PDA

View Full Version : Interest in an official Classic D&D ruleset



lokiare
February 17th, 2017, 15:39
If you would be interested in an official Classic ruleset along the lines of OSRIC, please tell us.

JohnD
February 17th, 2017, 16:54
Yes please.

GunbunnyFuFu
February 17th, 2017, 17:01
I'd certainly be interested!

Jay_NOLA
February 17th, 2017, 18:35
Yes
I'm interested in an OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord one.

vodokar
February 17th, 2017, 18:52
What Lokiare is actually asking is if the AD&D ruleset were renamed as OSRIC and made an official ruleset. OSRIC and AD&D are essentially the same game. But, if they made it official, they would need to change the name of the ruleset to avoid any entanglements with WotC.

I abstain, though you know my feelings already.

JohnD
February 17th, 2017, 19:47
As long as the resulting ruleset can do everything it needs to.

Zhern
February 17th, 2017, 21:53
Yes, please!

vodokar
February 18th, 2017, 00:56
Now that I have a little more time, let me explain a bit what has been going on.

With regards to asking about an OSRIC official ruleset, the point is they are trying to judge interest in classic D&D products (non-TSR mind you, but some of the creative stuff from the OSR).

My feeling regarding making the AD&D ruleset official is that I don't see the need and don't really want to give up the freedom of that having community ruleset status provides with regards to certain things, like not having to change the name and such. I also feel that I can take care of my user base on a quicker and more direct basis as things are right now. However, If making it official and changing the name to something that would keep us lower down on the radar from WotC will allow us to publish some of the OSR modules and such, then I'm not against it either.

At the same time, however, what I had proposed to Smiteworks was to have what I call C&C+ products. They would be OSR (originally from OSRIC, LL, S&W etc) adventure modules that have been officially converted with permission from the module creators for use in the C&C ruleset, but that also provide "Bonus" material or "Bonus" mode of play, so that you will also have the resources available to play that module in any of our rulesets that are based on the original or first edition of the worlds oldest roleplaying game. In other words, one module that can be loaded into several rulesets and has the necessary npc stats and items etc for that game.

For example, if I were to convert Expeditious Retreat Press's https://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/the-pod-caverns-of-the-sinister-shroom/ebook/product-4294509.html to be a C&C module, I would also provide the necessary means to run it in the AD&D ruleset, S&W ruleset, DCC RPG ruleset, Basic Fantasy etc. This extra features and material would be soley the responsiblity of the module converter and ruleset creator to ensure works and not Smiteworks responsiblity. Smiteworks responsibility would be to ensure the official material works in their official ruleset and nothing more. This approach is in the spirit of the OSR movement to allow use of adventure material in whatever variation of rules that you prefer.

Smiteworks is trying to decide to either say, no, just keep things with C&C, or well, let's possibly make the AD&D ruleset as a classic OSRIC official ruleset and leave it at that. What I am trying to do is to open things up to work with various rulesets. They have not bought into that idea yet.

Now is your time to speak up. I know the crowd that enjoys older games is in the minority, but now is the time to stand up and be counted and vocal for what you want.

Additionally, as a provision for consenting to convert some of these works for the module creators, we are obtaining permission to do conversions for Pathfinder and 5e, so if you would like to see some alternatives to some of the 6 month long, expensive hardback, Epic Fantasy adventures coming out of Paizo and WotC for your favorite modern game, you won't be left out, so voice your opinion here also.

leozelig
February 18th, 2017, 01:37
Yes for me too

damned
February 18th, 2017, 02:24
I would buy a classic ruleset or three. I probably wont run that much stuff with any of them because I have only got so many gaming hours and they be full but I would still grab one (or more) if it were available :)

vodokar
February 18th, 2017, 02:41
Again, the issue really isn't about having an official classic ruleset, whether it be C&C, a rebranded AD&D to OSRIC or whatever. That is one possible route, the one that it seems Smiteworks is pressing for, if they allow any change at all, but really doesn't address the potential we have and meet all possible needs.

Let's say we did get an official OSRIC ruleset; that doesn't help someone that prefers Basic Fantasy or something else. They would be locked out of the content.

Up until now, the official position has been 1) only to allow one module to support one ruleset 2) that ruleset had to be an official ruleset 3) the module being converted had to originally be made for that ruleset. 4) because of 1, 2 and 3, no support at all was allowed for community based rulesets.

That is why C&C users are so limited in modules that come their way. That is why there is no possibility for ever seeing an S&W module even though there are agreements in place with Frog God Games for other items. That is why Expeditious Retreat can not get any of their very well recieved classic modules published here, even though they really want to see that happen. Etc.

I have done the work to make all those things possible, but none of that will happen if Smiteworks can not be convinced to allow it.

Zhern
February 18th, 2017, 03:56
I mostly want to see modules that are usable as part of the OSR-style rulesets. I'm less concerned with official ruleset support for OSR but am hopeful that there can be some kind of middle ground established so that your idea, vodokar, to do C&C+ modules, becomes something more. I freely admit that the S&W ruleset would benefit from your idea. I would love to see all the FGG S&W stuff available for Fantasy Grounds but I know there isn't really a market for it but this would at least provide some support for the OSR community within FG.

vodokar
February 18th, 2017, 04:47
Well, that hits to the heart of this thread.

The central questions are: 1) if we spent our time bringing you a classic style adventure module that worked with C&C and various other similar rulesets and Smiteworks allowed them to be published, would anyone have interest in buying them and 2) if we spent our time converting them to Pathfinder and/or 5e, would anyone have an interest in that.

No one expects they will sell the same as WotC or Paizo products. But, would there be a market for them at all. That is what Smiteworks and the community developers are trying to find out.

It's basically a chicken and egg issue. Smiteworks is assuming that there would be no interest in it. If there is, people need to speak up. If there isn't, it certainly doesn't make sense to have any of us spend time making a product no one wants. But, people need to speak up, either way.

Myrdin Potter
February 18th, 2017, 05:15
I always buy content I like. I would buy AD&D modules or OSR modules or Swords and Wizardry modules, etc.

My main problem is time to run them. But I would buy them anyways.

damned
February 18th, 2017, 06:06
I dont buy a lot of content but yes I think that is a solid idea.
A very valid question would be - should these multi-ruleset modules cost more? I think they should - maybe make them 10-15% more and pay that to the converter who is doing extra conversion work and might actually make it worth while...

JohnD
February 18th, 2017, 20:46
Yeah if I could buy GDQ1-7 for example and use it with C&C I'd be all over that.

vodokar
February 18th, 2017, 22:49
But, those are TSR modules and thus, off limits.

There are tons of new material that has been written since then that is also extremely good and isn't off limits. But, it will never see the light of day if people do not speak up. It is said that the OSR has produced more material in the last 10 years than TSR ever published in their entire existence.

benwest00
February 18th, 2017, 23:16
You have my vote!

dr_venture
February 19th, 2017, 02:55
I'd be interested in any Old School products -- more so in rulesets than modules, though. I have a particular 30-year old campaign with players scattered all over that would love an AD&D ruleset, or OSRIC as a close 2nd. The nature of the campaign is that it's filled with homebrew content, and thus modules aren't as important. But C&C isn't close enough for the DM, so we need a ruleset more than anything if FG is to be a part of this campaign.

vodokar
February 19th, 2017, 03:15
Where have you been Dr. Venture? The AD&D ruleset has been out since January. Get it here (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36009-AD-amp-D-Ruleset) . And, I'm working on Basic Fantasy right now. BF is kind of a hybrid middle ground between C&C and AD&D. And Zhern is close to a release of Swords and Wizardry.

damned
February 19th, 2017, 03:31
Doc you need to come out from under that rock more often!

vodokar
February 19th, 2017, 03:38
I agree, we've missed you, Doc. Hey, I just realized. I literally had "just what the Doctor ordered".

knucklehead
February 19th, 2017, 14:00
Finally purchased my Ultimate license after checking out the demo every few years for the last decade or so. :)

If there was an official ruleset, I'd prefer it be in a simpler system than OSRIC/AD&D. S&W, if I'm understanding the "what modules are permitted" guidelines right, would let FGG content in -- which is fairly prolific. LL would be the same, and both have their megadungeons available if you can get publisher permission (FGG seems chomping at the bit then, right, so there's a ton of megadungeons to one shots available to produce)

Or there's LL, which obviously has a ton of free/paid modules, as well as a number of "epic megadungeony" products too, although you'd have to hunt down the authors separately. Stonehell Dungeon (Michael Curtis), Barrowmaze (Gillespie), Dwimmermount (Autarch maybe holds the rights to the module...not sure)

I think one benefit to having a supremely simple, but official ruleset like S&W (or nearly as simple with LL) would be the ability to have an official ruleset that content creators/converters could work on at a much faster pace. Both of those rulesets have a number of "official" or "officially compatible" products so there would be an opportunity to generate revenue, and the rulesets themselves would be simple enough that adding any unofficial/impossible-to-support content would be a snap for crotchety grognards not wanting too much complexity, as well as newcomers who can learn the content ropes without the complexity of the other official systems.

Hell, a S&W or LL official set could be set at a lower-than-traditional price for a ruleset as a kind of stepping stone from CoreRPG -- a light framework with some automation and full system support which would still be basic enough to produce shorter video tutorials, a better learning curve, and maybe even ramp up the amount of content creators.

You could even have a suggested progression of like CoreRPG, get your 5E player pack on, play some games, and while you're at it, here's a simpler system to get you started building (while introducing people to the OSR, and just generally that other RPG systems exist)

Having that 'official, very lite' system in place could reduce attrition, too. It's cool if they bought the UL like I did, but it would really suck if everything in the ecosystem is highly complex and requires quite a bit of time and effort to build on for those not deeply familiar with the tools. Maybe one of the 0E or B/X systems like those mentioned would help people move more quickly from the "I love playing this with 5E but can't get over the hump with DM'ing 5E or creating my own stuff" or keep them entertained til they're comfortable with the toolchains needed to really make something solid.

Super-rambly, sorry. It's late/early.

vodokar
February 19th, 2017, 23:50
Zhern is currently working on S&W and is getting pretty close to release. He currently doesn't have any plans to make it an official ruleset, however.

With regards to modules, all of the OSR modules, whether originally created for 0e-like games, Bx-like games or 1e-like games or even modernish take's on old-school play, such as DCC RPG or C&C are all laid out with very similar stat-blocks and are extremely easy to port to any of the OSR game systems by design. It is technically feasible to support many of the game systems very easily and simultaneously with the same module.

But, what is technically feasible doesn't matter. What matters is what people will buy. Because SmiteWorks believes that no one will buy OSR modules, they won't publish them. There is very little support even for C&C. Nothing is going to change that unless there are people actually willing to let them know that products like these would be desired and purchased.

There are plenty of people out there that play OSR games. The problem is, few of them use Fantasy Grounds to do it. I've tried everything I know how to let those people know they are welcome here and there is something here for them, but, unless the population of OSR playing people increases, there is very little chance of getting any of the published material.

The community developers can build the rulesets. We enjoy building them. People do play them. But, not enough to be able to call it a market worthy of getting any adventure or manual support, from SmiteWorks standpoint. Don't assume that even if one of those rulesets were given official status that that automatically means they will receive a lot of module conversions. If the first one or two were published and didn't sell, there wouldn't be any more. So, official status doesn't really mean much.

dr_venture
February 20th, 2017, 01:30
Where have you been Dr. Venture? The AD&D ruleset has been out since January.

Ummm... not here? I'll absolutely check it out, thanks!

dr_venture
February 20th, 2017, 01:54
Doc you need to come out from under that rock more often!

I wish... I so wanted to be in on getting AD&D rolled out on FG (I was hoping that SW's relationship with WotC might lead to an official product, with all the books, etc.), but life has other plans for me these days. Someday. Thanks for the kind thoughts, guys :)

Trenloe
February 20th, 2017, 23:01
Don't assume that even if one of those rulesets were given official status that that automatically means they will receive a lot of module conversions. If the first one or two were published and didn't sell, there wouldn't be any more. So, official status doesn't really mean much.
95%+ of the products published by Smiteworks are not developed by SmiteWorks. They rely on community developers to convert the product/module/whatever into Fantasy Grounds. You made a comment "There is very little support even for C&C." - this is because community developers aren't creating content for it, not because of some SmiteWorks decision - I don't think SmiteWorks themselves have ever produced module content for C&C, it's always been developers outside of SmiteWorks who do the work, and they usually decide themselves which products they convert.

You seem to have the opinion that it's SmiteWorks lack of interest that there aren't products for OSR gaming. From my experience it is not that at all - there are two things that are needed for any product to be Published by Smiteworks: an agreement with the copyright holder and (and this is a big AND) there needs to be community developers ready, willing and able to convert products to Fantasy Grounds.

Zhern
February 20th, 2017, 23:19
My take on what Trenloe just said is Rappan Athuk for S&W needs to happen!

vodokar
February 20th, 2017, 23:51
You seem to have the opinion that it's SmiteWorks lack of interest that there aren't products for OSR gaming. From my experience it is not that at all - there are two things that are needed for any product to be Published by Smiteworks: an agreement with the copyright holder and (and this is a big AND) there needs to be community developers ready, willing and able to convert products to Fantasy Grounds.

With all due respect, and you know how much I respect you, Trenloe, it isn't my opinion. I made a submission of an OSR module conversion for C&C and was told by Smiteworks they wouldn't publish it. I pushed back, and they said they would talk over the policy internally, but no decision has been made as of yet. This thread specifically resulted from that.

In this case, I am much more familiar with the facts of the matter than you are. That's a rarity, but true in this case. This thread, clearly, was meant to gage the potential of such products in this marketplace to aid their decision.

I am very much wanting to work on such projects. I was offered by Joseph Browning, the entire line of Expeditious Retreat modules to work on, with permission to do conversions for C&C, and even 5e and Pathfinder. There is a lot at stake right now with this thread.

With regards to C&C products from Troll Lord Games, point me in the right direction, I am willing to work on them. I have no idea what anyone else might be working on or not working on.

Trenloe
February 21st, 2017, 00:11
With regards to C&C products from Troll Lord Games, point me in the right direction, I am willing to work on them. I have no idea what anyone else might be working on or not working on.
Reach out to the usual suspects at SmiteWorks. If they give you the go ahead I'm sure they'll give you an idea of what people are working on (that they are aware of), and you could also post in the C&C forums to see if anyone will update you on anything they may be working on - I know Talyn, Varssuk and Mortar have mentioned at various points that they might be doing some C&C conversion work.

Zhern
February 21st, 2017, 02:43
I'm probably behind the curve here (not unusual), but maybe we should throw a chat room up on the Discord server so that this kind of stuff can be talked about in semi-real time?

incandescant
February 21st, 2017, 15:31
I'd be very much interested in an official classic/osr ruleset and some modules to go with it. I'm hoping to run an OSR hex crawl via FG in the near future.

LordEntrails
February 22nd, 2017, 17:21
I loved AD&D, but wouldn't buy a ruleset. Now, old school conversions to 5E, that's something I'm all for and would (within limits) spend money on.

Full Bleed
February 22nd, 2017, 19:10
I know you're trying to make a point... and galvanize some support... for something... but I have to be honest... I don't feel like I'm getting the full picture here.

If Smiteworks rejected something, I'm feeling like there are reasons that are not being fully articulated in this thread.

Zhern
February 22nd, 2017, 22:50
I loved AD&D, but wouldn't buy a ruleset. Now, old school conversions to 5E, that's something I'm all for and would (within limits) spend money on.

The biggest barrier to that starts with a W and ends with a C and has an ot in the middle, I believe (I could be wrong). I too would be interested in the conversions, in fact, I do quite a few myself (as my signature notes, I'm currently running Caverns of Thracia mixed with The Lost City for my 5e group).

leozelig
February 22nd, 2017, 23:07
I know you're trying to make a point... and galvanize some support... for something... but I have to be honest... I don't feel like I'm getting the full picture here.

If Smiteworks rejected something, I'm feeling like there are reasons that are not being fully articulated in this thread.

+1

I am not following at all :)

vodokar
February 23rd, 2017, 00:32
It is this simple. i submitted a module that was originally formatted for OSRIC that I converted for use with C&C. After over 3 weeks without having my submission being acknowledged, I finally was able to drag an answer out of someone. I was told that they would not accept it because OSRIC was not an officially supported ruleset.

When I made my submission, I made it very clear that it was formatted for C&C. I pointed that out to them once again and was told to stay in a holding pattern until they decided if they wanted to publish it or not. Apparently they have never had someone convert stat blocks for a different game before and they don't have a policy on it. Likewise, they don't have a policy regarding if the module can be read and utilized in more than one ruleset.

That very same day, this thread was posted. I've made it very clear that I had no plans to make my ruleset official or to change the name in order to do so; and I certainly have no plans to make someone pay for using the ruleset that I am currently not charging people to use. The fact that they even think that an OSRIC ruleset would be necessary to run the module I gave them just shows the lack of knowledge about OSR games.

Firstly, just in case anyone doesn't know, the difference between an OSRIC or AD&D stat block and a C&C stat block is basically only two lines different: a different value for exp points awarded and the AC is reversed (Ascending vs. Descending). Yet, simply because the origin of the module was not from Troll Lord Games and not originally formatted for C&C, that is apparently enough to not publish it.

At any rate, I have made a decision. If Smiteworks doesn't want to publish OSR modules for Fantasy Grounds in the Fantasy Grounds Store, I will simply go around them and partner with the module creator to sell them on RPG Now or some other outlet.

damned
February 23rd, 2017, 05:24
Hey vodokar there is more to it than that - there is also a whole set of practicalities/realities in accepting contributions of other products to the store and their limited man power to proof them all and then support them all if the underlying systems change and the converter is no longer able or willing to keep the product updated etc. You can publish on RPGNow - I believe that SmiteWorks will still get a smaller percentage of the sale but will also not have to verify/update etc the product.

I too have found the thread confusing to follow at times but I think what its intent is:

You want to make modules (typically old school modules) and include stat blocks for CnC (supported system) and also ADnD (community), SW (community - yet to be completed) and maybe DBD (yet to be completed). You (and Smiteworks) want to know if there is a market for this big enough for SW to spend their resources (time) on.

vodokar
February 23rd, 2017, 06:19
Hey vodokar there is more to it than that - there is also a whole set of practicalities/realities in accepting contributions of other products to the store and their limited man power to proof them all and then support them all if the underlying systems change and the converter is no longer able or willing to keep the product updated etc. You can publish on RPGNow - I believe that SmiteWorks will still get a smaller percentage of the sale but will also not have to verify/update etc the product.

I too have found the thread confusing to follow at times but I think what its intent is:

You want to make modules (typically old school modules) and include stat blocks for CnC (supported system) and also ADnD (community), SW (community - yet to be completed) and maybe DBD (yet to be completed). You (and Smiteworks) want to know if there is a market for this big enough for SW to spend their resources (time) on.

Thanks, Damned. Yes, I am aware that there are investments in Smiteworks time for proofing, and also aware that there is the issue of support of the product. This is something that I have discussed with Smiteworks.

You are correct that I ultimately want to do modules that support all the various old school rulesets, as well as, potentially doing conversions of the modules for 5e, at the very least.

In this case, for my first submission, however, it was definitely a C&C product, albeit that since it can inherently be read and used in my ruleset that layers over C&C, it can also be truthfully stated that it inherently supports that ruleset as well. I made the submission before I had even thought of making the tools to support the other rulesets and so on.

At any rate, to be clear, I am not upset at Smiteworks or anyone there. I have specifically avoided using names of anyone concerned. They have their own business to run and choices to make as they see fit for that business. I don't blame them, other than simply that I don't think they really understand the old-school rulesets or the OSR scene.

It's a little frustrating, because you know how hard I have worked on the project and you, personally, have seen the work I submitted to them.

Nonetheless, as it stands now, I'll publish it in the store if they want it. Otherwise, I'll work out something else. I'm not going to pass up the offers I have had to put out the material I have been requested to work on simply because Smiteworks doesn't understand the product or feels it just isn't worth their time etc.

You are pretty much spot on with your summation. We want to know if there is a market for it.

But, my definition of a market most likely is different than Smiteworks definition. They have a business to run and salaries and expenses to meet. I just do this in my spare time, because I enjoy doing it. It isn't how I feed my family. I'm just looking to get things into the hands of people that want them and make some money on the side doing it, mostly to defray the cost of my hobby, and it would be nice to be able to answer my wife when she says "why do you spend so much time in front of the computer, are you earning money at it? with "Why, yes, yes, I am." So, my threshold is likely much lower than what Smiteworks has. That's not to say that I'm going to slave away at my computer making things that no one buys, but, i'm convinced that there are enough people that want this stuff; at the very least, 5e conversions of them would likely have some people interested, to make it worth my time, even if it isn't worth it to Smiteworks.

knucklehead
February 23rd, 2017, 14:17
I'm not going to pass up the offers I have had to put out the material I have been requested to work on simply because Smiteworks doesn't understand the product or feels it just isn't worth their time etc.

This is the second time you've dropped in a limited set of kinda awful choices about the development team with no alternate, more benign choices to pick from.

Is it really possible to even consider that Smiteworks doesn't understand the difference between C&C and the various *D&D systems? I mean, given the context of them developing one of the seminal VTT programs and having a history of developing rule sets for many of them in the past.

It's hard to take the choices seriously when presented with only one "obviously correct" answer and that answer includes a ton of assumptions about what other people who aren't yourself are thinking.

Plus I think the meta discussion about the genesis of the thread is off topic, don't you?

This seems more like a poll to gauge interest, to which I'd like my answer of "Yeah, I'd like official Basic/OD&D support, but OSRIC is okay too" to not get lost in a bunch of noise.

vodokar
February 23rd, 2017, 17:13
This is the second time you've dropped in a limited set of kinda awful choices about the development team with no alternate, more benign choices to pick from.

Is it really possible to even consider that Smiteworks doesn't understand the difference between C&C and the various *D&D systems? I mean, given the context of them developing one of the seminal VTT programs and having a history of developing rule sets for many of them in the past.



Smiteworks did not develop the ruleset for C&C. That was built by a community developer. I'm pretty sure that was and is Dr. Venture's labor of love.

Nor did they develop any ruleset prior to 3rd edition.

Smiteworks only created 3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, 5e and CoreRPG. None of the other official or unofficial rulesets were built by them. They were built by community developers.

My presumption of knowledge level of the older games is based on my direct discussions with them and the responses that I got. You can tell when someone doesn't really understand a topic based on how they answer your questions. Yes, they know something of D&D/AD&D. But, they don't know anything about any of the OSR games based upon them or the differences between them.

I get that you want your opinion about an official classic ruleset to be heard, Knucklehead. The thing is though. It isn't going to matter. Who is going to build it? Not Smiteworks.

I have already stated that I don't plan to make mine official. It was not my idea. Smiteworks thinks that is what I wanted, but it really wasn't. If you have arguments for why I should reconsider that, then you are welcome to explain.

At any rate, I had intended to just leave stand what I had said already and not further comment, unless anyone had questions directly about it.

One thing though. I really don't understand what you mean by "a limited set of kinda awful choices".

I simply want to publish my modules. Either they will publish them here or I will find another outlet for them. What is the awful choice?

knucklehead
February 23rd, 2017, 19:20
One thing though. I really don't understand what you mean by "a limited set of kinda awful choices".

I'm sorry I couldn't explain that more clearly.

damned
February 24th, 2017, 00:14
I believe knucklehead is referring to this line:

Smiteworks doesn't understand the product or feels it just isn't worth their time etc
and suggesting that you have decided its one or the other reason and nothing else... but not to worry - its not the main point.

I believe that if you made an official ruleset that was sold in the store - so it couldnt be AD&D 1st Edition or any other Wizards/TSR variant - then you would be more likely to be able to sell modules for it in the store.
Of course - with teh ruleset comes the commitment to maintaining it.

As for Castles&Crusades I dont know who the originla dev was but Sorceror was the primary dev when I joined FG and Dr_Venture was ably assisting. Then Moon Wizard ported it to CoreRPG and he took it over for a while. Phantomwhale was involved for a little bit but its primarily been Moon Wizard since CoreRPG.

vodokar
February 24th, 2017, 01:01
The "etc" implied there might be many other reasons. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what their reason. They have the right to choose the content they want to sell in their store. I respect that.

An official ruleset might lead to more sales of modules specifically designed for it, true, but, it comes at the expense of many compromises that I don't really want to make.

I already have the personal commitment to maintaining the ruleset. An official status just means that if I had a heart attack next year, someone would pick up the torch; whereas, being in an unofficial status, there is no commitment that would happen.

At any rate, all of this is mere speculation. I wasn't actually offered that it would be made official; just that they were considering it as one way forward and would get back to me. My point was, they didn't really even ask me if that's what I wanted to happen or if that would address what I was trying to accomplish. I was simply told.

I actually haven't made any decision on this. I'm just waiting right now and considering my options.

JohnD
February 24th, 2017, 01:07
Somehow most of what this thread has evolved into strikes me as something that shouldn't be a public conversation, optimally.

vodokar
February 24th, 2017, 01:48
Ideally, perhaps, but early in the thread, I was trying to get the point across without giving much detail. People were not understanding the situation.

Nothing I have said here had any intent to disparage anyone. No names have been mentioned. As stated, there are reasons behind every decision made in a business and I respect that. I am simply trying to find a way of accomplishing the things I want to get accomplished and support the people I want to try to support.

leozelig
February 24th, 2017, 12:10
Well, I think someone should build a ruleset layered on CoreRPG that can be used interchangeably with Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, B/X, and the usual OSR rulesets. They are very similar (why do I feel like I will regret saying that?), and if you could distribute it as a generic OSR ruleset, then great. You would have to sacrifice some functionality/automation - heresy, I know, but if it handled 80% of the work for multiple game systems, then I would call that a useful asset for the community.

damned has done some great work with MoreCore, and I am thinking along those lines with more of a focus on the OSR systems. Most of the community developers work as a labor of love, but this discussion seems very business-oriented, which makes me a little sad.

Varsuuk
February 24th, 2017, 19:56
I prefer AD&D 1e and even earlier 2e before it had a handbook for everything and game mechanics for them ;) to even the glitzy 5e. Don't dislike 5e, but now playing it, I feel it is still too video-gamey and some things just break too much with my expectations of play (example, casters and how (non cleric/druid) healing works and the loss of saving throws and other class differentiations (balancing for party vs class)

That said, I don't know that many are as aware of this among the newer players of D&D since this sea change occurred by 3e (&a very late 2e) so it's questionable how many can say: hey, I miss old way... even if we assume everyone who compares will prefer old way. I do, but I won't presume, everyone has their thing.

I am currently making a 1e module from TSR run under C&C then was gonna try to use it for AD&D ruleset as first test. Unfortunately, I will rarely have time, to do "good conversions" because I am most nterested in early gaming era modules I am familiar with (my preference, and not a totally defensible one) so, an official OSR will still have me only part converting (encounters etc) and reading the pdf or physical module aloud. Since I won't do the full data entry I did for Reptile God for these things.

And we know WotC will not want to allow anyone to sell TSR modules even if they got paid for each one sold. I'd LOVE TO BUY Homlett and Against Giants, ToE etc vs half-assed conversions I will have to do.

So, I guess an official ruleset IF it was as supported as a first class ruleset would be great because it would allow those that know amazing OSR world modules have them make their way to FG.

I for one would live to try playing Archmage or Whiterock etc or even stuff from S&W but I'll never take the time to do these huge things. judging from past with 5e and my onl 80s gaming - I'll buy waaaaaaaaay more than .I'd even have time to run because I enjoy looking through them an puttering with customizations even if never run em. Right ow, SW nor WotC get any of that money since I still own all my physical copies and only WotC module i ever bought pdf is T1-4. I've bought hundreds of bucks of C&C and big bunch for S&W (to use for pen and paper AD&D play)

Yeah so, not sure how many are even close to like me, but I'd spend money on any real good classics of old time play (especially lvl 1-5 and some 5-7,8. in reality, none of our campaigns had chars reaching past a 9 here or their. It was the path not the destination and too much low level goodness to inflate so and outlevel them.

I should go back and edit this to make sense and be on topic better but at work and not gonna take the time :(. in short, if we could get CONTENT (even if not sniff TSR) for an OSR official ruleset produced regularly, I'd lose money on it...errr...be all for it.

Varsuuk
February 24th, 2017, 19:57
oops I posted from like first page. Didn't see all the rest, going back to read it although prob won't punish you guys more with all that eye burning spam. once hit submit and saw it all up and went woooooow, that was too much :p from me.

Varsuuk
February 24th, 2017, 20:13
I always buy content I like. I would buy AD&D modules or OSR modules or Swords and Wizardry modules, etc.

My main problem is time to run them. But I would buy them anyways.

OMG ... you said so well what I rambled on about lol. Yeah, give me the ability in theory to run it on FG and I'll buy stuff I already own in tree/pdf formats.

Hell, if every AdvLeague in was converted to FG I would have bought all seasons even though I am certain I'd never run but a spattering of it. Yup, I have issues.

celestian
February 24th, 2017, 20:17
If you had asked me a month or so ago I would have said SURE. Now? Well I'm making my own AD&D "Core" ruleset based on the 5e build.

I'm just to obsessive I guess to not be able to make changes, add things and update things I want. I went through this with Maptools and built a Framework for AD&D. It took me a good year or two to get it in full feature state.... With FG, being able to take the 5e build and hack it to resemble AD&D is much easier... not to mention having a REAL programming language (if you've written macros in Maptools and hit the if/loop issue you know what level of frustration that can be) under the hood (lua).

Anyway, I'd support the creation but I'm going to keep building/using my own.

vodokar
February 24th, 2017, 20:22
Nah, your opinion is valued. Varsuuk.

The market is small for old style stuff, that is the reality. And, obviously the official TSR stuff is totally off limits. But, speaking for myself, and I know Zhern has expressed the same, we do plan on doing some non-TSR old school modules nonetheless, because not everything we do has to be about trying to earn the maximum amount of money; sometimes just being able to work on projects you really want to makes it worth it.

How we put that material out is still being worked on. It likely won't be thru the FG store. It's still possible SW might surprise me, but not counting on it. Likely it will be thru DriveThru RPG via the module owners account (i.e. Expeditious Retreat, Frog God Games, Maximum Mayhem Dungeons etc.), because I know they are interested in supporting their own work being put out there. But, those things still need to be negotiated.

Also considering taking some of that material and doing 5e conversions for them; akin to what WoTC is doing with their upcoming "Tales from the Yawning Portal". That version may find less resistance from SW and find it's way into the FG store. We'll see.

vodokar
February 24th, 2017, 20:25
If you had asked me a month or so ago I would have said SURE. Now? Well I'm making my own AD&D "Core" ruleset based on the 5e build.

I'm just to obsessive I guess to not be able to make changes, add things and update things I want. I went through this with Maptools and built a Framework for AD&D. It took me a good year or two to get it in full feature state.... With FG, being able to take the 5e build and hack it to resemble AD&D is much easier... not to mention having a REAL programming language (if you've written macros in Maptools and hit the if/loop issue you know what level of frustration that can be) under the hood (lua).

Anyway, I'd support the creation but I'm going to keep building/using my own.

Build your own if you want to. If your having fun at it, then that's great. But, I wonder if you have seen the AD&D ruleset I have put out already. It surely does most, if not all, of what you need it to do already. At the very least, it would be a better start than trying to use 5e as a framework. If there is something you don't like the way I designed it, you can always just build an extension over it to move things around or add what you want or discuss it with me and see if its something I can add into the base design.

celestian
February 24th, 2017, 20:31
Build your own if you want to. If your having fun at it, then that's great. But, I wonder if you have seen the AD&D ruleset I have put out already. It surely does most, if not all, of what you need it to do already.

I have, it's nice. But I also played with the 5e ruleset and found it to be far more feature rich than any other. Not knocking your work at all btw, different goals and all that. It certainly will take a bit of fiddling to get it AD&D but I've had great luck so far and it's almost in a usable state. Hoping to have it ready in a month or so at least for my group so I can migrate from Maptools.

I do enjoy working on this sorta thing as it gives me something to do when we're not playing instead of making mapsm which I don't like! :cry:

vodokar
February 24th, 2017, 20:35
No doubt that 5e is more feature rich. I didn't use it as the framework though, because I am a new programmer and frankly don't understand some of the more advanced code in 5e. As my knowledge grows, I'll likely be able to leverage some of the knowledge to be found in the 5e ruleset and increase the feature set of the AD&D ruleset.

Krimson
February 24th, 2017, 21:40
I am definitely interested.

Krimson
February 25th, 2017, 01:34
If you had asked me a month or so ago I would have said SURE. Now? Well I'm making my own AD&D "Core" ruleset based on the 5e build.

I'm interested in seeing this as well. I bought Castles and Crusades so I could try Vodokar's version of AD&D. It requires some fiddling around with but it's certainly usable.

lokiare
February 27th, 2017, 05:56
Mostly right now, the reason we aren't responding on this, is that we are really really busy getting Paizo Pathfinder products ready for release. Be patient and we'll get a response to you.

Varsuuk
February 27th, 2017, 06:21
I care zero for PFRPG ... except as an income/revenue source to make SW/FG biggerer! So you can push the fat gorilla to allow official FG versions of official TSR modules! (In a dream of Utopia I will wake from)

leozelig
February 27th, 2017, 11:43
I have, it's nice. But I also played with the 5e ruleset and found it to be far more feature rich than any other. Not knocking your work at all btw, different goals and all that. It certainly will take a bit of fiddling to get it AD&D but I've had great luck so far and it's almost in a usable state. Hoping to have it ready in a month or so at least for my group so I can migrate from Maptools.

Please share it on the forums when it's finished - it would be great to have an option that is layered on a free ruleset.

celestian
February 27th, 2017, 16:11
Please share it on the forums when it's finished - it would be great to have an option that is layered on a free ruleset.

That's the plan. Tho keep in mind when I said "usable" in a month I meant warty and all for my group to test out. I don't expect to have a non-alpha version of it for a while.

I did get side tracked writing a parser to import the html files from the CoreRules CD spells and another one for creatures in html (from on online source). On the upside I've got 700ish spells and 3kish monsters now.

I've got the project on github if you want to follow but it's not something to use unless you want something in very early stages.

Varsuuk
February 27th, 2017, 17:25
hmmm, I own those CDs ... I remember being so geeking excited when they came out ... even though my PC was too heavy to lug out to where we played downstairs lol

I'd love to run that script against my files :)

Asterionaisien
February 27th, 2017, 19:16
I care zero for PFRPG ... except as an income/revenue source to make SW/FG biggerer! So you can push the fat gorilla to allow official FG versions of official TSR modules! (In a dream of Utopia I will wake from)

Yeah...in my utopian dream FG has a official AD&D 2 edition official ruleset with all the "complete Stuff Handbook", the major setting books and many adventures..oh well, 5ed is nice enough and C&C is really nice too! I do not know much about AD&D (1) but the ruleset seems really well done :)

Jay_NOLA
February 27th, 2017, 19:55
I'm interested in following your project on github.I have the 2.0 Core Rules and expansion plus all the patches and addons that got released for them. I'm almost sure I know the website you got the monster data from.

Core Rules also had a punch of fan additions too. I'm looking forward to seeing your work.

vodokar
February 28th, 2017, 01:10
I have, it's nice. But I also played with the 5e ruleset and found it to be far more feature rich than any other. Not knocking your work at all btw, different goals and all that. It certainly will take a bit of fiddling to get it AD&D but I've had great luck so far and it's almost in a usable state. Hoping to have it ready in a month or so at least for my group so I can migrate from Maptools.

I do enjoy working on this sorta thing as it gives me something to do when we're not playing instead of making mapsm which I don't like! :cry:

I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what features that you have been able to use from 5e that aren't present in my current ruleset or C&C ruleset. I would like to investigate if there is something I could learn and implement.

Usually when people think of 5e, they think of the drag and drop leveling and such advanced features like that, but they don't realize that those features only work because of the official manuals licensed from WotC and aren't able to implement in any other ruleset.

On the other hand, I am aware of things such as effects and damage types which 5e has implemented and C&C does not include. Those are likely things I could add and certainly am thinking of learning more about when I can. The ruleset is still a work in progress and certainly doesn't represent it's intended final state.

Incidentally, the reason I chose C&C to build upon, rather than 3.5, was so that I could leverage the C&C manuals and existing adventure module line for the users of my ruleset. I programmed the ruleset to be able to read those resources but parse the stat blocks to interpret them in a manner that was applicable to AD&D. So far, that has worked out quite well. I can't take credit for that idea, though. It was Damned's idea.

Krimson
February 28th, 2017, 02:02
Incidentally, the reason I chose C&C to build upon, rather than 3.5, was so that I could leverage the C&C manuals and existing adventure module line for the users of my ruleset. I programmed the ruleset to be able to read those resources but parse the stat blocks to interpret them in a manner that was applicable to AD&D. So far, that has worked out quite well. I can't take credit for that idea, though. It was Damned's idea.

That is why I went and bought C&C specifically so I could use your ruleset. However I own 5e and most of the books with the exception of Storm King's Thunder and Volos, so if I was able to use some of that material in a 1e game I'd certainly do so.

vodokar
February 28th, 2017, 02:34
It would be possible to make the adventure modules viewable in the ruleset simply by including 5E in the acceptfrom tag, however, that would not make any npc's or encounters usable. Trying to open a 5e npc record would throw an error.

However, if being able to otherwise read your module inside of the ruleset would be useful, and providing that It wouldn't somehow violate some inviolate rule here, that is possible.

You would have to rebuild the encounters with more appropriate npc's from C&C, AD&D or any other compatible OSR rules system, which likely you would want to do anyway. Once I can get the C.O.O.L. Beasts (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36458-C-O-O-L-Beasts) project fully launched, there will be a large influx of new creatures available in a bestiary, so ultimately, that's not going to be an issue.

It should be noted however: Changing the acceptfrom tag would make any 5e asset viewable in your module list including things that you might not want to have viewable. It is an all or nothing thing. Since all of the official stuff is encrypted, you can't do it at the module side of things. It could only be done from the ruleset side, which means everything 5e you have would show up in the list. There also wouldn't be any way to distinguish it from any C&C or AD&D modules you might have.

Beware what you wish for.

celestian
February 28th, 2017, 02:44
I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what features that you have been able to use from 5e that aren't present in my current ruleset or C&C ruleset. I would like to investigate if there is something I could learn and implement.


I had tried about 3 different AD&D rulesets and thought your's was one of those. Turns out I didn't try out your ruleset. I did TRY to try it but I don't own C&C (not gonna buy it) so didn't look.

That said I'll tell you what I like about the 5e as a base for me.

All the drag and drop and auto-population.

spells
skills
races
classes
backgrounds (I'm gonna use this for kits)


Also, the Combat tracker seemed to have more features (toggle'able views) than the others I looked at. The party sheet also had more tools.

I can't recall if the others had the multi-target/saves (that accounted for half-damage/etc) but that's something I also like.



Incidentally, the reason I chose C&C to build upon, rather than 3.5, was so that I could leverage the C&C manuals and existing adventure module line for the users of my ruleset.


Honestly, I'm updating this for myself. I'll certainly make it available to the community if anyone else would choose to use it. My goal wasn't to make use of existing modules but if someone can, that's great. I'm not sure how it'll work out for folks using 5e modules for AD&D tho... I might be willing to tweak somethings to make it work better tho. I just chose the 5e as a base as it seemed to have the most current code? Larger feature set. First priority for me tho is to get it working for AD&D (1e/2e).

Come FGU, things should get even better. It's the main reason I've boarded the FG ship. I found tabletop connect and it routed me to here. That stuff looked spot on for what I was looking for.

I'd be love to look over the ruleset if there is a tutorial for it?

Zhern
February 28th, 2017, 02:47
Kits? So you are doing a 2e ruleset? Kits didn't exist in 1e.

celestian
February 28th, 2017, 02:59
Kits? So you are doing a 2e ruleset? Kits didn't exist in 1e.

Nope, secondary professions and skills do tho. Which are similar in use as far as the ruleset is concerned.

To be clear mine isn't only 1e or only 2e ruleset, it's for both. I don't personally use kits in my games but with the background options already in the ruleset I started with it's not going to be that difficult to add them.

I certainly wont be using a attack matrix like 1e, THACO all the way. The way I've setup things for attacks is to flip thaco to a base attack bonus (20-thaco) so I don't have to change any of the backend ruleset code to deal with attacks. I then flip the AC (if it's below 10, 20-AC) and show the AC hit and the game uses ascending AC and players see descending and never know the difference. It should be able to deal with ascending and descending AC's actually (NPCs) if someone uses 5e monsters now that I think about it ... so bonus.

I hate to keep derailing this thread, sorry!

vodokar
February 28th, 2017, 03:19
Keep in mind that you can't share publicly anything from the manuals or any other official source, such as the cd you were talking about. Given that, it is dubious if those extra features would even be useful.

My ruleset does support spell drag and drop, and item drag and drop. It doesn't support race or class drag and drop, but, it simply isn't necessary. Simply entering class name and level number and race name causes all of the numbers in the character sheet to auto-populate. There are no skills or Backgrounds (Kits) in 1E.

Secondly, if people are thinking that simply because it is built on 5e that that means they are going to be able to open and fully utilize 5e modules with all the encounters and npcs, that is likely not going to be the case, as there are so many differences between the two games that it probably isn't likely that you'll be able to maintain backwards compatibility with the 5e material. I was able to do so with the C&C material because they are both based off variations of the same game and stat blocks are very close already.

It sounds like you are mostly, if not exclusively, a 2nd edition player. Why not just dedicate the ruleset to AD&D 2nd Edition so that people won't get confused between that ruleset and mine. I can tell you, since the very moment that I announced I was making my ruleset, I have been asked by numerous people if it supported 2E. I would be very glad if you are building that, because I know nothing about 2E. I am of the wrong generation to do that ruleset. I played AD&D from 1977 to about 1990 and so the only AD&D to me is the one Gygax designed.

At the same time, as I have almost 500 hours into building my current ruleset, i would be lying if I told you that I am happy that you are trying to replace it after I just released mine two months ago. After years of no one stepping up and giving us one, why did I just kill myself doing it, if now all of a sudden, someone else wants to try and make my work obsolete, without even looking at it to see what was accomplished already. 1E and 2E, while related, are not the same game. Trying to build both into the same ruleset would be possible, but problematic, and simply not necessary, since 1e already exists.

I can't convince you to purchase C&C to find out, but, myself or anyone else that is using the ruleset could give you a demo of it.

Krimson
February 28th, 2017, 04:33
It would be possible to make the adventure modules viewable in the ruleset simply by including 5E in the acceptfrom tag, however, that would not make any npc's or encounters usable. Trying to open a 5e npc record would throw an error.

However, if being able to otherwise read your module inside of the ruleset would be useful, and providing that It wouldn't somehow violate some inviolate rule here, that is possible.

You would have to rebuild the encounters with more appropriate npc's from C&C, AD&D or any other compatible OSR rules system, which likely you would want to do anyway. Once I can get the C.O.O.L. Beasts (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?36458-C-O-O-L-Beasts) project fully launched, there will be a large influx of new creatures available in a bestiary, so ultimately, that's not going to be an issue.

It should be noted however: Changing the acceptfrom tag would make any 5e asset viewable in your module list including things that you might not want to have viewable. It is an all or nothing thing. Since all of the official stuff is encrypted, you can't do it at the module side of things. It could only be done from the ruleset side, which means everything 5e you have would show up in the list. There also wouldn't be any way to distinguish it from any C&C or AD&D modules you might have.

Beware what you wish for.

I don't really think encounter building would be a problem. Ever. :D I've been doing that for decades, but really if I ran Phandelver, most of the monsters have C&C counterparts. Worse comes to worse, I pull a Monster Manual off the shelf and plug in the numbers and use their XP values. Being able to use the fluff from 5e modules I already own would be something amazing.

vodokar
February 28th, 2017, 05:19
It is an extremely easy update to make. I want to give time for anyone to comment on if this is allowable to do, before I made this an official change in the ruleset. However, if you want to do it locally for yourself, you could do it right now very easily.

Here is how:

Change the AD&D.pak filename to AD&D.zip. Create a Folder called AD&D and extract the files from AD&D.zip into it.

Open the Base.xml file in NotePad++ and look for this:

<importinfo>
<acceptfrom ruleset="Castles_and_Crusades" />
<acceptfrom ruleset="Castles and Crusades" />
<acceptfrom ruleset="Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" />
<acceptfrom ruleset="AD&D" />
</importinfo>

Add a line that says <acceptfrom ruleset="5E" />

Save the file.

Drop the folder into your ruleset folder.

Your done.

Be advised that if I update the ruleset, you will need to re-do those steps again. Also, be advised that the unzipped folder takes precedence over a .pak file in the same directory, so if you update the ruleset and don't see anything change, it is because FG will be pulling the data from the unzipped version and not the new pak file.

Enjoy.

celestian
February 28th, 2017, 16:11
Keep in mind that you can't share publicly anything from the manuals or any other official source, such as the cd you were talking about. Given that, it is dubious if those extra features would even be useful.


My spells and monsters? Nope, and see previous message on who this is for. That said it wouldn't take any time to import OSRIC or S&W spells/creatures. Those are in xml format already which is easier to deal with than html free form text ;)



It sounds like you are mostly, if not exclusively, a 2nd edition player. Why not just dedicate the ruleset to AD&D 2nd Edition so that people won't get confused between that ruleset and mine. I can tell you, since the very moment that I announced I was making my ruleset, I have been asked by numerous people if it supported 2E. I would be very glad if you are building that, because I know nothing about 2E. I am of the wrong generation to do that ruleset. I played AD&D from 1977 to about 1990 and so the only AD&D to me is the one Gygax designed.


The answer to the reason and your statement about not knowing 2e is ... If you know AD&D you know 1e and 2e. There is little to no difference. Keep in mind I am speaking on the core. Not handbooks and certainly not the PO books. I started around 83 so I grew up with 1e as well ;)



At the same time, as I have almost 500 hours into building my current ruleset, i would be lying if I told you that I am happy that you are trying to replace it after I just released mine two months ago. After years of no one stepping up and giving us one, why did I just kill myself doing it, if now all of a sudden, someone else wants to try and make my work obsolete, without even looking at it to see what was accomplished already. 1E and 2E, while related, are not the same game. Trying to build both into the same ruleset would be possible, but problematic, and simply not necessary, since 1e already exists.

I can't convince you to purchase C&C to find out, but, myself or anyone else that is using the ruleset could give you a demo of it.

As I said, I think in my original reply, different goals. I've no desire to compete with anyone. This is strictly something I'm doing for my group/self. Programming for me is as much a hobby as AD&D.

The only reason I've commented on it here is people asking me questions in my reply to the original "Are you interested" post.

Keeping this on topic as I said I'd try not to derail anymore. If anything this topic has shown that if there was a ruleset developed by Smiteworks for this period of RPG (AD&D) that there would be a player base for it. With the experience and resources Smiteworks has they would certainly do a good job.

Trenloe
February 28th, 2017, 22:31
I want to give time for anyone to comment on if this is allowable to do, before I made this an official change in the ruleset.
My recommendation would be to not put any change into the ruleset that has the possibility of raising errors within a FG campaign - otherwise you'll forever be getting people posting, for example: "I tried to open a NPC from Lost Mine of Phandelver and I got lots of errors!" Even if you make it very clear this will happen, people just won't read/digest that and they'll get a bad impression of your ruleset and be forever asking for help with errors or complaining that the ruleset is crap. Even though the problem is not with the ruleset, we all know that - but errors cause a bad perception with most users.

vodokar
February 28th, 2017, 23:51
You are so right about that, my wise friend. Think I'll just leave it with giving the instructions for those that want to do it themselves. It's not a terrible idea; just so long as you know what you are doing. But, I don't think I need to take on that extra responsibility and blame, as you said. Tough enough trying to live up to the expectations of a developer without making headaches like that.

vodokar
February 28th, 2017, 23:56
With the experience and resources Smiteworks has they would certainly do a good job.

Nothing in this thread stated that Smiteworks had any such plans; and I have inside knowledge of the situation that prompted this thread, so I know that is most definitely not what Lokiare was implying. Not all of the "official" rulesets were made by Smiteworks.

leozelig
March 1st, 2017, 03:51
The answer to the reason and your statement about not knowing 2e is ... If you know AD&D you know 1e and 2e. There is little to no difference. Keep in mind I am speaking on the core. Not handbooks and certainly not the PO books. I started around 83 so I grew up with 1e as well ;)

As I said, I think in my original reply, different goals. I've no desire to compete with anyone. This is strictly something I'm doing for my group/self. Programming for me is as much a hobby as AD&D.

Keeping this on topic as I said I'd try not to derail anymore. If anything this topic has shown that if there was a ruleset developed by Smiteworks for this period of RPG (AD&D) that there would be a player base for it. With the experience and resources Smiteworks has they would certainly do a good job.

I agree with your sentiment about 1e/2e, celestian. I would absolutely expect to be able to play either edition with an AD&D ruleset. I am very interested in seeing how your ruleset turns out, so I hope you will consider sharing it with the community. At least PM a download link to me so I can check it out :)

This is a very bizarre thread. I also interpreted it as an interest check for Smiteworks to develop some kind of OSR ruleset. But I know they have their hands full with Unity, 5e, and Pathfinder (which looks awesome, by the way)!

yeknom
March 1st, 2017, 23:33
If you would be interested in an official Classic ruleset along the lines of OSRIC, please tell us.

Yes, I'd be interested for sure.

Krimson
March 2nd, 2017, 03:09
My recommendation would be to not put any change into the ruleset that has the possibility of raising errors within a FG campaign - otherwise you'll forever be getting people posting, for example: "I tried to open a NPC from Lost Mine of Phandelver and I got lots of errors!" Even if you make it very clear this will happen, people just won't read/digest that and they'll get a bad impression of your ruleset and be forever asking for help with errors or complaining that the ruleset is crap. Even though the problem is not with the ruleset, we all know that - but errors cause a bad perception with most users.

Sound advice but if I could hack it to use the fluff for my personal use, I would have already done so. The players will never see the mess anyway.

vodokar
March 2nd, 2017, 05:54
I gave you very precise instructions Krimson. Just follow the steps. I have faith in you.

Krimson
March 2nd, 2017, 18:05
I gave you very precise instructions Krimson. Just follow the steps. I have faith in you.

I didn't see that post. Thanks. I'll try it out.

DelasGoodfelllow
March 7th, 2017, 21:53
I spent some time going through Classic D&D. While doing so, I tried a lot of the rulesets. I very much enjoyed the BECM version for L&L and also the OSRIC version. I used both for classic TSR/WotC campaigns - entering in my own monster stat blocks. I'm pretty much done with my Classic sidetrip and back on Pathfinder/3.5 now and looking at trying some of the newer versions. However, I'd always hold an interest in classic rulesets (that would work with official TSR/WotC campaigns/rules - even with a little custom data entry), depending on the costs. Much of the rest of the discussion here lost me though I quickly read through all of it.

dmkevin
March 7th, 2017, 23:44
I would definitely be interested in buying content for AD&D/OSRIC/Old school games. I am sure that many others would be also.

vodokar
March 8th, 2017, 00:08
I am diligently working on getting some modules out from the Expeditious Retreat Line of Advanced Adventures. Whether they will be sold in the Fantasy Grounds Store or thru other means, such as Rpg Now, depends on SmiteWorks decision, but, they are nevertheless coming, one way or the other. They will, at a minimum, support the C&C ruleset and my own AD&D ruleset. I have been offered to work on the entire line, but, of course, how many of them I actually work on depends on if the first few actually sell.

Phystus
March 17th, 2017, 17:51
I'd love to be able to play some of the old modules in FG without having to convert them to some newer edition. I have converted an old Judge's Guild adventure to 3.5, and while it worked, the different mechanics of 3.5 did change how it played.

But with that said, I haven't checked out the AD&D ruleset simply because I haven't wanted to purchase the C&C ruleset in order to use it. Some of that is because I'm pretty short on money, and some of it is that I don't want to buy something I know I won't use to get the AD&D ruleset, which I may or may not use. That doesn't bode well for the chances I'll buy any modules, really.

One problem with writing modules for an OSR ruleset is simply that it's kind of a fragmented market. Do you write it for OSRIC, or C&C, or S&W, or LotFP, or Labyrinth Lord? Any one you pick will overlook 80% of the audience, more or less. Probably more, since I think I'm missing a couple flavors of old-school rules. When the modules are being read by a human being it doesn't matter, since we'll just scan through the statblock until we find the information we want, but when the data has to be understood by a computer compatibility gets a lot more complicated, as I'm sure you understand.

~P

vodokar
March 17th, 2017, 21:17
I'm sorry that you feel that $10 is a bridge too far for you. I put in over 500 hours of work into the AD&D ruleset alone and there is no telling how many hundreds of hours or more that C&C had put into over the last few years.

The fragmentation of the market is the exact point I was trying to make. I am trying to ameliorate that issue by making modules that are compatible with many of the flavors of OSR rulesets available on FG. In that respect, it's a lot easier doing it on a computer than it is in print. Multiple sets of stats can be contained in the module and the computer can just present the one set that applies to the ruleset the user is using. OSR rulesets have the advantage of being basically the same balance-wise, so even if they write the stats a little differently, the feel is the same.

damned
March 18th, 2017, 01:45
I agree - the whole point of vodokars intent was to make an adventure/module that would support 3 or 4 rulesets out of the box.

Phystus
March 18th, 2017, 03:05
It isn't so much the $10 as the time. There's pretty close to a 0% chance that I'll ever run a C&C campaign, and the chances I'll run an AD&D (or clone thereof) campaign are really not much better because I don't have the time to run another campaign. I'm not trying to insult anyone's efforts, I just am not going to have time to use the product in the foreseeable future, and so there's no point in buying it.

If you can create modules that work for all the old school flavors I think that's wonderful, though. That ought to make the modules a lot more marketable. And you're right about the balance, a module plays about the same in D&D, AD&D, and BECMI, so I would expect that to be true with the OSR rulesets as well.

~P

vodokar
March 18th, 2017, 04:03
Absolutely, no one expects you to buy something you won't ever use. I tend to do so, simply because I make it a point to support our community developers, but no one really expects that. I simply was implying that the fact that there is a modest charge associated with a ruleset is justifiable. In this case, I'm not actually charging for mine; but the cost is in the base C&C ruleset. But, the point is the same.

The positive thing is: if you or anyone else ever do develop the itch to play some old school style and the time to do so, the rulesets exist; which hasn't always been the case. Options are always good.

leozelig
March 18th, 2017, 11:54
It isn't so much the $10 as the time. There's pretty close to a 0% chance that I'll ever run a C&C campaign, and the chances I'll run an AD&D (or clone thereof) campaign are really not much better because I don't have the time to run another campaign. I'm not trying to insult anyone's efforts, I just am not going to have time to use the product in the foreseeable future, and so there's no point in buying it.

I happen to have C&C, but I agree that a "free" old school ruleset would be a nice option. Also not criticizing vodokar's excellent work - it makes a lot of sense to build off of C&C. But in the era of the 99-cent app, 10 USD will prevent some people from using it.

It's definitely possible to make a ruleset that works for multiple OSR systems, but my guess is that it wouldn't run any of them as well as a dedicated ruleset - especially AD&D with its rules complexity. C&C is also tough to lump in there with ascending AC, although vodokar was able to figure out how to flip it around for AD&D. Either way, making a ruleset is a ton of work, and people will always want it to do something it can't :)

Rlvaughn
March 22nd, 2017, 12:00
Yes Please!

Teutonic Rush
March 22nd, 2017, 21:10
I'm interested in osr rules and modules for FG.

Morik
March 25th, 2017, 07:14
Absolutely interested!

Baron28
April 6th, 2017, 22:08
I loved AD&D, but wouldn't buy a ruleset. Now, old school conversions to 5E, that's something I'm all for and would (within limits) spend money on.

I am with you there based on the time and energy spent converting Keep on the Borderlands, White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors and Against the Giants to 5e. From data entry and conversion to acquiring maps and resizing them so I could get the grid to lay nicely on the existing grid of the image was a long, tedious process.

L. R. Ballard
April 6th, 2017, 23:53
I am with you there based on the time and energy spent converting Keep on the Borderlands, White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors and Against the Giants to 5e. From data entry and conversion to acquiring maps and resizing them so I could get the grid to lay nicely on the existing grid of the image was a long, tedious process.

Do you have an estimate of the average time it took to convert a 32-page classic module from start to finish?

Baron28
April 7th, 2017, 22:31
Do you have an estimate of the average time it took to convert a 32-page classic module from start to finish?

6-8 hours. Helps to have the module as a pdf so you can copy and paste text. Maps were the toughest to get the grid to lay nicely. Against the Giants and Keep on the Borderlands took the most time, then Tomb of Horrors and then White Plume Mountain.

L. R. Ballard
April 7th, 2017, 22:44
6-8 hours. Helps to have the module as a pdf so you can copy and paste text. Maps were the toughest to get the grid to lay nicely. Against the Giants and Keep on the Borderlands took the most time, then Tomb of Horrors and then White Plume Mountain.

Thanks for the reply. I'm guessing the estimate presupposes skill with Fantasy Grounds. Did you parse the adventure or paste directly into FG?

JHale1966
April 8th, 2017, 01:42
I bought some of the 1e to 5E conversions off of DM Guild and they look pretty good. I picked up the G123, D123 and Q1. You have to have the original modules in order to use them so I'm 're-stocking' on those as well. Will probably also pick up A1-4 too. :)

L. R. Ballard
April 8th, 2017, 01:48
I bought some of the 1e to 5E conversions off of DM Guild and they look pretty good. I picked up the G123, D123 and Q1. You have to have the original modules in order to use them so I'm 're-stocking' on those as well. Will probably also pick up A1-4 too. :)

I used to visit EN World just for conversions to 3.5.

Did you buy the conversion guides from Classic Modules Today?

JHale1966
April 8th, 2017, 01:50
I used to visit EN World just for conversions to 3.5.

Did you buy the conversion guides from Classic Modules Today?

Looks like 3/29.

Baron28
April 8th, 2017, 02:18
I bought some of the 1e to 5E conversions off of DM Guild and they look pretty good. I picked up the G123, D123 and Q1. You have to have the original modules in order to use them so I'm 're-stocking' on those as well. Will probably also pick up A1-4 too. :)

What's the link to the DM's guild? I would by D1-3 and Q1. I don't really want to spend the time manually converting them.

vodokar
April 8th, 2017, 02:57
Baron28, just so you'll understand what the Classic Modules Today 5e conversions are. They are simply conversion notes on how to convert from 1e to 5e. You still need the original modules. And you would still need to add everything in fantasy grounds yourself.

L. R. Ballard
April 8th, 2017, 03:10
Looks like 3/29.

I don't understand.

Baron28
April 8th, 2017, 03:15
Baron28, just so you'll understand what the Classic Modules Today 5e conversions are. They are simply conversion notes on how to convert from 1e to 5e. You still need the original modules. And you would still need to add everything in fantasy grounds yourself.

Ah ok. The notes would save time. The tough thing is finding maps or creating maps.

vodokar
April 8th, 2017, 03:55
If you don't mind using the original maps, you can just scan them from the pdf of the original module. I just use Snippet, which is built into windows, but others might have better tools for snatching images.

celestian
April 8th, 2017, 03:57
Ah ok. The notes would save time. The tough thing is finding maps or creating maps.

Always ;) Tho if you're ok with the old school blue/b&w it's not to hard. The PDFs being sold really make copy/paste text at least easier.

Thanks for the timescale on the builds tho. I was thinking of doing T1-4 and I was guessing about a week of my evenings and after seeing your comment it seems about right.

vodokar
April 8th, 2017, 04:28
Build time really depends on just how much you are wanting to do for yourself. It takes quite a bit longer to do a publication worthy modules, but if only doing for yourself, anywhere from 4 to 12 hours, depending on how much material is involved, and how perfect you need to make it for yourself, is not unreasonable.

L. R. Ballard
April 8th, 2017, 05:08
Build time really depends on just how much you are wanting to do for yourself. It takes quite a bit longer to do a publication worthy modules, but if only doing for yourself, anywhere from 4 to 12 hours, depending on how much material is involved, and how perfect you need to make it for yourself, is not unreasonable.

My goal is to do layouts of publishable quality. In the meantime, I'm converting FRE1 "Shadowdale" for Classic Modules Today. Before publishing the conversion guide for FRE1, I plan to lay out module-specific tables, encounters, items, and parcels on FG, then walk through it with pregens while rereading the module. Over the past two evenings, I've been building the four pregenerated PCs from FRE1 in FG. That task alone has taken almost seven hours. But the PCs are right out of the module with all stats, items, and even custom background notes based on their descriptions from the module. It is indeed a lot of work, and I'm both a professional editor and a perfectionist.

JohnD
April 8th, 2017, 06:50
A0 took me around 12 hours to do for C&C but I gave it the full treatment.

L. R. Ballard
April 8th, 2017, 16:31
A0 took me around 12 hours to do for C&C but I gave it the full treatment.

I plan to proofread each conversion before laying it out. A proof for the typical 32-page adventure would take between 3.5 and 5 hours. If I did a substantive edit beforehand to revise passages and even reorganize passages, that would take between 13 and 18 hours. So, I could put just under 23 hours into making the original text nearly flawless.

vodokar
April 9th, 2017, 19:21
Exactly. As I was saying, it just depends on how much time you want to put into it, what features you want it to have and how perfect you want to make it.

If I am working on a publication quality version, I have two copies of all the module text.

One is in single column format in story mode along with links to all of the FG resources in-line. I place the story text in separate pop up story boxes, so that it keeps the details from cluttering the layout, while still being at the dm's fingertips. This is designed and laid out to try to streamline in game use and easy access to everything.

Then I do the module in duel column format in reference mode, also with links to all of the FG resources in line. In this case, I try to layout the module to appear as close as possible to the original pdf as I can make it. The purpose of this section is to make the module easy to study and read for pre-game prep. I also include a resource section that has an organized list of each type of resource (images, encounters, npc's, parcels, etc. etc.) which allows easy access to find what you might need.

I then follow all of this up with linking all room descriptions, encounters, parcels etc. to the dm map. I also do a lot more extensive work on dm and player map editing etc.

It can take anywhere between a week and two weeks of evening working on the module and requires some going in and editing of the xml etc.

None of this is an extent to which I would wish to go to if I were just working on this for myself, likely. It's pain staking and tedious work.

One tip, regardless of your goal, that I will offer based on my recent experiences. If you are using an old style white background map, you will need to change the color of the map somehow, because the targeting circle that Fantasy Grounds uses is white. This means that you will have a very hard time telling which token is selected during combat if it is white on a white background. So, expect to spend some considerable time editing your maps.

doseyclwn
May 9th, 2017, 03:23
This would seriously rock and I would run games in it ALL THE TIME

L. R. Ballard
June 6th, 2017, 00:56
You may not remember this conversation--it took me a while to reply because I only recently started to use maps, in a walk-through of Forge of Fury.


I place the story text in separate pop up story boxes, so that it keeps the details from cluttering the layout, while still being at the dm's fingertips. This is designed and laid out to try to streamline in game use and easy access to everything.

This layout sounds like a smart idea, especially given the large amount of text in some adventures. Also, since a conversion guide can't have DM-read text, the "separate pop up story boxes" serve as placeholders for DMs who want to add that material to a simple conversion of stats, magic items, spells, etc.


Then I do the module in duel column format in reference mode, also with links to all of the FG resources in line. In this case, I try to layout the module to appear as close as possible to the original pdf as I can make it. The purpose of this section is to make the module easy to study and read for pre-game prep. I also include a resource section that has an organized list of each type of resource (images, encounters, npc's, parcels, etc. etc.) which allows easy access to find what you might need.

I'm not at this stage of development yet. I plan to create an outline for how to organize information based on the WotC releases for FG. Laying out the encounters, parcels, and so forth, follows the NPC conversion.


It can take anywhere between a week and two weeks of evening working on the module and requires some going in and editing of the xml etc. None of this is an extent to which I would wish to go to if I were just working on this for myself, likely. It's pain staking and tedious work.

Yes, it is. I've converted fifty-two NPCs for the FRE1 adventure. Two NPCs an hour on average.


One tip, regardless of your goal, that I will offer based on my recent experiences. If you are using an old style white background map, you will need to change the color of the map somehow, because the targeting circle that Fantasy Grounds uses is white. This means that you will have a very hard time telling which token is selected during combat if it is white on a white background. So, expect to spend some considerable time editing your maps.

I walked through The Sunless Citadel in "theater-of-the-mind" mode. I needed a generic background for some early encounters in The Forge of Fury and remembered your advice. So, I made a simple map with a green background, which made it easier for me to see the targeting circle. Thanks for the tip!

vodokar
June 6th, 2017, 01:10
I do remember. And you are welcome.

Sorry to say that mine own efforts to make some adventure modules for publication got side-tracked amongst the need for doing some programming projects and other life stuff, but, glad what I said helped.

If you do many of the things I outlined, you will actually be setting a bar higher than what previous fantasy grounds publications tried to meet, which in my book is a very good thing. I have old eyes and do not and will not read long stretches of straight text in story mode on the computer; which is why I recommend having the duel column reference mode for that type of long reading. It's a bunch more work, but many will appreciate it.

And do learn to use Ikael's library extension tool for the Savage Worlds ruleset rather than trying to code everything directly in xml; it will save tons of time and headaches.

Also, look up my extensions for making npc's in the savage worlds ruleset environment that can be used in 5e and pathfinder (npc maker extension for 5e and pathfinder, respectively). I haven't updated them in a while, but they still should prove a timesaver.

L. R. Ballard
June 10th, 2017, 18:47
I do remember. And you are welcome.

Sorry to say that mine own efforts to make some adventure modules for publication got side-tracked amongst the need for doing some programming projects and other life stuff, but, glad what I said helped.

It helped indeed.

Life stuff happens. I teach at a university. Earlier this week, the philosophy chair offered me a logic class to teach this fall, and I accepted. Usually, my summertime goes either to freelance editing for academics or working on the odd project. But this summer--given that most of my editing projects will begin in July or August--I want to make a long-delayed improvement to the logic course. The task is to prepare lessons from a new textbook. It'll take over a hundred hours to prepare, but the new textbook should have fewer errors and discrepancies than the previous one.

My modest goal for FG is to spend thirty hours a month on it--that's more or less my "free-time budget." This year, so far, so good.


I have old eyes and do not and will not read long stretches of straight text in story mode on the computer; which is why I recommend having the duel column reference mode for that type of long reading. It's a bunch more work, but many will appreciate it.

I'll look into the two-column format for story mode. As a professional editor, I don't mind a "bunch more work" when the outcome helps others and adds to, or complements, my skills.

Perhaps FG Unity will enable increasing the size of the text.


And do learn to use Ikael's library extension tool for the Savage Worlds ruleset rather than trying to code everything directly in xml; it will save tons of time and headaches.

Also, look up my extensions for making npc's in the savage worlds ruleset environment that can be used in 5e and pathfinder (npc maker extension for 5e and pathfinder, respectively). I haven't updated them in a while, but they still should prove a timesaver.

Would it be possible for me to have links to those extensions? Is it possible, for example, to link to your SW NPC extension in your signature?