PDA

View Full Version : Interest Check for Old School D&D ruleset



vodokar
October 18th, 2016, 06:17
I would be interested in seeing how much interest there really would be in seeing a new working ruleset created for old school D&D.

I'm always seeing posts asking about it and the response is always that there isn't enough interest to make it viable to devote official resources to it, and that's totally understandable, of course. It is something that has to come from the community, but there doesn't seem to be anyone willing or able to step up and do it, which also is understandable.

I look at the numbers of games played chart and I wonder if there would be more games played of old school D&D if there was a good ruleset. Maybe, maybe not. I'll get to the point though.

I have no programming experience at all. Well, not since I learned BASIC back in the 1980's anyway (if you don't know what Basic is, well, that's my point), but year after year, I keep waiting for someone else to step up and do it and it doesn't happen, so it looks like I'm going to have to take a try at it if it is going to get done. I don't know how long or how hard it will be or even if I will be successful at it. But, I have a 15 year old that says he wants to be a computer programmer when he grows up and this sounds like a perfect father/son learning project, so I'm willing to give it a shot.

I have two questions though. 1) Will this actually get used? Be a real shame to put that much effort into something that no one actually wants. and 2) What game would you like to see made?

I'll qualify that second question. Here are the choices, filtered through my own interests, because obviously I want to create something I would use. I personally consider old school as being 0e, Basic and 1e or any of the retro-clones of those. I don't personally consider 2e as old school. I never played it. I have never even read the books. So, that is off the table.

So, what I would consider would be: a) Labrynth Lords b) Swords and Wizardry or c) AD&D 1e

Those three choices bear some discussion, unless you are totally familiar with them already.

Labrynth Lord comes in two flavors, as I understand it. The core game, which is like 0e (or basic, not really sure) and the AEC which adds in rules which make it more like 1e. It's been a couple years since I've read the ruleset, so things are a bit fuzzy. One benefit to having a new Labrynth Lord ruleset would be that it opens up the possibility of games such as Mutant Future and Apes Victorius, which are based on it.

Swords and Wizardry is 0e. It comes in 3 versions, "White Box", "Core" and "Complete". They differ in how many supplemental rules are included. Complete is basically 0e as it was at the release of AD&D. One plus of S&W is that it has been greatly embraced by the OSR movement and there have been a great many games based off of the rules, such as Xplorers RPG, White Star and Stars Without Number. So, the possibility of those and others come with that ruleset. Another advantage is that S&W actually has the ascending AC system included as an option in the rules, so that makes it more approachable to newer folks.

AD&D, of course, is what a lot of people know and love. But, AD&D is out of print. Sure, some of us still have our old books or were lucky enough to snag a set of the new ones when they got reprinted for the Gygax memorial a few years ago, but technically, it's still an out of print and totally unsupported game. Meaning to say that it might not be too inclusive to make a ruleset for a game that only us old grognards have books for. At least with LL or S&W, they are living and breathing games. Also, as so many have pointed out, C&C actually does a pretty good job of handling the 1e feel. So, maybe what we really need is some coverage of the rest of the OSR movement. There are a tremendous amount of new material coming out for the OSR retro-clones, so that is something to consider.

In an ideal world, what I would want to do is a ruleset that is flexible enough to handle most of the needs of the DM in the form of options. For example, being able to select to use either descending or ascending AC by selecting the appropriate option. I really don't know what's possible and I especially don't know what I can learn how to do. I just know that having options is good.

Please step up and give your opinions on the subject. If you need to peruse the rules, LL and S&W are both free or very low cost on rpgnow.com. And if there is someone that can help, I wouldn't turn that down.

damned
October 18th, 2016, 08:23
Hola vodokar


I would be interested in seeing how much interest there really would be in seeing a new working ruleset created for old school D&D.

I'm always seeing posts asking about it and the response is always that there isn't enough interest to make it viable to devote official resources to it, and that's totally understandable, of course. It is something that has to come from the community, but there doesn't seem to be anyone willing or able to step up and do it, which also is understandable.

I look at the numbers of games played chart and I wonder if there would be more games played of old school D&D if there was a good ruleset. Maybe, maybe not. I'll get to the point though.

Id buy a $10 or $20 D&D1e ruleset. Would I play it... dunno... 5e is pretty good and C&C smooths out a lot of the bumps of 1e. And when I want to try something different it will usually be Dungeon World, Call of Cthulhu or Trail of Cthulhu etc... but thats dissembling...


I have no programming experience at all. Well, not since I learned BASIC back in the 1980's anyway (if you don't know what Basic is, well, that's my point), but year after year, I keep waiting for someone else to step up and do it and it doesn't happen, so it looks like I'm going to have to take a try at it if it is going to get done. I don't know how long or how hard it will be or even if I will be successful at it. But, I have a 15 year old that says he wants to be a computer programmer when he grows up and this sounds like a perfect father/son learning project, so I'm willing to give it a shot.

I have two questions though. 1) Will this actually get used? Be a real shame to put that much effort into something that no one actually wants. and 2) What game would you like to see made?

That would be an AWESOME father and son project. Do consider it just for that alone! Setup a bitbucket/github and learn some collaborative techniques and butt heads often.
I have no coding experience and very little skill. I cannot grasp many coding principles.
I did (with some help from two awesome members of this community) build a ruleset for another old school game Malestrom RPG from 1984. I have run 2 or 3 one shots with it. Possibly the guy who has the publishing rights to it may have run a session or two with it. I daresay that might be all that used my (estimated) 150hrs work. Personal desire to do this is required. It doest matter how much other people want it - if you are doing it for love and you dont love it enough...


I'll qualify that second question. Here are the choices, filtered through my own interests, because obviously I want to create something I would use. I personally consider old school as being 0e, Basic and 1e or any of the retro-clones of those. I don't personally consider 2e as old school. I never played it. I have never even read the books. So, that is off the table.

So, what I would consider would be: a) Labrynth Lords b) Swords and Wizardry or c) AD&D 1e

A lot of people mean 2e when they refer to Advanced D&D (I dont but a lot do).

I want to throw one more option in here... bear with me... BX or BECMI (but really who is gonna play it long enough to get all the way through so maybe BE is enough) would be another great option. Its got less rules, its got less permutations, its light and fast and fun. And it so definitely is old school.


Those three choices bear some discussion, unless you are totally familiar with them already.

Labrynth Lord comes in two flavors, as I understand it. The core game, which is like 0e (or basic, not really sure) and the AEC which adds in rules which make it more like 1e. It's been a couple years since I've read the ruleset, so things are a bit fuzzy. One benefit to having a new Labrynth Lord ruleset would be that it opens up the possibility of games such as Mutant Future and Apes Victorius, which are based on it.

Swords and Wizardry is 0e. It comes in 3 versions, "White Box", "Core" and "Complete". They differ in how many supplemental rules are included. Complete is basically 0e as it was at the release of AD&D. One plus of S&W is that it has been greatly embraced by the OSR movement and there have been a great many games based off of the rules, such as Xplorers RPG, White Star and Stars Without Number. So, the possibility of those and others come with that ruleset. Another advantage is that S&W actually has the ascending AC system included as an option in the rules, so that makes it more approachable to newer folks.

AD&D, of course, is what a lot of people know and love. But, AD&D is out of print. Sure, some of us still have our old books or were lucky enough to snag a set of the new ones when they got reprinted for the Gygax memorial a few years ago, but technically, it's still an out of print and totally unsupported game. Meaning to say that it might not be too inclusive to make a ruleset for a game that only us old grognards have books for. At least with LL or S&W, they are living and breathing games. Also, as so many have pointed out, C&C actually does a pretty good job of handling the 1e feel. So, maybe what we really need is some coverage of the rest of the OSR movement. There are a tremendous amount of new material coming out for the OSR retro-clones, so that is something to consider.

You can buy the 1e books in PDF format.
http://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_45381_0_0_45346_0_0
I do still have my 1e books happily.
Ive also got 2e, 3e, 3.5e and 4e books that Ive never read.


In an ideal world, what I would want to do is a ruleset that is flexible enough to handle most of the needs of the DM in the form of options. For example, being able to select to use either descending or ascending AC by selecting the appropriate option. I really don't know what's possible and I especially don't know what I can learn how to do. I just know that having options is good.

In an ideal world you would have options for ASC and DESC AC. In the real world I think you add too much complication for (you) the coder.


Please step up and give your opinions on the subject. If you need to peruse the rules, LL and S&W are both free or very low cost on rpgnow.com. And if there is someone that can help, I wouldn't turn that down.

However my final point (for now) on this topic is to consider this option..

C&C's main differences are ASC AC and Siege Checks and BtH instead of THAC0.
Build an extension (or a layered ruleset) on top of Castles&Crusades.
1. new theme - mostly the charaater sheet
2. implement ASC AC and have it automatically convert Monsters AC when you drag them into the CT (holy crap - you have most of the 1e monsters!)
3. Work out a conversion process for BtH and THAC0 and how to show it on the Character Sheet and NPC sheet and do an automatic conversion of NPCs.
4. Change Saving Throws to not use Siege Engine rules - and use 1e rules instead

I reckon you are now a long way there and you have done a fraction of the work and you have access (at the princely cost of $10) to a swag of spells and monsters and equipment and stuff.

I would encourage you to do this - its a very interesting (and challenging) process/journey.

GunnarGreybeard
October 18th, 2016, 08:52
I am not sure how close it is to 1e (the only real AD&D version :bandit: ) but what about reverse engineering something like OSRIC and then building a new ruleset based on the coding in there?

Myrdin Potter
October 18th, 2016, 15:08
From the new S&W Kickstarter, there is someone that will be starting a S&W ruleset project. I would suggest that you get in touch with him. You lose efficiency at a certain point when too many programmers work in a project, but 2-3 should be ok.

S&W is actually pre-AD&D rules, trying to recreate the original booklet rules that came from Chainmail. Most of the clones aimed at the original ruleset are, by definition, highly compatible. I think a lot of LL and S&W content can be used in either system with little work.

Looking over the rules sets and with my very beginner Lua knowledge, I think a generic 0e ruleset based on Core RPG seems decent to start with. Then style sheet/extension of S&W or LL for the slight differences for the character sheets.

From what the S&W ruleset comment says (and I am in touch with that person and he is in these forums), he has been given permission to include the free content as well, so it can go beyond just the rules and include the text as well which makes a huge difference.

I would play early D&D rules a couple of times a year and in one-shots like conventions. I play 5e now and it is the closest in spirit to the AD&D I started with that Wizards has done in decades.

Zhern
October 18th, 2016, 16:50
Disclaimer:
I do not speak for Frog God Games and do not make any decisions related to what content they have available in Fantasy Grounds. My interest in creating the S&W ruleset is to help others experience something that I personally love. The community-use ruleset that I work on will be free and there is no intent of charging for it.

-------------------------

Howdy - I'm the one that Myrdin references with regards to Swords & Wizardry. I've gotten permission from Bill Webb & Matt Finch (Frog God Games/Mythmere Games) to work on a full ruleset for Fantasy Grounds. I would definitely be willing to work with others too but I'll be doing this in my spare time (work, grad school, family) and can't necessarily commit to a certain timeline. Also, this is intended to be a free, community-use ruleset. I've started looking through the existing rulesets to get an idea of what I need to do in order to create the ruleset with as much ease of use support as possible (drag and drop, etc). I do have to agree that too many cooks in the kitchen impedes progress. If there is desire for more OSR support it would probably be best to divide and conquer.

I noticed out on the wiki that there is a rudimentary Labyrinth Lord (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Ruleset:_Labyrinth_Lord) module and also an OSRIC (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Ruleset:_OSRIC)module. The date stamp on those pages are from 2014, though, and I'm not sure if they work with the current version of FG. It shouldn't be hard to refactor those to make them work, though.

I write code for a living so am not worried about being able to get the work done - I just need the time to do read through the FG developer guide and to figure out how I want to break up the work. The biggest impediment is time.

If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to ping me on here.

Zhern/Patrick

leozelig
October 18th, 2016, 17:53
The OSRIC ruleset is badly outdated, and the code is very messy. I would recommend layering on CoreRPG with something new. If we had a S&W ruleset, an extension could probably get you to AD&D. Maybe.

Zhern
October 18th, 2016, 20:16
Yeah, I need to take a look into the CoreRPG files and see what is available to build off of. I'll fire up FG when I get home and see what the CoreRPG offers in the way of functionality and then start looking through the unzipped files.

As far as AD&D goes, are people referencing the hardbacks published between 1977 and 1985 (the Trampier cover PHB and the Sutherland cover MM/DMG for the first printings, the Easley covers w/orange spines for the next printings)? I saw mention that a lot of people refer to 2E as AD&D in the post by damned. I wanted to make sure I was thinking of the right "version." The hardcover books from 77-85 are what I think of as 1E AD&D - that is what I cut my teeth on. If that is the version that people are wanting a fresh ruleset on then, as leozelig said, just extend the CoreRPG to for a new iteration of OSRIC. Apparently there is an AD&D 2E retro-clone too, For Gold & Glory, but I don't know anything about it.

Any other feedback or suggestions are welcome - I don't want to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to.

Zhern

Trenloe
October 18th, 2016, 20:49
I'd recommend you look at layering any ruleset developed on top of CoreRPG - so that your ruleset will take advantage of future CoreRPG developments. This does add a bit of maintenance over the years (ensuring compatibility when there are big changes in CoreRPG), but it makes for more closer aligned FG functionality.

See the 3.5E, 4E or 5E rulesets (or C&C if you have it) for examples of d20 rulesets layered on top of CoreRPG. One of the reasons why those older rulesets mentioned look old is because they weren't built on a common platform of CoreRPG (mostly because it wasn't available then).

EDIT: guidelines on modifying rulesets here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?19033-Modifying-the-3-5e-PFRPG-ruleset It's written for 3.5E but is completely relevant to most other CoreRPG layered rulesets. Ignore the bold comment regarding making any changes into an extension, you'd want to make this a layered ruleset (like 3.5e.pak, for example).

Myrdin Potter
October 18th, 2016, 21:00
AD&D is always the original edition. I started playing in 1980 or 1981 and that was the set out then.

My first DM started playing with the original D&D booklets and Chaimail and I owned the original blue book basic set. I bought the AD&D books slowly and never played any D&D past a few games I DMed using the blue book.

I get confused by people calling 2e AD&D without the 2e specifying it.

There is a decent amount of content still being created for original D&D (mainly S&W and LL) and some for AD&D. I never see anything new for 2e. 3e and 3.5 is basically Pathfinder. The paid 5e rule set is very good and getting even better with the 3.20 version.

Zhern
October 18th, 2016, 21:36
Thanks, Trenloe. I will do that. I would rather it be more maintenance if it better aligns with FG functionality. I also appreciate the link to the post about modification of existing rulesets. The info you have provided in those posts (and quite a few others I've read on the forums) really help - thanks again.

Same here, Myrdin - that is why I was confused. I've never referred to AD&D 2E as anything but that and AD&D has always been the original hardcovers.

Yeah, the amount of content being put out for S&W and LL is very steady. A lot of the stuff for those two can easily be adapted for AD&D. I do like the 5E ruleset and that is what I mostly run for my gaming group (most of them are new to RPGs and that was a natural start for them). I will say that I really do loathe the 5E WotC adventures that have been released thus far (with the exception of Strahd, somewhat). A lot of it stems from my hatred of the Forgotten Realms from the time of 3.x forward. I've mostly run 5E homebrew and will likely continue to do that. I have convinced the group to try S&W and we are currently playing a stripped down, rules light Pathfinder campaign.

Anyway, thanks for the input.

Zhern

GunnarGreybeard
October 18th, 2016, 23:49
I know squat about coding so can't really offer any help or guidance BUT I am curious to see what FG 3.2 brings to the table. With the advances made in there I am hoping a lot more neglected RPG's will see some activity.

vodokar
October 19th, 2016, 00:44
Disclaimer:
I do not speak for Frog God Games and do not make any decisions related to what content they have available in Fantasy Grounds. My interest in creating the S&W ruleset is to help others experience something that I personally love. The community-use ruleset that I work on will be free and there is no intent of charging for it.

-------------------------

Howdy - I'm the one that Myrdin references with regards to Swords & Wizardry. I've gotten permission from Bill Webb & Matt Finch (Frog God Games/Mythmere Games) to work on a full ruleset for Fantasy Grounds. I would definitely be willing to work with others too but I'll be doing this in my spare time (work, grad school, family) and can't necessarily commit to a certain timeline. Also, this is intended to be a free, community-use ruleset. I've started looking through the existing rulesets to get an idea of what I need to do in order to create the ruleset with as much ease of use support as possible (drag and drop, etc). I do have to agree that too many cooks in the kitchen impedes progress. If there is desire for more OSR support it would probably be best to divide and conquer.

I noticed out on the wiki that there is a rudimentary Labyrinth Lord (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Ruleset:_Labyrinth_Lord) module and also an OSRIC (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/wiki/index.php/Ruleset:_OSRIC)module. The date stamp on those pages are from 2014, though, and I'm not sure if they work with the current version of FG. It shouldn't be hard to refactor those to make them work, though.

I write code for a living so am not worried about being able to get the work done - I just need the time to do read through the FG developer guide and to figure out how I want to break up the work. The biggest impediment is time.

If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to ping me on here.

Zhern/Patrick

I want to say, you're totally awesome, man. I had no idea that this project was in the works. Ok. So, I think the best thing for me to do then is to concentrate on AD&D and let you do your thing on S&W.

Trenloe
October 19th, 2016, 00:55
I know squat about coding so can't really offer any help or guidance BUT I am curious to see what FG 3.2 brings to the table. With the advances made in there I am hoping a lot more neglected RPG's will see some activity.
I'm not sure what v3.2.0 specific advances would prompt more neglected RPGs to see more activity. The main changes are bug fixes, data presentation and sidebar button options (that's a very simplified view of a complex update).

The updates planned to MoreCore (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?23281-More-Core-extension-for-CoreRPG) will have the biggest impact (IMHO). Damned is holding off release until after v3.2.0, but not specifically due to any major improvements in FG v3.2.0 (the main MoreCore updates could be done in FG v3.1.7).

damned
October 19th, 2016, 01:01
I mean 1e when I refer to AD&D however the reason many people mean 2e when they say AD&D is that the 2e bookss were all plastered with Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in bigger typeface than the actual volume title.

Zhern that is great news. Do as trenloe and leozelig suggest and build a layered ruleset. It leaves CoreRPG untouched but it first loads CoreRPG and then it lays your additional designs and magic on top. Some rulesets are layered again - Pathfinder is one - it is CoreRPG+3.5e+PFRPG

damned
October 19th, 2016, 01:06
vodokar if this project still excites you then perhaps you might continue with your current plan but take S&W out of your product choices.
It would still be a great project to undertake with your son and a great learning experience.

vodokar
October 19th, 2016, 01:10
"Originally Posted by Damned

C&C's main differences are ASC AC and Siege Checks and BtH instead of THAC0.
Build an extension (or a layered ruleset) on top of Castles&Crusades.
1. new theme - mostly the charaater sheet
2. implement ASC AC and have it automatically convert Monsters AC when you drag them into the CT (holy crap - you have most of the 1e monsters!)
3. Work out a conversion process for BtH and THAC0 and how to show it on the Character Sheet and NPC sheet and do an automatic conversion of NPCs.
4. Change Saving Throws to not use Siege Engine rules - and use 1e rules instead"


I think you have a point regarding starting from C&C. It's layered on Core and is the closest of any of the other rulesets to AD&D.

I especially like your approach regarding using Descending AC and Thac0. The old attempts for OSRIC, AD&D, LL and AD&D2 all tried to actually use Descending AC and Thac0, but didn't actually implement them to be able to report success vs a selected target. I believe OSRIC got closest, but still didn't really work well.

But, what you are saying basically is:

don't actually use Descending AC and Thac0, just make us think you are, while the computer is actually converting everything on the fly to Ascending and generating the Target Number so that it can use the reporting system that is already built in to C&C. That's brilliant. The DM can enter creature stats directly out of their modules with no conversion whatsoever and FG will do the heavy lifting.

The biggest issue that I had with C&C was the Siege Engine rules. I miss the class and level based 5 saves from AD&D. It just is what makes sense to me and I think it's one of the iconic cornerstones of AD&D. One of the things I like most about AD&D is that each class is treated separately with different Thac0 progression, different saving throw progression, different experience point progression etc. etc. Each class feels unique, without feeling the need to unify it all simply for the sake of simplicity.

damned
October 19th, 2016, 01:23
"Originally Posted by Damned

C&C's main differences are ASC AC and Siege Checks and BtH instead of THAC0.
Build an extension (or a layered ruleset) on top of Castles&Crusades.
1. new theme - mostly the charaater sheet
2. implement ASC AC and have it automatically convert Monsters AC when you drag them into the CT (holy crap - you have most of the 1e monsters!)
3. Work out a conversion process for BtH and THAC0 and how to show it on the Character Sheet and NPC sheet and do an automatic conversion of NPCs.
4. Change Saving Throws to not use Siege Engine rules - and use 1e rules instead"


I think you have a point regarding starting from C&C. It's layered on Core and is the closest of any of the other rulesets to AD&D.

I especially like your approach regarding using Descending AC and Thac0. The old attempts for OSRIC, AD&D, LL and AD&D2 all tried to actually use Descending AC and Thac0, but didn't actually implement them to be able to report success vs a selected target. I believe OSRIC got closest, but still didn't really work well.

But, what you are saying basically is:

don't actually use Descending AC and Thac0, just make us think you are, while the computer is actually converting everything on the fly to Ascending and generating the Target Number so that it can use the reporting system that is already built in to C&C. That's brilliant. The DM can enter creature stats directly out of their modules with no conversion whatsoever and FG will do the heavy lifting.

The biggest issue that I had with C&C was the Siege Engine rules. I miss the class and level based 5 saves from AD&D. It just is what makes sense to me and I think it's one of the iconic cornerstones of AD&D. One of the things I like most about AD&D is that each class is treated separately with different Thac0 progression, different saving throw progression, different experience point progression etc. etc. Each class feels unique, without feeling the need to unify it all simply for the sake of simplicity.

Hi vodokar thats not quite what I meant about AC but if that works for you that would be fine.
The main reason I suggest using C&C is because its at least 80% of what you want already and it has content included. The downside is that people would have to buy C&C to play a different game. I dont think thats a major issue as they will get all the content (and they can play C&C too).
You should be able to for PCs record a DESC AC and a THAC0 (currently C&C records a BtH) on the Char Sheet and for NPCs you would still reference the C&C AC and do a conversion and display that and use that.

Saving throws are not too hard to implement.

damned
October 19th, 2016, 01:25
I'm not sure what v3.2.0 specific advances would prompt more neglected RPGs to see more activity. The main changes are bug fixes, data presentation and sidebar button options (that's a very simplified view of a complex update).

The updates planned to MoreCore (http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?23281-More-Core-extension-for-CoreRPG) will have the biggest impact (IMHO). Damned is holding off release until after v3.2.0, but not specifically due to any major improvements in FG v3.2.0 (the main MoreCore updates could be done in FG v3.1.7).

Trenloe - Im hoping that it will get some good use :)

vodokar
October 19th, 2016, 01:25
Regarding AD&D 2e, I suppose I am somewhat close-minded about it. It may be a great ruleset, I don't know.

I can't seem to get over the fact about Gary Gygax being thrust out of his own company, having his game stolen from him (morally I mean) so that they could turn around as soon as he was gone and publish their own version, most likely principally for the reason that they could avoid paying him royalties, and then steam the ship directly into the big rock of insolvency, because they all thought they knew better than Gary did about his own company. mmm. Feel a little better now for having gotten that off my chest. Oh, forgot about the part where they continuously tried to sue him for using his own ideas.

So, there is that. That's the main reason I refuse to even look at the game, regardless of what innovations they may have came up with for it. Call me silly, if you want.

damned
October 19th, 2016, 01:29
Regarding AD&D 2e, I suppose I am somewhat close-minded about it. It may be a great ruleset, I don't know.

I can't seem to get over the fact about Gary Gygax being thrust out of his own company, having his game stolen from him (morally I mean) so that they could turn around as soon as he was gone and publish their own version, most likely principally for the reason that they could avoid paying him royalties, and then steam the ship directly into the big rock of insolvency, because they all thought they knew better than Gary did about his own company. mmm. Feel a little better now for having gotten that off my chest. Oh, forgot about the part where they continuously tried to sue him for using his own ideas.

So, there is that. That's the main reason I refuse to even look at the game, regardless of what innovations they may have came up with for it. Call me silly, if you want.

Errr lets not forget that one GG did something similar to one DA with AD&D and BX.
Just saying'....

vodokar
October 19th, 2016, 01:42
Errr lets not forget that one GG did something similar to one DA with AD&D and BX.
Just saying'....

That is a point of contention, to be sure, but I think one GG had some point in the fact that I don't think one DA actually made much contribution at all to the project of D&D and most certainly not to the monumental task of creating AD&D. My understanding is the DA's main contribution was simply giving GG the hint that you could take his chainmail stuff and make heroes to play in a dungeon. From everything I have read though, DA didn't actually contribute hardly any writing or materials to the actual game itself and what little he did, had to be almost totally re-written by Tim Kask. Who really knows, though, as we weren't there and these things are lost to history. Likewise, from what I have gathered, even into the modern age, the game that DA actually played at his table most resembled a house ruled version of Chainmail and not D&D or AD&D.

While interesting, all of these things are not really on topic though. Didn't mean to derail the discussion.

vodokar
October 19th, 2016, 03:13
One thought I had, and I would have to research this further, is the possibility doing Adventures Dark and Dangerous. From what I have heard, it is AD&D, but extended in ways that Gygax had planned to do it if he had had the chance. Has anyone looked at it?

Getting back to our discussion of AC. If I understand what your saying, Damned, is the PC sheet would display Descending AC and Thac0, but beneath the hood would mathematically convert it to Ascending and BTH. The npc sheet would display Ascending and BTH, making it compatible with current monster entries in C&C. Do I have that right?

I'm also a little confused on how your saying that the C&C manuals would come with the deal. I originally thought what you meant by building it using the C&C ruleset was simply to start with that as a template and then make it a new ruleset layered on Core, but it sounds more like what your saying is to make the ruleset layered on top of C&C, thus making it dependent on it, but gaining the ability to then use those manuals with it. Is that right? So, it would basically be similar to what they did with layering pathfinder on top of 3.5.

If I did that, does that actually legally mean I can use those manuals in the new ruleset? Not sure of the legality of that. I don't know that just because the ruleset is layered on top of the other ruleset that that means you can use those resources in the new ruleset.

Getting back to the AC, the only issue with making the npc sheet displayed in Ascending and BTH is that it forces the DM to manually do conversions if he is entering things from an AD&D module. Probably not a big deal. You have to do that with C&C anyway.

Just throwing this out there. Would it be sacrilege to simply do away with descending AC and Thac0 to begin with? It's not like we aren't all used to Ascending and BTH, anyways. Would it really feel like it wasn't authentic without descending and Thac0?

Myrdin Potter
October 19th, 2016, 03:32
If I were voting I would want to see THAC0 as that is how I played 10 is bad and -10 is the best.

Zhern
October 19th, 2016, 03:38
I need to look into whether it is even possible, and Trenloe or damned might be able to answer this straight away, but why not have a toggle so that the GM can set ascending or descending? Either that, or take the S&W approach and display DSC[ASC] and then calculate hits off one or the other (where the toggle could come in)? Just throwing it out there.

Trenloe
October 19th, 2016, 03:46
I need to look into whether it is even possible, and Trenloe or damned might be able to answer this straight away, but why not have a toggle so that the GM can set ascending or descending?
You could, but it doubles up the coding everywhere you need to assign, check or work with AC and THAC0. If you're going for a game that replicates the original, and it used THAC0 and decreasing AC, then use just that. No need to complicate and confuse matters and increase the work for the developer where the option would probably be used by only a very small few.

Zhern
October 19th, 2016, 03:55
That was what I needed to know. I agree with that sentiment too, and would prefer to go with the spirit of the original. I can see how it could confuse those who have only ever dealt with ascending AC despite THAC0 not being a difficult concept to grasp.

Trenloe
October 19th, 2016, 04:03
If I did that, does that actually legally mean I can use those manuals in the new ruleset? Not sure of the legality of that. I don't know that just because the ruleset is layered on top of the other ruleset that that means you can use those resources in the new ruleset.
Let's make an assumption: The "AD&D" community ruleset we've been discussing is built as a layered ruleset on top of the "Castles & Crusades" (C&C) commercial ruleset. Therefore, to use the "AD&D" community ruleset, the GM would have had to purchase the Castles & Crusades FG ruleset (currently $10) that comes with reference material (PHB, Monsters and Treasure, starting adventure) as detailed here: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/product.xcp?id=DGA045

The GM has already legally purchased the material that comes with the C&C ruleset, so they can legally use that material how they wish in their own private games. Essentially, they would be running "C&C heavily house-ruled" (AD&D) within Fantasy Grounds.

You wouldn't be distributing any of those manuals in the AD&D community ruleset - just the code that makes the changes needed to the GUI and the underlying automation. This is fine, as you can't copyright game mechanics (in US copyright law), but fluff (descriptions, names, places, story, etc.) is covered by copyright. Thus you can freely distribute a new layered ruleset as long as it is just the mechanics - which, from what I've seen so far in this discussion, this is what the ruleset would contain (just game mechanics).

Of course, you may have to call it "A Fantasy Grounds community ruleset for the first edition of the worlds oldest fantasy RPG". ;)

damned
October 19th, 2016, 04:27
As Trenloe suggests - having ASC/DESC as an option is sooo much more complicated than you could imagine. I personally hate ASC AC but if you are not going to have ASC AC then CnC is already a better ft straight away.

Trenloe also has it exactly right (at least as far as what my thinking was) in regards to using the CnC as a base.

For AC on Charcater Sheets - Characters are all new (you are not importing CnC characters into your game so you would replace AC with the DESC version and you would replace BtH with THAC0.
For NPCs howver we have a whole library of existing critters coutesy of Monsters & Treasure (included in CnC) that already have ASC AC and a BtH value. For these you need to calculate or replace these with the required AD&D values. You would probably need some mechanism to check if AC already exists - if so convert and store as ACDnD. If it doesnt exist just use the ACDnD value. BtH for monsters is dependent on their HD in CnC and (I cant remember for sure) THAC0 probably is too.

Of course this is an abslutely simplified overview of the tasks - it is still a significant task.

1575515756

You couldnt just rip all the code out of CnC and make your own ruleset based on that and distribute as a community release as that ruleset has been released commercially. You could build on it though and it would (at least from where Im standing) be a much smaller job than building from scratch.

JohnD
October 19th, 2016, 04:48
As Trenloe suggests - having ASC/DESC as an option is sooo much more complicated than you could imagine. I personally hate ASC AC but if you are not going to have ASC AC then CnC is already a better ft straight away.

Trenloe also has it exactly right (at least as far as what my thinking was) in regards to using the CnC as a base.

For AC on Charcater Sheets - Characters are all new (you are not importing CnC characters into your game so you would replace AC with the DESC version and you would replace BtH with THAC0.
For NPCs howver we have a whole library of existing critters coutesy of Monsters & Treasure (included in CnC) that already have ASC AC and a BtH value. For these you need to calculate or replace these with the required AD&D values. You would probably need some mechanism to check if AC already exists - if so convert and store as ACDnD. If it doesnt exist just use the ACDnD value. BtH for monsters is dependent on their HD in CnC and (I cant remember for sure) THAC0 probably is too.

Of course this is an abslutely simplified overview of the tasks - it is still a significant task.

1575515756

You couldnt just rip all the code out of CnC and make your own ruleset based on that and distribute as a community release as that ruleset has been released commercially. You could build on it though and it would (at least from where Im standing) be a much smaller job than building from scratch.
Yes, monsters in C&C get a BtH of +1 for each HD they have. So a Bugbear with 3 HD has a BtH of +3 which would correspond to a THAC0 of 17.

leozelig
October 19th, 2016, 12:00
Just to throw another coding challenge into the mix - calculating hits/misses gets complicated in AD&D when you get into repeating 20's. I personally could live without the auto-calculating of hits, but I know this is a feature that veterans of FG have come to expect.

vodokar
October 20th, 2016, 00:31
Ok. I think I am ready to lay down some design goals.

First, it will be AD&D 1st edition, as authentic feeling as I can make it.

1) PC's will use Descending AC and Thac0 on the character sheet.

These numbers in the character sheet will be auto-transformed under the hood into Ascending AC and BTH so the value can be passed to the existing success detection code, but as far as the player is concerned, they will have their old school system.


2) NPC Sheet will have boxes for AC and and To hit value with a checkbox next to it to toggle whether the values mean Descending and Thac0 or Ascending and BTH.

Default will be toggled off. If it is toggled off, it will use the values as is, treating it as Ascending and BTH and simply pass it to the existing success detection code. If it is toggled on, it will treat the data as Desc and Thac0 and do the math to convert it under the hood and then pass it to the success detection code. This will be able to be set individually for each pc sheet.

This allows for both using the C&C Beastiary entries as is, without the need for any conversion, as well as, ease of DM entering data manually from old or OSR modules without the need for conversion.


3) PC's will utilize the 5 save system based on class and level

If I can accomplish those three things, we'll be most of the way there, I think.

Trenloe
October 20th, 2016, 03:08
If I can accomplish those three things, we'll be most of the way there, I think.
Awesome. I think you will be. :)

damned
October 20th, 2016, 04:02
Sounds like a plan - a good one at that!
If you need some help on the theme/graphics I may be able to help.

vodokar
October 20th, 2016, 04:28
I'm sure I'll need lot's of help along the way. I'm not planning to start immediately. Still working on some stuff for my campaign. But, it is a high priority for me and likely will start in the next 2 - 4 weeks. I love challenging projects, just hope I haven't bit off more than I can chew.

The thing that is most exciting for me is when I see all of the new material coming out from the OSR for D&D and AD&D. I've heard that there has actually been more adventure modules published in the last few years than everything that TSR ever produced. So, that is what is motivating me. I gots to play.

Zhern
October 20th, 2016, 04:40
I would definitely be interested in watching your progress. I'll be posting mine too, especially when I stumble upon impediments or have questions or anything that might be helpful. I was thinking about where to start also and I'm likely going to put together the S&W rules modules together first so that they can be used with the coreRPG set. After that, I'll start working on the ruleset extension - I need to do some analysis on existing extensions and read through the notes in the development wiki, through all the great info Trenloe has posted, and take a look at LUA since I've never used it. I'll layout a task list after that and work from that (haha, I could write user stories and use my wall as a kanban board...kidding...)

Thoughts? Different approach suggestions?

damned
October 20th, 2016, 05:09
Create a layered ruleset - look at the 3.5e ruleset as a guide.
Dont create it as an extension.

Zhern
October 20th, 2016, 11:47
Create a layered ruleset - look at the 3.5e ruleset as a guide.
Dont create it as an extension.

Ah, thank you - that was what I was intending to say. A layered ruleset. I do plan on using the 3.5 ruleset as a guide.

I'll have to add "get the terminology correct" as #1 on my to do list, hehe.

JohnD
October 20th, 2016, 13:05
Good luck with your work.

Krimson
October 21st, 2016, 01:13
If it's actually AD&D, I would certainly have use for it. These days I kind of prefer 5e for my own games, but when I play face to face games it's pretty much always 1e and the same campaign I've been playing since the 80s. Since FG is pretty awesome as a campaign manager, a 1e ruleset would definitely be useful.

Zhern
October 21st, 2016, 20:42
Question for Trenloe & damned - I started looking through the 3.5 ruleset, both in FG and under the hood. I noticed it doesn't support drag and drop and auto-populate from modules to fill out the character sheet, etc. The 5E stuff does - is this by design? Ideally I would like the S&W layered ruleset to support that functionality but want to make sure it is okay to do so before I dig too much into it.

Thanks!

FXguy
October 21st, 2016, 21:15
I would absolutely LOVE the older D&D rulesets, however, I am unsure if the AD&D game would even be playable with the RAW (unless OSRIC is used). 2nd Edition might be easier.

vodokar
October 21st, 2016, 21:29
I would absolutely LOVE the older D&D rulesets, however, I am unsure if the AD&D game would even be playable with the RAW (unless OSRIC is used). 2nd Edition might be easier.

What specifically do you think would not be playable?

FXguy
October 21st, 2016, 21:48
What specifically do you think would not be playable?

Combat in general. I recall having to make up house rules to play in 1978, and then re-reading the books a couple of years ago, and still being confused on a few rules. I believe that OSRIC had addressed the issues and fixed them to play as Gary would have wanted it.

damned
October 22nd, 2016, 00:25
Question for Trenloe & damned - I started looking through the 3.5 ruleset, both in FG and under the hood. I noticed it doesn't support drag and drop and auto-populate from modules to fill out the character sheet, etc. The 5E stuff does - is this by design? Ideally I would like the S&W layered ruleset to support that functionality but want to make sure it is okay to do so before I dig too much into it.

Yes - build drag and drop but do not try to emulate the character building features. Too much effort for too little gain. The abilities of FG have evolved over time and devs (smiteworks and community) have really pushed its capability so newer rulesets will/can have more features. But they require more work. Bite off what you can chew. You dont have to deliver the all singing all dancing version right from the get go. Start with the character and npc sheets and then the combat tracker and party sheets. Then see what you still want to do after that.

damned
October 22nd, 2016, 00:26
Combat in general. I recall having to make up house rules to play in 1978, and then re-reading the books a couple of years ago, and still being confused on a few rules. I believe that OSRIC had addressed the issues and fixed them to play as Gary would have wanted it.

Your memory of what you read back in 1978 may not be as clear as you remembered :)
The rules work alright.

vodokar
October 22nd, 2016, 00:56
There were certain rules that no one ever used, that I know of anyway, like "weapon speeds" and "to hit bonuses/penalties vs. specific armors". The initiative system wasn't quite all worked out yet and smooth. But, those things won't really be addressed in this ruleset anyways. The standard initiative system built into FG is far better. And no one ever used those other rules anyway.

I have years of experience actually playing 1e, so I know it was playable, even back in 1978, and most importantly, I think I know what's the most important aspects of the rules system that must be there for it to feel authentic.

Zhern
October 22nd, 2016, 00:57
Yes - build drag and drop but do not try to emulate the character building features. Too much effort for too little gain. The abilities of FG have evolved over time and devs (smiteworks and community) have really pushed its capability so newer rulesets will/can have more features. But they require more work. Bite off what you can chew. You dont have to deliver the all singing all dancing version right from the get go. Start with the character and npc sheets and then the combat tracker and party sheets. Then see what you still want to do after that.

Right on. I'm taking too much of a feature complete view of it when I need to really be looking to do minimum viable product and then go from there. Thanks for the advice.

vodokar
October 22nd, 2016, 01:01
Right on. I'm taking too much of a feature complete view of it when I need to really be looking to do minimum viable product and then go from there. Thanks for the advice.

Yes, what Damned said. Just give us a functional ruleset that has a functional combat tracker, automated hit determination, easy to use spell list and other such niceties. We've been living in the stone age up till now with regards to old school games; we don't expect to go to warp speed in a heart beat.

leozelig
October 22nd, 2016, 01:30
I ran a bunch of AD&D modules a few years ago using the OSRIC ruleset (but AD&D rules). We ignored weapon speed and to hit bonus vs AC. There were a few random bugs, but it worked. Group initiative in the combat tracker was a good feature - I assume S&W does something similar.

damned
October 22nd, 2016, 01:38
Yes, what Damned said. Just give us a functional ruleset that has a functional combat tracker, automated hit determination, easy to use spell list and other such niceties. We've been living in the stone age up till now with regards to old school games; we don't expect to go to warp speed in a heart beat.

Sorry - I know this has been said before and Ive said it to you before - but Castles&Crusades is both an excellent old school system - even if it isnt exactly the rules you want - and its FG implementation is excellent. That is not old school stone age!

And leozeligs DCC ruleset is also very functional.

vodokar
October 22nd, 2016, 01:49
Sorry - I know this has been said before and Ive said it to you before - but Castles&Crusades is both an excellent old school system - even if it isnt exactly the rules you want - and its FG implementation is excellent. That is not old school stone age!

And leozeligs DCC ruleset is also very functional.

I stand corrected, sir. Yes, C&C is a great ruleset. I wasn't talking about that one. Sorry.

As for DCC, it's my precious baby :). Love that game and ruleset to death. But, it isn't actually an old school game. It is 3E light. That's a common misconception. So, I wasn't counting that either.

Semantics, all, i know.

Point is simply, I'm for more rulesets than we can shake a stick at. We shouldn't have to shoehorn in what we want into one system, great as C&C is. See my other post regarding the AS&SH kickstarter. I'm not even sure I will ever play that game, but I decided to back the hardcover book and press them for supporting an FG ruleset for us, cause that is good.

I also just purchased the Barbarians of Lemuria ruleset last night. Didn't even know it was available. I know nothing about that game. I support the fact it was made, simple as that. Hopefully, I'll also like the game.

damned
October 22nd, 2016, 02:42
What is the ***&H kickstarter? I also like to back projects that make new rulesets :) I dont back everything that produces content - Im mostly keen to see more rulesets.
I backed the Barbarians of Lemuria kickstarter because of the FG ruleset.
Thru a quirk of fate I ended up building that ruleset with ianmward and mask_of_winter.
Thanks for buying it. Its a relatively simple game system. Very Conanesque - low magic, high heroism.

Zhern
October 22nd, 2016, 02:48
Oh man, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea! The 2E version of it is on Kickstarter right now. It is loosely based off of the '74 ruleset but altered for a Sword & Sorcery feel. Think of Robert E. Howard mixed with Clark Ashton Smith and H.P. Lovecraft. Very pulpy and weird fantasy. Really great stuff! Another great one is Crypts & Things (Remastered) - it is based on S&W but geared towards a Sword & Sorcery bent also.

I have a physical copy of Barbarians of Lemuria. I didn't know there was an FG ruleset for it. I'll have to pick it up!

Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea 2E (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1806106772/astonishing-swordsmen-and-sorcerers-of-hyperborea-0)

The heroes of an AS&SH game delve dungeons filled with horrifying monsters, lethal traps, and bewildering puzzles; they explore savage wilderness frontiers and hostile borderlands; they probe ancient ruins and investigate cursed tombs; they match steel against sorcery and sorcery against steel; and they plunder for gold, gems, and magical treasure.

vodokar
October 22nd, 2016, 02:57
Oh man, Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea! The 2E version of it is on Kickstarter right now. It is loosely based off of the '74 ruleset but altered for a Sword & Sorcery feel. Think of Robert E. Howard mixed with Clark Ashton Smith and H.P. Lovecraft. Very pulpy and weird fantasy. Really great stuff! Another great one is Crypts & Things (Remastered) - it is based on S&W but geared towards a Sword & Sorcery bent also.

Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea 2E (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1806106772/astonishing-swordsmen-and-sorcerers-of-hyperborea-0)

The heroes of an AS&SH game delve dungeons filled with horrifying monsters, lethal traps, and bewildering puzzles; they explore savage wilderness frontiers and hostile borderlands; they probe ancient ruins and investigate cursed tombs; they match steel against sorcery and sorcery against steel; and they plunder for gold, gems, and magical treasure.

Yes, that one. I had one too many S and the forum software censored my post, lol. The book looks pretty sweet, though I haven't read the rules yet. Think I'll wait and be surprised. At any rate, just to be perfectly clear. There is no current plan to do an FG ruleset for that under the kickstarter. Don't want to start any rumours. However, as they funded in under 3 hours and over double funded in less than 24, I was bold enough to request the developer to consider throwing that in as a stretch goal (no response yet). If anyone knows him, Jeffrey Talanian, perhaps they can give him some info on it. At any rate, I would encourage backing the project and supporting the request for a ruleset. Can't happen if ya don't ask, right?

Zhern
October 22nd, 2016, 03:02
Yes, that one. I had one too many S and the forum software censored my post, lol. The book looks pretty sweet, though I haven't read the rules yet. Think I'll wait and be surprised. At any rate, just to be perfectly clear. There is no current plan to do an FG ruleset for that under the kickstarter. Don't want to start any rumours. However, as they funded in under 3 hours and over double funded in less than 24, I was bold enough to request the developer to consider throwing that in as a stretch goal (no response yet). If anyone knows him, Jeffrey Talanian, perhaps they can give him some info on it. At any rate, I would encourage backing the project and supporting the request for a ruleset. Can't happen if ya don't ask, right?

Yeah, I backed it shortly after it went live. I've been looking forward to it ever since he announced it awhile back. I'll mention the FG ruleset in the comments on the KS too.

vodokar
October 22nd, 2016, 03:04
What is the ***&H kickstarter? I also like to back projects that make new rulesets :) I dont back everything that produces content - Im mostly keen to see more rulesets.
I backed the Barbarians of Lemuria kickstarter because of the FG ruleset.
Thru a quirk of fate I ended up building that ruleset with ianmward and mask_of_winter.
Thanks for buying it. Its a relatively simple game system. Very Conanesque - low magic, high heroism.

You are quite welcome, good sir. It looks like you guys did a bang up job, from what I have seen so far. While I am uninitiated, as of yet, in the mysterious ways of the Barbarians of Lemuria, I am sure I will get some milage with my investment in it.

I like to play different games, especially when they are really different and that's why I'm a strong advocator of different rulesets. Sure, you could take any adventure module ever created, professional or otherwise, and convert it into one system, such as 5e or C&C, but I prefer to play adventures in the ruleset they were designed for. Something always gets lost in the translation when you try to convert to a different ruleset.

Incidentally, you need to be less humble with regards to your creation. I didn't even know about it. I surely would have snapped it up sooner, had I known.

Kalex the Omen
October 23rd, 2016, 01:12
A ruleset strictly for 1e AD&D might actually get me to try using my many years old license for Fantasy Grounds. So far I have yet to get a minute of game play out of it.

vodokar
October 23rd, 2016, 02:43
A ruleset strictly for 1e AD&D might actually get me to try using my many years old license for Fantasy Grounds. So far I have yet to get a minute of game play out of it.

I am sorry to hear that. Fantasy Grounds has been a godsend for me. I use it as a DM management tool on my laptop when playing face to face, on my lan at home with my son, and for online games. If you are an old school gamer though, I know it can be hard to accept new gaming systems. I will strive to work really hard to bring an AD&D ruleset to the community. In the mean time though, C&C and DCC will really get you close and are great games in their own right.

Zhern
October 24th, 2016, 04:39
Create a layered ruleset - look at the 3.5e ruleset as a guide.
Dont create it as an extension.

Question for Trenloe or damned - to create the modules for S&W, similar to the 3.5 Basic Rules etc., is it worth trying to format them and parse them using Par5e for CoreRPG? Or should I manually format the XML? In your experience, which works best? Given the rundown on the CoreRPG/3.5 thread and some of the other things on the Wiki (and I very likely missed a few posts or some info), I don't see a preferred way to do so. Just curious.

Thanks for the advice.

damned
October 24th, 2016, 05:20
Rulesets (.pak files) and Reference materials (.mod files) are completely different animals.
You can build and share a Ruleset with or without permission but a Reference book can only be shared with permission - that permission may be an OGL license (like for 3.5) or it may be explicit permission granted by the publisher/author.

Rulesets are built with a coding tool - whether thats notepad or a full development environment doesnt matter.
Reference books can be built in par5e but you will need to make manual modifications to the file to use them for things other than 5e.

Zhern
October 24th, 2016, 13:46
Rulesets (.pak files) and Reference materials (.mod files) are completely different animals.
You can build and share a Ruleset with or without permission but a Reference book can only be shared with permission - that permission may be an OGL license (like for 3.5) or it may be explicit permission granted by the publisher/author.

Rulesets are built with a coding tool - whether thats notepad or a full development environment doesnt matter.
Reference books can be built in par5e but you will need to make manual modifications to the file to use them for things other than 5e.

I'm aware of the difference between them. I was curious, from your experience, which you preferred to use par5e or manually construct the XML for the reference books. I am looking for lessons learned so I don't fall into some of the same pitfalls that others have while working on these tasks, that's all. :) Think of it as an "In your experience, which worked best for you..." type question.

And I do have permission from both the publisher and author to create and share the S&W ruleset and reference (and it is covered under OGL).

vodokar
October 25th, 2016, 00:19
I'll add my 2 cents worth and then some of the more experienced will likely take it from there. Most, if not all, of what you'll need to do for making a module can be done using the internal Fantasy Grounds editor. Manual copy and paste from pdf and manual formatting inside of FG. Only after that is done, if you weren't satisfied with how it looked would you need to go look at the xml.

I'm not really familiar with par5e, but I do know that it is designed to parse text that is formated in the 5e format. I don't think you would be able to leverage the automation of that tool for old d&d formats. You would likely have almost as much manual work editing the outcome than if you just used method one above. Please correct me, someone, if I am wrong about what I have said, but that is the way I understand it.

Zhern
October 25th, 2016, 01:57
The internal FG editor is great for adventures and stories but isn't really meant (at least in my view) for creating new library modules (such as the S&W Core Rules). I've opted to create the modules using C&C as an example. The ruleset will also use C&C and leozelig's DCC ruleset as examples. I was really only trying to find the path of least resistance for creating new modules and have used par5e before for 5E modules for use in my personal games. It was easy enough to use, albeit very finicky, for a tool that isn't maintained nor was completed before being retired.

Between SublimeText, AutoHotkey, and the Lua plugin for IntelliJ, I'll get it all put together eventually. Just need more fun time during the day and less required adult time.

damned
October 25th, 2016, 02:39
I personally use Par5e to build the reference and use manual XML to build things like Items and Spells.
Monsters I make in FG and export them.
Then do a big magic hand wave xml edit to combine them all appropriately.

Zhern
October 25th, 2016, 02:54
I personally use Par5e to build the reference and use manual XML to build things like Items and Spells.
Monsters I make in FG and export them.
Then do a big magic hand wave xml edit to combine them all appropriately.

Do you par5e with the CoreRPG library or 5E? I'm going to have to rewatch Xorn's tutorials if I use it since it has been last year since I did anything with it.

damned
October 25th, 2016, 03:08
Do you par5e with the CoreRPG library or 5E? I'm going to have to rewatch Xorn's tutorials if I use it since it has been last year since I did anything with it.

CoreRPG but there is a bug - Ive posted somewhere the fix...
here is a fix posted by ianmward
http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?18123-Project-Par5e&p=222322&viewfull=1#post222322

Trenloe
October 25th, 2016, 03:11
I haven't read this for a few days. Just a reminder to any ruleset developer (and then players who use the ruleset) that reference modules may not be able to be developed (and shared) for said ruleset without the copyright owners permission - or if the library can contain OGL/community commons data.

For any ruleset developer who has permission from the RPG system copyright owners: make sure you work out what you can use. Some might only let you do the framework, some might let you produce a few reference records (perhaps common spells, or similar). There can be a lot of confusion around this - so make sure everyone is on the same page and the copyright owners are clear as to what you're going to produce and publicly distribute. I'd hate for anyone to do lots of work and then find out that they can't share most of it...

@Zhern I'd recommend you clarify any permission/agreement you have for a S&W community ruleset and any additional content.

Zhern
October 25th, 2016, 03:24
I haven't read this for a few days. Just a reminder to any ruleset developer (and then players who use the ruleset) that reference modules may not be able to be developed (and shared) for said ruleset without the copyright owners permission - or if the library can contain OGL/community commons data.

For any ruleset developer who has permission from the RPG system copyright owners: make sure you work out what you can use. Some might only let you do the framework, some might let you produce a few reference records (perhaps common spells, or similar). There can be a lot of confusion around this - so make sure everyone is on the same page and the copyright owners are clear as to what you're going to produce and publicly distribute. I'd hate for anyone to do lots of work and then find out that they can't share most of it...

@Zhern I'd recommend you clarify any permission/agreement you have for a S&W community ruleset and any additional content.

Thanks, Trenloe - I'll get it clarified by Bill and Matt and include it in anything going forward. They were pretty clear that anything that was in the free PDF for Swords & Wizardry Complete Rules could be used as long as the ruleset isn't sold for profit (by me or anyone other than someone they have a contract with to do so) and that the Frog God Games™ Declaration of Product Identity was included. Their main interest, as is mine, is that it gives more people an opportunity to play in a world we love. But yes, I appreciate the caution and will make sure I am on the same page as them.

vodokar
October 25th, 2016, 03:25
As for me, mine will not contain any reference material, beastiary, propietary artwork etc. other than what was previously discussed about allowing the existing C&C modules to be accessed.

Zhern
October 25th, 2016, 10:24
Thanks, Trenloe - I'll get it clarified by Bill and Matt and include it in anything going forward. They were pretty clear that anything that was in the free PDF for Swords & Wizardry Complete Rules could be used as long as the ruleset isn't sold for profit (by me or anyone other than someone they have a contract with to do so) and that the Frog God Games™ Declaration of Product Identity was included. Their main interest, as is mine, is that it gives more people an opportunity to play in a world we love. But yes, I appreciate the caution and will make sure I am on the same page as them.

I heard back from Bill Webb of Frog God Games. He reaffirmed that all content in both the Core and Complete Rules (Complete includes additional classes, no rules changes) are usable in the ruleset and as reference modules.

JohnD
October 25th, 2016, 16:45
I've never seen so much activity in this section of the forum. Hopefully the energy and enthusiasm on display carries through to completion - it would be interesting to have another option for OSR style games.

Trenloe
October 25th, 2016, 16:53
I heard back from Bill Webb of Frog God Games. He reaffirmed that all content in both the Core and Complete Rules (Complete includes additional classes, no rules changes) are usable in the ruleset and as reference modules.
Fantastic news. Nice one. :)

Zhern
October 25th, 2016, 17:10
Fantastic news. Nice one. :)

The only exception is art, which is no big deal, honestly. Frog God Games has been fantastic to work with on this and for putting together the Lost Lands Wiki. I was already a fan of their work but their willingness to work with the community is a tremendous boon for those of us that enjoy OSR-style gaming.

Zhern
October 25th, 2016, 17:13
I've never seen so much activity in this section of the forum. Hopefully the energy and enthusiasm on display carries through to completion - it would be interesting to have another option for OSR style games.

It might take me awhile to get it done but I fully intend to complete it. My biggest limitation is time. I also have a vested interest in completing it - I want to use it too!

vodokar
October 25th, 2016, 22:46
Likewise for me. My barrier isn't lack of time, it is lack of knowledge. I have faith I can bust that door down (reaching for my d6). But, at some point, I may need to lean on some of the more experienced guys to be able to work thru some of the challenges ahead.

Myrdin Potter
November 5th, 2016, 04:13
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/froggodgames/swords-and-wizardry-complete-rulebook-3rd-printing

The kickstarter is going into the final 24 hours. The $225 complete gamer is becoming a better and better deal as each stretch goal gets hit.

As soon as zhern starts, I will try and help. Probably at first by getting the text ready for inclusion and then slowly looking for bugs.

Zhern
November 5th, 2016, 05:09
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/froggodgames/swords-and-wizardry-complete-rulebook-3rd-printing

The kickstarter is going into the final 24 hours. The $225 complete gamer is becoming a better and better deal as each stretch goal gets hit.

As soon as zhern starts, I will try and help. Probably at first by getting the text ready for inclusion and then slowly looking for bugs.

I've started on the reference module for the Complete Rules. Once I get that finished I'll be glad to have you all proof it. After that, I'll get started on the ruleset.

To add to what Myrdin said about the Complete Gamer Package from the S&W Kickstarter, here is an unofficial tally of what it comes with from one of the other backers:



Unofficial count of what is included in the complete gamer - all are physical and PDF unless otherwise noted.

Totals
2 Hardcovers
6 decks
34 softcovers
45 pdfs
GM screen

Adventures
Strange Bedfellows (PDF only)
The Five Maidens by Elizabeth Chaipraditkul
Zaya’s Promise by Stacy Dellorfano
Grimmsgate
MCMLXXV (1975)
Against Tsathogga
Hex Crawl Chronicles Valley of the Hawks
Hex Crawl Chronicles The Winter Woods
Hex Crawl Chronicles Beyond Black Water
Hex Crawl Chronicles The Shattered Empire
Hex Crawl Chronicles The Pirate Coast
Hex Crawl Chronicles The Troll Hills
Hex Crawl Chronicles The Golden Meadows
Splinters of Faith 1: It started with a chicken
Splinters of Faith 2: Burning Desires
Splinters of Faith 3: Culvert Operations
Splinters of Faith 4: For Love of Chaos
Splinters of Faith 5: Eclipse of the Hearth
Splinters of Faith 6: Morning of Tears
Splinters of Faith 7: Heir of Sin
Splinters of Faith 8: Pains of Scalded Glass
Splinters of Faith 9: Duel of Magic
Splinters of Faith 10: Remorse of Life
(the next section is unclear as the list says 5 adventures but there are six 1 night stands. So I just listed the first 5.)
One Night Stands 1: Jungle Ruins of Madaro-Shanti
One Night Stands 2: Death in the Painted Canyons
One Night Stands 3: The Spire of Iron and Crystal
One Night Stands 4: Dread Saecaroth
One Night Stands 5: Scorned
Hall of Bones (PDF Only)
Will Be Unlocked At 1000 Backers
*Current backer total is 999.
**Black Monastery (PDF Only)
**Cyclopean Deeps Chapter 1: Down to Ques Querax
**Cyclopean Deeps Chapter 2: Eye of the Titant
Bill said the other 3 One Night Stands but there aren't an additional 3. ###Speculation### is that he meant the Saturday Night Specials.
**Saturday Night Specials 1: The Hollow Mountain
**Saturday Night Specials 2: Castle Baldemar's Dungeon
**Saturday Night Specials 3: Ice Tower of the Salka
**Saturday Night Specials 4: The Mires of Mourning

Hardcovers
Swords and Wizardry 3rd printing
Monstrosities

Decks
Deck of Treasures
Deck of Spells
Deck of Hirelings
Deck of Encounters 1
Deck of Encounters 2
Deck of Dirty Tricks

Misc
S&W DM screen
Book of Dirty Tricks

Myrdin Potter
November 5th, 2016, 05:17
A little easier to do the text for the rules here as there is a word version available. Usually I have to cut and paste from PDF and then remove the extra lf it creates. I have that semi-automated but still need to proof read afterwards.

Zhern
November 5th, 2016, 05:25
A little easier to do the text for the rules here as there is a word version available. Usually I have to cut and paste from PDF and then remove the extra lf it creates. I have that semi-automated but still need to proof read afterwards.

Hah, I didn't realize there was a word doc. I exported the PDF to text and am working from that. It came out pretty clean and I've only noticed a few small errors from the export.

Myrdin Potter
November 5th, 2016, 05:48
Tenkar hosts a word version somewhere. I am in China on a slow VPN now and too frustrating to search ...

Zhern
November 5th, 2016, 05:55
Thanks - I'll go visit the Tavern and find it.

Zhern
November 10th, 2016, 02:30
Status: still working on it little by little. Adult responsibilities have been interfering with the fun stuff.

vodokar
November 10th, 2016, 02:40
No pressure. Any idea if the project gets done in time for the kickstarter to be delivered? Not that it really matters. Just checking.

Zhern
November 10th, 2016, 02:43
No pressure. Any idea if the project gets done in time for the kickstarter to be delivered? Not that it really matters. Just checking.

I'm shooting for that January 2017 to coincide with the estimated delivery date of the Kickstarter. I really want to have it done by then to help drive interest coming off the delivery of all the great stuff that ships with the S&W 3rd printing.

corum Rask
November 26th, 2016, 05:05
I prefer AD&D 2nd Edition my self.....

Asterionaisien
November 27th, 2016, 10:03
I'm really interested into old school packages, and i would buy a becmi/ad&D/ad&D 2ed ruleset for sure.
Anyway, i'm a bit of a purist, so imo retroclones aren't the real thing, just clones.
Nice, playable, streamlined, free.. CLONES.
It's like saying "yeah I'm a real hardcore gamer..but not too much, and only for the pieces I like".

Varsuuk
December 2nd, 2016, 06:40
Thanks - I'll go visit the Tavern and find it.

It's and older post, so by now you probably found it, but I was not able to access swordsa dwizardry.com due to being down. Found another pdt/doc but not being on the know, I haven't a clue if the changes her refers to are "canon. or not.

But if you or others still need the pdt/doc vs pdf, try: http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/swords-and-wizardry/

vodokar
December 2nd, 2016, 07:17
I sprung for the art version of the Complete version for an entire $5.00, I think it was, on RPG Drive Thru. Liked what I saw, so then I backed the kickstarter for a hardcopy of the 2nd edition. IMHO, the Complete version is the way to go, as it's darn close to being a very unique spin on AD&D at that point.

But, White Box is good if your into original D&D like it was played back in 74 and due to it's lightweight and streamlined rules, it's been the basis for any number of games based on it in various genres.

I would have to disagree with the comment about clones, by manner of definition. The only true retro-clones out there are OSRIC and Labrynth Lord at this point.

None of the major games out there are actually retro-clones. Castles and Crusades definitely isn't, I can assure you of that -- if it had been, it wouldn't have taken me so many hundreds of hours trying to re-wire it to play AD&D. DCC RPG is not, so much so, that Leo wrote his ruleset from scratch on top of Core, rather than using any other existing ruleset out there that was supposedly a clone or even the original, for that matter. Astonishing Swords and Sorcerers of Hyperborea is similar to AD&D, but also has some very unique qualities about it. Swords and Wizardry can't really be considered a retro-clone anymore, as it has really distinguished itself in having unique enough properties and feel to it that it is a different game than what it was inspired from. Those 6 I mentioned are the 6 top supported, popular and played OSR games out there and only 2 of them actually are even close to being "retro-clones", and even that is debateable regarding Labrynth Lord at this point also.

To be sure, there are a bunch of uninspired nonsense out there that we haven't mentioned, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some gems worth playing. It won't and shouldn't replace your favorite game, whether that is 1e, BCMI, 2e or whatever, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for innovation and doing things differently.

damned
December 2nd, 2016, 08:19
Im thinking your definition of retro clone might be your definition of retro clone.
Despite the differences some of the games you mention share at least 90% of their DNA with the earlier/original versions and my definition of retro clone includes some of them :)

leozeligs ruleset was actually built on the 3.5e ruleset :)

Zhern
December 2nd, 2016, 13:40
It's and older post, so by now you probably found it, but I was not able to access swordsa dwizardry.com due to being down. Found another pdt/doc but not being on the know, I haven't a clue if the changes her refers to are "canon. or not.

But if you or others still need the pdt/doc vs pdf, try: http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/swords-and-wizardry/

The PDF for Swords & Wizardry Complete is free from Frog God Games. Because of an unlocked stretch goal in an early Kickstarter it will always remain free. The same goes for the Core Rules.

Swords & Wizardry Complete (https://www.froggodgames.com/swords-wizardry-complete-rulebook)

And I'm inclined to agree with vodokar and damned about retroclones.

Varsuuk
December 2nd, 2016, 13:44
You mentioned "uninspired ones" out there. I have no idea if Adventures Dark and Deep is well know enough to be noticed and if it is, whether it is considered "good" or not in general among the clones or near clones. I had grabbed a few of the rulebooks for several (concentrating on free ones, but by now I also have more mainstream ones like C&C purchased also) and only looked at them in scanning sense since busy learning Savage and Swift (meaning Worlds and the computer lang :p) instead with my "copious free time."

The LOOK of the ADD ruleset caught my attention, but other than reading C&C through the classes section and skimming CK book, I haven't read any of these well.

What I am asking is pure opinion, so please keep that in mind on replies, no Holy Wars please. It isn't like I'm asking "tabs vs spaces" or "braces on next line or same line" ... :)

Zhern
December 2nd, 2016, 13:45
What I am asking is pure opinion, so please keep that in mind on replies, no Holy Wars please. It isn't like I'm asking "tabs vs spaces" or "braces on next line or same line" ... :)

Tabs, same line. Anything else is blasphemy!

vodokar
December 3rd, 2016, 00:32
Absolutely, Damned. It's all a matter of opinion and how one decides to define it. Virtually all modern games and video games owe a lot to D&D and have some of it's DNA to lesser or greater degree. And, I'll definitely say that a game like Labrynth Lord has a lot more of that DNA than some of the other games we mentioned.

My point was simply not to write off all OSR or OSR inspired games simply because a person might think they are not original enough. In many cases, that feeling is based on not actually looking closely enough to find out what merit the game might have that is original. That is all I meant.

In this day and age, we don't have to only play one game all the time. It's good to switch things up sometimes and try new or different things.

For me, the driving force is usually adventure modules. I don't like converting them from one system to another, because I feel too much is lost in the translation. If I see an adventure I want to experience, I want to play it in the system it was originally intended for.

Asterionaisien
December 3rd, 2016, 08:32
Absolutely, Damned. It's all a matter of opinion and how one decides to define it. Virtually all modern games and video games owe a lot to D&D and have some of it's DNA to lesser or greater degree. And, I'll definitely say that a game like Labrynth Lord has a lot more of that DNA than some of the other games we mentioned.

My point was simply not to write off all OSR or OSR inspired games simply because a person might think they are not original enough. In many cases, that feeling is based on not actually looking closely enough to find out what merit the game might have that is original. That is all I meant.

In this day and age, we don't have to only play one game all the time. It's good to switch things up sometimes and try new or different things.

For me, the driving force is usually adventure modules. I don't like converting them from one system to another, because I feel too much is lost in the translation. If I see an adventure I want to experience, I want to play it in the system it was originally intended for.

Maybe I was unclear in my post, if so I'll try to better explain myself. What I meant was that my meaning of "old school" is instrumental from the acceptance of all the old rules nuances, inconveniences, unbalances, etc of older systems.
To correct them means to change the "real" experience, and it becomes a "modern vintage" feel.
Thus said, I'm more than willing to play any "stuff & stuff" game togheter, moder vintage or old school or sci fi or whatever; after all rpg are about having fun togheter, not to sanctify some ruleset over another.
This mindset spans over adventure modules too, in fact I totally agree with vodokar: too much is lost in the translations, so in my opinion is way better to play games in their original system/edition, as they were meant to be.

damned
December 3rd, 2016, 09:28
Maybe I was unclear in my post, if so I'll try to better explain myself. What I meant was that my meaning of "old school" is instrumental from the acceptance of all the old rules nuances, inconveniences, unbalances, etc of older systems.
To correct them means to change the "real" experience, and it becomes a "modern vintage" feel.
Thus said, I'm more than willing to play any "stuff & stuff" game togheter, moder vintage or old school or sci fi or whatever; after all rpg are about having fun togheter, not to sanctify some ruleset over another.
This mindset spans over adventure modules too, in fact I totally agree with vodokar: too much is lost in the translations, so in my opinion is way better to play games in their original system/edition, as they were meant to be.

Haha.
Maybe I was unclear in my post.


Im thinking your definition of retro clone might be your definition of retro clone.

So Ill rephrase.... your definition of retro clone is your definition of retro clone.
There :) Thats better.
And my definition of retro clone is my definition :)

AD&D is not the first D&D. There is OD&D and the original Basic rules were also happening at a very similar time.
And then there are things like Unearthed Arcana.
D&D for some remains static, a specific version, while for others its a tweak here and a tweak there (you know the rules tell you to house rule but then there are other quotes suggesting that if yu are house riling it you are not playing D&D) and then there are others always looking to step it up, to try new stuff, to move forward.

So I accept that you prefer the original system/edition.
But for me I believe that there is lots of grey there too :)

Asterionaisien
December 3rd, 2016, 09:40
But for me I believe that there is lots of grey there too :)

Yeah, I totally agree with you. :)

vodokar
December 3rd, 2016, 18:11
Likewise.

leozelig
December 4th, 2016, 23:00
With OSRIC, I appreciated the much clearer explanations of some of the AD&D rules, but the changes to the XP tables were annoying. I definitely prefer the original as well, but I am totally happy playing DCC, LL, S&W, etc. without worrying about the nuances.

Krimson
December 5th, 2016, 03:56
I collect retro-clones and OSR games. They are fun and it's nice to see different approaches to things. I may not play them all but I enjoy them. Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC in particular because I still have my old D&D books and they basically act as supplements.

JohnD
December 5th, 2016, 17:19
Whatever rules you use the important thing is to get gaming if you're not, and to stay gaming if you already are - enjoy it regardless.

Zhern
December 6th, 2016, 01:12
Whatever rules you use the important thing is to get gaming if you're not, and to stay gaming if you already are - enjoy it regardless.

Amen, brother!

damned
January 8th, 2017, 12:36
So... there are a couple of old school D&D projects going on...
Im mid way thru a basic version of the basic/expert variant of the game.
Its not a full ruleset implementation in that it is built on MoreCore but it will have a full library - reference manual, monsters, spells, equipment, rolls, theme.

But I have too many projects on the go... so Im looking to see if anyone is interested in joining with me to finish this off. Im mostly ok on the coding - its the leg work getting the reference materials into FG that I really need help with.
So... anyone interested?

http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17324&d=1483878957

17324

hawkwind
January 8th, 2017, 13:08
It looks like you are doing your own retroclone! Im happy to help some leg work

Myrdin Potter
January 8th, 2017, 15:52
If it is cutting and pasting, I can help.

Asterionaisien
January 8th, 2017, 16:15
So... there are a couple of old school D&D projects going on...
Im mid way thru a basic version of the basic/expert variant of the game.
Its not a full ruleset implementation in that it is built on MoreCore but it will have a full library - reference manual, monsters, spells, equipment, rolls, theme.

But I have too many projects on the go... so Im looking to see if anyone is interested in joining with me to finish this off. Im mostly ok on the coding - its the leg work getting the reference materials into FG that I really need help with.
So... anyone interested?

http://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17324&d=1483878957

17324

This is based on rules cyclopedia? :square: I could not be more happy!!!!

Varsuuk
January 8th, 2017, 18:05
damned,

First off, although I never played B/X besides trying once, I am ecstatic to see all these older ones being redone!

One question though, since not familiar with B/X - what is the source for the reference materials? Do they have some open gaming license for some subset of the boxed sets?

I ask because, I know we can't share modules created from older AD&D modules. I know game rules are not copywrited, but I thought the references like spell, item etc descriptions we "content" and protected vs stat bars etc?

I'm not impugning ;) by inference of your asking for outside helpers, it tells me I need to expand my most vague understanding of what is legal to do. it's one reason I never got into looking at creating AD&D stuff because if it is only for me, I have to do 100% of the work but limited in what can share.

hawkwind
January 8th, 2017, 19:27
Duplicate post

hawkwind
January 8th, 2017, 19:32
I was wondering the same which is why I said earlier it looks like Dammed is creating his own retro clone. I'm sure whatever Dammed has planned is legal. Could I suggest snake change from "Dammed Basic Dungeon" to "Basically Dammed" or even " Dungeons of the Dammed" ?

vodokar
January 8th, 2017, 23:29
First of all, Damned. Thanks for doing this. It really makes sense that the most rules light version of D&D (after the 1974 version) can be made to work with "only" Morecore and not needing a full ruleset. I say "only" because Morecore really is a ruleset in and of itself and a "Damned" good one at that. And what you've shown here really looks fantastic, but then, that's what we have come to expect from you. You and Trenloe both set the gold standard here.

While I would love to help, I'm really still getting myself up to speed on reference manuals and xml. Perhaps I might feel more confident two or three weeks from now. I'm a quick learner, but I really only seriously started yesterday trying to fiddle with xml for that purpose. If there is anything else could help with, I'm there.

Oh yeah. Talk about setting the tone for a game. The characters are all Damned from the outset. Let's go poke our head into that evil mage's tower. What could possibly go wrong?

damned
January 9th, 2017, 04:04
Hahaha - the name is just a bit of fun and far from set in stone. Dungeons of the Damned has a nice ring...

Yes... the reference manual and its legalities...

So - rules are not copy writable and nor are stat blocks. I still find this hard to believe but it is what it is and Im happy to take advantage of it.

So basically this is MoreCore plus an extension that adds a basic theme (work in progress), extra NPC fields, some minor name/stat changes plus a Reference Manual, Beastiary and Rolls.

I have in front of me my Basic and Expert rules (not the BECMI ones), Blueholme, Labyrinth Lord which are BX or close to BX, plus I have some OD&D and BECMI materials (originals and clones)... and a lot of this stuff is not protectable in a rewritten form... I have two options - I can release under OGL and can then copy and paste much of the Monsters and Spells or I can rewrite these and ignore the OGL altogether. I am undecided just yet as to which way to go. So far I have been rewriting all the material in my own words and using only those sections that resonate for me and my experience. As a collaborative effort using the OGL and copy and paste will be easier but it would be nice to ditch the OGL and just rewrite stuff...
Most of the Monsters (so far) all have names that belong in the Public Domain. Spells like Lightning, Fireball, Magic Missile etc are free of copyright. Names like Tensers Floating Disc are protected but Floating Disc or Magic Disc cannot be protected. Items like a potion of healing, ring of protection, flame-tongue sword etc are free of copyright. There is a lot of room to move and simply ignore the OGL but it might be simpler to use it.

Using the OGL means that spells and spells descriptions, monsters and monster descriptions can be used wholesale (from the OGL and not from my current reference books)....

I have purchased some stock art and have sourced some PD token images.

So... hawkwind and Myrdin Potter (and anyone else that might like to jump in - Vodokar you need to concentrate on your release) if you would like to work together on this or even just discuss it further.... damian at sydneyit dot net will find me.

Myrdin Potter
January 9th, 2017, 04:08
I would suggest that you use the OGL. This is what it is for, to avoid legal issues. You can still rewrite or paraphrase, but the OGL is a "get out of jail free card" and considering the revenue and license that is already in existence for FG from the IP owners of the rules, I would avoid an issue. Even if you are right, one letter from a lawyer and it all will have to be pulled and they write letters like that all the time (and they should).

vodokar
January 9th, 2017, 04:18
Ruleset just released a few minutes ago. However, hard at work on trying to learn the skills to do the first adventure modules for it.

Regards, OGL or non-OGL. Why not both. It can't hurt to include the OGL, just to cover your rear. Generally speaking, and I'm far far from being an expert on this, but, if you look at some of the OSR adventure modules, they always include the OGL, even if the contents of their module don't use it hardly at all. It's mainly just to show they did due diligence (and I think WOTC loves getting the free publicity).

I would be very interested on the implications this has on my ruleset. I have thought and still do think that there is a way to legally do a reference manual for it. While it isn't necessary, due to the C&C connection, still it would be nice. Perhaps you will be able to pave that way, much in the same way OSRIC did for the OSR. Before OSRIC, people were terrified to do anything with the old material, because they didn't think it was covered under the OGL. It was that daring point in history that spawned the OSR. Tread carefully, but carry a big stick.

damned
January 9th, 2017, 05:27
I would suggest that you use the OGL. This is what it is for, to avoid legal issues. You can still rewrite or paraphrase, but the OGL is a "get out of jail free card" and considering the revenue and license that is already in existence for FG from the IP owners of the rules, I would avoid an issue. Even if you are right, one letter from a lawyer and it all will have to be pulled and they write letters like that all the time (and they should).

The law on this has been tested several times recently and sided against the copyright holder. Lawyers should only write letters when they actually have a case. The world needs more GMs not more lawyers :)
The OGL is fantastic - but it also imposes restrictions. The OGL is not a get out of jail card. By using the OGL you must comply with it in full and you also give away some of your own rights.
To me the key advantage of the OGL is time saving. The copyright side in this instance Im not worried about - as in Im confident that the law expressly allows you to do this.
It is very possible to create a clone of (any version of) D&D and not infringe on copyright.
Bizarrely simply rewriting flavour text in your own words and not using product identity names (Faerun, Greyhawk, Tenser, Bigby etc) is enough (as tested by several US court cases) to avoid copyright infringement. Patent and Trademark infringement are different things.

Myrdin Potter
January 9th, 2017, 06:30
You are pretty much correct, in the USA at least, and the recent Bang! case and others over time have shown. Rule mechanics are completely not subject to copyright. They could be patented, but that is expensive and rarely done and prior art will be really hard to disprove in many cases. Adventures have plot and story lines and almost certainly can be copyrighted. Art is also without a doubt protected. The actual rules mechanics are not. So if you went through the Basic D&D rule book and stripped out all the flavor text and all the play examples (story telling) and finally anything trademarked, you probably would win in court if you are sued. You don't quite seem to understand American lawyers and the American corporate legal system if you think they only will take action if they should be able to win. I ran a large internal legal team and spent a lot of money on external lawyers and I assure you that is not the case.

Smiteworks bends over backwards to protect copyright. Considering the importance of goodwill and cooperation with Hasbro that exists, any takedown request is likely to be immediately respected and complied with. Since WoTC has actually given a pretty liberal license via the OGL, it would seem to be the most prudent course of action. Even if you are probably right and would win if there was a fight.

damned
January 9th, 2017, 07:32
I too am a fan of protecting peoples IP and I most certainly do not want to create friction for Smiteworks in any case.

Im really ambivalent about this. On one hand the OGL is an answer, on the other this is a version of the second (or third - the time lines on this are significantly overlapping) oldest version of D&D and the OGL varies significantly being that there are 7 full versions of D&D released between this current OGL and the B/X edition. Ultimately utilising the OGL reduces the amount of work and the amount of brain effort because descriptions can be cut and paste in many cases.

Thanks for your continued input and I will dwell on it some more.

The need for lawyers becomes self fulfilling once you let them loose...

hawkwind
January 9th, 2017, 09:11
PM's sent. If you restrict yourself to a generic character sheet and a spells and monsters data base then you can use the hard work of someone else for spell s and monsters, Basic fantasy RPG for example in OGL and open source so you should be able to lift wholesale all the their spell descriptions and monsters (although they have ascending AC- heretics!) no need to give details exp need per level or class or even class abilities so everyone can use it with the original pdf's or with their favourite retro clone and most DM's in my limited experience house rule old school dnd anyway so the lighter the framework the better

Trenloe
January 9th, 2017, 13:17
Don't confuse the license (OGL) with the base content released under the license (the SRD - System Reference Document).

The OGL is a license which allows you to re-use other stuff that has been released under the OGL, and others to use your stuff that you release under the OGL. If you release under the OGL you don't have to use anything from the SRD, you can change/modify/ignore as much or as little of it as you want.

damned
January 9th, 2017, 14:15
Don't confuse the license (OGL) with the base content released under the license (the SRD - System Reference Document).

The OGL is a license which allows you to re-use other stuff that has been released under the OGL, and others to use your stuff that you release under the OGL. If you release under the OGL you don't have to use anything from the SRD, you can change/modify/ignore as much or as little of it as you want.

Yep - I understand that the OGL and SRD are separate entities and I have misused the OGL above.
I see no point in using the OGL if you are not using some of (at least one of) the SRD(s) though... :)
The OGL allows you to use other peoples material that has been released under the OGL and marked as Open Content. Unfortunately very few publishers, hobbyist or commercial entities, clearly delineate what is and is not Open Game Content and Product Identity as clearly as the Wizards do. Which technically places them in breach of the OGL which means they are not entitled to use it etc.

Example: Labyrinth Lord do not note what is and is not OGC and PI.
"Cover illustration and interior illustrations by Steve Zieser􀂡Layout and design by Daniel Proctor􀂡Editing and continuity by Lavanya
Proctor, Ryan Denison, and Daniel Proctor􀂡Copyright 2007-2009 Daniel Proctor􀂡Cover illustration and interior illustrations
Copyright 2009 Steve Zieser, used under license􀂡Labyrinth LordTM, Advanced Labyrinth LordTM, Goblinoid GamesTM, and Mutant
FutureTM are trademarks of Daniel Proctor􀂡This product is released under the terms of the Open Game License Version 1.0a,
Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc."

Trenloe
January 9th, 2017, 14:55
If publishers don't specify what is product identity etc. then it defaults to the OGL definitions in section 1, specifically subsections d) and e).

hawkwind
January 9th, 2017, 15:25
Example: Labyrinth Lord do not note what is and is not OGC and PI.
"Cover illustration and interior illustrations by Steve Zieser��Layout and design by Daniel Proctor��Editing and continuity by Lavanya
Proctor, Ryan Denison, and Daniel Proctor��Copyright 2007-2009 Daniel Proctor��Cover illustration and interior illustrations
Copyright 2009 Steve Zieser, used under license��Labyrinth LordTM, Advanced Labyrinth LordTM, Goblinoid GamesTM, and Mutant
FutureTM are trademarks of Daniel Proctor��This product is released under the terms of the Open Game License Version 1.0a,
Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc."

The retro clone Basic fantasy Rpg lists its entire text as open content

<Designation of Open Game Content: The entire text as well as all maps and floorplans incorporated in BFRPG (except the Open Game License, as noted above, and the Product Identity License, below) is Open Game Content, released under the Open Game License, Version 1.0a (reproduced below) as described in Section 1(d) of the License. Artwork (other than maps and floorplans) incorporated in this document is not Open Game Content, and remains the property of the copyright holder.
Designation of Product Identity: Product identity is not Open Game Content. The following is designated as product identity pursuant to OGL v1.0a(1)(e) and (7): (A) product and product line names, including Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game, Basic Fantasy RPG, and BFRPG, as well as the phrases “make mine Basic,” "Adventure Lurks Within," and "The Old School is now in session"; (B) all artwork, logos, symbols, graphic designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual representations, including the “eye” logo, which is the personal mark of Chris Gonnerman for his various products, and which is Copyright 2002 Chris Gonnerman, and the “Scribbled Dragon,” which is Copyright 2005 Erik Wilson; (C) logos and trademarks, including any trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as product identity by the owner of the product identity, and which specifically excludes the open game content."
i read that as the whole text is usable, Its one of the better written retro clones as well

vodokar
January 10th, 2017, 00:28
I have another option. Didn't think about this until today.

Swords and Wizardry White Box is the perfect place to start. The book not only covers you with regards to the OGL, but allow you to utilize their text, under their own Open Gaming License, providing you follow a few simple requests stated in the license. You may take the entire text word for word, modify the sections that you desire, add new sections, reword whatever you want and then republish it as your own product.

There are many examples of commercial and non-commercial products that have done so. Some were very basic, such as this: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/190631/White-Box--Fantastic-Medieval-Adventure-Game? where the guy simply modified about 4 pages total (basically added his own house rules) and then republished. Both S&W whitebox and this text are free pdf's. You can check out easily what minor changes were made. Other's were very extensive modifications to make completely new games such as: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/196284/OWB001-WWII-Operation-WhiteBox which is a commercial product and http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/148169/White-Star-White-Box-Science-Fiction-Roleplaying-Swords--Wizardry which is another commercial product that is an extensive modification of S&W.

I think this is the perfect solution for you. You can change whatever you want, but have the option of saying, ehh, I'm using the same initiative system as they are, why do I need to reword anything in that section, on to the new stuff I want to add. You also can use or not use the OGL, but it will be there in place by virtue of using S&W white box as your base text.

If anyone ever comes up to you and says, this looks suspiciously like xxxx from company yyyyy, you can pull out your copy of S&W white box and show them, this was my base text, not that other thing. It says here in their license that I could do these things.

Personally, I would like to see what creative things you can come up with. An orc is an orc is an orc. Dare you come up with some new beasties? Now that would be cool.

damned
January 10th, 2017, 00:52
Thanks everyone - lots of good info there.
I do have S&W but havent been using that as a guide/reference as its more OD&D than it is B/X.
Hopefully people will come up and say that this looks a lot like B/X D&D :)
Hopefully it will be marginally better organised and I wont include a few rules that didnt get used a lot in B/X games...

vodokar
January 10th, 2017, 01:11
The fact that S&W White Box is based on OD&D is actually the best reason to use it, because it is a very loose framework just waiting for you to bolt on your extra systems and modifications. You don't need to spend hours of time trying to gut or rework rules for something that isn't there in the first place. Think of White Box as an erector or lego set. You can build whatever you want with it.

Zhern
January 10th, 2017, 01:18
Charlie Mason did an excellent job on the S&W White Box: FMAG. He's going to be releasing some new stuff around it in 2017 too.

I'm seriously considering doing a Lamentations of the Flame Princess ruleset after I finish the S&W ruleset. It could easily be an extension of the AD&D ruleset, vodokar.

Zhern
January 10th, 2017, 01:24
Oh, one other thing, check out Dark Dungeons (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177410/Dark-Dungeons), damned. It is based on the Rules Cyclopedia which is essentially B/X ++. You could easily cut what you don't want out. It is also fully in the public domain per the licensing in the PDF:


Designation of Open Content
Dark Dungeons uses several terms and names that are Copyright 2000-2003 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. These terms are
used under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a, and are designated as Open Content by that license.
Other than those terms and names, all original text in Dark Dungeons is hereby placed in the Public Domain.
All artwork found in Dark Dungeons is taken from, or derivative of artwork taken from, the Public Domain.
Derivative artwork in Dark Dungeons is hereby placed in the Public Domain.

Loko
November 1st, 2019, 16:04
Hey,

I just ran across this thread and noticed there hasn't been any activity in nearly 2 years, so I thought I would stir the cauldron a bit.

I learned to play D&D in the mid 80s using the AD&D Orange spine books and loved it. I love 5e more because of the ease of it, BUT I have been waxing nostalgic recently and would love the idea of possibly playing AD&D Orange again. And with that spark of insanity, as crazy as this may sound, I have even thought about converting the "Orange" books to Fantasy Grounds. An even bigger BUT is that I have no idea where to start or how to perform such a task or the legalities of it all. Again, all it is, is a crazy idea.
There may not even be any interest in an "Orange" game or community, but since this version holds such a dear place in my heart, I may take on the task just for my own enjoyment and memories gone by.

If there is anyone with the same (crazed) thinking as I or has any suggestions or knows of anyone who is already working this, please let me know.

Thanks for your time,
Loko

celestian
November 1st, 2019, 16:12
If there is anyone with the same (crazed) thinking as I or has any suggestions or knows of anyone who is already working this, please let me know.


If I correctly understood your question...

There is an official AD&D ruleset (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?48924-AD-amp-D-2E-Officially-Licensed-Ruleset-and-Content)provided in FG now. There is also AD&D official content (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/store/productbundle.php?bundleid=WOTC2EBUNDLE).

Loko
November 1st, 2019, 17:01
Thank you for your reply Celestian,

I know the ruleset you are talking about, but unless I am mistaken, that is 2E. The edition I am talking about is either 1st edition 9th printing or something like that. All I know is that it is the same cover number as the 1st edition PHB (2010) but the "Orange spine" edition was a different cover.

29813 1st edition PHB
29814 "Orange Spine" PHB (Still 1E)
29815 2E Original

Ok, so I did some research.... (he says with a red face) and it appears that the version I am speaking of (Orange Spine) is an exact copy of the 1978 version only with an updated cover. I apologize for letting my ignorance show in public.

celestian
November 1st, 2019, 17:16
Thank you for your reply Celestian,

I know the ruleset you are talking about, but unless I am mistaken, that is 2E. The edition I am talking about is either 1st edition 9th printing or something like that. All I know is that it is the same cover number as the 1st edition PHB (2010) but the "Orange spine" edition was a different cover.

29813 1st edition PHB
29814 "Orange Spine" PHB (Still 1E)
29815 2E Original

Ok, so I did some research.... (he says with a red face) and it appears that the version I am speaking of (Orange Spine) is an exact copy of the 1978 version only with an updated cover. I apologize for letting my ignorance show in public.

You are correct that the ruleset is built using AD&D 2E. There is also an extension that you can use that will make tweaks to the ruleset so that it's using some of the older 1e style rules such as attack matrix and the ability modifier differences.

For me, and I've been playing AD&D since around 1983, I find little to no difference between the 2 systems... at least not enough to notice when I'm playing. Some creatures are definitely more powerful in 2e but the DM can always use 1e versions of those. For example the FG converted Temple of Elemental Evil adventure uses all of the 1e stats in the adventure for those types of creatures so that the adventure runs as it was intended.

If you're looking for an exact replicate of 1e tho, currently there are no projects like that to my knowledge. As far as I know Vodokar is no longer around so was hoping to offer advice that might get you where you wanted.