# What was so magical about 1E/OD&D art?



## tx7321 (Dec 10, 2006)

I'm talkng about the stuff put out pre-UA and pre-Dragonlance.  

There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today.  I know some of this has to do with the posing, placing of modern hair cuts, tattoos and such; and the fact that everythings in full color these days rather then black and white.  But what else?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 10, 2006)

Me thinks, perhap, thine estimate of protean roleplaying artistry is tinted a rosey hue.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 10, 2006)

During the time of first edition there was not a lot of fantasy art that was easily accessiable as it is now.  Since it was practically the only source for me that made it a lot better and a lot more inspirational.  Now fantasy art is all over the web and there is just so much of it that it just doesn't seem as cool.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 10, 2006)

It looked like medieval woodcuts.


----------



## schporto (Dec 10, 2006)

I think it also made a difference that the pics were by different folks and different styles.  You looked in those books and there were some cartoonish, some realistic, some stylized etc.  Toda all the pictures are the same style and so the book has better theme, but if you don't like the art, well, its throughout the entire book.  The old books you just skipped a page or two.
And the other reasons mentioned.


----------



## Tarek (Dec 10, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I'm talkng about the stuff put out pre-UA and pre-Dragonlance.
> 
> There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today.  I know some of this has to do with the posing, placing of modern hair cuts, tattoos and such; and the fact that everythings in full color these days rather then black and white.  But what else?




Ultimately, I think it's because the drawings and artwork weren't drawn, for the most part, by artists who went to commercial or fine arts schools.

Some were talented, some were... less so, but the lack of a unified 'look' to the art made these books feel more honest, somehow.

The new art just feels a bit too static. The lack of symmetry doesn't help, either. In the case of the Eberron stuff, it's too dynamic. I'm thinking of the Races of Eberron book where they put EVERY race found in Eberron in a bar fight on the cover. It just doesn't feel or look real. It kind of reminds me of the original cover for the 1st edition Monster Manual, where you had a whole bunch of monsters on the cover for no particular reason.


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 10, 2006)

Mostly it's a matter of nostalgia, though there were some true gems in the hoard.


----------



## Shemeska (Dec 10, 2006)

Nostalgia, and nostalgia enhanced by the fact that many people who played the game in its earliest years were very young at the time.

I mean, I have rose colored memories of He-Man, GI-Joe, She-Ra, M.A.S.K., and Inhumanoids, but I can assure you that I'm probably not judging them by anything but subjective standards of my memories of childhood.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 10, 2006)

This covers why 1e art was so awesome:

http://www.fierydragon.com/db/2003-07-09.htm


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 10, 2006)

> This covers why 1e art was so awesome




But, arguably, Keith Parkinson was one of the frontrunners of 'new fantasy' art--especially with his extreme attention to the background.


edit:  'course I don't thing his work should have been on that list.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 10, 2006)

Tarek wrote: "Ultimately, I think it's because the drawings and artwork weren't drawn, for the most part, by artists who went to commercial or fine arts schools."

I've read several professional artists who've stated they wouldn't have gone the commercial art school route if they could do it over again   The reason given: because what they learn to produce (after years of training) ends up looking the same as all the other trained artists around them (and despite their best efforts this is hard to break from for some reason).  They claim technical proficiency can be learned, but style and expression can't.  So,  anyhow, your theory would make alot of since. The variety in styles, and the freedom to express (rather then immitate).


----------



## Tuzenbach (Dec 10, 2006)

My belief is that so much of the 1E artwork possessed a sort of "unfinished" look that it was up to to gamer's own imagination to fill in the blanks. And, at the end of the day, what's D&D all about? Using your imagination!

I cringe at today's D&D art as well as CGI clogging up movies. In effect, these devices are disallowing the viewer any opportunity to use his or her own imagination. Why? Because absolutely every detail is presented to us, thus robbing us the use of our "imagination muscles", if such a thing even exists.


----------



## rgard (Dec 10, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I'm talkng about the stuff put out pre-UA and pre-Dragonlance.
> 
> There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today.  I know some of this has to do with the posing, placing of modern hair cuts, tattoos and such; and the fact that everythings in full color these days rather then black and white.  But what else?




Sorry, but it wasn't that magical.  It just looked weak compared to art by Frazetta, Boris and the like.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Klaus (Dec 10, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Tarek wrote: "Ultimately, I think it's because the drawings and artwork weren't drawn, for the most part, by artists who went to commercial or fine arts schools."
> 
> I've read several professional artists who've stated they wouldn't have gone the commercial art school route if they could do it over again   The reason given: because what they learn to produce (after years of training) ends up looking the same as all the other trained artists around them (and despite their best efforts this is hard to break from for some reason).  They claim technical proficiency can be learned, but style and expression can't.  So,  anyhow, your theory would make alot of since. The variety in styles, and the freedom to express (rather then immitate).



 :raises hand:

Never had any art classes, ever.


----------



## ssampier (Dec 10, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> This covers why 1e art was so awesome:
> 
> http://www.fierydragon.com/db/2003-07-09.htm




Great article. I do disagree with "Magic Mouth" on that list, but number 2 is superb.

I think the appeal is nostaglia and also older art is not so "sleek" for lack of a better word. _Emirikol the Chaotic_ looks old (_a long time ago and a land far, far away_). Third edition art by large seems modern. It may feature mythical creatures such as dragon, wizards, but you definately get a sense of the age it was produced.

As they say, art is subjective.


----------



## ssampier (Dec 10, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> :raises hand:
> 
> Never had any art classes, ever.




You produce some fantastic art. I'm not worthy.  :\


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

Q: "I cringe at today's D&D art as well as CGI clogging up movies. In effect, these devices are disallowing the viewer any opportunity to use his or her own imagination. Why? Because absolutely every detail is presented to us, thus robbing us the use of our "imagination muscles", if such a thing even exists"

I agree with this completely.  And I think your right about todays FRPG art showing too much, and for the reasons you mention.  Also, I'd add when you look at an illustration that doesn't show everything in detail its easier to imagine yourself in that scene.  And that helps with this style of game in particular.

Also the artwork depicts a treasure hunting focus by average looking guys, while Frezetta was more into women and muscles.

I don't expect all to like 1E artwork, this thread was started for those that do.  I for instance dislike most abstract art, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the fact others do.


----------



## CarlZog (Dec 11, 2006)

For me, the lack of sophistication in the original artwork gave the entire game an air of being something exclusive or even slightly mystical -- inaccessible by the mainstream and commercial artists. It was as if only those who had really seen these wonderful sights could draw them, like the wartime sketches you see done by soldiers in the field.

The other aspect of it was that the artwork far more closely reflected the traditional medieval garb that I imagined my characters wearing. The character concept art in 3e looks like it was done by a bunch of frustrated fashion school dropouts, and is SO far gone from what I'm imagining that it really detracts more than it enhances the books IMO.


----------



## Shadowslayer (Dec 11, 2006)

CarlZog said:
			
		

> For me, the lack of sophistication in the original artwork gave the entire game an air of being something exclusive or even slightly mystical --




I was trying to come up with something like that, but you said it better.

It just looked more arcane, less slick. I won't say everything was wonderful...there were some clunkers too. I guess the old style of artwork made the books feel like textbooks on the game itself...that the artwork was just one part of something bigger. 

Now the game almost seems to be there only to support the artwork. (cuz he artwork is where a lot of the minis come from)


----------



## Dykstrav (Dec 11, 2006)

The single big thing I really dig about 1E artwork is that it's sparse and to the point. No pictures taking up a half-page of a sorcerer randomly casting a spell or adventurers reading at a library. Just adventuring. It's all contextualized as being part of an adventure.

I really liked some of the early 3E black-and-whites, such as the Wayne Reynolds and the Cramer material that appeared in the Builder guides (_Sword and Fist_, _Defenders of the Faith_, et cetera). That came reasonably close to capturing the 1E feel to me and was nicely detailed. It's partly also a quality of presentation issue too, I think. I've heard old and new players alike comment that the 3E material looks like video game manuals (some people liked this, some didn't really care).

I do think flashy graphics aren't always awesome. It sometimes makes me think that they're trying to distract you from the content.


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 11, 2006)

One thing I've noticed recently is I tend to prefer black and white art over color art (at least for interior illustrations).  Today most art falls under two categories.  There is the high-end full color art, and the low end black & white art.  If a company ends up using B&W art it is usually not quality art (there are exceptions).  The good art is often buried in pages of poor art (the Creature Collections come to mind here) or buried in "layout" (borders and such) that obscure the art.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 11, 2006)

Wild Gazebo said:
			
		

> But, arguably, Keith Parkinson was one of the frontrunners of 'new fantasy' art--especially with his extreme attention to the background.




Parkinson is excluded from tx7321's original post, as he's one of the Dragonlance team (along with Caldwell, Elmore and Easley), who did such amazing work. tx7321 deliberately calls out pre-Dragonlance art.

Personally, I think some of the colour paintings for Dragonlance were the height of D&D art. 

This is not to say that later paintings are bad. 3e art is similar to 1e art: there's a wide variance in quality. 

I really like this picture from the 3.5e book _Frostburn_
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/fb_gallery/83586.jpg

(It's even better in the book, btw).

Cheers!


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Dec 11, 2006)

I think this is reading too much nostalgia in. Good art is good art. Some of the 1E art was good. Some was not. Some 3E art is good. Some is not.


----------



## Pants (Dec 11, 2006)

schporto said:
			
		

> Toda all the pictures are the same style



Uhhh.... what?   

Say what you want about the art, but this honestly doesn't make sense to me.



			
				Glyfair said:
			
		

> Today most art falls under two categories.  There is the high-end full color art, and the low end black & white art.  If a company ends up using B&W art it is usually not quality art (there are exceptions).  The good art is often buried in pages of poor art (the Creature Collections come to mind here) or buried in "layout" (borders and such) that obscure the art.



I dunno, I've found a lot of really crummy, 'glossy' full color artwork that just looks bad. Really bad. What I find interesting is that full-color artwork can either be amazingly awesome or just ugly as sin. Black and white, on the other hand, will very rarely, go as low as some of the worst full-color art I've seen. It also very rarely hits the same highs as some of the best full-color art.

The Tome of Horros II and III have some really nice B&W art and nothing cringeworthy that I can remember.


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 11, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Black and white, on the other hand, will very rarely, go as low as some of the worst full-color art I've seen.




Check out the Dobyski art from Runequest if you want to see how bad B&W art can get (probably the worst art ever produced in a professional RPG product, or non-professional product).


----------



## Pants (Dec 11, 2006)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Check out the Dobyski art from Runequest if you want to see how bad B&W art can get (probably the worst art ever produced in a professional RPG product, or non-professional product).



Should I just remain ignorant?


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Dec 11, 2006)

> Parkinson is excluded from tx7321's original post, as he's one of the Dragonlance team (along with Caldwell, Elmore and Easley), who did such amazing work. tx7321 deliberately calls out pre-Dragonlance art.




I was responding to the link that Klaus posted...pretty much saying what you are saying to me. 


I would post more but I'm under the impression that tx7321 is not looking for a relative discussion but a series of differing reaffirmations.


----------



## Xyanthon (Dec 11, 2006)

for me, the art really grabbed my imagination.  I used to flip through the books and pour over the illustration (well, actually I still do).  For whatever reason, David Sutherland's works probably speak to me the most.  I know some of his work can be tecnically pretty crude, but there is just a love for the subject matter that really comes though to me.  Sutherland, Otus, Trampier, Wham, Laforce, Darlene, Dee, Rosslof, and the rest all had a sort of unabashed glee to them.  I still can sense that now.  They were for the most part not as polished as the art now is but it is magical.  There are great artists now, but for some reason, they don't capture the same feel as the 1e artists for me.


----------



## Anson Caralya (Dec 11, 2006)

1E art means two different things to me.  First, I've got a great deal of nostalgia for the Erol Otus work; it's odd and distinct and even though I never imagined my characters or the monsters to look that way, it was an element of what set D&D apart for me.  What others have said about the absent backgrounds and light level of detail captures it well.  Second, there is the work of Easley and others that for me peaked with Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth -- I absolutely love that module, and the artwork is an integral part of that.  Even though Otus did the cover, the majority of the artwork is realistic, fully detailed, stylized in some way.  What got me was that the artwork as a whole presented a very nice mix of the action a party in those caverns would encounter -- such as the back cover, where the party appears to be resting, unaware of nearby green slime, and in the new monsters section, where a miniaturized adventurer languishes in the Prison of Zagyg, and the party examining the doors to Drelzna's chamber before entering.  Goosebumps just to think about it.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 11, 2006)

Love the picture of that intellect devourer and Emirikol the Chaotic.

Interesting to note that a major proportion of the art on the list comes from one artist. I think that probably has something to say about our views of the art through the editions. If a particular artist's work floats your boat, and he or she is associated with a particular edition, I'd bet that edition is the one that you think has the best art overall.

Back in the earlier days, I think a stronger stamp was placed on the game by a particular set of artists. There are so many more to pick from these days, having had bits and pieces appear here and there in various source books, adventures, Dungeon and Dragon magazines...


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 11, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Should I just remain ignorant?



Let's just say that Avalon Hill decided to save some money by paying their cartographer/layout person to do art (even though he wasn't an artist, at least not that sort of artist).


----------



## Tarek (Dec 11, 2006)

One of the D20 publishers recently tracked down Erol Otus and convinced him to do a couple of covers for their modules.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

The use of black and white art does NOT always mean a cheaper product.  Often its chosen intentionally, as it gives a different feel then color.  I think it allows the viewer to "color" the picture with his imagination, thus giving some ownership to it.  For instance, the Players Handbook 1E depiction of the ghoul.  I look at that and see in my imagination the slimey thing crawling around.  What I imagine is different each time slightly...and I'll bet what others see is slightly different as well.  But the B&W image give us both a close point of departure (so we as players can share that image).  In color its not so much that way.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 11, 2006)

Personally, I loved "A Paladin in Hell" by Sutherland in the 1st ed PHB.  But that said, I would be interested to see a 3E (or even non-3E) homage to it.

I also must admit that I prefer the "auld medieval" look to modern looks, but admit that is my own personal taste.


----------



## Asmor (Dec 11, 2006)

Speaking as someone who's been interested in D&D for as long as he can remember, but only actually started playing when 3rd edition came out, the old art by and large wasn't that good.

I'll come right out and admit that I'm not the artistic type, though. I don't have much appreciation for different styles for their own sake. I vastly prefer Wizards' consistent quality, even if it does all seem largely the same style. It beats the hell out of the hit or miss mish mash of ages past. Sure, there was a lot of good art, but there was also a ton of really crappy art. Plus, most of the interior art was black and white and I've always disliked black and white stuff...

So stick me firmly in the "it wasn't that good, you've just a ton of nostalgia" camp.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

Partical Man:"I also must admit that I prefer the "auld medieval" look to modern looks, but admit that is my own personal taste."

Yeah the new art seems to feature made up armor in an attempt to make it more "interesting".  1E art seems to match the look of the armor you see in Medieval paintings, fairs and museums.  Its more utilitarian and functional looking, thus more believable.

Asmore, I think we must have opposite tastes in artwork.    I actually prefer B&W interior art for monster manuals (for the reasons I gave above).


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 11, 2006)

Tarek said:
			
		

> One of the D20 publishers recently tracked down Erol Otus and convinced him to do a couple of covers for their modules.



That would be Goodman Games.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 11, 2006)

I definitely prefer the neo-Frazetta style to the modern airbrushed side of a van style.


----------



## broghammerj (Dec 11, 2006)

I've always liked the old black and white pics for a number of reasons.

1. Appears old and unfinished.  Makes me think if medival times.

2. People have seemed to lost the ability to sketch well.  There are some obvious beautiful fantasy paintings out there but I like a simple drawing once and a while.

3. Inking a sketch can really make it come alive.  Not something we see as often.

4. Coloring takes out alot of what I imagine a creature should look like.


----------



## Xyanthon (Dec 11, 2006)

I'll have to agree with what some of the others have said about characterization in the older drawings.  As a kid, I came to D&D through the myths and legends of medieval Europe.  The naturalistic clothing and styles of the 1e era artists (probably excluding Dee and Otus) really appealed to me more as they capture a more "true" feel to me.  The newer artists have some stuff I really dig.  Wayne Reynolds is my current favorite and maybe even moreso because of his work with Osprey Publishing historical titles.  I guess I'd just like to see more of that style.  All of this is interesting to me in that I'm finding that in newer games, I'm being drawn more to things like Pendragon and Ars Magica.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 11, 2006)

There was a scientist on NPR last week explaining that the reason people are so strongly attracted to the music of their youth is because the brain is actually still forming. The neuron pathways (or whatever - I'm just an artist) continue to form until your early 20's, and the feeling of wonder and discovery are related to that. I imagine that if that statement's true, it carries over to artistic appreciation as well. 

As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back. 

~Qualidar~


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 11, 2006)

In my opinion, the best art, of the new and the old, has a dreamlike quality. Ideally, the underlying elements are recognizable, comprehensible, and appropriate. But the scene itself evokes something out of the ordinary. For instance, a gang of adventurers in medieval gear is something that can reside easily in the imagination; the scene before them might seem stark, or mysterious, or glorious. The classic Erol Otus cover really works because the figures are presented in good detail, but the scene itself is flat, almost unreal. The dragon has an uneathly quality to it. The characters look stylized, yet if you can look close, you can see the lighting is extremely well done. It's painterly. It's fairly realistic, but with dashes of cartoonery, surrealism, and magic realism.

It's sort of like Hyperborean jazz.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 11, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> There was a scientist on NPR last week explaining that the reason people are so strongly attracted to the music of their youth is because the brain is actually still forming. The neuron pathways (or whatever - I'm just an artist) continue to form until your early 20's, and the feeling of wonder and discovery are related to that. I imagine that if that statement's true, it carries over to artistic appreciation as well.
> 
> As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back.
> 
> ~Qualidar~




Try to listen to something at least once a week you wouldn't ordinarily.


----------



## XO (Dec 11, 2006)

*The Reason Why...*

..It is so fantastic, is that yo ucan ONLY ever do Cult of Cthulhu and Elric of Melnibone in the Deities & Demigods ONCE !

And those were the best, anywhere anytime


----------



## Delta (Dec 11, 2006)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> It looked like medieval woodcuts.




QFT. Or primitive rock-wall illustrations.


----------



## Prime_Evil (Dec 11, 2006)

Personally, I've always loved Dave A. Trampier's work. IMHO, he was one of the finest artists to work on any edition of D&D. 

It's such a pity that he has dropped out of sight and wants nothing more to do with RPGs. Last that I heard, he was driving a taxi for a living. 

I also loved the work of Erol Otus Jeff Dee. I've been collecting the various modules from Goodman Games that they have illustrated just for the covers.  

Recently, I've decided that I rather like Peter Bradley's work for Castles & Crusades. It would really captures the 1e feel for me at least. It would be great to see him do an updated version of Dave Sutherland's 'Paladin in Hell' or one of the other iconic pieces of 1e art. 

I have to agree with those who express a preference for black & white artwork over color artwork. I loved Todd Lockwood's early B&W concept sketches for 3e....but hated how they looked once they had been coloured.  

Going slightly off-topic for a moment, I was very fond of Valerie Valusek's artwork in various 2e Forgotten Realms products. With the sale of TSR to WoTC, she seemed to drop off the face of the earth. Does anybody know what she is doing now?


----------



## Xyanthon (Dec 11, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> QFT. Or primitive rock-wall illustrations.




Heh, it's interesting that you say that as my nonfantasy artwork tends to deal with petroglyphs and ancient artistic images.  I'm drawn to those sorts of things.  I also particularly enjoy folk art.  I'm not sure what it is about it, but it seems that there is just an uncontrolable desire to create or to reach out and communicate back to the viewer in such a primal level that comes through in these images that it transcends technical ability.  Like I said, no one out of the older artists really speaks to me like David Sutherland's work did.  That was one guy who really could get alot across in an illustration.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

Q: "As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back. "

Nah, don't buy this guys story.     He's just gunning for more public grant money.  

PawsPlay wrote: "In my opinion, the best art, of the new and the old, has a dreamlike quality. Ideally, the underlying elements are recognizable, comprehensible, and appropriate. But the scene itself evokes something out of the ordinary. For instance, a gang of adventurers in medieval gear is something that can reside easily in the imagination"

Great observation.  It definitely had that dream quality...it literally was illustrating the battle going on in the artists imagination.   Early 1E/OD&D has a strong since of motion, like your watching that event.  Later 2E and now 3E/D20 is much stiffer, almost portrait or still life like.  But the model is asked to hold some extreme pose. 

I think the early 1E stuff does have a more painterly quality to it, more "fine art" then "commercial art" look.  Ironically, some of the 2E artists were the most proficient with their mediums...but what they painted was dead (to me anyway).   

Another difference was that body proportions were "normal" in 1E art, but still hardenned and tough looking...like you'd expect adventurers fighting trolls to be.  In 2E the figures started to take on modern hair cuts, feathers, etc. and also started to look like modern people. As if the artist were literally painting their personal out of shape friends.

Then with 3E, there is a trend to make body proportions that are completely unbelievable.   check out the hips and thighs of the way girls and guys are painted by D20 artists to see what I mean...thats just one example.  Its almost like their trying to blend the 2 sexes, almost a hermaphrodite-ic style. 

Also, painting tattoos, modern haircuts, elves with giant ears, dwarves with huge round bulbous noses, etc. just drives the viewer further away  from the generic fantasy look (even if it does cetch your attention), and thus hurt rather then help the player get into the game
(as todays art doesnt' match their own imaginations).  Imagine if Lagolas had the huge ears that 3E art depicts; or if Aragorn was running around with jumbo thighs wearing spikey armor.  Half the audiance would have walked out of the theaters.  Yet were told to LOVE the 3E style of art.  Its trendy after all.


----------



## Zogmo (Dec 11, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> During the time of first edition there was not a lot of fantasy art that was easily accessiable as it is now.  Since it was practically the only source for me that made it a lot better and a lot more inspirational.  Now fantasy art is all over the web and there is just so much of it that it just doesn't seem as cool.





Crothian is exactly right.

It's like punk music from the 70's.  It was unpolished, energetic and it was speaking to a very small specialized crowd of people who were not fitting in with the "norm" of society.  We loved it and appreciated what it added to the game.  

We got to finally see a half decent interpretation of what we had been doing in game.  You could actually see spells, characters and monsters in action.  None of that was being done by any artists of renown yet.  

Just try to imagine what your interpretation of the game would be if there was no art at all.
You would appreciate almost anything that eventually came out.

Plus, as "bad" as it might be it was way better than anything any of us could do at the time.

Like Crothian said earlier, it was the only thing


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

Zogmo: "It's like punk music from the 70's. It was unpolished, energetic and it was speaking to a very small specialized crowd of people who were not fitting in with the "norm" of society."

Exactly, and great observation.  The art from the early days had true love of the game shining through (like the early punk musicians), it wasn't technically perfect, but then making it technically perfect would have ruined it (for the many reasons listed above by others) like the early punk movement, it wasn't about being perfect...it was about "something" else.  

Later on as the game was moved more "mainstream" (by marketers for the most part...I think this first shows up in Dragon Lance in a big way) the less detailed ruddy  but inspired look was swapped for stiff and refined (similar to musical movements (or hell even movements in fine art)...until it gets so technically proficient, so acceptable to everyone, so mainstream...that everyone looses interest in it...effectively killing its mystery and edgyness; then the next trendy radical thing takes hold (ironically 1E was most "mainstream" in the beginning and declined from that point on).  There is some evidence for this.  Take a look at the sales data for TSR from the early 80 to the mid 90s, you get a rise from nowhere in the beginning (with the classic art of Tramp and Otus etc.) till we reach the late 90s with high realism but greatly reduced sales numbers.   Of course the artistic changes went along with changes in the writing and focus of the game...also IMO an attempt to make the game more mainstream (the branching out into other more "mainstream" products like novels seem to support this notion).  What ever TSR did, they destroyed themselves, and I suspect their change in artists, writers and general focus had something to do with that early boost in sales post-gygax, and then later decline. And before you say anything , it can't all be blamed on video games, and competition.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 11, 2006)

For those who wanted a 3e version of A Paladin In Hell, it's in Fiendish Codex II:






"A Paladin In Hell", by Carl Frank

Personally, this captures none of the magic of the original.

The 3e painting that came closest to being the "Paladin In Hell" of 3e was "Alhandra Charges The Balor" in Complete Divine, by William O'Connor:


----------



## schporto (Dec 11, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Uhhh.... what?
> 
> Say what you want about the art, but this honestly doesn't make sense to me.




To explain a little.  If you look at one book from the early years you will see a bunch of different artists and different styles.  In the same book as the Emrikol the Chaotic is a group of dwarves (or gnomes?) charging a giant snake with a forked stick.  
If you look in today's PHB it appears there were ~2 artists.  The one did all the color drawings, and the other did the black and white.  Now I know there were more then 2, but thematically all of the images are done in the same style.  Every image of Lidda you can tell it is Lidda cuz she's done in the same style.  If you don't like the color pictures or they aren't evocative to you, then the entire book's art is kinda shot.
The older versions you might not have liked the cartoons, but the Emrikol really grabbed you.  Or the other way around.  The point is there was a variety in style which allowed people with different tastes to like different things.
-cpd


----------



## Maggan (Dec 11, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Another difference was that body proportions were "normal" in 1E art, but still hardenned and tough looking...




I must have radically different printings of my books. They are filled with some great art, some ok art, and lots of non-proportioned art. 

A bit like 3e, in my mind.

Yes, the great 1e art is great, but there were naff pictures then as well as there is now. Some 3e art is mind blowing, but some is not so good.

To me it seems a comparison like the one you make takes the very best of 1e, disregard the bad, and compare that to the average or bad art of 3e. I hold the cover of Draconomicon higher than most 1e art, for example. And there are many such examples.

So it would be rather more interesting to find the best of 1e, the best of OD&D/BECM, the best of 2e and the best of 3e and put them next to each other.

/M


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 11, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today.




That's the nostalgia talking.


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 11, 2006)

My poor perception of 3E art is colored heavily by the Players' Handbook. As a player with only a few 3E books in my possession (PHB, DMG, MM), I use the PHB almost exclusively, and I absolutely loathe the dungeonpunk style. Look at the depiction of the Paladin in the 3E PHB, vs. the paladins of 1E (particularly the paladin from The Rogue's Gallery, whose just slain the black dragon. The latter is far, far superior).

That said, I do like a lot of the 3E images people have posted here, I'm thinking particularly of Merric's picture of the frost giant battle, and the image of the paladin on horseback charging the huge demon in the Complete Divine. These are great pieces of art; I would have loved to have seen more of their ilk in the PHB.

To sum up, I don't think the artists as a whole of the 1E generation were necessarily any more talented than the 3E artists, but I think the artistic direction chosen by WOTC, at least for the core rulebooks, is very poor.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

Wayne: That's the nostalgia talking."

No, its not nostalgia its taste...there is a difference.    Infact I like alot of new artwork just as much as the best of 1E, some even more (and it generates the same kind spirit).  Unfor. the styles I do like don't appear in 3E or D20 artwork (but rather in childrens books, movie preps (like those for LOTR battle scenes0 etc.)  It makes no difference to me when artwork was made... I either like it or I don't. 

I think the big thing is that the 1E artists painted and drew the same images I saw in my head already.  They didn't define the mental image for me, they just re-affirmed it and added to it a bit.  Now, when I started playing 3E I still saw the same basic world as I did in 1E (very similar to what you see on the cover of the 1E PH or DMG).  I just  NEVER pictured (and no one I know pictured) the crazy stuff depicted by todays 3E artists, for instance: tattoo covered, mowhaked, and giant eared elves walking around in skin tight pants with thighs so big they couldn't walk, standing in some wacky stiff almost cheeky pose in spikey armor.  I mean, do ANY OF YOU GUYS picture these freakish things walking around in your imagination when you play 3E...tattooed covered, mowhawked elves with giant ears...?  I think 3Es art isn't meant to be used as a tool to get into the game.  If it is, I guess I'm just not hip to it.  Of course this could be coming out of video games etc. I don't play. 

Oh, and I agree there were some real dogs in 1E art.  I'm already assuming were talking about the better of each period when making comparisons.


----------



## Goblinoid Games (Dec 11, 2006)

Xyanthon said:
			
		

> for me, the art really grabbed my imagination.  I used to flip through the books and pour over the illustration (well, actually I still do).  For whatever reason, David Sutherland's works probably speak to me the most.  I know some of his work can be tecnically pretty crude, but there is just a love for the subject matter that really comes though to me.  Sutherland, Otus, Trampier, Wham, Laforce, Darlene, Dee, Rosslof, and the rest all had a sort of unabashed glee to them.  I still can sense that now.  They were for the most part not as polished as the art now is but it is magical.  There are great artists now, but for some reason, they don't capture the same feel as the 1e artists for me.




I know what you mean, and the work you are doing for the OSRIC Companion recaptures the feeling of the 1e art for me. Your work has its own style, but is every bit as "old-school" as the 1e artists that today we consider classic.


----------



## Ghendar (Dec 11, 2006)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> I think this is reading too much nostalgia in. Good art is good art. Some of the 1E art was good. Some was not. Some 3E art is good. Some is not.





I think this really gets to the heart of it. 
Many people really can't stand Erol Otus's work for example. To me, his stuff is some of the most unique I've ever seen and really sparked my sense of wonder and imagination back in those days.
My avatar is the Trampier Lich from the 1st ED MM.


----------



## Ghendar (Dec 11, 2006)

schporto said:
			
		

> Toda all the pictures are the same style.





Maybe the word style is not what you were going for? Compare Rebecca Guay to Todd Lockwood and tell me if they are the same style.


----------



## dcas (Dec 11, 2006)

I'm not that familiar with 3e art, since practically the only 3e product I've ever owned was the PHB. But I noticed a very clear tendency in the PHB for portraits over art depicting action. There are only 3 or 4 such portraits in the OAD&D PHB.

The Frostburn picture highlighted by Merric is a great picture -- and not least because it depicts action.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 11, 2006)

There was bad art in both eras.  While there are stylistic differences in the D&D art today, for me it all tends to blur into a mass of spikes, buckles, tats, and other crap.  It's well drawn but I just don't care for its take on D&D stuff in many cases.  If asked who my favorite of the current batch are I would have a hard time answering since I don't think I like any of them enough to call a favorite.  

I really liked Erol Otus, Elmore, Trampier, & Sutherland.  I don't care much for Jeff Dee though.  I really wish C&C had been able to get Otus for their line, their main artist is skilled, but he doesn't really grab my attention.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 11, 2006)

There's some 3e art I like, & there's some classic D&D art I don't like.

As I've said before, it's the art direction--or lack thereof--of old D&D that I think fits the (non-setting specific works of the) game better than new D&D's.

I also don't care of the full-color, full-bleed, every-square-inch-of-page-covered style. It's just overkill & risks making the book hard to read for a lot of people.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 11, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I mean, do ANY OF YOU GUYS picture these freakish things walking around in your imagination when you play 3E...tattooed covered, mowhawked elves with giant ears...?  I think 3Es art isn't meant to be used as a tool to get into the game.  If it is, I guess I'm just not hip to it.  Of course this could be coming out of video games etc. I don't play.




As a matter of fact, I do. The filthy and plain Dark Ages Look has no real place in most of the things I've run. Body decoration has been used by a lot of cultures other than the staid Northern Europeans, culturally poisoned for centuries by a dull and monotonous aesthetic. I like a Hildebrandt Tolkien painting or some of Larry Elmore's less stiff works as much as anyone, but it's not the be-all and end-all for D&D's aesthetic tastes. Bright clothing in interesting pattens and colors, not brown/green/grey shapeless bags. Unusual armor rather than cookie-cutter utilitarian stuff that turns everyone into a faceless, personality-less drone. That's what I want to see.

They discuss the reasoning behind the various art choices in the early 3E sneak peek articles in the Dragon: it was to send a clear message that things are different now.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 11, 2006)

Wayne: "As a matter of fact, I do."  Well thats fair enough.


----------



## Blackwind (Dec 11, 2006)

My favorite D&D artists all seem to hail from the 2E era (Merric mentioned these above - Caldwell, Elmore, Easley), and many of my favorite pieces come from Dragonlance.  On the other hand, I started playing during the 2E era (first the "Classic D&D" boxed set, then the 2E PHB - and these both had great cover illos) and DL was my favorite setting.  Obviously, nostalgia is a factor here, but I also think it was partially the art that attracted me so much to the game.  Some posters above have criticized the "technically proficient" 2E art as "stiff".  Frankly, I don't see anything stiff about it, and technical proficiency may be underrated.  The 2E art often featured smooth, rounded edges and surfaces, and was probably more 'realistic' (given that this is fantasy art) than either 1E art (which I enjoy, even though I don't think it's as good) or 3E art, which seems to be heavily influenced by computer games, anime, manga, and comics.  For me, the sheer quality of the art allowed me to really immerse myself in the setting and imagine it more vividly.  I don't see too much of that in 1E art, and very little of it in the 3E art, either.  If there is any artist working on 3E who is as good as Jeff Easley, I haven't seen his or her work, yet.  Exception: there is some darned good art in Arcana Evolved and in Ptolus, but these are not WotC.  

EDIT:  I just realized that a lot of the 2E art (like the original cover for the 2E PHB) was more 'historical' than the current "dungeonpunk" aesthetic.  In 2E, I ran a lot of historical fantasy games using the green HR series.  That said, I actually rather like the whole tattoos and buckles thing, and it has probably influenced the kinds of games that I run in 3E.  3E is more explicitly fantastic - what with two-bladed swords and all.  In 2E there was a tendency toward historical accuracy that is just not there anymore.  If I were going to run a historical game now I would probably use a variant of d20 modern or even Storyteller.

Come to think of it, my favorite D&D artist of all time has got to be Tony diTerlizzi, and I never even played Planescape - I bought the books just for his art.  In fact, yesterday I was at my local independent bookstore doing some Christmas shopping for my daughter, and I found this beautifully illustrated children's book.  Just looking at the art, I knew I (er... my daughter...) just had to have it.   Guess who the artist turned out to be?  DiTerlizzi!  That put a big smile on my face.

Everything above is IMHO and YMMV.  De gustibus non est disputandem and all that.  I was just surprised that no one had really come out in favor of 2E art, and I thought I should speak up about it.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 11, 2006)

In some ways... let's amend that to many ways... the 3e PHB art is a deliberate attempt to break from the past, to make 3e stand out as its own game (and not a generic fantasy game). I know that's been posted in the past. I don't think the attempt was worth making, myself.

3.5e has some exceptional pieces of art. The cover of Frostburn. The cover of Cityscape.











There's art in various books that is quite good. To take a few favourites from Cityscape and Secrets of Xen'drik:

Cityscape:
















Secrets of Xen'drik:








I do prefer action or landscapes, though. Pure poses rarely do it for me. There are exceptions...




Cheers!


----------



## starwed (Dec 11, 2006)

My love of B&W sketches biases me pretty strongly towards 1e.  (I hated those blue on white illustrations of 2e...)

I do like that 3e made a pretty good effort to cut back on the cheesecake illustrations.  (Although they might have taken it a bit too far in the other direction; none of the female iconics come across as feminine.  It's almost like they're saying that being an adventurer == being masculine.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Dec 11, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Try to listen to something at least once a week you wouldn't ordinarily.



Especially in the age of the Internet, where you can hear great podcasts of non-mainstream music, as well as radio from around the world, there's no reason for someone to listen to what they liked in college for the rest of their lives.

Check out KCRW.org, Coverville.com and PostModernRockShow.com for good new music that you haven't heard 10,000 times before.

You're only as boring as you let yourself be!


----------



## Klaus (Dec 11, 2006)

starwed said:
			
		

> My love of B&W sketches biases me pretty strongly towards 1e.  (I hated those blue on white illustrations of 2e...)
> 
> I do like that 3e made a pretty good effort to cut back on the cheesecake illustrations.  (Although they might have taken it a bit too far in the other direction; none of the female iconics come across as feminine.  It's almost like they're saying that being an adventurer == being masculine.)




"Take that back, or I'll smite you in the face!"
-- Alhandra, Iconic Paladin


----------



## Mycanid (Dec 11, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> There was a scientist on NPR last week explaining that the reason people are so strongly attracted to the music of their youth is because the brain is actually still forming. The neuron pathways (or whatever - I'm just an artist) continue to form until your early 20's, and the feeling of wonder and discovery are related to that. I imagine that if that statement's true, it carries over to artistic appreciation as well.
> 
> As someone in his mid 30's, this depresses me: I want my sense of wonder back.




This is really only a partly true statement, IMO. And there have been loads of others before whoever this guy was who have said the same thing. The one who said it most eloquently, IMO, was Owen Barfield.

But this is a big subject in of itself, and perhaps not appropriate to the thread at the moment.

I am a big fan of 1e everything, but that does not mean that I liked all the art that was produced then. As with any "thing", usually in the beginning of the project when a thing is "new" such an ... ambience ... peeps around the corners (if you will) in many aspects of it manifesting itself, one example being art. (I am a fan of Erol Otus' stuff too ... but not all of it.)

But this does not mean that later on another person working on the same "thing" as it has grown cannot himself experience inspiration and/or convey it in what he does. I frankly think more of the art % wise in the recent 3.5 books is poor. But not all. Some of it is simply amazing stuff.

Perhaps an argument could be made that generally there is a greater chance for the freshness and/or newness of a creative endeavor to shine through more people involved in something in its initial years of growth rather than later on - but these are only tendencies rather than boxes, IMO.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 11, 2006)

The things I like about the old-school art:

1.  Wide variation in styles.  (There's some variation in 3E art, but not nearly as much as there used to be, IMO.)

2.  Black-and-White.  I love black and white illustration.  Especially pen-and-ink stuff and pieces like Emirikol the Chaotic or Paladin in Hell.

3.  Distinctive Weirdness.  Works by Erol Otus or Dee were often kind of out-there, but that added a sense of esoteric other-worldliness.  

I like some of the newer art, and much of it is technically excellent, but I'm not a fan of the whole dungeon-punk look (spikes, tats, nipple rings, lots of "thickness," etc.) that dominates, now.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 11, 2006)

My problem with the current art is that it's all the same smooth texture.  I'm not sure what the art people do to the pieces the artists turn in before they end up in a book, but to me it looks as if everything has been airbrushed.  They pieces definitely don't look like actual paintings or drawings.  There are good and bad pieces in WotC's books, but to me even the good pieces seem to have that off-putting haze of "perfectification" that makes what I'm sure was originally very human artwork look kind of mechanistic and soulless.


----------



## BOZ (Dec 11, 2006)

Blackwind said:
			
		

> My favorite D&D artists all seem to hail from the 2E era (Merric mentioned these above - Caldwell, Elmore, Easley), and many of my favorite pieces come from Dragonlance.  On the other hand, I started playing during the 2E era (first the "Classic D&D" boxed set, then the 2E PHB - and these both had great cover illos)




i think i agree with all of that for pretty much the same reasons.  2E art was firmly grounded in the same sort of places that 1E art came from, even though it was getting more complex.  towards the end, that started changing, oddly enough with one of my favorite artists, Tony Diterlizzi.

while WAR's art is very technically proficient and i like it plently, it has a lot to do with the stylistic change that came with 3E.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 12, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> My problem with the current art is that it's all the same smooth texture.  I'm not sure what the art people do to the pieces the artists turn in before they end up in a book, but to me it looks as if everything has been airbrushed.  They pieces definitely don't look like actual paintings or drawings.  There are good and bad pieces in WotC's books, but to me even the good pieces seem to have that off-putting haze of "perfectification" that makes what I'm sure was originally very human artwork look kind of mechanistic and soulless.



 I think the term you're looking for is "too processed", which is a symptom of computer-generated art. A little imperfection goes a long way into making an illustration come alive.


----------



## klofft (Dec 12, 2006)

starwed said:
			
		

> My love of B&W sketches biases me pretty strongly towards 1e.  (I hated those blue on white illustrations of 2e...)
> 
> I do like that 3e made a pretty good effort to cut back on the cheesecake illustrations.  (Although they might have taken it a bit too far in the other direction; none of the female iconics come across as feminine.  It's almost like they're saying that being an adventurer == being masculine.)




Especially Mialee! Can anyone point to a single picture of her that is "flattering"? How about "looks like a girl" even?! She is one hideous argument against the notion of "hot elf chick"! And it doesn't seem to matter what artist draws her!

Oh, and I love the 1E art for the feelings it evokes.  But I also love the current "dungeonpunk" style a lot and get a lot of "imagination mileage" out of it for my games.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 12, 2006)

Old school illustrations invoked a _sense of wonder_ . . .


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Dec 12, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> So it would be rather more interesting to find the best of 1e, the best of OD&D/BECM, the best of 2e and the best of 3e and put them next to each other.




Although I doubt WotC has the rights to all of that, I'd buy it!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 12, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Wayne: That's the nostalgia talking."
> 
> No, its not nostalgia its taste...there is a difference.




Sure it's nostalgia, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise. I mean, really. I was 13 years old then; I'm 40 now. The things I loved at 13 still carry a certain resonance, even if they don't hold up to my memory of how cool I thought they were when I first encountered them. I can still look fondly on some 1e artwork even though a lot of it was pretty crappy, not much better than I could do myself at the time. But it arrived at the right time and in the right place, and struck a nerve, because D&D itself struck a nerve. I knew even then that the art for D&D (and other RPGs) was just not that great compared to the art I was seeing on fantasy books I loved, stuff by Michael Whelan, Darrell Sweet, and, of course, the mighty Frazetta. What made D&D art special was it was for D&D, it was for this game not many people knew about, so it seemed like the stuff was being made for us personally as part of some kind of underground movement. It was directed specifically at us, the few who were in the secret club. 

Certainly some early D&D art was legitimately good. Tramp had a style that was moody and evocative, and seemed to carry with it hints of medieval woodcuts and "Little Nemo In Slumberland." Jeff Dee was doing dynamic, clean-lined work that seemed almost like something from a comic book, bearing a resemblance to John Byrne's style. Erol Otus was...Erol Otus, his style bizarre to the point of surreality, perhaps the early D&D artist whose work was most uniquely suited to D&D.

Frazetta towered over all of them. But Frazetta wasn't doing art for D&D.

Had someone like a Frazetta been doing art for D&D at the time of D&D's ascendancy...hell, for that matter, had someone like Wayne Reynolds, Sam Wood, William O'Connor, or Todd Lockwood been doing art for D&D at that time, we'd all be speaking fondly of them now - but we wouldn't have to rationalize or qualify our fondness as much.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Infact I like alot of new artwork just as much as the best of 1E, some even more (and it generates the same kind spirit).  Unfor. the styles I do like don't appear in 3E or D20 artwork (but rather in childrens books, movie preps (like those for LOTR battle scenes0 etc.)  It makes no difference to me when artwork was made... I either like it or I don't.
> 
> I think the big thing is that the 1E artists painted and drew the same images I saw in my head already.  They didn't define the mental image for me, they just re-affirmed it and added to it a bit.  Now, when I started playing 3E I still saw the same basic world as I did in 1E (very similar to what you see on the cover of the 1E PH or DMG).  I just  NEVER pictured (and no one I know pictured) the crazy stuff depicted by todays 3E artists, for instance: tattoo covered, mowhaked, and giant eared elves walking around in skin tight pants with thighs so big they couldn't walk, standing in some wacky stiff almost cheeky pose in spikey armor.  I mean, do ANY OF YOU GUYS picture these freakish things walking around in your imagination when you play 3E...tattooed covered, mowhawked elves with giant ears...?




Yeah, I did then, and I do now. D&D art was always a tad conservative, given the sheer range of possibilities inherent in a D&D milieu. It skewed a bit too much towards a Medieval baseline, and even as youngsters we realized that the default D&D "setting," as it were, was not simply the Dark Ages with magic. It was a place with a multitude of influences, not the least of them being all manner of nonhuman races and civilizations, as well as a slew of gods which were actively involved in the world itself, each of them wanting to differentiate their flocks in some way. Surely with all these various alien influences around, there would be a much wider spectrum of looks for the world's inhabitants. That's the strength of 3e art; it recognizes that there are implications of vast differences between Medieval Europe and any given D&D setting hardwired right into the game.




			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> I think 3Es art isn't meant to be used as a tool to get into the game.  If it is, I guess I'm just not hip to it.  Of course this could be coming out of video games etc. I don't play.




Baloney. I don't play video games, and 3e art still resonates with me, and draws me into the game. I'm sure it does so for many others. Dismissing 3e art - or 3e in general - by comparing it to video games is an old, tired trope. It's the equivalent of people complaining that modern music just isn't as good as the music from the time when they were growing up. Simply not true. It's just like someone up-thread pointed out - our brains tend to ossify as we get older, so new stuff just doesn't appeal to us as much as the stuff we grew up with.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Oh, and I agree there were some real dogs in 1E art.  I'm already assuming were talking about the better of each period when making comparisons.




There is a lot more of the better for modern D&D/d20, simply because there are more venues for such art now.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 12, 2006)

Col, maybe we just have different taste.  If anything I like the artwork of the early stuff even more now then I did back then.  I agree BTW AD&D is not just midieval, it was its "own thing".


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 12, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact, I do. The filthy and plain Dark Ages Look has no real place in most of the things I've run. Body decoration has been used by a lot of cultures other than the staid Northern Europeans, culturally poisoned for centuries by a dull and monotonous aesthetic. I like a Hildebrandt Tolkien painting or some of Larry Elmore's less stiff works as much as anyone, but it's not the be-all and end-all for D&D's aesthetic tastes. Bright clothing in interesting pattens and colors, not brown/green/grey shapeless bags. Unusual armor rather than cookie-cutter utilitarian stuff that turns everyone into a faceless, personality-less drone. That's what I want to see.
> 
> They discuss the reasoning behind the various art choices in the early 3E sneak peek articles in the Dragon: it was to send a clear message that things are different now.



ker-shlap!

Excellent. I thoroughly enjoyed this post. 


And coincidentally, I agree.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 12, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> For those who wanted a 3e version of A Paladin In Hell, it's in Fiendish Codex II:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Indeed. First of all, the hellfire around him needs to be blurred so he pops out of the scene, like one of Otus's weird sunsets. Second, we need to be positioned into the action; I don't want the stadium scene view, I want the action positioned to be dramatically active for the viewer. There should be some dynamism betwee the environment and the characters; with a little snipping of scenery, you couldn't even tell he was in hell. Third, those are some boring looking demons. Proper demons make funny faces, barely even emotive so much as just staring, leering, and strange. The gear isn't bad, but the sword and shield should be doing a bit more talking; the sword should not be posed, but drawn in action, while the shield should suggest he is really putting it between him and danger.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 12, 2006)

Anyone who thinks 3e and Wotc art isn't inspired needs to peruse the Tome of Magic.


----------



## Geoffrey (Dec 12, 2006)

Here is a good article on RPG art, with special mention of Erol Otus:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/panurge/imazine37.pdf (Go to the last article: "Brilliance & Dross in RPG Artwork", on pages 27-30).

Erol Otus is my all-time favorite D&D artist. I don't much care for his adventurers, but I love his monsters, especially his Cthulhoid ones: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme/kengage/cthulhu/cthulhu.html

Such stuff perfectly captures the feel I try to achieve in my campaign.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

Erol does indeed do good work.

But I honestly prefer Wood and our own Claudio Pozas too.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 12, 2006)

klofft said:
			
		

> Especially Mialee! Can anyone point to a single picture of her that is "flattering"? How about "looks like a girl" even?! She is one hideous argument against the notion of "hot elf chick"! And it doesn't seem to matter what artist draws her!
> 
> Oh, and I love the 1E art for the feelings it evokes.  But I also love the current "dungeonpunk" style a lot and get a lot of "imagination mileage" out of it for my games.




Ask and ye shall receive:






There's also Ron Spencer's picture of Mialee wielding a Prismatic Bow in Complete Mage.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 12, 2006)

I think the old black and white drawings, much like the scant descriptions in the old modules, have considerable charm because their very unfinished nature leaves so much to the imagination. And I don't think this is a 3e vs. 1e thing, either -- the very technically fine color paintings by Easley, Caldwell, Parkinson et al. from late 1e just don't hang in my mind like the old, mysterious, sketched out line drawings by Willingham, Otus, or Trampier. A little ambiguity and uncertainty is always a good thing in art.

But I do think nostalgia also plays a huge piece in all this, though. When I was 10, I had a heckofalot more time to drool over one of Russ Nicholson's many neat illustrations in the 1e Fiend Folio. Now I don't have much time to spend poring over the art in my books -- they're consumables that just get a glance or two on my way to the crunch.

But here's an example of a real apples-to-apples comparison: My first AD&D monster book was the Fiend Folio, and I loved that thing to pieces. And much of that love came from Nicholson's art.

For the last 10 years or so, I've gradually been building up my collection of White Dwarf magazines from the early 80s, and I've got most everything from issues 5-50. Nicholson was a frequent contributer to the magazine then, and one of my biggest treats is to "discover" "new" pieces of Nicholson art. Three missing issues arrived in the mail just yesterday, and one had a bunch of monsters illustrated by Nicholson. Huzzah!

But I've got to tell you, it's not the same. The artist is the same, the mode and medium are all the same, the quality is the same, but these new-found illustrations just don't strike me in quite the same way.


----------



## Pants (Dec 12, 2006)

replicant2 said:
			
		

> My poor perception of 3E art is colored heavily by the Players' Handbook. As a player with only a few 3E books in my possession (PHB, DMG, MM), I use the PHB almost exclusively, and I absolutely loathe the dungeonpunk style. Look at the depiction of the Paladin in the 3E PHB, vs. the paladins of 1E (particularly the paladin from The Rogue's Gallery, whose just slain the black dragon. The latter is far, far superior).
> 
> That said, I do like a lot of the 3E images people have posted here, I'm thinking particularly of Merric's picture of the frost giant battle, and the image of the paladin on horseback charging the huge demon in the Complete Divine. These are great pieces of art; I would have loved to have seen more of their ilk in the PHB.
> 
> To sum up, I don't think the artists as a whole of the 1E generation were necessarily any more talented than the 3E artists, but I think the artistic direction chosen by WOTC, at least for the core rulebooks, is very poor.



It's too bad that a lot of the art in the PHB really... erm sucks. The PHB, being the book that EVERYONE will have, should have more action poses or at least more interesting poses. The PHB is going to be the book that everyone references when they think of a current edition and unfortunately when there's a boring, static picture of Mialee staring you in the face everytime you flip to the Wizard class, yeah that'd probably put a bad taste in your mouth. 

Even Jeff Dee's paladin, which is a static pose (along with having the most ridiculous suit of armor evar) is more interesting than all the PHB art poses because he's DOING SOMETHING. He's not just staring at you, he manages to be interesting even while he's just posing, which is why I like the PHB Lidda pic.   

The good thing is that a lot of the supplemental books are filled with fantastic art that, IMO, rivals most anything in prior editions.  Here's a few.

From _Cityscape_:







From _Complete Mage_:


 (even though this is just a pose, it's an interesting one!  )




DMGII:




PHBII:










Tome of Magic:


----------



## heirodule (Dec 12, 2006)

MerricB said:
			
		

> There's art in various books that is quite good. To take a few favourites from Cityscape and Secrets of Xen'drik:
> 
> Cityscape:




Ugh. That one is awful. It succeeds at what it sets out to do which is highlight the PCs from the NPCs like they were selected for action in an CRPG. Maybe the iconics have really outstayed their welcome. I look at that picture and say "Oh, look some characters interacting... oh wait, its just Gimble and Krusk aagain. Look, there's alhandra in the back."

Even the Devis/Jozan one, which is technically more interesting/better, is marred by the "ah, llook, it's *Devis's* tavern that burned down."




> Secrets of Xen'drik:




This one is cool


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

Like I said, let's have Claudio do a few more pieces.


----------



## danzig138 (Dec 12, 2006)

Sorry, but there wasn't any magical spirit in the old art. Really, it just wasn't very good or interesting. I think what you're experiencing is your mind playing tricks on you.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

This coming from a guy with Vanilla Ice as his avatar... 

Sorry man but any mentions of taste just got tossed out the window by that usage. (Not that I disagree with you just saying...)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2006)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but there wasn't any magical spirit in the old art. Really, it just wasn't very good or interesting. I think what you're experiencing is your mind playing tricks on you.




Disagree.

Art is about communication.  What is important for art is therefore twofold:  (1)  It is cool enough or technically proficient enough to catch your attention, and (2) That once it catches your attention, it communicates something worthwhile.

Looking at the 3.0 PHB, there are only two pieces of art I like.  One is the illustration of the druid, which is a pose but contains good "class atmosphere", and the other is of the dragon trying to Swallow Whole on poor Tordek.  Other pieces in the book are technically proficient, but these two pieces in particular seem to communicate something worthwhile to me.

The druid picture is a portrait, but it seems rooted in the world where this druid lives.  Maybe this is because the character's animal companions lend a sense of community (that therefore extends out to a world).  Perhaps it is because her equipment looks like it has more history and in-world reality than those of other characters shown in the book (antlers, for example, imply deer, and hence an unseen part of the world).

The Tordek picture is good because it implies that Something Can Happen to the PCs.  I.e., the PCs are not simply safe uber-powerful beings for whom everything works out well and who are not really in danger after all.  Of course, this impression is somewhat ruined by the caption.

The picture of the thief whose Use Magic Device check failed is interesting, too, but for reasons that honestly have very little to do with the game.      In terms of "bad things happening", this one has already happened, and, while surprising, it wasn't really so bad.

Even before I crack the 1e PHB, though (assuming original cover), I already have an impression of people performing something dangerous because of the potential rewards.  Within the book, I see pictures of people who look like they live in a fantasy world, such as dwarves pulling carts of ore and people gathered in a tavern (with no way to tell who is a PC and who is an NPC).

On one page, a fighter is using string to navigate and is about to meet a troll around the corner.  Are we certain who will get the best of this?  The _locate object_ illo shows that the characters have learned where the treasure is....but not that there are giant spiders right next to it.

Looking only at the 1e PHB, the illustrations tend to communicate:  "This is a dangerous world.  You can prosper, but you'll have to be lucky and clever."  Looking only at the 3e PHB, the illustrations seem to communicate:  "You can make a really cool character, who is sort of removed from the world (it is just an out-of-focus backdrop at best), and who will never be in any real danger."  1e offers mysteries and danger.  3e offers characters.  (To be a completist, 2e offers worlds, but started the trend toward "character pose moments" that 3.0 followed.)

EDIT:  In other words, the 1e PHB artwork suggests a world of which the PCs are a part, and which will do them no special favors.  The 3.0 PHB artwork suggests that they are special snowflakes.

Mind you, I am not saying that this is _what the game rules deliver_, but it is what (to my eye, and IMHO) the artwork seems to say.  And this, far more than nostolgia, is what differentiates the artwork.  

And I'll also certainly agree that some of the later artwork in WOTC products offers more situation, more mystery, and more danger.  Indeed, while the artwork in the 1e DMG and PHB seem to mesh pretty well, the artwork in the 3.0 DMG seems to me at odds with the PHB art.  In the DMG, characters can face tough situations.  In the PHB, not so much so.  This is also problematic to me, because it communicates two opposing views of what the game is going to be like.  Again, regardless of what is written, the _artwork_ is 3.0 seems to communicate mixed messages.

I'd like to see more situational (danger/mystery) artwork that has nothing to do with the Iconic Characters.  It seems to me that WotC is starting to move in that direction with projects like the Environment books and more homages to classic illustrations (a very nice homage to the skeleton in the water-filled room trap from the 1e DMG in the 3.0 DMG, btw....while I prefer the original, I was glad to see the piece, and wish the 3.0 PHB had taken more from the 1e version).

Anyway, YMMV and probably does.


RC


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 12, 2006)

RC,

I still say you should harp on the fact the man uses Vanilla Ice as an avatar. Man that's just some serious bad taste!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> RC,
> 
> I still say you should harp on the fact the man uses Vanilla Ice as an avatar. Man that's just some serious bad taste!





Too easy.

(Vanilla Ice....._Shudder_)


----------



## Joshua Randall (Dec 12, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Sure it's nostalgia, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise.



Well said. It was about time someone cut through the amazing pile of bullsh*t in this thread.

Certainly artistic tastes vary, but to say that 1e art was all great and 3e art is all terrible is just silly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2006)

double post


----------



## Pants (Dec 12, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Certainly artistic tastes vary, but to say that 1e art was all great and 3e art is all terrible is just silly.



I don't think anyone has gone that far yet, though I'm sure it's all mostly nostalgia, since I place the 2e MM art up there on the same pedastal that others place the 1e PHB or DMG art up on. It was the first D&D book I owned and I loved to read that thing.  Looking back, alot of the (non-DiTerlizzi art) sucked hardcore, but I can recall cracking open the 3.0 MM for the first time and being... less than impressed with some pics.

"That's a displacer beast?! That's no displacer beast!" and so on and so on...

I still do it now.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Well said. It was about time someone cut through the amazing pile of bullsh*t in this thread.
> 
> Certainly artistic tastes vary, but to say that 1e art was all great and 3e art is all terrible is just silly.





Whenever someone disagrees with you, it is best to call their position "silly".  Much better than a refutation, after all.    

What about the _content_ and _effective communication_ of the illustrations, as mentioned above?  Surely if you disagree, you can tell me on the basis of which illustrations you do so.  If I am completely wrong (and if we are only talking nostalgia, I must be), that should be pretty simple to demonstrate.

RC


----------



## Joshua Randall (Dec 12, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Whenever someone disagrees with you, it is best to call their position "silly".  Much better than a refutation, after all.



Some statements are so obviously wrong that they do not require refutation. "All 1e art was great but all 3e art is terrible" is such a statement.

Further, your attempt to drag me into an argument is recognized and ignored.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 12, 2006)

As the originator of this thread, I'd hoped it wouldn't degrade into anything nasty (Ice   ).   I realize alot of people don't like 1E artwork, and thats cool with me.  I don't like the vast majority of "abstract art" yet others love it.   That said, try to be a little more informative about why you don't like it (if you don't).  

One observation I have made over the years, is that with fantasy art, there comes a point where realism hurts the feel and spirit of the work.  Impressionism is a good example.  Its not overly realistic yet communicates alot of feel.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 12, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Some statements are so obviously wrong that they do not require refutation. "All 1e art was great but all 3e art is terrible" is such a statement.
> 
> Further, your attempt to drag me into an argument is recognized and ignored.




"Sure it's nostalgia, and it's disingenuous to say otherwise" is such a statement as well.  Which is why, as I said earlier, it is not only the technique of the art but what it communicates to the viewer that is important.  

Try this, BTW:  http://www.wizards.com/playdnd/playdnd.asp  Good for a laugh.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Dec 12, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Like I said, let's have Claudio do a few more pieces.





I agree! Though that's not suprising.  NF and I agree on a lot of things.

Claudio your black and white protraits of the Iconic characters are way better then what's in the 3.x PHB.

The teenager in me ( I'm 38 now) just has to point out that the best 1e picture is the... Succubus from the MM.      Hey, someone had to say it after almost 3 pages.


----------



## Xyanthon (Dec 13, 2006)

Heh, it is interesting that something so subjective as art can lead to such arguments.  It really all boils down to folks like what they like and it's all good.  As an artist myself, I don't expect to be to everyone's taste and I don't try to be.  I simply enjoy the 1e art quite a bit.  Sure, there is some nostalgia there.  I find newer art to be fantastic as well.  The black and white stuff that has a more naturalistic style just appeals to my sensiblities more.  There is nothing right or wrong with that, it just is what it is.  Like I said in an earlier post, I really enjoy Wayne Reynolds quite a bit.  However, I prefer his work in the Osprey titles over the 3e stuff he does (I like it as well, just the more historical approach is more aesthetically pleasing to me).

(edited for clarity)


----------



## Chupacabra (Dec 13, 2006)

Nostalgia rules!  Rose colored glasses or not, I have yet to run across a picture in 3e that MOVES me and fires my imagination like the 1e stuff did.  

Plus, alot of the 3e character art is just plain stupid.  The females look like men.  The men look like either hyped-up roid raging gorillas or girly men with either a) multiple earrings b) a weak-a$$ looking soul-patch or other facial hair nonsense c) tats or d) all of the above.

Gimme a Jeff Dee pic w/ the guy hero in bell bottom pants and the gal hero almost comin' out of her top.  WooHoo!


----------



## Kaodi (Dec 13, 2006)

Speaking of older styles or artwork, it would be nice if we could get a map of Khorvaire that evoked the classic map of Middle Earth more than the glossy style they use for maps now. Not that the new style doesn't get the job done, but it would be nice to have a map that looks like something a cartographer from Korranberg might actually draw.

What else might be really cool? A set of six oil paintings, one apiece for Jarot, Mishann, Wroann, Wrogar, Thalin and Kaius. Have them still use similar colours (though darker) and style to Eberron artwork, but with more amazing detail, shadows and texture. THAT would ROCK! Make them the pinnacle of artwork in a book detailing the Last War.

And yeah, that 1e Intellect Devourer was the coolest, hehehe... when I think Intellect Devourer, I think of that picture.


----------



## Pants (Dec 13, 2006)

Chupacabra said:
			
		

> Gimme a Jeff Dee pic w/ the guy hero in bell bottom pants and the gal hero almost comin' out of her top.  WooHoo!



Mentioning 'bell-bottoms' and 'cheesecake' and decrying other art as st00pid seems a bit... contradictory?


----------



## Chupacabra (Dec 13, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> Mentioning 'bell-bottoms' and 'cheesecake' and decrying other art as st00pid seems a bit... contradictory?




I just knows what I likes.....


----------



## Xyanthon (Dec 13, 2006)

Chupacabra said:
			
		

> I just knows what I likes.....




And that is what it's all about


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 13, 2006)

Alaric,

Some times I think you are intentionally tapping into my thought patterns.   

Raven,

Hey man I say go the easy route whenever possible!


----------



## Pants (Dec 13, 2006)

Xyanthon said:
			
		

> And that is what it's all about



Apparently not for some folks (not singling out Chupacabra here)...


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 13, 2006)

Pants,

No but doesn't he make for a great target anyway?


----------



## eyebeams (Dec 13, 2006)

1e art is *grimy*. It makes adventurers look like soot-marked guys with notched swords. It represented low-level play perfectly by glorifying hardships. 3e art illustrates heroes from the start, which is jarring when low level PCs aren't as competent as representative pictures look. It also made the magical elements stand out. "Magic Mouth" is a great example. So's the original DMG cover where the fighter's wearing realistic armour and his shield device looks like something straight off of a battlefield. PC pictures showed actions instead of floating poses on whitespace. "A Paladin in Hell" complements the PHB entry perfectly, as does the Thief.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 13, 2006)

All I know is Claudio needs to get more artwork in WotC. I'm not blaming him just think WotC should hire him to do more artwork for them.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 13, 2006)

...


----------



## Hussar (Dec 13, 2006)

Now, as was mentioned, the Fiend Folio, the original one, had some bloody fantastic pics in it that blew away any other book at the time.  The githyanki pic with the guys arm getting ripped off?  Fantastic.  Here was a book of monsters where the monsters looked downright SCARY.  

But, I will agree with the general concensus that the 3e PHB artwork is perhaps not as good as it could be.    You'll get no arguement from me on that one.  However, in the past two years or so, WOTC has really cranked out some fantastic artwork for their books.  And fairly consistently.


----------



## Ltheb Silverfrond (Dec 13, 2006)

I think 3.X's art, at least the early stuff, was done to promote a more "friendly" game. IE D&D had a bit of a rep' and Wizards probably chose art and artists to give it a plain, down to earth look. No blood or Gore readily apparent. No scenes of doom or dispair. Just basic images. 
(Just my guess/opinion. I could be wrong)

Now later 3.X art became quite good. (The Enviromental book series and the Draconomicon are probably my favorites. Great art, nice flavor, good crunch) I'm not a fan of Ebberon, but some of the Steampunk-like elements are pretty cool, and I think the different style of art fits well with the settings non-stereotypical themes.

I still prefer the oldschool stuff. Not much of a fan of the B&W art, but the full-page illustrations with the faded and dark color just seem to me to have more character.


----------



## Ghendar (Dec 13, 2006)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but there wasn't any magical spirit in the old art. Really, it just wasn't very good or interesting. I think what you're experiencing is your mind playing tricks on you.




How can you honestly say that?
1st ED art was just as diverse as 3rd ED art. To condemn all of it as bad is just, well silly 

Sure it's nostalgia based and sure there was plenty of dreck, just as there was plenty of good stuff. (Psst, just like 3rd ED as well)


----------



## DM_Jeff (Dec 13, 2006)

Prime_Evil said:
			
		

> I was very fond of Valerie Valusek's artwork in various 2e Forgotten Realms products. With the sale of TSR to WoTC, she seemed to drop off the face of the earth. Does anybody know what she is doing now?




Well, she was credited for Cartography in a product called Otosan Uchi by AEG which described the capitol of Rogukan. There are a coupl eof other meager credits in 2000, but mostly you can she she stopped working in 1997/98 (and the merger times you mention). A shame.

As for art today being soulless or 'all technique', I say phooey. I loved 1e art at the time, sure, and many peices were fine and ingrained on my head for ages as an influence on my young mind. On the other hand I don't recall many where I'd stop and just STARE and take in all it had to offer. Emlore's almost always did. I find myself taking in much more of today's art, maybe because there's that much more to take in? I don't know. 

I like a lot of the art in 3e, and the fact that it comes from "a _magical _ medieval society" makes sense as _not _ just being historical medieval in tone.

-DM Jeff


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, I will agree with the general concensus that the 3e PHB artwork is perhaps not as good as it could be.    You'll get no arguement from me on that one.  However, in the past two years or so, WOTC has really cranked out some fantastic artwork for their books.  And fairly consistently.





Exactly....and perhaps for the reason that Ltheb Silverfrond suggests:  To remove the game from the "rep" of 1e.  Of course, if true, this would mean that the 3.0 PHB intentionally tried to communicate that 3.0 should have a different "feel" than 1e, whereas the art in the 3.0 DMG communicates that 3.0 should feel very much like 1st ed...just more cinematic.  

Glancing through the 3.0 DMG, the first thing that I notice is that there are B&W illustrations.  Then I notice that there are some pictures where the adventurers seem more like they are actually adventuring.  They have to think, they are not in charge, and they can get hurt:

p. 15:  Adventurers make careful plans regarding thier next adventure.

pp. 60-61:  Three adventurers face two orcs; there is no caption to make sure you know who will win.

p. 78:  Incorporeal wraiths lunge toward an adventurer.

p. 82:  Mialee fails to overcome the spell resistance of a marilith.

p. 92:  Adventurers learn how deadly a dragon's breath weapon can be.

p. 99:  Tordek is unprepared for an ogre's ambush.

p. 103:  Ugh, a spider.

p. 105:  Gnolls attempt to use a pit to their advantage during a fight.

p. 116:  Tordek falls victim to a magic lightening trap.

p. 174:  Trinthakis the dark elf uses the staff of the deathsong to devastating effect.

p. 199:  Using a scroll with a spell that is beyond her, Mialee suffers painful consequences.

There are also pictures that depict a more believable worldview:

p. 16:  Dungeon Mastering well requires a solid foundation of planning, just like building a castle.

pp. 106-113:  Various dungeon features.

p. 148:  "We don't serve your kind here."

p. 151-152:  Ships and siege engines without strange new spikes.

p. 244:  Crafting magic items requires time and money as well as skill.  (Note the fleshed out background.)

Finally, there are direct homages to the illustrations in the 1e DMG:

p. 114:  A water trap threatens to quench Alhandra's life (see 1e DMG, p. 68).

p. 127:  A sample dungeon (see 1e DMG, p. 95).

A glance through the 3.0 DMG shows artwork that communicates a very different message than that of the 3.0 PHB.  Whether or not you like the artwork, anyone who joins a game expecting the message in the PHB artwork, but is in a game that follows the message in the DMG artwork, is going to be rudely shocked!

Now, if you turn to page 169, you get "Ember takes a moment to reflect on her victory over an umber hulk", you will see that there is at least _one_ picture in the 3.0 DMG that explicitly suggests that the characters _can_ win, but this is hardly the overall message.

People talk about the "adversarial nature" of 1e....but if the artwork of the 1e DMG gives a different message than that in the PHB, it is to remind the DM to relax in the face of PC wackiness.  Hence all the cartoons.

p. 34:  "This had better work!"

p. 35:  "Dave, get the barbarian in the corner another drink, quick!"

p. 44:  "One false move, wizard, and your familiar gets it!"

p. 81:  Fighter jumps into wizard's arms on encountering a rust monster.

p. 111:  "It's a great new fantasy role-playing game.  We pretend we're workers and students in an industrialized and technological society."

p. 123:  "Well, either it allows a magic-user to throw the various Bigby's hand spells, or it's a +2 backscratcher.  So far we're not sure which...."

p. 234:  Three adventurers confront a giant snake using a giant forked stick.

There are mood pieces that suggest world and background, such as those on pp. 48, 59, 89, 101, 136, 154, 219, and 232.  

Finally, the illos running from p. 170-173 show the progress of a party of adventurers, from facing kobolds to stone giants.....and it shows them both facing actual danger (the troll coming unexpectedly from the side passage) and winning (in fact, getting a big haul at the end).

In other words, the art in 1e both PHB and DMG suggest that the PCs can both face actual danger, and that they can win if they are clever, or lucky, or both.  Both players and Dungeon Masters are being told to come to the game with roughly the same expectations.  The DM is given more humorous pieces, IMHO, largely because the DM _must_ keep a sense of humor in mind when describing action, and when faced with the players' plans.  In other words, the DM is encouraged to let Mickey Mouse ears or a forked stick sometimes work, while being reminded that it is just a game, and that a party of fighters is going to view rust monsters differently than a party of wizards.

The art in the 3.0 PHB suggests that the PCs are special snowflakes who are rarely in danger (and even then, not real danger), who always come out on top, and who are seperate from the world.  The art in the 3.0 DMG suggests that the PCs rarely come out on top and deserve no special treatment.  These mixed messages are liable to cause conflict with anyone new to the game.

Like or hate the styles of 1e or 3e....I don't care.  Joshua Randall is right when he says that it is silly to say all of one edition's art is great, while all of another edition's art is garbage.  However, it is equally ludicrous to say that the only reason one would prefer one style of art or another is nostolgia.  The difference in messages these illustrations convey is also not nostalgia.


RC


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 13, 2006)

You do realize that the "Special Snowflake Style" (even though it's not to my tastes) is a perfectly valid way to play the game, right? 

~Qualidar~


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 13, 2006)

Chupacabra said:
			
		

> Nostalgia rules!





It certainly does.   Of the particular images from early gaming I find most compelling, most would be considered middle of the road today, but that doesn't make them any less dear to me.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 13, 2006)

I guess my point is that your (talking to Raven here) issue seems not to be that the message isn't getting across, it's that you don't like the message. That's not really an issue with the artwork, but one of your own preference with the playstyle it's pimping. 

~Qualidar~


----------



## diaglo (Dec 13, 2006)

i miss Wormy   


but also i just plain miss the works from DAT.



i still get my fill of Tom Wham.

www.tomwham.com


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 13, 2006)

Q: "It certainly does.  Of the particular images from early gaming I find most compelling, most would be considered middle of the road today, but that doesn't make them any less dear to me."

I don't buy this completely.  Sure nastalgia is part of it.  But to a greater extent is the actual feel and spirit these illustrations set forth.  Kids pick up my 1E DMG and PH today and stare at them, flip through the MM and love it; but that pass my 3E books up.  Its always been that way.  

Anyhow, "realism" and technique are sometimes poor measures of the quality of a work of art or illustration (what about mood, and hitting the purpose in the first place).  I believe one of the first posters mentioned AD&D 1E art and OD&D art was more fine art, and the later came off as "commercial".  Think about that for a moment.  Check out some of the fine art galleries and see how many masterpieces are in impressionistic style.  You may not like non-photo real artwork, but alot (if not most) people do.  I've always thought it was a pitty fantasy art didn't utilize different styles and techniques, including qualities of abstract and impressionism.  And now it seems computer illustrators dominate the scene all depicting almost identical images.  In this case the only yard stick used to judge value is its "wow" factor and its technical proficiancy.   Those who like 3E won't understand my views, I know.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 13, 2006)

What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?

It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 13, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> You do realize that the "Special Snowflake Style" (even though it's not to my tastes) is a perfectly valid way to play the game, right?





Sure, if it makes you happy.    

However, I hope you realize that suggesting "Special Snowflake Style" to the players and "Never Give a Player an Even Break" to the DM is probably not the best of ideas.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 13, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Kids pick up my 1E DMG and PH today and stare at them, flip through the MM and love it; but that pass my 3E books up.  Its always been that way.




I've got the opposite experience. Kids have been excited over a lot of the 3e pictures, and went "meh" over a lot of the 1e pictures.

There's no accounting for taste, I guess ...  

/M


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 13, 2006)

I think many people simply don't (or won't) realize that the appreciation for a piece of art is something made up of so many interwoven factors, not just the piece of art itself, and that it will always, if it made a big enough impression back then, will drag ALL the associated feelings and emotions with it. There is so preciously little objectivity in the human mind after all, and much less about what good artwork is.

Myself, I was "spoiled" by Elmore's work on the BECMI D&D editions that were published in Germany when I was a kid, and those pictures, together with Caldwell's and Easley's, defined the look of D&D for me and my friends. When I got a look at the AD&D 1E Monster Manual from a classmate, my first impressions were "Huh, some of those guys doing the pictures really should practice more before selling their stuff." Yes, I laughed with the cartoons in the 1E books, and the griffon from the MM made it to my letterhead (hey, I was a teen), but a lot, like the Mind Flayer, made me go "THIS is supposed to look scary?"  And to this day, I prefer the 1E MM with the Easley cover to the "original" cover, which looked like my plastic monster toybox set up on a lawn, even though I own both by now.

So, you can call me insensitive, but to me the artwork of AD&D 1E doesn't hold that much inspiration, Otus' artwork looks plenty goofy to me, and I'm sure there would be plenty of parallels if you compared who loves which artwork to who prefers which edition.

And not to sound snobbish or anything, but Lockwood's art is pretty good, too. His dwarf, for example, ranks higher in my mind than that of Elmore in the Basic Set.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 13, 2006)

M: "I've got the opposite experience. Kids have been excited over a lot of the 3e pictures, and went "meh" over a lot of the 1e pictures.

There's no accounting for taste, I guess ... "

Go figure.  

J Dawg: "What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?

It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that. "

You've actually GOT IT.  Those early guys weren't the best (or maybe they were but purposely used a particular style...not unlike many of the great impressionists.  The point being, you could be a fine artist if your able to express the spirit, mood or love of something that moves you.  I "get that" from Tramp. I don't get that from 99% of the 3E artwork floating around.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Dec 13, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?
> 
> It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that.




QFT.

1e/OD&D art looks amateurish, executed with enthusiasm and occasional talent but very little skill.

Dragonlance through Dark Sun art looks like ART.  Commericial art, perhaps, but art all the same, executed with talent, skill AND enthusiasm.  This encompasses all of Rules Cyclopaedia D&D, very late 1e AD&D and most of 2e AD&D.

Starting with Planescape and continuing through 3e, the art has kept the same technical quality (with a few exceptions) but for a while adopted a very specific style - Planepunk, later Dungeonpunk.  Fans of clean line drawing and traditional styling were both put off by this, especially when it was applied to the material plane; while this doesn't make it worse, per say, I can see where someone would dislike it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 13, 2006)

And there again, I feel like I have something perfectly valid to say, but. . . 



			
				J-Dawg said:
			
		

> What was so magical about 1e/OD&D artwork?
> 
> It made me feel that maybe there was a career out there for me as an artist, because even as a kid I could draw better than that.



. . . someone goes and steals it.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 14, 2006)

All I can say is I take the advice of others with a grain of salt.

I take the advice of others with an avatar of Vanilla Ice with piles of it and probably a large grin on my face!   

I still want more Claudio!


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 14, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> You've actually GOT IT.  Those early guys weren't the best (or maybe they were but purposely used a particular style...not unlike many of the great impressionists.  The point being, you could be a fine artist if your able to express the spirit, mood or love of something that moves you.  I "get that" from Tramp. I don't get that from 99% of the 3E artwork floating around.



Uh... I don't think so.  I didn't post that to praise it as a positive quality.  It made the D&D stuff look amateurish and silly, IMO.  I had already gotten used to much better stuff from the likes of Frank Frazetta, Darrel K Sweet (not that he's all that incredible either, looking back on it) etc. that were gracing the covers of actual fantasy novels of the 70s and 80s.  Given how big D&D was, it felt cheap and chintzy to stick with "lowest bidder" style art.  Getting the Larry Elmore covers on the boxed sets that eventually became the RC was an artistic coup that was long overdue.

And actually, I DO get that from 99% of the 3e artwork.  What--you don't think those guys choose a career in freelance fantasy art because they don't have an abiding love of fantasy art or something?  The top names in current game art really show through a ton of enthusiasm, creativity and genius--they also happen to have some actual technical skill, which is something most of the 1e era artists lacked.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 14, 2006)

Love what you do.

That's why I've never kept a mininum wage job for longer than a year and half!


----------



## Melan (Dec 14, 2006)

Myself, I am partial to Judges Guild's raw, gaudy yet fascinating pulp fiction artwork. It is the height of unprofessionalism (this side of the three OD&D booklets, which are truly atrocious), but it is just so enthusiastic. And that matters a lot more than technique.


----------



## Xyanthon (Dec 14, 2006)

Melan,

That is some good stuff!  I liked most of the Judge's Guild stuff as well (some of it could be a little rough even for me).  You know, there was some pretty interesting art in some of the fanzines of the time as well.  Heh, I just noticed the artists name on the last pic.  I think that one is much better than some of the later stuff he did in Palladium Fantasy.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 14, 2006)

Ugh.

I even like some oldschool art, but that is some of the worst I have seen.


Thankfully, fantasy art has come a long way since then. And yes, to _much_ avail.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2006)

> The art in the 3.0 PHB suggests that the PCs are special snowflakes who are rarely in danger (and even then, not real danger), who always come out on top, and who are seperate from the world. The art in the 3.0 DMG suggests that the PCs rarely come out on top and deserve no special treatment. These mixed messages are liable to cause conflict with anyone new to the game.




Umm, pardon.  The paladin in the 1e PHB is IN HELL.  And he's winning.  There's stacks of dead devils all around him.  Emrikol isn't exactly hurting either.  He's roasting some poor guard on his way out of town.  Heck, I played a paladin in 1e specifically because I wanted to be that paladin mowing my way through hordes of devils.

Let's see, in the 3e PHB, we got Lidda getting blowed up, and Jozan and Krusk in a serious problem while climbing.  Most of the other pics aren't action pics, simply portraits, so we don't really get any sense of anything from them.

Hey, I did say that the PHB art was crap.  But to say things like RC's trying to pedal is just wrong.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 14, 2006)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Ugh.
> Thankfully, fantasy art has come a long way since then. And yes, to _much_ avail.




I'm not so sure about that. It is easy for us to think that fantasy art during the 70's looked like that in the PH, MM and DMG. Or even the covers of the modules.

But then we forget all the atmospheric, cool, technically proficient and totally awesome fantasy art that was produced prior to D&D, such as the covers of the Conan comics.

For example, The Savage Sword of Conan started running from 1974. Covers can be found here:

http://conan.kanefilms.com/SSOC1.html

Vallejo, Whelan and other great artists produced great looking fantasy art before or simultaneous to the creation of D&D, so it's not as if the D&D artists didn't have prior art to consider and be inspired by.

Just a thought.   

/M


----------



## Ghendar (Dec 14, 2006)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> 1e/OD&D art looks amateurish, executed with enthusiasm and occasional talent but very little skill.




So guys like Trampier and Otus had "very little skill?"

I disagree STRONGLY with this.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 14, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Emrikol isn't exactly hurting either.  He's roasting some poor guard on his way out of town.




Heh, yeah the message there is "look what PCs can get away with!"   

/M


----------



## Hussar (Dec 14, 2006)

To me, I stick Otus in with Peter Bergting and Chuck Lucacs.  Artists that I either like or violently loathe.  Some of their stuff sticks with me, but much of it I can't stand.

Pitch DeTerrlizzi on that pile as well.  (I know, heresy, but, I hated DT's stuff)


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 14, 2006)

Q: "Uh... I don't think so. I didn't post that to praise it as a positive quality. It made the D&D stuff look amateurish and silly, IMO"

Your opinion   (which seems to be in the minority) is noted.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 14, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The art in the 3.0 PHB suggests that the PCs are special snowflakes who are rarely in danger (and even then, not real danger), who always come out on top, and who are seperate from the world.  The art in the 3.0 DMG suggests that the PCs rarely come out on top and deserve no special treatment.  These mixed messages are liable to cause conflict with anyone new to the game.




That is just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year. Certainly within the last couple of months.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 14, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Your opinion   (which seems to be in the minority) is noted.



Uh... yeah.  The minority.  As opposed to your opinion which is essentially "yeah, the art was BAD, but that's why it was GOOD!"  I really miss the rolleyes smiley sometimes.


			
				WayneLigon said:
			
		

> That is just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year. Certainly within the last couple of months.



Holy crap, QFT, Wayne.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 14, 2006)

Go Claudio! (Nightfall has a new cause to champion.  )

Anyway, give me something other than old school art. Cause honestly it looks too damn faded to be much of an impact.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 14, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Let's see, in the 3e PHB, we got Lidda getting blowed up, and Jozan and Krusk in a serious problem while climbing.




& one of my favorites: The dwarf in the dragon's mouth.

I loved the pic in the d20 CoC book of the big C stomping on the iconics.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 14, 2006)

I liked that one pic of the dragon in Arcana Evolved myself. The one on the front of the book that is.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 14, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Vallejo, Whelan and other great artists produced great looking fantasy art before or simultaneous to the creation of D&D, so it's not as if the D&D artists didn't have prior art to consider and be inspired by.




-shrug- I always found most of Vallejo's work amatuerish. His figures look like mannikins. His pallette, uninspired (or badly inspired). It may have a certain photo-realism, but it feels plastic instead of inspired.

One person's "great looking" is another's "meh".

I'd claim that some of Tramp's or Willingham's work was better looking than _anything_ Vallejo ever produced, but that'd just be nostalgia talking. After all, I never saw any Vallejo's work when I was a kid & it was never associated when things I enjoye...wait a moment...hmm


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 14, 2006)

You also have to consider whats being painted or illustrated. If the image is of some stiff mowhawked tattooed elf with huge thighs in skin tight pants that croch ride, holding some contrived squat pose, with giant ears staring out at the viewer with some cheesy expression, in portrait form...brother, you could have Michael Angelo painting it, and I'd still hate it, never mind some realist commercial artist using photoshop.  Infact, I'd rather a book not be illustrated if the illustrations show figures and subjects I strongly dislike.  

I realize some of you guys like those types of 3E images, and no offense.  There just not my cup of tea.


----------



## Rothe (Dec 14, 2006)

QUOTE=Hussar]
Emrikol isn't exactly hurting either. He's roasting some poor guard on his way out of town.  
[/quote]




			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> Heh, yeah the message there is "look what PCs can get away with!"




And my magic-users were never allowed to cast spells from horseback not matter how many times I pointed to that picture.  Maybe Ermikol had some special feat.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 15, 2006)

I just had the feat "Better taste than some".


----------



## Melan (Dec 15, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> -shrug- I always found most of Vallejo's work amatuerish. His figures look like mannikins. His pallette, uninspired (or badly inspired). It may have a certain photo-realism, but it feels plastic instead of inspired.



Absolutely. I find his "butcher shop" aesthetics thoroughly boring and uninspired. In fact, I am not enamoured by the often ill conceived photorealism in fantasy art at all. Let me repost a comment I originally posted on Dragonsfoot:


> I completely disagree with the OP on the subject of good art. To me, Elmore, Easley, Caldwell and Parkinson represent the emptiness of gaming in the 90s and the fans' attraction to glossy mediocrity. All of these artists are masters of technique, but what they produce is - and my apologies to the offended - the gaming equivalent of kittens playing with balls of yarn. It is kitsch; in fact, like most kitsch, it features good anatomy and an eye to details older artists could never get, but the action, the imagination are both missing. Even paintings which try to depict action generally fail to convey dynamism. In an Elmore painting, even a knight holding a sword and attacking a dragon is just posing before the easel. Moreover, these scenes don't stimulate my imagination at all. They are, for one thing, utterly mundane. They depict realistic heroes with realistic equipment doing realistic things in a realistic fantasy world - "Ye Olde Englande", the stereotype of a whitewashed middle ages, only with dragons and fairies and stuff. These things don't engage. As far as I am concerned, they could be replaced with empty space and I wouldn't care. Rogueattorney called it "Norman Rockwell in Krynn". I just call it kitsch.
> 
> The earlier stable of artists were, on the other hand, talented amateurs. Let's face it, the late David Sutherland was never good with perspective, technical details or realistic human figures. Erol Otus was a dysmal failure if we measure him by "realism" and whatnot. Dave Trampier was probably the only one in the group who was really professional - he could have made it in the pro illustrating "industry"; he has a talent for capturing the "essence" of a monster or figure, and create an iconic representation which is both instantly recognisable and yet individual.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 15, 2006)

Photorealism,

Another example of how artwork these days just becomes more silly than realistic.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> You also have to consider whats being painted or illustrated. If the image is of some stiff mowhawked tattooed elf with huge thighs in skin tight pants that croch ride, holding some contrived squat pose, with giant ears staring out at the viewer with some cheesy expression, in portrait form...brother, you could have Michael Angelo painting it, and I'd still hate it, never mind some realist commercial artist using photoshop.  Infact, I'd rather a book not be illustrated if the illustrations show figures and subjects I strongly dislike.
> 
> I realize some of you guys like those types of 3E images, and no offense.  There just not my cup of tea.




Umm, could you please point this image out to me?  Instead of making gross generalizations and unspecificied crap, could you at least give some examples?


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 15, 2006)

Hussar,

You should know better by now my friend. We all thrive on gross generalizations and utter crap to make our points. I mean why bother with logic? That's how politicians get elected!


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2006)

Melan - All I can say is, meh.  There are some great 1e art pieces.  That is certainly true.  But, a very, very large amount of it is garbage.

Let's face it, This:







is crap.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 15, 2006)

AH my eyes!! It burns!!


----------



## Melan (Dec 15, 2006)

Hussar -- interestingly, while I have little respect for Willingham's art, this particular piece is one of my favourites. The depiction of the sword, especially, is cool with the stars inside.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 15, 2006)

While a simply outline of a black sword with some white blotches on it might be kinda groovy, let's face it, that is a bad piece of artwork.  And, to me, that's pretty much what a lot of the 1e era art looked like.  The good pieces were the exceptions.  Look at the original Monster Manual.  While DAT's intellect devourer might have been great, there's some really, really smelly pieces in there.  The demons?  Yuck.  Most of it was very, very forgettable.


----------



## Delta (Dec 15, 2006)

Another way of putting what I said earlier -- Which illustrations look most like they could be contained in a medieval manuscript? The ones that do (line drawings, flat perspective) do the best job of sucking me into the atmosphere.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 15, 2006)

I think this whole thread has by now answered the original question twice over...what was so magical about 1E/OD&D art was that it appeared at the right time, to the right people, and got associated with the right emotions, gaming experiences and memories to make it magical to those who enjoy it. This goes for the artwork of all editions, not just 1E/OD&D. 

Arguing about what makes good art is wasted bandwidth. It's all in the eye of the beholder (edition aside  )


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 15, 2006)

Hey Melan, nice post! (or repost)  


Melan wrote: "The earlier stable of artists were, on the other hand, talented amateurs. Let's face it, the late David Sutherland was never good with perspective, technical details or realistic human figures. Erol Otus was a dysmal failure if we measure him by "realism" and whatnot. Dave Trampier was probably the only one in the group who was really professional - he could have made it in the pro illustrating "industry"; he has a talent for capturing the "essence" of a monster or figure, and create an iconic representation which is both instantly recognisable and yet individual. "

I agree with this for the most part.  The only thing that has to be considered though is how much of what appeared to be "amateurish" or lack of talent related to their conscious effort to find a style that expressed what they wanted to express.  I've seen artists who paint what I consider total worthless crap...yet this is the stuff people like, and pay huge bucks for.  And often, many of these artists can paint realism but they just choose not to (after having mastered that level of control in their youth, their focusing on "expression", "mood" etc.).  Compare Micheal Angelo's later sculptures to his earlier.  Or the impressionists drift from realism to full blown impressionism.  Hell, go to B&N today and check out the number of covers you see that aren't photo real. Go to a gallery and look whats hanging on the walls. 

I guess the comment made by an earlier poster, that 1E artwork has a more "fine art" then commercial art feel suggests this same thing.  Talanted or not, many of the artists of the early 1E period managed to express the mood and feel wonderfully and IMHO far better then the 2E and 3E batch of commercially proficient artists.


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 15, 2006)

Just as an aside, Michelangelo Buonarroti is the artist's name...


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 15, 2006)

I never new that.


----------



## Ghendar (Dec 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Melan - All I can say is, meh.  There are some great 1e art pieces.  That is certainly true.  But, a very, very large amount of it is garbage.
> 
> Let's face it, This:
> 
> ...




Let's face it, that



is YOUR opinion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Umm, pardon.  The paladin in the 1e PHB is IN HELL.  And he's winning.  There's stacks of dead devils all around him.  Emrikol isn't exactly hurting either.  He's roasting some poor guard on his way out of town.  Heck, I played a paladin in 1e specifically because I wanted to be that paladin mowing my way through hordes of devils.




The paladin in the 1e PHB is in Hell, and is doing well.  Emirkol is indeed showing what the PCs can get away with.  Those are, I agree, the messages _of those particular illustrations_.  However, that is not the _overall_ message of the illustrations in the 1e PHB.  The overall message is that you win some, you lose some, but that there are a lot of things out to get you.



> Let's see, in the 3e PHB, we got Lidda getting blowed up, and Jozan and Krusk in a serious problem while climbing.  Most of the other pics aren't action pics, simply portraits, so we don't really get any sense of anything from them.




You obviously define "getting blowed up" and "a serious problem" far differently than I do.  In fact, there is nothing in the Lidda picture to indicate that she is more than surprised and (perhaps) inconvenienced.  If you are arguing that the illustrations in the 3.0 PHB imply that puffing on an exploding cigar is equivilent to "getting blowed up", I would suggest that this supports my point more than anything else.

In the Jozan and Krusk picture, there is nothing to indicate that anyone other than Krusk is having a problem (and it is very doubtful that the problem...defined by the caption as though it were an "Aid Another" attempt) has any negative impact in game terms.  If you are suggesting that having a fellow PC use you as a stepping stool to make a successful Climb check is what the 3.0 PHB illustrations imply is "serious trouble", again, I would have to say that you are making my point for me.

Again, the picture with Tordek in the dragon's jaws would be counter to my thesis if the caption didn't say that it was the _dragon_, rather than _Tordek_, who was in trouble.  I would argue that this illustration, and only this illustration in the 3.0 PHB, implies any potential for serious consequences.

These are, in fact, addressed in my earlier post.

Now, while you might think that the art in the 3.0 PHB is crap, I have said before (and will repeat) that there are actually a couple of illustrations in that book that I am fond of.

I do believe that all art is a synthesis of communication and technique, and that both aspects are important to consider when deciding why someone might like Art A over Art X.  In fact, if you go through this thread, you will discover many posts claiming that they don't like the technique of certain pieces, or that they don't like the message of certain pieces.  Hence my thesis concerning what amounts to mixed messages in the 3.0 PHB and DMG artwork.

Now, I can understand that some people might react negatively to this idea.  Some might even call it "just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year".  I, for one, have yet to hear a compelling counter-arguement.  

I tend to think that were the 3.0 PHB and DMG illustrations (with captions) differently divided between the books (so that roughly 1/2 of the action-type scenes in each book was instead in the other), there would be no mixed message.  I also think that, were this the case, for a percentage of people who dislike the artwork in 3.0, the artwork would seem better simply due to consistency of message between the books.

Where the message portion of the artwork is most similar in all three editions, IMHO, is in the monster books.  As a result, a comparison of (say) 10 randomly selected creatures that have appeared in all editions would focus perforce more on technique than message.  Which is why, as an example, the 3.0 gnoll is such a kick-arse illustration.


RC


----------



## RFisher (Dec 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Let's face it, This: [...] is crap.




Interesting. I like it. & I don't recognize it. So, I guess it must be nostalgia. (^_^)

(& I didn't notice Willingham's signature until he was mentioned. My first reaction was "Dee", whose stuff I tend to like less. I guess if I think "Dee" but I like it, I should look for the "Willingham" sig. (^_^))



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Look at the original Monster Manual.




Didn't I read recently that Sutherland was in charge of the art for the 1e MM & that he was never happy with it, feeling it was too rushed?

I mean, not that that invalidates your point or anything. I just think he'd be a bit sad to see that choosen as the example.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> And often, many of these artists can paint realism but they just choose not to (after having mastered that level of control in their youth, their focusing on "expression", "mood" etc.).




True. But in the end, that doesn't really have any bearing on whether I like a particular work. I'd enjoy OotS just as much even if that was the only style Rich could do. Of course, the little touches that make OotS's art really good may be the results of training & technical skill, but it could just be good instincts. Doesn't matter.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 15, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You obviously define "getting blowed up" and "a serious problem" far differently than I do.




Eh? That picture was just a lame rip off of the blender illustration in (some copies of) the Gurps 3/e Basic set. (^_^)

Which I don't really mean. Even if it was derivative of that image--which was likely derivative of something else. I don't consider "derivative" to be a criticism.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 15, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Now, I can understand that some people might react negatively to this idea.  Some might even call it "just possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard this year".  I, for one, have yet to hear a compelling counter-arguement.




The 'arguement' is that the idea that there is an overarching _message _ conveyed by the art in the various editions of the PHB and DMG is just silly. That's not even looking for deeper meaning in something that has no deeper meaning, that's _making up _ meaning where there simply is none beyond a broad stylistic choice. That's conspiracy theory at it's finest.

The picture of Lidda, for instance (and that's not an exploding cigar she's holding - even though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar). The art direction for that probably went:

Art Director: "I need something for the Use Magic Item skill,  probably a failure of such" 
[Since almost all of the art is directly tied to a part of the text around it to illustrate a point, it's obvious that's what has happened here]
Artist: "Can I make it humorous, like maybe a Wile E. Coyote moment?"
Art Director: "Sure."


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 15, 2006)

Ghendar said:
			
		

> So guys like Trampier and Otus had "very little skill?"
> 
> I disagree STRONGLY with this.




No doubt.  Otus did some amazing work on older editions, he did some quick and simple stuff too, but some of his covers were great compositions with excellent use of color and shape to create a specific feeling, and a lot of his b&w drawings were great as well.  Very stylized of course, but that is excellent.  Everyone shouldn't try to look like Elmore.

Personally I think it is nuts to imply that the 1e MM looks better than the 3e MM.  I do prefer the 1e PH to the later editions due to the feel of the pieces and the type of drawings used.  I have issues though with the style choices used in the new stuff, not the technical merit of the artist themselves.  The "iconics" should be dropped, I think more variety in the types of characters illustrated would help the book too.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 15, 2006)

Wayne: "The 'arguement' is that the idea that there is an overarching message conveyed by the art in the various editions of the PHB and DMG is just silly."

As far as I know, no one is claiming there is "an overarching message" to early 1E art.  There just saying it captured the mood (ie. a bunch of cool guys exploring dark and mysterious places filled with monsters, treasure, and traps...that there was always something more just out of sight...that the focus of the game was the setting and monsters (not the characters)... and it was about "high adventure", it allowed the viewer to imagine himself as the person in the painting or illustration because it wasn't so photo-real.  What came later was  a switch from early 1Es "adventure focus" to 2Es linear story focus (well that really started with Dragonlance) followed by 3Es character focus (likely a reflection of Magics influence).  If you think about it, 1E would be a terrible style of art to portray 3E, and vice versa. 

 Fisher, I was responding to a claim that one could tell if an artists was a hobbiest or professional by looking at their work.  I was simply pointing out thats not always that easy (some may truely be "amatures" while others might be masters that just paint in a similar style...perhaps to capture a mood better then extreme realism can.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 15, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Wayne: "The 'arguement' is that the idea that there is an overarching message conveyed by the art in the various editions of the PHB and DMG is just silly."
> 
> As far as I know, no one is claiming there is "an overarching message" to early 1E art.




Go up there and read RC's posts. 

Another thing. There is a small button on the lower right hand side of the message you're reading. It says 'quote'.

For God's sake, Use it.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 15, 2006)

Give me a quote.


----------



## Psion (Dec 15, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> (& I didn't notice Willingham's signature until he was mentioned. My first reaction was "Dee", whose stuff I tend to like less. I guess if I think "Dee" but I like it, I should look for the "Willingham" sig. (^_^))




I think some of his stylings are similar to Dee.

Dee is my favorite old school artist. Frex, I freakin' love his Paladin in the Rogues Gallery.

For my money, though, the only thing Otis should be illustrating is cthulhoid monstrosities or aberrations. His illustrations of characters just look... wrong. But looking wrong is right for Aberrations.  It'd be cool if he could illustrate every aberration in the game.


----------



## Psion (Dec 15, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Go up there and read RC's posts.
> 
> Another thing. There is a small button on the lower right hand side of the message you're reading. It says 'quote'.




Yeah, tx. What's up with your curious reluctance to use the quote button?


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 15, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> Yeah, tx. What's up with your curious reluctance to use the quote button?




I have no idea.    Habbit I guess, and no ones ever asked. There, I'm reformed.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 15, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I have no idea.    Habbit I guess, and no ones ever asked. There, I'm reformed.




praise be.

welcome aboard


----------



## Strithe (Dec 15, 2006)

*Another art thread?*

Are we still beating this dessicated equine?

Art discussions are always amusing because they deal with something that's extremely subjective.  Which is why the discussion never ends.


From my point of view, I have to say that while the bulk of 1E art was not as technically proficient as some of the later stuff, there's a couple of things it did better:

Some of the B&W art was incredible.  Way better than what little B&W art is seen today, and even better than a lot of today's color art with respect to evoking the subject material.  As has been said before, black & white art these days is mostly in low-budget products and often crude.  About the only thing WOTC uses it for is equipment illustrations.

There was a good amount of artwork in 1E that wasn't just about wish-fulfilment.  There was a lot more art (especially in the core books) that showed adventurers in awkward positions, often in a tongue-and-cheeck manner.  You also had heroes that didn't look like swimsuit & underwear models (is there a hero in a core WOTC product WITHOUT high cheekbones & 2% bodyfat?).

Yeah, a lot of the old stuff was tacky, cheesy, & silly.  A lot of the new suff is as well, it's just shinier, and in FULL COLOR!


----------



## Pants (Dec 15, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> No doubt.  Otus did some amazing work on older editions, he did some quick and simple stuff too, but some of his covers were great compositions with excellent use of color and shape to create a specific feeling, and a lot of his b&w drawings were great as well.  Very stylized of course, but that is excellent.  Everyone shouldn't try to look like Elmore.



Indeed. Otus had lots of skill, I just hated his art. 



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Dee is my favorite old school artist. Frex, I freakin' love his Paladin in the Rogues Gallery.



Yeah that's a good picture.

I tend to use it as an example pic whenever anyone says that 1e art was more realistic than 2e or 3e art. 



> For my money, though, the only thing Otis should be illustrating is cthulhoid monstrosities or aberrations. His illustrations of characters just look... wrong. But looking wrong is right for Aberrations.  It'd be cool if he could illustrate every aberration in the game.



QFT.

His humanoids are as ugly as ugly can get.



			
				Strithe said:
			
		

> Yeah, a lot of the old stuff was tacky, cheesy, & silly.  A lot of the new suff is as well, it's just shinier, and in FULL COLOR!



And full color is bad.... why? Is B&W somehow better than full color? Do explain please.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 15, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, I hope you realize that suggesting "Special Snowflake Style" to the players and "Never Give a Player an Even Break" to the DM is probably not the best of ideas.



Yes, that is a good point.

Edit: But that's a point about the art direction, rather than the actual art itself.

~Qualidar~


----------



## Delta (Dec 15, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, the picture with Tordek in the dragon's jaws would be counter to my thesis if the caption didn't say that it was the _dragon_, rather than _Tordek_, who was in trouble.  I would argue that this illustration, and only this illustration in the 3.0 PHB, implies any potential for serious consequences.




I do think this is an interesting and telling observation. I'd suggest that part of why this happens is through the use of the iconic characters -- in some sense they _can't_ be dead or lost, because clearly they develop through all levels 1-20 in various contexts. The iconics are presented as faces that will always be around to introduce new rules, so they can't be in trouble, and by happenstance they therefore suggest that that will be true about your PCs as well.

The really interesting thing is the _raise dead_ illustration on 3.0 PHB p. 153 (now _that's_ probably the worst situation portrayed in the book). The healer is Jozan. The victim? An unknown "friend", not apparently an iconic, the only such figure in the PHB.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 15, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> His humanoids are as ugly as ugly can get.




I'll give you that he doesn't draw his humans "pretty" or whatever, but I'm astounded that Erol Otus would get the rap of drawing humans and humanoids poorly.

The three wizards picture from the 1980 Basic set that Melan mentioned above is one of my favorite pieces of D&D artwork from any time period and I think demonstrates that Erol Otus is incredibly proficient at drawing humanoid figures.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusbasic.html

And the alchemist picture from the Expert set is also, IMO, very good.

http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusexpert.html

Concerning the comparisons between the 1eMM and the 3eMM, all I can say is that I prefer the one where the orcs don't look like axe-wielding troll dolls TYVM.   

As for Emerikol showing "what PCs can get away with", who says Emerikol is a PC?  From as far back as I can remember, I assumed Emerikol the Chaotic was an NPC; someone for the PCs to track down after he went on his magical rampage through the City of Greyhawk.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding how realism in paintings hinders immersion. When I think of Elmore's picture from Bloodstone Lands (with the wizard fighting the knight) I have no problem putting myself in that scene. The environment seems real enough to touch and, for me, reminds me of home (minus the mountains). I can look at the leaden sky and feel the cool but mild spring breeze on my face and hear it whisper through the boughs of the pine trees. I can look at the dead brown grass breaking through the snow and imagine the crunch under my feet. Now, obviously my experience dueling wizards IRL is limited (   ) but the two figures add the fantasy element to the picture for me. I look at them and see rich detail and they just complete the scene for me (although I do agree his figures look fairly stiff most of the time). I find that a lot of the time a decent background is essential to gain the immersion factor for me and pictures that lack this lack context IMO. In the world of comic book art I find this particularly important; compare George Perez's fantastic backgrounds and detailed characters to some of the one-colour backgrounds found in other comics.

I suppose I could see where *some* of the 2e and 3e art comes off as "commerical", but for the most part I've never had a problem finding wonder in most of it. Elmore's "Dragon Slayers" piece from the 2ed AD&D PHB screams adventure to me. How about Easley's piece from the same book, the one where the female warrior has carved up a giant's equipment and is holding him by the nose ring? And I think anyone would be hard pressed to consider *any* of Brom's work "commercial"

I guess ultimately I'm in the camp that says there has been good and bad in all the editions. A lot of the 1ed art cited here is great IMO (although I've never really warmed up to Otus...the appeal is mostly lost on me). I remember finding the Fiend Folio in my elementary school library (it used to have a lot of cool books before the less-tolerant folks of my town got to it) and finding the monsters in there actually frightening (well, except the Flail Snail...although I still liked it). Flipping through it now doesn't have the same effect. 2ed had Elmore, Easley, Caldwell and Brom, but it had its share of dreck too. 3ed has Todd Lockwood (easily one of my all-time favourites), Wayne Reynolds, William O'Conner and Sean West. However it, too, has crap. I think there is inarguably a different over-all style to the art of each edition, defined by the stable of artists working at the time, but I believe that whatever you take away from the style of each edition is entirely your own. YMMV as it were.

I would also like to second the request for an example of the "mohawked, big-thighed, leather-clad, big-eared elf". Outside of some bad fan art for World of Warcraft, I can't imagine where this is coming from.


----------



## Tuzenbach (Dec 15, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Melan - All I can say is, meh.  There are some great 1e art pieces.  That is certainly true.  But, a very, very large amount of it is garbage.
> 
> Let's face it, This:
> 
> ...



 How can I say this nicely? You're wrong.


----------



## Garnfellow (Dec 15, 2006)

As an aside, I didn't realize that Bill Willingham has gone on to have a long and fairly prestigious career in comics. (I followed his excellent _Elementals_ series back in the day, but have mostly been out of comics for about 15 years.) His _Fables_ series is said to be quite good, and I hope to check them out in the near future: 

http://www.amazon.com/Fables-collections/lm/R3N55AK81NV0BM?tag2=downandoutint-20


----------



## Pants (Dec 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I'll give you that he doesn't draw his humans "pretty" or whatever, but I'm astounded that Erol Otus would get the rap of drawing humans and humanoids poorly.
> 
> The three wizards picture from the 1980 Basic set that Melan mentioned above is one of my favorite pieces of D&D artwork from any time period and I think demonstrates that Erol Otus is incredibly proficient at drawing humanoid figures.
> 
> ...



I still think they're ugly and I don't care for his style. Only Dennis Cramer makes uglier looking humanoids.



> Concerning the comparisons between the 1eMM and the 3eMM, all I can say is that I prefer the one where the orcs don't look like axe-wielding troll dolls TYVM.



I prefer a book without fat pit fiends, so YMMV obviously.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 15, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding how realism in paintings hinders immersion. When I think of Elmore's picture from Bloodstone Lands (with the wizard fighting the knight) I have no problem putting myself in that scene.  QUOTE]
> 
> I think a realist certainly can create mood, feeling and foster immersion.  The point some of us are trying to make though, is that such realism isn't always the preferred way to do that, for some artists it might be abstract, for others impressionism, and for others the styles we see in 1E (which tends to not get hung up in realism.  Thats actually part of why it seems less commercial.  Its an axiom of fine artists generally to create focus points in a painting of high detail and concentration, and to de-emphasise the rest or in some cases blur it.  This is how the eye sees at any  given instance (like when you talk to someone only their nose and eyes are likely in sharp focus).  Com artist tend to be scanners putting to much in detail on the painting.


----------



## Pants (Dec 15, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I think a realist certainly can create mood, feeling and foster immersion.  The point some of us are trying to make though, is that such realism isn't always the preferred way to do that, for some artists it might be abstract, for others impressionism, and for others the styles we see in 1E (which tends to not get hung up in realism.  Thats actually part of why it seems less commercial.  Its an axiom of fine artists generally to create focus points in a painting of high detail and concentration, and to de-emphasise the rest or in some cases blur it.  This is how the eye sees at any  given instance (like when you talk to someone only their nose and eyes are likely in sharp focus).  Com artist tend to be scanners putting to much in detail on the painting.



Or maybe... just maybe, it's all just taste and arguing about this accomplishes nothing.  

Also, calling another art style 'commercial' is just pretentious.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 15, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> And the alchemist picture from the Expert set is also, IMO, very good.
> 
> http://jrients.tripod.com/otus/otusexpert.html
> 
> Concerning the comparisons between the 1eMM and the 3eMM, all I can say is that I prefer the one where the orcs don't look like axe-wielding troll dolls TYVM.




Yeah, that link pretty much highlights my thoughts on Erol Otus.  Love the alchemist, like the wizard zapping the dragon ...

... wonder what the hell he was smoking when he drew the specter.

Similarly, most 1E-era art for me follows that progression: one's great, one's okay, and one looks like a bad Hannah-Barbera knock-off done by someone three sheets past Sunday.

I really, really question the taste of anyone who can say / type, that the specter was "one of my all-time favorite depictions of the Undead."

You want a good picture of the undead?  Check out some of the better Ravenloft stuff, like Strahd at Castle Ravenloft, or Lord Soth's Ride.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Dec 15, 2006)

Tuzenbach said:
			
		

> How can I say this nicely? You're wrong.




No, he's right.  That's a fairly crappy drawing.  Better than I can do, of course, but then I'm a *really* crappy artist.


----------



## Geoffrey (Dec 16, 2006)

Psion said:
			
		

> For my money, though, the only thing Otis should be illustrating is cthulhoid monstrosities or aberrations. His illustrations of characters just look... wrong. But looking wrong is right for Aberrations.  It'd be cool if he could illustrate every aberration in the game.




Very well put. My ultimate fantasy for an RPG product is a 1st-edition AD&D Monster Manual III devoted solely to Cthulhoid creatures, and illustrated solely (including the cover) by Erol Otus.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 16, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> As an aside, I didn't realize that Bill Willingham has gone on to have a long and fairly prestigious career in comics. (I followed his excellent _Elementals_ series back in the day, but have mostly been out of comics for about 15 years.) His _Fables_ series is said to be quite good, and I hope to check them out in the near future:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Fables-collections/lm/R3N55AK81NV0BM?tag2=downandoutint-20



 Plus he writes and draws the Shadowpact comic book for DC Comics. Team roster include Blue Devil, Detective Chimp, Nightmaster, Nightshade, Ragman and Enchantress.

And he did a very naughty X-rated fantasy comic series titled Ironwood.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 16, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Interesting. I like it. & I don't recognize it. So, I guess it must be nostalgia. (^_^)
> 
> (& I didn't notice Willingham's signature until he was mentioned. My first reaction was "Dee", whose stuff I tend to like less. I guess if I think "Dee" but I like it, I should look for the "Willingham" sig. (^_^))




It's from the back cover of White Plume Mountain, the later printing that was in color. It's of a suspiciously Melnibonean-looking dude wielding Blackrazor, a sword that appears in the module.

And I also like that pic, always have. Willingham's style has always appealed to me.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> It's from the back cover of White Plume Mountain, the later printing that was in color. It's of a suspiciously Melnibonean-looking dude wielding Blackrazor, a sword that appears in the module.
> 
> And I also like that pic, always have. Willingham's style has always appealed to me.




Oh, now that's something I didn't know.  I had only seen the color version.  Learn something new.

I was wondering when someone would mention the rather obvious inspiration for the character.  But, I was more pointing towards this for TX, who seems to think that weird body type illo's only appeared in 3e.  

Raven: I'm just going to disagree with you.  I whole heartedly agree that the 3e PHB needs some new art.  But, that the art gives the message that the players are "special snowflakes" moreso than the 1e PHB is silly.  There's far too many pics, including the Paladin in Hell, and the cover of the 1e PHB that show that the PC's are the heroes and that they will prevail.  True, I could definitely see some pics of the iconics getting their asses handed to them in the PHB.  That would be great.

I did say that the 3e PHB art is crap.

But, I do think you are reading WAY more into it than necessary and ignoring some pretty big contradictions - like full page spreads.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 16, 2006)

Strithe said:
			
		

> Are we still beating this dessicated equine?
> 
> Art discussions are always amusing because they deal with something that's extremely subjective.  Which is why the discussion never ends.



There is a lot of subjectivity to it, but it's not 100% subjective.

Frankly, I think the discussion of artists like Otus and whatnot being equivalent to "fine art" while later 1e and 2e artists like Elmore and Easley are the equivalent of D&D black velvet Elvises is absurd, though.

Look--if you want to like 1e art--no skin off my back.  I mean I don't--and I didn't when it was new either, with the odd exception here and there (1e DMG cover was fairly sweet, for example) but there's no reason to invent excuses for it, is there?


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 16, 2006)

Holy crap, I never made the Willingham = Fables connection before. Are we sure it's the same guy? If so: that's awesome.

I'm an artist, and so were my 2 best friends / D&D palls back in high school. We all had our favorites, but without fail the one thing we agreed on was that Erol Otis sucked.   The funny thing is: I followed that link (somewhere above) today, and I was really grooving on it. I don't really know what that says about the nostalgia / good / bad art theory.

Although, following this thread from the beginning, I can say this: all were doing is a big round of Mental Masturbation. There is no "GOOD" art and there is no "BAD" art, there are just personal interpretations. Raven Stormking isn't _wrong_ for liking 1e art better, and I wasn't _wrong_ to find Erol Otis laughable back in the day. I'm also not _wrong_ for liking it a whole lot more now. My point is: can't we all just agree to disagree?

~Qualidar~


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 16, 2006)

That Erol Otus pic with the fire and ice salamanders fighting--that one I do remember liking quite a bit.  It's a pretty decent pic even today.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 16, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Give me a quote.



The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night,
And his affections dark as Erebus.
Let no such man be trusted.

There. Hope you liked it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 16, 2006)

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> As an aside, I didn't realize that Bill Willingham has gone on to have a long and fairly prestigious career in comics.




He also did a lot of early _Villains and Vigilantes _ art. The villains in the first two _V&V_ modules are the same villains in the eally issues of _The Elementals_. 

He's done _The Pantheon_, _Ironwood _ and other things then after he started _Fables _ he also got stints on _Robin _ (hhiiss) and a couple other books. He's a good artist, but he always seems to reach a point where he freaks out and melts down, then disappears for a couple years. Basically he seems best when given his own sandbox and left alone in it.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 16, 2006)

Hey, now I generally liked the art in Villains and Vigilantes.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 16, 2006)

There is no "GOOD" art and there is no "BAD" art said:
			
		

> This thread didn't really start out as a comparison between 1E and 3E styles of art.  The question was: what was so magical about early 1E artwork (as a whole).
> 
> As far as there is no good or bad artwork, thats true in a way, as art is personal.  But still, there are qualities in any piece that many can like collectively and talk about.  And THAT is the point of this thread.  If 10 of us love 1E art, and we discover its for the same reasons cool.
> 
> ...


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Dec 16, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> This thread didn't really start out as a comparison between 1E and 3E styles of art.




Sure it did. Your initial post:



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> There was a spirit in the artwork (esp. in the 3 core books and the old modules) that just hasn't been matched by the technically proficient artists of the 2E period on up to today.




Looks like a comparison to me, with 2e and 3e art, in your opinion, coming up short. If you'd simply said something like "1e art, while perhaps less technically proficient than more modern RPG art, had a certain magical ambiance all its own," then you could have easily avoided having the thread become one in which the relative merits of art from different eras are directly compared in a qualitative sense.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 16, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The 'arguement' is that the idea that there is an overarching _message _ conveyed by the art in the various editions of the PHB and DMG is just silly.





Is it?

If your belief is that art does not convey message, then any line of reasoning that relies upon art conveying message would seem to be silly.  But, given that art conveys message, it is almost impossible -- intentionally or unintentionally -- to convey messages via the art chosen.  

Example:  If I choose to illustrate a rpg product using a wide range of illustration styles, then I am (again, consciously or not) conveying a message that the rpg product itself should be able to support a wide range of styles.

Another example:  If I choose to illustrate a rpg product using many portrait-type pictures (rather than action pictures), I am sending a message that character is more important than event.

Third & final example (for this post, anyway):  If I choose a dreamy, moody style of art and use it consistently throughout a rpg product line (such as the 2e Ravenloft style), then I am sending a message that mood is of paramount importance in the setting.

Attempting to claim that art does not convey message, and that art cannot be examined to see what message it conveys is silly.  Claiming that art conveys message, and that that message can be at least partially decoded, is merely claiming that art is itself a message-bearing medium.



> That's not even looking for deeper meaning in something that has no deeper meaning, that's _making up _ meaning where there simply is none beyond a broad stylistic choice. That's conspiracy theory at it's finest.
> 
> The picture of Lidda, for instance (and that's not an exploding cigar she's holding - even though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar). The art direction for that probably went:
> 
> ...




Is there anyone on these boards who works in advertising?

For the following argument, I am assuming that WotC took as much care in the design of the 3.0 books as it did in its customer research prior to designing 3.0.  In other words, I assume that WotC took as much care in the "look" of the 3.0 core books as an advertising firm would in the creation of advertising materials, or any reasonably large company does in the creation of promotional literature or catalogues.

There is a very good chance that there are more illustrations produced than used in any of the WotC books.  The art director, from basic materials prior to the writing of the final text, listed some very basic ideas of what sort of illustrations were needed, and the artists produced mock-ups of their ideas.  The art director then determined which mock-ups would be used, and these pieces were completed.  The other mock-ups were probably retained, for possible use in further products, and some of them may well have later appeared.

(An example of how the text might have changed between mock-up and final illustration can be found in the 3.0 Monster Manual, where the locathah is described as not having teeth in the text but has impressive teeth in the illustration.)

I would then assume that there was some thought given to the captions, and what the captions would convey.

I assume that, during the time that 2nd Ed was being produced, TSR spent some time considering these issues....after all, the Ravenloft setting shows consistent design elements...but that they didn't spend any more time on this than they did on market research.  I would assume, conversely, that during the heady days of 1e (and earlier), illustrations were produced to fill space after text was written and/or largely independent of the text....in other words, the production was amateurish.

I would certainly accept that the overarching message of 1e artwork, and, to a large extent, 2e artwork, is an accidental byproduct of the ideas behind individual pieces.  

Your counter to my thesis seems to rely, essentially, on the idea that (1) art does not convey message, or (2) WotC was unaware that art conveys message, and/or chose not to use the ability of art to convey message in the 3.0 core books.  

While the art in the 1e books shows a mish-mash of styles and ideas, the art in the 3.0 core books seems to indicate a concerted attempt to maintain a consistent style and message.  This conclusion comes about from the simple process of examining each picture individually, determining what message it conveys and what style it is in, and comparing these messages and styles with the other pieces in the work.

The use of the same characters in the art, as in the text, seems to indicate some attempt at unity of purpose and message on the part of WotC.  Unless, of course, you believe these things to have come about accidently under the aegis of random forces.    

This is so simple, and so easily verifiable, that it amazes me that anyone would claim it to be "silly".  Indeed, it is notable that you do not make claim that specific pictures convey alternate messages, and that Hussar's claims (referring to Liddia's Exploding Cigar and Krusk's Face Step) were so weak as to provide reinforcement for my argument were his messages for those pieces accepted.  And it was Hussar's argument, not mine, that Liddia was getting "blowed up" in that picture.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 16, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> Yes, that is a good point.
> 
> Edit: But that's a point about the art direction, rather than the actual art itself.
> 
> ~Qualidar~




True.

But, I am suggesting also that some of the reasons people like artwork in a product (or do not) is reaction to the art direction (or message) rather than reaction to the technical competence (or lack thereof) of the artist.

RC


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 16, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Sure it did. Your initial post:
> 
> Looks like a comparison to me, with 2e and 3e art, in your opinion, coming up short. If you'd simply said something like "1e art, while perhaps less technically proficient than more modern RPG art, had a certain magical ambiance all its own," then you could have easily avoided having the thread become one in which the relative merits of art from different eras are directly compared in a qualitative sense.




Fair enough.  Remember though, some comparison is going to be needed (just as if I was going to define and discuss the merits of impressionism, I might need to compare  pre-impressionists to impressionists: "the  impressionists were better at xyz," kind of like describing to someone what white is by showing them black.  In otherwords, I'm not knocking 2E and 3E (they do have more detail in them then 1E art for instance), as much as using that statement (you posted above) as a launching point for those who share the opinion that one of 1Es key values was that it expressed the feel and mood of the game very well.   I'm sure when impressionism first came out, there were realist who argued that realism expressed expresson just as well.  But that didn't stop art critics, and the general public from going bananas over the new style.

Anyhow, I have no problem with debating the problems and merits of 1E, 2E, and 3E art, as long as it doesn't devolve into a big girl fight.  So far (for the most part) everyone's stuck to comments on the art and not each other which is nice for a change...and something I NEVER thought I'd see, least of all here at ENworld.      So good for us.


----------



## painandgreed (Dec 16, 2006)

I never cared for Erol Otuus. In fact, the ony reason I know the name is because I notably disliked his artwork so much as to figure out which artist it was. I do love Willingham, including the above image. I do think that current books and art direction lack the diverse styles of the old books from cartoonish to realistic. I'd prefer the vastly different artists of the old versions than the current unified looks, even if they are technically better. (This goes double for WW games where I loved the assortment of artists in their early stuff and hate the current single artist books that are graphically designed to the point of unreadability.) What I miss most about the art of 1E are the cartoons and jokes. Some of the most memorable artwork in the 1E books, especially the DMG, was the cartoons.( "This had better work." ) I miss that touch.


----------



## Mycanid (Dec 16, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hey, now I generally liked the art in Villains and Vigilantes.




Me too!  But I always kinda liked Dee's art - the "early" things especially....


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 16, 2006)

painandgreed said:
			
		

> I never cared for Erol Otuus. In fact, the ony reason I know the name is because I notably disliked his artwork so much as to figure out which artist it was. I do love Willingham, including the above image. I do think that current books and art direction lack the diverse styles of the old books from cartoonish to realistic. I'd prefer the vastly different artists of the old versions than the current unified looks, even if they are technically better. (This goes double for WW games where I loved the assortment of artists in their early stuff and hate the current single artist books that are graphically designed to the point of unreadability.) What I miss most about the art of 1E are the cartoons and jokes. Some of the most memorable artwork in the 1E books, especially the DMG, was the cartoons.( "This had better work." ) I miss that touch.




Me too...and I never really played AD&D 1E, only browsed the books now and then. The cartoons were high points, clearly demonstrating that AD&D wasn't to be taken 100% seriously, but with a large dose of humor and some sillyness attached.

The lack of that kind of humor even in the 3E core books is even more surprising to me after I finally got my hands on one of WotC's first books, _Primal Order_, where you are greeted by a cartoon showing a group of "heroes" battling a dragon, and the cleric looking skywards, asking "What do you mean _Try again tomorrow, I'm tapped out_?" That's the kind of humor that is missing from the game itself...and I don't buy the 6 years too late explanation that it is because the game designers didn't want to "impose" their idea of gaming humor on the players. After all, they imposed their ideas on nearly everything else connected to D&D on us, and made us buy it up by the metric ton.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 16, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Me too...and I never really played AD&D 1E, only browsed the books now and then. The cartoons were high points, clearly demonstrating that AD&D wasn't to be taken 100% seriously, but with a large dose of humor and some sillyness attached.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Me 3!
> ...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 16, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Me 3!
> 
> The writers of 3E seemed to afraid to put some personality in thier writing (compared to Gygax's witty and enthusiastic 1E pros).  Possibly for marketing reasons, or possibly because they were boring stiffs.     Sure 3E is easier to understand, but it lacks machismo.




You know, I actually admire you for the brass to open one can of worms inside an already open one. I wonder how long it is before the folks that find Gary Gygax' writing style overly verbose, convoluted and counterintuitive pipe up here. Because, you see, writing is just another form of art, and as such...just like illustrations...victim to highly subjective tastes.

Excuse me while I go over there to the trenches and duck for cover.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 16, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> You know, I actually admire you for the brass to open one can of worms inside an already open one. I wonder how long it is before the folks that find Gary Gygax' writing style overly verbose, convoluted and counterintuitive pipe up here. Because, you see, writing is just another form of art, and as such...just like illustrations...victim to highly subjective tastes.
> 
> Excuse me while I go over there to the trenches and duck for cover.




I actually agree Gary is all those things (verbose, convoluted and counterintuitive)  in his writing style....but, (in my best William Shatner)...."he is...oh so much more".


----------



## Emirikol (Dec 16, 2006)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Because, you see, writing is just another form of art, and as such...just like illustrations...victim to highly subjective tastes.Excuse me while I go over there to the trenches and duck for cover.





Sure, there are highly subjective tastes out there, but that doesn't mean that there aren't POPULAR TASTES.

You must cater to the largest group of people.  If people liked Gary's stuff, he'd still be selling..but he's not.

The same can be said for LARRY ELMORE.  Time has come and gone.  (He's not dead yet is he?)

jh


----------



## Maggan (Dec 16, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is there anyone on these boards who works in advertising?




Yes. Is there any special reason for you asking?  

/M


----------



## Maggan (Dec 16, 2006)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> If people liked Gary's stuff, he'd still be selling..but he's not.




Heh ... someone's gonna take you to task for that statement, trust me!  

/M


----------



## Maggan (Dec 16, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I actually agree Gary is all those things (verbose, convoluted and counterintuitive)  in his writing style....but, (in my best William Shatner)...."he is...oh so much more".




Well, when it comes to this particular subject, IMO, less is more.  

/M


----------



## Klaus (Dec 17, 2006)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Sure, there are highly subjective tastes out there, but that doesn't mean that there aren't POPULAR TASTES.
> 
> You must cater to the largest group of people.  If people liked Gary's stuff, he'd still be selling..but he's not.
> 
> ...



 No, he isn't. He's doing just fine, and selling his books with lots of women in them!

God bless him!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Yes. Is there any special reason for you asking?





Of course.  Someone in the advertising industry would be in a good position to critique my statements directly following that question in my previous post.     

Speaking of messages in art, wasn't there a Dragon issue during the lead-up to 3e that mentioned the 3.0 art, and specifically that it was intended to carry at least one message ("This isn't your daddy's DND" or something like that)?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 17, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Raven: I'm just going to disagree with you.




Your right, of course.    



> I whole heartedly agree that the 3e PHB needs some new art.




Well, that's something.



> But, that the art gives the message that the players are "special snowflakes" moreso than the 1e PHB is silly.  There's far too many pics, including the Paladin in Hell, and the cover of the 1e PHB that show that the PC's are the heroes and that they will prevail.




As a fairly simple test of this theory, how many pictures in the 1e PHB show the PCs triumphing, and how many show the PCs in potentially serious straits?  Which pictures do you include in each?  What is, therefore, the ratio of triumph to danger?

Now, do the same thing with the 3.0 PHB.

If the numbers are the same, and you can adequately defend your choice of pictures, then I will gladly admit that I am wrong in my surmise.    



> True, I could definitely see some pics of the iconics getting their asses handed to them in the PHB.  That would be great.




Why would that be great if the ratio is already the same as in the 1e PHB?  What would those pics add?    


RC


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 17, 2006)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> Sure, there are highly subjective tastes out there, but that doesn't mean that there aren't POPULAR TASTES.
> 
> You must cater to the largest group of people.  If people liked Gary's stuff, he'd still be selling..but he's not.
> 
> ...




Well, Gygax today isn't really doing the same kind of thing he did back in the 70s, so its not really fair to say that.  I wonder if Gary  published short 1E dungeons on his own (or for GG or OSRIC) if they'd sell.  I bet he would make a killing.  Imagine limited editions.  
$$$  $$$  It'd be great to get some of the old artists to do his cover and interior....or maybe some of the new artists working in the old school style. 

But, sadly, I know this will never happen.   :\


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> If you don't like 1E artwork, no biggy.  But it wouldn't kill anyone to think about some of the points those that do like it have brought up and visa versa.
> 
> ...




Now this I could possibly agree with.  There has been a massive shift to get the adventures out of the dungeon (whether smelly or not) and that has been reflected in the artwork.



> Another point someone else brought up was that 1E artwork didn't idealize the depicted PCs or monsters (where 3E portrays most PCs looking like "swimsuite models" in skin tight clothing etc., 1E depicts most everyone pretty much you'd expect, tough but human.




Again, could you please give some examples of the swimsuit models?  1e had more than its share of beefcake pics as well.  And, looking up at that pic I put up earlier, that pic looks nothing like a human I would expect to see.  You seem to be hung up on the idea that 3e art is all dungeonpunk when that style died before 3.5 was even released.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 17, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your right, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Considering most of the pics in the 3e PHB are static portraits, there is no sense of danger or the lack thereof.  

Your point is that the art of the 1e PHB somehow lends itself to the sense that the PC's are not the heroes, that their death could be imminent and meaningless.  Nothing could be farther from the truth IMO.  The cover of the 1e PHB shows the PC's stealing the gems from the statue.  A few pages in, we have a full page spread of the Paladin in Hell.  Later we have another full page spread of a bunch of dwarves listening to a magic mouth.  Sure, there are some smaller pictures showing PC death, but the big pictures, the ones that are going to be remembered, all show the PC's doing heroic things and succeeding.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 17, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course.  Someone in the advertising industry would be in a good position to critique my statements directly following that question in my previous post.



Well, I'm a graphic designer / art director, and I admit that you've sold me on the fact that the 3rd edition art is conveying a message, and I can see where you are coming from with what that message conveys. But all of that is superfluous to the actual original question: what gives 1e art the "sense of wonder". The actual merits or lack thereof of 3e, 2e, silver age comic books or art deco are just a distraction from that question.

I would maintain that the answers were in the first 2 pages of this thread: It's nostalgia, and favorable associations with certain magical times in our lives. I also buy the brain chemistry issue I brought up originally. The real test would be to remove our feelings from the judging. I bet if we took all the 1e art down to the local bingo parlor tomorrow and asked around, most of those polled would find a distinct lack of "magic".

~Qualidar~


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 17, 2006)

My love of the "old school" artwork has nothing to do with nostalgia since I came into AD&D with 2nd edition.

I think cover illustrations for The Dragon ought also to be considered.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 17, 2006)

I would maintain that the answers were in the first 2 pages of this thread: It's nostalgia said:
			
		

> I also strongly disagree with this statement. Nastalgia is part of it sure, but a small part I think.  Case in point: I see new artwork everyday thats different then 1E but still has that kind of energy and feel.  Just look around you.
> Hell, I just watched "Underworld" again 2 nights ago.  Check out the history book on Vampires they briefly show (dark and dangerous illustrations) or the LOTR movie concept art (you can find this in books at B&N thats where I saw it).  And there's a ton more (kids sections of book stores, album covers, etc. etc.).  This stuff is GREAT...and its proof that not everythings gone totally 3E... and that perhaps it may one day make inroads back into the FRPG market.  Presently though, besides a few GG, PPP and OSRIC products everything else looks pretty D20 standard.
> 
> As always I don't expect everyone to "get it" as far as it comes to 1E art. No more then you can expect me to for 3E.   But those who do like it will probably agree that its not just nastalgia.
> ...


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Dec 17, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Your right, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Maggan (Dec 17, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course.  Someone in the advertising industry would be in a good position to critique my statements directly following that question in my previous post.




Well, I don't feel that I have made a thorough enough analysis of both PHs and the potential messages conveyed by the art to discuss you theory.

Suffice it to say that I think it is probable that the art direction for 3e was more deliberate and dictated by target group tests than 1e, who seem more haphazard and at time whimsical.

Whether the pictures of 3e convey a "safer" message than the pictures of 1e is not for me to say. I'd like to test it on a broad representation of the target group before I make any conclusions.

/M


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 17, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Whether the pictures of 3e convey a "safer" message than the pictures of 1e is not for me to say. I'd like to test it on a broad representation of the target group before I make any conclusions.




Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around  (safe covers, safe action heroes, girls and guys rendered looking very similar to each other, few close to impossible odds going out in glory scenes, etc. etc.).  Truely a biproduct of the politically correct 90s.  Back in the 70s guys were guys and chicks were chicks.  And old fat dudes with beards launched books with covers made by their professional artist friends, not worried about who might feel offended or left out, but rather, is the work truely expressing what the product is "all about".  Making a mint came second to making a product that was a joy to behold.  And they were'nt afraid to give you the bird if you objected.  Hell, even todays leading men (with the exception of a few like the new bond perhaps) are girly guys...Brad Pitt, Leonardo Decrapio, etc. etc. so the PC steam roller continues on.  And 4E will undoubtedly be more of the same.  

  Marketers have there place, but they need to remember to remind their clients to grow a pair and take some risks on their own.  Defy what the numbers say, present your inner vision and spirit.  People see it and appreciate it.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 17, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around  (safe covers, safe action heroes, girls and guys rendered looking very similar to each other, few close to impossible odds going out in glory scenes, etc. etc.).




After a casual glance at the covers of the original adventure path modules for 3e, I deduce that your sample size must be incomplete, which therefore results in an incomplete analysis.

 

In other words, "all way around" the art of 3e looks nothing like what you are describing.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Marketers have there place, but they need to remember to remind their clients to grow a pair and take some risks on their own. Defy what the numbers say, present your inner vision and spirit. People see it and appreciate it.




Or reject it wholesale, which is a far more common outcome. Sometimes that inner vision and spirit resonates with the target audience, but I'd wager that 90% of the time it doesn't.

As a clear example; no one has been able to topple D&D as the major medieval fantasy rpg, even after thousands of games have been released, some of them even with extremely similar mechanics and artwork.

Note that I' not saying that people shouldn't go for conveying their inner vision and spirit. Just be realistic as to what is the outcome. It worked for Vampire, so it could work for someone else.

EDIT: And btw, marketers aren't unfallible! We make mistakes as well. The best makes very small mistakes. We of lesser skills sometimes make huge mistakes.

/M


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 17, 2006)

I also need to mention, I haven't seen much of the 3E art in the last year.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 17, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around  (safe covers, safe action heroes, girls and guys rendered looking very similar to each other, few close to impossible odds going out in glory scenes, etc. etc.).  Truely a biproduct of the politically correct 90s.  Back in the 70s guys were guys and chicks were chicks.  And old fat dudes with beards launched books with covers made by their professional artist friends, not worried about who might feel offended or left out, but rather, is the work truely expressing what the product is "all about".  Making a mint came second to making a product that was a joy to behold.  And they were'nt afraid to give you the bird if you objected.  Hell, even todays leading men (with the exception of a few like the new bond perhaps) are girly guys...Brad Pitt, Leonardo Decrapio, etc. etc. so the PC steam roller continues on.  And 4E will undoubtedly be more of the same.
> 
> Marketers have there place, but they need to remember to remind their clients to grow a pair and take some risks on their own.  Defy what the numbers say, present your inner vision and spirit.  People see it and appreciate it.










Thanks, I really needed that laugh.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 17, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around  (safe covers, safe action heroes, girls and guys rendered looking very similar to each other, few close to impossible odds going out in glory scenes, etc. etc.).  Truely a biproduct of the politically correct 90s.  Back in the 70s guys were guys and chicks were chicks.  And old fat dudes with beards launched books with covers made by their professional artist friends, not worried about who might feel offended or left out, but rather, is the work truely expressing what the product is "all about".  Making a mint came second to making a product that was a joy to behold.  And they were'nt afraid to give you the bird if you objected.  Hell, even todays leading men (with the exception of a few like the new bond perhaps) are girly guys...Brad Pitt, Leonardo Decrapio, etc. etc. so the PC steam roller continues on.  And 4E will undoubtedly be more of the same.
> 
> Marketers have there place, but they need to remember to remind their clients to grow a pair and take some risks on their own.  Defy what the numbers say, present your inner vision and spirit.  People see it and appreciate it.




Well you've pretty much lost me at this point. Somehow you see "machismo" and "inner vision" and "spirit" where I see some cool atmospheric illustrations along side some goofy filler material (a description which can apply to all editions IMO). You imagine some bearded rebels flipping the bird to society while striving to produce art in its purest form. I picture it more like this: 

[Gary G.] Ok, we need someone to flesh out our adventures and supplements with some illustrations of people going into dungeons and fighting weird-looking monsters in the pursuit of treasure...
[Art Director] Well there are some pretty decent fantasy artists out there now...
[Gary G.] We also don't have a lot of money
[Art Director] Ok well we've got these guys...some of their work is pretty cool looking. They work pretty cheap too...
[Gary G.] Sold !

That's a kinda cheeky example but I tend to go with the simplest explanation until someone "in the know" can come on and validate that they were indeed devil-may-care mavericks publishing art that reflected the "true spirit" of the game. While I agree that art can have a message (hence art directors), I'd have to say the majority of what is being bandied about in this thread is just personal opinion. Outside of RC's posts there is little objectivity (and even there I'd say opinion is weighing pretty heavily). IMO YMMV and so forth.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 17, 2006)

The original poster asked what was so "magical" about 1e art.

What was "magical" about it was it came first. The artist there had next-to-nothing for reference. Later editions had a road to tread, but the OD&D and 1e artists blazed that trail. So it was a make-up-as-you-go generation.

And for that alone they deserve praise.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 17, 2006)

Darth: "Well you've pretty much lost me at this point. Somehow you see "machismo" and "inner vision" and "spirit" where I see some cool atmospheric illustrations along side some goofy filler material (a description which can apply to all editions IMO). You imagine some bearded rebels flipping the bird to society while striving to produce art in its purest form."

Machismo relates to throwing caution to the wind and putting out just what you want to put out, without compromising your vision.  And thats what 1E pre UA is.  

Anyhow, the comment relates not just to this example, This was a general time period evolution, going from pre-PC  (early 80s and before) to PC (mid 80s and after).  There are still those who buck the trend, some perish some do extremely well (doing the opposite of what they are advised).  


As far as TSR goes, it developed with Gygax having control over the product in the begining(and thus controlling what art was used where and who was to do it).  Now, I think I read Tramp was friends with Gary (I don't know when that developed or how long it lasted).  Also, if you've communicated much with Gygax, you'll see he's not the type to be PC, nor listen to anyone else over his own instinct (like a marketer worried about mommy being scared of Billy playing with a demonology book).  

As for flip flops, I don't see Gygax in them.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 17, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The original poster asked what was so "magical" about 1e art.
> 
> What was "magical" about it was it came first. The artist there had next-to-nothing for reference. Later editions had a road to tread, but the OD&D and 1e artists blazed that trail. So it was a make-up-as-you-go generation.
> 
> And for that alone they deserve praise.




Now *that* is a position I can get behind. That makes certain amount of sense to me. It takes the subjectivity and the question of their relative talent out of the argument and focuses on something a bit more quantifiable: the idea that these artists were innovators. 

Thanks Klaus!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Considering most of the pics in the 3e PHB are static portraits, there is no sense of danger or the lack thereof.




Please note that my original post on this topic mentions this specifically, and leaves aside the static portraits.  So, you could quite easily do a similar survey leaving those illustrations aside.  It might be noted, however, that a static portrait -- a picture in which the primary figure is not engaged in any obvious or discernable activity apart from posing -- implies the ability to pose, and hence an inherent lack of danger.  I did not use this assumption in my analysis, but I would accept an analysis that did so.

(In fact, if anything, such an analysis would skew the results in favor of similar percentages in the 1e books.)



> Your point is that the art of the 1e PHB somehow lends itself to the sense that the PC's are not the heroes, that their death could be imminent and meaningless.




Not at all.  My point in reference to the message of the 1e artwork breaks itself down as follows:

(1)  The PCs are part of a larger world, to which they are interconnected.

(2)  That world is a frequently hostile place.

(3)  That world contains unknown elements.

(4)  That world contains danger, and the possibility of death or serious damage is real.

(5)  Likewise, the possibility of spectacular success is real, but requires skill and/or luck.



> Nothing could be farther from the truth IMO.  The cover of the 1e PHB shows the PC's stealing the gems from the statue.  A few pages in, we have a full page spread of the Paladin in Hell.  Later we have another full page spread of a bunch of dwarves listening to a magic mouth.  Sure, there are some smaller pictures showing PC death, but the big pictures, the ones that are going to be remembered, all show the PC's doing heroic things and succeeding.




The cover depicts two PCs stealing the gem eyes from a large statue.  They have apparently just killed two lizardmen.  A fighter cleans his sword.  A mage stands on, perhaps speaking to the fighter.  Two other characters in the foreground seem to be examining and discussing a map.  This is clearly a PC success, and in terms of risk vs. reward scenarios, a resounding one.

Paladin in Hell shows a paladin in hell (duh) engaged in combat with several devils.  Two are slain, one is currently being hit, and three more can be seen entering the combat.  The implication is that the paladin is doing well, and certainly that the PCs can do cool things in interesting places, but there is no guarantee that the paladin is going to win.

The picture with the magic mouth shows a group listening to a magic mouth, while a pair of eyes watches them from the lower left hand corner, further into the dungeon.  The implication is one of mystery, with a small element of lurking menace.  I quote from http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...din+in+hell&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=G:

I think that it would be safe to assume that Emirikol could have just as easily filled the number one position, but there’s something about this illustration (found in the Player’s Handbook) that, in my opinion, out classes it. First off, there are effects that are taking place in it that are outstanding (the floor texture is amazingly handled, achieving a beautiful 3D quality). Secondly, and most importantly, this drawing sums up adventuring at its best: delving down in the darkness, the company encountering a magic mouth (one can only imagine what it is saying), and further down the stairs, the eyes of an awaiting denizen. Awesome.​
The same site had this to say about Paladin in Hell:

Flipping through the original Player’s Handbook, you couldn’t help but stop and stare at this full page illustration of a paladin — on the brink — fighting valiantly with his holy avenger against this party of devils. There are many different stories one could attach to this image, but I always figured that he was a on a suicidal crusade attempting to vanquish as much evil as possible before he himself met his maker. Notice his aura of protection from evil and the comparable scale of each of the devils.​
It is noteworthy, actually, that the art in the 1e PHB was captionless, leading the viewer to determine what the story inherent in the picture was.  This is something that comes up again in the aforementioned site's descriptions of Emirkol the Chaotic:

Truly, one of the classic illustrations of the time, "Emirikol the Chaotic" would likely be at the top of anyone’s list. From a technical standpoint, this drawing is fabulous, but really, like with most Trampier drawings, it is the implied story that really draws the viewer in. A late afternoon battle in the city streets between a known criminal wizard and city guardsmen? An assassination outside of the Green Griffon? Or a rampage of evil that threatens the city? Whatever the true story is, it is certainly a masterpiece of D&D illustration that one can find in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.​
Did the art in the 1e PHB imply that the PCs _could_ triumph?  Absolutely.  Did the art in the 1e PHB imply that the PCs _would_ triumph?  Absolutely not.

Of course, when I went through my analysis of both PHBs and DMGs, I looked at _all_ of the pictures.  I didn't simply pick and choose.      And, oddly enough, no one has yet pointed to a single picture in the 3.0 PHB and supplied a real counter example.  OTOH, we have a link to a direct statement confirming a part of what I said relating to the early 3.0 art direction.

And the problem is not the implcation in 3.0 books that the PCs would succeed.  The problem is that the 3.0 DMG keeps showing the PCs in dire danger while the 3.0 PHB shows the opposite.  The illustrations are pitched to different demographics, but taken together they send a mixed message.

And I suggest, once more, that it is the conscious or unconcious recognition of this mixed message that has caused some (but not all) viewers to dislike the 3.0 artwork, rather than the actual quality of the work's technique.


RC


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 18, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And the problem is not the implcation in 3.0 books that the PCs would succeed. The problem is that the 3.0 DMG keeps showing the PCs in dire danger while the 3.0 PHB shows the opposite. The illustrations are pitched to different demographics, but taken together they send a mixed message.
> 
> And I suggest, once more, that it is the conscious or unconcious recognition of this mixed message that has caused some (but not all) viewers to dislike the 3.0 artwork, rather than the actual quality of the work's technique.




While I feel your argument is certainly well thought-out and presented, I also feel it is over-complicating things a bit. I wouldn't think that the "mixed message" presented between the PHB and DMG in 3.0 is glaring enough to create the effect you propose. Rather I'd go with the simpler explanation: that the designers of 3.0 were determined to make it distinct from the earlier editions and make it appeal to younger audiences. The result, often referred to as "dungeon-punk" has seemed anachronistic to many who grew up on earlier editions of the game. Personally I experienced this to a mixed degree; I didn't mind the new look when handled by a talented artist such as Lockwood or Reynolds who could manage to make the new style seem both plausible and fantastic, but in the hands of other artists it seemed strange and silly looking. 

I agree with Klaus's assertion that the 1e artists should be respected for being trailblazers. I also feel that many of those same artists were talented in every sense of the word. However, I also believe that whatever sense of "magic" ones takes away from the artistic style of any edition is due less to any deliberate message on the part of the art director(s) and more due to the positive resonance of said style with the viewer. In other words, each edition does have a style, but what the message of that style is is subjective. All we can say is whether that style works for us or not. Personally, the styles of all three editions work for me in different ways.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

I agree with Klaus's assertion that the 1e artists should be respected for being trailblazers. I also feel that many of those same artists were talented in every sense of the word. However said:
			
		

> Certainly it can be subjective.  But its foolish to think artists aren't proactive in rendering their work....they expect others to "get" and see what they see.  Thats why to those who get "old school" know it when we see it.  And its not a matter of wondering if its totally subjective...we are all mentioning the same things as to why 1E has its magic.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Looks like a comparison to me, with 2e and 3e art, in your opinion, coming up short. If you'd simply said something like "1e art, while perhaps less technically proficient than more modern RPG art, had a certain magical ambiance all its own," then you could have easily avoided having the thread become one in which the relative merits of art from different eras are directly compared in a qualitative sense.



HAHAHAHA!!

I doubt that. 

He could however, at least be able to say with a straight face that it wasn't his intention to have the thread become such.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Certainly it can be subjective.  But its foolish to think artists aren't proactive in rendering their work....they expect others to "get" and see what they see.  Thats why to those who get "old school" know it when we see it.  And its not a matter of wondering if its totally subjective...we are all mentioning the same things as to why 1E has its magic.




I'm sure that _some_ artists are trying to say something with their work. But sometimes, "an orc is just an orc" as it were.

And I don't think you are all mentioning the same things. On one hand you have claimed 2ed and 3ed art is too realistic and detailed and hurts your immersion, then you claim 3ed isn't realistic enough and doesn't model logical medieval armour and equipment, instead focusing on big-thighed mohawked elves or somesuch. Other posters have decried 2ed art because it was _too_ mundane. You have claimed that 1ed art was more dynamic than later editions, others have claimed 3ed is too dynamic. You stated that no one was claiming an over-arching message to 1ed art, yet that seems to be what RC is claiming. 

The only common thread I can find is that 1ed art was better at conveying the "mood", "feel" and "spirit" of _the_ game. If you are going to make that comparison, you have to assume that all three editions were going for the same spirit or mood, yet I've seen posts here claiming they have different focuses. This is something I can agree with; 1ed was more dungeon crawl based, 2ed more adventure (outside the dungeon) based and 3ed more character based. So, if each edition has a different focus, then the comparison becomes which one does a better job of portraying its own focus? Can you say that 3ed art does a poor job of putting the focus on the PCs? 

My opinion is that each edition has had a different focus and thus a different art style to emphasize that. Whether or not you _like_ that style is personal opinion. Whether or not you feel the art portrays the style it intends is easier to quantify. When  you claim the art of a particular edition has something as nebulous as "a certain magic", that just seems like opinion to me.


----------



## Melan (Dec 18, 2006)

Qualidar wrote:


> Well, I'm a graphic designer / art director, and I admit that you've sold me on the fact that the 3rd edition art is conveying a message, and I can see where you are coming from with what that message conveys. But all of that is superfluous to the actual original question: what gives 1e art the "sense of wonder". The actual merits or lack thereof of 3e, 2e, silver age comic books or art deco are just a distraction from that question.
> 
> I would maintain that the answers were in the first 2 pages of this thread: It's nostalgia, and favorable associations with certain magical times in our lives. I also buy the brain chemistry issue I brought up originally. The real test would be to remove our feelings from the judging. I bet if we took all the 1e art down to the local bingo parlor tomorrow and asked around, most of those polled would find a distinct lack of "magic".




As someone born a year after the 1st edition DMG was published, I believe I can safely say that no nostalgia is involved on my part. In fact, going by the nostalgia argument, I should be nostalgic for 2nd edition’s art, which I am clearly not (and I didn’t like itt hat much „back then”, either - preferred artwork from Fighting Fantasy, fantasy and SF pulps, and so on). Old art, like new art, should be judged on its own merits. It is impossible to discount nostalgia, and it it may naturally colour someone’s judgement... But claiming that it is „only because of nostalgia and rose coloured glasses” is a cheap debating tactic, and frankly, very insulting - especially since it discounts the possibility that it _can_ be good. Strictly speaking, we could even say it is a sort of ad hominem attack, because you are arguing against the person, not the point being made.

I say that the „look of old D&D” is not just „cheap production values”, but something with its own aesthetics. You can see the things it was inspired by on pulp fiction magazines, comic books (making the accusation that 3e D&D looks comic bookish rather... _comical_), and things like the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series. Clearly, it is not the face of today’s fantasy art, as today’s fantasy art has generally rejected its pulp heritage and seeks visual inspiration elsewhere. There is a „look” that seems to have vanished, and been replaced with more „realistic”, but also more mundane art.

Last but not least, I like new examples of art done in the „old” style just as well as classical pieces. Erol Otus is still producing fascinating and weirdly imaginative pieces, and there are many new artists who „get” that vibe, often using today’s tools. John Massé (who did some of Necromancer Games’ older covers) and Stefan Poag (whose B&W and colour art is featutred in the Dungeon Crawl Classics line, as well as OSRIC products like Pod-Caverns of the Sinister Shroom) are just two examples. In fact, with good art direction, I maintain that Wayne Reynolds could be capable of it.


----------



## jensun (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I realize some of you guys like those types of 3E images, and no offense.  There just not my cup of tea.



Its amazing how much nostalgia combined with a bit of 1e/3e rivalry can spawn quite so much rambling debate.

You arent related to diaglo by any chance are you? 

Personally I much preferred the art in the old D&D red-white boxes and the RC.  The original 1e PHB/DMD/MM stuff looked and felt amateurish, even as a teenager.  I did however like some of the 2e art, a number of the FR peices managed to evoke the mood quite well.  The cover of the Red Wizards of Thay certainly delivered. 

3e art seems technically well produced although I was never a big fan of dungeonpunk.  Fortunately that seems to have faded away.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

Q: "3e art seems technically well produced although I was never a big fan of dungeonpunk. Fortunately that seems to have faded away."

IMHO, 3E artwork is still bland, and has many of the elements of dungeon punk still alive and well (huge proportions, perfect bodies, odd poses, giant elf ears, etc.)


Q: "The original 1e PHB/DMD/MM stuff looked and felt amateurish, even as a teenager. I did however like some of the 2e art,"

So were you a fan of those 2e paintings where the artists litterally painted his overwieght out of shape boss in a costume, or the genre with feathers and fur stuck on mid to late 80s chicks with 80s hair cuts.  In many ways 2E art gave birth to 3E (9 months after "getting it on" with WOTC's Magic).


----------



## Maggan (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> So were you a fan of those 2e paintings where the artists litterally painted his overwieght out of shape boss in a costume, or the genre with feathers and fur stuck on mid to late 80s chicks with 80s hair cuts.




When you put it as eloquently as that, all I can say is "yes". Because as we all know, there were only two types of art for 2e, ie the fat boss type and the feathers and fur type.   

Not the Planescape type, or the Birthright type, or Dark Sun type, or any other types. Just the fat boss and the feathered chick.

Thank you for making my life a lot easier when it comes to distinguish between different styles in 2e!

 

/M


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

Well sure I could have mentioned Dark Sun and BRs "Welcome to Thunderdome" everyone huge and dressed in revealing tight black leather strips in bright desert sun (not exactly a dungeon delving Midieval look),   PlaneScape on the other hand had some older school looking stuff if I remember.  The "Well of the Worlds" cover sucked though. 

So what was up with the fat boss dressed up in costume thing anyway?  I understand those litterally were Tom and Sally from accounting types walking around the TSR office, who dressed up in cheesy costumes and were painted.  1. Why was this so popular (it lasted a very long time if I remember) and 2. I wonder if any of those guys dressed up were head hanchos at TSR worth noting.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> IMHO, 3E artwork is still bland, and has many of the elements of dungeon punk still alive and well (huge proportions, perfect bodies, odd poses, giant elf ears, etc.)



It'd be nice if someone clarified exactly what dungeonpunk is supposed to mean, since none of those things you list are things that I would consider to be dungeonpunk.

Personally, I think dungeonpunk is just a buzzword that crotchety old grognards use to mean "I don't like it" but at least when they were using the word to talk about buckles, leather, tattoos and mohawks it made some sense.  If you're using it to now talk about intimidating and unrealistic physiques and odd poses, then it doesn't.


----------



## Melan (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Well sure I could have mentioned Dark Sun and BRs "Welcome to Thunderdome" everyone huge and dressed in revealing tight black leather strips in bright desert sun (not exactly a dungeon delving Midieval look),   PlaneScape on the other hand had some older school looking stuff if I remember.  The "Well of the Worlds" cover sucked though.



Actually, I have no idea why the "mediaeval look" should be touted as a goal. Considering that very talented artists like Frazetta painted clothing that was everything but mediaeval, and that G. Brom was a follower of the Frazetta tradition, I don't see your point here. Likewise, Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Actually, I have no idea why the "mediaeval look" should be touted as a goal. Considering that very talented artists like Frazetta painted clothing that was everything but mediaeval, and that G. Brom was a follower of the Frazetta tradition, I don't see your point here. Likewise, Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier.



:ditto:

Oh, yeah--ENW doesn't have that smily.    

Anyway, lately my fantasy has really taken a right turn away from mainstream, so I now prefer something that's part steampunk, part Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom, part Sergio Leone and part Warhammer 40k in style, so maybe I'm not the best guide here.  But c'mon--this is fantasy, in a fantasy world.  1) Why are we supposed to assume that this fantasy world had a remarkable convergence in style with our own "jolly old England" in terms of clothing, arms and equipment, and 2) which artists have actually done that anyway, especially in 1e?


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

J-Dawg, I didn't say todays stuff was "dungeonpunk" just that it has elements of it.  Todays stuff is "something unique" to be sure. 

Melan: "Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier"  Sure, but their clothing was very fantasy generic.  Frezetta, as much as I love his work, was pretty much focusing on Conan setting stuff (mostly outside, muscular, brutal strength of half naked savage men, total T&A for the chicks...very fighter focused, not into MUs or thief types much; he just wasn't about AD&D or OD&D (ie. average guys of varying professions and varying attributes doing extra-ordinary things down underground). He'd have been a poor match for AD&D if you think about it (you'd feel like your puney 12 str. fighter would be crushed by the first half naked Barbarian type you encountered).  AD&Ds persons were relatable, (30-40 year old guys with beards and partly balding, slightly overwieght at times, while others are hardened as if  weathered, shaped by experiance and training, but not overly-so) "hey I can picture being down there with these guys" is what you think when you see them. And the setting he chose was "generic fairy tale fantasy" like Tolkien.  So, it was  a tool to foster emmersion in a HIS and ARNESON'S "dungeon crawl" setting.  The sheer variety of body types, ages and clothing, allowed you to picture what it would be like to be those different sorts.  Frezetta was a body builder, loved that theme, and would probably have had his muscular fighter types squashing the weaklings around them.....as they should.    But thats "Savage Swords" not Tolkein. 

Picturing yourself as a perfect swimsuit model in almost nothing, or spikey armor that would snag on everything, down in a dungeon crawling with God knows what, cold and damp...thats just unrelatable and unrealistic. It may be good art, but doesn't help with emersion much.   

I really think the shift in art (Dragon lance and on) reflects a change in the commercial direction TSR wanted to go (with launching novels, and pumping out series to really bring in huge amounts of revenue etc.), it attracted a different sort of  player (and a shift in marketing strategy by TSR was required) and so the old artists were canned and the focused changed.  It wasn't about picturing yourself in this world of the DMs creation, it was about following a romantic quest, and picturing yourself as someone else (like an actor).


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Melan: "Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier"  Sure, but their clothing was very fantasy generic.  Frezetta, as much as I love his work, was pretty much focusing on Conan setting stuff (mostly outside, brutal strength of half naked savage men, total T&A for the chicks...he wasn't about AD&D or OD&D (ie. average guys doing extra-ordinary things down underground). He'd have been a poor match for AD&D if you think about it.  AD&Ds persons were relatable, (30-40 year old guys with beards and partly balding, slightly overwieght at times, while others are hardened as if  weathered, shaped by experiance and training, but not overly-so) "hey I can picture being down there with these guys" is what you think when you see them.  So, it was  a tool to foster emmersion in a "dungeon crawl" setting.  Picturing yourself as a perfect swimsuit model in almost nothing, or spikey armor that would snag on everything, down in a dungeon crawling with God knows what, cold and damp...thats just unrelatable. It may be good art, but doesn't seem realistic (to me anyway).  Where I can totaly believe the cover to the 1E PH).



In other words--painting your boss in SCA gear is actually now a good thing after all?


----------



## Melan (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Melan: "Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier"  Sure, but their clothing was very fantasy generic.



No, it wasn't. Otus? Generic? DCS? Dee? None of them were "fantasy generic", except by a very loose interpretation of the term. Otus, in particular, is known for his _weirdness_, and a big part of it is the outrageously eccentric clothing. I mean, consider the following examples:













DCS did depict common looking people in extraordinary situations. But Dee, again, was something entirely different, and very comic book inspired. So what you are writing about was a part of old art, but only a part (and that's without going into Will McLean's cartoons). Come to think of it, that is not a bad thing at all...



> Frezetta, as much as I love his work, was pretty much focusing on Conan setting stuff (mostly outside, brutal strength of half naked savage men, total T&A for the chicks...he wasn't about AD&D or OD&D (ie. average guys doing extra-ordinary things down underground). He'd have been a poor match for AD&D if you think about it.  AD&Ds persons are so average looking (30-40 year old guys with beards and partly balding, slightly overwieght at times, while others are hardened as if by weather, but not overly-so) that the player could think, "hey I can picture being down there with these guys.  So, it was  a tool to foster emmersion in a "dungeon crawl" setting.



Frazetta-inspired art was common in Judges Guild's product line, c.f. the works of Ken Simpson and the Sorceror's Guild (some studio that did artwork for them); and JG was pretty big in the OD&D period. But some module art also draws on his legacy. So all in all, while I accept that Average Joes going dungeoneering was a facet of early TSR art, and I even like it, it was just a part of it, not the whole. Or we could say only DCS and Trampier are "real" old school artists, but that would be a definition so narrow that there is probably little value to it.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

Those are all fantasy Generic.  Thier bizzarness just makes them that much more so.  I think your misunderstanding what I mean by fantasy Generic.  Fantasy generic is a set of rules that define a look. Artists can have any style they like (from high realism to rough sketching or characterized figures, and still come off as "generic fantasy").  In generic fantasy you have: wizards with robes and hats (or at least not in armor unless they are a fairy type like an elf), fighters in heavy armor with swords, little dwarves with beards, etc. you know what I mean. You don't see tattoos, modern haircuts, swimsuit models, spikey armor for the sake of looking kewl, figures looking cheeky at the viewer...that sort of thing.  I admit the works put out by those artists were highly stylized.  And at the time, I'd had wished they'd put out covers more like the DMG and PH.  But that doesn't mean I didn't like them overall.

As for Conanish figures in Judges Guild...sure.  I don't have a problem with the occasional Conan running around, just don't make it the freak'n norm. Or your players will start looking at their "average stats" and start feeling "inadequite", might even want to jump to a power gamers paradise found in a ...later edition.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> As for Conanish figures in Judges Guild...sure.  I don't have a problem with the occasional Conan running around, just don't make it the freak'n norm. Or your players will start looking at their "average stats" and start feeling "inadequite", might even want to jump to a power gamers paradise found in a ...later edition.




Unearthed Arcana was still 1e.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around  ...  Hell, even todays leading men (with the exception of a few like the new bond perhaps) are girly guys...Brad Pitt, Leonardo Decrapio, etc. etc. so the PC steam roller continues on.  And 4E will undoubtedly be more of the same.




Boy, you're _really _ going to hate it when all the artists raised on manga and Final Fantasy start making the pro circuit in four or five years... probably right around the time for the first big 4E supplements, come to think of it...


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> As for Conanish figures in Judges Guild...sure.  I don't have a problem with the occasional Conan running around, just don't make it the freak'n norm. Or your players will start looking at their "average stats" and start feeling "inadequite", might even want to jump to a power gamers paradise found in a ...later edition.



I think it's kinda funny that you post this in the same thread where Raven Crowking is posting theses of how the 3rd+ edition artwork caters to the "special snowflake" crowd. But I do love the smell of irony in the morning.

Also, your thesis of Frazetta not fitting the mold of Gygaxian D&D because it was more like Howard than Tolkien is pretty ironic too, since Gygax is often on record as preferring Howard to Tolkien, and for using D&D to attempt to model a much more Howard-like (as opposed to Tolkien-like) experience with the game.  

Also, anyone who doesn't like Frazetta's works is completely dead to me.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

I love Frank....did you get that, I love him.     

Hey good point about the UA Barbarian. Forgot about that.  
I don't see anything at odds between snow flake art in 3E and what I said.  Those are not even related to one another. In 1E you still have dirty, grimey, dungeon weary folk exploring monster infested chambers and completely new and unexpected challanges at every corner...fools to continue, to an almost certain death.  1E has no "snow flakes".  Even Conan, as brutal and indominable as he is portrayed would likely end up dead if he didn't rely on his comrads (MU, Cl, TH, etc.).  AD&D is a team sport no doubt, and the art suggests that.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

I agree that you didn't say that; I'm pointing out the irony that you and RC are taking the same "side" of the "argument" here, but are saying mutually exclusive things to make your points.

I think it's funny, and it's a great example of why the type of "edition wars" discussion you keep trying to bring up don't really get very far most of the time.


----------



## Anti-Sean (Dec 18, 2006)

I cut out pieces of artwork from my 1E rulebooks and modules and pasted them over the art in my 3E rulebooks. THE CIRCLE IS COMPLETE!


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

Anyway, I should go back and read the entire thread instead of the jumping in action I did.  Maybe there's more to respond to still.

I guess my summary is that art is clearly subjective and I don't like seeing an entire subset of very diverse art written off under false pretenses.  I also think attempting to intellectualize a defense for your tastes is pretty silly.  My bottom line is "I may not know art, but I know what I like" and I like very little of the 1e (and earlier) era art, and about 50/50 at best for 2e and 3e art.  Then again, at least *some* of the artists working today in the RPG market are amongst my favorite RPG artists of all time.  Folks like Adrian Smith, Matt Wilson, Sam Wood (when his game is on), James Ryman, WAR (although he misses on occasion too) and a few others are definately in my "artists to watch" group, as I rarely find pieces by them that I don't like.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Boy, you're _really _ going to hate it when all the artists raised on manga and Final Fantasy start making the pro circuit in four or five years... probably right around the time for the first big 4E supplements, come to think of it...





Wayne WTF is this from!  I flew bye it the first time...but on my second read, when I noticed... about spat my coke all over my work!  Pretty f...ing bizzare.  Was this guy/gal taken from a gay publication of some sort, or is this legit?  Man I hope your wrong about 4E heading in that direction.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Wayne WTF is this from!  I flew bye it the first time...but on my second read, when I noticed... about spat my coke all over my work!  Pretty f...ing bizzare.  Was this guy/gal taken from a gay publication of some sort, or is this legit?  Man I hope your wrong about 4E heading in that direction.




Its from one of the Final Fantasy games I think.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

The newest, I believe.  I think I just saw that in an ad in Dragon a month or two ago.  I think.

I agree, I'm.... let's just say I'm not the target audience for that kind of artwork and leave it at that.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Wayne WTF is this from!  I flew bye it the first time...but on my second read, when I noticed... about spat my coke all over my work!  Pretty f...ing bizzare.  Was this guy/gal taken from a gay publication of some sort, or is this legit?  Man I hope your wrong about 4E heading in that direction.




Heh. No, it's the main playable character from the latest Final Fantasy game.


----------



## gizmo33 (Dec 18, 2006)

I think the newer artwork focuses on a single object/subject, while the older art was more likely to be multiple subjects and/or landscape.  Just seemed to me to be more variation in the older artwork.  It also seems that the colors are more vibrant in 3E - not so much subtlety as there were in old Dragon Mag covers for instance.  The older artwork also seems to have more detail - the newer stuff is easier to take in at a glance.

And I don't think the differences are accidental or just nostalgia.  I think there is more direction in the art, and more purposeful manipulation and conscious choice.  I'd bet someone from WotC or the other companies could add more information to this debate were they so inclined.  I'd bet the qualities of 3E art are intentional and go beyond just technical issues.  I'd bet the differences were due to cost, marketing strategy, and stuff like that.

Plus I think there's an element of truth to the scary view of what 4E art is going to look like, and that is that the art is going to be influenced by what the artists are learning is the "right" thing to do right now.  I think comic books and computer design has had a big effect.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 18, 2006)

Gizmo, I agree, cartoons and computer illustrators are driving the direction of "fantasy" art (at least in FRPGs) not so much in childrens books....yet.  That might be due to the long standing relationship childrens book illustrators have with publishing companies...often lasting a professional lifetime.  Some of these old birds don't even know how to turn a computer on, and think a mouse is something to trap.  Sometimes I envy them.  :\ 

Wayne, do you know who the artist is for that lovely pic?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

I think that's a valid point--3e art in general seems to be more "illustrative" rather than portraying a scene.  As in, here's an entry for a monster; here's a picture of what it looks like.  Here's an entry for a class or race, here's a picture of what they look like, etc.

Then again, a lot of the 1e and BD&D artwork was like that too, so I'm not sure if that's accurate or not.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Wayne, do you know who the artist is for that lovely pic?




I would think it's more of a pose of the character object than an actual 'picture' in the usual sense. According to various sites his motion capture actor is Kohei Takeda, and character design was done by Akihiko Yoshida. I _think _ they work like an animation studio does, with certain people doing the design of characters a,b and c while another team does f, g, and h.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I think it's kinda funny that you post this in the same thread where Raven Crowking is posting theses of how the 3rd+ edition artwork caters to the "special snowflake" crowd.





3.0 PHB only.  The 3.0 DMG is quite another matter, as I said previously.  And, please note, that there are all kinds of messages in this thread that describe the art as conveying a "feel" or a "sense" of an edition.  IMHO, what these people are saying is, in effect, that specific artwork conveys a message that speaks to them.  When they say that they do not like the "feel" of other artwork, it is my opinion that they are influenced by what the artwork is conveying.

In some cases, we are looking at specific technical aspects of the art.  From a technical standpoint at least, the art of earlier editions was far more varied than the artwork in 3e.  Some of the older artwork was extremely good, and other pieces were not.  If the piece was technically not so good, but successfully conveyed a message that the viewer liked, the odds were that they liked the piece nonetheless.  The piece spoke to them.

Likewise, if a piece is technically fantastic, but you are opposed to the message it is conveying, then you are likely to be less interested in the piece of work.

Obviously, the works that people tend to like best are those which contain both technical expertise (which may or may not be the same as photorealism) and a message that is well conveyed and/or at least compatable with the worldview of the viewer.



			
				Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I'm sure that some artists are trying to say something with their work. But sometimes, "an orc is just an orc" as it were.
> 
> And I don't think you are all mentioning the same things. On one hand you have claimed 2ed and 3ed art is too realistic and detailed and hurts your immersion, then you claim 3ed isn't realistic enough and doesn't model logical medieval armour and equipment, instead focusing on big-thighed mohawked elves or somesuch. Other posters have decried 2ed art because it was too mundane. You have claimed that 1ed art was more dynamic than later editions, others have claimed 3ed is too dynamic. You stated that no one was claiming an over-arching message to 1ed art, yet that seems to be what RC is claiming.




Sometimes an orc is just an orc.....which is why I suggested that the monster manuals might be a good place to look for comparisons without having wide variations in the messages conveyed by various editions.  I would imagine that, regardless of edition, the illustration of a griffon is intended to convey the same monster (although that monster may be conceptualized very differently).

And, yes, I do claim that there are one or several overarching messages in the art of any product that uses multiple art pieces.  This is not based upon some form of conspiricy, or evil goblins in the offices of TSR and WotC.  It is based upon the simple observations that

(a)  Art contains messages.
(b)  Multiple pieces of art contain messages that have synergy or disharmony with each other.
(c)  Therefore anything that contains multiple pieces of art contains both the messages of the individual pieces or art, and the message derived from the synergy or disharmony of those pieces.​
In my view, it takes no special action to include an overarching message.  Indeed, in my view it is _impossible not to_ once you begin the process of selecting pictures and putting them together.  

In some cases, the overarching message is the result of what the art director thinks about the project, what he or she thinks fits and is cool.  In other words, there is a form of indirect communication with the mind of the person behind the project.  I would say that the more amature the project (in an advertising/packaging sense) the more likely this is to be true.

In other cases, the overarching message is the result of intentional design, where the art director has consulted marketing specialists as to what message should be conveyed to maximize sales, and an attempt is made to convey this message or messages.  Rather than experiencing a sort of glimpse into the art director's mind, the viewer gets a glimpse as to what message the marketing specialists thought would sell the most product.  I would say that the more slick the project (in an advertising/packating sense) the more likely this is to be true.

I would further claim that 1e was, in this sense, amature, and the core 3.0 books were, in this sense, slick.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that when I read complaints that the 3.X art is "commercial", that these complaints actually mean that the art is "slick" in the advertising/packaging sense.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 18, 2006)

> Wayne WTF is this from! I flew bye it the first time...but on my second read, when I noticed... about spat my coke all over my work! Pretty f...ing bizzare. Was this guy/gal taken from a gay publication of some sort, or is this legit? Man I hope your wrong about 4E heading in that direction.




It's the main character from the newest Final Fantasy. And considering manga-style art has a grand tradition of more typically 'feminine' male form, and that the character is supposed to be, like, 17, and from an hot desert setting, it works okay, I think.  

And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if 4e drew, in part, from this tradition. It's part of the face of modern fantasy, and considering how good FF12 is....

'course there's also this guy:







And this guy:






....and the infamous Playboy Bunny Women...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2006)

BTW, for those of you interested in who posed for various pictures in 2e....The Spellfire CCG that TSR came out with eventually included some photo cards on which various staff members are depicted in costume.       Comparing those photos to the art might satisfy your curiosity.    


RC


----------



## jensun (Dec 18, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> So were you a fan of those 2e paintings



Yes, far more so than the poorly drawn ink line drawings of the 1e dmg , phb and mm.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if 4e drew, in part, from this tradition. It's part of the face of modern fantasy, and considering how good FF12 is....





Actually, I don't have any problem with these characters at all (although Fran looks like she'd take some time getting dressed in the morning   ).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 18, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I agree that you didn't say that; I'm pointing out the irony that you and RC are taking the same "side" of the "argument" here, but are saying mutually exclusive things to make your points.





I don't think you've read my posts as closely as you think you have.  Or else I have not been as clear as I think I have.

My point is _not_ that 1e art is better than 3e art.

I do _personally prefer_ much of 1e art to much of 3e art.  There are quite a few pieces of 1e art that leave me cold, though, and a few pieces of 3e art that speak to me.

I do think that some of the design/marketing decisions in the 3.0 Core Rulebooks caused the art to be viewed in a negative way by a certain percentage of the viewers, though, and that this has to do as much (or more) to do with marketing strategy as it does to do with the actual artwork.  IOW, my points _defend_ the artwork itself (whether I like it or not) and claim that a large part of the reason some do not is _contextual_.

Likewise, I think that the "magical" quality of 1e art is largely due to the message conveyed in that artwork.  In fact, I think that this is the factor that many claim as being "merely nostolgia".  While this means that the enjoyment of 1e artwork is also largely contextual, I would certainly agree that certain pieces of 1e art contain more inherent context (due to background and detail, particularly the full-page spreads) than some other pieces (occuring in all editions).

I also said, several times, that examination of the art in the monster books is the easiest way to minimize contextual differences and focus on the quality of illustration itself.  Doing this, I like all editions roughly equally, though for different creatures.  The almost watercolor-like fey of 2e, the darkmantle and gnoll of 3e, the centipede and intellect devourer of 1e.  

An iconic monster, like the rust monster, can be examined in each of its incarnations and the artwork appraised regardless of message.  The 1e rust monster is goofy-looking, almost cartoonish, and is eating its frame.  The 2e rust monster is sort of creepy in a cockroachy kind of way.  The 3e rust monster is a more precisely lined version of the 2e rendition.  Given the choices, I'd prefer 2e or 3e for this monster.  While 3e is roughly the same in terms of technical proficiency, it doesn't always supply the version of the monster I like best (I'd rather have the displacer beast from 2e, for example).

So far as I know, _no one else_ is taking this "side" of the argument!     

(Though I'd be happy to learn that I am wrong.)


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't think you've read my posts as closely as you think you have.  Or else I have not been as clear as I think I have.



Freely admit that I haven't been reading your posts very closely.  They're long and I have a short attention span.      But I don't think the 3e message of the PCs as special snowflakes is very hard to mistake, while tx1234 is using completely different evidence to show that 1e art is for special snowflakes, who can't possibly have hinted to them that their characters are better than anyone else in the campaign setting.

Although perhaps I've been misinterpreting what "side" you're on in regards to art, I still think the irony of the mutually exclusive interpretations is kinda funny.


----------



## Numion (Dec 18, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if 4e drew, in part, from this tradition. It's part of the face of modern fantasy, and considering how good FF12 is....




Well, do you have any other reasons why WotC would partake in this sickness? I mean, there are even more popular fantasy games that don't do this sort of gender bending, and there's been a good response online to the more recent WotC art that's not dungeonpunk or ladyboy style.

Or is the sky falling, again?


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 18, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Or is the sky falling, again?



I think that's it.  Clearly I need to sell off all my D&D stuff on Ebay so I can afford to hoard Hârnmaster material going forward.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So far as I know, _no one else_ is taking this "side" of the argument!
> (Though I'd be happy to learn that I am wrong.)
> RC




Well I think our positions are actually pretty similar. I do think there is a style to each edition that emphasizes the focus of the game at the time (as I outlined previously). I'd also agree that 3rd edition had a definitive art direction that was meant to reinforce a new motif to the game. I'd suspect 2ed had a pretty deliberate style as well. 1ed -I would guess- was more haphazard, likely arising more from the game designers seeking illustrations of adventurers entering a dungeon, rendered in a fantasy, sword-and-sorcery style. IMO this resulted in a variety of styles combining within in a similar theme (dangerous dungeon-crawling). This theme and the variety of styles has a varied effect depending on the viewer. Some like it, some love it, some hate it. That is where the personal preference comes in. 

This brings me to one of the reasons I dislike 25-30% of the 3ed art; as a previous poster mentioned there just doesn't seem to be as much variety. I'd say at least part of this is due to to the icons; in previous editions you got to see many different adventurers in many different scenarios. Now every picture has an iconic in it. I don't have any particular dislike for the design of the iconics themselves, but I'd like some more variation. Combined with Lockwood being moved to the novel line and WAR doing all the Eberron covers (which I love) and the main books become that much less varied, not so much in style but in subject.

I guess what I find the most frustrating about this discussion (not really from you though RC) is that 2ed and 3ed art is written off as soul-less, stiff, commercial and cheesy while 1ed is claimed as "magical" and dynamic and "fine art". When some level the criticism that the art of 1ed was often amateurish or goofy looking, it is claimed that this was done on purpose and labeled as the reason it evoked the TRUE spirit of the game. The dynamic, fantastic art of artists such as Lockwood, Brom, Reynolds and O'Connor are disregarded and bizarre claims of mohawked/tatood/pierced big-thighed elves are tossed about with no examples. But I guess I should have known better than to get involved in one of these threads in the first place.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 19, 2006)

> IMHO, 3E artwork is still bland, and has many of the elements of dungeon punk still alive and well (huge proportions, perfect bodies, odd poses, giant elf ears, etc.)




FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, could you please give an example TX?  What giant elf ears?  What huge proportions?  I've asked time and time again WTF are you talking about.  Considering that the last few books to come out of WOTC have had some of the best art ever to come out in the game (IMO), I really have no idea what you are on about.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, could you please give an example TX?  What giant elf ears?  What huge proportions?  I've asked time and time again WTF are you talking about.  Considering that the last few books to come out of WOTC have had some of the best art ever to come out in the game (IMO), I really have no idea what you are on about.





I don't really care for the design choices and some of the other 3e era aspects but off hand I can't recall a single mohawk sporting, huge eared elf character.


I wonder, what role do the "iconics" serve?  What is gained by having them in all art that represents PC's instead of having a variety of types and characters?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 19, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't really care for the design choices and some of the other 3e era aspects but off hand I can't recall a single mohawk sporting, huge eared elf character.
> 
> 
> I wonder, what role do the "iconics" serve?  What is gained by having them in all art that represents PC's instead of having a variety of types and characters?




Perhaps it was to give the younger, newer gamers a way to imagine the progression of their characters? A common reference point if you will? Not sure what the purpose could have been beyond that. I would have been fine if they had done the iconics as the representatives of each class, then had *one *pic of them per core book or something. That way you'd have the common reference point but still leave room for more variety.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 19, 2006)

*will just settle for the fact he wants more Claudio Pozas art and accept that people don't have taste*   

Well except maybe Hussar.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 19, 2006)

Here now, no need for that.  

BTW, I'd like more Pozas too.

RC:  I can see what you're saying, but, honestly, I think you're reading far too much into things.  It's a pretty big jump to go from "the art in the 3e PHB isn't very good" to "the art in the 3e PHB is an example of the publishers pushing player entitlement."  

Here's one of my favourite Otis pieces:







But, look at that piece for a second.  The chick is total beefcake, and the guy is just odd.  Is he a midget?  The perspective in this pic is WAY off.  

Looking at those other Otis pics from last page, we see that "dungeon punk" as in spikey armor and weird haircuts certainly predates 3e.  

My big beef here is that TX## simply ignores any evidence to the contrary while continually banging the drum that 1e art is somehow the pinacle of gaming art.  Yes, there's some fantastic pieces that stand up today - The Paladin in Hell being one of them.  But, to just write off later edition art is as bad as writing off all 1e art as nostalgia.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 19, 2006)

Okay fine, the people that think like Hussar have taste too.   

*still love Claudio work.*


----------



## Melan (Dec 19, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> I agree that you didn't say that; I'm pointing out the irony that you and RC are taking the same "side" of the "argument" here, but are saying mutually exclusive things to make your points.
> 
> I think it's funny, and it's a great example of why the type of "edition wars" discussion you keep trying to bring up don't really get very far most of the time.



You are under the mistaken impression that an argument on an online forum is supposed to be two-sided. Hint: it isn't. That's why they are called forums, and not debate pulpits.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 19, 2006)

If they were pulpits, I'd get more respect around here. *points out his Sage title and all...*


----------



## Melan (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> My big beef here is that TX## simply ignores any evidence to the contrary while continually banging the drum that 1e art is somehow the pinacle of gaming art.



Welcome to Dragonsfoot, cca. 2003.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 19, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I wonder, what role do the "iconics" serve?  What is gained by having them in all art that represents PC's instead of having a variety of types and characters?




It's all part of the branding. Using easily recognisable characters often make them into "logos" for the game. No one else can use the iconics, so if you see one you know the picture and the product is from WotC.

/M


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 19, 2006)

KM, thanks alot for burning out my retna with those images.  YES I can easily see WOTC going in that feminized direction.  You guys have to remember, WOTC is into this for the buck.  They'll drop you 3Eers just as fast as TSR dropped us 1Eers when 2E came out.  And the numbers of players won't matter, what their focusing on is the buyers who spend the most money.  If there are 1 million active players, but only 10,000 buy 80% of whats released (you know the sort, they have a closet full of everything WOTC has ever printed....probably 5-10K worth) then guess what, your going to have to adapt to what those 10,000 addicts want; and if that means transgender flakes as heroes, so be it.  If it happens, it'll be ironic.   


Hussar: "My big beef here is that TX## simply ignores any evidence to the contrary"

Huh, what.  I'm not saying there aren't dogs in 1Es collection.  However, each version of the game has its overall "feel".  1E has its dark, mysterious, normal looking guys with beards in "believe-able" armor, with a focus on the overall scene and mood rather then any particular character...while 3E has its "unique" style (portraiture, spikey armor, cartoony-yet high realism/ photoshopped look, swimsuit models with big thighs etc. etc.).  

Hussar:  "while continually banging the drum that 1e art is somehow the pinacle of gaming art."     To some of us (who liked it better) it was.  Not to you clearly.  But then this thread was meant for those who liked the magic of 1E, if you post keep that in consideration.  You can always go start your own thread "WHATS SO MAGICAL ABOUT 3E ART", and I'm sure there'll be plenty of people posting alot of great stuff.   It's interesting though, check out: "what is your favorite Module Cover" thread.  Almost everyone is mentioning Old School or very Old School looking stuff.  I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published).    


 Hussar: "But, to just write off later edition art is as bad as writing off all 1e art as nostalgia."

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said 3E and 3.5 didn't have some good art.  Some of their monster manual stuff is great.   But 3E/3.5 has an overall look (just like 1E did) that I don't care for (mostly in the PCs, NPCs and humanoid monsters).  I'm not saying 1E is better, its not...its just different.  Because 1E and 3E are different games with different universes.   They're apples and oranges.   That I have grown to really love and appreciate apples, and grown to really hate oranges is no big deal.  And since this thread is about apples (it says on the tag), sit back and take a bite, and join us in figuring out what makes them so dammed good.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 19, 2006)

> KM, thanks alot for burning out my retna with those images. YES I can easily see WOTC going in that feminized direction. You guys have to remember, WOTC is into this for the buck. They'll drop you 3Eers just as fast as they dropped us 1Eers when 2E came out. And the numbers of players won't matter, what their focusing on is the buyers who spend the most money. If there are 1 million active players, but only 10,000 buy 80% of whats released (you know the sort, they have a closet full of everything WOTC has ever printed....probably 5-10K worth) then guess what, your going to have to adapt to what those 10,000 addicts want; and if that means transgender flakes as heroes, so be it. If it happens, it'll be ironic.




Wow, talk about revisionist history.  WOTC wasn't even a gleam in someone's eye when TSR shifted to 2e.



> (portraiture, spikey armor, cartoony-yet high realism/ photoshopped look, swimsuit models with big thighs etc. etc.).




Again, examples?  Either piddle or get off the pot.  We've been more than willing to show examples of what we're talking about.  Other than portraits, none of what you are saying actually exists anywhere other than your head.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar: "Wow, talk about revisionist history. WOTC wasn't even a gleam in someone's eye when TSR shifted to 2e."

Edited my original statement to say TSR.  But, WOTC will still drop you guys just as fast...watch and see.


----------



## jensun (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> But, WOTC will still drop you guys just as fast...watch and see.



WoTC or rather HASBRO) will do whatever is necessary to keep them afloat as a company and to make them money.  Shockingly that is what companies are set up to do.  Its not some sort of evil conspiracy and to doom all of gamerland and to sugges totherwise is rather foolish.  This was a lesson TSR somehow managed to fail to understand.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Edited my original statement to say TSR.  But, WOTC will still drop you guys just as fast...watch and see.




You've got that backwards.

I'm the one who's doing the dropping, if any such thing occurs. WotC can't drop me, it is I who control my gaming dollars. Sure they can produce something I don't want, but then I'll just drop them. No skin of my nose.

Take back the power, man! You shouldn't feel as if WotC is the dominant part of your relationship! It's not healthy, I say!   

/M


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 19, 2006)

RC said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't have any problem with these characters at all (although Fran looks like she'd take some time getting dressed in the morning ).




Hehehe, one tidbit of interesting information: according to the game, her race is described as having naturally pointed, high-heeled, so high-heeled shoes are actually MORE comfy for them than our human clodhoppers. 

Of course, FF12 is a fairly grounded game as far as final fantasies go....working with old kingdoms and Shakespearean themes. The characters reflect that. 



			
				thx surround sound said:
			
		

> KM, thanks alot for burning out my retna with those images. YES I can easily see WOTC going in that feminized direction. You guys have to remember, WOTC is into this for the buck. They'll drop you 3Eers just as fast as TSR dropped us 1Eers when 2E came out. And the numbers of players won't matter, what their focusing on is the buyers who spend the most money. If there are 1 million active players, but only 10,000 buy 80% of whats released (you know the sort, they have a closet full of everything WOTC has ever printed....probably 5-10K worth) then guess what, your going to have to adapt to what those 10,000 addicts want; and if that means transgender flakes as heroes, so be it. If it happens, it'll be ironic.




You seem to completely ignore the fact that there's NOTHING WRONG with liking a character who is more svelte than beefcake. Heck, elves have looked half-androgynous since D&D began, and have been very popular, in part, because of that. People like sleek, silky, and smooth. This is why Legolas gets to surf on his sheild and Gimli gets dwarf-tossed. Legolas is sleek, silky, and smooth. And Gimli is loud, clumsy, and onery. 

The Conan archetype is out the door, too. Rippling muscles and exposed man-chest have gone the way of Kevin Sorbo and the California Beach Meatheads. Their place is on the inside covers of harlequin romance, not really in the imaignations of the kids that WotC is trying to hook.

What's in the imagination of those kids? Legolas (sleek elf ninja). Harry Potter (awkward but powerful nerd-man-boy). Ash and Pikachu ("average high school kid on adventures" and his adorable pet). Ichigo from BLEACH (dresses in flowing black robes and wields a six-foot hunk of metal that represents his inner psyche...realistic? Piffle). Aragorn (scruffy rogue who fights with destiny and throws torches!). Frodo and Sam (plucky homosexual midgets on an impossible quest invovling a ring and some great evil). Aang from AVATAR (little bald kid who masters the elements and rides a flying bison through Vaguely Asian World). Naruto Uzumaki (lazy ninja student with determination instead of talent). 

So what will the art of the future game look like? Take a bit of the old school, add a jolt of anime, probably kick around some asian symbology, put cute animals in various places...get a lot of black ink for the dark clouds and the brooding cliffs, and have fun impressionist-style. 



> I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published).




Check out the average age here, sometime.  There's a lot of grognards who started, at their latest, back in 2e. Part of the reson is because this site came out of a site that posted updates when 3e was first coming out...there's not a whole lot of people here who have had exposure to ony 3e, or 3e first. Being alive when they're published doesn't matter...taking them off the family bookshelf when your older brother baught them with his part-time job money and marvelling at the fantastic creatures by the half-light of your bedroom lamp when you were supposed to be going to sleep is what matters. We don't really have people here that have had that experience with 3e art. Talk to some of these folks' kids in 10 years.  I'm *positive* people here had that experience with 1e or 2e art. And I think that's a LOT of what makes them so magical. 

Armor spikes are nothing new, after all. I mean, check out that Otis pic...shoulder pads on the lady, *wings* on the helmet?! How impractical was THAT?! (what, did they make him go faster? ) Why is he wearing a skirt? Wouldn't that leave his legs exposed? How is that flame attatched to that...is that a torch? Why is the water actually opaque green jell-o? And why is the dragon languidly raising his head? Wouldn't it make more sense for it just to dart out from underneath? Certainly that would make the stabbitty that Mr. Wingface is about to give a bit less likely...or were green jell-o dragons also tactically retarded in BD&D? 

I mean, I'm usually very generous about art. I really don't mind the piece.

But given that, or this:





or this:





or this:





.....I'll go with the ones that don't have green jell-o water.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 19, 2006)

Damn, KM, what is that last one from?  Sweet.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Damn, KM, what is that last one from?  Sweet.




Judging from the URL, it's from Fiendish Codex II. Looks totally awesome.

/M


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 19, 2006)

Jenson, agreed.  Its all about the bottom line.  
Magaan, power to the people!    I can dig it.  
KM, perhaps some of todays guys are into transgender and gay midget halflings...but I doubt its many.


----------



## Klaus (Dec 19, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Judging from the URL, it's from Fiendish Codex II. Looks totally awesome.
> 
> /M



 It's the Malebranche devil from FCII.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> Freely admit that I haven't been reading your posts very closely.  They're long and I have a short attention span.      But I don't think the 3e message of the PCs as special snowflakes is very hard to mistake, while tx1234 is using completely different evidence to show that 1e art is for special snowflakes, who can't possibly have hinted to them that their characters are better than anyone else in the campaign setting.
> 
> Although perhaps I've been misinterpreting what "side" you're on in regards to art, I still think the irony of the mutually exclusive interpretations is kinda funny.





No worries.    

I didn't say that _all_ 3e art contains the message that the PCs are special snowflakes.  So far as I know, this message is exclusive to the 3.0 PHB (admittedly, I didn't analyze the 3.5 PHB or PHB II).  I said also that the 3.0 DMG art was the exact opposite:  It implies that the PCs lives may well be nasty, brutish, and short.      What I would prefer, is the combination of the two in both books, implying that the PCs will encounter adversity, but can win.    

Maybe we're using the term "special snowflake" in mutually exclusive ways, though, because I don't see how someone who can't possibly be better than anyone else in the campaign setting would qualify.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Well I think our positions are actually pretty similar.





Yeah, that sounds pretty similar to my opinion.

_*Get Out Of My Brain!!!*_ 

   

(Sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Here now, no need for that.
> 
> BTW, I'd like more Pozas too.
> 
> ...




Uh you trying to say a midget can't fight dragons or be a hero?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> RC:  I can see what you're saying, but, honestly, I think you're reading far too much into things.  It's a pretty big jump to go from "the art in the 3e PHB isn't very good" to "the art in the 3e PHB is an example of the publishers pushing player entitlement."





Again, please note that my observations here are limited to two books, which have diametrically opposed messages.  I am not making a broad statement about 3e art.

I feel fairly certain that WotC had some good player feedback prior to introducing 3.0.  They considered what their respondents liked about the game, and didn't like about the game.  They went on record (in a pre-release Dragon, I believe) that the artwork was intended to show that this wasn't your daddy's D&D (or words to that effect).  Further up there is a link to a Jolly Blackburn post describing the artist's guidelines that reflects exactly what I am saying.  Not a single counter-example to my argument exists in the PHB.

Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring?  _Not doing so_ would have been idiotic from a marketing point of view.  

Is it really so unlikely that WotC, aiming a book at DMs, would use art that showed the harrowing straits that PCs can find themselves in?  _Not doing so_ would have been idiotic from a marketing point of view.  

In other words, is it really so unlikely that WotC doesn't understand basic marketing strategy?  I think that there is more than ample evidence, going back long before 3.0, that WotC understands marketing strategy very, very well.

However, it _can and does_ affect how some people view the art, and that initial effect can resonate with viewers, coloring their opinions when they view later pieces of art.  The idea of "it's all nostalgia" relies upon the basic concept that humans comprehend things (especially on an emotional level) through inference and perceived relationships.  "Nostalgia" is our term for when this happens related to some object in the remote past, particularly when that object no longer exists to be reevaluated today.  However, the same function that causes nostalgia occurs to varying degrees in all evaluations of all things at all times.  

You can evaluate the technical aspects of an illustration.  You can evaluate the message that it seems intended to convey.  You can evaluate how and how well that message is conveyed.  You can evalute how the picture makes you feel, and why it makes you feel that way.

That, so far as I know, is the sum total of what can be determined about any illustration or set of illustrations.

Of course, as you say, I have probably given it too much thought.  And everyone knows that thinking before you speak is the greatest sin one can commit on the Internet.  

RC


----------



## Aaron L (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published).      QUOTE]
> 
> 
> My friend, you seem to be under some misapprehension that we here at ENWorld are all 15 year olds new to D&D with 3E who were introduced to gaming through Magic: The Gathering.  Most of us here are long-time veterans who started with 1E or before.  Most certainly 90% of the people you are debating in this thread are.
> ...


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> They went on record (in a pre-release Dragon, I believe) that the artwork was intended to show that this wasn't your daddy's D&D (or words to that effect).  Further up there is a link to a Jolly Blackburn post describing the artist's guidelines that reflects exactly what I am saying.  Not a single counter-example to my argument exists in the PHB.




On that point there is no arguement; the art is meant to evoke a break with the past and we have definative statements to that fact from the only people that know.

It's still a huge giant step from... 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring?




...to...



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The art in the 3.0 PHB suggests that the PCs are special snowflakes who are rarely in danger (and even then, not real danger), who always come out on top, and who are seperate from the world.




In fact, such a large step that it sounds like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for yet another reason to complain about a perceived distinction of 3E as pandering to players over GM's, _one that does not exist_.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 19, 2006)

> I feel fairly certain that WotC had some good player feedback prior to introducing 3.0. They considered what their respondents liked about the game, and didn't like about the game. They went on record (in a pre-release Dragon, I believe) that the artwork was intended to show that this wasn't your daddy's D&D (or words to that effect). Further up there is a link to a Jolly Blackburn post describing the artist's guidelines that reflects exactly what I am saying. Not a single counter-example to my argument exists in the PHB.




And yet, strangely enough, I have a Dragon article in which every one of the iconics is killed and/or turned into an undead beast that kills the other iconics.  I'm thinking that perhaps there may have been some policy changes in the six years since the release of the 3.0 PHB.



> Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring? Not doing so would have been idiotic from a marketing point of view.




But, again, this is a far cry from the "special snowflake" bit.  Sure, the PHB shows the PC's being heroic.  Ok.  That makes sense.  But, how do you go from "My character is a hero" to "My character is so special that nothing bad can ever happen to him"?  That's my specific beef here.  You are taking half a dozen pictures and reading an awful lot into them.  

On another note, do we consider cartography to be art?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 19, 2006)

> KM, perhaps some of todays guys are into transgender and gay midget halflings...but I doubt its many.




Ever played an elf? Then congrats, you're one of 'some of todays guys.'


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> On that point there is no arguement; the art is meant to evoke a break with the past and we have definative statements to that fact from the only people that know.
> 
> It's still a huge giant step from...
> 
> ...





(I hate having to parse back the quotes-in-quotes!     )

I suggest that you examine the context of the statements.

The first quoted statement is causitive; it describes the motives that lead to the second statement.  I make no argument that WotC wanted to promote indulgence of players in the _actual game_ (if they had, the DMG art and the PHB art would be in synch, rather than giving diametrically opposed messages).  I make no claim that a WotC conspiricy wanted to ruin the game....which also would hardly make sense given that the bottom line is...well...the bottom line.

The second statement is the effect caused by the marketing goal.  

If a special snowflake is, as I understand it, something unique that stands out from all others similar to it, then using a lot of kewl poses implies special snowflake status to me.  Perhaps you use the term differently.  If you care to tell me what "special snowflake" means to you, I'll let you know if I'd say the same using your definition.

Please point out the pictures in the 3.0 PHB that show that the PCs are in serious danger.  Is it serious danger because a cigar discolors Lidda's face some?  Because Jozen steps on Krusk's face?  Because a dragon has trouble with swallowing Tordek because Tordek's just too tough to swallow?

Finally, if you remove all background detail from the illustrations, this implies a seperation from the world.

Now if you still want to say that "it sounds like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for yet another reason to complain about a perceived distinction of 3E as pandering to players over GM's", go back and read my comments about the art in the 3.0 DMG.  The PCs get bloody trounced in that book.  Go ahead; take a look.  Then scroll back and read the full posts your excerpting from.

The thesis is very specific (and very oft repeated):  The message in the art between two specific books is dichotomous, and that is going to color the way people view the art.




			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> how do you go from "My character is a hero" to "My character is so special that nothing bad can ever happen to him"? That's my specific beef here.





There is no edition of D&D that doesn't say "My character is a hero" with its artwork.  I examined every picture in the 1e PHB & the 3.0 PHB, and discovered that while the 1e PHB did imply (frequently) that seriously bad things _could_ happen to adventurers exploring mysterious regions, I couldn't find a single illustration in the 3.0 PHB that implied the same thing (with the possible exception of the Tordek/Dragon picture, which the caption defines as the _dragon_ having trouble).  Those are very different messages.

To me, if you are doing something supposedly very dangerous, yet every illustration of it shows how you will triumph over that danger, the implication is very clear that it isn't really all that dangerous.  But then again, I am probably thinking this through too much for the Internet.    

I listed each picture used in my analysis, and where they fit into the analysis.  If you (or anyone else) would like to refute me on that basis, it ought to be bloody simple....if I am wrong.  You need only point out the counter examples.  It would be the work of 5 minutes and a single post.  

I suggest that there is a very good reason why that post hasn't appeared yet.


RC


EDITS:

I consider cartography to be art.  When I first saw the 3.0 DMG, I _loved_ that I recognized the example dungeon....and the picture of the skeleton/water trap.    

Dragon is pitched to both players and DMs, and one assumes that people who buy Dragon have already bought the PHB.  The art in the PHB is presumably designed to get someone to try the game....if you are already playing, and have any inclination in that direction whatsoever, the odds are you're going to buy the new books.


----------



## Pants (Dec 19, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> It'd be nice if someone clarified exactly what dungeonpunk is supposed to mean, since none of those things you list are things that I would consider to be dungeonpunk.



Dungeonpunk is anime. And anime is all that is bad in the world. I can't put it any simpler than that.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I do think that some of the design/marketing decisions in the 3.0 Core Rulebooks caused the art to be viewed in a negative way by a certain percentage of the viewers, though, and that this has to do as much (or more) to do with marketing strategy as it does to do with the actual artwork.  IOW, my points _defend_ the artwork itself (whether I like it or not) and claim that a large part of the reason some do not is _contextual_.



I actually agree with this. The 3.0 PHB has some of the weakest art in 3.0, which is too bad since its most likely the first 3.0 book that most people saw. 

Now, if you just said this, I don't think many people would be arguing with you.



			
				Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I don't really care for the design choices and some of the other 3e era aspects but off hand I can't recall a single mohawk sporting, huge eared elf character.



The only mohawk sporting character I can even think of is the berserker in the IH book, but... you know what, it works.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> My friend, you seem to be under some misapprehension that we here at ENWorld are all 15 year olds new to D&D with 3E who were introduced to gaming through Magic: The Gathering.  Most of us here are long-time veterans who started with 1E or before.  Most certainly 90% of the people you are debating in this thread are.



I started with 2e, but I was introduced to D&D through friends, not Magic. So nyeh!


----------



## Delta (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Almost everyone is mentioning Old School or very Old School looking stuff.  I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published).




Here's the most enlightening thread I ever saw on ENWorld - a poll of when people started playing D&D. At least 55% of people started playing in the window from 1978 to 1984. Less than half from the entire period thereafter (late 1E, 2E, 3E era).

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171146


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 19, 2006)

Delta, thanks for posting that.  Wow, so there are old schoolers who actually prefer 3E to 1E (the artwork, rules and all   ).  I suppose thats to be expected, since there were a good number of 1Eers who preferred 2E (about 30% of those I new made the switch to 2E)...I suppose the same should be expected with 3E.  At one point I actually preferred 3E to 1E (not the art but the rules), until I started realizing how it played out (but thats off topic).  If I wasn't so much into emersion (ie cowboys and indians, playing make believe), and a strong believer in 1 type of setting (ie generic fantasy/Tolkein setting), I'm sure I would like 3E more.  But to me those are the 2 most important elements of the game (or were I should say).


----------



## Numion (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I listed each picture used in my analysis, and where they fit into the analysis.  If you (or anyone else) would like to refute me on that basis, it ought to be bloody simple....if I am wrong.  You need only point out the counter examples.  It would be the work of 5 minutes and a single post.




Alrighty then.

Page 7: The man is so wounded the bones in his arm are showing! Ok, just kidding..

Page 64: Krusk is very close to taking a fall.
Page 75: Liddas face is blown up.
Page 116: Mialee is dropped unconscious in combat!
Page 124: Tordek chewed by a dragon. The picture text talks about swallowing, not chewing.
Page 153: Jozans friend has _died_! No risks in adventuring, huh?
Page 214: Jozan is battling a succubus alone.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 19, 2006)

For me, about the earliest art is that it seems to reflect a post-60s/post-psychedelia comedown vibe to me. Like the cheery world of hobbits and elves that was celebrated in the hippy era got...darker. The other thing that sticks out to me is that a lot of it (Erol Otus's work especially) is that it is so damn *weird*. The art seems to reflect some of the really, really strange things you find in D&D. That or I'm just a sucker for green water and oddly lit rooms.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> You guys have to remember, WOTC is into this for the buck.  They'll drop you 3Eers just as fast as TSR dropped us 1Eers when 2E came out.




This attitude is what I take issue with. TSR didn't drop "us" 1Eers. I was a "1Eer", and with the exception of 2-3 gamers I can think of, so is everyone else I've ever played with. When 2E came out I, and everyone I knew, became a 2Eer. Later, when 3E came out I, and everyone I know, became a 3Eer. They didn't drop "us", "we" moved on, leaving you behind. There's nothing morally wrong with that statement, but it seems to me that your overall perception of editions is coloured by a feeling of having been slighted. It's that undercurrent that distracts me from your points.

~Qualdiar~


----------



## Henry (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Delta, thanks for posting that.  Wow, so there are old schoolers who actually prefer 3E to 1E (the artwork, rules and all   )




I'd even be willing to posit that MOST (over 60%) players of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D prefer 3E and later as their main system of choice. Otherwise, 3E's success couldn't be explained, because the way D&D is usually transferred (and has been since the 1980's) has been from player to player, not with a new player just picking up the rules from scratch. From that I can tell, I'm an exception -- picked it up in a Circus World in 1981 because it looked cool and had no clue what I'd lucked into. Most players I know and people on this forum I know seem to have been introduced by a brother, friend, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.

Also, don't assume that 3E is the only reason folks hang around here; otherwise, Diaglo would have bugged out long ago, besides his desire for missionary conversion work.  And plus a good number of us play the older stuff now and again as a change up -- there's going to be an AD&D Against the giants outing at the NC Gameday this January, and if all the people who have expressed interest actually sign up, my table's gonna be full second ten seconds after registration opens.


----------



## Delta (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Delta, thanks for posting that.  Wow, so there are old schoolers who actually prefer 3E to 1E (the artwork, rules and all   )...




You're welcome. Interesting to hear your thoughts!


----------



## Ourph (Dec 19, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> What's in the imagination of those kids? Legolas (sleek elf ninja). Harry Potter (awkward but powerful nerd-man-boy). Ash and Pikachu ("average high school kid on adventures" and his adorable pet). Ichigo from BLEACH (dresses in flowing black robes and wields a six-foot hunk of metal that represents his inner psyche...realistic? Piffle). Aragorn (scruffy rogue who fights with destiny and throws torches!). Frodo and Sam (plucky homosexual midgets on an impossible quest invovling a ring and some great evil). Aang from AVATAR (little bald kid who masters the elements and rides a flying bison through Vaguely Asian World). Naruto Uzumaki (lazy ninja student with determination instead of talent).




I think this may be part of the problem with the current art direction at WotC.  Early D&D didn't draw its artwork from popular kid culture.  It either created its own genre or drew from obscure adult fantasy.  When I first got into D&D, it didn't present me with artwork and themes drawn from Jonny Quest, Underdog, The Herculoids and The Muppet Show.  Instead, it had its own character and voice.  It seems to me that the current art direction at WotC is allowing for too much influence from other sources and that cross-pollination is creating a landscape of tabletop, console, computer and collectible card fantasy art that's much too self-referential to be anything other than bland and trite after a while.

As for the FF12 artwork.... All I can say is that those male characters seem like they would be more at home on the cover of _17 Magazine_ or promotional posters for _Laguna Beach_ than in any D&D campaign I've ever been a part of.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 19, 2006)

I have to wonder, however, how much the artist made as a commision for this piece:


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Delta, thanks for posting that.  Wow, so there are old schoolers who actually prefer 3E to 1E (the artwork, rules and all   ).




Very much so. I started with the three brown books and feel this edition, art and all, is the best edition yet. In fact, after many many sorties into other game systems I think the current d20/3E rule set is one of the best over-all gaming rules sets period. There are small changes I'd make, changes I'd _like _ to see, but really they are just refinements and clarifications of what's already there. And the various d20 variants like Mutants and Mastermind, True20, Spycraft, d20 Modern, etc just show you how much more versitile and adaptable 3E is than what came before, right out of the box without pages and pages of house rules. 

I'd be hard pressed to go backwards to 2E or 1E; a really good GM can of course make any game fun but he'd have to be a true master to make me enjoy a 1E session.

I prefer immersion as well; sometimes we'll have sessions where we just talk in character and barely look at our sheets. And normally we have a very Tolkien-like atmosphere in most campaign worlds we've done. 

Just with more body art and some spikey bits.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 19, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Damn, KM, what is that last one from?  Sweet.



That's the new Malbranche(sp). 

*agrees with Melan about the welcome thingie. *


----------



## Numion (Dec 19, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I have to wonder, however, how much the artist made as a commision for this piece:




That's the spell 'evil cleric' casts and 'Lidda' dodges. I would think the commission was mostly for the characters, and not the spell effect. 

Or maybe I'm mistaken and artists do get paid piecemeal ("Liddas head - 10 bucks, Liddas torso - 20 bucks, etc..").


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 19, 2006)

It looked like a neon light to me.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> That's the spell 'evil cleric' casts and 'Lidda' dodges. I would think the commission was mostly for the characters, and not the spell effect.
> 
> Or maybe I'm mistaken and artists do get paid piecemeal ("Liddas head - 10 bucks, Liddas torso - 20 bucks, etc..").





Yes it is in fact the spell the evil cleric casts... I just found it funny that it's listed in the artwork section on the website as an entirely seperate piece of artwork!   "Magic"


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 19, 2006)

Magic, smagick, I just want Claudio's art on my walls when i get a new place.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I actually agree with this. The 3.0 PHB has some of the weakest art in 3.0, which is too bad since its most likely the first 3.0 book that most people saw.
> 
> Now, if you just said this, I don't think many people would be arguing with you.





Oh, I'm pretty sure that some people would be arguing with me simply because they noticed who posted.    

And if not, I'm not doing my job well enough.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Alrighty then.
> 
> Page 7: The man is so wounded the bones in his arm are showing! Ok, just kidding..
> 
> ...





Do you honestly believe that any of those are examples?

Page 64 (Krusk helps Jozen climb the cliff) and page 75 (Lidda finds that using a magic device can be risky) have been discussed rather thoroughly.  If you are going to argue that these represent significant risk within the context of the game, then you are making an argument closer to that which WayneLigon accused me of than I am.

Page 116:  Happy to use this as an example.  Mialee is noted as being unconscious, but it is also noted that "Jozan cures Mialee" and that Tordek moves to prevent Mialee from being slain.  I very much doubt that anyone flipping through the book would look at that picture and say "Wow, this is dangerous".  Indeed, while the illustration notes Mialee as unconscious, it does not note why, and only one of the orcs is noted as being wounded.

_Further examination of the book, and reading the example combat, will certainly show that the combat might go either way, but this is not clear when looking at the example.  Since, presumably, one will have bought the book before reading it, this is a good example of how the information in the illustration actually reduces the inherent tension in the text._

Page 124 (This dragon finds Tordek hard to swallow):  This is the only thing even close to a counter-example in the book, and I wish they hadn't thrown that caption in to ruin it.  The sad part is, only the dragon is depicted as bleeding, and Tordek is apparently able to hold its mouth open (preventing chewing).  His armor is neither dented nor bloody.  This is also a picture which has already been addressed, going back to my OP.

_Again, however, this is a great illustration.  Those who worry about unrealistic armor can hardly complain about how Tordek is depicted -- his spikes are very small, and well within the realm of possibility/what is depicted in earlier editions.  The action is very _wahoo_ but this, again, falls well within the norm for all editions.  The figures are well rendered, and it is a nice detail that Tordek's helmet has gone flying._

Page 153 (Jozen brings a friend back from the dead):  There's not a lot of evidence that Jozen's friend was an adenturer.  It is also notable that Dead Friend is the one person who doesn't actually have a name.  While this may imply that the Dead Friend is not a PC (especially the way the iconics are used in 3.0), if this character is not a PC it is the sole example where any PC has any connection to the world around him/her.  We should also note that a picture of someone being brought back from the dead (there is a related picture in the 1e PHB) is more evidence of the _impermanence_ of death (and hence the lack of long term consequence) than of real danger.

EDIT:  I am in error in the above paragraph.  The wizard using a ray of frost on p. 243 is also nameless.....and is oddly enough also a florist.  This is perhaps the only illustration in the book that makes me wonder what the guy's story is, so it should be treated as a significant one (at least in terms of my thesis).  If only his costume (including what looks like a pair of swimming goggles) wasn't so _meh_......  Anyway, this picture also shows a nameless character, and again one who is at least to some degree invested in his world (since he is preserving roses rather than using his kewl powerz to stomp monsters).

Page 214 (Jozen casts holy smite against a succubus):  That succubus is in an awefully submissive posture for someone seriously threatening Jozen.  Jozen is in an awefully dominant posture for someone being seriously threatened.

Again, do you seriously believe that these illustrations _based only on illustration and caption_ depict PCs encountering serious hazards?  Ones that might have severe and long-lasting consequences?


RC


----------



## Scribble (Dec 19, 2006)

Eh... I'd see the reason the iconics are undying, unkillable, adventuring machines, is simply because they are the iconics. It's not really a plot to show that PCs never die, or have anythign bad happen to them... 

They're the epitome of what you're striving for in the game. To succeed in the adventure, and triumph over evil. 

Just like in a movie heros don't die. (unless they are secondary heros and their death adds drama to the plot of the main hero...)

They're supposed to be like the role model of all adventuring heros everywhere...

I want to grow up and be the most powerful epic level cleric in the realms just like jozan!

Rather then... "I want to get eaten by a giant ferret next week just like Jozan!"

I mean seriosuly when you were a kid and you played various imagination games did you pretend to be the hero or random guy who gets killed in scene five?

I think the only reason it's realy noticeable is because they constantly show those characters as examples rather then a random new person each time.  

But think back to pictures of the reocurring characters of yesterditions, and they were almost always kickin booty n takin GP's just like the iconics...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'd even be willing to posit that MOST (over 60%) players of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D prefer 3E and later as their main system of choice.





I would agree.  I use elements from 1e and 2e in my game, but it is based firmly in the 3e mechanics (some from 3.0 and some from 3.5).  I house rule a lot, but I admit that the base system works better for me in most ways.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> Eh... I'd see the reason the iconics are undying, unkillable, adventuring machines, is simply because they are the iconics. It's not really a plot to show that PCs never die, or have anythign bad happen to them...




Not a plot.  Marketting.  

Nor are they "kickin booty n takin GP's" everywhere......just in the PHB.  Look through the DMG and you see a very different picture.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Looking at the 3.0 PHB, there are only two pieces of art I like.  One is the illustration of the druid, which is a pose but contains good "class atmosphere", and the other is of the dragon trying to Swallow Whole on poor Tordek.  Other pieces in the book are technically proficient, but these two pieces in particular seem to communicate something worthwhile to me.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





From my first post in this thread, just to make sure that context here is remembered.


RC


----------



## Maggan (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> D
> 
> Again, do you seriously believe that these illustrations _based only on illustration and caption_ depict PCs encountering serious hazards?  Ones that might have severe and long-lasting consequences?
> 
> ...




Hmmm ... well the question isn't directed at me but, yes, my impression of those pictures have been that of the iconics encountering serious hazards, or preparing to encounter serious hazards. Otherwise they wouldn't be needing all that armor, weapons and spells they've got in the pictures.

Not as thorough an analysis as the one you're making (over and over), but that's my impression of the pictures.

A counter-qeustion that seems relevant: do you seriously believe that there is but one way to interpret the message these images convey?

EDIT: Looking through my 1e PH again I'm even more confused by your analysis. Using your approach to the pictures, we see that they show people either doing mundane tasks (a blacksmith working, some guys at a bar, some dwarf smoking a pipe while sitting on a huge die, some guys praying, adventurers dividing up treasure) or adventurers easily over coming or avoiding threats (a wizard deflecting arrows while his imp laughs in contempt at the feeble attack, an umber hulk dancing while the adventurers supress their laughter, a paladin defeating a devil of some sort and routing his support, some wizard projecting lights down a dungeon). I also found some pieces where the threat level was cranked up, but it mostly seemed to concern gnomes or pixies.

So to me, you analysis is not as clear as you would think it to be.

/M


----------



## Scribble (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not a plot.  Marketting.
> 
> Nor are they "kickin booty n takin GP's" everywhere......just in the PHB.  Look through the DMG and you see a very different picture.
> 
> ...




Shrug. Sure they market their product... They show you role models to look up to.  

But they've done that all through the editions. Once they started having NPCs you know and love they started showing them in art depicting them bein awesome.

Same reason a bazillion fanboyz made tragic hero dark elves who've sworn off their racial baggage and made their way through a world that hates them in order to fight for the cause of good with their two scimitars and figurine of wonderous power...

The icons have to be what people want to be. Awesome. Not slackmaster ted.


----------



## Numion (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Do you honestly believe that any of those are examples?
> 
> Page 64 (Krusk helps Jozen climb the cliff) and page 75 (Lidda finds that using a magic device can be risky) have been discussed rather thoroughly.  If you are going to argue that these represent significant risk within the context of the game, then you are making an argument closer to that which WayneLigon accused me of than I am.




Since when falling's not a risk? Krusk has a look of horror on his face - I always thought the caption was sarcastic.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Page 116:  Happy to use this as an example.  Mialee is noted as being unconscious, but it is also noted that "Jozan cures Mialee" and that Tordek moves to prevent Mialee from being slain.  I very much doubt that anyone flipping through the book would look at that picture and say "Wow, this is dangerous".  Indeed, while the illustration notes Mialee as unconscious, it does not note why, and only one of the orcs is noted as being wounded.




I'd say that a companion downed and a swarm of orcs _is_ dangerous, any way you look at it.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Page 124 (This dragon finds Tordek hard to swallow):  This is the only thing even close to a counter-example in the book, and I wish they hadn't thrown that caption in to ruin it.  The sad part is, only the dragon is depicted as bleeding, and Tordek is apparently able to hold its mouth open (preventing chewing).  His armor is neither dented nor bloody.  This is also a picture which has already been addressed, going back to my OP.




IMO the message in this picture is that all those 'wahoo' actions ('mother may I', by another name) that were so common in previous editions, are still valid. Just pretty dangerous.

And besides, if your argument about the lack of background is to be believed Tordek is fighting a floating dragons _head_, not an actual dragon 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Page 153 (Jozen brings a friend back from the dead):  There's not a lot of evidence that Jozen's friend was an adenturer.  It is also notable that Dead Friend is the one person who doesn't actually have a name.  While this may imply that the Dead Friend is not a PC (especially the way the iconics are used in 3.0), if this character is not a PC it is the sole example where any PC has any connection to the world around him/her.  We should also note that a picture of someone being brought back from the dead (there is a related picture in the 1e PHB) is more evidence of the _impermanence_ of death (and hence the lack of long term consequence) than of real danger.




So you would argue that someone who's not an adventurer has apparently died of cleanly severed leg and largish puncture wound to the heart? Not my first thoughts when I looked at the picture. And, if you had read the book, you would've noticed more nameless characters than the corpse and the florist.

Looking at the raise picture, the message is clear: adventurers (and their friends) can die messy deaths and that resurrections still exist in 3.0E. 



> Again, do you seriously believe that these illustrations _based only on illustration and caption_ depict PCs encountering serious hazards?  Ones that might have severe and long-lasting consequences?




Yes, they depict PCs encountering serious hazards. It's already proven by, for example, that the example fight might turn deadly, and that Tordek is in the mouth of a dragon that could smack several 20th level characters. That is just the facts when you know the game rules. 

Your paramount 'flipping in the store'-test is open to interpretation. You're the first one I've seen argue the position that they're all depictions of a cakewalk to the uninitiated 'flipper'. That's not the message I got, way back in 2000. I'd say your interpretation requires extensive knowledge of past flamewars in selected forums and the gist of the grognard argument that 3E is easy. Since I know this to be false (dying in 3E is pretty common and there are consequences for coming back IMX), _your_ argument seems bizarre and certainly awfully contrived.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 19, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think this may be part of the problem with the current art direction at WotC.  Early D&D didn't draw its artwork from popular kid culture.  It either created its own genre or drew from obscure adult fantasy.  When I first got into D&D, it didn't present me with artwork and themes drawn from Jonny Quest, Underdog, The Herculoids and The Muppet Show.  Instead, it had its own character and voice.  It seems to me that the current art direction at WotC is allowing for too much influence from other sources and that cross-pollination is creating a landscape of tabletop, console, computer and collectible card fantasy art that's much too self-referential to be anything other than bland and trite after a while.
> 
> As for the FF12 artwork.... All I can say is that those male characters seem like they would be more at home on the cover of _17 Magazine_ or promotional posters for _Laguna Beach_ than in any D&D campaign I've ever been a part of.






Yes, thats a huge difference!  AD&D 1E took themes from adult books, and adult fantasy concepts.  Thats why everyone depicted is mature and in their 40s.  1E was a game made by and for gamers (who at the time were 30-40 year olds playing chain mail.  I took to it so well because I actually felt like I was sneaking into a "grown up" game.  Not unlike the first time going into a real bar and ordering some drinks with your fake ID, and hanging out with "grown ups".  

3E does seem to be creating artwork heavily influenced by products geared toward younger gamers.  And I think the same could be said for alot of 2E stuff. 

Hell look at TV today, every star looks like there under 20.  I think adults want to see themselves as young or something.

Q: "This attitude is what I take issue with. TSR didn't drop "us" 1Eers. I was a "1Eer", and with the exception of 2-3 gamers I can think of, so is everyone else I've ever played with. When 2E came out I, and everyone I knew, became a 2Eer. Later, when 3E came out I, and everyone I know, became a 3Eer. They didn't drop "us", "we" moved on, leaving you behind."


I think your miss-understanding me.  If 4E came out with transexual characters who's goal was instead of killing monsters finding mates with each other, you'd be "left behind" (I hope) in the since that the game system you presently play would no longer have new material printed to support it.   Thats what happened in 1E.  We went from modules (like B2) with very short intros. to long overblown romance style modules with linear plots that followed popular books.   So, your group liked that and you adjusted...great.  But alot of the rest of us didn't like the changes and switched to other companies.  It would be like if tomarrow Monopoly II came out and Monopoly went out of print.   I understand why TSR did this, and I don't blame them...they were needing money desperately, and focused on the segment of their market who were buying just about anything published...you know the ones that had stacks and stacks of everything they could get their hands on (unlike me who owned the 3 core books, UA and about 4 modules, and that was alot for my group   ).


----------



## Maggan (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> If 4E came out with transexual characters who's goal was instead of killing monsters finding mates with each other, you'd be "left behind" (I hope) in the since that the game system you presently play would no longer have new material printed to support it.




Ever heard about the d20 license?

Why change to another system when people can crank out 3e compatible stuff (in print or pdf or whatever) in perpetuity?

/M


----------



## Numion (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Yes, thats a huge difference!  AD&D 1E took themes from adult books, and adult fantasy concepts.  Thats why everyone depicted is mature and in their 40s.  1E was a game made by and for gamers (who at the time were 30-40 year olds playing chain mail.  I took to it so well because I actually felt like I was sneaking into a "grown up" game.  Not unlike the first time going into a real bar and ordering some drinks with your fake ID, and hanging out with "grown ups".




I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill.

So if that's the style you aim at 30-40 year olds, I wonder how mature _they_ were.

The there's also the fact that that style got a great response from 10-15 year olds (which was the age most people started at back then), while 3E got a great popularity from the older crowd. D&D players' average age is higher now, so I'd think the current art and packaging has drawn in older players than the Otus stuff. Your argument just does not compute.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 19, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Thats what happened in 1E.  We went from modules (like B2) with very short intros. to long overblown romance style modules with linear plots that followed popular books.   So, your group liked that and you adjusted...great.  But alot of the rest of us didn't like the changes and switched to other companies.




No, TSR saw their market share getting spanked _hard _ by _Vampire _ and other games coming out that didn't concentrate on combat and the treasure/xp/level treadmill, and tried (clumsily, for the most part) to compensate for it. 

As has been said elsewhere, though, TSR didn't really ever _listen _ to their market. They saw X happening and tried to compensate for it even though they had only a few people that understood what the market was doing. So you had some great adventures (Planescape, the first Ravenloft module and a scattering of others) mixed in with lots of railroaded linear books (which is exactly what you get when you have someone misunderstand what 'telling a story' and 'plot' mean).


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Dec 19, 2006)

I'm still baffled how people say Otus lacks artistic skill!!!!   Its not TRUE dagnabbit!


----------



## Ourph (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill.



I think most people judge Erol Otus based on a single picture or a few prominent ones (like the covers of the D&D Basic & Expert sets) and fail to realize that those few pieces were intentionally cartoonish and targeted toward kids.  His other work (especially a lot of his B&W interior drawings) easily demonstrates that (while his style is without a doubt weird-fantasy) it's highly skillful, even if you don't especially like it.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> So if that's the style you aim at 30-40 year olds, I wonder how mature _they_ were.



This is the kind of comment that keeps ENworld from being the best gaming website it can be.  Since when does someone's personal appreciation for a piece of art have anything to do with their maturity level?  Give me a break.  :\ 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> D&D players' average age is higher now, so I'd think the current art and packaging has drawn in older players than the Otus stuff. Your argument just does not compute.



I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, since TSR never really collected demographic data during the 70's and early 80's era when Erol Otus's artwork was most prominent in the D&D/AD&D line.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Hmmm ... well the question isn't directed at me but, yes, my impression of those pictures have been that of the iconics encountering serious hazards, or preparing to encounter serious hazards. Otherwise they wouldn't be needing all that armor, weapons and spells they've got in the pictures.




Perhaps we are working from different definitions of "serious hazard".  From the above, it seems that you would contend that if the iconic adventurers were depicted with armor, weapons, and spells, in a field filled with fluffy bunnies and kindergarten children, there is a serious hazard in the offing due to the iconics having armor, weapons, and spells.



> A counter-qeustion that seems relevant: do you seriously believe that there is but one way to interpret the message these images convey?




Obviously not.  There is no form of communicatioin that is not subject to multiple interpretation.



> EDIT: Looking through my 1e PH again I'm even more confused by your analysis. Using your approach to the pictures, we see that they show people either doing mundane tasks (a blacksmith working, some guys at a bar, some dwarf smoking a pipe while sitting on a huge die, some guys praying, adventurers dividing up treasure)




Many of which seem to indicate some focus on the world, rather than just adventurers.



> or adventurers easily over coming or avoiding threats (a wizard deflecting arrows while his imp laughs in contempt at the feeble attack, an umber hulk dancing while the adventurers supress their laughter, a paladin defeating a devil of some sort and routing his support, some wizard projecting lights down a dungeon). I also found some pieces where the threat level was cranked up, but it mostly seemed to concern gnomes or pixies.




I fully agree that both the DMG and PHB in 1e shows PCs succeeding and in definite risk of failure roughly to the same degree (so that the success/danger ratio is roughly the same in each book).

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Since when falling's not a risk? Krusk has a look of horror on his face - I always thought the caption was sarcastic.




Krusk has Jozen's boot in his face.  There is no indication whatsoever that he is falling, or in any danger of falling.  Of course, if you believe that four orcs is "a swarm" our ideas of what is, or is not, a serious hazard is very different.

What is conveyed through looking at the illustrations, and what is conveyed "when you know the game rules" are seperate issues that you are conflating. 

While it is obvious that my "'flipping in the store'-test is open to interpretation" it is also equally obvious that the message you got "way back in 2000" is not one from someone new to the hobby, which is the obvious mareketting demographic.  



> I'd say your interpretation requires extensive knowledge of past flamewars in selected forums and the gist of the grognard argument that 3E is easy.




Bizarre.


RC


----------



## Numion (Dec 19, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think most people judge Erol Otus based on a single picture or a few prominent ones (like the covers of the D&D Basic & Expert sets) and fail to realize that those few pieces were intentionally cartoonish and targeted toward kids.  His other work (especially a lot of his B&W interior drawings) easily demonstrates that (while his style is without a doubt weird-fantasy) it's highly skillful, even if you don't especially like it.




Now this gets weird. tx says they were aimed at 30-40 year olds, and you say they were aimed at kids?

Anyway, I just get feelings like I was watching comics on LSD when I look at Otus' stuff, no way I get a sense that something like that would go on even in a fantasy world. That is an indicator for lack of skill, IMO. The art aint doin what its supposed to be doin.



> This is the kind of comment that keeps ENworld from being the best gaming website it can be.  Since when does someone's personal appreciation for a piece of art have anything to do with their maturity level?  Give me a break.  :\




Break given. I was just answering tx's similar claims about 3E. He was trashing 3E art as "for kids" while 1e art was for 30-40 year olds. 



> I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, since TSR never really collected demographic data during the 70's and early 80's era when Erol Otus's artwork was most prominent in the D&D/AD&D line.




From this site. A lot of people here (according to polls) started with 1E, and this board is not filled with 60 year olds. With a bit of math I can guess that people here started with 1E while they were young.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 19, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Ever heard about the d20 license?
> 
> Why change to another system when people can crank out 3e compatible stuff (in print or pdf or whatever) in perpetuity?
> 
> /M





Good point Magaan.  And were getting the same thing now with OSRIC.  Personally, I think in about 2 years 1Eers and 3Eers alike will be in the same camp, shaking our heads together at the direction WOTC goes.  But like you said, who'll care if new quality 1E and 3E material is being pumped out.   .

Num: "I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill."

Nah, those aren't super young studlings running around, they still look to be over 25.  Anyhow, in the world of 1E, Otus was the most "out there", almost fluid and abstract in his style (when looked at as a whole) I know this looks amature to you, but so did Monet and Vangoeh for most artists and members of the general public at the time (and look what happened there...after Vincent killed himself his work exploded in popularity, and is considered masterful).  I didn't care for it much as a kid, but have grown to appreciate it.  Tramp is more what I'm thinking of as "typical" fantasy, but a bit more hard core.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 19, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> _Again, however, this is a great illustration.  Those who worry about unrealistic armor can hardly complain about how Tordek is depicted -- his spikes are very small, and well within the realm of possibility/what is depicted in earlier editions.  The action is very _wahoo_ but this, again, falls well within the norm for all editions.  The figures are well rendered, and it is a nice detail that Tordek's helmet has gone flying._



I found this comment curious. Why the need to have depictions match across editions? You say it like that's an assumed plus. I've never heard anyone put that out as a positive (or, for that matter, negative) factor before.

~Qualidar~


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> From this site. A lot of people here (according to polls) started with 1E, and this board is not filled with 60 year olds. With a bit of math I can guess that people here started with 1E while they were young.



I believe the vast majority of us were about 13, give or take 5 years.

~Q~


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Anyway, I just get feelings like I was watching comics on LSD when I look at Otus' stuff, no way I get a sense that something like that would go on even in a fantasy world. That is an indicator for lack of skill, IMO. The art aint doin what its supposed to be doin.




Psshh, you hit the nail on the head on exactly _why_ I like his cover art. I don't think it's amateurish/lack of skill at all. I would prefer more daring/experimenting in fantasy art. There's a lot of art across any of the editions that "ain't doin what it's supposed to be doin" (hello _Moonsea_ cover art...hitting someone with a baguette???). I love Erol Otus's art because he adds a heightened sense of fantasy to his work. Strange tableaus, unseen vistas, all that good stuff. Hell, if I wanted to see spectacular, _realistic_ scenery, I could drive in about any direction for about 40 minutes and take a walk.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 19, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Break given. I was just answering tx's similar claims about 3E. He was trashing 3E art as "for kids" while 1e art was for 30-40 year olds.




There's a difference between saying that 3e's art is directed to appeal to kids and saying anything about maturity levels.  If 3e artwork is drawing heavily from other mediums which are already popular with kids/teens (and I would argue that it is) in an attempt to interest kids in the game with artwork that already strikes a chord with them, then the style is "for kids" in the sense that it's meant to grab the attention of a young audience, not in the sense that it is "childish" artwork.  If that's the message you got from the previous posts I suspect you were either reading very uncharitably or simply missing the point.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> From this site. A lot of people here (according to polls) started with 1E, and this board is not filled with 60 year olds. With a bit of math I can guess that people here started with 1E while they were young.




I'd say using ENworld polls as the basis for judging demographics for the game from 30 years ago is a bad idea.  It seems to me that ENworld is populated by an older audience than a lot of other 3e gaming sites and probably not reflective of current gaming demographics, let alone demographics from ca. 1980.  The mere fact that it's an internet messageboard should tip us off to that.  What percentage of 60 year olds (no matter what their interests at 30) get on the internet at all, let alone post to ENWorld?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 20, 2006)

> I think this may be part of the problem with the current art direction at WotC. Early D&D didn't draw its artwork from popular kid culture.




Oh? It didn't draw from comic books or saturday morning cartoons or cover illustrations for The Hobbit? 



> It either created its own genre or drew from obscure adult fantasy.




Nothing exists in a vacuum...what were the influences for this early art? Where did they get their ideas from?



> When I first got into D&D, it didn't present me with artwork and themes drawn from Jonny Quest, Underdog, The Herculoids and The Muppet Show.




Well, boiling those down to what is actually vaguely fantasy....The Herculoids and early D&D art have a lot in comon, from the perspective of this untrained eye. Usually the D&D stuff was better drawn than the Hanna-Barbara Assembly Line, but it still felt like a cartoon to me. 



> It seems to me that the current art direction at WotC is allowing for too much influence from other sources and that cross-pollination is creating a landscape of tabletop, console, computer and collectible card fantasy art that's much too self-referential to be anything other than bland and trite after a while.




I dunno, if the book says elves live in the forest and I occasionally see artwork of flying space-elves on the moon, I'm going to say "This artwork is bupkiss." I don't care if it's a lost Michelangelo of space-elves on the moon, it's not depicting what the game is describing, so it's purpose as illustration is completely lost.

And if you take a look at some of the stuff on, say, conceptart.org, I think you'll find enough variety and life in fantasy artwork yet, regardless of how much they don't resemble the covers of 1930's Wierd Tales magazine.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 20, 2006)

*cheers for Claudio*


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 20, 2006)

Kam, take a look at the ages of the guys on the cover of the PH and DMG for 1E.  These guys are dirty, grimey, bearded, and just tough mofo's.  Lets face it, did kids (I mean 10 year olds) want to see exclusively old guy like this.   I did, and my friends did (I'll bet alot of you guys as well...infact it looked darn dangerous to my young eyes), but the "masses" the ones that never did get into role play games, surely a more general appeal would have hooked them.  I don't think Gary and Arney had the interest or finances to do any marketing.  They stuck stuff on the covers they thought actually captured the "feel" and "spirit" of the game.  It was an honest "here is the game we love in picture form...we hope you love it too" from the heart painting.  And the rest is history.   

100 years from now these original books and artwork will still be talked about.  But I doubt 3E's interior art will be collected or remembered.  

Kam, 
I really don't see what your getting at.  If your saying there are parts of 1E art taken from cartoons or covers of the Hobbit (I'm not saying there was) so what.  That doesn't mean they show kids, or the stuff kids want to see, they were hardened and sullied.  These guys in on the PH cover (and alot of the interior stuff) look more like Jethro Tull's "Aqua Lung my friend" then GQ underwear models (like the ones I'm forced to look at when viewing 3E art) or some kiddy super-heroes.     If you think 3E is doing the same as Gygax and early TSR did, I think your fooling yourself.   :\


----------



## Numion (Dec 20, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> There's a difference between saying that 3e's art is directed to appeal to kids and saying anything about maturity levels.




Eh? No there isn't.



> I'd say using ENworld polls as the basis for judging demographics for the game from 30 years ago is a bad idea.  It seems to me that ENworld is populated by an older audience than a lot of other 3e gaming sites and probably not reflective of current gaming demographics, let alone demographics from ca. 1980.  The mere fact that it's an internet messageboard should tip us off to that.  What percentage of 60 year olds (no matter what their interests at 30) get on the internet at all, let alone post to ENWorld?




It's a bad idea if I was aiming for 100% accurate data. However, for a quick guestimation it's ok. Even WotC acknowledges that the player base is older now than it used to be before. Do you really think that D&D players are on the average _younger_ than in 1E times?

There are many reasons for this. One is that D&D isn't considered just kids play anymore - and not having those wacky Otus pieces around is a factor in that.


----------



## Numion (Dec 20, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> I know this looks amature to you, but so did Monet and Vangoeh for most artists and members of the general public at the time (and look what happened there...after Vincent killed himself his work exploded in popularity, and is considered masterful).




Yeah, D&D art of any edition is a good compare to _Van Gogh_. You're a real art connoisseur, aren't you?


----------



## Ourph (Dec 20, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Oh?




As usual, you're trying to pick a fight over something completely innocuous.  Take it somewhere else.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What percentage of 60 year olds (no matter what their interests at 30) get on the internet at all, let alone post to ENWorld?




'Elderly' as a category usually begins at 65. Most studies I've looked at say about 13%-15% of people 65+ use the internet on a regular basis. Of the next tier down, 50-64, that number goes to 65% to 70% - higher, in fact, than the national average. 

“The growth of this gray market is impressive: according to US
Department of Commerce figures ... In 2007, 70.9% of those aged 50-64 will be
surfing the Web, and 32.2% of those over 65% will be Googling in
retirement.-- Enterprise Marketer 

I had no idea.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 20, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Eh? No there isn't.




Sorry.  Yes there is.  Creating artwork that's familiar to kids because it's similar to things they are already interested doesn't preclude adults from liking the art too.  Are you actually suggesting that if kids like it, it must be crap?



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> It's a bad idea if I was aiming for 100% accurate data. However, for a quick guestimation it's ok. Even WotC acknowledges that the player base is older now than it used to be before. Do you really think that D&D players are on the average _younger_ than in 1E times?




I have no idea and WotC doesn't either.  TSR didn't do marketing research to find out who exactly was playing their games and in what numbers until the mid to late 80's (after the peak of D&D's popularity), so those numbers just aren't available .... to anyone.  As for ENworl being OK for a quick guestimation, I still find that laughable.  ENworld attracts a specific, older, demographic of gamers.  It's in no way representative of gamer culture as a whole even today.  To suggest that it's somehow representative of the demographics of gamer culture from 30 years ago is ludicrous.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> There are many reasons for this. One is that D&D isn't considered just kids play anymore - and not having those wacky Otus pieces around is a factor in that.




I have to disagree with this.  Otus's work is similar in many respects to current artwork of the time in adult weird fiction and fantasy magazines.  Look at the work published in Weird Tales and Analog during that time period and Otus doesn't stand out as anything unusual.  There was nothing to give it a "kiddie" stigma compared to contemporary artists.  If anything the manga-inspired poses and costumes of the current edition of D&D do more to stigmatize the game than Erol Otus or any of his contemporaries did.


----------



## Melan (Dec 20, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> There are many reasons for this. One is that D&D isn't considered just kids play anymore - and not having those wacky Otus pieces around is a factor in that.



Now *that* I plain disagree with. As an adult, I looove Otus artwork, and I think I first encountered it when I was, hm, probably 21-22. It isn't the kind of art kids tend to dig (and I know other people have said things to the contrary - well, I disagree with them!). I am sure most kids would prefer Trampier and DCS; more abstract art is usually liked by older audiences.

I also have to second the poster who wrote he would like to see more experimentation in RPG artwork. Yeah, whether it is the Otusian weird fantasy, or the elegnat black and white beauty of Polaris (pictured below), or something entirely different, this variety would be welcome indeed. Again, I recommend reading *Brilliance and Dross in RPG Artwork* in Imazine - it is a very good summary of the topic. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/panurge/imazine37.pdf










Clean, characteristic and _beautiful_.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 20, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Perhaps we are working from different definitions of "serious hazard".  From the above, it seems that you would contend that if the iconic adventurers were depicted with armor, weapons, and spells, in a field filled with fluffy bunnies and kindergarten children, there is a serious hazard in the offing due to the iconics having armor, weapons, and spells.




Actually, yes, depending on the style of the picture you describe, I could interpret the picture as being the backdrop of a serious hazard, or that a serious hazard would appear. Nursery themes in horror stories always bring a chill to my spine. One of my official Kult scenarios featured a child's bedroom as the final backdrop for a battle with a demon, and I've used bunnies to great effect in Call of Cthulhu.

It just takes a shadow among the trees, or a weird perspective, or a dark cloud in the sky, to turn a picture of a field filled with bunnies into a harbinger of doom. The fact that so heavily armed iconics is in a situation like that, could be a nice juxtaposition of symbols, that could convey a message other than "the iconics are having a picknick with the bunnies". 

EDIT: BTW, I don't think drawing absurd conclusions such as "oh, since you say they've got weapons and that implies a serious threat being in the offering you think a field of bunnies is a serious threat then" is helping your argument. On the contrary, actually. My advice is to read more into the context of my posts. Because that's what it's about, context. In the context of the PH, I expect the iconics to be armed because they are planning to, about to, or in the middle of engaging a serious threat.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I fully agree that both the DMG and PHB in 1e shows PCs succeeding and in definite risk of failure roughly to the same degree (so that the success/danger ratio is roughly the same in each book).




I'm glad you agree, but you're not agreeing with anything I said. I only looked at the 1e PH, and according to your unique style of analysing pictures, the majority of those pictures convey basically the same message as those in the 3e PH. That is, no serious threat is evident, hence the adventurers are special snowflakes.

/M


----------



## Maggan (Dec 20, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Again, I recommend reading *Brilliance and Dross in RPG Artwork* in Imazine - it is a very good summary of the topic. .




I read it, and I find that his throw away dismissal of the artwork in the 3e PH is a bit too .. casual. He claims that we could replace Tordek with a picture of a cabbage, and that no one would notice. That's hyperbole, and it doesn't help his argument, since its such an absurd claim. It is so absurd that his further analysis is let down by that introduction, since the rest of the article talks very seriously about the kind of art he likes.

He also discusses the effect a nude succubus had on teenagers, and concludes that since 3e Tordek does not illicit the same response, the Tordek picture is inferior. I found that line of reasoning strange ... a naked seductive demon illicits a greater response than a fully armed dwarf? Oh my, what a surprise ...   

I guess I don't know enough about art to really understand all the parallells he makes. The feeling I got out of the article was more "I know what I like, and I like what I know" and a lot of name dropping than anything else. It's still a good read, especially the bit about "naturalism".

/M


----------



## Hussar (Dec 20, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Kam, take a look at the ages of the guys on the cover of the PH and DMG for 1E.  These guys are dirty, grimey, bearded, and just tough mofo's.  Lets face it, did kids (I mean 10 year olds) want to see exclusively old guy like this.   I did, and my friends did (I'll bet alot of you guys as well...infact it looked darn dangerous to my young eyes), but the "masses" the ones that never did get into role play games, surely a more general appeal would have hooked them.  I don't think Gary and Arney had the interest or finances to do any marketing.  They stuck stuff on the covers they thought actually captured the "feel" and "spirit" of the game.  It was an honest "here is the game we love in picture form...we hope you love it too" from the heart painting.  And the rest is history.
> 
> 100 years from now these original books and artwork will still be talked about.  But I doubt 3E's interior art will be collected or remembered.
> 
> ...




And, once again, I will ask for examples of "GQ underwear models".  Since, after 9 pages, you still cannot provide a single example of what you are talking about, I'm wondering if you have actually ever opened a 3e book.  It's not like it's hard to find links to the artwork.  www.tsr.com is your friend here.


----------



## Melan (Dec 20, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> I read it, and I find that his throw away dismissal of the artwork in the 3e PH is a bit too .. casual. He claims that we could replace Tordek with a picture of a cabbage, and that no one would notice. That's hyperbole, and it doesn't help his argument, since its such an absurd claim. It is so absurd that his further analysis is let down by that introduction, since the rest of the article talks very seriously about the kind of art he likes.



Ugh, it is an attempt at humour. As in "not meant to be taken absolutely seriously".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> I found this comment curious. Why the need to have depictions match across editions? You say it like that's an assumed plus. I've never heard anyone put that out as a positive (or, for that matter, negative) factor before.
> 
> ~Qualidar~





I seem to note that there is discussion on this thread about art of various editions, and how they compare to each other.  The idea that there are spikes and/or too outre action has come up before, and the comments starting with "_Those who worry about unrealistic armor can hardly complain about...._" address that portion of the thread.


RC


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 20, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Yeah, D&D art of any edition is a good compare to _Van Gogh_. You're a real art connoisseur, aren't you?




Yes.    And thanks for blowing off the point rather then addressing it (that Otus's unique style wasn't for kids or amature and was "artistic" and studied and appealed to adults who wanted a general since and mood of the place...once again, almost in a fine art kind of way). 


Hey M., thanks for the link.  I'll need to read it when I have a bit more time (perhaps this weekend).    

H. I'm going to give you 10 minutes to find some examples. It won't take long since almost every piece of artwork put out by WOTC share the same flaws (or I guess qualities if you like this kind of thing). 


1. This guy couldn't walk.  His squinty face is just stupid and hokey, and he's a pin head.  Making the guy huge and kewl seems to take the place of realism and logic in 3E art.  This was the first 3E pick that popped up when I googled.  http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/539/539896/dd-memories-20040818070250384-001.jpg

Not an example of the underwear model look of 3E, but the other look of way overly muscled and cheeky faced characters in some kind of portrait sitting not doing anything (just looking rad).  This is the look you'll see on most game boxes that involve anything fantasy these days.  Where the essence of the image is given rather then the story. 

2. http://www.ludusbergomensis.org/giochi/torneodd2.asp This is the second pic on google that came up.  This chick looks almost straight out of 2E (with that quasi-mullet hair) but I guess its 3E.  Check out her tight pants and thighs.  Did you see any chicks running around in TLOR looking like that?  And the face she makes stairing at the viewer looks like a bad Vouge cover rather then a real person going on an adventure.  I mean, why exactly is she staring at us?  Why isn't she doing anything?  This is not how a real women warrior would look, this is how a model in armor would look.  The guy behind her with his little vest and pumped body also very 3E.  And the sad thing is, this pic. is one of the better I've seen. 
What ever happened to depicting the average position, why pose and stage every shot.  

3. http://images.google.com/images?q=t...images/mverickarts/artforsale/WildShifter.jpg This is the next pic that popped up (after skipping past a bunch of basically non-illustrated 3E books), Its some chick with her arms stuck up.  Well she's some sort of monster by looking at her feet, but Wowwywowwow, check out that rack.  And a slightly beefy but otherwise perfect figure once again in tight clothing.  Swimsuit model. 
This is actually good for 3E as well, her thighs aren't the size of tree trunks and her ears aren't gigantic. 

4. http://www.calendars.com/images/029/2955/200600007682_fc.jpg
The 4th pic to be illustrated that popped up.  Check out the chicks stomach (another obsession with 3E artist defining chicks stomachs) she's another swimsuit model, and here is an example of the giant ears I can't stand in 3E art.  Compare those babies to TLOR...and these ones are very short compared to others Iv'e seen.  The fighters in the foreground look very 3E as well, hugely thick plate armor, but with pants on, too small almost squarish heads, too overly developed.  
And check out that midget thing, she's wearing a "sand suite" or whatever they were called, from the movie "Dune", nice and tight, just how the teen kids supposed to like'em.   I could of course keep going on making comments, but whats the point. 


That wasn't fun, I hate looking at 3E art having cleared it from my system...something that took a loooooooong time.   

Anyone who can't see the difference between 1E and 3E art (when litterly the first 4 illustrated pictures that popped up on a google search are classic examples of typical 3E and D20 art in general (ie contrived, bland backgrounds, either overly muscled (all in the same fashion), or in tight cloths and too perfectly figured (ie the swimsuit model), looking at the viewer, hokey posing, lack of doing ANYTHING (with the exception of the 4th, and there just running), boring, and obviously artists who went to the same school, or who have copied each other too closely, etc. etc. etc. I could literally go on forever.


----------



## Maggan (Dec 20, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> Ugh, it is an attempt at humour. As in "not meant to be taken absolutely seriously".




Yes, I gathered. But I still don't think it helps his argument or the article. It being an attempt at humour doesn't mean that it's automatically a good thing for his argument to quip like that. He makes a very conscious decision to be formal and knowledgable about other types of art, which makes the humour used when talking about 3e art stand out like a sore thumb.

/M


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, depending on the style of the picture you describe, I could interpret the picture as being the backdrop of a serious hazard, or that a serious hazard would appear.





Sure, but that is true of a blank page as well....and few people I know look at a blank sketchbook and then say, "Wow, those guys are in trouble."  For most people I know, trouble requires some kind of context.  Generally that context has something to do with a situation that is out of control, or a situation where the viewer has a better understanding than the subject, and the subject seems to _think_ it is in control.

For example, one might say that "It just takes a shadow among the trees, or a weird perspective, or a dark cloud in the sky, to turn a picture of a field filled with bunnies into a harbinger of doom" but this would imply some form of contextual background.  Few people I know go screaming because of bunnies and the potential of rain.



> In the context of the PH, I expect the iconics to be armed because they are planning to, about to, or in the middle of engaging a serious threat.




So, if I am to understand you, all those posing pictures convey a serious threat?!?

I expect that the iconics are armed because being armed _reduces_ threat.  A _serious threat_, IMHO, is one which your level or armament and/or preparation may not be equal to.  A serious threat suggests that you should perhaps have prepared _more_, and that things are spinning out of control.

Of course, I'm obviously not the cleverest, or smartest, person on this forum -- not even close.  In order to perceive a serious threat, I need to see evidence of it.  I can't pick up on the subtle clues you so easily perceive.


RC


----------



## Maggan (Dec 20, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, if I am to understand you, all those posing pictures convey a serious threat?!?




You are reading too much literal meaning into the posts of a non-english writer. So, no, you are not understanding me.

I'll try to make it clearer:

It is my impression that you say that the pictures in the PH don't convey a sense of the people in the pictures being in a seriously threatening situation, thereby implying that no harm can befall pcs.

I then say, well, the fact that they are armed is a message to the viewer that they are planning to, about to, or even in some cases in the middle of engaging in a seriously threatening situation. So a pc should expect harm to befall them as well.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, I'm obviously not the cleverest, or smartest, person on this forum -- not even close. In order to perceive a serious threat, I need to see evidence of it. I can't pick up on the subtle clues you so easily perceive.




In the case of the PH pictures, I don't think it's subtle at all. They've got huge fricking axes and armor and stuff, and probably the most common reation for most people looking at the picture is to assume that they are carrying all that stuff because they are afraid of being killed or otherwise harmed without them.

As for you hypothetical picture, I don't perceive anything at all. I only offer other hypothetical ways that could imbue a picture such as the one you describe with meanings other than "no threat".

EDIT:



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure, but that is true of a blank page as well....and few people I know look at a blank sketchbook and then say, "Wow, those guys are in trouble."  For most people I know, trouble requires some kind of context.




BTW, I see you're still jumping to outrageous conclusions. Look, this isn't a debate about logical reasoning. It doesn't follow that I would think a blank sheet an illustration of a serious threat to the pcs, just because I could theoretically conceive of a picture with the fully armed iconics among bunnies and flowers with a threatening undertone.

/M


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> 1. This guy couldn't walk.  His squinty face is just stupid and hokey, and he's a pin head.  Making the guy huge and kewl seems to take the place of realism and logic in 3E art.




It's a dwarf. His proportions are suppossed to be huge and square and kinda scrunched. 



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> 2. http://www.ludusbergomensis.org/giochi/torneodd2.asp This is the second pic on google that came up.  This chick looks almost straight out of 2E (with that quasi-mullet hair) but I guess its 3E.




That's because it _is _ a 2E pic. Instead of trusting random search engine results, how about going to Wizards' Art Gallery? That has almost every illustration from the trade and hardbacks save the main core books.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> 4. http://www.calendars.com/images/029/2955/200600007682_fc.jpg
> The 4th pic to be illustrated that popped up.  Check out the chicks stomach (another obsession with 3E artist defining chicks stomachs) she's another swimsuit model, and here is an example of the giant ears I can't stand in 3E art.




You call _those _ huge ears? Whatever. 

THESE are huge ears.... Dragon Magazine, 1981







Vaan's looking kinda good now, huh? 

I think you need to realize that time has kinda passed you by on this: people like looking at pretty people. Hey, color me surprised. Go look at fantasy book covers, or the Spectrum collections of the best of fantasy art (Hey, look at that; WoTC's art director is on this years panel of jurors. Todd Lockwood is in this year's collection and several other D&D artists have made it in previous years.) You're not going to find all that many pics of old and scruffy and realistic, let me tell you. WoTC's art direction has simply taken a more modern direction.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2006)

Ourph said:
			
		

> There was nothing to give it a "kiddie" stigma compared to contemporary artists.  If anything the manga-inspired poses and costumes of the current edition of D&D do more to stigmatize the game than Erol Otus or any of his contemporaries did.




_Stigmatize_? Have you been in a big-box bookstore lately? Go look at their graphic novel section. It's huge and it's almost all manga. Younger people - you know, the people that are going to perpetuate the hobby - are going to look at manga-inspired art as something mainstream and normal. This isn't a flash in the pan fad anymore; big-box retailers don't waste that much shelf space on something that doesn't sell well and sell consistantly. 

You may not like anime-inspired artwork but let me tell you there are a large number of people that do and they outnumber all the D&D gamers - hell, all the tabletop gamers - by a considerable amount.  Manga sales in this country in 2003 were $90-$100 million and it's kept growing. If manga-influenced art - which there is very little of in most D&D books - can attract more people to the hobby, then bring it on.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 20, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> 100 years from now these original books and artwork will still be talked about.  But I doubt 3E's interior art will be collected or remembered.




I seriously doubt it. I'd bet good money that the number of people who even know what D&D is in 100 years will be significantly less than now. The thought that 1ed art will be collected and revered is delusional. At best I'd say a smattering of the best from all editions will be kicking around somewhere.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 20, 2006)

Wayne, thats a dwarf? It doesn't look much like Gimli or any other dwarf I've ever seen   And it still couldn't walk, though I suppose Steven Spielburge could use it in a movie where it roles.

Hey, I agree with you, WOTC moved on to a new style of artwork, thats my point.  Thats the point of this thread.  We are using 3E artwork as a back board to show whats so "magical" and great about 1E artwork.  Any Percieved "slamming" of 3E is not so, it is the result of contrasting it the artwork of 1E.  To some 3E has a "magic" and spirit of its own (there is a thread I started talking about this) and although I like some things about 3E art (some of its photoshop inky/watercolorish colors (though way over done, and why the hell use photoshop), some of its sketchy illustration stuff (alot of which never got published...I saw most of it here at ENworld before the PH was released many moons ago, and of course, some of the MMs monsters)  

Once again, go check out the "what is your favorite Module cover" thread and see for yourself.   1E is still popular with this crowd (which is suprising since this is primarily a 3E site....more or less).  And being the largest of its kind I'm shocked not to see more 3E covers. 

I have the suspicion that if WOTC hired Tramp to do the covers for 4E, and the interior art, you'd see that it was just as popular as 3E and 3.5 artwork with the young generation.  Don't think for a minute that kids are completely "gone".  The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E) should be heartening to all.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 20, 2006)

I just want more elmore.

m'elmore.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 20, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Wayne, thats a dwarf? It doesn't look much like Gimli or any other dwarf I've ever seen   And it still couldn't walk, though I suppose Steven Spielburge could use it in a movie where it roles.




Why should it look like Gimli? I can't see how it is a bad thing that it doesn't. That dwarf looks like it would be far more capable in combat than many other renditions I've seen.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Hey, I agree with you, WOTC moved on to a new style of artwork, thats my point.  Thats the point of this thread.  We are using 3E artwork as a back board to show whats so "magical" and great about 1E artwork.  Any Percieved "slamming" of 3E is not so, it is the result of contrasting it the artwork of 1E.  To some 3E has a "magic" and spirit of its own (there is a thread I started talking about this) and although I like some things about 3E art (some of its photoshop inky/watercolorish colors (though way over done, and why the hell use photoshop), some of its sketchy illustration stuff (alot of which never got published...I saw most of it here at ENworld before the PH was released many moons ago, and of course, some of the MMs monsters)




Yeah well when you use extremely derogatory and condescending terms in description of the art of 2ed and 3ed, it tends to imply a lack of respect for those who enjoy that style.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> Once again, go check out the "what is your favorite Module cover" thread and see for yourself.   1E is still popular with this crowd (which is suprising since this is primarily a 3E site....more or less).  And being the largest of its kind I'm shocked not to see more 3E covers.




Well I'd suspect there were a lot more modules released in the 1st edition than have been done in the 3rd. 3ed hasn't been known for it's proliferation of modules. Besides, I'd hardly consider relying on module cover art alone to be a strong example fo the art of an entire edition.



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> I have the suspicion that if WOTC hired Tramp to do the covers for 4E, and the interior art, you'd see that it was just as popular as 3E and 3.5 artwork with the young generation.  Don't think for a minute that kids are completely "gone".  The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E) should be heartening to all.




I wouldn't count on that. 

Also, I find it odd that you can claim realism=quality on one hand, then espouse the virtues of Otus on the other, while also claiming that realism "hurts your immersion". Frankly, after looking through my 3ed PHB and DMG the other night, I don't see any examples of "overly-muscled" characters. I see hardened, well-equipped adventurers. The only real dungeon-punk I see is Hennet, and I'm not a fan of his picture anyway. To me, seeing an average slob that looks like me (not fat but certainly out of shape) descending into a dungeon is far *less* realistic than seeing someone like Jozan or Tordek or Lidda or Regdar doing so. An adventurer should look strong and capable, not like some bloody jabroni.

Further, your examples provided above prove nothing of your point IMO. The first three I don't even recognize (the first does seem to be a Lockwood piece, but I'm not sure where from). The last is easily recognizable but proves nothing objective about the quality of the work, just that it does not meet your own personal taste. You make claims of bland backgrounds and post pencil scetch pictures as supposed proof. I second the idea that you try the actual wizards site for pictures and use those to build your case for mohawked elves and such. 

The bottom line is that 1ed art is not "fine art". It was decent art that suited the game it accompanied. It was no more accomplished than that of any other edition. Frankly there hasn't been any convincing argument made to disprove that any of this "magic" of 1ed art is anything more than personal opinion.


----------



## Ourph (Dec 20, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> _Stigmatize_? Have you been in a big-box bookstore lately? Go look at their graphic novel section. It's huge and it's almost all manga. Younger people - you know, the people that are going to perpetuate the hobby - are going to look at manga-inspired art as something mainstream and normal. This isn't a flash in the pan fad anymore; big-box retailers don't waste that much shelf space on something that doesn't sell well and sell consistantly.




If you go back and look at my previous posts (the two before the one you quoted) I think you'll see that I agree with you 100%.  "Stigmatize" here is used in the sense that Numion (the person I was responding to with that comment) seems to be suggesting that if artwork appeals to kids that it's somehow bad for adults to like it.  Numion suggests Otus's artwork stigmatized D&D ca. 1980 as a "kids" game.  I'm suggesting that the current artwork does much more to appeal directly to kids by introducing elements from other media that are already popular with them (manga) than Erol Otus did 30 years ago when he was producing artwork that had no relationship with the artwork you were likely to see in popular kid culture at the time.  If you have a problem with the word "stigmatize", take it up with Numion; he was the one who suggested that liking artwork that appeals to kids is somehow immature.

I also agree with you that introducing elements of artwork from other genres is good for the hobby.  I don't particularly like manga, but I'd rather see SOME variety (no matter what the source) than see a continuation of the self-referential, bland, processed artwork that has dominated WotC's books for the last 6 years.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 20, 2006)

I think someone else touched on this earlier, but I wanted to say looking over the wizards art page...  While I DO like a lot of 3e artwork, what bugs me is the lack of backgrounds... 

The pictures tend to be closeups of characters or things, with little to no backgrounds... 

While the pictures look good, to me a good background really brings a character to life. 


I kind of wonder if this was done as sort of part of the whole less fluff more crunch in 3rd edition idea...  

Like they don't want to tell you that your fantasy world has to be like "x" they also don't want to show you that either?  

Seems like in 3e artwork is used in a more illustrative way, as opposed to in yesterditions, when it seemed more like it was being used to set a mood?

But then again maybe it only feels this way to me because of the captions people mention? So as opposed to my looking at the picture and using my imagination to tell me what is happening, there's a nice little caption that says here's what's happening! So the story (short as it might be) is told FOR me, rather then by me...

Shrug. I dunno, I'ma just ramblin...


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> The pictures tend to be closeups of characters or things, with little to no backgrounds...
> 
> While the pictures look good, to me a good background really brings a character to life.
> 
> I kind of wonder if this was done as sort of part of the whole less fluff more crunch in 3rd edition idea...




The design and layout people on the board might be able to shed some light on this. I would _think _ it's because most of the illustrations are placed in the middle of the text and text that wraps tightly around the picture tends to look more interesting. Anything but a simple background probably makes the page look too 'busy'. The large full page plates tend to have better and more detailed backgrounds.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 20, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The design and layout people on the board might be able to shed some light on this. I would _think _ it's because most of the illustrations are placed in the middle of the text and text that wraps tightly around the picture tends to look more interesting. Anything but a simple background probably makes the page look too 'busy'. The large full page plates tend to have better and more detailed backgrounds.





I can understand that being the reason, and I'm not saying ALL of the 3e artwork has no background work, I guess maybe because there's a lot more illustrative art like this in 3e then there was in previous editions, a majority of it gets kind of boring to me... But that's just personal opinion. 

I don't see quite as many full page plates in 3e it seems... But maybe I'm just being forgetful?

One of my favorite paintings was in the 2e players.. the opening shot of the adventurers displaying their trophy dragon...

It wasn't really illustrating anything particular in the area it was in... The next page didn't really describe dragon hunting or anything... But (for me at least) it really set the mood...  

Here was a world similar to mine but magical. Where people show off trophy dragons instead of fish... 

And because the background was so detailed, it made me feel that these characters were but a part of a larger whole... so there was room for more adventuring groups with trophy dragons... room for me.

But I'm biased I guess because elmore is one of my favorites.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 20, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> One of my favorite paintings was in the 2e players.. the opening shot of the adventurers displaying their trophy dragon...
> 
> It wasn't really illustrating anything particular in the area it was in... The next page didn't really describe dragon hunting or anything... But (for me at least) it really set the mood...
> 
> ...




What I also liked was that it wasn't a big dragon at all, but you could tell that they fight like hell to bag it. Kinda like what you do at low levels, it was cool.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> It is my impression that you say that the pictures in the PH don't convey a sense of the people in the pictures being in a seriously threatening situation, thereby implying that no harm can befall pcs.




It's a bit more than that.  In expression, posture, and placement, the PCs are in a dominant position in the 3.0 PHB pictures as well.  There is not only a sense that they are not seriously threatened; there is a sense in each of the illustrations that they are well equipped and able to handle anything they are depicted as encountering.  There is no indication whatsoever that the situation is ever out of control, nor is there any indication that the PCs lack information.

However, in the DMG, there is a large number of illustrations depicting the PCs or other adventurers in situations that are out of control, or in which they lack important information about their surroundings which the viewer is privy to.

The fact that they are armed, IMHO, is a message to the viewer that they are planning to, about to, or even in some cases in the middle of engaging in a situation in which arms are required.  However, in fantasy novels, television, film, video games, and role-playing games, there is no direct relationship between the use of arms and necessarily being seriously threatened.  In all of these media arms are used to intimidate, control situations, and cut through mooks.  

A 20th level fighter in any edition might use a sword to eliminate a dire (giant) rat.  Han Solo might use a blaster to intimidate some storm troopers.  Indiana Jones might use his whip to disarm a betraying henchman.  These things do not mean that they are seriously theatened.  Uther Pendragon may lay with Ygraine wearing full plate mail (?!?).  Lancelot may joust with lesser knights.  A cop might wear riot gear when breaking up a peaceful rally.  These things do not mean that they are seriously threatened.

If Joe Commoner is vexed by goblins, an adventuring party might slay the goblins with big axes and flashy spells -- this doesn't mean it was challenging.

Again, either you are setting the bar for "seriously threatened" very much lower than I am, or you are far cleverer in terms of your analysis.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> While the pictures look good, to me a good background really brings a character to life.




IMHO, backround in illustration is used primarily to supply context of the central figure(s) (unless, of course, the picture is itself a landscape, and even these seem most often to focus on one or more portions of the visible scene).  Therefore, when producing artwork the importance of background is directly related to the importance of context.

The pictures in the DMG seem to have more fleshed out backgrounds in some cases; I imagine that this is related to the importance of context to action in adventure/world design.

I think your other observations may also be spot on.

RC


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 20, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> You call _those _ huge ears? Whatever.
> 
> THESE are huge ears.... Dragon Magazine, 1981



Since those are goblinoids (probably bugbears), the huge ears are appropriate.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 20, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Why should it look like Gimli? I can't see how it is a bad thing that it doesn't. That dwarf looks like it would be far more capable in combat than many other renditions I've seen.



That dwarf looks more like some kind of clay golem than an actual demihuman. Even the non-traditional dwarves of Dark Sun had better proportioned bodies in illustrations.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 20, 2006)

Heh, funny...people are still following this troll deeper into the dungeon? And nobody has brought any torches or acid, either. Must be the spirit of the season or something.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 20, 2006)

> The bottom line is that 1ed art is not "fine art". It was decent art that suited the game it accompanied. It was no more accomplished than that of any other edition. Frankly there hasn't been any convincing argument made to disprove that any of this "magic" of 1ed art is anything more than personal opinion.




Word.

I do enjoy those black-and-white images above, but they're ornate woodblocks. They'd be useful for images that the characters may see, but they don't do a lot for illustrative purposes. I see a lot more illustrative artwork in 3e -- showing you how things would kind of actually look in the game world -- and I think this is a good thing. I'd still probably like to see the occasional woodblock-style item, but when the pagecount is limited and you're introducing new concepts, I can't fault them for going with a more illustrative style.



> It's a bit more than that. In expression, posture, and placement, the PCs are in a dominant position in the 3.0 PHB pictures as well. There is not only a sense that they are not seriously threatened; there is a sense in each of the illustrations that they are well equipped and able to handle anything they are depicted as encountering. There is no indication whatsoever that the situation is ever out of control, nor is there any indication that the PCs lack information.




The only reason a hero suffers a setback is to show their heroism in overcoming it. If they don't overcome it, if the situation is out of control and they can't dominate the situation, they aren't heroes, they're meatbags. In a game of heroic fantasy, the archetypes and expectations are that you will  be the heroes. The heroes are shown being heroic in various ways to encourage the players to be heroic, too. Jumping into the mouth of a dragon might not always be instantly deadly becaue this is a game of heroism, not of character-slaughter.  Heroes will encounter trouble, and they may die, but the trouble is there to be overcome, and the death is there to make room for the next hero. The villains may gain victories, but the good guys win. 

If it works for Lord of the Rings, for Paradise Lost, for 90% of narrative writing, why shouldn't it work for D&D? I mean, it's not a game of tragedy or comedy or postmodernism...the message of the game is "Be a hero, wield the magic, slay the villain, save the day." It's a good message for the core books to have, and the artwork does tell that same message.

That Otus cover shows the same message. Those black-and-white woodblocks, while beautiful, don't really communicate very clearly (the first one seems to be saying "this game has ornate cities and Moses and Lizardfolk," the second one seems to be saying "dancing by the lake can bring a dragon with a halo up from the deapths"). Even the picture of Vaan says "this character is easygoing and young," and the picture of the Malebranche says "this scary monster will effin' kill you."

This pic of Devis and Jozan from Cityscape?





It says "tragedy happens, and your cleric friend will be there to console you."



> Since those are goblinoids (probably bugbears), the huge ears are appropriate.




How can you tell? It looks kind of like a girl in a bad '80's anthropomorphic animal cartoon.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 20, 2006)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Since those are goblinoids (probably bugbears), the huge ears are appropriate.




The cover has characters from the comic running in Dragon at the time, Pinsom, which was about elves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 20, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The only reason a hero suffers a setback is to show their heroism in overcoming it. If they don't overcome it, if the situation is out of control and they can't dominate the situation, they aren't heroes, they're meatbags.




From a literary point of view, setbacks exist to be overcome.  However, RPGs aren't literature.  The outcome of a story is determined by the author.  The outcome of a RPG session is determined by the interaction of the DM, the players, and random chance (dice).  From the point of view of an RPG, the PCs are the protagonists, and hence the heroes of the story, but there is no certainty that they will overcome the situations they face.

I don't accept that one is either a hero or a meatbag.  Conan might have to run from a group of pictish hunters, but he can still come out on top when the situation changes.  Luke Skywalker can get whacked by a wompa and suffer from exposure until rescued.  Heroes can fail in D&D (and in real life) and still be heroes. 



> the message of the game is "Be a hero, wield the magic, slay the villain, save the day." It's a good message for the core books to have, and the artwork does tell that same message.




I agree that the artwork in the PHB does tell that same message.  Although I worded it a bit differently, it is essentially the same.  What I pointed out is that the artwork in the DMG conveys a different message.  If they mixed those pictures up a bit between the books, the message would be more consistent.  And, I think, some people would have reacted better to the art on initial viewing (I include myself in this demographic).

Whether it's a good message I leave for wiser heads than mine to determine.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 21, 2006)

> From a literary point of view, setbacks exist to be overcome. However, RPGs aren't literature. The outcome of a story is determined by the author. The outcome of a RPG session is determined by the interaction of the DM, the players, and random chance (dice). From the point of view of an RPG, the PCs are the protagonists, and hence the heroes of the story, but there is no certainty that they will overcome the situations they face.




I dunno 'bout you, but I've never introduced a threat to the party that they weren't expected to fight and resist and usually win against. Sometimes they won't (that's what makes it a game, after all), but then one or two people die and one or two more people join up and they try again with a different approach (which might be harder now that they've failed once), and THEN they overcome. Even in playing the game, the party eventually prevails. It might not be the same party as when it started, it might not be against the same force that they were fighting at first, but the game only continues as long as the heroes keep fighting evil, and they can't fight evil if they're dead. 

In other words, individual heroes may fail (like Jozan's friend, or Devis in that Cityscape picture, or Lidda with her blackened face), but this just spurs another enemy to overcome. Now resurrected, Jozan's friend goes off to become a beet farmer, and then Krusk joins the party, and then Jozan goes and gets a little vengeance. Devis's Den may burn down, but you know he's going to find the bastards who did this and find out why and get to the bottom of this mystery. 



> I agree that the artwork in the PHB does tell that same message. Although I worded it a bit differently, it is essentially the same. What I pointed out is that the artwork in the DMG conveys a different message. If they mixed those pictures up a bit between the books, the message would be more consistent. And, I think, some people would have reacted better to the art on initial viewing (I include myself in this demographic).




Well, the artwork in the PHB is supposed to spur players onto heroic action. The artwork in the DMG is supposed to spur DMs to diabolical challenges and help them motivate villans. They serve different purposes, I think. 



> Whether it's a good message I leave for wiser heads than mine to determine.




It's what the game is. Heck, it's what is has been since the dawn of the dungeon. What else should it be?


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 21, 2006)

I've been thinking more and more on this discussion, and got to thinking about how I viewed fantasy art when I first really started playing D&D. For me, it was the early 90s, and yeah, I got a lot of ideas for the look from my brother's old D&D books *but* I was also an avid Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest (including the cartoon show) fan, and was one of the "groundfloor" Final Fantasy players (painstakingly handtracing one of the Japanese illustrations of one of the characters and saying "that's what my dude looks like!") as well. At the time at no point was I, an early teen, sitting around thinking "Gee, golly. I'll never want to play 2E because their just doesn't look like anime. No one understands me!" It was all fantasy art, it all dudes with swords and wizards and monsters and castles n' s***. 

Did everyone I game with grok that stuff? Hell no, but what did I care? The game was/is all in my head, and I could picture it however the hell I felt like, and it ended up being a mish-mash of everything I liked: Frazetta dudes, Otus and Sutherland corridors and weirdness, Akira Toriyama-style wide-eyed 1st level fighters, Tony DiTerlizzi tieflings, and Elmore art, and on and on.

I think it's all good in my opinion. One thing we should take in mind is the permanence of media and the saturation thereof. There's no reason why anyone would *not* have John Milius's _Conan the Barbarian_ in mind and have *only* Harry Potter, Pokemon, and Final Fantasy in mind. It's all out there. They haven't disappered in the Great Abyss of Dead Media.

I'm rambling, but I have to boil it down: Why the hand-wringing?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E)




Hmm....












Naww...you're probably right.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Anyone who can't see the difference between 1E and 3E art (when litterly the first 4 illustrated pictures that popped up on a google search are classic examples of typical 3E and D20 art in general (ie contrived, bland backgrounds, either overly muscled (all in the same fashion), or in tight cloths and too perfectly figured (ie the swimsuit model), looking at the viewer, hokey posing, lack of doing ANYTHING (with the exception of the 4th, and there just running), boring, and obviously artists who went to the same school, or who have copied each other too closely, etc. etc. etc. I could literally go on forever.




Well, let's start off by examining a few 1e notables...

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Overall I like this piece. Can't say much for the background. The characters look pretty stiff too...their poses don't seem natural to me. The efreet is so wooden looking it resembles a statue more than a monster fighting adventurers. I'd also have to label the girl in the efreet's hand as "cheesecake": she's obviously not just the "fair maiden" the party has come to rescue as she has a dagger in her hand and seems ready to use it. I guess the cheesecake isn't limited to 2ed. The efreet seems a little overly-muscled too. But I still like it, it definately suits the focus of 1ed. 

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Don't think I have much to say about this one. I guess it is kind of neat in a medieval menagerie sort of way. They all look kind of posed and contrived though...is the dragon looking right at the viewer?

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

This is my favourite of the three. Great context and mood...cool lighting. Every character is doing something interesting. Cool pick all around. 

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Hmmm...well the giant crayfish is well done. The armoured figures look pretty neat...although I'm not too sure about the larger figure's helmet. They all seem to be looking right at the viewer though...

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

This one portrays an excellent feeling of motion. The undead and the halfling look pretty good too. However, that is one _bland _background I must say...and the guy getting tackled looks pretty well muscled.

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

This is the set that got me started on D&D; my parents bought it for me at a garage sale when I was eight or so. I had no idea what D&D was and couldn't grasp the rules. The pictures were cool and scary though. This cover piece was great and IMO pretty much says "Dungeons and Dragons" (even if it didn't *literally* say it right above    ).

Some pretty neat pics there. But they seem to display many of the weaknesses you claim are so rampant in 2ed and 3ed art. Give me a few mins to see if I can find anything to prove otherwise.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 21, 2006)

Darth, that elf's ear (in the archer illo)  is huge compared to 1E.  And his eye is heavily tilted.  

Look, the 3E art message  I posted was meant for one person in particular who kept pushing for examples.  If things look one way to me...they just do, same for you.  Art critique can only be pushed so far before its a matter of opinion (as in, whats stiff, whats not). 
I don't think your going to "get" what I'm talking about in those examples, because we are just different.  


WAYNE, your example of big eared elves (or whatever they are) is a commical spoof, not serious stuff.  And, ironically its very similar to stuff you see in 3E proportion wise.


----------



## Pants (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Darth, that elf's ear (in the archer illo)  is huge compared to 1E.  And his eye is heavily tilted.



That's not what Darth was responding to though. It wasn't an 'ear examination piece' it was 'The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E)' part that was being compared.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Art critique can only be pushed so far before its a matter of opinion (as in, whats stiff, whats not).




And that is pretty much what I am getting at; many times in this thread I've seen subjective *opinion* presented as objective *critique*. The size of an elf's ears don't speak even one whit to the quality of a piece of art. The claim was presented that the rough, amateurish style of 1ed art was part of it's appeal and was likely purposeful. It was also claimed that in 2ed and 3ed the technical proficiency of the artists was a weakness. 1e art was compared to fine art while 2ed and 3ed art was called commercial and soulless. This not only attempted to set up an unassailable argument (1ed weaknesses=strengths, 2ed/3ed strengths=weaknesses) but simultaneously managed to come off as condescending and insulting to fans of 2ed/3ed art. I posted those pictures to show that it is dangerous to speak in absolutes about something so broad as the artwork of an entire edition. Art is art; any given piece can exhibit the strengths and flaws you speak of regardless of edition. As RC pointed out, the main thing you can critique them on is whether or not they effectively portray the theme or focus of their respective edition. That's a discussion worth having IMO.

I'll admit that people came in initially to this thread and attributed all of the "magic" of 1ed art to pure nostalgia; I'll also admit that I mostly shared that opinion at first. Your (and others') arguments to the contrary managed to convince me to give 1ed art another shake and made me realize that it isn't pure nostalgia, that quality works were done in that era. But honestly, you could have done that without sniping at the art of other editions.

That's what has gotten me so involved in this thread. If only I could apply this much energy and focus to stuff that actually matters.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

If everyone will indulge my lengthy posting one more time, I'd like to post a few pieces from 2ed/3ed that I think are dynamic, detailed, feature compelling backgrounds and don't fall into the "dungeonpunk" stigma. I'm sure flaws can be found with each, and they won't be everyone's cup of tea, but here they are...

Mr. Lockwood

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Mr. Elmore (edit...I suppose this is actually considered 1ed art no? But it is Elmore so cut me some slack...   )

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Mr. O'Connor

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Mr. Reynolds

[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]

Mr. Brom


[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2006)

Hey, where's that William O'Connor one from?


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hey, where's that William O'Connor one from?




City of Ravens according to his website.


----------



## Melan (Dec 21, 2006)

[off]Darth Soju: I always thought the fighter on the colour Hommlet cover was a woman. Judging by the legs, anyway.   [/off]


----------



## Hussar (Dec 21, 2006)

Meh, if you want to compare apples to apples, howzabout:

The cover to the Keep on the Borderlands]






to this:






I dunno about you, but I know which one speaks to me more.  

RC:  I would say that WOTC has learned from its past.  Looking at the last year or two's releases, there's been some absolutely gorgeous books come out of WOTC that have addressed exactly what you are talking about - the idea that the PC's are invincible.  Look at the difference between the PHB and PHB II and they are just worlds apart.

On the idea of 1e art that was great, for my money it was the Fiend Folio.  And this speaks in some ways to what RC was going on about as well.  The monsters in the original FF were just bloody scarey.  And they were doing BAD things to PC's.  I've a feeling that a lot of the love for Githyanki comes from the illo's in that book.  While I may or may not love every critter in that book, I always thought they were FAR more scary than the Monster Manual just because of the illo's.


----------



## RFisher (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Fisher, I was responding to a claim that one could tell if an artists was a hobbiest or professional by looking at their work.  I was simply pointing out thats not always that easy (some may truely be "amatures" while others might be masters that just paint in a similar style...perhaps to capture a mood better then extreme realism can.




OK. & I was responding to that to say that whether you can or cannot is moot; it's only the work itself & what it communicates to you that matters.

(BTW, when someone quotes you, sometimes it's just to springboard off your comment & carry the discussion forward.)



			
				ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> It's from the back cover of White Plume Mountain, the later printing that was in color. It's of a suspiciously Melnibonean-looking dude wielding Blackrazor, a sword that appears in the module.




Which explains why I'd not seen it. I suspected it was from a module since I never had (or played) many modules.

Having said that I never cared too much for Dee, I feel I should cite one work of his I've always liked: The halflings & human in the 1981 D&D Expert book.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill.




Well, my experience is the opposite. The younger me had a harder time appreciating Picasso, Dali, Mondrian, & Otus than the older me. Also, there's a _lot_ of children's books in my house these days, & I don't think I'd call any of them similar to Otus.

(I hope I'm never old enough, however, to appreciate Jackson Pollock. (^_~))


----------



## Maggan (Dec 21, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, either you are setting the bar for "seriously threatened" very much lower than I am, or you are far cleverer in terms of your analysis.




Before I head off to my parents for christmas vacation, I'd like to point out that this is not about being "clever". Each and everyone has a lot of baggage with us when judging a picture.

I have my experiences, and you have yours. This will colour our interpretations in ways we cannot measure, or in ways we are not even aware of. You have your preconceived notions about 3e, and I have mine. And about 1e. These will colour our interpretations. As will our previous gaming history. Eg, I worked on Kult as a writer, a game where subtle hints conveyed major threats, both in setting, writing and illustrations. Nothing was ever what it seemed and something innocent could at any time turn out to be gut wrenching horror. I also worked on Mutant Chronicles, where everything was always what it seemed; gut wrenching action packed horror, or brooding darkness. Nothing subtle about it. And so my experiences differ from your.

Also, you started with 1e (I guess), and I started with D&D red box by Elmore. We even have to take into consideratin how you formulated you theory and what you wanted to find (consciously or subconsciously), as well as how I have reacted to your analysis (consciously or subconsciously).And so on so forth.

So this is not a contest to see who's the most clever image interpreter here (at least not for me). You asked questions about how we interpret pictures, I responded how I intrepret pictures.

/M


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 21, 2006)

Darth S:  "The size of an elf's ears don't speak even one whit to the quality of a piece of art."   Your right it doesn't.  The problem with the ears being that large on elves is that "many" of us don't picture elves that way in D&D.  We picture elves, more or less, the way they are depicted in 1E, or the LOTR movies, or any other number of sources. 

Normally giant ears wouldn't be a big deal, but when the player is forced (through consistancy of the art) to accept that this is the new look of D&D elves....well....its just a huge turn off to me and many others (I'm not the first or the last to notice).  Same goes for the hugely proportioned fighters and dwarves,  with tiney squarish heads w/snarly faces and roided out bodies, or guys running around with modern hair cuts, soul patches or tattoos.  Its cheeky and created to get a pop, rather then truely represent what the player is supposed to be seeing in their imagination. Or at least I don't think thats what the vast majority people see, (based on the depiction of elves and dwarves in the LOTR movies, I'd say 1E proportions and armor and dress are still favored by most.)

So, is one kind of style or art superior to another.  No.  But you can make comments on what is depicted, does it set the mood, does it help you picture the world your playing in.  Does the art do its job in that way?

Your right though, you can't say one editions art is "better" then another, BUT a bunch of guys can jump online and talk about what we did like "better" about one over the other.  And you can jump in and disagree.  Thats mature and intellegent.   And its fine that you picture the world you play in populated with elves with huge ears, and dwarves that look like ticks (little squinty heads and enormously muscular bodies), and that everyone is dressed so kewl.   But, if that bugs you as well about your favorite game, there's nothing wrong in saying so.  You can still prefer 3E, but at the same time, prefer 1E artwork.      So, please don't see this as an edition war, its not.  Its simply a thread about what we like and don't like about D&D art as a whole.   Any how, there is another thread talking about what is great about 3E artwork.

I'd argue 3E and 3.5 artwork does score an A+ when it comes to delivering what the publishers want.  It grabs the attention of "the right" viewers who might otherwise pass their products up.  It also attracts the video game and computer crowd, a much larger market.
And who knows, without that art would WOTC sold near as many books?  Would AD&D 1E have completely faded away if it wasn't for the popularity of 3E (which is partly derived from the effects of its artwork)?   Ironic in a way, isn't it.   

But, just because 3E artwork delivers in the marketing department, doesn't mean its suited as the best "portal" to another world.  I think 1E did just the opposite.  Its artwork created a portal that we all could relate to (because its pretty conservative/generic fantasy really), but it failed to deliver the POP to capture the "right" people, the ones wth the right buying habits, and it failed to be supportive of an expanding growth philosophy as new products reached into broader markets and "lines" were created (ie, creating sagas like Dragonlance, etc.).


----------



## Scribble (Dec 21, 2006)

I also wonder if the artwork from 1e looked somewhat the way it did (and I'm not saying it was bad as I like a lot of 1e artwork) due to printing costs.

I mean back in the day 4 color art was like WHOA! 4 Color artwork!

So I wonder if Otis kept his pieces a lot of times somewhat "cell shaded" looking in order to cut down on amount of colors/ink/cost?


Also that Reynolds piece posted above has got to be one of the higherups on my list of 3e artwork. Especially with the issue of dragon it was on... really made me want to write a few city adventures!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 21, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I dunno 'bout you, but I've never introduced a threat to the party that they weren't expected to fight and resist and usually win against.




Then you aren't following the guidelines in the DMG, where a percentage of encounters should be with creatures that are beyond the party's means to simply fight and resist and win against.  

Myself, I follow a design philosophy that says "If epic creatures are in the world when the PCs are epic levels, it follows that epic creatures are in the world when the PCs are 1st level."  I have no problem whatsoever with introducing creatures that the players should realize are beyond their characters' means to deal with.  Likewise, when I have the King deny the PCs something that they want, this doesn't mean that I expect the PCs to fight, resist, and defeat the King.

Mind you, I don't prevent them from _trying_.  Just because I think something would be hellishly difficult doesn't mean that the PCs won't be hellishly clever in overcoming that difficulty.

The point is, when I run a game, the outcome is not predetermined.  The PCs may win.  They may fail.  That is up to the players, their cleverness, their tactics, and their luck.



> Well, the artwork in the PHB is supposed to spur players onto heroic action. The artwork in the DMG is supposed to spur DMs to diabolical challenges and help them motivate villans. They serve different purposes, I think.




I agree that the artwork was intended to serve different purposes.  What I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 21, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> RC:  I would say that WOTC has learned from its past.  Looking at the last year or two's releases, there's been some absolutely gorgeous books come out of WOTC that have addressed exactly what you are talking about - the idea that the PC's are invincible.  Look at the difference between the PHB and PHB II and they are just worlds apart.





Me too.  I said so in my first post on this thread.  

I feel that the art-as-depicted in the PHB & DMG was specifically designed to (1) pull new players into the PHB, (2) counter the most common complaints (see the WotC marketing data) of previous editions in the PHB, and (3) pull DMs of older editions into the new edition with the DMG.  Much of the art in the MM is absolutely solid.....though there are a few pieces where I prefer earlier editions and/or the artwork was obviously done prior to the final completion of the text, and the text/artwork were not in sync.

That said, I think that the observations I have made above affect the initial message that some viewers have gained from 3e art, and that perceived message has colored their view of some of the later work (much as the message of the better pieces from earlier editions might make one overlook the flaws of other, weaker pieces).


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 21, 2006)

Maggan said:
			
		

> Before I head off to my parents for christmas vacation, I'd like to point out that this is not about being "clever".




I merely give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are seeing some subtle (but actual) indications from the artwork that I cannot see.

And, have a good vacation.



> Each and everyone has a lot of baggage with us when judging a picture.




I feel certain that this is true.  Yet I also feel certain that some interpretation of art is more valid than others.  When, for example, one looks at The Scream and sees a man in pain, anxiety, or fear, that seems to me a more likely interpretation than seeing a message that apples are tasty.

Likewise, I do not expect that the average person flipping through a PHB (or any book, for that matter) is going to assume that nothing is what it seems, and that innocent objects should induce gut-wrenching horror, _unless there is something that clearly indicates that this is the case_.  IMHO, the message conveyed by successful artwork should be examined first in light of the _most common_ shared background of the society creating it, rather than the most esoteric.  Especially when one creates art to be used in marketing.

My thesis related to the PHB/DMG art not only acknowledges that expected and pereceived messages conveyed by art may alter the way one views art; it says that exactly.  

(And, BTW, I started with the Blue Box, and have played every edition.)


RC


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Darth S:  "The size of an elf's ears don't speak even one whit to the quality of a piece of art."   Your right it doesn't.  The problem with the ears being that large on elves is that "many" of us don't picture elves that way in D&D.  We picture elves, more or less, the way they are depicted in 1E, or the LOTR movies, or any other number of sources.




Fair enough. 



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> ...or guys running around with modern hair cuts, soul patches or tattoos.




Hey I dislike the "dungeonpunk" effect as much as the next guy when it rears its head. I just don't feel it is as prevalent in 3ed as some people claim. I don't have a problem with tattoos though as those have been around in real world history for a long time. 



			
				tx7321 said:
			
		

> So, is one kind of style or art superior to another.  No.  But you can make comments on what is depicted, does it set the mood, does it help you picture the world your playing in.  Does the art do its job in that way?




Sounds close enough to a consensus to me. Like I said before, I like art from all editions (and dislike from all editions as well). One of the advantages of the modern age is that I can collect a bunch of art that I feel evokes the mood of the game I am trying to run (gathered from a variety of sources), burn them to a cd and have a clip show playing on the tv while we game. And when I want to evoke an old-school, dungeon-crawling goodness feel, I know where to look.


----------



## Qualidar (Dec 21, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> I also wonder if the artwork from 1e looked somewhat the way it did (and I'm not saying it was bad as I like a lot of 1e artwork) due to printing costs.
> 
> I mean back in the day 4 color art was like WHOA! 4 Color artwork!
> 
> So I wonder if Otis kept his pieces a lot of times somewhat "cell shaded" looking in order to cut down on amount of colors/ink/cost?



No: 4 color is 4 color. You get the whole rainbow. That was just his style. The fact that there were so many b&w illustrations would have been due to cost, though.

~Qualidar~
(Graphic Designer)


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 21, 2006)

Melan said:
			
		

> [off]Darth Soju: I always thought the fighter on the colour Hommlet cover was a woman. Judging by the legs, anyway.   [/off]




LOL could be. YMMV as it were.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 21, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> No: 4 color is 4 color. You get the whole rainbow. That was just his style. The fact that there were so many b&w illustrations would have been due to cost, though.
> 
> ~Qualidar~
> (Graphic Designer)





Shrug. I'm assuming you'd know better then I would. I just thought it was easier now to get more colors then it used to be.


----------



## Henry (Dec 21, 2006)

Qualidar said:
			
		

> No: 4 color is 4 color. You get the whole rainbow. That was just his style. The fact that there were so many b&w illustrations would have been due to cost, though.
> 
> ~Qualidar~
> (Graphic Designer)




I don't know if it's ever been this way in the printing industry, but in screen printing and such for t-shirts, you pay by the color, or you can pay for full CMYK. I have a feeling that a lot of the 1970's mono- and duo-chromatic stuff had something to do with printing costs. Later modules in the early 80's saw a dramatic shift in print quality.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 21, 2006)

Don't knock cost constraints.  Some of the best television and movies were made on shoe string budgets.  And they likely wouldn't have been nearly as good if they had bigger budgets.  The original Star Trek is a good example. 

If the reason TSR didn't have color interiors was cost, then I'm glad they didn't have the money to do it "better".  B&W is still chosen over color btw even when the costs are identical.  Color has its place, but with things like monster interior artwork for a game like AD&D 1E your probably better off with B&W (giving the viewer enough to get the jist, but allowing them to "color it" with thier imaginations.

Darth, it sounds like were pretty much in agreement then.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 21, 2006)

tx7321 said:
			
		

> Don't knock cost constraints.  Some of the best television and movies were made on shoe string budgets.  And they likely wouldn't have been nearly as good if they had bigger budgets.  The original Star Trek is a good example.
> 
> If the reason TSR didn't have color interiors was cost, then I'm glad they didn't have the money to do it "better".  B&W is still chosen over color btw even when the costs are identical.  Color has its place, but with things like monster interior artwork for a game like AD&D 1E your probably better off with B&W (giving the viewer enough to get the jist, but allowing them to "color it" with thier imaginations.
> 
> Darth, it sounds like were pretty much in agreement then.




Oh I'm not saying something is better just because it cost more. I'm simply wondering if the style he chose to work in was partially influenced by cost factor.

Like if you were an indy film maker you might make an awesome movie, but most likely it won't have a huge amount of special effects.

Whereas if you had a huge multi million dollar budget maybe you would flex your muscles a bit and pull out the special effects...

Doesn't make either of the movies better, just a different style of storytelling...


thats all I meant.


----------



## Numion (Dec 21, 2006)

RFisher said:
			
		

> Well, my experience is the opposite. The younger me had a harder time appreciating Picasso, Dali, Mondrian, & Otus than the older me. Also, there's a _lot_ of children's books in my house these days, & I don't think I'd call any of them similar to Otus.




There's something common to _all_ four you listed, and it's not artistic skill  

The real connector is that none of those would make for good fantasy illustration. Wait, scratch that, Dali probably would. Mondrians works could be a basis for a random dungeon _map_ (no disrespect to his art).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 21, 2006)

> Then you aren't following the guidelines in the DMG, where a percentage of encounters should be with creatures that are beyond the party's means to simply fight and resist and win against.
> 
> Myself, I follow a design philosophy that says "If epic creatures are in the world when the PCs are epic levels, it follows that epic creatures are in the world when the PCs are 1st level." I have no problem whatsoever with introducing creatures that the players should realize are beyond their characters' means to deal with. Likewise, when I have the King deny the PCs something that they want, this doesn't mean that I expect the PCs to fight, resist, and defeat the King.
> 
> ...




You missunderstand me. I didn't say an *encounter* the PC's couldn't eventually overcome, I said a *threat*. Individual encounters are a game element, and thus a randomization of their challenge is an appealing trait. Threats are a campaign, story-building element, and thus their existence is only a measure of what the PC's are motivated to try and stop.

Yes, there are epic dragons flying around. But the suggestion remains that if the PC's want to kill an epic dragon, they probably can, once they have powerful enough characters. Not that there won't be things beyond that dragon that they can't kill, too.


----------



## atomn (Dec 21, 2006)

Generally speaking, I think the 1st Ed. artwork pretty terrible.  Not because it's black and white, I just dislike the style most of the pictures have.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 21, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You missunderstand me. I didn't say an *encounter* the PC's couldn't eventually overcome, I said a *threat*.





IME, the difference between "encounter" and "threat" is just a shade less likely to be PC action than DM action.  I have no problem whatsoever with a threat to which the response is either "run away" or "ignore it" (although those are not always successful solutions!).

As a DM, I present environment and situation, then allow the players to create story through their interactions with the same.  Some threats exist as part of the campaign world simply because they are necessary to make the campaign world feel like it should.  For example, the multiple collapses that occurred in Selby-by-the-Water make people lock their doors at night and draw circles of salt around their beds in the inn.  They fear undead, and with fairly good reason.  This is a threat that the PCs might explore, might not explore, might overcome, or might be overcome by.

There are many, many threats of various natures in my world.  No one is expected to deal with them all....or even know that they all exist.

This is a different playstyle, of course, than the one you are espousing.  I would suggest that it was the playstyle 1e and earlier D&D catered to, whereas what you are describing really began with the Dragonlance modules, was momentarily derailed by the 2e modules (many of which were so focused on the world that they constrained the PCs too much, IMHO), and is currently alive and well in 3e.

(This is pretty far from the artwork discussion now, though.)

I think that, for the most part, illustrations can be said to snapshot discrete encounters, rather than huge campaign arcs.  There are a few exceptions, such as the border illustrations in the 1e DMG that show characters meeting various monsters from kobolds through trolls and to the big haul at the end.

Again, what I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.



RC


----------



## Scribble (Dec 21, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, what I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.




Just makes me think of a lot of highly competative people... Picture a boxer just getting started in the sport, ready to take on the champ as soon as possible. The image of Tordek in the PHB is sort of how he see's himself. "I'm the greatest!"

So Tordek and pals, fresh new adventurers rush into the fight big heads and everything, ready to take out a mere dragon, cause they're awesome...

Only to be whalloped a fair bit, where they end up in the picture in the DMG.

"Oh man... I need to train a bit more before I fight the dragon/clubber lang..."

But eventually ol bigheaded tordek n' crew will be back, because thats how competative people are. 

Adventurers wouldn't be adventurers if they didn't see themselves as possibly better then they are, and quit after the first "defeat."


----------



## Numion (Dec 21, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Again, what I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.




Since actually _reading_ the books is a common step between flipping through the book and looking at the pictures in the store, and actually playing the game .. what do you think will happen? Some immense clash of playing styles because of two pictures?

Add to this that dragons of the size portrayed in the pics will most likely be encountered after the DM and players both have several sessions under their belts. Additionally, an adventurer ending up in the dragons mouth is usually initiated by the _dragon_, not the adventurer. The pic just gives the impression that you can continue fighting from that position if you're lucky.


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 22, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> If everyone will indulge my lengthy posting one more time, I'd like to post a few pieces from 2ed/3ed that I think are dynamic, detailed, feature compelling backgrounds and don't fall into the "dungeonpunk" stigma. I'm sure flaws can be found with each, and they won't be everyone's cup of tea, but here they are...
> 
> Mr. Lockwood
> 
> ...




I've always been quick to scorn 3E art, but after seeing these three pics in particular I'll refrain from anymore broad, sweeping statements. Those are some amazing pictures.

Of course, it still begs the question, why couldn't there have been more art like that in the PHB and DMG?


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 22, 2006)

replicant2 said:
			
		

> I've always been quick to scorn 3E art, but after seeing these three pics in particular I'll refrain from anymore broad, sweeping statements. Those are some amazing pictures.
> 
> Of course, it still begs the question, why couldn't there have been more art like that in the PHB and DMG?




Huh? One's from Dungeon magazine, the other's a Dark Sun cover painting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 22, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> Since actually _reading_ the books is a common step between flipping through the book and looking at the pictures in the store, and actually playing the game .. what do you think will happen? Some immense clash of playing styles because of two pictures?





What do I think will happen?  Depends upon the individuals.  It depends, for example, on whether or not the players have read the book or skimmed it while making their characters because they someone helping them (or simply used the CD in the PHB to generate them).  It isn't my contention that reading _isn't_ a common step, but I would certainly say that _not really reading_ is an equally common step.  I know people who play 3e, but haven't actually read the core books because they found them "too dry".

(Obviously not best practice!    )

However, that said, the contention is not that no one will read the books, or that no one upon reading the books will be unable to differentiate between the art and the substance of the rules, but rather that for some people the implications of the art -- and especially the dichotomous implications between the PHB and DMG -- are off-putting, and hence color how they view 3e art.

I know that this is true in my case, and that it took me quite a while to fairly judge the pictures in the new edition.  I suspect that this may be true for others as well.


RC


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 22, 2006)

Prince of Happiness said:
			
		

> Huh? One's from Dungeon magazine, the other's a Dark Sun cover painting.




My point was that the art in the PH and DMG is not this good, and I wish it was.


----------



## Set (Dec 22, 2006)

I miss the little joke pictures "It's either a backscratcher +2 or..." and pretty much anything by Erol Otus (and all the boobies, gosh, there were lots of topless monster-babes...).  But it's mostly nostalgia.

But for beautiful or powerful art, nothing from 1e can compare with the glorious stuff Wayne Reynolds is pumping out for Eberron, or that amazing Elmore picture of Laurana standing over Sturm's corpse.

Combining old-time nostalgia with really high-quality, I loved Den Beauvais' Dragon covers, of dragons fighting or that surreal chess game.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 22, 2006)

replicant2 said:
			
		

> My point was that the art in the PH and DMG is not this good, and I wish it was.




My point was that the last picture was not 3E art.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 22, 2006)

Replicant2: "My point was that the art in the PH and DMG is not this good, and I wish it was".    

Don't we all.  :\


----------



## Hussar (Dec 22, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What do I think will happen?  Depends upon the individuals.  It depends, for example, on whether or not the players have read the book or skimmed it while making their characters because they someone helping them (or simply used the CD in the PHB to generate them).  It isn't my contention that reading _isn't_ a common step, but I would certainly say that _not really reading_ is an equally common step.  I know people who play 3e, but haven't actually read the core books because they found them "too dry".
> 
> (Obviously not best practice!    )
> 
> ...




I would point out that this was a very common practice in 1e as well.  There were very, very few players who had actually read much of the rules IME, myself included now that I've been smacked around by those selfsame rules here for a while.  Pretty much every poll on Enworld dealing with the issue shows that the vast majority of 1e players played a game that was 1e in name only.

I actually think that players now are far more likely to read the PHB at the very least and many of the optional books as well simply because the books are geared towards those players and not particularly the DM.  Given the number of complaints I've seen about how players are more likely to rely on the rules rather than GM interpretation, I would say that your point is very flawed RC.


----------



## Delta (Dec 22, 2006)

Scribble said:
			
		

> But eventually ol bigheaded tordek n' crew will be back, because thats how competative people are.




You know it's funny, this really jumps out at me.

As an old gamey grognard DM, my expectation was that _most player characters will be destroyed_. Sometime, somewhere, somehow, with all the encounters the run into, the probability won't fall their way, and one way or another can't be revived, and can't come back. Just because they put themselves into so many encounters, and it's a game, and you're playing fair with the dice.

The modern expectation that they'll always come back is something I'll never wrap my head around. Different time, different game, I guess.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 22, 2006)

Claudio Pozas forever!!


----------



## Hussar (Dec 22, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> You know it's funny, this really jumps out at me.
> 
> As an old gamey grognard DM, my expectation was that _most player characters will be destroyed_. Sometime, somewhere, somehow, with all the encounters the run into, the probability won't fall their way, and one way or another can't be revived, and can't come back. Just because they put themselves into so many encounters, and it's a game, and you're playing fair with the dice.
> 
> The modern expectation that they'll always come back is something I'll never wrap my head around. Different time, different game, I guess.




Just goes to show how different people's experiences were.  Death was rarely more than an inconvenience in our 1e games.  Rings of wishes, and other goodies were held for just such an eventuality.  Maybe it's because I played almost exclusively through modules.  I know that my longest running character, a paladin, died about three, maybe four times over the course of the campaign.  We just went back to town and got him rezzed.  No biggie.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 22, 2006)

Death was not a convienance but it certainly didn't stop me from trying out new characters!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 22, 2006)

> As an old gamey grognard DM, my expectation was that most player characters will be destroyed. Sometime, somewhere, somehow, with all the encounters the run into, the probability won't fall their way, and one way or another can't be revived, and can't come back. Just because they put themselves into so many encounters, and it's a game, and you're playing fair with the dice.




I definately prefer a tendancy toward "characters don't come back only if you don't want them to." 

I mean, if I'm having fun playing Character X, why would the game force me to stop unless I wanted to?

PC's work this stuff out pretty reliably. I haven't had very many resurrections IMC's because those who die are usually happy to try out something else. But if someone's really attatched to the character, they keep it.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 22, 2006)

Claudio!


Pozas!


Rocks!


----------



## Numion (Dec 22, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> However, that said, the contention is not that no one will read the books, or that no one upon reading the books will be unable to differentiate between the art and the substance of the rules, but rather that for some people the implications of the art -- and especially the dichotomous implications between the PHB and DMG -- are off-putting, and hence color how they view 3e art.
> 
> I know that this is true in my case, and that it took me quite a while to fairly judge the pictures in the new edition.  I suspect that this may be true for others as well.




You know, I've wondered who the guys are that made it mandatory to have those disclaimers before _Jackass, SmackDown_ or even that text in the rearview mirror. Now I begin to see the big picture, and thus I would suggest a disclaimer to be included in every PHB:

_"The maneuvers and stunts you are about to see in the illustrations in this book were performed by professional adventurers of at least 10th level. Do not try this in your home game with a low level character."_​
Kidding aside, I don't that the issue you came up with is a big deal (or a deal at all). 3E's been out for 6 years, and you're the first one to point out that the pictures in DMG look more dangerous. Nobody I know noticed it or cared about it. For the average gamer , the probability of this issue mattering is:

P(It matters) = P(noticing the difference)*P(not reading the rules)*P(no game experience)

I don't know exactly, but I can guess that P(It matters) is a really small number.


----------



## Scribble (Dec 22, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> You know it's funny, this really jumps out at me.
> 
> As an old gamey grognard DM, my expectation was that _most player characters will be destroyed_. Sometime, somewhere, somehow, with all the encounters the run into, the probability won't fall their way, and one way or another can't be revived, and can't come back. Just because they put themselves into so many encounters, and it's a game, and you're playing fair with the dice.
> 
> The modern expectation that they'll always come back is something I'll never wrap my head around. Different time, different game, I guess.




True, characters don't always come back, but the players do. And the players learn the ropes of adventuring just as much as the characters do.


----------



## Rothe (Dec 22, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just goes to show how different people's experiences were.  Death was rarely more than an inconvenience in our 1e games.  Rings of wishes, and other goodies were held for just such an eventuality.  Maybe it's because I played almost exclusively through modules.  I know that my longest running character, a paladin, died about three, maybe four times over the course of the campaign.  We just went back to town and got him rezzed.  No biggie.




Exactly, we never used rings of wishes for anything else, which is why all the old rules about raising abilities with wishes baffled me.  That said, we invariably ran 2 characters each because oft someone died with little or no way to bring them back when at lower level.


----------



## replicant2 (Dec 22, 2006)

Prince of Happiness said:
			
		

> My point was that the last picture was not 3E art.




Oh, I didn't realize that. It's still an excellent drawing.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Dec 22, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> _"The maneuvers and stunts you are about to see in the illustrations in this book were performed by professional adventurers of at least 10th level. Do not try this in your home game with a low level character."_​




That would be perfect for an XCrawl game!


----------



## Delta (Dec 22, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I mean, if I'm having fun playing Character X, why would the game force me to stop unless I wanted to?




Well, let me ask the following in the spirit of exploration:

If you're having fun playing Solitaire (or Minelayer or Chess or Magic or multiplayer Starcraft), why would the game force you to stop unless you wanted to?

My attitude is that the distinct difference between a real win and loss in any game serves to develop more skillful play, and a greater sense of accomplishment on a win. Or more briefly (again from grognard-town): that's just how games work. You can win or lose. The way that RPGs have careened away from other games in that regard I don't get.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Dec 22, 2006)

> Well, let me ask the following in the spirit of exploration:
> 
> If you're having fun playing Solitaire (or Minelayer or Chess or Magic or multiplayer Starcraft), why would the game force you to stop unless you wanted to?




Well, there's the position that it DOESN'T stop me from playing unless I want to. I can always try again, and I loose nothing other than time if I don't succeed.

However, there is a huge difference when dealing with narratives and characters vs. simpler games, because I never get attatched to one particular Solitaire card or Minelayer pattern or Chess piece. I never pick the Bishop and go "I really want the bishop to win!"

When I'm playing a role, and having fun playing that role, it's not usually very constructive to make me stop playing that role just because of random chance.



> My attitude is that the distinct difference between a real win and loss in any game serves to develop more skillful play, and a greater sense of accomplishment on a win. Or more briefly (again from grognard-town): that's just how games work. You can win or lose. The way that RPGs have careened away from other games in that regard I don't get.




Well, #1, I'd say that "skillful play" is entirely dependant upon the player. Not every player WANTS to obsess over rules minutae or develop skill. I mean, I have no particular desire to become a chess master, but I can still have fun playing chess with people of similar skill levels.

And #2, I'd say that loss does not have to include character death. Designers seem to agree with me by making resurrection rather readily available (still a hassle, especially to a low-level party, but one of many options). Character failure can add to the fun by making it a tougher struggle and a more hard-won victory, but you don't have to stop playing a character you like to play in order to fail at something.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 23, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would point out that this was a very common practice in 1e as well.  There were very, very few players who had actually read much of the rules IME, myself included





True.  And there are a fair number of complaints about players not reading the rules in 3e as well.

I will certainly agree that there are "complaints I've seen about how players are more likely to rely on the rules rather than GM interpretation", but (1) I'm not sure which complaint actually occurs more, and (2) these are not mutually exclusive complaints.  It may not be uncommon to argue with rules with someone who has read them and knows them well; but if so neither is it uncommon to argue rules with someone because that person hasn't read them fully and/or doesn't understand them well.

However, my original point has nothing to do with determining the number (or percentage) of people it applies to.  My original point was merely a potential explaination for why some people might have an adverse reaction to 3.x art _where that reaction is not based upon the individual artwork_.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Dec 23, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> "The maneuvers and stunts you are about to see in the illustrations in this book were performed by professional adventurers of at least 10th level. Do not try this in your home game with a low level character."




ROTF.  Sigged.


----------



## Delta (Dec 23, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> However, there is a huge difference when dealing with narratives and characters vs. simpler games... Not every player WANTS to obsess over rules minutae or develop skill.




Well, I guess that's the difference in a nutshell: an emphasis on roleplaying over gaming (I could have also guessed it was an effect of computer games with standard save-game expectations). 

When I started playing D&D it was just another game, really (a really spectacular one). Similarly, as I player I don't want to obsess over character backstory motivation and minutiae (and yes, I get grief from some DMs for my resistance with this these days). I just want to play a game with interesting, unique challenges.


----------



## BroccoliRage (Dec 24, 2006)

I don't dislike older artwork, but I like when the newer artwork takes a break from the goofy, over the top anime style the artists currently hired are obsessed with. For instance, Heroes of Horror has some  GREAT artwork! But Unearthed Arcana (d20 Fantasy) looks stale and boring to me.


----------



## tx7321 (Dec 24, 2006)

Brocilli Rage do you like the new PPP and GG and ER "old school" covers by chance?


----------



## Mark CMG (Dec 24, 2006)

Delta said:
			
		

> I just want to play a game with interesting, unique challenges.





What sort of challenges?  I know some players who prefer roleplaing challenges and others who prefer challenges to their abilities to maximize their character's potential with regard to the game mechanics.  Do you feel you have a preference?


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 25, 2006)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Well, there's the position that it DOESN'T stop me from playing unless I want to. I can always try again, and I loose nothing other than time if I don't succeed.
> 
> However, there is a huge difference when dealing with narratives and characters vs. simpler games, because I never get attatched to one particular Solitaire card or Minelayer pattern or Chess piece. I never pick the Bishop and go "I really want the bishop to win!"
> 
> When I'm playing a role, and having fun playing that role, it's not usually very constructive to make me stop playing that role just because of random chance.



Perhaps you'd feel better playing Shoots & Ladders or Candyland . . . [/snark]


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 25, 2006)

Set said:
			
		

> But for beautiful or powerful art, nothing from 1e can compare with . . . that amazing Elmore picture of Laurana standing over Sturm's corpse.



That WAS from "1e."


----------



## Darth Shoju (Dec 25, 2006)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd feel better playing Shoots & Ladders or Candyland . . . [/snark]




Well that was unecessary.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 25, 2006)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> Well that was unecessary.



Think of it as a Knights of the Dinner Table response.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Dec 25, 2006)

Let's avoid the snark, okay?

Snarks, after all, have 200 HD and can eat you.


----------



## Delta (Dec 25, 2006)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> What sort of challenges?  I know some players who prefer roleplaing challenges and others who prefer challenges to their abilities to maximize their character's potential with regard to the game mechanics.  Do you feel you have a preference?




Neither of those. Challenges of solving puzzles and tactical encounters or strategic goals.

Perhaps it's enlightening if I say I've discovered that I greatly prefer tournament-style D&D to home campaign style.


----------

