Is this worth my while?

From http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=184933.

Just trying to get a general idea how many people would be interested. The other thread had over 500 views, but only a few replies. We all know how much EN Worlders love polls...so.....

EDIT: You can select multiple entries, so feel free to say Yes or No even if you also choose Option 3.

Interested in using? No.

Interested in discussing as an intellectual exercise, sure.

Lemoncurry.

J-Dawg said:

Lemoncurry.

Click to expand...

Yum.

I love polls so much, I was compelled to choose all three.

Seriously: I'd be interested in seeing it. I don't know how interested until I see it, though.
Not the most helpful answer...

Cheers, -- N

It wouldn't interest me.

Hmm ... I didn't vote for any of them, to be honest. If it were me (although I don't have the brains to draw up a whole ruleset, mind you) I would wait and see how OSRIC develops more. It is still fairly new. Maybe it will naturally morph in the direction you are hoping? Or ... perhaps you could activiely contribute ideas, possible material and such like to the folks putting it out. THEN, if after some time it does not appear to be heading where you think it could cover all the bases you would wish, considering a new ruleset might be a good idea!

Just my two cents though....

Mycanid said:

I would wait and see how OSRIC develops more. It is still fairly new. Maybe it will naturally morph in the direction you are hoping?

Click to expand...

It was my understanding the OSRIC is intended to be an SRD for 1e AD&D, rather than an evolving new game system. They are trying to document something old, so if you didn't see it in the prior edition, you shouldn't look to find it in OSRIC.

Your stated goals don't seem... ambitious enough, if you will, to justify the amount of work you'd be putting into this.

The main jist of your other thread seems to be having quick encounters without losing flexibility. While this may be possible, I agree 100% with Umbran: fight scenes that aren't dramatic or important to the story should be resolved narratively.

Actually, I would take it a step further:

Anything that the PCs can fail (without *phenomenal* bad luck or bad ideas) is an Encounter and worth playing out. This could be a fight with a 'boss' enemy, but also a fight that just happens to be interesting or challenging, a critical skill check (disabling a trap, climbing a cliff), a spell with the potential to backfire, or an intense negotiation with a significant NPC. Resources (ideally per encounter) are expended, game mechanics are employed.

Anything the PCs can't reasonably be expected to fail is a non-Encounter and should be left to the players to describe or ignored. Battle with mooks, routine skill checks, shopping for mundane items, casting simple no-risk spells outside of combat, etc. No resources are expended and no game mechanics are involved.

Umbran said:

It was my understanding the OSRIC is intended to be an SRD for 1e AD&D, rather than an evolving new game system. They are trying to document something old, so if you didn't see it in the prior edition, you shouldn't look to find it in OSRIC.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed, you are of course quite right.

Dunno though ... somehow I thought that HOW they did the "updating" and conversion of the older material might've been the driving inspiration that could be used in a new ruleset. In that case (if this IS in fact where RC is coming from) maybe it would be better for it to develop more?

Beyond this I have somehow had the feeling that OSRIC was eventually going to develop into its own system, even if that is not amongst it's present goals or original intents. But this is just my own impressions, I guess. Perhaps I am just projecting them onto RC? Wishful thinking maybe?