Pretty cool, if you ask me. I'm sort of old school and am liking the idea of see some new stuff.
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/ (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/)
It's pretty neat. I think that there have already been some commercial releases using OSRIC. Dragonsfoot.org has a lot of discussion of these rules.
I never understood the amount of nostalgia that's been happening in the last few years...
Yeah, I thought it was cool, so I teamed up with Ronin Arts to port some of our adventures to it. The first one is available - Smuggler's Bane (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=7770&src=theRPGsite). Despite high sales numbers, only people who don't like dungeon crawls seem to be leaving comments. I mean, what do they expect from an old school module? And the Iron Gauntlets version of the module got high ratings. Another go figure moment :pundit:
Quote from: SosthenesI never understood the amount of nostalgia that's been happening in the last few years...
The early eighties was a time of great expansion in the hobby, much of which came from teens and tweens playing D&D. Twenty years later they want to revisit the glory days of orc-smashing. What's not to understand? If the rest of the hobby were growing at a healthy rate the nolstalgia market would be a tiny little niche.
Quote from: KenHRIt's pretty neat. I think that there have already been some commercial releases using OSRIC. Dragonsfoot.org has a lot of discussion of these rules.
yup, as Ronin Arts has two adventures and Expeditious Retreat has a e-zine and some other stuff.
I'm not just talking about gaming. From bad 80s cartoons to even worse TV shows, everything is getting warmed up again. The internet makes remebering that stuff to easy, probably. Or the fact that lot of what's coming out now, whether it be movies, music or games is not really that fascinating.
But we're talking about a purely mechanical level. I can orc-smash with nWoD, if I feel the desire to. But nostalgia for old mechanics? Feh.
(And don't compare it to cars. Going back to AD&D is like restoring a steam-engine train, not a '58 T'Bird...)
Quote from: SosthenesBut we're talking about a purely mechanical level. I can orc-smash with nWoD, if I feel the desire to. But nostalgia for old mechanics? Feh.
If I tried to get my old high school group back to together I'd sure as hell look at OSRIC as the game of choice. None of the rest of the group went on to spend 2 decades dicking around with a million different games.
Quote(And don't compare it to cars. Going back to AD&D is like restoring a steam-engine train, not a '58 T'Bird...)
*shrug* Personally, I'd be more interested in the steam engine.
Sosthenes, nostalgia has always been around. Wait 20 years, and you'll see nostalgia for the early 2000s. The 70s saw a wave of nostalgia for the 1950s here in the States - you saw movies like "The Lords of Flatbush" and "American Graffiti" and TV shows like "Happy Days." The 90s saw a resurgence of interest in the 1970s, with disco music making a big comeback in popularity (you saw groups like the Bee Gees drawing huge numbers on their tours onec again), and movies set in the 70s becoming common. Even "That 70s Show" began in 1999. So nostalgia certainly isn't something that's just recently come to the fore. It seems like a normal, cyclical thing.
Anyway, I like the idea of OSRIC. I'm not all that interested in playing 1e again, but I think it's cool for a segment of the gaming community to receive attention they haven't been receiving for a while. I was hopeful at first that OSRIC would help get more HackMaster product made, but Kenzer has made it clear they have no interest in that. But, since OSRIC is essentially 1e, and HackMaster uses 1e (and some of 2e), the conversion of OSRIC material to HM shouldn't be much of a problem (less than adapting 3e material to HM).
Quote from: SosthenesI'm not just talking about gaming. From bad 80s cartoons to even worse TV shows, everything is getting warmed up again. The internet makes remebering that stuff to easy, probably. Or the fact that lot of what's coming out now, whether it be movies, music or games is not really that fascinating.
Uh, that happens every decade. In the 80's, all the ex-hippies wanted to relive the 60's. Then there was the whole 70's revival in the 90's. Now it's the Reagan-era kids turn to feel nostalgic.
Edit: Damn, the Colonel beat me to the punch!
I hope for the best for OSRIC. It is a 'grass roots' movement in the purest sense.
:)
Quote from: AkrasiaI hope for the best for OSRIC. It is a 'grass roots' movement in the purest sense.
:)
I think that it is an interesting.
If they can do this to the older version of D&D that are not open content, it would pretty much be pointless for wizards to have an closed system in 4th ed.
Quote from: McrowI think that it is an interesting.
If they can do this to the older version of D&D that are not open content, it would pretty much be pointless for wizards to have an closed system in 4th ed.
This is one thing that's puzzled me...is OSRIC even legal? There were discussions about this at dragonsfoot, but they turned into flamefests. I'm still unclear on the issue.
I hope it is, 'cuz it'd be fun to pick up some new old school product...
Quote from: KenHRThis is one thing that's puzzled me...is OSRIC even legal? There were discussions about this at dragonsfoot, but they turned into flamefests. I'm still unclear on the issue.
I hope it is, 'cuz it'd be fun to pick up some new old school product...
I'm sure it is legal. You cant copyright game mechanics, so as long as you don't use names, places, exact text ,and other trademarks, there isn't a whole lot they could do to you. It's a lot of work to go through and weed out all of the trademark stuff from any game, but it can be done.
Apparently you can't copyright rules. Still, lawyers could probably spend ages to discuss what's a rule and what isn't. So if there's actual sue-age, OSRIC might go the way of the dodo.
Yeah, seeing as how a few established and respectable companies have put out product for OSRIC, it seems a safe bet. I'd just hate to see litigation kill a good thing.
Quote from: SosthenesApparently you can't copyright rules. Still, lawyers could probably spend ages to discuss what's a rule and what isn't. So if there's actual sue-age, OSRIC might go the way of the dodo.
yeah , just for the fact that those who created OSRIC don't have the time or money to fight it.
That would suck.
Quote from: Mcrowyeah , just for the fact that those who created OSRIC don't have the time or money to fight it.
That would suck.
Stuart Marshal (I think that's his name), the main guy behind OSRIC, is based in Britain and has said publicly that we would fight any legal action taken by Hasbro against OSRIC.
He appears to be quite committed to its viability.
Also, people who write OSRIC products will incur none of the potential legal costs.
It looks like they've been very careful not to say AD&D even though that's the clear intent.
I can't read minds but I doubt that Hasbro would sue at this point. For one, it would have made more sense to do so earlier rather than later or at least signal that they don't think it's kosher. But mainly, I think it would do more harm than good at this point. When 3e was right out the door, they would have been more worried about making sure that everyone made the version switch to make sure the new edition took off. But now, I don't see anyone really leaving 3e for this who hasn't already left 3e for something else. And I don't see 3e getting many new converts whether or not AD&D players get new products.
Quote from: NicephorusIt looks like they've been very careful not to say AD&D even though that's the clear intent.
I can't read minds but I doubt that Hasbro would sue at this point. For one, it would have made more sense to do so earlier rather than later or at least signal that they don't think it's kosher. But mainly, I think it would do more harm than good at this point. When 3e was right out the door, they would have been more worried about making sure that everyone made the version switch to make sure the new edition took off. But now, I don't see anyone really leaving 3e for this who hasn't already left 3e for something else. And I don't see 3e getting many new converts whether or not AD&D players get new products.
that, and the fact that OSRIC published stuff will likely never make the kind of money that WotC would consider it competition anyway. Since AD&D stuff is pretty much a nuiche thing these days , it wouldn't be wroth their effort to sue.
Aware of OSRIC, and have downloaded it and the fanzine free issue.
Quote from: KenHRThis is one thing that's puzzled me...is OSRIC even legal?
As I've heard it, OSRIC makes use of the SRD and restates stuff so artistic representation isn't the same as AD&D1E. Since somebody already raised a fuss and sent a copy to Wizards (or at least threatened to do so) not long after it was released but OSRIC's still available I assume it's ok. OSRIC's a rossetta stone of sorts, so AD&D1E type stuff can be sold for beer money. An incentive for people to complete projects too work intensive for a free release. A way to put out printed AD&D1E products, which the potential audience for OSRIC seems to vastly prefer over PDFs.
(shrugs) I wouldn't run AD&D1E anymore, but more power to them. Interesting to watch and I'd love to see someone try and make an OSRIC for OD&D compatibility.
I'm also interested in Basic Fantasy (http://www.basicfantasy.org/index.html) which takes a different approach than OSRIC, since it's not a direct translation and aims for B/X or BECMI D&D. It drops things like racial classes and descending AC. :eek: ;) I tended to play AD&D1E as Expert D&D with more options anyway.
Quote from: Casey777... I'm also interested in Basic Fantasy (http://www.basicfantasy.org/index.html) which takes a different approach than OSRIC, since it's not a direct translation and aims for B/X or BECMI D&D....
That's another cool product (with better art than OSRIC).
Stuff like OSRIC and BFRP make me wonder whether we're entering into a new era of fan-driven products for role-playing games (mainly OOP). Also, with the OGL, no 'version' of A/D&D will ever go 'out of print' again so long as there are fans willing to do the work to produce OGL-compatible versions.
Recently I have given serious consideration to an OSRIC-style release of a combined, restated '81 Basic/Expert rules.
Recently I have given serious consideration to an OSRIC-style release of a combined, restated '81 Basic/Expert rules.
I'm working on a release that takes the SRD and reimagines the game. I think the finished book will be much, much closer to B/X than d20... although there's a lot of new material as well.
Since I stopped worrying about trying to learn/discuss RPG theory on interweb forums, I've gotten *a lot* more work done on this project. It's really coming along nicely!
It's important to note that the SRD and the d20 license are SEPERATE documents... check the legalize on them individually. ;)
Quote from: jrientsRecently I have given serious consideration to an OSRIC-style release of a combined, restated '81 Basic/Expert rules.
That's essentially what Basic Fantasy Role-Playing does (at least that is what the author intended to do, more or less, as he is a big B/X fan).
It does deviate from the Moldvay/Cook rules in a few respects (namely, it breaks up classes and races, and it ditches alignment). But despite those changes it is 90 percent Moldvay/Cook rules.
Iirc, anyone can produce materials for BFRP (and use its 'logo'), so long as it is free (and meets certain other very minimal requirements, as specified at the webstie).
That's essentially what Basic Fantasy Role-Playing does (at least that is what the author intended to do, more or less, as he is a big B/X fan).
Yes, I was emailing with the author about how the SRD / d20 licenses work and he's a huge Moldvay fan. If you want SRD >> Moldvay B/X, then this is the game to get.
(I like the Dwarf, Elf and Halfling classes in B/X though)
I'll take a look at Basic Fantasy Role-Playing. I had dismissed it because I heard that Elf was not a class. If that's the only major deviation from Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X maybe I ought to hop on board.
Quote from: jrientsI'll take a look at Basic Fantasy Role-Playing. I had dismissed it because I heard that Elf was not a class. If that's the only major deviation from Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X maybe I ought to hop on board.
Not run it but from a readthrough it looks very close. Since it's available in Open Office format as well as pdf, it'd be easy to make a custom version of your own. :pundit:
Quote from: jrientsThe early eighties was a time of great expansion in the hobby, much of which came from teens and tweens playing D&D. Twenty years later they want to revisit the glory days of orc-smashing.
That orc-smashing is done much better now? At least, AFAIAC.
Sorry, totally don't get, and am not into, retro-gaming-tech.
That orc-smashing is done much better now?
I like the simple + focused rules of the Moldvay B/X edition of D&D. There are lots of neat, crunchy additions in 3.x D&D, but for me it's just a little... too much. Especially when you start bringing in all the additional feats and prestige classes.
That's not to mention other games that radically change the playstyle (eg. GM-Less / Story Games) -- even if they're nominally about orc-smashing. ;)
That's not to say it can't be done much better now -- I just haven't found one that I like as much as Moldvay B/X.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat orc-smashing is done much better now? At least, AFAIAC.
Sorry, totally don't get, and am not into, retro-gaming-tech.
To me that attitude is just as baffling as refusing to watch
2001: A Space Odyssey because special effects are so much better these days. In both cases the mechanical sophistication isn't the main point.
Quote from: jrientsTo me that attitude is just as baffling as refusing to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey because special effectss are so much better these days. In both cases the mechanical sophistication isn't the main point.
Y'know, 2001's FX hold up really, really well, as do Close Encounters of the Third Kind's...
--Pedantically Tangential Spikey
Quote from: jrientsTo me that attitude is just as baffling as refusing to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey because special effectss are so much better these days. In both cases the mechanical sophistication isn't the main point.
To you, perhaps. Which is why I said, AFAIAC.
To me, I find retro-gaming tech actively obstructive to my gaming experience. You see, there's a REASON that back when I played prior editions I did things like, oh, make house rules to make multiclassing consistent, or to give rangers, who you think you have woodsy skills, woodsy skills/proficiencies.
The art was young in the early years of the game, and they handn't thought of all that stuff then. But some people did think of these things and these sort of things made its way back into the game. For the better, AFAIAC.
I've looked at a few retro attempts. The problem for me always seems to be that they also reversed changes that I like, such as sensible multiclassing and one XP table. I guess I want the simple aspects of the old game with the oddities given their modern streamlining.
On a side note, this is the first time I understand AD&D initiative in my gaming life.
Well shitburgers, I may have to download a copy just for that reason alone!
Quote from: jrientsWell shitburgers, I may have to download a copy just for that reason alone!
Remember I said I understood it, not that it made sense. :D Besides, they seem to have dropped weapon speed, shame on them !
Quote from: WeeklyRemember I said I understood it, not that it made sense. :D Besides, they seem to have dropped weapon speed, shame on them !
I asked Gygax himself about Weapon Speed Factors on his Q&A thread at EN World. He said he never used them, and only put them in as a sop to wargamers, and ended up pleasing nobody.
After reading a bit on weapon combat (and my extremely limited experience with sparring at the dojo when I was in my late teens and extremely healthy), I came to the conclusion that weapon speeds as presented in the book don't reflect reality. Weapon reach should determine initiative more than speed (and it did in 1e...sometimes...charging, I think?). Weapon speed might be a factor if you got inside your opponent's defenses, but other than that...its effect would be negligible.
Of course, weapon speeds were made even more annoying with the advent of 2e, where the designers seem to have completely misunderstood entire sections of rules from the original books. They treated weapon speed as a direct mod to initiative rather than as the tie-breaker it was in 1e; in this way, you had an extra factor added to combat that did squat for "realism." They also thought (according to the 2e preview booklet) the assassination table was meant to replace actually playing out an assassination attempt (it was a table for insta-kill from ambush, dammit, nothing more!), but that's another story....
Quote from: KenHRThey also thought (according to the 2e preview booklet) the assassination table was meant to replace actually playing out an assassination attempt (it was a table for insta-kill from ambush, dammit, nothing more!), but that's another story....
To be fair, that was a common misinterpretation at the time. I can't remember a DM (me included) who thought otherwise. So, that's one more AD&D rule I finally get right thanks to Stuart Marshall. Isn't it a shame Stuart didn't meet Gygax in time to edit his work ?
Obligatory Advanced Dungeons & Dragons® Initiative and Combat Table (http://members.cox.net/dmprata/ADDICT.pdf) link. (A4 version (http://members.cox.net/dmprata/ADDICT%20A4.pdf)) Warning: reading A.D.D.I.C.T forces a SAN check.
Needless to say I never knew anyone who did AD&D1E combat anywhere near the book.
Quote from: WeeklyTo be fair, that was a common misinterpretation at the time. I can't remember a DM (me included) who thought otherwise. So, that's one more AD&D rule I finally get right thanks to Stuart Marshall. Isn't it a shame Stuart didn't meet Gygax in time to edit his work ?
Indeed! If I were the guy who edited the DMG, I certainly would not feature that fact prominently on my resume. It's fun reading, for certain (probably one of my favorite rulesets to just plain read), but it's a lousy rulebook and reference.
Back to the assassin table: common misinterpretation or not, that's no excuse for anyone tapped to design the second edition of a game. The revisor should know exactly what s/he's revising and why. I know when I read the phrase in the 2e preview book about the assassination table, I started to have doubts.
Quote from: KenHRBack to the assassin table: common misinterpretation or not, that's no excuse for anyone tapped to design the second edition of a game. The revisor should know exactly what s/he's revising and why. I know when I read the phrase in the 2e preview book about the assassination table, I started to have doubts.
I'd have to check Mythusmage posts to be sure, but were TSR and Gygax even on speaking terms at 2e time ? Anyway, mucking up the assassination rules is the least 2e has to answer for, IMO. With hindsight, I'd says 2e was definitely inferior to 1st+ Dungeonner Survival Guide (for the non-weapon proficiencies who made their first appearance there IIRC).
Back to topic, OSRIC does a very good of clarifying 1st, but why people would go back to 1st for Old School gaming instead of 3.0 + Old School-style adventures is beyond me. Oh well, to each his own.
Quote from: WeeklyI'd have to check Mythusmage posts to be sure, but were TSR and Gygax even on speaking terms at 2e time ? Anyway, mucking up the assassination rules is the least 2e has to answer for, IMO. With hindsight, I'd says 2e was definitely inferior to 1st+ Dungeonner Survival Guide (for the non-weapon proficiencies who made their first appearance there IIRC).
Speaking terms don't matter; the rules were explained in the books (even if they were obscure).
But yes, 2e did lost a lot of the flavorful bits of 1e (like those old siege rules...).
Quote from: WeeklyBack to topic, OSRIC does a very good of clarifying 1st, but why people would go back to 1st for Old School gaming instead of 3.0 + Old School-style adventures is beyond me. Oh well, to each his own.
It's a taste thing, mostly. I know the 1e books like the back of my hand, like the flavor the rules impart (and a big part of flavor is the wonky mechanics...check out any discussion of "Euro" vs. "American" board game design for a similar discussion), and I found 3.0/3.5 a bit lacking in the flavor department.
Don't get me wrong; I think 3rd edition does what it sets out to do, and it did a great thing for the hobby in terms of bringing new and old players back into the hobby. It's just not what I think of when I think of D&D.
Quote from: KenHRIt's a taste thing, mostly. I know the 1e books like the back of my hand, like the flavor the rules impart (and a big part of flavor is the wonky mechanics...check out any discussion of "Euro" vs. "American" board game design for a similar discussion), and I found 3.0/3.5 a bit lacking in the flavor department.
Yeah, I know, 1st does have this particular, inimitable flavor. Sometimes, even I am tempted, but when I think about actually running it... *shudders*. I suppose my tolerance for absurd mechanics has gone down with time : I'm spoiled !
Still, there is definitely something to be said for an old-school beer-and-bretzels system like this : for all its wonkiness, it does have a feel of simplicity and immediate familiarity. And I have this monday evening game that has every difficulty to get rolling because people show up tired and stressed from their workday. If things don't get better, I'll have a talk with my players about the merits of good old orc-bashing. Maybe the perspective of going completely back to the origins will win them over...
Quote from: WeeklyStill, there is definitely something to be said for an old-school beer-and-bretzels system like this : for all its wonkiness, it does have a feel of simplicity and immediate familiarity. And I have this monday evening game that has every difficulty to get rolling because people show up tired and stressed from their workday. If things don't get better, I'll have a talk with my players about the merits of good old orc-bashing. Maybe the perspective of going completely back to the origins will win them over...
It can work, if that's what the group is into. My old ftf group was burned out after our RM2 campaign (about 2/3 of them hated the character generation), and a quick nonsensical dungeon run with Moldvay Basic D&D recharged their enthusiasm. Of course, then everyone decided that financial security was more important than gaming and half of them moved away for better jobs.
What really worked for our group was re-discovering the simplicity that games can have. While we really got into RoleMaster, it tended to focus our attention on rules to solve problems that came up in play. With D&D, things were suddenly wide open and crazy again, and we found playing in the "without a net" style refreshing. And we found that, after experimenting for a couple of years with other systems, we just really loved the game we started with.
Which is why OSRIC is pretty cool with me. I'll be checking out the new stuff and storing it away for the next time I run a fantasy game.
So yeah, if your group needs a recharge, an old school romp might be just the thing. If that's what they're into, of course. Sometimes it just takes a change of genre to accomplish the same thing...communication is the answer to just about any group's ills.
CS should play whatever games he enjoys, and if these aren't them I'm cool with that.
On the nostalgia point though, often it has nothing to do with nostalgia. When I play older games I do so because I think they are great games, just like when I watch old movies I watch them because they are great movies.
I play great games, whether they were released twenty years ago or twenty days ago is an irrelevance as far as I am concerned.
Edit: To be clear though, I think ADnD was one of the worst rpgs ever published that had any success and as such have zero interest in recreating it.
Quote from: Casey777Obligatory Advanced Dungeons & Dragons® Initiative and Combat Table (http://members.cox.net/dmprata/ADDICT.pdf) link. (A4 version (http://members.cox.net/dmprata/ADDICT%20A4.pdf)) Warning: reading A.D.D.I.C.T forces a SAN check.
The goggles! They do nothing!
I don't play games for nostalgia. I play old games because they're fucking cool. I play RQ 3e Vikings because it keeps being the roxxorz. Just that.
Maybe that's the reason why I don't get the games that try to recreate the feeling of older games. If I want to recreate the feeling of the Rules Cyclopaedia, I will play the fucking thing.
On the other hand (re: A.D.D.I.C.T.): what the fuck is that thing? 20 fucking pages of rules for determining the initiative? Man, I didn't remember AD&D 1e as fucking unbearable.
Heh well A.D.D.I.C.T. is an annotated analysis of AD&D combat with multiple sources quoted, but in my experience nobody played full on by the book AD&D1E combat. One word, segments. Coming from Basic/Expert D&D it was easier and faster just to use that with the AD&D to hit charts or just roll d20s similar to how d20 works.