Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits?

That seems to be the accepted myth, but there are a lot of differences, some of which I'd characterize as gratuitous. And you don't need to be any kind of system expert to pick up on them.

If you so much and roll up a character--the sort of thing someone would have to do if they intended to actually play RPGs rather than just talk about them--then it's hard not to notice the changes to the XP advancement table. And I don't think it's got anything to do with just dodging copyright claims.

For example, in 1E the fighter XP requirements are expressed like
0-2,000
2,001-4,000
4,001-8,000
and so on.

If you wanted to keep that basically the same but not express it the same way, you could just do
0-1,999
2,000-3,999
4,000-7,999
and so on.

It would keep it functionally the same without copying anything at all verbatim.

Instead what you see in OSRIC is
0
1,900
4,250
7,750
and so on.

And I think I know why.

Because by the 1E way, it technically takes 2001 XP accumulated to get from 0 XP to 2nd level, but then from the start of 2nd level to 3rd level you only need 2000 XP more. Even though in practice the odds of hitting both levels in actual play with the exact number needed, down to the very last XP, is astronomical, and so this difference will never be relevant, this is the exact sort of thing that sticks in the craw of a nerd who is more obsessed with theory than play.

OSRIC's progression solves this non-problem. It takes 1900 to get to level 2, 2350 more to get to level 3, 3500 more to get to level 4, and so on. At what cost? Oh, just having a table that's a lot harder to memorize. But hey, nerds who talk about RPGs and don't play them don't care about that since they'll never have to look up how much XP they need at the end of the game session. That's only a concern for real gamers.


I have no reason to intrinsically hate OSRIC. It came out at a time when exactly what I needed was a way to have access to 1E books (the special edition covers were not yet available), and when I really wanted to write modules without having to write a whole RPG. It's exactly what I needed. It just dropped the ball throughout on these finer points, enough to where it just wasn't useful for me. And from the looks of it, it came down to prioritizing nerds who talk about RPGs over gamers who actually play RPGs.

Not saying they did it on purpose. They were probably fooled because what you see on RPG forums is so heavy skewed towards people who I don't think really play. The very fact that the myth of it being a faithful reproduction of 1E spreads despite it being easily debunkable by anyone who's ever rolled up an OSRIC character should give you an idea of how many people are actually playing OSRIC.

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone.

Well, I play AD&D, not OSRIC, so I kind of agree, although I wouldn't say it's dumb to play OSRIC. I just don't need OSRIC as a set of rules; I prefer using the original game. I think it might be useful for someone who wanted to play a "close to 1e AD&D" set of rules who didn't already own the AD&D books (or who didn't like the organization or authorial voice of the originals -- which seems unfathomable to me, but some people dislike EGG's prose). It's a lot cheaper and easier to acquire the single volume OSRIC book than to get multiple out of print AD&D books. Or to download the free PDF, if you use PDFs.

Another potential reason to use OSRIC: it has good VTT/online tools (on Foundry and Fantasy Grounds). Again, this isn't something that appeals to me (I like to game around a tabletop rather than through a screen), but I think it appeals to many of today's gamers. An example from Foundry:



And even if you don't use a VTT, the tools could be useful for DM prep.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 08, 2023, 08:01:57 PM
That seems to be the accepted myth, but there are a lot of differences, some of which I'd characterize as gratuitous.

There are certainly differences, and someone could view them as gratuitous now, but at the time that OSRIC was being created there was no "OSR" and there was real concern about how much of a "safe harbor" the OGL would be, especially in cases where tables and progressions in the 1e rules that were not mirrored in the SRD and that didn't follow a consistent algorithm such that it could be argued that they were copyrightable. Clone systems using the OGL were a new and untested concept. The authors of OSRIC tried to be scrupulous in following the OGL, and also cautious in an original presentation of rules from 1e -- just in case WotC decided to go the courts.

Most of the differences in OSRIC stem from that concern. A few were because the authors needed to settle on one of several possible interpretations of the 1e rules. The handling of initiative in OSRIC is a good example of that. Very few of differences were purely authorial preference. Anyway, I don't think I'd characterize the differences as "gratuitous" once the context is considered.

Lastly, and FWIW, there is a new revision of OSRIC currently under development.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 10, 2023, 04:14:52 PM
Most of the differences in OSRIC stem from that concern. A few were because the authors needed to settle on one of several possible interpretations of the 1e rules. The handling of initiative in OSRIC is a good example of that. Very few of differences were purely authorial preference. Anyway, I don't think I'd characterize the differences as "gratuitous" once the context is considered.

My post I had already anticipated, considered, and rejected that concern as not a plausible explanation. I'm just not buying it.

We can look at the Attribute tables. The numerical adjustments there were preserved precisely. Instead of writing "+15%" for the Charisma loyal adjustment, for instance, it just had "+15." You mean to tell me the author thought merely dropping a percent sign was sufficient to dodge copyright claims, but changing 2000 to 1999 wasn't?

And why are the attributes listed in the 2nd Edition order? That's not something a 1E fan wants to see. At the very best, a 1E fan might be indifferent. But they're not going to like it. If copying the 1E order is a concern, why wouldn't copying the 2E order be just as much of a concern? They could have just been listed attributes alphabetically.

You say the author's preferences weren't forced into OSRIC, fine. I'm sure he solicited feedback when taking on the project, though, and there was no shortage of disingenuous gamers trolling forums trying to co-opt the culture. He may have genuinely believed he was making the most faithful reproduction possible for the audience. All I'm saying is it was anything but that.

I hope for the best in the revision, but if reddit is where it's coming together, I'm going to expect the worst.

>What is your review/opinion on C&C?

It's AD&D 3e.

>What you like and dislike in the system?

It's AD&D 3e.

The SIEGE engine is okay. Though, I replaced Primes with Advantage.
I can easily run any TSR Setting with C&C.
I like the slightly different classes and races.

>How does C&C compare with  AD&D 1e/OSRIC and 2e in your opinion since it is basically AD&D 3e?

I prefer OD&D/Swords & Wizardry: White Box to C&C.
I prefer C&C to OSRIC, 1e or 2e.
BUT not by some massive margin.

The RPG hobby has a certain segment of players who ONLY will play Current In Print games and so, the big advantage of C&C for OSR GMs is these players can buy a brand new nice hardback player's book at a fair price which has everything they need to play.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 10, 2023, 06:46:25 PM
My post I had already anticipated, considered, and rejected that concern as not a plausible explanation. I'm just not buying it.

You're free to believe as you wish, of course. However, just for the record, I'm not speculating. I know what I'm talking about.

Quote
I hope for the best in the revision, but if reddit is where it's coming together, I'm going to expect the worst.

No, reddit is not where it's coming together.

Greetings!

I don't understand why some people are hostile, snotty, and so ungrateful towards OSRIC. Marshall and his crew are a group of old school gamers that wanted to establish a work that could oreserve AD&D for the general public, and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*. I would say that was a very noble accomplishment, and an achievement that they succeeded in accomplishing. C&C, and also Hackmaster created stuff--but it was more narrow in scope. OSRIC's achievement opened the door for anyone, anywhere, to make new books for AD&D.

That is an achievement that D&D gamers everywhere should be respectful of, and grateful for. OSRIC opened the door HUGELY for there to even be an "OSR".

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*

Anyone can write books for AD&D.  Legally.  OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.

Quote from: Scooter on October 10, 2023, 11:38:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*

Anyone can write books for AD&D.  Legally.  OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.

Greetings!

Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally! All without the fucking OSRIC book! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"

Right there, in the OSRIC forward, Marshall et. al, discusses the whole point of producing the OSRIC book.

Marshall and his team, his legal counsel that they consulted, well, I guess they are all just sadly ignorant. They didn't get the memo, apparently.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

C&C is great. A little bit too high-fantasy for my taste but that's easily chopped down.

The siege engine is pretty good too but not perfect so could it do with a house rule or two. But over all it's a great game with some very nice supplements to boot.

Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 05:28:32 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 10, 2023, 11:38:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*

Anyone can write books for AD&D.  Legally.  OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.

Greetings!

Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally!

Why would I?  Am I  their parents?  Do they pay me to tell them fucking obvious things?  Are you retarded? And how did OSRIC CHANGE the legality of writing AD&D books dipshit?

Quote from: Scooter on October 11, 2023, 08:29:29 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 05:28:32 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 10, 2023, 11:38:32 PM

Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*

Anyone can write books for AD&D.  Legally.  OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.

Greetings!

Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally!

Why would I?  Am I  their parents?  Do they pay me to tell them fucking obvious things?  Are you retarded? And how did OSRIC CHANGE the legality of writing AD&D books dipshit?

Greetings!

Am I retarded? I'm a dipshit?

You can get fucked, jackass.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 05:28:32 AM
Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally! All without the fucking OSRIC book! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"

Right there, in the OSRIC forward, Marshall et. al, discusses the whole point of producing the OSRIC book.

Marshall and his team, his legal counsel that they consulted, well, I guess they are all just sadly ignorant. They didn't get the memo, apparently.

*eyeroll*

Who's being hostile and snotty now?

Look, I realize Scooter is not a real person, and as such is not necessarily entitled to be treated with respect by default, and even chose a name with the root word of "scoot", a slang term for diarrhea, which accurately describes the quality of his posts.

However, the fact is, your decrying of hostile and snotty attitudes towards OSRIC came right after a couple of my posts where I cited legitimate gripes I have about OSRIC without any hostility or snotty-ness.

And then this goofy shit about lawyers? Come on. That's just condescending bullshit. Whatever legal advice the lawyers gave I'm sure was sound legal advice. But the fact is, Cloud Kingdom Games in the 90's did a Riddle Rooms series which used an in-house RPG system that was a close AD&D knockoff that I could use their adventures in a 1E game with virtually no tweaking. And that's just one example that I can name because I happened to be a fan of it and still have physical copies of their products. I know there were others.

Some men say the earth is flat. Some men say the earth is round. But if it is flat, could Parliament make it round? And if it round, could the kings command flatten it? But if a lawyer says something contrary to something else that was already a thing, well then, I guess that must have never really happened.

D&D knockoffs were a thing. What I was looking to OSRIC for was something specifically 1E, and I think it missed the mark. There's nothing hostile or snotty or ungrateful about not liking someone's game product.

My impression of OSRIC (other than being a great "reference index", but not a game I'd play as written), is this.

Anyone can write an AD&D module, AFAICT, but you couldn't write "AD&D" on the cover.

OSRIC, AFAICT, tries to bridge that gap, and you can see several "OSRIC" products in DTRPG - some say "OSRIC & 1st Edition RPGs" or "1e | 2e | OSRIC", but most just say OSRIC. Same happened with S&S and LL.

OSRIC started at 2006 apparently.

Nowadays "OSR" is enough for me, as I use 1e, B/X, DCC, BFRPG and LotFP modules for the same campaign.

I'm not a lawyer etc. I'm judging it as a product.

"The commercial argument for OSRIC is much more robust than the legal one." - as suggested in the link below.

(In any case, it is curious to see the differences between OSRIC and 1e. So far I've heard: no WvA table or weapon speed, no bard/monk/psionics, XP tables, streamlined initiative, and different order of abilities).

EDIT: found this 2008 thread describing some differences and the idea of publishing 1e stuff using he OSRIC label.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32741#:~:text=Re%3A%20Diffrences%20between%201ed%2FOSRIC,-Post%20by%20Dwayanu&text=Neither%20the%20Monk%20class%20nor,perhaps%20for%20some%20other%20things.

Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 08:40:43 AM


Am I retarded? I'm a dipshit?

Yes, you are.  So now, how did OSRIC change the legality of writing 1st Ed AD&D material?

Further down the rabbit hole, for whom it may concern.

- There are more than 1000 products with the OSRIC label in DTRPG.
- There are more than 10000 products with the 1e label in DTRPG - BUT most are PF 1e or official AD&D products.
- There are about 900 products with the AD&D 1e label in DTRPG, mostly official AD&D products, but also PF stuff, stock art...

It seems OSRIC served as a good label for a while - and could still function as the "unofficial AD&D 1e product" marker, if there is a market for it (but I'd bet this market is small).

DTRPG labels are a bit of a mess anyway. It seems like lots of OSR products slapped the "OSRIC" system side by side with C&C, LL, S&W, and so on.