Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I'm already on the record as liking TSR's mid/late-80s trade dress and graphic style better than their early-80s style (the one that all the OSR publishers imitate). I love the covers of stuff like CM3: Sabre River, H2: Mines of Bloodstone,T1-4: Temple of Elemental Evil, X11: Saga of the Shadow Lord, and the REF2 character sheets pack much more than anything by Dee, Roslof, or Willingham. I absolutely bought CM3, H2, and X11 based pretty much solely on their covers (and in all three cases was disappointed that the actual adventure content didn't live up to their promise). I also like the Elmore Basic & Expert Set covers more than the Otus ones, and the Easley/orange-spine AD&D book covers more than the earlier versions (except for Trampier's PH cover, but I'd be willing to forgo that for the sake of having a unified set - if only TSR had actually released FF with its intended Jeff Easley cover).

EDIT: Heh, just realized that all five examples I chose are by the same guy, the late Keith Parkinson. That totally wasn't on purpose - I just looked at the module-list at The Acaeum and grabbed ones I remember especially liking the covers of

For the sake of balance, it's probably worth pointing out that Parkinson also did several of my least favorite covers of that era too...

T. Foster wrote:I'm already on the record as liking TSR's mid/late-80s trade dress and graphic style better than their early-80s style...

While I wouldn't say I like it better, I think it's fine. I do like that the mid-80s trade dress for modules tended to have more artwork with smaller borders.

I also like the Elmore Basic & Expert Set covers more than the Otus ones...

Taken individually, I like the Otus Basic cover and the Elmore Expert cover. However, since the Otus Expert cover ties into the Otus Basic cover, overall I'd pick the Otus covers. I think the Otus Basic cover really screams "Dungeons & Dragons." The only potentially bad thing about it is Otus's weird style, which can be an acquired taste (it was an acquired taste in my case -- I didn't appreciate Otus's work when I first saw it, but his style grew on me).

...and the Easley/orange-spine AD&D book covers more than the earlier versions (except for Trampier's PH cover...

I like the Easley MM and L&L better, but I prefer Tramp's PH (by a mile) and Sutherland's DMG (by a chain).

Re the bigger issue, the whole concept of tabletop rpgs - physical books full of charts and tables, paper character sheets, pencils, dice, minis, etc. - is so thoroughly dated and outmoded that its only possible appeal is as nostalgia for the folks who played it in its day (or faux-nostalgia for ironic retro hipsters), so the trade dress and graphic style might as well directly copy the originals. Giving the AD&D rules a "contemporary" graphic-design style isn't going to make them feel any less obsolete and dinosaury to someone who was born in the 21st century and thinks of Halo and Call of Duty as old-fashioned.

To the extent the spirit of AD&D can be carried into the future (or the present, or the recent past, or even the not-so-recent past - to be honest, pen & paper rpgs were already obsolete by the mid/late-80s - most of my friends were every bit as happy playing Zelda on the NES or Pools of Radiance on the C-64 than "real" AD&D around a table; even then it felt to them pretty much like a slow-moving, graphics-free version with a worse story and a whole bunch of math), something like BeckyRose's OSRIC PC Game is millions of times more relevant than what font is being used in someone's OSR module.

Can't quite agree with you here Foster...

T. Foster wrote:Re the bigger issue, the whole concept of tabletop rpgs - physical books full of charts and tables, paper character sheets, pencils, dice, minis, etc. - is so thoroughly dated and outmoded that its only possible appeal is as nostalgia for the folks who played it in its day (or faux-nostalgia for ironic retro hipsters), so the trade dress and graphic style might as well directly copy the originals. Giving the AD&D rules a "contemporary" graphic-design style isn't going to make them feel any less obsolete and dinosaury to someone who was born in the 21st century and thinks of Halo and Call of Duty as old-fashioned.

There is a creative and strategic way of thinking of PnP RPG's that cannot be imitated through console games of any sort. Preaching to choir, I know, but there's a different appeal--limited though it be, I'll grant you--to people who play paper-and-pencils games that just can't be replicated in a digital world. Especially when you factor in the whole group involvement factor where 6 people are actually in the same room together...talking...and joking...and laughing...and thinking...and rolling plastic polyhedrals.

T. Foster wrote:To the extent the spirit of AD&D can be carried into the future (or the present, or the recent past, or even the not-so-recent past - to be honest, pen & paper rpgs were already obsolete by the mid/late-80s - most of my friends were every bit as happy playing Zelda on the NES or Pools of Radiance on the C-64 than "real" AD&D around a table; even then it felt to them pretty much like a slow-moving, graphics-free version with a worse story and a whole bunch of math), something like BeckyRose's OSRIC PC Game is millions of times more relevant than what font is being used in someone's OSR module.

As far as the importance of the typography; there actually is quite a bit of science behind. This publication by Robert Bringhurst (one of my personal favorites on the subject) goes into quite a bit of detail on how the selection and presentation of fonts affect the reader's conscious and unconscious absorption of the material being presented. It also delves into the territory of bad design having the exact opposite effect of good design; that is, preventing the understanding of the material.

So, yes, bad graphic design (and personally, I think the TSR material from the late 70's to be particularly bad) does in fact prevent the ready understanding of a module.

Kramer wrote: This publication by Robert Bringhurst (one of my personal favorites on the subject)

I've heard that its great, and I am hoping to pick it up soon. Glad to see you also endorse it!

- Wheggi

T. Foster wrote:Re the bigger issue, the whole concept of tabletop rpgs - physical books full of charts and tables, paper character sheets, pencils, dice, minis, etc. - is so thoroughly dated and outmoded that its only possible appeal is as nostalgia for the folks who played it in its day (or faux-nostalgia for ironic retro hipsters), so the trade dress and graphic style might as well directly copy the originals. Giving the AD&D rules a "contemporary" graphic-design style isn't going to make them feel any less obsolete and dinosaury to someone who was born in the 21st century and thinks of Halo and Call of Duty as old-fashioned.

To the extent the spirit of AD&D can be carried into the future (or the present, or the recent past, or even the not-so-recent past - to be honest, pen & paper rpgs were already obsolete by the mid/late-80s - most of my friends were every bit as happy playing Zelda on the NES or Pools of Radiance on the C-64 than "real" AD&D around a table; even then it felt to them pretty much like a slow-moving, graphics-free version with a worse story and a whole bunch of math), something like BeckyRose's OSRIC PC Game is millions of times more relevant than what font is being used in someone's OSR module.

Such an optimist Foster. Well, you never know, things sometimes go in cycles.

It isn't computer games, but VTTs, that hold the future for RPGs. People already use hangouts for purely social activities, for a lot of reasons. I know that up to this point VTTs haven't really picked up yet, but I think Roll20 is about to gather enough critical mass to entrench itself as something simple enough to just pick up and use, without a large learning curve.

Publishing comes into the equation in that much of the learning curve comes from using programs to develop the material for your adventures; programs that many people aren't familiar with. Electronic modules would remove this roadblock; all maps, handouts, etc., would be included and dropped in for a plug and play experience. Already there is a small smattering of electronic modules for sale in their marketplace.

That doesn't mean the heady days of '82 are going to make their way back. But it will be a viable way to attract new players without seeming like an antiquated hobby.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Could we refocus this thread on the trade dress, please?

I don't think the TSR style is Important, but in demand. It was used by some to become established/recognized, but after this process, these systems now stand on their own. Labyrinth Lord and HackMaster are both examples.
Then Now
Then Now

T. Foster wrote:Re the bigger issue, the whole concept of tabletop rpgs - physical books full of charts and tables, paper character sheets, pencils, dice, minis, etc. - is so thoroughly dated and outmoded that its only possible appeal is as nostalgia for the folks who played it in its day (or faux-nostalgia for ironic retro hipsters), so the trade dress and graphic style might as well directly copy the originals. Giving the AD&D rules a "contemporary" graphic-design style isn't going to make them feel any less obsolete and dinosaury to someone who was born in the 21st century and thinks of Halo and Call of Duty as old-fashioned.

To the extent the spirit of AD&D can be carried into the future (or the present, or the recent past, or even the not-so-recent past - to be honest, pen & paper rpgs were already obsolete by the mid/late-80s - most of my friends were every bit as happy playing Zelda on the NES or Pools of Radiance on the C-64 than "real" AD&D around a table; even then it felt to them pretty much like a slow-moving, graphics-free version with a worse story and a whole bunch of math), something like BeckyRose's OSRIC PC Game is millions of times more relevant than what font is being used in someone's OSR module.

I'd also add: I completely disagree with this. I think the criteria of comparison, i.e. mainly treating role playing games as technology, is a dumb comparison to begin with. I don't deny that in terms of recent competition (and by recent I mean for the last 30 years, the RPG hobby being I think recent by any objective historical standard) computer games and MMOs now provide some of the things some gamers were initially searching for in RPGs much better (i.e. if they were in search of passive entertainment, didn't value socialization much, aren't bookish or particularly tactile as people), but to basically make this a sweeping argument that RPGs are "dated" as if they were a piece of hardware, instead of the imagination of their users', is thoroughly missing the point of the games, why they haven't gone away beyond the sheer nostalgia, and why they won't in the future either.

Will RPGs ever become the "thing" they were at the end of the 70s beginning of the 80s? Maybe not. Probably not. Even there, it's very, very hard to know how fashions and what people value evolves, especially considering that the internet changed the entire game and that self-appointed gate keepers will matter less and less. But assuming they don't ever become "hot" again, they'll always have an audience - a small audience of specific personality types with specific inclinations on the ways to go about and use their imaginations as a hobby, perhaps, but an audience nonetheless.

I’d spin this Foster crap out into its own thread, too, except he buries his screeds in the middle of other topics on purpose, and would be embarrassed to have his own thread.

So… back to style and trade dress, please, gentlemen. Thank you!

I know what Fosters saying. Still the novelty over technology by the younger generations may eventually wear off. hopefully they'll start doing normal things again...things we did at their age (like talking face to face, going outside, playing cards across the table etc.). 1E would fit into that scenario nicely (if they can have it introduced to them). Its really no different then Monopoly, RISK etc. Those games still hang on, why not 1E (in some shape or form).

AxeMental wrote:Yeah, the technology thing will eventually get boring and people will move on (and hopefully back to board games and tabletop) though it hasn't happened yet, ya never know. The key is they (the market) has to discover the "good stuff" (1E/0E) and not all the mountains of smelly shit surrounding it.

One of the best Axeisms ever!

Though I love this game, I don't for a second believe that people are going to get 'bored' with technology and take up tabletop RPG in droves. When people "move on" it's going to be towards even more technologically advanced forms of entertainment, most likely the kinds that make the experience more immersive, more immediate, more portable and more stimulating to the senses. Technology exists because man wants more gratification with less work. Tabletop RPGs - and their mandatory investment of time, community and creative output - go directly against the culture that our society champions.

- Wheggi

And yet people still read novels (thats work, involves the imagination and reflection and is very low technology...the same sort of imagination 1E stimulates).

Hell, kids probably write more then they ever have in history with the volumes of texts they produce. Many of them also write blogs, fan fiction (some of it drivel, other stuff stunningly good). Writing like this is evaluated by their friends and peers...its often based on expression and imagination. And it takes work (fun or not). Writing is "old school", but with texting, face book, forums, etc. its more popular then ever (one of the good things technology and the internet has actually facilitated). While I agree technology is here to stay (and its drive toward immersion), I don't see Monopoly or RISK or HASBRO drying up any time soon...there will always be a need for some sort of board game at the table (my point has always been 1E, as we knew it (circa 82'), should be right next to them). As to the popularity, your right, its never going to be a mad rush and mass playing of 1E, there's too many products out, too much marketing and too little time. BUT, you can say the same thing for any tabletop game (be it scrabble or cards). They all had their heyday, yet a few stick around and become timeless. Since I think 1E is the best game ever invented and somewhat formative for boosting the imagination I'd like to see it added to that collection (right next to Chess, Backgammon etc.)

But then again, I'm probably wrong. Just watch, eventually there will be immersion based computer games where family members plug in and are placed sitting at a table next to one another, playing all sorts of table top games. It won't dawn on any of them to just fucking take the computer immersion machines off and just play with the old box set...its moronic what people do.

Come to think of it, isn't that exactly whats been going on for over a decade with Sims. 20 somethings log in, create some character and pretend to go to bars and hook up with other people...date, break up go to parties, etc. etc. Why not just fucking go to a bar and really meet people for fun (rather then sitting in your chair on a saturday night wishing and pretending you were -if they fear social rejection how could that be any worse)? What a sad world some people must trap themselves in. When technology replaces people with pretend people and pretend life -eventually something has to give.
Will Stone Giant's grand children be out fishing in a real boat with him one day....or will they be in some computer pretend boat (some idiotic Hologram like room from Next Generation) created in their brain to simulate what it would look like if they just went outside. Knowing Stone Giant, I don't worry. Still, at the pace technology is moving, I don't know if people will come to their senses, get bored with technology and go "back" to life as its always been lived pre-computer technology. No wonder all these shows like Alaska Frontier and Duck Dynasty are so popular. People are starting to remember there was a world before the computer and cell phones...a world they lost touch with with a real sun, sports and the like. And that its OK to reject things that aren't good for you now and then (like immersion entertainment that replaces living).

PS I can tell you this. My kid (now in college) tells me x-boxes, ipads, online gaming is becoming less popular with that generation (at least at her school and age group) then it once was. The novelty is wearing thin for now. Hopefully that trend continues.

Axe my friend, I appreciate your distaste for technology and applaud your ability to share it here with us.

On the internet.

- Wheggi