I would be delighted to get another chance to play (rather than DM) in the grand old style!
I personally find OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord -- the two most faithful simulacra -- most to my taste. The main purpose, from a player's perspective, of emulating out-of-print rules sets as closely as (legally) possible seems pretty clear to me. It makes a common frame of reference once again widely available. The "economy" edition of OSRIC, $10.90 plus shipping from Lulu, might be cheaper than getting just an actual 1st edition AD&D PHB from an online retailer -- and it's a complete game in one (hot off the presses, not used) volume! In organization and presentation, even (mostly) in what was left out, it is to my mind the "third edition" that ought to have been.
It's a wonderful legacy of Wizards' gift of the OGL and SRD, allowing fans to do what was perhaps not commercially feasible. There's no reason it should appeal especially to those who have moved on without a look back, but the love for the old game that's been poured into it is exactly what's needed to carry that torch forward to whoever in new generations may appreciate it. And if the classic works should ever be brought back into print, or even offered again as legitimate PDFs, then I reckon the market for them will be due in part to this initiative.
I think we probably have plenty already not only of D&D "clones" but maybe even of such variations on the theme as Epees & Sorcellerie and Spellcraft and Swordplay. There's no way to stop those thousand flowers from blooming, though, as they are all labors of love. I have yet to see an end to the churning out of "fantasy heartbreakers", or even to commercial regurgitations such as every X Edition.
I also think that we have already seen some breaking of new ground, works that apply "old school" design principles not to slavish recreation or "camp" but to fresh and earnest creation. Paul Elliot's Zenobia (free, amazingly) and Kenzer and Company's Aces and Eights (luxurious) come to mind.
Nothing could be further from the spirit of the pioneering age of RPGs than rigid conservatism; the sense of blazing trails on a frontier was part of the excitement. It's in the nature of adventurers to chafe at too much "theory". I think it a very healthy thing that hobbyists are once again taking the reins of the hobby; it was gamers sharing with fellow gamers who built the industry in the first place.
The fetish for "retro" graphic design is to my mind a real and pernicious manifestation of nostalgia. As early as Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry, I was glad of improvement. There's nothing "dated" about the timeless work of master Erol Otus (Hackmaster Basic, I'm looking at you!), and by the same token a lot of stuff that's currently in vogue is likely to look pretty passé a decade hence. There are "old school" products out now graced with really splendid art, and the design of Knockspell magazine puts some mainstream newsweeklies to shame.
I think the best bit of RPG design theory so far is the Rients Threefold Model: Retro, Pretentious and Stupid. It may be a case of different strokes for the same folks at different times!
I personally find OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord -- the two most faithful simulacra -- most to my taste. The main purpose, from a player's perspective, of emulating out-of-print rules sets as closely as (legally) possible seems pretty clear to me. It makes a common frame of reference once again widely available. The "economy" edition of OSRIC, $10.90 plus shipping from Lulu, might be cheaper than getting just an actual 1st edition AD&D PHB from an online retailer -- and it's a complete game in one (hot off the presses, not used) volume! In organization and presentation, even (mostly) in what was left out, it is to my mind the "third edition" that ought to have been.
It's a wonderful legacy of Wizards' gift of the OGL and SRD, allowing fans to do what was perhaps not commercially feasible. There's no reason it should appeal especially to those who have moved on without a look back, but the love for the old game that's been poured into it is exactly what's needed to carry that torch forward to whoever in new generations may appreciate it. And if the classic works should ever be brought back into print, or even offered again as legitimate PDFs, then I reckon the market for them will be due in part to this initiative.
I think we probably have plenty already not only of D&D "clones" but maybe even of such variations on the theme as Epees & Sorcellerie and Spellcraft and Swordplay. There's no way to stop those thousand flowers from blooming, though, as they are all labors of love. I have yet to see an end to the churning out of "fantasy heartbreakers", or even to commercial regurgitations such as every X Edition.
I also think that we have already seen some breaking of new ground, works that apply "old school" design principles not to slavish recreation or "camp" but to fresh and earnest creation. Paul Elliot's Zenobia (free, amazingly) and Kenzer and Company's Aces and Eights (luxurious) come to mind.
Nothing could be further from the spirit of the pioneering age of RPGs than rigid conservatism; the sense of blazing trails on a frontier was part of the excitement. It's in the nature of adventurers to chafe at too much "theory". I think it a very healthy thing that hobbyists are once again taking the reins of the hobby; it was gamers sharing with fellow gamers who built the industry in the first place.
The fetish for "retro" graphic design is to my mind a real and pernicious manifestation of nostalgia. As early as Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry, I was glad of improvement. There's nothing "dated" about the timeless work of master Erol Otus (Hackmaster Basic, I'm looking at you!), and by the same token a lot of stuff that's currently in vogue is likely to look pretty passé a decade hence. There are "old school" products out now graced with really splendid art, and the design of Knockspell magazine puts some mainstream newsweeklies to shame.
I think the best bit of RPG design theory so far is the Rients Threefold Model: Retro, Pretentious and Stupid. It may be a case of different strokes for the same folks at different times!
Last edited:
