontree.com

The court never ruled on the case. It was settled out of court, with both parties continuing to sell Grimoires IV-VIII.

Status of this talk page

is anyone watching or reading this talk page and if so can you answer some questions i have? i would thank you very much! Gandolyn 22:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Mosher

If anyone can figure a way to better distinuish Paul from the "other" Mosher, please do so. What was just added is nothing more than a patch, frankly, but it's still long overdue. White Out and Typos 20:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Impact of Arduin on D&D

I strongly dispute the newest changes on the legacy Arduin has had with D&D.

Since I'm the one who posted the changes, I will reply inline.

a) Fumbles have never been a part of official rules. (The "natural 1 is always a miss" rule is not a fumble rule)

I played a lot of D&D in the greater Los Angeles area from 1978 until 1982, and nearly every game I played in had "fumbles". They were usually not as detailed as the Arduin system, but they all involved more than just "natural 1 is a miss". Rolling a 1 meant either injuring yourself or dropping your weapon or something else severe. Was my experience atypical? If in fact this kind of "fumble" is well-known, even among players who have never heard of Arduin, then my point stands.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't, since your point implied the fumble rules were added to *official* D&D. As for the influence itself, every group made up such rules, whether they used Arduin or not; we certainly did in my High School way back when.Lizard sf 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

b) Many, many, many, many fan and third party sources were adding critical hit rules to D&D from the dawn of the game, and the current system bears no resemblance to the Arduin system.

If this is correct, then the article should say that "Arduin, along with various other materials [can you cite specific examples?] led to these changes". Either way, the fact that non-TSR-sanctioned supplements and variants were popular, and this led to changes in TSR's D&D, is important to mention IMO.

The thing is, the way CHs were implemented when made 'official' actually doesn't look like any other system I've see (the 'confirm critical' roll). The closest might be Rolemaster (critical ranges for different weapons, plus a second roll to determine severity of critical, but that's pushing it.) The idea of critical hits was extremely common, and no one supplement deserves credit for inspiring it. Lizard sf 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

c) The two-axis alignment system was first hinted at in Eldritch Wizardry and articles in the SR, predating the first edition of the Grimoire.

The only reference in Eldritch Wizardry that I recall is the reference to one of the races being of "great, but lawful, evil". This was not explained. Other than this phrase, the first three booklets and four supplements consistently used "law" and "chaos" for what would later be known as "good" and "evil". I would guess this terminology was taken from Moorcock's books, but that's just a guess.

I think this point is crucial. It's not just that a second axis was added. In the original one-axis system, devils and demons were "chaotic" and elves and paladins were "lawful". When the two-dimensional system was created, the old law/chaos was renamed good/evil, and then appended to a new law/chaos axis.

This is true, but this change didn't come from Arduin. I do not have the time now to dredge out my Dragon CD-ROM, but I am fairly certain that if we compared the dates of Gygax's original article in SR or Dragon about the new alignment axis to the publication of AG, we'd see which came first. Lizard sf 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to act like I am dissing Hargrave -- he was one of the most brilliant and creative minds in gaming, and his loss is tragic. The Arduin books remain one of my fundamental stylistic inspirations in my worldbuilding and in my idea of what D&D & gaming *should* be. Unfortunately, some people take this too far and feel that they can't admire him as someone who brilliantly *enhanced* D&D and RPGs in general; they need to cast him as an innovator in ways he objectively was not. Lizard sf 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about Hargrave, and I have no interest in praising him. My only emotional feeling about any of this is that I tend to think Gygax got a bit too much credit, and Arneson too little (and I could be wrong, since this is all based on hearsay).

Unless the poster can provide some assertions that, say, the critical hit system added in the 2000 edition of D&D was somehow directly inspired by the 1977 system of AG, I believe this section should be removed. Lizard sf 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If my phrasing implies that the D&D rule changes were caused by the Arduin rules, then it should be rephrased, since I have no direct evidence of this. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Later: I think your suggestion of doing the research into "which came first" is the best bet, but I have no time or ability to do that. So I'm not sure what that means for the article at this point. Is it possible to find a wording that indicates that the existence of Arduin was one factor that influenced the development of D&D without specifically giving them credit for specific rules changes?

If we can settle this, then comparable phrasing can also be used at Editions of Dungeons & Dragons#Original version, where you and I have made similar edits. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Arduin as D&D supplement or as independent game?

However, I have a more fundamental problem with this Arduin Wikipedia article that perhaps we would need to settle first. Someone unfamiliar with the subject, reading this article, would conclude that there was a game called "Arduin", which was a rival to D&D, not a supplement to it.

I've edited to try to correct this many times; certain people seem determined to forget that the first three Arduin books were very clearly unlicensed supplements and not a 'stand alone game'.Lizard sf 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But in my (limited) experience I don't recall anyone ever playing a game called "Arduin" as an independent game. The Arduin Grimoire was always used as a supplement to D&D; there was never a game with Technos and Phraints that didn't also have Orcs and Trolls and hit dice and all the D&D things. Arduin may have used the term "mages" instead of "magic users", but their mages had access to all the spells listed in Men & Magic and in Greyhawk.

Does anyone have any evidence of gaming communities playing a game they called "Arduin", using rulebooks by Hargrave and not any rulebooks by TSR? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my experience with Arduin, we were playing it as a variant of at least D&D, if not AD&D. There appeared to be some sort of intention to make it a standalone game, but nothing of that sort was ever actually published, AFAIK. However, one must remember that 1st ed. AD&D was also more a supplement to D&D - it wasn't really clear how play proceeded, until you'd read all the books, or had learned it from more experienced players. Argyriou (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

People in this area (New Haven, Ct) treated Arduin as variants and modules for D&D. Of course, D&D covered a great deal of free-form gaming ideas when I started playing in 1978 or so. It was the name of the _hobby_ and only coincidently the name of the commercial products. I greatly admire the creators of Arduin but they didn't create a new game. Will in New Haven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.173.135 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?

Why are there several notes that such and stuch reprints are "available through Emperor's Choice Games and Miniatures." throughout the article? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not another advertisement to drum up business. Oglahai 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I am in the process of formatting and cleaning this article. I cannot do everything at once, however. On my list is bringing the formatting of names and references into line and clarifying various areas. I also want to expand some areas like the infamous legal snafu with TSR, and also the legal battles between Dragon Tree and Emperor's Choice. Another very important issue I want to clarify for readers who are not familiar with Arduin is putting to rest the idea that Arduin began as a standalone game when it was in fact intended to be a Judges Guild-style supplement to Dungeons and Dragons. The "correction tape" legal issue changed all this, I know, and certainly Hargrave intended for Arduin to be standalone later on, but I want to see that early direction clearly explained. I am just posting this to let who ever is looking in that I am aware this article needs further work. Thanks! - Dicecollector29 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• Should we merge this into Grimoire Games? Might help both articles out a little. Web Warlock (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the reverse - Grimoire Games existed purely to propagate the Arduin system, and there's almost nothing in the GG article which isn't also in the Arduin article, while the converse is not true. Argyriou (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• yes to merger in some form. 69.107.114.255 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that the pages be merged into one called Arduin Grimoire or Arduin (role-playing game). The page titled "Arduin" should be made into a disambiguation page, as there are several medieval Italian/Lombard historical figures who had that name, and a few modern individuals with that surname. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Housekeeping

All these years later it's quite clear that the Arduin article needs housekeeping, especially in the area of references. There are numerous great refs available now (2019) and the article needs them. It also needs some reduction and formatting. I'll do my part, as able. - Sanfranview (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a variety of what I consider errors and mischaracterizations in this article, and, for the most part, I'm not in a position to effectively contradict them because of an absence of source material at this late date. The one thing I can certcertainly ainly contest is the use of the title "the Complete Arduin" throughout this article, and in fact this was never the name of the two-volume set. The correct title is "The Compleat Arduin" as in the "Compleat Angler," to convey some sense of the archaic, and also to reflect that the rules were a manual on how to play Arduin as a stand-alone system, much as the Compleat Angler was intended to be a manual for the craft of fishing in its time. The two volumes were copyrighted under this name, and I know this because I filed the copyright notices with the Library of Congress. This is also how they were assigned ISBN numbers, and all of the original print run certainly used this title, as well as at least some of the reprints by Emperor's Choice. What EC did after that, I don't know. The usage here should reflect the historical name of the product, irrespective of what subsequent rights holders might prefer. 99.21.64.17 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The previous comment is from Mark Schynert, Editor for the Compleat Arduin 22mass22 (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand the post from the IP editor above. The expression "Complete Arduin" does not occurr anywhere in the article, let alone "throughout this article", whereas "Compleat Arduin" occurs five times.JBW (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Emperors Choice never wrote the wiki pages. Emperors Choice did one update in 2022-2023 timeframe to update to update the timeline. So EC never changed the name of “Compleat” to Complete at any time. Due to “Compleat Arduin” being far from complete and to step away from the embarrassing name “Arduin II” for the next version was adopted with changes implemented to include the cover art, combining the two books into one so as not to continue to confuse the consumer because the “Compleat” version has the exact same cover. by all means change “Complete” to “Compleat” as it was called. EC never called it “Complete” and only retained “Compleat” until stocks ran out and the few reprints that were done ran out as well. It was then turned into a combined book. I would agree the original name should be cited. I suspect the original poster/creator of the wiki page has passed away and had no affiliation with EC in its creation. 2603:7081:7501:F41C:61D7:F15:A3C0:3273 (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)