More info about this OSRIC thing?

[Nikosandros]

I appreciate that both OSRIC and C&C are legally constrained from giving as frank of a description of their products as one might want, but honestly, both Web sites are all but incomprehensible. If both sites (not just picking on OSRIC here) could take another crack at it, it'd be nice.

As it is, I literally have no idea if OSRIC is for me, based on the site. Expecting a customer to dig through multiple third-party Web sites, hoping to find clarification, is a disastrous situation.

Heck, I'd love a frank-but-polite comparison with C&C as well.

If you want to publish material compatible with first edition then OSRIC might be for you. If not, then the only thing you need to no or care about OSRIC is that product published under that label are compatible with first edition rules.

C&C is a completely different thing, being a game that's meant to be played on its own...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If you want to publish material compatible with first edition then OSRIC might be for you. If not, then the only thing you need to no or care about OSRIC is that product published under that label are compatible with first edition rules.

C&C is a completely different thing, being a game that's meant to be played on its own...

This still needs to be clear on the C&C and OSRIC sites. No one should have to leave the main sites for each and venture out via random Google clicks to try and find out what they should have been told by the products' creators.

 

[Xyanthon]

Papers & Paychecks, Mythmere1, and the rest of the folks who are shaping OSRIC, I really wanted to say that this whole OSRIC thing has gotten me more excited and fired up than I've been in a long time and for that I thank you (I know I should also do a proper thanks on the Knights and Knaves boards and I will). The ideas I have for some of my own creations are pretty overwhelming and it is almost hard to sleep at night with all of the ideas coming in a flood. I feel like a middle schooler again, pouring over books and dreaming of the realms of adventure that await!

 

[Ourph]

This still needs to be clear on the C&C and OSRIC sites. No one should have to leave the main sites for each and venture out via random Google clicks to try and find out what they should have been told by the products' creators.

I don't understand your complaint. The "intro to OSRIC" is located prominently in the middle of the page at the main OSRIC website and is also reproduced in the document itself. I quote from it in part below...

The reason for going back to square one and restating the underlying rules is simple. It allows old school publishers (both commercial and fans) to reference the rules set forth in this document without making reference to any protected trademark (this document is trademarked, but the use of the trademark is permitted under the terms of an open license – see below). By using this document in tandem with the Open Game License of WOTC, a publisher should be able to produce products for old-school fantasy gaming and clearly make reference to this particular ruleset without violating the terms of the Open Game License.

Thus, in many ways, the entire OSRIC book is nothing more than a tool for old-school writers, a stepping stone to put the original, non-copyrightable portion of the old-school rules into an open license, as permitted by law. Great pains have been taken to ensure that we have used none of the original artistic presentation, for we have the greatest possible respect for the authors who originally created these games.

Are you complaining that this isn't clear enough or are you complaining that the authors don't come right out and say "This is an SRD for First Edition AD&D"? The former might be remedied, but the latter is the result of restrictions placed on the authors by the OGL. They are constrained from indicating compatibility with WotC trademarks.

 

[Blustar]

While I understand the reason for sticking to the d20 SRD as much as possible, Mongoose recently released the Runequest RPG which mimics the BRP system.

While they licensed the name Runequest, they didn't license the system - rather they reconstructed it on the basis that you can't copyright rules, only patent them (and the D&D ones aren't), and as long as they rewrite things, it should be legal.

OTOH, The Runequest people don't have the sue-happy history that TSR does. But I think that option would produce a better game.

It really that easy? Can you pick any RPG on the market right now and use their rules in your game and all you have to do is switch some names around? Wow, how does an RPG company protect their "game"?

If I wrote a cool game mechanic for my game, anyone can steal it and run with it? I don't know, it just seems too easy to me. Remember that feeling you get on Ebay when your winning that auction at such a great price? Too easy sounds fishy to me.

Look at what happened to GAry's Mythus RPG which was way more different from D&D than OSRIC. Didn't he lose that settlement? Didn't that pretty much sink TSR too? I think if WoTC rears it's head they will lay the smack down even if the law isn't on their side...they have lawyers too and highly paid ones.


I hope it works but you guys are taking on the big boys. Good luck!


Blue

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Are you complaining that this isn't clear enough or are you complaining that the authors don't come right out and say "This is an SRD for First Edition AD&D"? The former might be remedied, but the latter is the result of restrictions placed on the authors by the OGL. They are constrained from indicating compatibility with WotC trademarks.

I'm saying it's not clear enough. You have long run-on sentences that talk about what OSRIC can be used for instead of explaining what OSRIC is. It seems clear to people who already know the answer, but you have to write it for people who will hear the name, Google it, and come to it fresh, without having it pre-explained.

The legal constraints are a hurdle to deal with, but they don't prevent things from being more clear.

The model needs to be the sort of blurb you see on the back of products. Instead, it reads to me more like a technical paper. While there's a subculture that creates the standards of technical papers and appreciates them, the papers aren't appropriate for mass consumption and this is a product you want people to at least be aware of on a massive scale.

 

[Mythmere1]

I'm saying it's not clear enough. You have long run-on sentences that talk about what OSRIC can be used for instead of explaining what OSRIC is. It seems clear to people who already know the answer, but you have to write it for people who will hear the name Google it, and come to it fresh, without having it pre-explained.

The legal constraints are a hurdle to deal with, but they don't prevent things from being more clear.

The model needs to be the sort of blurb you see on the back of products. Instead, it reads to me more like a technical paper. While there's a subculture that creates the standards of technical papers and appreciates them, the papers aren't appropriate for mass consumption and this is a product you want people to at least be aware of on a massive scale.

You're probably right, Whizbang. I wrote it, and it ain't ad copy. But at the time I wrote it it was a long time ago (before P&P got involved), and before independent laywers other than myself had gone over the document. I didn't want to throw down a gauntlet.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In case it's not clear, I wish nothing but the best for you guys and this project, I'm just offering an opinion here.

 

[Wasgo]

Wow, this is really one of the coolest ideas in a long time. Given the purpose though, I wonder if it might be beneficial at some point to actually make a ruleset that's designed to be used by DMs and players based off of OSRIC. It's been very clear that the current document is meant to be for publishers, but for the large number of people that don't have a copy of 1e handy (and I'm sure that there are far too many of them), it might be nice. Not sure how reasonable that would be though.

 

[Particle_Man]

If one were to play OSRIC as a game...

Some amusing differences between OSRIC and AD&D 1st ed:

In AD&D1ed, there were "npc class race combos" like halfling druid, dwarf cleric, etc., that players could not take, but which existed in the world.

OSRIC made two changes here: some race/class combos (like halfling druid) are dropped entirely, while others (dwarf cleric) are made accessible to players. This leads to two consequences:

a) Halflings are hated by the gods (well, we'd always suspected this, right? ). No halfling clerics or druids exist.

b) Half-human races suck at cleric abilities (they make great assassins, though) . I mean I can see half-orcs sucking at it, but half-elves are the second worst, since dwarves, elves, and gnomes have a higher maximum level. There are not even any half-elf druids.