2016-05-23

Book of War Compatibility Mark

Ever since I released the Book of War mass-combat rules for miniatures, compatible with classic versions most versions of D&D, in 2011, I've had numerous people contact me and ask if they could use/incorporate those rules in various supplements, books, and RPG adventures that they planned to write. Unfortunately, I had a embarrassingly hard time figuring out a proper response to that. The main thing is that I wanted to say "yes", and provide a clear-cut way to indicate that for people, without getting too legalistic about the whole thing.

So finally I have, I think, a good answer for when people ask me about that in the future. On this page you can see the new Book of War Compatibility Mark that you can use to signal that your product makes use of the rules, if you want to do that. There's no fee or license, and strictly speaking it's not even necessary (game mechanics aren't subject to copyright, after all, according to current law). But it's a great way to highlight to people that you're using a simple and streamlined way of doing mass combat that a lot of people have found of benefit to their games.

Also it's appreciated if you include a line of thanks to me, "Daniel 'Delta' Collins (www.oedgames.com)", and drop me an email so I know about it. If you want to reference an OGL version of the core rules, that's available, too (again: at your option, not required). See more at the official OED Games website.

Thanks immensely to my partner Isabelle for drafting the compatibility mark. I think it rocks!


at

9 comments:

  1. Michael S/ChgowizMay 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM

    Very cool! I guess I should update my Fellowship.

    One question, because it's going to come up pretty quickly. Did you ever come up with rules for catapults and ballistae? I see my players using (or being subjected to) those in the future...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DeltaMay 25, 2016 at 11:46 PM

      Good question; and no, I haven't yet. I do have a 2E halfway baking here, hopefully I can add that in at some point.

      Delete
    2. Michael S/ChgowizMay 31, 2016 at 3:26 PM

      Don't be surprised if I have to solve for x/y (catapults/ballistae) pretty quickly. I am probably going to hew as close to your example of how you developed BoW (looking at OD&D/Chainmail and keeping it at d6/1:10 scale, as well as how you handled area of effect issues.)

      Delete
    3. DeltaJune 1, 2016 at 11:49 AM

      That right there is the biggest dilemma to me, I always wonder if people want 1:1 catapults or 1:10. Your vote on that is quite helpful!

      Delete
    4. Joshua L. LyleJune 8, 2016 at 8:51 AM

      For what it's worth, I would prefer 1:1 siege engines as well.

      Delete
    5. DeltaJune 8, 2016 at 10:02 AM

      And we have a split vote. :-)

      Delete
  2. Michael S/ChgowizJune 8, 2016 at 10:16 AM

    I'm leaning towards 1:1 scale as well, but I'm also struggling with what effect 1 catapult would have on a figure of 10 men.

    There's not a clear path from Chainmail/Swords&Spells to Book of War on how to adjudicate this. And I am not nearly as skilled in math to crunch the numbers to come up with an elegant, I'm of a "what feels right from a gameplay perspective." (and sometimes I get lucky with the math working out). Still chewing on it.

    I know that I'm not going to include ballistae into BoW from a single siege engine perspective - ballistae were the equivalent of an ancient's sniper rifle and used mainly in sieges. (Source: A lot of reading on the Intertubes). I might finagle a rule for siege defenders using ballistae and ranges/impact, but I'm not convinced yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael S/ChgowizJune 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM

    That should have read: "I know that I'm not going to include ballistae into BoW from a single siege engine vs. a figure of 10 men perspective." They just wouldn't have that big of an effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DeltaJune 13, 2016 at 7:41 PM

      I definitely agree with that! That's probably the main reason I've been very cautious about including those elements.

      Delete