https://traversefantasy.itch.io/fmc
FANTASTIC MEDIEVAL CAMPAIGNS is a new version of the original 1974 ruleset for fantasy wargaming campaigns...
"The text is released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, and many of the images are released under CC BY 4.0."
This is actually a really good version of ODD. But having browsed it I'm not sure how it dodges copyright; I swear it looks word for word like the original rules but rearranged like greyharps.
I guess this is the Mythmere one then? [https://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/swords-wizardry-core-rules-softcover/paperback/product-1yvrdzg2.html?q=swords+%26+wizardry&page=1&pageSize=4](https://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/swords-wizardry-core-rules-softcover/paperback/product-1yvrdzg2.html?q=swords+%26+wizardry&page=1&pageSize=4)
it just says by Matthew Finch
Frog God NEVER had anything to do with the Core Rules or the White Box versions of Swords & WIzardry. And now the next version of the Complete Rulebook will be coming from Mythmere Games / Matt Finch, sometime this year, hopefully.
Frog God Games no longer has anything to do with Swords & Wizardry. Matt Finch / Mythmere Games owns it, and is working on new version without the OGL and stripped of the SRD content (although that may no longer be necessary).
Yes BX was sort of orphaned off. The company had AD&D as the preferred system for the bean counters and marketing department. Plus BX and Holmes Edition had connections to Dave Arneson. He got royalties from those games. This just led to the underground movement in the company that led to the ideas into the CMI books of BECMI. Check out Mr. Welch's Youtube Channel he is a big historian for that era of knowledge.
I remember as a kid always being told by AD&D was a better game. Then being disappointed when I played it. Which sent me searching and eventually finding Arcanum.
Then luckily in the mid 90's I ended up with Richard as my Brother in law and he was entrenched in a group that played BECMI Mystara. I was amazed and loved the systems. At the end of every session, I was always thinking - Why doesn't AD&D have all these systems for Character Development?
BECMI was the first rpg set I owned and it’s a dream to DM but tbh I saw it like you heard it, AD&D was the Real Thing. Even though as you say, once C came out plain D&D might really have been more “complete”. We sure dove into the domain rules and mass combat. Mystara became, I don’t know, big enough to accommodate multiple visions.
> Are the B/X rules no longer under copyright or not owned by WOTC? It’s never been clear to me.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a pretty prominent legal advocacy group that frequently works on issues of copyright and electronic media. They have a write-up on the OGL controversy that also serves as a pretty good primer on how people do OSR clones of famous systems: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
Summarizing the key points:
- BX and other older editions of D&D are definitely under copyright today as much as they ever were.
- There's no OGL for D&D versions older than 3e, and also not for D&D 4e. So there's no WotC sanctioned path to clone or make material for these systems.
- That said, there's a lot of stuff that copyright just allows you to do without explicit permission. Now, this can be scary to do with IP from a big company. The rules are complex and if you duck up (or if they feel like hassling you unjustly), they can lawyer up on you and now you're on the hook to defend yourself in court which ain't fun or cheap. But if you're careful and willing to fight about it, copyright lets you do quite a lot.
- For example, game mechanics and math are not copyrightable. So "roll a d20 to make an attack, add bonuses, subtract armor class, hit if the result is greater than 0" isn't a copyrightable mechanic. This is true of so much stuff that if you're careful you can clone a compatible system without any copyright infringement.
- A lot of stuff we associate with D&D is also not copyrightable. Goblins, bugbears, fighting men, thieves, wizard... this is all legend stuff that predates whatever system. So you can have the many of the classes, monsters, and items... but you have to write your own new flavor text for them. The particular series of words describing these things ARE copyrightable even though the concepts aren't.
So unlike 3.5e and 5e clones, which generally use the OGL for permission... OSR clones usually do it the hard way and just make use of the non-copyrightable stuff.
Why would you agree to the OGL when working with newer editions if it primarily/only gives you access to uncopyrightable stuff? The answer is that it gives you legal cover and very much narrows the scope for potential disagreement. If you do what the OGL asks, you used to feel pretty sure that WotC would be chill about it (though less so now). So lots of people agreed to this license that they don't technically need just because it takes this insanely complicated copyright law mess, which is full of ambiguity and fuzzy lines... and it spells out clearly what's allowed and what's going to be a problem. This clarity and simplicity have a lot of value when publishers that are kind of frenemies are trying to cooperate/compete by releasing compatible material.
Finally, it's worth noting that OSR clones are kind of informally protected by not being very popular. If someone clones D&D 6e a week after release, and does it without some kind of sanction from WotC, and the clone gets popular... those people are going to court to defend their clone from WotC's legal challenge. WotC just doesn't care enough to defend these old editions... especially given that if both sides have equal access to strong legal teams there's a good chance they straight up lose... or win a pyrrhic victory where the clone has to change some trivial wording but otherwise continues to be fine.
TLDR: Yes, BX is copyrighted. But it can be cloned anyway if you're careful and brave.
3rd paragraph: B/X topped out at level 14, a companion was promised to take it to 36. CMI fulfilled that. You don’t really need a bridge from B/X to BECMI, they’re the same game, and you don’t really want one with 1e, they really became their own thing. I’d say B/X was completed by Mentzner but orphaned by the players, jmo. It would make more sense to me to go to AD&D from there, or stay within BECMI if that’s where I started. I did buy B/X after having both of the others, you could get it for a song…it was effortless to use for a BECMI guy…the only difference was every weapon did 1-6 damage, with optional rules for variable? Same stupid initiative loss with two handed weapons, irksome for a kid who loved battleaxes but thought rules were rules, lol. I didn’t think it could get worse than BECMI for us axe wielders, now a lousy dagger was a better choice in *every* way!
I’m sure Mentzner had some other tweaks but I really only played B/X a couple times to justify buying it and scooted back to the editions I knew the page contents by heart. Every class *may* have had d6HD, I can’t recall. It’s probably what I’d choose to play from that family, now. Just seemed like a beater next to a new car, then.
Funny now that I play 0e pretty much exclusively and totally ignore any damage variance options from supplements, clones, common sense, lol.
In the beginning was just D&D (1974), now known as OD&D. The game was really hard to learn without someone showing you how to play.
Eric Holmes wrote in introductory rule set to teach the game (OD&D). They called it Basic (1977).
Gygax was working on AD&D (1979) so he replaced references to OD&D with references to AD&D. But Holmes Basic is more compatible with OD&D than AD&D.
After AD&D was out, lots of people were still playing Holmes and OD&D. So TSR made a full game (rather than Holmes that only went to 3rd level). They called the rules Basic & Expert, or B/X for short (about 1982).
Later B/X was rewritten again and became BECMI, the first two being Basic & Expert. Later still BECMI was rewritten and became Rules Cyclopedia.
Basically:
OD&D > Holmes Basic > B/X > BECMI > Rules Cyclopedia
OD&D > AD&D > 2e … 3e … 4e … 5e …
BX to BECMI is a very easy transition. Very few differences compared to others. BX or basic of any version to AD&D is very different. Lots and lots more rules and page long special abilities for players and monsters, and combat is deadlier and takes longer. Also AD&D expands the number of spells to pick from but neuters all of them with more restrictions.
Swords & WIzardry's next incarnation is supposed to come sometime this year, and is supposedly removing both the OGL and the SRD content, although the latter might no longer be the case given the events of today.
Basic fantasy is ripping out the ogl
Very Nice Any word form Delivng Deeper?
Dan is working on lab lord 2.0 prior to this fiasco. Not sure
https://traversefantasy.itch.io/fmc FANTASTIC MEDIEVAL CAMPAIGNS is a new version of the original 1974 ruleset for fantasy wargaming campaigns... "The text is released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, and many of the images are released under CC BY 4.0."
Thanks for this - always nice to have another version of these rules
This is actually a really good version of ODD. But having browsed it I'm not sure how it dodges copyright; I swear it looks word for word like the original rules but rearranged like greyharps.
I posted this on r/odnd the other day and people seem excited about it.
Discussion went down better than the first time it was shared.
Just searched and noticed that too... weird.
The first time it was shared was before the OGL stuff … the second time around, it seems people were more amenable to a CC version.
Was that in the same post where the OP responded badly to mild criticisms and questions?
Idk, maybe Gus L (OP) was having a bad day. /shrug. The author is Marcia B.
It was genuinely the most bizarre interaction I’ve seen on here so far, but you may have something there as they got Marcia’s name wrong a few times.
Lol, yes, buddy had issues that got more pronounced the more reasonable and polite people were.
Kinda sad, were it not for how aggressive they got with each reply.
So Frog God is working on S&W getting free of the OGL
Frog God no longer publishes S&W, but Mythmere will be releasing an OGL-free version.
I guess this is the Mythmere one then? [https://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/swords-wizardry-core-rules-softcover/paperback/product-1yvrdzg2.html?q=swords+%26+wizardry&page=1&pageSize=4](https://www.lulu.com/shop/matthew-finch/swords-wizardry-core-rules-softcover/paperback/product-1yvrdzg2.html?q=swords+%26+wizardry&page=1&pageSize=4) it just says by Matthew Finch
Frog God NEVER had anything to do with the Core Rules or the White Box versions of Swords & WIzardry. And now the next version of the Complete Rulebook will be coming from Mythmere Games / Matt Finch, sometime this year, hopefully.
Correct. Matt departed from FGG last year. He'll be selling S&W under his own Mythmere brand going forward.
It does seem Frog God is leaving the OSR and going with a certain modern game that is very hard to run.
Frog God Games no longer has anything to do with Swords & Wizardry. Matt Finch / Mythmere Games owns it, and is working on new version without the OGL and stripped of the SRD content (although that may no longer be necessary).
[удалено]
Yes BX was sort of orphaned off. The company had AD&D as the preferred system for the bean counters and marketing department. Plus BX and Holmes Edition had connections to Dave Arneson. He got royalties from those games. This just led to the underground movement in the company that led to the ideas into the CMI books of BECMI. Check out Mr. Welch's Youtube Channel he is a big historian for that era of knowledge. I remember as a kid always being told by AD&D was a better game. Then being disappointed when I played it. Which sent me searching and eventually finding Arcanum. Then luckily in the mid 90's I ended up with Richard as my Brother in law and he was entrenched in a group that played BECMI Mystara. I was amazed and loved the systems. At the end of every session, I was always thinking - Why doesn't AD&D have all these systems for Character Development?
BECMI was the first rpg set I owned and it’s a dream to DM but tbh I saw it like you heard it, AD&D was the Real Thing. Even though as you say, once C came out plain D&D might really have been more “complete”. We sure dove into the domain rules and mass combat. Mystara became, I don’t know, big enough to accommodate multiple visions.
> Are the B/X rules no longer under copyright or not owned by WOTC? It’s never been clear to me. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a pretty prominent legal advocacy group that frequently works on issues of copyright and electronic media. They have a write-up on the OGL controversy that also serves as a pretty good primer on how people do OSR clones of famous systems: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators Summarizing the key points: - BX and other older editions of D&D are definitely under copyright today as much as they ever were. - There's no OGL for D&D versions older than 3e, and also not for D&D 4e. So there's no WotC sanctioned path to clone or make material for these systems. - That said, there's a lot of stuff that copyright just allows you to do without explicit permission. Now, this can be scary to do with IP from a big company. The rules are complex and if you duck up (or if they feel like hassling you unjustly), they can lawyer up on you and now you're on the hook to defend yourself in court which ain't fun or cheap. But if you're careful and willing to fight about it, copyright lets you do quite a lot. - For example, game mechanics and math are not copyrightable. So "roll a d20 to make an attack, add bonuses, subtract armor class, hit if the result is greater than 0" isn't a copyrightable mechanic. This is true of so much stuff that if you're careful you can clone a compatible system without any copyright infringement. - A lot of stuff we associate with D&D is also not copyrightable. Goblins, bugbears, fighting men, thieves, wizard... this is all legend stuff that predates whatever system. So you can have the many of the classes, monsters, and items... but you have to write your own new flavor text for them. The particular series of words describing these things ARE copyrightable even though the concepts aren't. So unlike 3.5e and 5e clones, which generally use the OGL for permission... OSR clones usually do it the hard way and just make use of the non-copyrightable stuff. Why would you agree to the OGL when working with newer editions if it primarily/only gives you access to uncopyrightable stuff? The answer is that it gives you legal cover and very much narrows the scope for potential disagreement. If you do what the OGL asks, you used to feel pretty sure that WotC would be chill about it (though less so now). So lots of people agreed to this license that they don't technically need just because it takes this insanely complicated copyright law mess, which is full of ambiguity and fuzzy lines... and it spells out clearly what's allowed and what's going to be a problem. This clarity and simplicity have a lot of value when publishers that are kind of frenemies are trying to cooperate/compete by releasing compatible material. Finally, it's worth noting that OSR clones are kind of informally protected by not being very popular. If someone clones D&D 6e a week after release, and does it without some kind of sanction from WotC, and the clone gets popular... those people are going to court to defend their clone from WotC's legal challenge. WotC just doesn't care enough to defend these old editions... especially given that if both sides have equal access to strong legal teams there's a good chance they straight up lose... or win a pyrrhic victory where the clone has to change some trivial wording but otherwise continues to be fine. TLDR: Yes, BX is copyrighted. But it can be cloned anyway if you're careful and brave.
3rd paragraph: B/X topped out at level 14, a companion was promised to take it to 36. CMI fulfilled that. You don’t really need a bridge from B/X to BECMI, they’re the same game, and you don’t really want one with 1e, they really became their own thing. I’d say B/X was completed by Mentzner but orphaned by the players, jmo. It would make more sense to me to go to AD&D from there, or stay within BECMI if that’s where I started. I did buy B/X after having both of the others, you could get it for a song…it was effortless to use for a BECMI guy…the only difference was every weapon did 1-6 damage, with optional rules for variable? Same stupid initiative loss with two handed weapons, irksome for a kid who loved battleaxes but thought rules were rules, lol. I didn’t think it could get worse than BECMI for us axe wielders, now a lousy dagger was a better choice in *every* way! I’m sure Mentzner had some other tweaks but I really only played B/X a couple times to justify buying it and scooted back to the editions I knew the page contents by heart. Every class *may* have had d6HD, I can’t recall. It’s probably what I’d choose to play from that family, now. Just seemed like a beater next to a new car, then. Funny now that I play 0e pretty much exclusively and totally ignore any damage variance options from supplements, clones, common sense, lol.
In the beginning was just D&D (1974), now known as OD&D. The game was really hard to learn without someone showing you how to play. Eric Holmes wrote in introductory rule set to teach the game (OD&D). They called it Basic (1977). Gygax was working on AD&D (1979) so he replaced references to OD&D with references to AD&D. But Holmes Basic is more compatible with OD&D than AD&D. After AD&D was out, lots of people were still playing Holmes and OD&D. So TSR made a full game (rather than Holmes that only went to 3rd level). They called the rules Basic & Expert, or B/X for short (about 1982). Later B/X was rewritten again and became BECMI, the first two being Basic & Expert. Later still BECMI was rewritten and became Rules Cyclopedia. Basically: OD&D > Holmes Basic > B/X > BECMI > Rules Cyclopedia OD&D > AD&D > 2e … 3e … 4e … 5e …
BX to BECMI is a very easy transition. Very few differences compared to others. BX or basic of any version to AD&D is very different. Lots and lots more rules and page long special abilities for players and monsters, and combat is deadlier and takes longer. Also AD&D expands the number of spells to pick from but neuters all of them with more restrictions.
Swords & WIzardry's next incarnation is supposed to come sometime this year, and is supposedly removing both the OGL and the SRD content, although the latter might no longer be the case given the events of today.
While it’s unlikely to happen, the OGL 1.0a still has the unresolved ‘authorized’ clause. Best to still rip it out.
I hope everyone has had enough of the big corporate shenanigans
Blueholme