# OSRIC 2.0 Released today



## smootrk (Nov 28, 2008)

Did anyone else see that OSRIC 2.0 got released today?

OSRIC


----------



## justanobody (Nov 28, 2008)

The PDF needs a 2 in the name so people don't overwrite old versions if they prefer to keep them.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 28, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The PDF needs a 2 in the name so people don't overwrite old versions if they prefer to keep them.





then they'll just have to do what I did. Add "2.0" to the save name before clicking on save.


No, I hadn't known. Thanks!


----------



## doctorhook (Nov 29, 2008)

Can somebody tell me about OSRIC? I never actually played 1e AD&D, so I don't have much to compare it to.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Nov 29, 2008)

smootrk said:


> Did anyone else see that OSRIC 2.0 got released today?
> 
> OSRIC




Excellent!


----------



## smootrk (Nov 29, 2008)

doctorhook said:


> Can somebody tell me about OSRIC? I never actually played 1e AD&D, so I don't have much to compare it to.



It effectively is the 1e AD&D rules stripped of the art and other copyright exclusive material.  As far as I can tell, it is the full treatment, everything one might need to run a defacto AD&D 1e game.

It was created so that the game could be played, and new material could be written without worry about infringement, because the OSRIC mechanics could be referenced instead of the actual AD&D books.  A better explanation can be found within the pdf in the intro section.

cheers


----------



## Treebore (Nov 29, 2008)

Plus there are lots of new adventures and other supplements written for it. Many by Expeditious Retreat Press.


----------



## Wik (Nov 29, 2008)

So... what's the 2.0 for?  Is this, like, OSRIC, 2nd Edition?  Will we see kits soon?  

*only half joking*


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Nov 29, 2008)

OSRIC 2.0 is essentially designed to stand on it's own (1.0 was a toolkit for publishers to use for supporting 1E AD&D). They did a gorgeous job on it, tool


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 29, 2008)

I picked it up.  Looks good.  Apparently I had something to do with it!



(No, really, my name is in the credits.  You can send my cheque to my home address, Stuart!


----------



## Thondor (Nov 29, 2008)

*OSRIC 2.0 play-by-game*

Thought I'd mention that there is a OSRIC 2.0 Play-by-Post game beeing planned over here . And it's still looking for players.

I should mention that (I believe) the version that's linked to in the opening post (of the pbp thread) was a review version, so you'll want to go to the official website.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2008)

The main difference is that the final version has a complete index.  A couple of typos were fixed between that version and the main one, too--but you'd need to have been reading the henchmen section pretty closely to find them.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 29, 2008)

Rep++  It looks very nice.

I still like my original AD&D books better for all the advice Gary gives, but these are awesome for the screen text to copy/paste if nothing else. 

That plus the ability to buy newly published D&D works again. 


EDIT: I am seriously loving this document.  Very, very nice.  The artwork is fantastic!  

I may be nitpicking here, but is there a reason you didn't number the pages?


----------



## Eridanis (Nov 29, 2008)

Thondor said:


> I should mention that (I believe) the version that's linked to in the opening post was a review version, so you'll want to go to the official website.




Not sure what you mean - the OP linked to the Osric front page, and the link says it's for 2.0.

I like the new document - a little color and a little art goes a long way towards making it easier to read. Good job, guys!


----------



## Vascant (Nov 29, 2008)

First let me say.. really enjoyed reading it last night and this morning, it brought back many memories of my younger years

Question:  Any chance of adding psionics?  I almost half expected it to be located in the back of the book like it was originally.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 29, 2008)

Is it blue, with coloring book illustrations of sphinxes?


----------



## jgbrowning (Nov 29, 2008)

Great job, guys. Downloaded and currently in use as I type. 

joe b.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2008)

howandwhy99 said:


> EDIT: I am seriously loving this document.  Very, very nice.  The artwork is fantastic!
> 
> I may be nitpicking here, but is there a reason you didn't number the pages?




I'm glad you like it!

The pages are numbered in the bottom right hand and bottom left hand corners, but I believe some monitors or computer setups may not display that correctly.  (My work computer doesn't show them, for example.)

I'm not sure whether updating acrobat will help?



Vascant said:


> First let me say.. really enjoyed reading it last night and this morning, it brought back many memories of my younger years
> 
> Question:  Any chance of adding psionics?  I almost half expected it to be located in the back of the book like it was originally.




Thanks for the kind words.

I won't personally add psionics to the game, but under the OSRIC Open License, anybody who felt they were important could write an OSRIC Psionics Handbook and distribute it (or else submit it to a publisher for distribution).


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 29, 2008)

Mmmm... old school monsters. Back when you encountered Humanoids by the hundreds.

Though not all memories are fond ones. Notably this painfully borked Fiend Folio monster.

*Troll, Spectral...*
*move*: 150 ft
*armour class:* 2
*hit dice:* 5 + 5
*attacks:* 3
*damage:* 1d6[+Monster's HP total]/1d3 /1d3*
*Special attacks:* *Strength point drain
*Special defences:* Regeneration [3 per round], invulnerable to cold, magical weapons to hit, [permanent}invisibility
*level/xp:* 6/ 625 + 6/hp
_
*Special Damage: The spectral troll has two claw attacks that subtract 1d3 points of damage on a successful hit from both the victim’s hp and his or her strength ability score...

__ In addition to the special claw attacks, the spectral troll also has a fanged biting attack. The bite attack of one of these invisible monsters inflicts 1d6 points of damage but the troll adds its own hit point value as bonus damage to the attack. Example: a spectral troll with 38 hit points bites a cleric for 4 points of damage. Total damage dealt to the unfortunate cleric would 4 + 38 = 42._


----------



## Thondor (Nov 29, 2008)

The major difference is that there is a lot of DM resources in the OSRIC 2.0 compared to version 1.0 . It has a monsters section, magic item section etc. In other words 'most'* of what you could find in the Core three 1e books can be found in the almost 400 page OSRIC 2.0 pdf. And its free yeah!!!!

*things that aren't in it are mostly optional rules, or things that are 'commonly' house ruled out (example: Weapon speeds and to hit specific AC adjustments). 

One of the neat features is a fillable charater sheet.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2008)

I've got an un-admirer.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 29, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> I've got an un-admirer.






> No doubt if you’ve read this blog you already know that the retro-scene on the internet doesn’t dazzle me like it does seemingly every other person on the RPG blogosphere.




This statement says all I need to know to not even bother with the rest of the review because the reviewer is just like the idiot that reviewed Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, that states he hates the game and never played them, but the movie is just like the games play. 

ORSIc isn't retro something to begin with. That would mean that it was dead and people are trying to bring it back like bellbottoms. AD&D has been alive for many people all along, and ORSIC has no intent of trying to get the masses to jump on some bandwagon for it!

OSRIC is simply the AD&D OGL equivalent.

So what do I have to say to this "reviewer"?

[offensive body part image removed]

~There's a moon out tonight. I don't know if its cloudy or bright.~


----------



## Meek (Nov 29, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So what do I have to say to this "reviewer"?
> 
> [offensive body part image removed]




I find no body parts offensive good sir, unless it can speak and call me racial slurs. And yet were you to find such a specimen I would still like to see it in its full eldritch glory.

Thanks for the trackback Paycheck, and good job on your compilation of AD&D 1e. Much more enjoyable than reading the actual 1e books.


----------



## Grimstaff (Nov 29, 2008)

Over 22k downloads already, nice!


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> Over 22k downloads already, nice!




Nah, that includes OSRIC v1.00 downloads.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 29, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> I've got an un-admirer.




He very effectively undermines his own credibility in the first couple paragraphs. He admits that if it isn't new and shiny, he isn't interested - nevermind the fact that games don't suddenly become unplayable the minute a new edition comes out, and often times older versions actually play better than the new.


----------



## Thondor (Nov 29, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks out of idle curiosity:
Did you ever consider making a 'Players version' of OSIRIC 2.0? 

Removing the DM type content (monsters, magic items) I guess a Players version would probably just be chapter 1 mostly. 

I ask mostly because 1e had a rather strong mentality of the players not knowing=more fun for players. (It went so far that it didn't put combat tables in the PHB)

It also might be handy to say no you can only bring a print out of the players version to game night. (no looking up monsters when you encounter them excetera.) Anywho, great work all around (I haven't been through it all yet but what I've seen is great.  . Not sure why rations are suddenly so expensive though, not that thats a big deal.)

This also came at a rather timely moment for me as I'll be running a 1e game this Wednesday at my University.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2008)

Thondor said:


> PapersAndPaychecks out of idle curiosity:
> Did you ever consider making a 'Players version' of OSIRIC 2.0?




Yes, I did give some thought to that.

The basic design philosophy for OSRIC is: one book contains all the rules.  That's one (1) core book, with optional supplements from third party publishers to taste.

(I have an optional supplement for OSRIC out, which is Monsters of Myth... but for the purposes of design philosophy, I'm a "third party publisher" in this sense.  The core rules are one, single, free, volume.)

I was also concerned to ensure the absolute best value for money for the user when it comes to the print version.  I plan to release OSRIC via Lulu, and last time I checked each book cost $4.53 plus two cents per page in softcover... so the absolute minimum cost is to offer a single book of 400-odd pages.  If I make it two or three books, I'm adding $4.50 or $9 to the price the end-user pays.

That was unpalatable to me.  I wanted OSRIC to be available at a price that makes it accessible to young people, or to retired people, or to disabled veterans, or whoever, rather than targetting the relatively well-heeled 30-somethings and 40-somethings who're accustomed to paying $40 per book.

And I liked the unity and simplicity of having everything in one place.

But within those constraints, I did do what I could to help people do the "Players Handbook" thing.  Notice the careful ordering of the chapters!

If you're playing a melee character and you want the minimum information to do that, you can just print Chapter 1.  If you're playing a caster, you can print Chapters 1 and 2 (because Chapter 2 contains all the spells).  If you'd like a complete PHB, you can print Chapters 1, 2 and 3 and have all the character generation rules, all the spells and all the tables.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 comprise the GM-oriented material and together, they make a combined DMG/monster book.


----------



## Uzzy (Nov 29, 2008)

I'd slap that review up on your front page, PaP. Its hysterically stupid, and certainly got me to check out the PDF. 

Is there a possibility of eventually getting a hardcover copy, via Lulu or otherwise? Or does that present new licensing problems? Depending on how good it is, I'll happily pick up a hardcover too.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 29, 2008)

Uzzy said:


> Is there a possibility of eventually getting a hardcover copy, via Lulu or otherwise? Or does that present new licensing problems?




Yeah, there's certainly a possibility!

I'm waiting for the proofs from Lulu.  I also expect some users to find typos etc. in the document and email them to me, so I imagine there will be a few minor changes to make before I feel comfortable accepting your money for the print version.

Please don't expect it to be around before Christmas, though.


----------



## jmucchiello (Nov 30, 2008)

That copy of the OGL is nuts.


----------



## Evil_Dead_Jedi (Nov 30, 2008)

Dang, that IS sweet.  And the page numbers are in the bottom corners, just large and colored without an actual border-outline.  Very cool stuff man, very cool.  I especially like the character sheet.  Two-sided and very basic.  No useless clutter and nothing is compacted down.  Good job!


----------



## justanobody (Nov 30, 2008)

CRAP! I just noticed the character sheet will aid you in printing by being able to fill in areas within the PDF!

SWEEET!

Now if only that is true in the dead tree version as well


----------



## thedungeondelver (Nov 30, 2008)

Wyatt is apparently Pat.

(Whether or not you're a fan of Achewood won't make a difference - read some of Pat's Blog entries...).


----------



## Korgoth (Nov 30, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> I've got an un-admirer.




If some place with that many Japanese Cartoon avatars hates it, it has to be good.

Also... well done! Looks to be a sweet document.


----------



## Vic_Sage (Nov 30, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> If some place with that many Japanese Cartoon avatars hates it, it has to be good.
> 
> Also... well done! Looks to be a sweet document.



And now we've hit the full on sterotype of fans of older editions, nice work.

If your gonna talk s**t about somone at least do it at place where they have a chance to respond.

And if you actually paid attention to the review you'll see that he actually said the system is fine, just overly complicated and not for him.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 30, 2008)

Korgoth said:


> If some place with that many Japanese Cartoon avatars hates it, it has to be good.




It's more than just Japanese cartoon avatars, mate.  They publicly admit to being fanficcers.  

I've resisted the urge to "review" some of that guy's fanfiction.  I'll leave that up to someone more sarcastic than me.  (Calling Circvs Maximvs, can you hear me out there?)

You might also have noticed they can dish out the criticism but they can't take it.


----------



## SlyFlourish (Nov 30, 2008)

*Very cool*

This is very cool. I appreciate the hard work. My group is pretty much grown on 4e now but I love looking back and remembering the great old days of AD&D with all the demons and their naughty bits.

This makes me wish I hadn't bought this D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

How much do you think the Lulu version will be?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 30, 2008)

mshea said:


> How much do you think the Lulu version will be?




Varies according to which edition you buy.  Assuming Lulu's prices remain as they are at the moment, the exact editions with prices will be:

Standard softcover:  8.5" x 11" perfect bound softcover, colour cover with black and white interior, on economy ("publisher grade") paper, 402 pages.  $8.53 plus shipping.

Supporter's softcover:  8.5" x 11" perfect bound softcover, colour cover with black and white interior, on standard paper, 402 pages.  $17.50 plus shipping.

Standard hardcover:  8.25" x 10.5" casewrap hardcover, colour cover with black and white interior, on standard paper, 402 pages.  $28.05 plus shipping.

Deluxe Hardcover: 8.25" x 10.5" casewrap hardcover, colour cover with colour interior, on standard paper, 402 pages.  $100 plus shipping.  (I don't expect to sell very many of these but the offer will be there!)

For buyers outside North America, shipping rates on the "standard" editions are likely to be high.  Sorry--that's Lulu's pricing policy, not mine.

The "standard" products are at cost price, and I pledge that I will always offer both softcover and hardcover versions of OSRIC at cost price.  I should add that I may need to adjust those prices slightly when the time comes depending on Lulu's pricing policy or some other factor beyond my control.


----------



## Meek (Nov 30, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> It's more than just Japanese cartoon avatars, mate.  They publicly admit to being fanficcers.
> 
> I've resisted the urge to "review" some of that guy's fanfiction.  I'll leave that up to someone more sarcastic than me.  (Calling Circvs Maximvs, can you hear me out there?)
> 
> You might also have noticed they can dish out the criticism but they can't take it.




I'm rather disappointed you can't see the very honest review under the humor and "in-your-faceness". I thought you'd be a better sport than that – the Cthulhutech guys certainly handled things all the better, but admittedly that's my only other experience with this sort of thing. 

I really think OSRIC is a great product for what it is – when I read the AD&D manual blood tears came out of my eyes. I thought OSRIC did a downright amazing job at making it presentable and learnable – it is just still AD&D. I just chose to portray it in a rather different way for entertainment purposes – it's what my readership enjoys. I thought you'd be able to see that, but I guess not. 

I'd rather like it if instead of cheering on your fans to send me emails about how I'm a pedophile for liking anime, and childishly attacking me for unrelated things, we could talk about why you're so upset, and why you can't handle the joke.

As for me not being able to handle criticism, my inbox gets stuffed full every day, and I get lynched nearly every forum I go to but GITP. My general reaction to this is just puzzlement. 

Faury's the one who can't handle criticism.


----------



## Meek (Nov 30, 2008)

Vic_Sage said:


> And now we've hit the full on sterotype of fans of older editions, nice work.
> 
> If your gonna talk s**t about somone at least do it at place where they have a chance to respond.
> 
> And if you actually paid attention to the review you'll see that he actually said the system is fine, just overly complicated and not for him.




Thank you sir, for understanding


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 30, 2008)

Finished?


----------



## Meek (Nov 30, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Finished?




I have the feeling you don't want to hear my attempts to be peaceable, and would rather just continue being angry. I don't like that fact, as my reviews are all in good fun and you are the first person who has overreacted to them. I'd like to know what line was crossed in this instance, because I just don't see it compared to all the other things I've done before.


----------



## Maggan (Nov 30, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Finished?




Maybe a good idea would have been not to link to the review in the first place?

/M


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Nov 30, 2008)

Hindsight's always 20/20.    My fault for rewarding them with attention.


----------



## darjr (Nov 30, 2008)

I'm kinda tired and exasperated with the whole over the top vitriolic internet crap. I aim to avoid most of it.


----------



## Meek (Nov 30, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Hindsight's always 20/20.    My fault for rewarding them with attention.




Actually, your fault for overreacting – guys like Vic Sage managed to get it. But oh well. Since you're just ignoring me and don't want to make peace, or understand, we'll just leave it at that. I hope everyone else understands me a little better now, and Paycheck as well.


----------



## Vic_Sage (Nov 30, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Hindsight's always 20/20.    My fault for rewarding them with attention.



Wow.......just wow.........you really are an . I was going to buy your product but  that now.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 30, 2008)

Meek said:


> Actually, your fault for overreacting – guys like Vic Sage managed to get it. But oh well. Since you're just ignoring me and don't want to make peace, or understand, we'll just leave it at that. I hope everyone else understands me a little better now, and Paycheck as well.




You know, far be it for me to preach to others on the internet about what is and is not acceptable behavior, but the fact is that P&P went to a great deal of legal research, not to mention the investment of a lot of personal time and effort to make OSRIC a reality. Even though he could be making some cash off of this, instead he's made it available for free and will be making a print version available in a way that still won't make him very much money. Unless you happen to buy the supporter version, the only one making money here is Lulu, and let's not kid ourselves, most gamers will take cheap over expensive any day of the week. When I go to a site and see that someone has posted something that might be of interest to me for free, I usually make a point to drop them a line letting them know that I appreciate their hard work. Take for example starfrontiersman.com where they've remastered the original Star Frontiers game and created nine issues of new material for what was the premier science fiction game on the market half a lifetime ago. It would be just as out of line to rag on them for simply trying to save their favorite game and contributing something to it while they're at it.

Aside from that, there are a fairly large number of people who are not enamored with brand new "cutting edge" games (whatever that's supposed to mean in a game of "let's pretend" with rules attached) and just want to enjoy the game they grew up with. Or for others who weren't around back then, want to see what the game was like when it was started so that they have something to compare the current versions to. 

Bottom line here is that the last time I checked, free is a gift. You don't have to like a gift or use a gift after it has been given, but to slag on someone's labor of love and then call them out for not appreciating your humor is a bit disingenuous.

And for what it's worth, you're welcome to review any product that has my name on it and I'll be sure to place it in the appropriate context and give it whatever consideration it deserves.



Vic_Sage said:


> Wow.......just wow.........you really are an . I was going to buy your product but  that now.




Wow, 3 posts. Alterrific!


----------



## Vic_Sage (Nov 30, 2008)

Or somone who just does a healthy bit of lurking. But yeah, keep thinking I'm just a sockpuppet man.


Wait wait wait wait wait wait.........are you seriously saying that because somethings free its above criticizm? This is a product, and no product free or not, made as a labor of love or not is above any form of criticizm. I doubt thats what your trying to say (Hell I just woke up like 10 mins. ago) but for reals man.


----------



## Meek (Nov 30, 2008)

One last post to talk to Darrin, whom I want to thank for talking to me as an individual and being straight. 

I understand all of what you said. And to a point that is how I feel. I acknowledged that OSRIC is free. Much like I did with Pathfinder, Swords and Wizardry, Dread, and Wushu. I also acknowledged, that OSRIC is great for what it is. However, when I write, I do it in that style, and those elements and whatever my personal feelings are I bury into the persona I project when I'm writing my reviews. I write rather schizophrenically on my blog – certain posts have certain personas and the prevailing one is to be acerbic and badmouthed. That's the humor. 

I don't like, and can understand, when people are offended by what I write. So whenever I think somebody is genuinely offended I come and try to talk to them about what happened. I don't like, either, when I am ignored and written off as a non-person when I'm trying to explain myself and make peace with somebody. Admittedly at this point I was not being a paragon of peace, but I was a little annoyed, and have since cooled off enough approach this from a different perspective. This is a learning experience for me, as like I said, it is the first time I felt I had genuinely crossed a line. 

Once I had thought I offended the Chatty DM and went to talk to him, and we sorted things out, and we're cool with each other now. I even talk to him with some regularity. So I've been wanting to try to reach out and get people to understand. I'm not out to offend anyone, but to entertain my readers, who have come to expect certain traits and come to me for them. I continue to deliver on that with them knowing that I'm not really like that, and hopefully with other people inferring what I really feel about a product beyond all the negativity. I think the only time I was completely unfair to a game was White Wolf's Promethean.

So I'm going to go to the post now, and edit the last part out, and hopefully we can understand each other. This is a lesson for the future for all of us, I hope.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 30, 2008)

Vic_Sage said:


> Wow.......just wow.........you really are an . I was going to buy your product but  that now.





Dude, watch your language.  We have a filter, but it is not a replacement for keeping a civil tongue.

EN World is supposed to be family-friendly, and our #1 rule is "Keep it civil" - we expect you to do so. If you've got questions about our language or civility policies, please feel free to e-mail any of the moderators.  Our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.


----------



## jgbrowning (Nov 30, 2008)

Meek said:


> However, when I write, I do it in that style, and those elements and whatever my personal feelings are I bury into the persona I project when I'm writing my reviews. I write rather schizophrenically on my blog – certain posts have certain personas and the prevailing one is to be acerbic and badmouthed. That's the humor.
> 
> I don't like, and can understand, when people are offended by what I write. So whenever I think somebody is genuinely offended I come and try to talk to them about what happened. I don't like, either, when I am ignored and written off as a non-person when I'm trying to explain myself and make peace with somebody.




So basically you troll for the lulz, and then get upset when people take your troll seriously and therefore ignore you as a "real" person with a "real" review because they won't take you seriously when you say that, *now*, you're not trolling.

I suggest that if you are sincerely not out to offend and if you sincerely would like to be taken as a real person that you simply *stop* trying to be humorous by being *deliberately *offensive. Funny how that would solve all the problems. You may even find a way to be funny which doesn't require being a jerk. 

joe b.


----------



## Vic_Sage (Nov 30, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Dude, watch your language.  We have a filter, but it is not a replacement for keeping a civil tongue.
> 
> EN World is supposed to be family-friendly, and our #1 rule is "Keep it civil" - we expect you to do so. If you've got questions about our language or civility policies, please feel free to e-mail any of the moderators.  Our addresses are in a post stickied to the top of the Meta forum.



First and last time that'll happen.


----------



## Faury (Nov 30, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> So basically you troll for the lulz, and then get upset when people take your troll seriously and therefore ignore you as a "real" person with a "real" review because they won't take you seriously when you say that, *now*, you're not trolling.




I want to get in a word too, so if the mods want to kill me for a final thread derail, go for it. I'm not the admin of TT, I'm just the editor, so whatever I say, Wyatt can take it back – he's got word of God on the site. But I think I know him well enough.

No, not really. Basically, we write reviews in a crazy way (we don't really care if they're taken seriously or not – actually, we do care, we'd rather they be dismissed really), when people are honestly hurt by them, we try to make amends. Wyatt tries to uphold this idea that he doesn't attack people in spite of his demeaning and acidic reviews, that he attacks stereotypes and brands instead – it's what he's become recognized for by other bloggers. This is the very first time this kind of reaction has happened, and I guess it teaches us what to go about doing next. IE forgetting about it since it's pointless to talk sense to people, I suppose.

We don't "troll for the lulz". We don't pick a game this week and go "Hey let's piss off fans of X". I don't know where the notion that we seriously want all you people to get pissy at us and leave us bad comments and stuff our inbox comes from. We have a style that's attracted readers and entertained friends and ultimately that's what matters to us, so we will keep writing the way that our readers want us to. I see no reason to fix what's not broken, because of one bad reaction.

So I guess, we apologize to Paycheck if he feels we are trying to undermine his work. We aren't.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 30, 2008)

I've checked out the site in question in a little more depth and the one thing I've realized is that these guys are, by their own admission, young gamers. It makes sense, particularly when the reviewer starts with the fact that D&D 3.5 was where he started.

So my interpretation of this is that this is a generational thing and this whole conversation comes down to the old-timers telling the kids to show some respect and the kids telling gramps to shut up and take his Geritol. It's kind of funny, really, especially when we're constantly bemoaning the fact that the hobby is having a hard time attracting the younger generation, yet when the next generation shows up, warts and all, we don't exactly welcome them. And that's the problem with youth - no respect for their elders and lots of lessons to learn.

Get off our lawn!


----------



## tenkar (Dec 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I've checked out the site in question in a little more depth and the one thing I've realized is that these guys are, by their own admission, young gamers. It makes sense, particularly when the reviewer starts with the fact that D&D 3.5 was where he started.
> 
> So my interpretation of this is that this is a generational thing and this whole conversation comes down to the old-timers telling the kids to show some respect and the kids telling gramps to shut up and take his Geritol. It's kind of funny, really, especially when we're constantly bemoaning the fact that the hobby is having a hard time attracting the younger generation, yet when the next generation shows up, warts and all, we don't exactly welcome them. And that's the problem with youth - no respect for their elders and lots of lessons to learn.
> 
> Get off our lawn!




Heh... when I started gaming we had to use chits!  Sometimes you had to make your own... and walk there uphill... both ways!  

Print a PDF?  What the heck was a PDF?  You had mimeographed copies in purple ink that smelled and made you a bit woozie!  Assuming you could make a copy.

Battle maps?  We sometimes didn't even have graph paper, just lined stationary that we took a pencil to freehand.  Every other room was 10' square with an orc or a dragon and a pile of loot!

Heck, we only had three classes when i started gaming.  3.5 has like 3 trillion...  'Course 4e has only 8, old is new again 

Oh, and yes... Get off my grass you darn whipper-snappers!  heh


----------



## darjr (Dec 1, 2008)

I just saw a blue box D&D with an unbroken sheet of chits. The boxes corners were in great shape as well.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 1, 2008)

Anyone found a typo or mistake in it yet?  I've proofread it, and so have the other authors, but fresh eyes really help... I'm relying on the public to help find the mistakes before I start taking people's money for print copies.  

There's one serious one I already know about: the sample dungeon doesn't have room numbers.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 1, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Anyone found a typo or mistake in it yet?  I've proofread it, and so have the other authors, but fresh eyes really help... I'm relying on the public to help find the mistakes before I start taking people's money for print copies.
> 
> There's one serious one I already know about: the sample dungeon doesn't have room numbers.




Not had a chance to fully go over it as i got an acrobat error when it loaded about needing a newer version, and don't need some reader only when I have a full version. I had mostly been just playing with the character sheet.

Should I still be around by the end of next week, I should have had time to read it for typos, and also check AD&D itself for any, doubtful, gross rules misrepresentations. 

I do like the green in it though and the art so far looks pretty good for what I have skimmed.


----------



## Meek (Dec 1, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I've checked out the site in question in a little more depth and the one thing I've realized is that these guys are, by their own admission, young gamers. It makes sense, particularly when the reviewer starts with the fact that D&D 3.5 was where he started.
> 
> So my interpretation of this is that this is a generational thing and this whole conversation comes down to the old-timers telling the kids to show some respect and the kids telling gramps to shut up and take his Geritol. It's kind of funny, really, especially when we're constantly bemoaning the fact that the hobby is having a hard time attracting the younger generation, yet when the next generation shows up, warts and all, we don't exactly welcome them. And that's the problem with youth - no respect for their elders and lots of lessons to learn.
> 
> Get off our lawn!




Sure thing! (And I find your summation of the situation rather humorously accurate).

I just want the devs and fans of OSRIC to know that it wasn't personal, and I wasn't trying to attack them or to spoil their big debut of 2.0. You just got a lot of work out into the public and you would be touchy about negative opinions. I should have been aware of the timing and its implications, and I wasn't. That was a failure on my part. It was just another review for me in the way I usually do them. It was not meant to target OSRIC or it's fanbase nor to draw petty ire from anybody, but to present the broad stereotypes and extremes that I and my readers are routinely faced with and turn into humor, while also talking about an RPG product and continuing some of the discussions and themes that my readers have been wanting for some time. 

If it and the following comments on the blog post were offensive to OSRIC or its fanbase, I apologize. My intention was not to stir up emotions on unrelated forums. My handling of this situation left a very sour taste in my mouth. I don't want my editors or contributors to feel like they have to come here trying to explain my actions or mistakes (that means you, Faury) because I can't do so. I can, and I do.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 1, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Anyone found a typo or mistake in it yet?  I've proofread it, and so have the other authors, but fresh eyes really help... I'm relying on the public to help find the mistakes before I start taking people's money for print copies.
> 
> There's one serious one I already know about: the sample dungeon doesn't have room numbers.




I've just tap danced thru it so far.  Looks good.  I think I'll be doing a rare event for me and ordering a LuLu copy for myself (and maybe a few more to hand out at my old group's yearly gathering).

In the meantime I expect I'll be yoking quite a bit of the monster section for my C&C game.


----------



## tenkar (Dec 1, 2008)

Meek said:


> Sure thing! (And I find your summation of the situation rather humorously accurate).
> 
> I just want the devs and fans of OSRIC to know that it wasn't personal, and I wasn't trying to attack them or to spoil their big debut of 2.0. You just got a lot of work out into the public and you would be touchy about negative opinions. I should have been aware of the timing and its implications, and I wasn't. That was a failure on my part. It was just another review for me in the way I usually do them. It was not meant to target OSRIC or it's fanbase nor to draw petty ire from anybody, but to present the broad stereotypes and extremes that I and my readers are routinely faced with and turn into humor, while also talking about an RPG product and continuing some of the discussions and themes that my readers have been wanting for some time.
> 
> If it and the following comments on the blog post were offensive to OSRIC or its fanbase, I apologize. My intention was not to stir up emotions on unrelated forums. My handling of this situation left a very sour taste in my mouth. I don't want my editors or contributors to feel like they have to come here trying to explain my actions or mistakes (that means you, Faury) because I can't do so. I can, and I do.




You riled up the seniors, and we can be a bunch of Grumpy Old Men... heh 

But yeah, shock jock style reviews can be offensive to those that aren't in your target audience.  

Oh, and if you ask nicely I might let you on my lawn to retrieve your ball... maybe


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 1, 2008)

Meek said:


> If it and the following comments on the blog post were offensive to OSRIC or its fanbase, I apologize. My intention was not to stir up emotions on unrelated forums. My handling of this situation left a very sour taste in my mouth. I don't want my editors or contributors to feel like they have to come here trying to explain my actions or mistakes (that means you, Faury) because I can't do so. I can, and I do.




Okay, we're cool now.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 1, 2008)

For what it's worth...

(1) P&P, I can't wait to buy a copy off Lulu.  You've done a remarkable job with this, and it's very impressive.

(2) I think Meek & Faury's reviews are pretty damn hilarious.  I'm enjoying reading them, and I'm working my way through the site now.  So, I know it ruffles some feathers, but I hope you keep on producing reviews like this.  Don't spare the snark.

-O


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 1, 2008)

Meek said:


> I'd rather like it if instead of cheering on your fans to send me emails about how I'm a pedophile for liking anime, and childishly attacking me for unrelated things, we could talk about why you're so upset, and why you can't handle the joke.



Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can tell you why I did not find your "review" helpful.  The vulgar language, needless attacks on the reader and on those who like the retro-game genre, and a generally crass presentation is quite off-putting, to be honest.  If that is what your regular readers like and want, that is fine.  However, someone coming in to just read this review will be in for a bit of a shock and may find it objectionable.  This style of writing is not for everyone, so  you should not be surprised that people object to it.  Oh, and for the record, the fact that you like anime has nothing to do with my opinion of the review.  I do not understand the fascination some people have with anime, but that doesn't mean I have anything against the person.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 1, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Anyone found a typo or mistake in it yet?  I've proofread it, and so have the other authors, but fresh eyes really help... I'm relying on the public to help find the mistakes before I start taking people's money for print copies.
> 
> There's one serious one I already know about: the sample dungeon doesn't have room numbers.



I have not had a chance to go over it in detail as of yet.  I have a couple of other editing projects I am working on, and I am supposed to be writing some material for a new game that I have to get done ASAP.  I will give it a look real soon, I promise!


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2008)

sjmiller said:


> Well, I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can tell you why I did not find your "review" helpful.  The vulgar language, needless attacks on the reader and on those who like the retro-game genre, and a generally crass presentation is quite off-putting, to be honest.  If that is what your regular readers like and want, that is fine.  However, someone coming in to just read this review will be in for a bit of a shock and may find it objectionable.  This style of writing is not for everyone, so  you should not be surprised that people object to it.  Oh, and for the record, the fact that you like anime has nothing to do with my opinion of the review.  I do not understand the fascination some people have with anime, but that doesn't mean I have anything against the person.





I've never listened to "Shock Jock" radio broadcasters and I am certainly not going to read blogs of similar poor taste. Such "practice" just feeds the behavior into the general populace. A general populace who proves time and time again that they aren't necessarily smart enough to leave ascerbic language out of day to day conversations.

For example, there are plenty of people who do not let Rap or Rock music influence them to behave badly. There are still far too many who do.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 1, 2008)

Treebore said:


> I've never listened to "Shock Jock" radio broadcasters and I am certainly not going to read blogs of similar poor taste. Such "practice" just feeds the behavior into the general populace. A general populace who proves time and time again that they aren't necessarily smart enough to leave ascerbic language out of day to day conversations.
> 
> For example, there are plenty of people who do not let Rap or Rock music influence them to behave badly. There are still far too many who do.




Censoring is not the answer to the issue. That's sort of like painting a moldy wall and saying there's no more problem.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2008)

Scribble said:


> Censoring is not the answer to the issue. That's sort of like painting a moldy wall and saying there's no more problem.





Its not censoring when parents don't let their children listen to it. Its not censoring when I refuse to listen to it. Its only censoring when a government says your not allowed to say it, or listen to it.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 1, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Its not censoring when parents don't let their children listen to it. Its not censoring when I refuse to listen to it.




I never made the claim that either were.

However, it IS still a similar case of what I said. If there's a problem, hiding or ignoring the syptoms doesn't solve the problem. But I think thats the subject of a different board.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 1, 2008)

Golly, I never realized ENWorld could be so puritanical.

-O


----------



## Korgoth (Dec 1, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Golly, I never realized ENWorld could be so puritanical.
> 
> -O




Puritans? Peh. Buncha liberals.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 2, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Golly, I never realized ENWorld could be so puritanical.



Meh, it doesn't surprise me much; coming as it does hard on the heels of last week's thread/poll that pointed out how many people refuse to drink and game.

Lanefan


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 2, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> Meh, it doesn't surprise me much; coming as it does hard on the heels of last week's thread/poll that pointed out how many people refuse to drink and game.




I honestly don't see how the two are related. I'm not puritanical, in fact I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't drink at a game. It's hard enough to stay on topic without impairing yourself. Your results may vary, but drinking and gaming have never gone together in any group I've belonged to.


----------



## sjmiller (Dec 2, 2008)

So, anyway, back to OSRIC.  I found it a pretty nice presentation, with lots of information in it that could be used for any edition.  My only complaints about the presentation are the blank and all green blank divider pages.  A well bookmarked PDF does not need those pages.  I might understand having them there for the print file for Lulu, but not in the general distribution file.  Oh, and the last 3 entries in the bookmark list do not point to the right pages.

I will give it a more detailed look later, but it looks pretty good so far.


----------



## Mark (Dec 2, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Golly, I never realized ENWorld could be so puritanical.
> 
> -O






You must realize which camp your use of the word "Golly" places you in?


----------



## Mark (Dec 2, 2008)

Meek said:


> My intention was not to stir up emotions on unrelated forums.





Unrelated?  It's a series of tubes.  You should read the manual that comes with the Intraweb (and resist the urge to review it).


----------



## WereSteve (Dec 2, 2008)

_Deluxe Hardcover: 8.25" x 10.5" casewrap hardcover, colour cover with colour interior, on standard paper, 402 pages. $100 plus shipping. (I don't expect to sell very many of these but the offer will be there!)
_
Wanna bet?  Considering that I won't be buying any 4E ... I might just be very tempted ...


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 2, 2008)

That brings the total number of people interested in that to two.  

I expect the $8.50-ish softcover on the cheap paper to be the big seller, because it'll make a cheap table-copy of the rules that you don't mind lending to a friend and it's okay to spill coffee on.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Dec 2, 2008)

WereSteve said:


> _Deluxe Hardcover: 8.25" x 10.5" casewrap hardcover, colour cover with colour interior, on standard paper, 402 pages. $100 plus shipping. (I don't expect to sell very many of these but the offer will be there!)
> _
> Wanna bet?  Considering that I won't be buying any 4E ... I might just be very tempted ...




Ditto. That would be my first purchase of '09 if I'm able to put in an order for it in January.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 2, 2008)

Reveille said:


> Ditto. That would be my first purchase of '09 if I'm able to put in an order for it in January.




We'll see.  I'm on holiday over the Christmas period.  When I get back in early January, I'll fix the typos and make the corrections people send me, and get a proof.

If I charge you $100 for a book, I don't want to be apologising to you afterwards for problems with it!


----------



## Chainsaw (Dec 2, 2008)

P&P et alia: 

Thanks for OSRIC - it's _*OS*ome_! Last night I thoroughly read through the "How to Play" chapter and really enjoyed it. I've recently begun a 1E campaign and that chapter offered clear summaries of the basics, clearing up confusion I've had on surprise, initiative, time and movement (combat, dungeon, wilderness) among other things. Needless to say, there's also plenty of good DM'ing and PC'ing advice. Call me crazy, but I've actually decided to use 1E segments rather than 2E initiative after reading OSRIC, heh. Enough though, I don't want to sound like you've paid me. 

Anyway, I *do* plan on buying a copy, so I thought I'd mention one minor presentation issue I noticed. In the "How to Play" chapter, there's a section on Exploring the Wilderness (p.140), where you offer a brief summary of play order contained in a wilderness turn (steps 1-7), then elaborate on the steps. Each step's elaboration has a number and title in bold, which makes it easy to follow. In the "Adventure and Exploration" section (p.135), there's also a brief summary of play order, but then the elaboration (p.136-139) doesn't really have corresponding numbers or bolding. I think the presentation in Exploring the Wilderness is easier to follow because of the additional numbering and bolding. If it's possible, you might consider using this format in the Adventure and Exploration section too.

Anyway, thanks again all your and your teammates' hard work.


----------



## T. Foster (Dec 2, 2008)

Chainsaw said:


> P&P et alia:
> 
> Thanks for OSRIC - it's _*OS*ome_! Last night I thoroughly read through the "How to Play" chapter and really enjoyed it. I've recently begun a 1E campaign and that chapter offered clear summaries of the basics, clearing up confusion I've had on surprise, initiative, time and movement (combat, dungeon, wilderness) among other things. Needless to say, there's also plenty of good DM'ing and PC'ing advice. Call me crazy, but I've actually decided to use 1E segments rather than 2E initiative after reading OSRIC, heh. Enough though, I don't want to sound like you've paid me.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your kind words. That chapter (to me) is the best part of OSRIC because it takes the existing 1E rules and explains them more clearly and concisely than the actual 1E rulebooks ever did without actually changing them. Of course I may just feel that way because that's the chapter I did the most work on personally 

Regarding your 2nd paragraph, taking the numbers and sub-headers out of the dungeon exploration section was my decision, because I wanted a more free-flowing, conversational essay style and the stricter format interefered with that. However, there should still be bold words at the beginning of each subsection to serve as guideposts (following the same order as the flowchart on pp. 135-6) that appear to have been lost in the formatting:

p. 136, 2nd column: "*Movement* during dungeon exploration..."
p. 137, 1st column: "*Listening* may be performed..."
p. 137, 2nd column: "*Opening doors* is not normally difficult..."
p. 138, 1st column: "*Mapping* is a key element..."
p. 138, 2nd column: "*Searching* for hidden treasure..."
p. 139, 1st column: "*Disarming traps* is normally a job..."
p. 139, 1st column: "*Casting spells* is detailed..."
p. 139, 1st column: "*Rest periods* are typically necessary..."
p. 139, 2nd column: "*Other actions* are defined..."

Hey, Stuart: were those bold words removed deliberately or by accident? And if it was the former, can we get them put back in -- pretty please? I agree with Chainsaw that without them that 4 page block of solid text becomes pretty unwieldy (which is not _at all_ the effect I was going for...).


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 2, 2008)

Its impressive, and cudos to the many that worked on it. 

The "How to Play" and especially the "Dungeons, Towns, and Wilderness" chapters managed to both bring back good memories and be well enough organized that I could use some of them in my (not old school) game. 

It almost made me want to break out some old modules and run "as is". 

Almost, but not quite.


----------



## Chainsaw (Dec 2, 2008)

T. Foster said:


> Thanks for your kind words. That chapter (to me) is the best part of OSRIC because it takes the existing 1E rules and explains them more clearly and concisely than the actual 1E rulebooks ever did without actually changing them. Of course I may just feel that way because that's the chapter I did the most work on personally




Thanks again TFoster. I'm not normally one that enjoys reading the rules (I'd rather be playing of course), but that chapter connected so many dots that I had to stop and comment to someone (my poor wife) about how helpful (and painless) it was. Honestly, it was so liberating that I felt like someone had given me the keys to a brand new car, heh. 

Anyway, as for the numbering *and* bolding, your comment that both makes the text feel less free flowing and conversational makes sense. I'm sure bolding alone would create sufficient guideposts.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 2, 2008)

T. Foster said:


> Hey, Stuart: were those bold words removed deliberately or by accident? And if it was the former, can we get them put back in -- pretty please? I agree with Chainsaw that without them that 4 page block of solid text becomes pretty unwieldy (which is not _at all_ the effect I was going for...).




By accident I think.  I'll see if I can't get that fixed for the print version.

TerraDave:  Give in to your anger.  Oh yes.  Come on over to the Gygaxian side.  Just break out those old modules and run a session or two... and see if something in your head doesn't go "Bree-Yark!" and drag you back, kicking and screaming, into the 1980's when men were real men (often with sideburns), women were real women (often in dolphin shorts and much too much hairspray), and 10 ft poles were real 10 ft poles (and there were up to three of them in every adventuring group)!


----------



## Obryn (Dec 2, 2008)

Mark said:


> You must realize which camp your use of the word "Golly" places you in?



Only if you realize which camp your misunderstanding of my irony places _you _in. 

-O


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 2, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Only if you realize which camp your misunderstanding of my irony places _you _in.
> 
> -O



I spat my coffee...O you owe me a new G15 

It is a great piece of work this and at a quite reasonable price. I can't see us playing it until we have done the 'full 30' in 4E but maybe we will go back........it is a good read so thanks


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 2, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> That brings the total number of people interested in that to two.
> 
> I expect the $8.50-ish softcover on the cheap paper to be the big seller, because it'll make a cheap table-copy of the rules that you don't mind lending to a friend and it's okay to spill coffee on.




You might be suprised. Oh, I'm sure it won't sell hundreds, but I'm betting it will sell dozens. I prefer hardbacks to softcovers for (IMO) obvious reasons, and the fact that I could brake this out and leave my in-very-good-condition 1e books on the shelf, nice and safe... Not even a question. Sold!


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 2, 2008)

Darkwolf71 said:


> You might be suprised. Oh, I'm sure it won't sell hundreds, but I'm betting it will sell dozens. I prefer hardbacks to softcovers for (IMO) obvious reasons, and the fact that I could brake this out and leave my in-very-good-condition 1e books on the shelf, nice and safe... Not even a question. Sold!




Sure.  But I'm expecting people to buy the black and white interior hardback at $28.05 in preference to the superdeluxe colour one that Lulu charge the Earth for.  

If you can afford $100, then get three $28.05 hardbacks and a couple of $8.50 softbacks to lend to your friends!


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Dec 2, 2008)

Well, granted it's not so much the color interior as it is the hardback itself.

Guess, we'll just have to see what the final options are. Even if it's only softbound, I'm looking forward to a printed copy of this.


----------



## T. Foster (Dec 2, 2008)

The plan, as far as I'm aware, is to offer OSRIC in 4 different hardcopy versions (all via Lulu):

1) budget-line softcover on cheap paper, at cost (~$8.50)

2) softcover on nicer paper at a bit of a premium -- the "I like OSRIC so I don't mind throwing a couple extra bucks at the developers to help them meet their costs" edition (~$15.00)

3) hardcover with b&w interior art, at cost (~$28.00)

4) hardcover with full color interior art (like the pdf), at cost (~$100.00)

#3 is presumably the route most people who want hardcopies will tend to go, but it's a shame that the b&w interiors won't look nearly as nice as the full-color pdf. Unfortunately, the pricing on #4 via Lulu eliminates it as a possibility for almost everybody (and certainly for me). I remain convinced that a full-color hardback at $50 would be the best version -- combining the attractiveness of the pdf with the tactile appeal of a hardcopy -- and would sell in significant quantities, even with the cheaper/free options available, but have been assured that price-point isn't achievable via Lulu and would require an actual print-run, which brings up a whole raft of other issues (warehousing, order fulfillment) that OSRIC's publishers aren't set up to handle.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 2, 2008)

I'll be in for one of the B&W hardbacks, for certain.  That's a heck of a deal.  I'll also recommend my players grab their own copies.  I'd guess 2 of them will do so for certain.

I considered printing it out in color at Kinko's, spiral-bound, but that'd be in the $40-50 range, and to be honest I'd rather have it in a book than in color.

-O


----------



## Thondor (Dec 3, 2008)

Hi, as for errors typos etc. 

Not sure this really qualifies as one of those but the term used doesn't really make sense to me (it left me scratching my head.)

P. 196 the Goblin description it says: "Goblins are good cavers . . ."

my mind blanked, whats a caver? You could say instead "goblins are good/skilled spelukers . . ." or "goblins spend most of there lives underground/in caves  . . ." or "goblins are good escavators . . ."

The original MM says "miners" for those curious souls.

 I'll try to post more as I find them. (Though I should really download the non-reveiew version, internet has been shaky lately though.)


----------



## Thondor (Dec 3, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Yes, I did give some thought to that.
> 
> The basic design philosophy for OSRIC is: one book contains all the rules.  That's one (1) core book, with optional supplements from third party publishers to taste.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the detailed reply, I apreciate it. And it helps to hear the design philosophy behind the decisions.

Unfortuanately do to access to internet constraints (the 'digital divide') most of those who really can't afford it also won't be able to find it. But if no one takes steps to lower these factors (as you have) they'll never disappear. 

In any case, hopefully this thread gets back on topic.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 3, 2008)

Thanks for the thoughts and the kind words, Thondor.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 4, 2008)

For all the stupid people out (t)here.

Does OSRIC work like the OSL for ????, and how exactly does one use it as such to create their own stuff? For the laymen as well.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2008)

justanobody said:


> For all the stupid people out (t)here.
> 
> Does OSRIC work like the OSL for ????, and how exactly does one use it as such to create their own stuff? For the laymen as well.




Because of the OGL, I can't use the trademarked term that WOTC own from your post.  I can say that OSRIC uses the OGL to allow you to publish materials for the first edition of the game Gary Gygax wrote (hereinafter called 1e).

You don't _have_ to use OSRIC to publish 1e-compatible materials.  Some publishers have produced that stuff directly, without using the OGL.  But I think I'm right in saying that the majority use OSRIC--for various reasons, some to do with legal concerns, some to do with an ethical stance on wanting to support the open gaming movement, and some because they want to write for a system they see as "living" (and there's a whole discussion to be had about that, but I don't want to go into it while answering your question).

If you're a layman, your best bet is to write your material and submit it to a third party publisher, who'll decide whether they want to accept it.  If they do, they'll give you a small amount of money (and, I'm here to tell you, nobody gets rich from RPG publishing) and they'll deal with the technical and legal issues.  If they reject it, approach a different publisher.

If you want to know how to become a publisher, then I think that's a bigger question than I'm equipped to answer.  There are a few hints and suggestions on the OSRIC website but basically you're going to need to have, or collaborate with people who have: 

1) a thorough knowledge and understanding of the OGL;
2) artistic skills and computer programs;
3) cartography skills and computer programs;
4) layout skills and computer programs;
5) a decent website;
6) a gaming group prepared to playtest your material;
7) editing and proofreading skills; and
8) a whole lot of time.

Hope that helps a bit.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 4, 2008)

Just making sure I am telling people correctly when I send them to look at the new version that it is OGL for "1e" type of games. (der...of course you can't use that and neither did i  )


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 4, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Just making sure I am telling people correctly when I send them to look at the new version that it is OGL for "1e" type of games. (der...of course you can't use that and neither did i  )




You can say it!

The restriction is on me saying it.


----------



## Thondor (Dec 9, 2008)

*ART . . . and table of contents/indexs*

ART

I recently started reading _Pathfinder Beta _. . . and the art drove me crazy. To much colour, disproportionate people (rare), unrealistic and nonsensical armour and outfits (extremely common), weapons so large it would be impossible to swing them,and an overall feeling impression of cartoony-manga-techyness ugg. This seems to have been the trend towards this sort of art ever since 3.0 was released, and its always put me off. I realized why it bothered me more then usual though, I'd been reading 1e and _OSRIC_.

_OSRIC_ art is nothing like that. First of its all black-and-white (except the covers), and is better for it. _Proportions_ of weapons, shields, armour and the look of clothing are realistic and (semi-)historic. Morover the art actually looks like it could have been done _in a historic (medieval) period_. The rougher pictures look much like something from historical tapestries. There are a few paintings that are both beautiful and realistic. Monsters look like sketches made by semi-artistic individuals who actually encountered the monsters or skilled artists renditions from vague description (not to say that the artist who actually made the art are not very skilled, but they did to create a gritty feel). Overall the art is simple, elegant and evoquative. Here is art that I can show to my players and say "there's a picture of a stone giant on the wall of the keep, it looks like this." That to me is useful, and fires the imagination far more, then showing of non-sensical, colour-mad art made to "wow that's so cool."

As a bonus it feels 'Old School' and is easy on the printers.

Tables of Contents, index and lists:

Wow. How easy it is to find everything. First of all the bookmarks in the PDF are userfriendly and comprehensive, its essentially the Table of Contents made interactive. The Table of Contents is detailed and informative. following the table of contents are three lists in alphabetical order: Spells, Monsters, and Magic items. These all make it easy to find any of the above if you know the name of what your looking for. Finally the index at the end of the work is quite exhaustive. (The best part of the index . . . it has _art_ in it. Clearly an index that is meant to be _used_.)


Maybe one of these days I'll make a complete review. I may be a little biased though . . . 
(For those curious souls  . . . I'm 23, and ran my first 1e game last Wednesday. We mad characters in like . . . 20-30minutes, this with nubes, it was glorious! To bad I just got OSRIC 1 printed out . . . still useful of course, especially for players.)


----------



## jgbrowning (Dec 9, 2008)

Thondor said:


> (For those curious souls  . . . I'm 23, and ran my first 1e game last Wednesday. We mad characters in like . . . 20-30minutes, this with nubes, it was glorious! To bad I just got OSRIC 1 printed out . . . still useful of course, especially for players.)




Thondor, send me an e-mail and I'll send you a complementary PDF copy of a low-level (2-4) Advanced Adventure.

josephbrowning@gmail.com

joe b.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 9, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> TerraDave:  Give in to your anger.  Oh yes.  Come on over to the Gygaxian side.  Just break out those old modules and run a session or two... and see if something in your head doesn't go "Bree-Yark!" and drag you back, kicking and screaming, into the 1980's when men were real men (often with sideburns), women were real women (often in dolphin shorts and much too much hairspray), and 10 ft poles were real 10 ft poles (and there were up to three of them in every adventuring group)!




But can't I have those things, and a universal resolution mechanic, a skill system, and low level casters that can cast more then 1 spell? 






(runs away from thread as fast as he can)


----------



## WheresMyD20 (Dec 9, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> But can't I have those things, and a universal resolution mechanic, a skill system, and low level casters that can cast more then 1 spell?



You can play the game any way you want, but there are a lot of old-schoolers who think that those things actually detract from the game rather than add to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 10, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> But can't I have those things, and a universal resolution mechanic, a skill system, and low level casters that can cast more then 1 spell?





RCFG is being designed to specifically allow those things, without going overboard the way (IMHO) WotC-D&D does, so that you can have the best of both worlds......Or use modules from any edition with relatively simple conversion.

(OTOH, a universal resolution mechanic is only good where the mechanic does a good job at resolution; RCFG uses d6 initiative.)


RC


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Dec 10, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> But can't I have those things, and a universal resolution mechanic, a skill system, and low level casters that can cast more then 1 spell?




No.  I'm afraid you're only allowed those things if you're wearing your hat of d02.


----------



## Uruk (Dec 11, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> But can't I have those things, and a universal resolution mechanic, a skill system, and low level casters that can cast more then 1 spell?




Just to address your issues.  There's already a universal resolution mechanic (maybe not quite what you mean), but everything can be broken down to a d100. The different dice add flavor, but Gary pretty much always puts a percentile number next to a die roll (e.g. 1-2 on a 1d6 (33.3%)).

There's a skill system in OA and if you want something like 2nd edition or you can use the secondary skill list out of the DM guide.  However, the idea is that your character is your class by trade and you're proficient in doing whatever your class needs to do.  Fighters can mend their own weapons and armor and clerics know about religion.

The one spell thing really only applies to magic-users though if you're using cantrips you can spread that out a bit more.  The most common house rule I've seen is to apply bonus spells using integelligence.  However, the original source material (the Jack Vance books) only had wizards knowing 3-4 spells max.  I started playing 1st edition again a couple weeks ago and one sleep spell is all it takes to win a battle so if you put magic user spells in perspective they're awesome.


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Dec 12, 2008)

To all those that worked on putting OSRIC together...

*THANK YOU!*

One of my friends and I have been discussing the various issues that we keep encountering playing Third Edition and keep trying to houserule.  When discussing it the other day, I listed off a large number of things from AD&D that AD&D handled adequately that we were trying to houserule into 3E.  He said, "Why did we ever quit playing AD&D?"  After all, it's easier to add things into AD&D than it is to strip them out of 3E, at least from our perspective.

He mentioned wanting to DM, too.  That through a monkeywrench into things, for me.  My AD&D books are so old and beat up that they should be under glass with a librarian that turns only one page a month under climate controlled conditions.  So, loning them out is out of the question.

But, now, thanks to OSRIC and my local Half-Price Books stores, I've been able to put together a DMing package for him to use.  For us, AD&D will live again through OSRIC and we will again tell stories of a time before the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the suns of Aries...

If OSRIC were onsale at my FLGS, I'd have bought three copies in hardback, today.  Thankfully, some folks in town just sold off some very good looking copies of many of the different orange-spined AD&D books.  Those, together with OSRIC will allow us to revive AD&D for us.

AD&D, to me, is the heart and soul of D&D.  Thank you for OSRIC.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## Thondor (Dec 13, 2008)

jgbrowning said:


> Thondor, send me an e-mail and I'll send you a complementary PDF copy of a low-level (2-4) Advanced Adventure.
> 
> josephbrowning@gmail.com
> 
> joe b.





Sweet. Original and crammed with stuff . . . I was just going to say that 'they don't make them like they used to' but you did.

I'll have to give some feedback when I run it. (It could be quite some time. Only have 4 first level characters at this point.)


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Dec 13, 2008)

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Anyone found a typo or mistake in it yet?




The PC reference sheet has a likely cut-and-paste error.  The row for Con has 'Major Test' and 'Minor Test', and probably should be something like 'Survive Resurrection/Raise Dead' and 'Survive System Shock'.

Also, in the table in the section describing Con, the column heading 'Survive System Shock (minor test) (d%)' should probably be just 'Survive System Shock (d%)'.

I'm new to (and excited about!) OSRIC/1ed AD&D, so maybe these errors aren't really errors, and that these really are Major/Minor Tests.  Or maybe my suggestions are too long.  Anywho....


----------



## Mircoles (Dec 14, 2008)

darjr said:


> I just saw a blue box D&D with an unbroken sheet of chits. The boxes corners were in great shape as well.




I lost my chits, but I was 12 at the time and very typical for that age. Besides, when I got my first set of polyhyral dice (white crayon included), i wasn't really concerned with where the chits were.


----------



## Mircoles (Dec 14, 2008)

Lanefan said:


> Meh, it doesn't surprise me much; coming as it does hard on the heels of last week's thread/poll that pointed out how many people refuse to drink and game.
> 
> Lanefan




I don't mix well with math when I'm drunk and even at their most simplest forms, rpgs usually have some math even if it's only counting the dots on the d6.
Also, when drunk, die rolling can be a challenging task.


----------



## Korgoth (Feb 8, 2009)

Any word on print copies of OSRIC?


----------



## tenkar (Feb 9, 2009)

Good question.  I'll need 5 copies for the early May semi-seasonal Gathering of Fools


----------



## Treebore (Feb 9, 2009)

tenkar said:


> Good question.  I'll need 5 copies for the early May semi-seasonal Gathering of Fools




Are there supposed to be print copies available through means other than lulu.com?


----------



## Obryn (Feb 9, 2009)

P&P - As mentioned in a thread elsewhere, there doesn't seem to be a damage table for grenade-like missiles.  Such as flaming oil and the like.

FYI.  Hope it doesn't cause further delays. 

-O


----------



## rogueattorney (Feb 9, 2009)

TerraDave said:


> But can't I have those things, and a universal resolution mechanic, a skill system, and low level casters that can cast more then 1 spell?
> 
> (runs away from thread as fast as he can)




RA runs after TerraDave banging his Tunnels & Trolls drum.


----------



## Jack Campbell (Apr 17, 2009)

I scoured Lulu last night and again today. Any update on those print versions being available?

There are some really great books on my shelf and some truly groundbreaking ones (Ptolus catches my eye).

I am looking forward to seeing the hardback version of OSRIC up there.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Apr 19, 2009)

Jack Campbell said:


> I scoured Lulu last night and again today. Any update on those print versions being available?
> 
> There are some really great books on my shelf and some truly groundbreaking ones (Ptolus catches my eye).
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing the hardback version of OSRIC up there.




We're getting very close - the layout artist tells me he'll have proofs by tomorrow.  From that point, it could literally be as short as a day or as long as a couple of weeks depending on the various little factors involved.  One of these is rather critical - the formation of the nonprofit organization that will actually publish OSRIC 2.0.  Formation documents have been filed, but I don't yet have the certified copies.  To make a long story short, I'm guessing about May  1 or thereabouts for it to show up on Lulu.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Jun 10, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Any word on print copies of OSRIC?



For those who have been waiting, looks like OSRIC is now available in print.


----------



## nightraven (Jun 10, 2009)

Ordered the Soft Cover.  Hell, $15 is a bad lunch, I'll brown bag it today.   I figure this will at least layout the rules for my newer players (and glad to see some folks actually giving AD&D a first time spin threw OSRIC). 
This publishing tool is going to get people playing AD&D, what a great thing.


----------

