I'm very happy to forward some good news - Pres-gas announced on Dragonsfoot and Knights&Knaves the opening of a new OSRIC Wiki! Fans of OSRIC and 1E now have a searchable electronic version of the rules handy anywhere they have internet access.

If you'd like OSRIC at your fingertips, bookmark this wiki page!

https://osricwiki.presgas.name/doku.php?id=osric:index

Pres-gas did all the heavy lifting on this, and I want to personally thank him for his efforts to everyone's behalf.

This is only the first completion of new OSRIC/1E infrastructure projects powered by fans. Good things are ahead for fans of first edition!

(Original announcement at http://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15887 )

Two thumbs up!!!

As I said on Dragonsfoot when you first pondered about it, it pretty much violates the OGL, unless you happen to be the people who own the copyright OSRIC.

From your own wiki:

QuoteChapters 4, 5 and 6 are Product Identity to the extent permitted under the OGL and to the extent such material is subject to copyright, except for any text language derived from the SRD or the Tome of Horrors, which is Open Game Content.

Yet you've just copied and pasted Chapters 4, 5, and 6 in its entirety .

Now you very well may have gotten permission from them to make the Wiki, but it goes against the whole spirit/point of the OGL. And Wiki for that matter.

And frankly, using the OGL in vague, restrictive terms like that might be legal, but it's a dick thing to do.  OSRIC wouldn't have existed if the companies that it drew from did that. And it basically prevents any sort of OSRIC development or fan stuff, unless you want to break the law.

Jeremy, almost every time I see you posting, you come across as angry, accusatory, or disappointed about other people's stuff.  Did you read Pres-gas' announcement?  The copyright/trademark holders are aware.  It was announced it on knights and knaves; an odd thing to do if an unwelcome effort.  If the reservation(s) of text in OSRIC are the root irritant - I can't do anything about that.

I can understand the concern; I don't understand why its hard to ask a question that doesn't frame the situation in a bad light.  There's nothing happening here, or would happen, against the will of anyone who has IP rights to OSRIC.  I know that you like 1E tremendously, and I hope some other projects finishing soon are more to your liking - we're all trying to support the same game.

EDIT - re-reading your post, I don't think we're on the same page re 4/5/6.  Anyone can publish OSRIC.  That's why Black Blade has an OSRIC book, and Kramer has another few sized versions on the market.   You could publish OSRIC if you just wanted to print the document unchanged and slap a cover of your liking on it.

But I'm not going to argue with you about this.  The people you could possibly be arguing on behalf of aren't upset this is happening.

Works great on my cell phone too. Woot!

Awesome news, thanks for sharing EOTB.

RPG Wikis are a good thing, but an odd thing. They're basically the book, dissected and hyperlinked. I wonder if wikis have a net positive or net negative effect on core book sales?

I am sure OSRIC/1e fans will enjoy the Wiki. I will definitely be taking a look to see what I can pilfer for my OD&D games!

Thanks for the post, EOTB.

Quote from: JeremyR;1089134Now you very well may have gotten permission from them to make the Wiki, but it goes against the whole spirit/point of the OGL. And Wiki for that matter.

From the OGL

Quote7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.

Then there is the OSRIC Open Content license which covers the Product Identity of OSRIC

QuoteOSRIC Open License:
Terms used herein are as defined in the OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a promulgated by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of the Open Game License.
Subject to the other terms of this license, you may do the following:
1. Distribute this document for free or for profit, provided that no change or addition is made other than adding your name as publisher if the product is distributed in print, other than by print on demand.
...

The wiki has it covered both ways.

Quote from: JeremyR;1089134And frankly, using the OGL in vague, restrictive terms like that might be legal, but it's a dick thing to do.  OSRIC wouldn't have existed if the companies that it drew from did that. And it basically prevents any sort of OSRIC development or fan stuff, unless you want to break the law.

The authors of OSRIC are willing to live with the consequences. And there are alternatives to OSRIC for fans of 1st edition who desire open content to cover what Chapters 4 to 6 cover.

In addition the subsequent history of the various retro-clones and supplements targeting classic D&D amply demonstrates the consequences of adopting OSRIC's preservation approach.

Quote from: EOTB;1089137EDIT - re-reading your post, I don't think we're on the same page re 4/5/6.  Anyone can publish OSRIC.  That's why Black Blade has an OSRIC book, and Kramer has another few sized versions on the market.   You could publish OSRIC if you just wanted to print the document unchanged and slap a cover of your liking on it.

The problem is that while somebody can republish OSRIC but they can't adapt OSRIC due to large sections of it being product identity licensed only under the conditions that the text has to be preserved as is.

I get why they did that in order to preserve AD&D 1st edition. Speaking for myself I am not going saddle my work with that kind of restriction when there are other clones that are 100% open content and I am not alone in feeling this.

But it all cool because the important part of what OSRIC did was the process they did to go from the d20 SRD to something that replicates an edition of classic D&D. A process that can be repeated by others.

The result is that there is room enough for both approaches and more.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1089268RPG Wikis are a good thing, but an odd thing. They're basically the book, dissected and hyperlinked. I wonder if wikis have a net positive or net negative effect on core book sales?

I am sure OSRIC/1e fans will enjoy the Wiki. I will definitely be taking a look to see what I can pilfer for my OD&D games!

OSRIC is sold basically at cost except for rounding, as I understand it.  The rules have never been a sales or profit driver - the point is new content to use the rules with!

Is OSRIC 100% compatible with AD&D 1st edition ?

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1089321Is OSRIC 100% compatible with AD&D 1st edition ?

Yes it is.

Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer;1089321Is OSRIC 100% compatible with AD&D 1st edition ?

Yes, in regards to how 99% of people played AD&D.

No, in regards to "OSRIC =/= 1e RAW" because retroclones can't be word for word duplicates, so there are very minor differences that you could note with the two books side by side, but you could use an OSRIC module with your 1e books without a hitch.  However, among the retroclones, OSRIC probably most closely resembles its source.

In fact, OSRIC is closer to 1e than original Judges Guild products were to 1e! And nobody had trouble running JG stuff in 1e.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1089326there are very minor differences that you could note with the two books side by side, but you could use an OSRIC module with your 1e books without a hitch.  However, among the retroclones, OSRIC probably most closely resembles its source.

Agreed, we use them together at the table. OSRIC's very, very close and tends to be more concise and better organized (~30+ years of hindsight and playing helps!), though you obviously can't beat the original on style and attitude.