Tuesday, September 27, 2011

OSRIC Players Reference Available

As impressive as the current release of OSRIC is -- especially in its Black Blade Publishing version -- it's probably a little too impressive to be used as a player's reference book. At nearly 400 pages, OSRIC includes a lot of material intended for use by the referee rather than by players. That's where the OSRIC Players Reference comes in. It strips OSRIC down to the 140 pages that players require to generate characters and to play the game at the table.

You can get the PDF version of the book for free at the link above. Alternately, you can get a print version from Lulu.com in either a regular or pocket size. Both are inexpensively priced and for use with the current version of the hobby's first retro-clone. If you're using OSRIC at your table, the Players Reference is definitely worth taking a look at.

30 comments:

  1. I love that cover. The OSR steps it up another notch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent! Now if I can only get to the color printer at work without anyone noticing...

    ReplyDelete
  4. It looks good if one plays OSRIC/AD&D. Personally I'm eagerly awaiting D101's Crypts & Things, a Swords & Sorcery re-imagining of S&W/OD&D. Not to everyone's taste but it sounds good to me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. [Breathes sharply through teeth...] This is a sensitive subject over at the Alehouse; apparently someone in the "official" circle has been working on a PHB type thing for OSRIC for a while now, but someone else went ahead and jumped the gun and "published" their own version first. Check it out here:
    http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=8038

    and here:
    http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9043

    and here:
    http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9037

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The cover on this is so cool, but I'm waiting on Bree Yark's version with the new interior art. Very cool stuff, all over at his blog http://breeyark.blogspot.com/ Wish they could kiss and make up and combine their work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.tsrinfo.net/archive/dl/dl-lairs.htm

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cool - it's been awhile since we've had any melodrama in the OSR! [/sarcasm]

    ReplyDelete
  10. Come on guys. Read those posts from K&K. The guy only put it out because he did it for his group, and he wanted to share and help give something back to the community. He is making $0 on the project that took him however long to redesign.

    Let's also point out, the "inner circle" guy who was designing one, has been since for close to a year, and often left spans of no updates.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Falconer

    Well, the cover DID seem awfully "Larry Elmore-esque"...

    Might not be printing out that bit...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh. The cover is copied?

    Hmm, that is not half as cool as I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Got my copies of the Player's Reference today (full-size and pocket). I also got a copy of the Usherwood pocket-sized edition of the complete OSRIC.

    Got to say that the whilst the Usherwood pocket-sized version is definitely a professional effort in terms of appearance, layout and design the Player's Reference is obviously an amateur effort. Handy but nothing more than functional in design. The cover on the pocket-sized edition is very blurred and pixelated with some of the writing barely legible.

    This isn't a complaint (especially as it offered at cost for the benefit of the community), though, just an observation. Many will not be at all bothered as it is does exactly what it says on the tin.

    Personally, though, I'm hoping the other player's guide is a bit more professional in design and layout...as I'd happily pay more for a bit more 'wow'.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is LULU really selling that book with the Elmore cover (I suppose without authorisation)?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Actually, it's a Bruce Eagle painting.

    http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/museum/dlbooklairs.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Squeeck

    Interesting. The Acaeum's Wiki gives the cover artist as Larry Elmore.

    http://wiki.acaeum.com/wiki/DragonLance:_Book_of_Lairs

    I suppose it's possible a wiki could be wrong...shocking, I know.

    Anyone actually have a copy of the DL book and know whom it lists for the artist?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Antonio

    The PDF for the OSRIC Players Reference claims that "Cover/back artwork is public domain".

    Not sure I buy that now. Anyone vouch for that? Anyone know where the back cover art came from?

    ReplyDelete
  18. The cover artwork was listed public domain and free for use as long as no money was made using it. As well as the back is too. I love how someone gives a something to people for free and its bitched about.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If someone stole something from someone and gave it away is he still doing a good thing?

    Robin Hood non-withstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It doesn't seem people here are "bitching" about someone giving something for free. Rather, many (including myself) recalled the cover from a commercial product, so there was interest in knowing how it got there. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If it turns out Vincent is using artwork without permission, even if he isn't charging for the PDF, that's not right. It's also still being billed as "Approved by Stuart Marshall!" in the RPGNow blurb but apparently it hasn't: http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9037#p124254

    But that doesn't change the fact that the other guy working on something similar who freaked out about this apparently doesn't understand open gaming, open game content and open game license concepts giving Vince the right to release this, let alone that old school yard adage, "you snooze, you lose"...

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was asked to take it down, because of my mistake. I followed the guidelines asked of me. Its gone, it was a free product with artwork, I was lead to believe was free artwork, by a website. I never said this book was original work, it was EDITED by me. I explained this was EDITED for my group because I Wanted a players book. My group liked it, so I asked to release it and Stuart approved it, as it was following the legal guidelines of the OGL and nothing was changed.

    There is no further need to harp on this. It was an honest mistake, I pulled it down, and will be replacing the artwork.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Don't worry about it Vincent - it was a mistake and I know your intentions were good. Chalk it up as a learning experience. Thanks for the book though - it really is quite useful.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks Jaerdaph... I just feel bummed right now, because I thought I finally contributed something back to the community that has helped me over the years. I know some think my podcasting does that, but podcasts are a dime a dozen and dont last forever.

    I don't think Tim's comments on his blog were very fair, it was said upfront this wasn't an original work, it was an edited book, which I made for my group. Him saying it was "Tacky" and "the more he thinks about it he doesn't like" while just a post before he was saying how great it was.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Vincent, have you considering checking around the OSR community for anyone who has artwork they'd want to contribute for the cover or other art? Lots of good artists around (I'm not one of them) and would make the whole "permission to use" bit much easier.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Coldstream -- Actually yes. A few people stepped up and contacted me with suggestions and offers. But I thank you for looking out for me and help.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That's a pretty bad error with the artwork copyright. But good on you for owning up to it and quickly correcting it; that's of course the right thing to do (others have dug in their heels over similar legal misunderstandings; you're one up on them, at least).

    ReplyDelete
  28. @TheEvilGM.COM

    I just want to express my support & sympathy for you & your position. It seems clear to me that your motives & intentions were, and continue to be, good. And I'm not even sure that you really did make any sort of mistake about the cover art, either. At least, if you did, then I can easily imagine making the same mistake myself.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.