The Importance of the "TSR Style" in Retro-Clone Publishing

[Wheggi]

Ever since the development of retro-clones and the ability to legally publish D&D comparable games, I've noticed that publishers consistently try to emulate the look of the products TSR published in its heyday. Most do this by mimicking the layout of the module covers with the yellow band in the upper left corner, but some opt to replicate the monochrome color scheme. Typography and font selection will be as close a match as possible to the ones used in the 70's/80's products, and a few will even go so far as to use themes and compositions found in the classic art pieces of the time.

For a long time I felt this was all right and good. After all, the nostalgia aspect of the hobby was (and, in many ways, still is) one of the major draws to 1E. Nostalgia is a very comforting and powerful draw, especially for middle-aged guys. I loves me some silk screen printing, old vans, 70's progressive rock, Harryhausen movies and bitchin' concert T-shirts. I am totally down with "retro", maybe more so than most guys. But now I'm starting to wonder. All of these TSR knock-off products feel like forced, cheap imitations. They don't capture the 'essence' of the game for me, and when I thumb through one I don't automatically say "Wow, it's just like something I would have bought in '82"! No, instead I feel like I'm looking at fan fiction, works that aren't good enough to stand on their own so they attempt to win over an audience through association. Familiarity can breed contempt, especially when it feels like its cashing in on our fondest childhood memories.

It doesn't have to be this way. OSRIC is not a campaign setting: is a system, a platform that allows game designers to create adventures and supplements for play under a very popular ruleset. That doesn't mean that we want or need to see an adventure called "The Border Keep of the Chaotic Caverns" or "The Curse of Goblin Hill", complete with TSR trade dress, art depicting samurai hobgoblins, and a totally irrelevant letter/number identifying code in the corner in case you can't remember the title of the product. This ruleset can be used to create any number of fantasy adventures that can be presented in an infinite variety of layouts. If the game we love is so timeless and still relevant today, why won't publishers leave the nest and break away from the TSR template? Are they afraid they'll lose the nostalgia consumer base if they were to try something different, or is it a matter of ego, where they want to make the products they were such fans of when they were younger, to become the next TSR?

How important do you feel it is for today's retro-clone publisher to replicate the look of the old TSR (or Judges Guild for that matter) products?

- Wheggi

[Ghul]

Actually, Guy Fullerton brought up this same topic over at Acaeum:

http://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 10&t=14064

I agree with you, Tony, but still I can see why folks do it -- it creates brand recognition at first sight. Now, for my own part, with my AS&SH stuff, I've had some stuff that apes the old style a bit, and other stuff that is completely unlike anything TSR did.

[Wheggi]

Jeff, I'd have to disagree with your self-assessment: your stuff is actually one of the few I feel doesn't blatantly mimic the old TSR style. Your choice of Ian and his charcoal illustrations is completely unlike anything TSR did, and your trade dress in more in line with the pulps of the early 20th century than with Dungeons and Dragons.

- Wheggi

[Terrex]

I think Kramer's Usherwood Adventures OSRIC product line has notably eschewed the "TSR Style" and most of his stuff looks great: http://www.usherwoodadventures.com/products.html.

[Wheggi]

Actually, Guy Fullerton brought up this same topic over at Acaeum:

http://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 10&t=14064

just read that thread, Jeff. It was, in a word, depressing. I'd like to think that the average 1E/retro-clone fan is hungry for new and exciting products that their game of choice supports. I know that when TSR was cranking out adventures in the early 80's it was the cool, new adventures that grabbed my eye ("An adventure in Wonderland? Awesome!" "Going to the Abyss to fight the drow goddess in her demon pits!? Fuck yeah, sign me up!") not because it looked familiar and comforting. It felt like the thread contained a bunch of old sheep who totally forgot about the wonder of the game and only were concerned with its resemblance visibly to things already published.

The modules I enjoyed saw four different cover styles (mono, gold bar, WG5 "Greyhawk" style and EX1/EX2 style), a couple company logo changes and a slew of font changes. None of these changes influenced my purchase of these modules. I can only assume that the majority of the guys over at the Acaceum are more interested in keeping their stuff on a shelf looking Dungeons & Dragon-y instead of actually playing it.

- Wheggi

[Wheggi]

I think Kramer's Usherwood Adventures OSRIC product line has notably eschewed the "TSR Style" and most of his stuff looks great: http://www.usherwoodadventures.com/products.html.

Absolutely, and iirc Kramer is a professional in the design/print industry. It shows. Good catch Terrex!

- Wheggi

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Although I agree with Terrex that Usherwood is breaking the mould very successfully, I feel that Jim Kramer can do things that amateur people shouldn't be doing. If you're not a book designer at Jim's level then it's probably best to follow a tried and trusted formula.

It doesn't have to be the TSR tried and trusted formula. You could copy the design of, say, a textbook or encyclopaedia.

[Falconer]

I think it’s simply, if the consumer likes AD&D, there’s a good chance he’s going to like the old format. Not to the exclusion of every other format, but at least it’s a safe bet. If the cover is in the old style, he’ll be confident that the interior layout will be readable, the map will be functional, and even that the actual content will contain reasonably usable, old style sandboxy and/or dungeoney material.

[Juju EyeBall]

I'd be annoyed to find a new school module in old school trade dress.

I'd be surprised to find and old school module in new school trade dress.

When I see the new school looking covers I rarely take a second look to see what system they are for unless it's very prominent.

[Wheggi]

I'd be annoyed to find a new school module in old school trade dress.

I'd be surprised to find and old school module in new school trade dress.

When I see the new school looking covers I rarely take a second look to see what system they are for unless it's very prominent.

When I think "old school" cover I think of the TSR covers. Everyone does because it has been engrained into our psyche. When i think "new school" cover I think 3E/4E/Pathfinder super loud excessiveness. I would personally like to see covers that are unique things unto themselves.

- Wheggi

[Juju EyeBall]

I'd be annoyed to find a new school module in old school trade dress.

I'd be surprised to find and old school module in new school trade dress.

When I see the new school looking covers I rarely take a second look to see what system they are for unless it's very prominent.

When I think "old school" cover I think of the TSR covers. Everyone does because it has been engrained into our psyche. When i think "new school" cover I think 3E/4E/Pathfinder super loud excessiveness. I would personally like to see covers that are unique things unto themselves.

- Wheggi

Unique would have a chance of catching my eye.
But it's also nice to have them fit in next to the classics.
It's kind of comforting.

[tacojohn4547]

Other solid examples of old school products breaking out of the traditional TSR-looking mold:

- the Swords & Wizardry Complete rulebook, by our own Matt Finch and published by Frog God Games -- the new Erol Otus cover is both old AND new!

- the Swords & Wizardry Grimsgate adventure cover, also by Frog God Games, doesn't look like any 1980's TSR adventure cover.

- the Swords & Wizardry Monstrosities monster book, also from Frog God Games, seems like a solid departure from the AD&D MM, in terms of the cover art.

[AxeMental]

False advertising sucks, but its hear to stay (as a sales gimmick). Hell didn't WOTC have some sort of van covered in 1970s TSR artwork to push 4E (even though none of the artwork in that game had the same feel)?

Thats why reviews are so damned important.

The covers (artwork and dress) can't be trusted in the OSR because too many sharks have figured out its better to come off as "classic" and part of the cool crowd to sell your modules, books etc. Idiotic armor, weapons, nipple piercings, mohawked elves, etc. don't sell as well as they used to )

[Badmike]

Actually, Guy Fullerton brought up this same topic over at Acaeum:

http://www.acaeum.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 10&t=14064

just read that thread, Jeff. It was, in a word, depressing. I'd like to think that the average 1E/retro-clone fan is hungry for new and exciting products that their game of choice supports. I know that when TSR was cranking out adventures in the early 80's it was the cool, new adventures that grabbed my eye ("An adventure in Wonderland? Awesome!" "Going to the Abyss to fight the drow goddess in her demon pits!? Fuck yeah, sign me up!") not because it looked familiar and comforting. It felt like the thread contained a bunch of old sheep who totally forgot about the wonder of the game and only were concerned with its resemblance visibly to things already published.

The modules I enjoyed saw four different cover styles (mono, gold bar, WG5 "Greyhawk" style and EX1/EX2 style), a couple company logo changes and a slew of font changes. None of these changes influenced my purchase of these modules. I can only assume that the majority of the guys over at the Acaceum are more interested in keeping their stuff on a shelf looking Dungeons & Dragon-y instead of actually playing it.

- Wheggi

"If you like that, you're going to love this" is a advertising/sales gimmick as old as Shakespeare (or older). I get so tired of having to apologize for wallowing in nostalgia just because I want to, and when a publisher understands this, I'm supposed to sneer at them? In the end it comes down to content, but the "look" sure doesn't stop me to at least pick it up and flip through it. Jeff's stuff is an exception, he's really made his own style and it works.

Bottom line, a look approximating TSR circa late 70s/early 80s look will tell me something that other styles don't....It's like a wink-wink from the author/publisher to me, a not so secret code, and I appreciate that. There are some fakes there, but you can quickly suss them out.

You've gotta remember we are in a niche, and publishers/authors that choose to ignore that niche might lose a substantial part of the market they are writing for...old school gamers. The temptation to use the older style is probably overwhelming, and heck most of the guys putting out the stuff are fans first.

Now having said that, I can take or leave the slavish devotion to using a "letter" code to every single module that comes out, I don't think you need to do that as long as the material and look is traditionally old school.

Mike B.

[Wheggi]

So Mike, what is more important to you: nostalgia or quality? Would you sooner buy a module that was yet another generic goblin hunt but looked as if it were a forgotten TSR release, or an adventure that looks like it should be sitting on a B&N shelf but has an incredibly watertight design?

- Wheggi