Quote from: flyingmice;368074You will have to make your own market, though it helps that most of PIG's other games are GD!

That's the correct response. Designers have to make sense whether they are making a game for niche consumption (i.e. friends, friends of friends and 1d12 weeks of 1d100-30 people on RPGNet, 1/10 that on TheRPGSite) or a broader audience. In the latter case, build a market, recruit people, maybe even find non-gamers with a possible interest and all that.

I mean, FtA: appealing idea (although the main draw would be Latin-American newsstand distribution as Pundit first intended - any progress there?), but what does it give someone who already has a few "adventurer fantasy" games laying on a shelf, and has experience with just as many? That's a hard question.

I'm going to shill here for a minute and say if ya haven't checked out GD3 yet, do it. It's really one of my favorite games at the moment. Just light enough to be fast setting up and easy to run, but with enough rules to provide a solid framework. It is simplicity itself to convert all the GDi settings and games over to GD3, and can be used easily to even run Iron Gauntlets. I especially love how easy it is to take the 5 abilities and completely customize them using the ability gimmicks. Definitely worth a look, especially since it's not expensive at all. /shill

Melan's replies above are perfectly illustrative, Pete. Why would they change if they are happy with what they have? That's sort of the mantra of the OSR - its raison d'etre. They have system mastery, tons of supplements, and the rules already in their hands. They are happy and comfortable with it. There is no market there.

There's a certain market of people with gamer ADD, but they will pick it up, be happy for two weeks, then find something else. The only certain way is to grow your own market. It's slow, but if you can supply something no one else does, it's doable.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;368096Melan's replies above are perfectly illustrative, Pete. Why would they change if they are happy with what they have? That's sort of the mantra of the OSR - its raison d'etre. They have system mastery, tons of supplements, and the rules already in their hands. They are happy and comfortable with it. There is no market there.

-clash

Hiya clash. I think I might not be explaining myself. I'm not trying to tap into an existing market or find a way to sell to the OSR. You've seen Stormrift so you know the market is going to be very different. I was mainly trying to figure out why some games are considered old school and others like GD3 that seem very old school are never mentioned. I see now that my passing knowledge and perception of the OSR was incorrect so it's a moot point.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahn;368143Hiya clash. I think I might not be explaining myself. I'm not trying to tap into an existing market or find a way to sell to the OSR. You've seen Stormrift so you know the market is going to be very different. I was mainly trying to figure out why some games are considered old school and others like GD3 that seem very old school are never mentioned. I see now that my passing knowledge and perception of the OSR was incorrect so it's a moot point.  

Pete

Gotcha.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;368074Even Traveller isn't considered really old school, even though it's been around since 1977 - it's too fundamentally different from the D&D-esque standard.
-clash

I never got that part myself, even though I have brought it up on the Dragonsfoot forums.

The OSR isn't a unified mindset (regardless of Pundit's shrill whining), but I have found there are three distinct camps in regards to purchase.

1) I collect TSR stuff for D&D or I already own everything I will ever buy.

2) I buy stuff I can use for D&D (whatever early edition).

3) I buy RPGs and I prefer ones that "feel" Old School (whatever that means to them).

As far as percentages of each group, who knows?  There is certainly a vocal online presence for each group, but how "vocal" translates to "actual sales" is completely unknown.

However, in the real world of physical books on shelves, I find that gamers buy what looks the most fun to them, far more than every worrying about "new school" vs. "old school" or other online wankery.

The basic answer is because it isn't a nearly-identical copy (right down to the artwork and cheap production values) of something they read (and maybe masturbated to the artwork of) some 32 years ago.

GenreDiversion has a very old-school feel; but to appeal to the OSR Brett would need to claim its a Traveller Clone, write every book to look like a Traveller manual, hire some has-been amateur artist to draw art for his books that are horrific by our modern standards (and was not even actually considered good art, just cheap art, back in the 70s), and then write an article in some fanzine about how everything produced in RPGs after 1983 has led to the moral corruption of our grandchildren.

Then it may have a shot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: pspahn;368015Okay, I see posts about the OSR and I get the fact that it's a return to simpler systems and promoting fun gameplay. So why is precis intermedia's genrediversion line, particularly Genrediversion 3, never mentioned as part of the OSR?

I think it might be older systems, which happen to be mostly simple.

For example Hackmaster would presumably be more 'old-school' than Dungeon Squad, even though it's more complicated.

Quote from: pspahn;368015Does a game have to be fantasy to be part of the OSR? Because I tend to think of D&D and Star Wars when I think old school.

The OSR is strongly D&D-centric, but the reasons for that are complex and largely tied up in the rush for totems to worship in the D&D edition wars.  Classic gaming is an evolving sphere of the hobby, so don't be turned off by what you perceive to be its current state or what other people tell you it is.

Sci-fi is well and truly in OSR territory.  Traveller is widely considered a classic game, and there are newer games like X-Plorers that take the rules-light path.  Even the old Star Frontiers is getting a hearing.

For me, "old school" is genre-neutral and about mechanically fast and fluid rules that allow a game session to roll along at a good pace without frequent pauses to look up the rules for firing an arrow at a target 25' away who's looking through a window, or stopping every two minutes to add together half a dozen different bonuses to get a value which is modified by a die roll and charted on a table.

And don't pay any attention to Pundit.  He published a game that he thought would become the gold standard for classic gaming, but turned out to be as popular as syphilis.  He has a lot of self-esteem invested in wanting others to fail where he did.

Quote from: Hairfoot;368234The OSR is strongly D&D-centric, but the reasons for that are complex and largely tied up in the rush for totems to worship in the D&D edition wars.  

How about it just fun to play. And thanks to the interest a lot of other people found they are not alone in this.

There are OSR groups that have a "by the book" attitude towards playing older editions (Knights-n-knaves). Other groups revolve around collecting (acaeum). Other are focused on producing stuff but non-commercially and pretty much only for AD&D 1st (dragonsfoot). Throw in the OD&D discussion forum, Swords & Wizardry forums, Labyrinth Lords forums, you realize there is a lot of diversity.

Older editions of D&D have broadest audience due their overwhelming popularity. But to Traveller has it own unique communities (Mongoose, Citizen of the Imperium, and the Traveller Mailing List). Harn is split between those who work with Columbia Games and those who work with NRC founded  Kelestia. Although the Harnforum at Lythia.com keeps the two talking to each other (somewhat).

So what the OSR "is" depends on your goal. If you want to try to sell commercially it one thing. If you are collecting it is another. If you a person who stuck with the original rulebooks (of whatever edition) it is another.

For example I made the Majestic Wilderlands with Swords & Wizardry as the base. I pretty much keep tabs on Original D&D Discussion, Dragonsfoot, and the Swords & Wizardry forums. I don't do much with the Goblinoid Games' Labyrinth Lord forums. But I do some with Necromancer's Judges Guild Forum, Aceaum, and the Piazza's Wilderland Forums.  I also participate in the Knight-n-Knaves forums but they are a tough crowd to sell to (mostly friendly otherwise).  Finally I advertise in Knockspell and Fight On!. And I have a blog Bat in the Attic with numerous links to other Old School Blogs.

So this represent my slice of the OSR. More expansive than some, more limited than others. I am not no illusion that my slice is the OSR. I may see a large portion of it but there is ton of stuff out there that flies under my radar. Kenzer Co, Trolls Lord Games, Expeditious Retreat Press, to name a few.

Blanket statements about the OSR, it participants, or what it represents just shows the person doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. To folks making such statements I have to ask, what did you read? Where did you look? What did you play? And so on. Such conversations, for me, wind up with me going "Did you look here, play this, etc"

To complicate things even further many of the stuff the OSR does can be used for any roleplaying games. There no reason why Points of Light or any of the sandbox has to be OD&D. I used much of it in GURPS and it can be used for Genrediversion, D6 Fantasy, or any number of other RPGs. Thus some of the idea and techniques used in the OSR are making their way into the wider RPG Market.

When Pundit says that he find OSR products derivative and that my Majestic Wilderlands is an alternative that he likes is something I can understand. Then I can point out other projects that folks are working in the OSR that are similar to mine. Taking D&D and implementing for a particular setting.

Then we get something like post #23 also written by Pundit. I got to roll my eyes at that kind of blanket statement by him or anybody else.


A final note, Fight On! and the OD&D Disscussion forum is probably the best place for any Old School RPG that is not D&D to try to get exposure. Both in terms of articles and ads. Much of this is because when forum and Fight On! were founded a lot of OSR author that contributed a lot Science Fantasy, and Weird Fantasy stuff. The result is a community that is pretty open to anything Old School.

Pspahn knows his way around this site.  If he wants to see an OSR brawl, he knows where to go, so I don't want this thread to become another one.

I don't visit many of the OSR-ish boards, so it's quite possible that I've missed a lot of the variety actually present in the current classic gaming world.

My point, really, is that if someone says the OSR is just about an ageing cohort of backward-looking D&D grognards struggling to move with the times, there's plenty of evidence they can point to which backs that up (cf. the Old School Primer).  However, the real action takes place far away from the people who are committed to that opinion, so their criticisms and predictions need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Quote from: RPGPundit;368217hire some has-been amateur artist to draw art for his books that are horrific by our modern standards (and was not even actually considered good art, just cheap art, back in the 70s)

I see some people like the cover I designed.

Because I used Print on Demand and don't care about sale ranks on Lulu I was able to offer this. Totally going after the nostalgia angle. My view on it is that if it is technically possible without hurting anything else just do it and make the customer happy. The parchment background is a scan of a clean OD&D booklet cover. The back of all three original rulebooks were devoid of art or logos.

The result is that print sales were 64 hex cover, 48 original style.

My personal preference is for the hex cover.



The art used for the hex cover are 19th century public domain art. The top is from a english medieval illustrator, the bottom a russian historical illustrator, and the right is a romantic (art-style) painting.