OSRIC

Post by **finarvyn** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:43 am

sieg wrote:
Julian,

Re: An Open SRD for Original D&D:

Actually, I believe Finarvyn is attempting to do just that.
Mike

It's one of the projects on my list. I'm still trying to determine a few parameters I want to put into the system. The problem (as always) is that it can't be exactly OD&D, but if it's not OD&D someone will complain that it's not exactly OD&D.
_________________
Finarvyn

Lord Marshall, Earl of Stone Creek, C&C Society

C&C Playtester in 2003
OD&D player since 1975

Harry Joy · Post by **Harry Joy** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:53 am

Julian Grimm wrote:
Six pages and still going. I'm impressed and glad this is happening.

I agree. It gets rather tiresome reading folks on other forums say what can and cannot be said here at the TL forums, when it's quite apparent that they haven't spent much if any time here.

Haven't had a chance to use that gif in a page or three, and I was committed at first to putting it on each one. Sorry, I'll try harder.

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:35 pm

Harry Joy wrote:
I agree. It gets rather tiresome reading folks on other forums say what can and cannot be said here at the TL forums, when it's quite apparent that they haven't spent much if any time here.

Haven't had a chance to use that gif in a page or three, and I was committed at first to putting it on each one. Sorry, I'll try harder.

It is quite common that people speaks without not even knowing what they are speaking about.

I too find annoying what is written about the TLG forums. In particular when it comes from sites which make of censoring supposedly "forbidden" topics an habit. Like using the word TETSNBN. I cannot imagine a more stupid thing.

Post by **Fiffergrund** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:10 pm

I posted this over at DF:

Quote:
I'm not posting this to stir the pot, but to clear up a misconception. This was never the case. I'm an admin on that board, and certainly posts were made discouraging certain types of OSRIC posts, but the term "OSRIC" was never filtered. If it were, there would have been a replacement term.

If someone can find a posting that proves otherwise, I'll be glad to eat humble pie and chalk it up to someone's bad judgement. There are multiple admins over there and if this happened, it's likely that someone thought it would prevent skirmishes. However, I don't ever recall seeing anything of the sort, and unless it's proved otherwise I'd like to have the air cleared on this.

_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

Yamo · Post by **Yamo** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:43 pm

It just seems weird to me that OSRIC left out the monk and magic item/monster info. It's not really very complete at all. More like 90% of a AD&D PHB (which I already have).

As a player/GM, it leaves me cold. I just see no utility in it.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:08 pm

Yamo wrote:
It just seems weird to me that OSRIC left out the monk and magic item/monster info. It's not really very complete at all. More like 90% of a AD&D PHB (which I already have).

As a player/GM, it leaves me cold. I just see no utility in it.

Version 2.0 of the OSRIC rules document will have magic items and monsters. It's not officially out yet as it is still being worked but I have seen a 'work-in-progress' version of the document is just over 260 pages (as compared to 129 pages of the current official release).

As for Monks... you'll also note that there are no Cavaliers or Barbarians either. These were all classes which were introduced in the Unearthed Arcana and I think this is why they aren't in OSRIC. Who knows, once the new version is out, an OGL version of the Unearthed Arcana may follow.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Yamo · Post by **Yamo** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:14 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
Version 2.0 of the OSRIC rules document will have magic items and monsters. It's not officially out yet as it is still being worked but I have seen a 'work-in-progress' version of the document is just over 260 pages (as compared to 129 pages of the current official release).

As for Monks... you'll also note that there are no Cavaliers or Barbarians either. These were all classes which were introduced in the Unearthed Arcana and I think this is why they aren't in OSRIC. Who knows, once the new version is out, an OGL version of the Unearthed Arcana may follow.

M

Actually, monks are from the PHB. Thief-acrobat was the third new class from UA.

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:15 pm

Yamo wrote:
It just seems weird to me that OSRIC left out the monk and magic item/monster info. It's not really very complete at all. More like 90% of a AD&D PHB (which I already have).

As a player/GM, it leaves me cold. I just see no utility in it.

I think its best, however, to not go this road - there is obvious utility to others, and I have seen the same comments made of C&C (i.e. "what's the point - AD&D already exists"). Earlier posts I think clairified the intent of OSRIC as a toolset for new 1e publication, and in that push to give those folks invested in that desire a brand name to rally around. The system at play there isn't meant to be something new - it's meant to be AD&D - with a few things left out so as not to overtly step on SRD/OGL matters.

C&C is, to me, the perfect hybrid game - it melds what I liked most about several different incarnations of D&D, and then it openly suggests changing those things which I wan't to do differently. But I won't denegrate those who feel differently, whether it be a preference for OD&D, Basic/X, AD&D 1e, 2e, or 3.x., or completely differing systems like Hackmaster or Call of Cthulu (that is it's own system right?). I will almost certainly purchase the core books for 4e just to look at it and so I can play it if I'm ever invited to. Won't run it myself, but then again there also might well be material I might import and adjust for C&C.

I, too, have looked over the OSRIC documents and would not really need them as my shelf already has everything except for OD&D and the Mentzer Companion and Immortal sets. However, I understand completely the impetus for what the guys behind OSRIC wanted - they, personally, wanted C&C to be the new "in print" publishing vehicle for 1e material, and when it didn't become exactly that, they truly wanted to have their own vehicle for bringing 1e to new audiences - both by allowing for new writing and for online marketing. Fair enough....

What we have to be careful of, and I see it too much on other boards discussing C&C, is the impulse to claim "your rules don't do x, y, z!!" and "they're not complete! - so the system is useless!" There are plenty of elements in any system that "leave me cold..." - even in C&C (can't stand the encumberance method) - I just change it.
Really, what we have to do is step away and remember that RPG publications are not some sort of sacred texts....

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:20 pm

Yamo wrote:
Actually, monks are from the PHB. Thief-acrobat was the third new class from UA.

DOH!

I retract my assumption regarding the Monk then. I guess it boils down to 'no love for the Monk' since I see no other reason not to have included it!

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:22 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
DOH!

I retract my assumption regarding the Monk then. I guess it boils down to 'no love for the Monk' since I see no other reason not to have included it!

M

I love the Monk myself --- one of my two favorite classes to play; I used one in the Winter Dark C&C game Steve ran... although my flying charge to take out the Orc scout went awry when I rolled a nat 1 on my attack.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Troll Lord · Post by **Troll Lord** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:24 pm

Hey folks,

I have refrained from making public statements about OSRIC, much as I have refrained from making public statements about Mutants and Masterminds, Dungeons and Dragons, Savage Worlds, True 20, Eldritch Role Playing Game, Hero, etc etc.

To my knowledge I've made one public statement on the game and system. That's it. I was mistaken to even make that statement.

We don't blackball OSRIC here. We never have. There are far more mentions of this system than any of the above systems and games (except D&D and probably Savage Worlds as Breakdaddy really loves that game)...despite the vile insults heaped upon TLG in general and Peter Bradley in particular.

I don't mention OSRIC because we publish two fantasy RPGs: Castles & Crusades and Lejendary Adventure and I don't feel it is in the company's best interest to display another company's product on our boards for days on end. I'm going to lock this thread (knowing full well I'll be attacked in some quarters for some horrid corporate control of something or the other...but remember I was nominated a fascist by some dingleling overr on RPGnet! haha). This is in stark contrast to my normal 'delete' thread.

Please, Dragonsfoot is a WONDERFUL community that is built and designed to discuss ALL these game systems. Please carry the discussion over there.

Thanks and have a nice day.

Steve

President Chenault and Gray Publishing

He Who Sits on the Elephants Back

The Troll Lord
_________________
The High Lord, Coburg the Undying

He who sits on the elephants back

Castle and Crusade Society
troll@trolllord.com