[BFRPG] Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game

[Solomoriah]

Well, I'm going to bite the bullet and post this. A few of you are aware of my current project, but I have been unwilling to announce it in public... I don't want to be just another fellow with an unfinished rule system.

But I've decided it's gone far enough now. So, without further ado:

Announcing

Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game

http://basicfantasy.org/

What it is: An old-school roleplaying game in the style of Moldvay and Cook. It's based on the d20 SRD 3.5 (I know, bad words, but read on) and already contains much new material as well as material taken from my other game system, Project 74, as well as from my campaign world materials. By using the d20 SRD 3.5 I'm able to create a game that is OGL "clean"... unlike my Project 74 rules, which I really can't publish in print at all, I can get Basic Fantasy printed by a publisher (or self-publisher, which is 99.9% more likely). I'm looking forward to seeing it perfect-bound.

What it isn't: "d20 Basic" or "d20 Lite." Many d20 Basic versions I've seen (most, in my opinion) try to create a simplified d20 without changing the spirit of the game. Basic Fantasy RPG is based on d20, but with a "spirit transplant" from the older editions, particularly BX. It isn't just "lite," it feels light. Take a look for yourself. The sample character sheet, shown on real simulated notebook paper, is entirely playable as-is.

But... it's not all there. I'm still working on it; I publish a new release about once a day (yes, I said EVERY DAY... it's a sickness). I'm opening this up to anyone who'd like to help.

Where I'd like some help: I'm currently working on getting the combat system written down; it's all in my head somewhere. I don't really want help with major systematic parts; on the other hand, if someone wants to type up a spell description, monster description and/or stats, magic item writeup, etc. I'd be much obliged. We must make sure we don't directly plagiarize any other work (except the d20 SRD 3.5 which we can steal from as we wish). All submissions remain copyright of the submitter, except if he or she assigns the rights to me. If you choose to retain the rights, you must agree that the submission is Open Game Content as described in the Open Game License 1.0a. If you don't, I can't use it. Either way, you'll be credited... just don't forget to tell me how you want to be credited (what name you want to use).

I'm not trying to slavishly reproduce Moldvay/Cook... I can't, in fact, as I've mentioned above. It's not the substance, it's the spirit of the game I'm trying to evoke here. You can see how I've varied from the old game in many places... things like the rules for Skeletons and Zombies and Dragons and (especially) Mermaids. But I feel the spirit is in there.

[Evreaux]

As I said before, Sol, I love the idea and I love the execution thus far. Definitely preserves the spirit of the old rules, as opposed to being an intro to d20 proper. My personal preference is still for descending AC and to hit tables, but those aren't dealbreakers and, to be honest, I'm not sure what parameters the OGL puts you under.

As far as helping you flesh out the areas you mentioned, I'd be happy to send you my combat workup, although it is a smoosh of B/X and 1E, if you're interested. Spells and monsters will diverge from your ruleset, as I generally go with the AD&D version, but I have a host of ideas for the Adventuring section that you might find useful, as well (most of them modelled on B/X).

[Thoth Amon]

I just downloaded it but have not read any of it. My first comment is that 84 pages is too long. I would recommend keeping it at 48 pages or 64 pages.

[Evreaux]

I just downloaded it but have not read any of it. My first comment is that 84 pages is too long. I would recommend keeping it at 48 pages or 64 pages.

I agree that 84 pages is long, but cutting it significantly may be tough if Sol's going to include all of the spells, monsters, and magic items from the Basic and Expert sets.

[maddog]

Sol,

I just emailed you a rewrite of the d20 SRD spells that are also in the classic game. Feel free to use anything from it.

I was recently rewriting my WnW rules (after kicking out the guy who was ruining our game) and was going to roll back to just the classic spell list. My players asked to keep the extended list though so I didn't get to use it.

I also have a document that has 'Race is Class' in it but it's too big to email unless you're on high-speed internet.

--Ray.

[Tarrax Ironwolf]

Definately an awesome write up. Very easy to read and play with little preparations. I like a game where you can sit down and practically start playing. I really enjoyed the read. Thanks Sol!

[Wilowisp]

Sigh................

When, o WHEN will we ever get Sol and Ev' to stop talking about d20...............



Small jab aside Sol, this looks like high quality work! I'm constantly amazed at the amount of creativity and diligence that can be found in the DF company!

[Solomoriah]

Honestly, Thoth, it could be shorter. But my vision isn't what it used to be... I refuse to set the text at less than 9 points if I can avoid it. (The treasure table is smaller, but that's about it.)

I'm closely following the "coverage" of Moldvay/Cook. I want to hit every point they hit, and not go too far beyond that. My target is around 128 pages; if it gets much larger I'll subdivide it.

The monster list is almost exactly as long as theirs; I dropped one actual monster and several categories of men/demi-humans, and I added a couple of common animals, but I've held pretty close to the original. The spell lists are the same length and contain about the same spells as the Mentzer Expert set (I added a few 6th level spells, just as he did). When I get the tables sorted out, some parts may get shorter.

I've added maybe a page or two to the overall length with optional rules (all in the Game Master's section).

I dunno. I guess I can't please everyone...

[Solomoriah]

I just emailed you a rewrite of the d20 SRD spells that are also in the classic game. Feel free to use anything from it.

Wow 'dog... very cool of you! Thanks!

I was recently rewriting my WnW rules (after kicking out the guy who was ruining our game) and was going to roll back to just the classic spell list. My players asked to keep the extended list though so I didn't get to use it.

That's how it will be in my game also, I suspect.

I also have a document that has 'Race is Class' in it but it's too big to email unless you're on high-speed internet.

I am on high speed, but I think I'm going to stick to my rules. They are actually amazingly close to Moldvay but yet separate race and class. That's one thing I'm not going back to... never did like race classes.

[Mike]

Wow, I've been working on something almost identical, right down to the font and organization/layout.

A few comments:

- I don't think you can refer to the "d20 SRD" since "d20" is product identity and as such is explicitly prohibited in the SRD license.

- For legal reasons, in my version I've tried to use the SRD version of things as much as possible (for example thief skills are rolled on a d20, spells that have been renamed use the new names, etc) so that that is clear I am deriving from the SRD and not B/X D&D. It breaks compatibility a little, but I don't think it's too difficult for people to tell that 2nd level Arcane Lock is the same thing as 2nd level Wizard Lock. If "Basic Fantasy" is essentially identical in everything other than ascending AC, then it surely infringes on the B/X copyright.

Ideally we ought to be able to show this to WOTC and say "is this acceptable use" and they would say "yes."

- Where is alignment?

I really don't mean to pour water on this. Like I said I'm working on the same thing, because my 7-year-old loves B/X D&D (it's his favorite version and he's tried everything except 2E) and I want him to have a "free" version that nobody can ever take away from him, as well as make a baseline that people could legally write material for under the OGL. Since you've already done much of the work I'd be happy to jump on the bandwagon and join efforts, but I want to make sure it's free and legal. We can get used to the few changes needed.

[MrFilthyIke]

I dunno. I guess I can't please everyone...

Sounds familar.

Looks good Sol, maybe I'll bash out some ideas with you.

[MrFilthyIke]

Ideally we ought to be able to show this to WOTC and say "is this acceptable use" and they would say "yes."

At a seminar at GenCon, a lady (can't remember her name) said people were free to ask Andy Smith (referred to as "The Andy") about any SRD questions at any time.

I think his email is andy at wizards.com, but I'm not certain.

[Maurício]

After 9th level, all characters, including fighters, receive 1 HP per level. Is that a mistake or did you intended it to be that way?

[Alex]

What are the parameters of your design? Where do you draw the line and what is integrated? How much BX are you planning to copy...I see your saves are identical to that version despite it's vast difference from d20. Or a better question is what gives you the answer to "should I do this the BX way or the d20 way?"

Design options: single book vs multiple books (the BX/RC way vs the AD&D/d20 way), max level/spell level to be detailed, etc.

For example, my version was to be an RC-style all-in-one book with a 128p limit. I got under 128p for PHB+DMG, but monsters are several hundred pages over that. Monsters are the hardest part to handle, even after trimming out 50% of the stats of d20. My goal was d20 with the BX feel, so I too changed the rules as needed, especially combat. That also helped reduce page count. However I had the hard requirement of 14th level, 7th level spells so that made my version a little bigger than all those 10th level/5th level spells versions other people touted.

[Solomoriah]

After 9th level, all characters, including fighters, receive 1 HP per level. Is that a mistake or did you intended it to be that way?

Hmm. Sounds like a mistake...

It'll be fixed in the 2006.10 version... probably tomorrow morning.

Regarding the SRD questions:

-- You have to say "d20 SRD" in order to attribute it properly. The words that get you in trouble are "d20 System," at least as far as I understand it. I've been very, very careful not to say "D&D" or anything like that. So far as the product identity monsters go, only two are affected, and I'm rolling my own with little reference to any of the official rules. If it's my own creation, and I don't use their (or anyone else's) product identity, I can pretty much do as I wish.

-- The thief abilities table is my own creation, pretty much from scratch. I decided to go with d% rather than d20 because, as I understand it, they can't tell me what game systems to make up.

-- Much of the raw text is coming from the SRD in many areas. The rules differ from BX in a lot of detail... detail that does not affect the ephemeral spirit of the game, nor make much difference in actual play.

Of course, I am not a lawyer. If I ever suspect I might make a penny or two off of it, I'll hire one. I am considering selling printed versions at the cost of production, but I'll probably ask a lawyer about that also. Mostly I'd do that so I could buy one... CafePress lets you make books on demand for resale, and they let you sell to yourself. I'd have to get a deal with eek for the artwork, of course... gah. Good thing I'm not trying to make money at it.

[Solomoriah]

What are the parameters of your design? Where do you draw the line and what is integrated? How much BX are you planning to copy...

I'll admit, I started from a copy of the "bones" of the BX rules, i.e. the headings and titles. I did this not so much to copy those rules as to make sure I cover everything, and by the time I have it done it will have mutated quite a bit that way.

I see your saves are identical to that version despite it's vast difference from d20. Or a better question is what gives you the answer to "should I do this the BX way or the d20 way?"

My saving throw categories are the same, mostly because I wrote them down from memory first. I've looked at all the pre-3E saving throw groupings and I just like the BX arrangement best... after 24 years, it's still ingrained in me. But the numerics are all mine; I did the math myself, made the decisions myself, and came up with a progression that both works and doesn't copy anyone else's.

As to the question "BX or d20," mechanically I'm leaning toward old-school systems. That means percentile rolls for skills, "1 in 1d6" for secret doors, etc. The systems that jump to my mind when I'm deciding how to handle something in-game.

Those things that are, to me, quintessentially D&D, are the things I want in the rules. I started out with two articles of mine in hand, the 5% principle article from Footprints #2 and an unpublished article that separates race and class as simply as possible; I saw in those two articles the core of a rule system. But it would be a fruitless endeavor, thought I, unless I used the d20 SRD to give me a legitimate base to work from. Something to make all that terminology legal. I'm not sure if starting with the same layout as BX constitutes copyright infringement, but I seem to remember that "look and feel" can't be copyrighted (at least in the US).

Design options: single book vs multiple books (the BX/RC way vs the AD&D/d20 way), max level/spell level to be detailed, etc.

Single book if I can get it down around 128 pages; I might go as high as 150 and keep it together. If it gets much larger than that, I'll break it into two or three books, following the general pattern of the white box books.

For example, my version was to be an RC-style all-in-one book with a 128p limit. I got under 128p for PHB+DMG, but monsters are several hundred pages over that. Monsters are the hardest part to handle, even after trimming out 50% of the stats of d20. My goal was d20 with the BX feel, so I too changed the rules as needed, especially combat. That also helped reduce page count. However I had the hard requirement of 14th level, 7th level spells so that made my version a little bigger than all those 10th level/5th level spells versions other people touted.

Here I had to make a decision also. I realized that I've never had a game where the spells from 7th-9th level really mattered, so I decided to cover the same spells the Mentzer Expert book lists (it has 6th level spells, which are missing from BX). I'm using the SRD (and maddog's edited versions especially) for most of the spells, while some come from my house rules.

I'm using my own combat rules, inspired by d20's ascending AC but otherwise much like Moldvay (mainly because, in every game I've run since then, the combat has wound up running like Moldvay in the individual initiative mode).

I decided to put all the optional rules in the GM's section, which allows the core rules to be very simple. I've mimicked the BX experience point allocation rules (monster level and special ability bonus) and the points needed for 2nd level are the same (or did I change the thief? can't remember...) The class XP tables are based on my own progression, which evidently matches the BX Fighter (memory again) pro-rated against the classes' 2nd level figure.

[Solomoriah]

Oh, yes... someone asked about alignment.

It's not there.

I'm not ruling it out per se; rather, I've noticed that no part of the rules causes the contention that alignment does, and I've further noticed that it's not really needed.

I've gotten into arguments before with those who say that they like the moral absolutism that the standard alignment system (regardless of edition) creates. I feel that alignment codifies into the rules something that should be the choice of the GM. Certainly, I can imagine running a "Moorcockian" campaign where alignment is of critical importance, but honestly I never have. I don't think it would be the least bit difficult to add back in for a GM who wants it.

Also, it's a page. I'm trying to save pages...

[Maurício]

I'll just add that I think you should use the standart d20 method for thief skills and saving throws, it will only make it simpler.
Edit: and give all weapons 1d6 damage. I could never understand that when the game is supposed to be abstract.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Are you going to sell it from Lulu?

If you're making perfect bound book, you probably want to reset your page margins to mirror margin style, with something roughly like 1.5 cm margins along the outer edge, 2.25 cm on the inner, 1.75 cm top and bottom, and 1cm between the columns. You can obviously change those figures to suit yourself, but it'll look wrong if you don't use mirror margins.

Personally, using that font, I'd consider increasing the font size to 10pt but set the line spacing to 0.35.

[Solomoriah]

Are you going to sell it from Lulu?

If you're making perfect bound book, you probably want to reset your page margins to mirror margin style, with something roughly like 1.5 cm margins along the outer edge, 2.25 cm on the inner, 1.75 cm top and bottom, and 1cm between the columns. You can obviously change those figures to suit yourself, but it'll look wrong if you don't use mirror margins.

Probably CafePress, at least once, as I've had an account with them forever and never done a book. I'll take a look at your margin suggestions; I can easily do the "mirror margins" thing but for the moment I'm going to keep them even.

Personally, using that font, I'd consider increasing the font size to 10pt but set the line spacing to 0.35.

Actually, most of the document is in 10pt font; I used 9pt for most of the tables to make them take up less room. I'll think about the line spacing thing.

Funny thing is, I don't like the font (I'm using a Souvenir knockoff) but this document just refuses to look right in anything else.

[Solomoriah]

I'll just add that I think you should use the standart d20 method for thief skills and saving throws, it will only make it simpler.

I thought about both things, I really did. In my "other" game, Project 74, I use an analogous saving throw system and d20-based skill rolls. But that just doesn't feel right for this project, even though I've done the ascending AC thing.

Here's why I drew the line where I did: Saving throws done the classic way don't slow the game down, but the table lookup (or figure-juggling if you use THAC0) for each and every hit slows things down too much. So I pitched descending AC (which I might not be able to use anyway) but kept class-based saving throws.

and give all weapons 1d6 damage. I could never understand that when the game is supposed to be abstract.

This will probably appear in the Optional Rules section, along with class-based damage (1d4 for MU, 1d6 for Thief/Cleric, 1d8 for Fighter).

[maddog]

Funny thing is, I don't like the font (I'm using a Souvenir knockoff) but this document just refuses to look right in anything else.

Sol,

Try Verdana. I've found it to be a nice subsitute for Arial (being that I've always thought that Souvenir looks kinda like an Arial font......but that's just me).

--Ray.

[Solomoriah]

Okay, I just tried that... Verdana's so... so BIG.

Somehow it just cries out for a font with rounded serifs.

[Stonegiant]

Sol-
1. As I said before I really like this project and definatley want to help (typing, etc.).

2. I have the souvenir font if you want it. (regular, bold, etc.), I really think sticking with the original font is essential. The feel of BX comes from the substance of the game and also the appearance (face it humans are visual creatures ).

3. As to the # of monsters to include: I say that is what supplements are for

Later,

[Solomoriah]

Regarding monster coverage, I'm sticking pretty close to the set from BX. I'm adding a few animals, and dropping a couple of monsters that aren't used much (I hope nobody here is a big fan of Devil Swine).

As for the Souvenir font, yeah, I need it. Somehow I have Souvenir Regular but not Bold, Italic or Bold Italic. Not sure what software product they came with. You have my email address; if you can send 'em on to me...

First bit last: I have some things I'd like you to do, but I don't want to detract from your ongoing proofing job. I don't want to drain power from DF for this project...

[Solomoriah]

BFRPG 2006.10 is now on my website. Many, many thanks to maddog, whose spell document has provided a bunch of spells already!

[Solomoriah]

New release!

Release 2006.11: Additional "introductory" text as well as more rules in the Encounter section; this includes Surprise rules and the Clerics vs. Undead table. I chose to put it into the Encounter rather than Character section as it seems more appropriate, and less confusing to a newbie generating his or her first character. Also added the missing Sneak Attack rule for Thieves.

The Clerics vs. Undead table I've changed to d20-based (though the actual rules for using it aren't in writing yet). I kept the classic organization, but changed the number spreads to work better for a 1-20 level range.

I'm hard at work on 2006.12; I've filled in almost all the spells up through the letter H, as well as a first cut at the spellcasting rules (well, actually the spell preparation rules). I'm not entirely happy with it... I want to make the game accessible to beginners, though not perhaps with quite as much hand-holding as Mentzer Basic. I want to be (a) clear and (b) brief; I'm only confident of being brief.

BTW... my thanks again to maddog. I don't know how much you changed the spells from the SRD versions, but I find I only have to hack away about half of each spell description for my purposes. It makes my job easy and at the same time makes "based on the SRD" truthful.

With any luck, 2006.12 will be up tomorrow.

[maddog]

BTW... my thanks again to maddog. I don't know how much you changed the spells from the SRD versions, but I find I only have to hack away about half of each spell description for my purposes. It makes my job easy and at the same time makes "based on the SRD" truthful.

Sol,

You're welcome.

I did some cutting of the spell descriptions from the SRD but a huge amount. My players like to have more description in that area of the game and I knew that it would be a second docuement.

BTW, I like what I see so far. Can't wait to see it as a finished product.

--Ray.

[Solomoriah]

Another release!

Release 2006.12 -- January 23, 2006: Many little changes... some table reformatting, rules for Turning Undead, some explanatory text in the Monsters section as well as stats for all the A and B monsters; they're effectively done. Also a few more spells from maddog's spellbook. Just a lot of stuff.

I printed a few pages (the early pages that look pretty well done to me) and I'm not happy with how that font looks in print; it aligns badly vertically on the printer. I'm not sure if Souvenir would be better, as I haven't tried it yet... I really need Souvenir Demi before I can do that (I have Souvenir Light, Souvenir Light Italic and Souvenir Demi Italic but not the upright Souvenir Demi).

http://tower.newcenturycomputers.net/basicfantasy

[maddog]

Another release!

Release 2006.12 -- January 23, 2006:

http://tower.newcenturycomputers.net/basicfantasy

Sol,

It looks like your webpage is pointing at the previous (2006.11) version. It's giving an error message.

--Ray.