Best OSR System

[Beoric]

It's not that the math is hard, so much as it is that he needed to simplify his equations.

 

[Osrnoob]

Squeen said, "Nothing left to take away".

Thats why I settled on Knave honestly is that feeling but its honestly whatever you and your group works with to jive.

Nobody commented on my first two posts. I was very proud of them :'(

 

[Ynas Midgard]

I think S&W is one of the more challenging systems to convert to and from with other OSR stuff because of the single saving throw and the ascending AC/to-hit.

Not really. Ascending AC is optional in S&W (and the same descending value always corresponds to the same ascending value), and the single Save score is derived from HD (or class & level for NPCs). No judgement calls, just two very simple functions.

 

[Ynas Midgard]

As for me, I usually run Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea (quite a mouthful) when I want complexity and more of everything and Kazamaták és Kompániák when I crave simplicity.

 

[squeen]

It's not that the math is hard, so much as it is that he needed to simplify his equations.

Perhaps it's left as an exercise to the students!

 

[EOTB]

2) OSRIC is not 100% open content. Which is fine as one of the original goals is the preservation of AD&D. But it is not if the goal is tweak it to better suit the setting that is being written about. You can't cite compatibility even if you stick to just the open content if you use too much of the text verbatim in your work.

You could easily write something as different from OSRIC as Al-Qadim is from 2E, and cite compatibility with OSRIC.

What you couldn't do is copy-paste large parts of OSRIC into an Al-Qadim-like setting book that replaced OSRIC entirely. I.e., you couldn't write "Al-Qadim, the game" off of OSRIC text, but you could easily write "Al-Qadim, the setting, with lots of variant rules" and call it OSRIC compatible. Just like Al-Qadim was a 2E compatible setting and its construction apparently bothered no one, as I never hear discussion about Al-Qadim settle on "But if only it was a stand-alone game, then I would praise it but since it's not, I can't."

To use the word "tweak" and then go on to state that unless OSRIC lets you write "Al-Qadim, the stand-alone game" that "tweaking" OSRIC for settings is prohibited is very close to the edge of mischaracterization. Settings do not equal games. People don't associate settings with stand-alone games. The reason why people always fall back on using the word "setting" as a replacement noun for "stand-alone game" is because when they write "OSRIC won't let me copy-paste most of its rules into my own stand-alone game to be used as a replacement for OSRIC" it doesn't sound all that unreasonable to the average person.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Nobody commented on my first two posts. I was very proud of them :'(

I think you might want to consider grouping your observations in paragraphs and drawing some sort of conclusion or statement from them, that tends to draw in the crowd. Its hard for the old fogeys here to follow your stream-of-consciousness expression. Brains overheat, teeth fall out, they get scared etc. etc.

*whisper* or you could tell squeen that you think AD&D would be much better with all the Unearthed Arcana and White Dwarf classes enabled.

Knave always seems too light to me, like something is missing that you can find in the original games. B/X is just right. I am a little in awe at all the people with their tricked out systems. I've modded B/X a little bit but only where its rules do not reach, and then usually with reference to AD&D.

 

[Osrnoob]

I think you might want to consider grouping your observations in paragraphs and drawing some sort of conclusion or statement from them, that tends to draw in the crowd. Its hard for the old fogeys here to follow your stream-of-consciousness expression. Brains overheat, teeth fall out, they get scared etc. etc.

*whisper* or you could tell squeen that you think AD&D would be much better with all the Unearthed Arcana and White Dwarf classes enabled.

Knave always seems too light to me, like something is missing that you can find in the original games. B/X is just right. I am a little in awe at all the people with their tricked out systems. I've modded B/X a little bit but only where its rules do not reach, and then usually with reference to AD&D.

That Oprah meme is mad old though. Does this mean, gasp?! I am no longer a child 0__0

I also liked insta post of I HAVE THE BEST SYSTEM YOU ARE ALL WRONG

SYSTEM WARS: IN A WORLD

 

[robertsconley]

To use the word "tweak" and then go on to state that unless OSRIC lets you write "Al-Qadim, the stand-alone game" that "tweaking" OSRIC for settings is prohibited is very close to the edge of mischaracterization. Settings do not equal games. People don't associate settings with stand-alone games. The reason why people always fall back on using the word "setting" as a replacement noun for "stand-alone game" is because when they write "OSRIC won't let me copy-paste most of its rules into my own stand-alone game to be used as a replacement for OSRIC" it doesn't sound all that unreasonable to the average person.

I am not mischaracterizing anything. I could have not written my Majestic Wilderlands Supplement in 2008 for OSRIC and cited compatibility. Nor can I create the reference cards in 2020 I made earlier and cite compatibility. Both would have taken more than 10% of the text from the first three chapters.

And if anybody is not aware of the distinction there are three parts to OSRIC as far as reuse goes. The first three chapters (Creating a Character, Spells, and How to Play the First Time) are open content under the OGL except for two sentences noted below. The rest of the book is not but can used under the terms of the OSRIC Open License.


So you have
1) You can use Chapter I,II,and III except for two sentence however you see fit as long as you abide by the OGL, do NOT cite compatibility, and cite OSRIC's Section 15 properly by copying it verbatim.
2) If your works doesn't have 10% of it word count, copied and pasted from OSRIC and abide by the 100 word limit and abide by the other conditions of the OSRIC Open License then you can cite compatibility with OSRIC.
3) Furthermore if you abide by the OSRIC Open License you can use material from the rest of the text.

In short this permits, settings, adventures, rules addition but not rules modifications. You can add material by coming out with say a Mubarizun or Mamluk class for a Al-Qadim style OSRIC supplement. But what you can't do and still cite compatibility is copy and paste the existing class like the Fighter either to keep it 'as is' for convenient reference or to tweak it slightly.

it doesn't sound all that unreasonable to the average person.

It is interesting that you brought this up considering the genesis of OSRIC. Namely that if one took the D20 SRD strip out the newer mechanics what left is a hop and a skip from a classic edition of D&D. With the advice of a good IP attorney (which OSRIC had) you can get pretty close to say AD&D. At the time OSRIC didn't seem reasonable to the average person as it rest on two fine distinctions (a truncated D20 SRD, and that copyrights protects expression not ideas). But now it is 15 years in and Wizard did not cease & desist everybody in the OSR including myself to oblivion. It old hat.

My position has always been for more creative freedom. I believe that copyright exist for too long of term. That open content licenses are a hack of the legal system to get around this for one's own work. As an expression of my opinion I release more open content for my work beyond what it is required from the OGL*.

And note I said "For one's own work". I also strong think author should do what they think is best for themselves. So while I may argue, or debate that one should be more open with their work. I respect that in the end it is the author's or team's decision.

The OSRIC authors and team licensed OSRIC in a way that further their goals. And I support that and argued strongly against those who mocked it. Just I will argue that OSRIC like any other OSR system I run into should be 100% open content. The foundations of our hobby should be free for anybody to use as they see fit even if we happen to disagree with its use.

We had this discussion in the past in other places including Knights and Knaves. There been continual complaints about the popularity of OSRIC over the years but to date the K&K community and author have come down firmly on the side of preserving AD&D 'as is'. So the status quo will continue just as it had after our last debate on this.

Now that we are nearly 15 years into this, I don't see the point of opening up OSRIC. AD&D has been cloned in part or or as completely as it could be so many times at this point there is enough open content out there for anybody to make a Advanced edition compatible system. Or if they want to put more into ,it do what Adventures Dark and Deep did. When I first debated this OSRIC was the only game in town as far as supporting AD&D 1e. Now there are multiple alternatives.

And OSRIC is not dead it has a community that been steadily putting out material over the years. So radically changing the license is just going to cause a split at this point.

 

[Osrnoob]

I am not mischaracterizing anything. I could have not written my Majestic Wilderlands Supplement in 2008 for OSRIC and cited compatibility. Nor can I create the reference cards in 2020 I made earlier and cite compatibility. Both would have taken more than 10% of the text from the first three chapters.

And if anybody is not aware of the distinction there are three parts to OSRIC as far as reuse goes. The first three chapters (Creating a Character, Spells, and How to Play the First Time) are open content under the OGL except for two sentences noted below. The rest of the book is not but can used under the terms of the OSRIC Open License.
View attachment 1058

So you have
1) You can use Chapter I,II,and III except for two sentence however you see fit as long as you abide by the OGL, do NOT cite compatibility, and cite OSRIC's Section 15 properly by copying it verbatim.
2) If your works doesn't have 10% of it word count, copied and pasted from OSRIC and abide by the 100 word limit and abide by the other conditions of the OSRIC Open License then you can cite compatibility with OSRIC.
3) Furthermore if you abide by the OSRIC Open License you can use material from the rest of the text.

In short this permits, settings, adventures, rules addition but not rules modifications. You can add material by coming out with say a Mubarizun or Mamluk class for a Al-Qadim style OSRIC supplement. But what you can't do and still cite compatibility is copy and paste the existing class like the Fighter either to keep it 'as is' for convenient reference or to tweak it slightly.

It is interesting that you brought this up considering the genesis of OSRIC. Namely that if one took the D20 SRD strip out the newer mechanics what left is a hop and a skip from a classic edition of D&D. With the advice of a good IP attorney (which OSRIC had) you can get pretty close to say AD&D. At the time OSRIC didn't seem reasonable to the average person as it rest on two fine distinctions (a truncated D20 SRD, and that copyrights protects expression not ideas). But now it is 15 years in and Wizard did not cease & desist everybody in the OSR including myself to oblivion. It old hat.

My position has always been for more creative freedom. I believe that copyright exist for too long of term. That open content licenses are a hack of the legal system to get around this for one's own work. An expression of my opinion I release more open content for my work beyond what it is required from the OGL*.

And note I said "For one's own work". I also strong think author should do what they think is best for themselves. So while I may argue, or debate that one should be more open with their work. I respect that in the end it is the author's or team's decision.

The OSRIC authors and team licensed OSRIC in a way that further their goals. And I support that and argued strongly against those who mocked it. Just I will argue that OSRIC like any other OSR system I run into should be 100% open content. The foundations of our hobby should be free for anybody to use as they see fit even if we happen to disagree with its use.

We had this discussion in the past in other places including Knights and Knaves. There been continual complaints about the popularity of OSRIC over the years but to date the K&K community and author have come down firmly on the side of preserving AD&D 'as is'. So the status quo will continue just as it had after our last debate on this.

Now that we are nearly 15 years into this, I don't see the point of opening up OSRIC. AD&D has been cloned in part or or as completely as it could be so many times at this point there is enough open content out there for anybody to make a Advanced edition compatible system. Or if they want to put more into ,it do what Adventures Dark and Deep did. When I first debated this OSRIC was the only game in town as far as supporting AD&D 1e. Now there are multiple alternatives.

And OSRIC is not dead it has a community that been steadily putting out material over the years. So radically changing the license is just going to cause a split at this point.

This makes a ton of sense. A huge contributing factor to why you do not see the same amount of rules based material for OSRIC that you do for LL or S&W right here.

 

[squeen]

*whisper* or you could tell squeen that you think AD&D would be much better with all the Unearthed Arcana and White Dwarf classes enabled.

I heard that!!!

 

[EOTB]

In short this permits, settings, adventures, rules addition but not rules modifications. You can add material by coming out with say a Mubarizun or Mamluk class for a Al-Qadim style OSRIC supplement. But what you can't do and still cite compatibility is copy and paste the existing class like the Fighter either to keep it 'as is' for convenient reference or to tweak it slightly.

Concentrating on how you state the bold. There's nothing that prevents rules modifications while citing compatibility. I can write something in my OSRIC-compatible setting that says "In the Realm of the Deathlands, fighters have d12 hit dice, only use the following weapons, and have this variant hit progression table".

What I can't do is insert the OSRIC fighter entry, modify the entry, present it as "fighter" in my work, and indicate compatibility with OSRIC.

Perhaps this would be less of an issue if when describing what OSRIC doesn't let Robert S Conley do that he would like to do, the posts would say something like

"In short this permits, settings, adventures, and rules additions - but not rules modifications in the way I, Robert S Conley, want to present my rules modifications. I want to use a system that allows me to copy and paste the existing class like the Fighter either to keep it 'as is' for convenient reference or to tweak it slightly. You can add material by coming out with say a Mubarizun or Mamluk class for a Al-Qadim style OSRIC supplement, or you can write summaries in your own words about how the setting modifies the base classes in OSRIC, similar to how the Dragonlance setting books modified the base classes in AD&D (and added new classes also). But this is not they way I want to present my rules modifications so I choose to use sources with more open and flexible text."

My point is that when you decline to do something because the way it can be done is not to your taste, the statement is made that no one can do this thing at all, that you've declined to do because you don't like the particulars.

 

[robertsconley]

Concentrating on how you state the bold. There's nothing that prevents rules modifications while citing compatibility. I can write something in my OSRIC-compatible setting that says "In the Realm of the Deathlands, fighters have d12 hit dice, only use the following weapons, and have this variant hit progression table".

Yes I concur and irrelevant to my point you quoted commenting that if one uses too much of OSRIC's open content verbatim they can't cite compatibility.

What I can't do is insert the OSRIC fighter entry, modify the entry, present it as "fighter" in my work, and indicate compatibility with OSRIC.

Yes I concur and this is a more specific restatement of my point.

Perhaps this would be less of an issue if when describing what OSRIC doesn't let Robert S Conley do that he would like to do, the posts would say something like

We will have to disagree that it just a Rob Conley issue.

[snip sarcastic response]

My point is that when you decline to do something because the way it can be done is not to your taste, the statement is made that no one can do this thing at all, that you've declined to do because you don't like the particulars.

Then we are back to mischaracterization.

What I said was and you quoted was

2) OSRIC is not 100% open content. Which is fine as one of the original goals is the preservation of AD&D. But it is not if the goal is tweak it to better suit the setting that is being written about. You can't cite compatibility even if you stick to just the open content if you use too much of the text verbatim in your work.

As you said if you insert the fighter entry, modify it and present as the "fighter" in one's work you can't indicate compatibility as that section is more than 100 words. I fail to see where I mischaracterized anything.

 

[EOTB]

I fail to see where I mischaracterized anything.

I said it comes close to the line of mischaracterization. Because it does. These parts:

2) OSRIC is not 100% open content. Which is fine as one of the original goals is the preservation of AD&D. But it is not if the goal is tweak it to better suit the setting that is being written about.

In short this permits, settings, adventures, rules addition but not rules modifications.

It's very easy for someone who's not Rob Conley and who just wants to make clear that in their setting, a vanilla class has certain delta's from OSRIC's vanilla presentation of it, to come away from reading you thinking that they can't use OSRIC to write their setting unless they make zero changes to the vanilla classes. Whenever I see you talking OSRIC, this "you can't tweak OSRIC" is often a point you bring up, and that is not true. You can most certainly tweak the hell out of it. I can vary every single core OSRIC class, and any OSRIC rule between the two covers, however I want to in my setting, and publish it citing OSRIC compatibility.

OSRIC is much more limited in what you can do with the text itself as a recycled source than S&W. I've said that here recently. I wish it were different too. But the way you describe OSRIC is very easy to misconstrue that it isn't even as open as it actually is; that it limits you to writing either new rules about subjects not covered in OSRIC at all, or using the rules that ORIC wrote as it wrote them, and nothing in between those two poles.

Not true.

 

[robertsconley]

I can vary every single core OSRIC class, and any OSRIC rule between the two covers, however I want to in my setting, and publish it citing OSRIC compatibility.

Provided what varied is in the form of a incomplete snippet. And yes it a Rob Conley opinion that makes for a inferior work that more difficult to use compared to using one of the other clones.

 

[EOTB]

Provided what varied is in the form of a incomplete snippet.

No Rob, this is exactly the "close to mischaracterization" I'm talking about. "Provided that" is language used to imply that whatever you vary must somehow be tied to a "snippet" of OSRIC text, which is of course limited to only 100 words or less, and so if you want to make big variations you're just kind of fucked if your goal was stating OSRIC compatibility.

I don't have to use any snippet of any size to vary any rule. I don't have to use OSRIC's text at all to vary any rule in OSRIC. I can use my own words! It's kind of like when I re-wrote a lot of the UA spells for Dangerous Dungeons, and didn't use any snippets of UA text to do it - for both the spells we left unchanged in function, and those we tweaked to be different from UA because we wanted to tweak them.

 

[squeen]

Provided what varied is in the form of a incomplete snippet. And yes it a Rob Conley opinion that makes for a inferior work that more difficult to use compared to using one of the other clones.

I have to agree. Copyright is very weak and easy to get around simply by rephrasing things in your own words. It would, after all, be quite tasteless to just cut-and-paste OSRIC without alteration. Someone (not you) did that work.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

Just keep in mind that no more than 10% of your work can be quoted from OSRIC. Any more than that, then you can not cite compatibility with OSRIC.

I ran into this myself when I started to write up reference cards for different retro-clones like this one for Swords & Wizardry Complete. Here is the Preview. And this issue is not unique to OSRIC either, Old School Essentials has a similar issue.

When I get the OSRIC version done I am thinking about calling it OSCAR. Old School Cards, Advanced Reference

Rob, these, as with a lot of your other work, are very nice. Why not just do a rules summary of AD&D, rather than OSRIC? You know, the real thing? After OSE came out, with its almost perfect reproduction of the B/X rules, it looks like the playing field is wide open. As I understand it - which admittedly isn’t that of a lawyer’s understanding - you can’t copyright rules, just the presentation and style of those rules (and of course blatantly copy something as it is and sell it).

Judging from some comments over at K&K and DF, looks like some people are already working on something like this.

 

[Beek Gwenders]

As for the OP, no-one will agree, but this is what I think is a good way to go:

• OSE or LL for newbies or those who want less crunch. I prefer LL because it’s actually just AD&D with B/X mechanics, and gets rid of some of the silly things I never liked about BX: 1st level clerics not being able to cast spells for example, and lets you use AD&D character HD. OSE wins on ease of use.
• OSRIC or S&W Complete after you’ve gotten comfortable with D&D, or if you’d like a bit more ‘crunch’.
• AD&D 1e for long-term campaigns, tactical crunch, risk-vs-reward gaming. AS&SH is good alternative.
• Mine other OSR systems (Knave, Into the Odd, etc.) for ideas, or to see if they grab you. DCC is solid.
• Crypts and Things for an S&S experience

Honestly, if you play any TSR-era D&D or OSR clone/thing, you’ve got 25+ years of essentially compatible material produced by TSR plus all of the stuff that has been put out by independent publishers since 3e. Classic D&D just has an immense amount of material that can be used by a variety of systems with very minimal tweaking, post 3e D&D just can’t compete.

 

[robertsconley]

Rob, these, as with a lot of your other work, are very nice.

Thanks appreciate the compliment.

Why not just do a rules summary of AD&D, rather than OSRIC? You know, the real thing? After OSE came out, with its almost perfect reproduction of the B/X rules, it looks like the playing field is wide open. As I understand it - which admittedly isn’t that of a lawyer’s understanding - you can’t copyright rules, just the presentation and style of those rules (and of course blatantly copy something as it is and sell it).

Judging from some comments over at K&K and DF, looks like some people are already working on something like this.

OSCAR (Old School Advanced Card Reference) is next on my list of card references to make and it is about half done. What I need can be found from Chapter I, II, III so I am good on content.

Just a refresh on the concept. Throughout the past decade I ran several playtest of various items I am working on at conventions and game stores. I wanted folks to experience old school character generators. While straightforward still took longer than I like. The problem was referencing the rulebooks. So I made a set of reference cards for character generation and got it done to 20 minutes including buying equipment.

So far I have a set for my Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG and Swords & Wizardry Complete. Working on OSCAR for the advanced edition. Then I will move on to OSE, then Labyrinth Lord. Then the different OSE LL variations along with any White Box clones out there.

The big issue with any of them is the cost of the printed product. It nice and very durable but pricy for you what you get for it. You better off buying the PDF, some cardstock and printing them yourself. I set the margin I make the same on both so it all good on my end.