Talk:OSRIC

untitled
Has the OSRIC role playing game become noteworthy enough to warrant an article? It's become the basis of several publications. A previous wiki entry was deleted, but the ruleset's popularity now seems to warrant one. I'd like to hear someone else support this, or object to it. Nazim 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the stub I propose: OSRIC™ is a compilation of rules for fantasy role gaming as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. This new "artistic presentation" makes use of the System Reference Document produced by Wizards of the Coast. The reason for restating these rules is that it allows old school publishers (both commercial and fans) to reference the rules set forth in OSRIC without making reference to any protected trademark. By using this document in tandem with the Open Game License of WOTC, a publisher should be able to produce products for old-school fantasy gaming and clearly make reference to this particular ruleset without violating the terms of the Open Game License.

In many cases rules have been clarified, or are based on the SRD than on original rules (when it was difficult to separate rules from artistic presentation). A couple of notable differences are in the experience required to advance in level, and the inclusion of some variables into the level progression. Nazim 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag
This article has no sources other than the actual project itself. Secondary sources are required for inclusion. EvilCouch 08:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Another Notability Nazi. This is an important subject for people interested in RPG's. The references will come - give it time. Rome wasn't built in a day. Orange ginger (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

image removal unjust
removal of my photograph of my copy of the rule book was unjust. It is just this sort of zealous policing of images and content that has contributed to the ruin of wikipedia. I paused contributing for years because of stuff like this but I see things have only gotten worse at wikipedia. If the site can't be properly run then it should be taken down all together. (Smf77 (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC))


 * If you aren't happy with a site that millions use, it should be taken down? That seems ... disproportional. And blaming Wikipedia because you uploaded a file to Commons and ignored the clearly posted rules about what types of files Commons accepts is absurd, and a waste of our time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)