One hole in my RPG collection is the AD&D 2E core books. At that time I was an RPG snob and felt I'd outgrown childish games like D&D and preferred more realistic systems like M.E.R.P. and Rolemaster. Well now I see the follow of my youth and would like to pick up some of the 2nd edition core books.
So i've heard the artwork/layout is better in the 1989 1st printing of the books than the Revised 1995 printing.
What say you all to that? Should I hunt ebay for the 1989 set, or just go with the recently released Premium 2E printing books?
For me the 1989 books all the way. Some people do prefer the revised, or feel the art in the 1st version was too renfaire or group photo. Personally I loved the early 2E art. Thought it was great.
1989 version. No contest.
'95 is Rob Liefeld territory, Doc Rotwang does NOT approve.
There was some art in the 2eR books that I enjoyed. I'm just so used to the original 2e books though, so I prefer those. If you can get the reprints for a good price, I think they'd be worth it. They seem well made.
2e art is so weird. Such great stuff in the setting books and monster books, such utter crap in the PHB and DMG.
Quote from: Gwarh;851582One hole in my RPG collection is the AD&D 2E core books. At that time I was an RPG snob and felt I'd outgrown childish games like D&D and preferred more realistic systems like M.E.R.P. and Rolemaster. Well now I see the follow of my youth and would like to pick up some of the 2nd edition core books.
So i've heard the artwork/layout is better in the 1989 1st printing of the books than the Revised 1995 printing.
What say you all to that? Should I hunt ebay for the 1989 set, or just go with the recently released Premium 2E printing books?
I found really great used copies of the 1989 2nd ed PHB and DMG and snapped them up. I prefer the layout, art and colors of the first printing.
I've looked online for comparison picture, but haven't been able to find any yet.
I did pick up the revised Monstrous Manual, since it's the same layout and art as the pre-revised. Just a slightly different cover. Not to be confused with the Monstrous Compendium, which is the loose-leaf binder version.
(http://940ee6dce6677fa01d25-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.r99.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/85813.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Monstrous_Manual.jpg)
As much as I like the '95 version there's just too much crap in there to justify them over the '89 ones.
Since you don't have nostalgia clouding your vision (like me) get the '89 printing.
The revised 2nd ed has a axe swinging barbarian on the PHB cover right?
Seems I totally missed this when it came out somehow.
1989. No contest.
I've only seen the '89 version but the art in that is not good. Some recycled pieces, some color pieces that look like Dragon magazine cover rejects, a lot of random gibberish that looks like it's from a clip art site (which of course it wasn't).
My guess is, all the art budget for the core books went to the Monstrous Manual
Quote from: JeremyR;851689I've only seen the '89 version but the art in that is not good. Some recycled pieces, some color pieces that look like Dragon magazine cover rejects, a lot of random gibberish that looks like it's from a clip art site (which of course it wasn't).
My guess is, all the art budget for the core books went to the Monstrous Manual
John and Laura Lakey? The almost photo-real pieces? Most, possibly all the colour plates are from either Dragon or modules. Even 5e uses retread art.
It is actually a good use of your investment. The art will be totally new to anyone who didnt get the pieces the art came in, and for the rest, some if it might have been nice to see without the text overlays. All that art is very costly, probably 250$ or more each and so you want to get some use from it.
The folk-art style pieces were just a art direction choice. Weird. But seen so much much much worse.
I don't know. I guess it is pretty subjective but I thought the color plates in the PHB and DMG rocked (with 1 or 2 exceptions). Certainly liked it better than the art in the 3E PHB and DMG. I think it was mostly a mix of Easley, Caldwell and Elmore if I recall.
There was a lot of chain mail bikini, but that was the norm then, and it was good chainmail bikini: http://www.orkerhulen.dk/Fantasy%20art/Jeff%20Easley/JeffEasley1.jpg
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;851716I don't know. I guess it is pretty subjective but I thought the color plates in the PHB and DMG rocked (with 1 or 2 exceptions). Certainly liked it better than the art in the 3E PHB and DMG. I think it was mostly a mix of Easley, Caldwell and Elmore if I recall.
There was a lot of chain mail bikini, but that was the norm then, and it was good chainmail bikini: http://www.orkerhulen.dk/Fantasy%20art/Jeff%20Easley/JeffEasley1.jpg
That was always a great pic.
Am I alone in thinking the blue interior art from the original 2E core books was mysterious and atmospheric?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;851716There was a lot of chain mail bikini, but that was the norm then, and it was good chainmail bikini: http://www.orkerhulen.dk/Fantasy%20art/Jeff%20Easley/JeffEasley1.jpg
You call a shirt a chainmail bikini? Really?
Lets take a look at the PHB.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one topless demon girl seen from behind, one arabian knights type in regular bikini top, one scantily clad sorceress,. Oh wait. There IS a topless torch hanging by chains. Close enough! Patriarchy!
Lets take a look at the DMG.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one scantily clad sorceress, the woman with her midriff bared, one woman in a metal breastplate, and one dog not wearing a collar! gasparoonies!
Sorry. No. Women wearing clothes does
not count as chainmail bikini.
Aside from the topless whatsiz in the PHB its pretty damn mundane.
One of my players says they have the revised 2e PHB somewhere, but not the DMG, so I might get to have a look at it and see how much changed. I showed him my PHB and he says they look totally different inside and out.
Quote from: Warthur;851738Am I alone in thinking the blue interior art from the original 2E core books was mysterious and atmospheric?
It definitely set a different tone. More whimsical.
Quote from: Omega;851739You call a shirt a chainmail bikini? Really?
Lets take a look at the PHB.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one topless demon girl seen from behind, one arabian knights type in regular bikini top, one scantily clad sorceress,. Oh wait. There IS a topless torch hanging by chains. Close enough! Patriarchy!
Lets take a look at the DMG.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one scantily clad sorceress, the woman with her midriff bared, one woman in a metal breastplate, and one dog not wearing a collar! gasparoonies!
Sorry. No. Women wearing clothes does not count as chainmail bikini.
Aside from the topless whatsiz in the PHB its pretty damn mundane.
One of my players says they have the revised 2e PHB somewhere, but not the DMG, so I might get to have a look at it and see how much changed. I showed him my PHB and he says they look totally different inside and out.
I'd definitely call it chainmail bikini territory. To me it just means art that is suggestive and shows a lot of skin with outfits that don't strike me as terribly practical. So I would file the scantily clad sorcerous in the DMG under that as well (though again, I'd also label it good chainmail bikini). If it doesn't meet your standards of chainmail bikini, that is fine. I am not going to debate the definition of chainmail bikini. That seems like a pedantic thing to argue here. I also never said the art was bad. Personally I have no problem with chainmail bikini. Just that it was made in an era where chainmail bikini was the norm and it was an example, for me, of good chainmail bikini art.
In terms of quantity. You may well be right. I would have to review my DMG and PHB to know for sure. I was thinking of this image, the sorcerous and the summoned creature you mentioned, but also more broadly of the 2E line in general (stuff like curse of the azure bonds).
Quote from: Omega;851685The revised 2nd ed has a axe swinging barbarian on the PHB cover right?
Seems I totally missed this when it came out somehow.
Yep.
(http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/dnd/img/phb_2ed_r2.gif)
versus
(http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/dnd/img/phb_2ed_1s.jpg)
Quote from: Warthur;851738Am I alone in thinking the blue interior art from the original 2E core books was mysterious and atmospheric?
I liked the blue art.
1989 all the way.
I mean, the revised printings were fine. But the 1989 books had style.
Alright. I took a snap of my PHB so the interbutz can have a reference of what the layout looks like.
(http://i.imgur.com/VbcRQ0Z.jpg?1)
*edit* Wow that was bigger than I'd thought. *fixed*
Haha! My obsessive manic searching seems to have paid off. I'm pretty sure this is a snap of the revised PHB for comparison.
(https://img0.etsystatic.com/053/0/10813874/il_570xN.737799152_bsn2.jpg)
I owned both at one time or another, and I liked the revised editions.
they had a better layout of information. Art I can take or leave. when I'm buying a gaming book I want rules and information.
I'll take the 1989 books myself.
I have always preferred the '89 version, but that might just be nostalgia talking.
I'm going to go with the 1989 versions, myself.
I'd have bought two of each 2e reprint as I did the 1e reprints if they had been the original 1989 versions. I loved the look- layout and art. For some reason I've never been able to abide the 1995 versions. They bother me. I hate the layout, the font choices, the trade dress of the covers... Gimme the originals.