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

[Stonegiant]

I think the answer is both. We as a market are looking for the brand ID and we are expecting the quality to match accordingly. As Mike and Dungeon Dork pointed out it is the old style layout/appearance that reels them in to look at the product closer. I think if one is going to go forward with creating ones own style one has to also have a production level to support that new style. In other words one module with a unique style May or may not garner a closer look by potential customers, while several modules unique in appearance from the transitional style but similar to each other stands a better chance to attract customers by shelf presence alone.

[EOTB]

I really don't care that it apes TSR or not, as long as it's good. For instance, Frog God is a company that doesn't use TSR-dress on a lot of their modules (at least the ones natively written for pathfinder, and secondarily converted to S&W), but it's not good in my opinion - the products of theirs that I enjoy are in spite of the look, not enhanced by it. I spent more money to get the original mythmere games versions wherever possible.

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree with you, Tony, but still I can see why folks do it -- it creates brand recognition at first sight.

Yeah, I think the "brand recognition" factor is more important than the "nostalgia" factor, at least to my way of thinking. The truth is that if there were two OSRIC products on the shelf, and Product-A had familiar trade dress that screams "Yeah, this is TSR D&D compatible" and Product-B had a more modern-looking trade dress, I'd probably look at Product-A first. That's not because of comfort or nostalgia, in my case; it's because Product-A is "loudly" advertising that it probably has was I'm interested in.

That said, I'm not against breaking away from TSR-style trade dress. I think that can work, too. You just need to use a design that hits the right buttons for your target audience. (Other factors can help, too, like familiarity with a publisher.)

[TRP]

Do I think "TSR Style" is important for the majority of Old School consumers? Yes, and it's damned near mandatory to the Das OSR consumer.

It depends what *you* want to do. If you want to reach the most potential customers, then "doing it like They did" is the best way to go. If you want to do something that spins "your* wheels, then "do what Thou will shall be the whole of The Law."

Me? Heck, I'm on record as stating that even art isn't essential to my purchasing decision. If it functions (if it's good at it's core then it's good), the rest is just window dressing for dollars.

[AxeMental]

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.

I'm in agreement with this basically. I'd only add I prefer to see the "old cool TSR boundaries" cautiously pushed and expanded in new directions now and then (as long as they fit the old) with new art styles (rather then copycats), new monsters, new magic, new settings that might all be out of the "norm" of 1E and 0E but still fit in well with the three core books. For example, I've heard in peer reviews that the MoM could fit nicely with the original MM and MM2 on the bookshelf. Even though MoM was presented in a different sort of way, had different sorts of monsters, artwork and writing, that all ended up being a big plus IMO (we pushed the boundaries and did something original that can be mixed with the core three books without problems arrising). That said, I think additive works should be done thoughtfully, we aren't trying to "improve" the original game, we are trying to preserve it by keeping it "alive" (and growing). Now, If you want to make a new game, go make a new game (don't try to change an old one thats fine as it is).

In another thread Beck Rose said this:
One of the things some other people have commented on is that the female characters (one of which is pictured) are not over sexualised like in other games (naturally, because I'm one of those filthy feminists) but it does help to separate the atmosphere from the more cartoonish and jrpg styles that plague modern games. Combined with sensible weapons rather than the ridiculously large ones that would be impossible to lift that you see in jrpg's and lately in the official Dungeons & Dragons MMO - the last time I logged on to that I saw someone carrying a one handed sword about one and a half times the size of their character in both length and width, but that game very much took the steam punk route in an effort to appeal to a younger audience (walking talking robots / cyborg dogs etc *sigh*).

I'm working on a village at the moment, which is currently more of a hamlet... It's stylistically inspired by vikings.

This is a pretty good example of what I'm trying to say (though in her example she's talking about the artistic expression), in everything (cover art, dress etc.) its OK (even preferable now and then) to cover new territory, but in a way that doesn't clash with or screw up the assumptions and setting presented in the DMG, PH and MM. 1E is the setting just as much as it is the rules (and pictures are worth a thousand words, so they are defining to the game as well, the PH cover a good example).

We all know stupid when we see it. We also know it when we see slavish uninspired rehash (thats OK now and then, but the work of Peter Mullen for instance both covered new ground with talent and harkened back).

Its always a risk changing things we love, but if its done correctly, can help rather then hurt (if it improves the sum total). It can also make the difference between a -page in history and a living breathing growing thing alive and well.

I always saw that as the point of coming online years ago, and even what we have been doing all these years at K&K and in the creation of OSRIC. Certainly Gary would like to see us expanding on his game from his lofty puffy cloud as he roles dice.

[Guy Fullerton]

Group 1: People who want to read/use it.
Group 2: People who want want to have it.
Group 3: Those who would rather not be subjected to the classic style.
(Many people fall into multiple groups. Someone can be in groups 3 and 1, or even groups 3 and 2.)

The classic style visuals help the first two groups know that a module might be of interest. The classic style visuals are probably more important to group 2 than they are to group 1. (Style is not the only possible attraction for group 2, though. Author, system, and campaign world are some other example attractions.)

Group 1 will grab a new module if the play content is good, regardless of whether or not it has a classic cover.

Group 2 measures good differently—more on visual aesthetics, or uniformity with their other stuff. And there is a range of quality here, even for modules that pass the "cookie cutter" test; not all modules use the classic visual style well. Some of the TSR implementations of the classic style fail to hit the right tone. Compare the cover art of N1 (yes!) to L1 (bleh!), or the Trampier T1 (yes!) to the Dee T1 (meh). There is a difference between art that sparks your imagination, and art that tells the whole story; there's a difference between an illustration that depicts an adventurer that could easily be your character, and one that depicts an adventurer that you want your character to be (or hit on). It's not just about the cover art, of course. Interior illustrations obviously, but also layout choices and font choice all affect the tone. Just try using the Hobo font for a fantasy module and see how it feels.

...which is to say the classic style visuals are like the play content in that they can be anywhere from horrible to great.

Groups 1 and 2 get drawn in by certain qualities, and it's an additive effect on number of people who want a given module. There might be 100 people who want a module if the play content is good. If the module has the _thing_ (cover style, author, system, setting, etc.) that attracts group 2, there might be 100 more people who want the module. And adding that _thing_ generally does not reduce the number of group 1 people who want the module.

But Group 3 is different from the other groups. If a module falls into somebody's Group 3 negative reaction, then that's one less person who wants the module.

I'd rather work on giving people something that they _do_ want, and making it high quality; providing useful game content with nice aesthetics (remember that illustrations are both aesthetic and potentially useful at the table).

Really, I'd rather work on giving _me_ something that _I_ want, and making it high quality and useful for me at the game table. I also like the classic visual style. I know a fair number of other people who like similar stuff (for whatever reason), so I put my work out there in case they want to pick it up. If they want to grab it, great! If they don't like it (for whatever reason—cover style, rehash-ity, backstory, size, whatever), that's cool too.

[thedungeondelver]

I don't know about the "importance" of it to others, but I was the first person doing the TSR style mimicking thing - yeah, I know my stuff is A. not important and B. self-published, but it remains nobody was doing that before I did it.

It's a style I liked, it was evocative, easy-to-read, and what I like in a module's production values. So there's that.

[francisca]

I like the classic style. It identifies itself nicely, is pleasing layout to my eye, and hits that "this is what modules are supposed to look like" feel.

Having said that, there is a lot of complete shit out there which uses that particular trade dress (including some from TSR). So, the author's reputation and favorable reviews by reviewers I trust has more to do with adhering to the classic TSR layout, when it comes to making a purchase.

On top of all that, how much can you do with the layout of the cover?

I mean, when it comes to art, you have a couple of options for the cover:
1) cover the entire front edge to edge
2) as 1, but with a border overlayed on top of the art (Like T1-4, WG8, etc..)
3) in a "window" in old-TSR style.

Then it's a matter of text placement (including font choices, location, etc..), logo placement, and "do I want that yellow angled stripe?"

I'm not trying to downplay the work, effort, and talent that goes into layout, but really, what else is there to do?

[Badmike]

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

Trade dress/look gets me in the door. But the proof is in the pudding....it only takes a quick flip-through of most adventures to see what is cooking in the kitchen (mixing the metaphors today, sorry). There are some other things that can reel me in...stat blocks that aren't 3/3.5/4.0 looking; a short but sweet introduction (not 10+ page of background material the players will never find out); nice looking maps (doesn't have to be "blue ink" style, witness how cool Dyson's Delves maps look, but absolutely cannot be created using some lame computer generated program), etc.

Look at it this way....if there are two bookstores side by side, "Zippy's Media" and "Orson's Old Style Half Priced Books", I open the door on each, Zippy's has a pristine interior with lots of brand new books all placed on the shelves in strict alphabetical order, while Orson's has piles and stacks of old books everywhere, with shelves creating a maze of dimly lit rows filled with books to the ceiling, I'm going to get more excited about Orsons. Might not be a better bookstore, but due to past associations with this sort of establishment, it will definitely get the blood pumping!

Slavish devotion to trade dress, letter codes, cover style, etc doesn't always guarantee a superior product, but it tells me the author was thinking along those lines, even if the product doesn't match up. You can have Module Y1 Tales of the Lost City with Erol Otus cover, but if the adventure sucks it sucks. However, it will at least get be to pick it up and page through before the same adventure with a 3.5 style cover will.

And I've told Bill Webb this many times, the worst thing about their adventures is the repeating covers (too cheap to buy/pay for new artwork for each cover, so they re-use the same illustrations each adventure in the series). I understand the reasoning why (most of their sales are online and thus it doesn't pay to have a new cover for each adventure when chances are they won't be displayed on a shelf), but seeing something cool like Spire of Iron and Crystal by Matt Finch with the goofball generic cover is pretty sad....put the Mullen cover back on it, and call it "Adventure S&W #1" in the corner and you would sell out of it at conventions (Matt I am a very cheap marketing agent should you wish to hire me for consultation).

Mike B.

[AxeMental]

I don't know about the "importance" of it to others, but I was the first person doing the TSR style mimicking thing - yeah, I know my stuff is A. not important and B. self-published, but it remains nobody was doing that before I did it.

It's a style I liked, it was evocative, easy-to-read, and what I like in a module's production values. So there's that.

Yeah so get busy on your next series Bill. Hell, this time sell the damned things (might as well make some money while your at it).

[thedungeondelver]

Nobody wants to buy my work, Axe.

I had one shot and it's gone, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyhow I'll write another series of modules "someday".

I may strip these back further and go with the "pastel look" for the cover art, the pre-80 D&D style.

[T. Foster]

Old-school AD&D fandom is all about nostalgia and fan-fiction. Might as well embrace it, right?

[robertsconley]

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?

Not very, I replicated the cover of the Greyhawk Folio because it was fun and I liked the original. Not because I thought it was a critical advantage to its marketing. It was feasible because a result of a unrelated project I have a bunch of original heraldic shields to use as clip art for the project.



I adopted the three book layout OD&D in my Majestic Wilderlands because it actually proved useful in organizing what I was writing about. However with the main cover of the supplement and of Scourge Of the Demon Wolf I went with my own look.



However after many many repeated request, I released a pure nostalgia cover.



The Scourge layout is my attempt to make a useful reference for an adventure and mostly based around my thoughts of 30 years on "Boy I wished the adventure was setup like X instead of Y"

My ads involve Tampier style line drawing stuff. I do this because I like the style.








My criteria for incorporating nostalgia stuff is that I like it, it is feasible and if it involve a structural aspect of the book it has to be useful in of itself.

[Wheggi]

Old-school AD&D fandom is all about nostalgia and fan-fiction. Might as well embrace it, right?

It's starting to become uncomfortably clear that is exactly what "the OSR" is all about. When all of this started I was under the impression that the reason we wanted retro-clones was to pump life into our hobby, a hobby that had been marginalized by the owners of the original game's IP. We found a way to keep it not only alive, but moving forward and therefore accessible to a larger audience. No longer were we restricted to the products that had been published decades earlier (all readily available through assorted sources); we could now have new, unique gaming experiences that were compatible with our game system of choice! Fucking rad, right?

You'd think, but unfortunately no. The guys inclined to writing new stuff quickly learned that their target audience - the guys with money to burn and who enjoyed D&D as kids - had morphed from progressive-thinking college guys to settled middle-aged men set in their ways and their memories. These guys don't want new and exciting: they want to buy what they remember buying during the heyday. Guys wishing to sell modules for profit therefore give them what they want, recycling the same look and adventure concepts over and over again to satiate the collectors. In no way does this expand the hobby, either within the already established fan community or beyond its borders.

Now, there have been exceptions. That porn guy (Zak?) and James Raggi had attempted to expand beyond the pedestrian, but unfortunately they felt the need to infuse their products with shock value which totally overshadowed any quality of design that may have existed. Patrick Wetmore on the other hand does whatever his twisted imagination tells him to do and his products are the better for it, because he knows the line between creative and offensive. And as mentioned upstream, Kramer's professional and unique layouts make his products rise above the pack. But these are exceptions, and the reality is that if you want to write to sell you are going to have to make believe that you are TSR's layout guy circa 1982 so that the collectors can make-believe they are buying a new vanilla TSR module.

- Wheggi

[Landifarne]

Wheggi, why are you focussing only on those who produce material for money? Seems to me that you're (inadvertantly) limiting what you look at since people who put money into producing some kind of supplement will generally want to regain their investment. Those publishers are less likely to go out on a limb, especially if they are not independently wealthy.

It takes time to search for intriguing free stuff, but it is out there.

EDIT: I personally don't enjoy most wacky stuff. Gonzo can be fun, but I dislike head-spinning wackiness. I'm happiest when I find things that are fresh and intriguing rather than way out there. But, to each his own.