FormCritic wrote:I recently acquired a copy of the OSRIC RPG rules.I see names like Matt Finch, Allan Grohe, David Prata and Stuart Marshall on the inside cover. It says that Matt Finch and Stuart Marshall own the name "OSRIC" and that Marshall was building on Finch's work.It also says that Prata and Grohe did the initial work on OSRIC.I am wondering...could you guys take a moment to describe your work on OSRIC? It would be interesting to know how the project started, what it was intended to do, legal hurdles to be cleared and how OSRIC evolved as it passed through different hands.Would you mind explaining?
JasonZavoda wrote:Probably better of asking on the K&K forums, but can you handle the answers?
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:LOL. No real need to ask; just find the several threads where they beat the topic to death with various esoteric polearms.
FormCritic wrote:I see names like Matt Finch, Allan Grohe, David Prata and Stuart Marshall on the inside cover. It says that Matt Finch and Stuart Marshall own the name "OSRIC" and that Marshall was building on Finch's work.
It also says that Prata and Grohe did the initial work on OSRIC.
It would be interesting to know how the project started, what it was intended to do, legal hurdles to be cleared and how OSRIC evolved as it passed through different hands.
Guy Fullerton wrote:There is also a dragonsfoot post from Stuart Marshall explaining why it's legally beneficial for a UK resident to be the owner/publisher, but I can't find it at the moment.
PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Very shortly after v0.01 release, a member of WOTC staff did contact me and he asked me to cease distribution of OSRIC. I politely declined. (It was all very courteous. The guy was a veteran, and I'm respectful towards those, and he was respectful to me.) After some correspondence in which the WOTC representative said various things which led me to suspect he may not have fully understood OSRIC's relationship to the OGL, I suggested that he get his legal department to contact me.He said he would forward the papers to a WOTC attorney. That was my last contact with the corporation, just over five years ago now (specifically on 11 August 2006). OSRIC's been distributed uninterrupted for that entire period.
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:That's very, very interesting. Although I've followed some of the discussions about OSRIC over the years in a desultory fashion (and haven't read the rulebook), I was under the impression that you had never been contacted by WotC. I suppose I was under the impression that you were covered because of the OGL, and it would seem that WotC's legal department agrees. He who remains silent is understood to consent, and all that rot.I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere, but I'm lazy and I'll ask here since you've been kind enough to respond to FormCritic query succinctly and eloquently. What would you say are the major differences between OSRIC and AD&D (say, pre-Unearthed Arcana, which I gather is basically the cutoff)?
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Are most/many of the AD&D Monster Manual monsters detailed in the book?
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Which rules from the PHB are dropped, if any? (I'm "Nerelas" at K&KA, but I have to admit I don't drop in too often).
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:EDIT: Also, is the book itself a good read?
PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Speaking as the author of about half of it, I am pleased to be able to tell you that OSRIC is absolutely the best-written rulebook ever published. It's perfect in every possible respect and reading it will enrich your life. You should stop what you're doing and read it instantly, pausing only to send me money as a token of your appreciation every time you come across a good bit.
You may also find that if you actually purchase a print copy of OSRIC, people will start to admire and respect you, and offer you promotions at work. After a few weeks you might notice that you've become taller, thinner and more attractive to the opposite sex too.
PapersAndPaychecks wrote:No, I'm not Gary Gygax and I haven't tried to be him. There's no pretence at the Gygaxian prose style at all.I'm an Englishman, and OSRIC is written in the Queen's English (with all those lovely English spellings with the diphthongs, like "manoeuvre" and "aether"). I aimed at crisp, clear language without dumbing it down at all. There are terms for which some readers might need a dictionary ("ambit", "rouncey") but I've avoided mashing them together into phrases like "antithesis of weal".Basically, OSRIC presents the non-copyrightable parts of its source material in fresh language. So, yes, there is a Wandering Prostitute table, but there's no "aged madam" or "sly pimp" (you get options like "expensive callgirl" or "foppish bawd" instead). There are random dungeon generation tables but they produce slightly fewer diagonal passageways and slightly fewer empty rooms. There are sages with major and minor fields, but the exact options are a bit different.Let me quote you a few passages from OSRIC, so as to give you a flavour of it."Magic users are a rare breed -- practitioners of the mysterious art of arcane spell casting. A lengthy apprenticeship of study and practice allows these somewhat eerie individuals to store arcane energy within their minds and to release it in the form of spells. Magic users cast spells by speaking a few magic words, weaving complex gestures in the air, and employing rare and magical materials. While magic users (with illusionists) are the weakest character class in combat, this weakness is balanced by possessing the most powerful and versatile spells in the game." -- p. 16."OSRIC is a game of adventure, and the primary activity in adventures is exploration. Even though the rules for combat take up more space in this rulebook, play tends to focus more on exploration than combat. Whether the party is investigating an old ruined shrine, delving into an abandoned dwarfish mine, traversing an unknown wilderness, sailing uncharted waters, or venturing beyond the physical world into the planes of existence, exploration is central to adventure and thus to the game." -- p. 138."The degree to which dungeon ecology matters is up to the individual GM. Some GMs give thought to food sources, water sources and latrine facilities; others do not bother. The authors recommend the following golden rule: Dungeons don't have to make sense, but they do need to be full of variety. Having said this, a little thought on the placement of creatures doesn't go amiss -- if there's some logic behind the dungeon, then it's easier for skilled players to work out what's going on and use it to their advantage, and rewarding player skill is an important aspect of the OSRIC system." -- p. 162.Hope that helps!
MetamorphosisSigma wrote:Thanks, that does give me a sense of the flavor (flavour, sorry) of the prose. The only cavil I have is with the use of the term "dwarfish"... "Dwarvish" or even "dwarven" would be preferable, but I guess not all Englishmen can be Tolkien .
PapersAndPaychecks wrote:"In English the only correct plural of dwarf is dwarfs, and the adjective is dwarfish." -- J R R Tolkein, 1966.
