Thought it was funny that this was the first review posted on Amazon.
Sums it up pretty nicely:
"The original artwork from the 2nd edition that I loved as a kid has been replaced with what looks like 4th grader designed crayon work."
http://www.amazon.com/Premium-Advanced-Dungeons-Handbook-Rulebook/dp/0786964456/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369156103&sr=1-1&keywords=ad%26d+second+edition+reprint
I wasn't aware they replaced art for these reprints. Or is Mr. Kennedy unaware that the game he loved as a kid had a black border version that these reprints are based off of?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656411I wasn't aware they replaced art for these reprints. Or is Mr. Kennedy unaware that the game he loved as a kid had a black border version that these reprints are based off of?
Or perhaps he sobered up for the first time.
So reprints are bad because...? Few years ago, people'd be glad for the notion of reprints themselves. Because honestly - the guys finally answered the criticism for their underhanded moves in regard of attempt to force in 4e, yet it seems unless WotC sets the timer back to the 90s, or lick boots of every fan of 2e/1e they've ever insulted, nothing they'll put out will be good enough.
If there was a Warhammer 1e reprint with supplements, with good quality glue (yes it was a major problem in Polish edition at least, but from what I heard, British one as well), I'd buy all on the spot, even if all art was replaced with stick figures.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656411I wasn't aware they replaced art for these reprints. Or is Mr. Kennedy unaware that the game he loved as a kid had a black border version that these reprints are based off of?
If that's the case I'm kind of puzzled about some people's standards. Some pieces in the black borders 2E books were bland and sub-par, sure, but 4th grade crayon level? Fuck no. Some of them were actually pretty cool, to me (some of the illustrations of the classes, like the Wizard, come to mind).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656411I wasn't aware they replaced art for these reprints. Or is Mr. Kennedy unaware that the game he loved as a kid had a black border version that these reprints are based off of?
Yeah, they reprinted the 1995 version rather than the 1989 version. Was bummed out when I heard that because I really didn't like the art in the 1995 version.
Would have bought several copies of them had they reprinted the 1989 version.
Quote from: Benoist;656419If that's the case I'm kind of puzzled about some people's standards. Some pieces in the black borders 2E books were bland and sub-par, sure, but 4th grade crayon level? Fuck no. Some of them were actually pretty cool, to me (some of the illustrations of the classes, like the Wizard, come to mind).
Yeah, some of the paintings were quite good, but the watercolour stuff (I think it's watercolour) was, eh, not good imo, and it seemed to be the default art style for the whole series.
Covers were good, though. Easley always fires up my imagination.
Quote from: 1989;656420Yeah, they reprinted the 1995 version rather than the 1989 version. Was bummed out when I heard that because I really didn't like the art in the 1995 version.
Would have bought several copies of them had they reprinted the 1989 version.
I don't like the art in either compared to 1e ;)
But the rules are a lot easier to understand, and the improvements were better over 1e, IMO of course.
Quote from: Benoist;656419If that's the case I'm kind of puzzled about some people's standards. Some pieces in the black borders 2E books were bland and sub-par, sure, but 4th grade crayon level? Fuck no. Some of them were actually pretty cool, to me (some of the illustrations of the classes, like the Wizard, come to mind).
I agree. It wasn't terribleit just seemed a bit lower quality than the stuff in the first version. My impression was they didnt secure the rights to the old art and the art budgets seemed to get smaller for TSR as the 90s wore on. WOTC may not have the rights to the art from the original 2E players handbook.
I have both versions and really prefer the artwork in the 1989 version my self. It has been a while since I read them but it seems like the layout was a bit better in the black border version.
1989 was three columns. 1995 was two columns.
1995 was many more pages, as well.
Well, it's a...
...wait, someone still cares about 2e? GENE! Bring out the flail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvQV2G4-3KA) ;)
Disappointing selection of printing, and too expensive for my blood. But the green and blue series are now out in PDF again, so I guess it balances out some.
Quote from: Melan;656449Well, it's a...
...wait, someone still cares about 2e? GENE! Bring out the flail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvQV2G4-3KA) ;)
Yes, I could do with a good massage.
Quote from: Melan;656449Well, it's a...
...wait, someone still cares about 2e? GENE! Bring out the flail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvQV2G4-3KA) ;)
Holy Freaking Crap!!!!
Quote from: Planet Algol;656507Holy Freaking Crap!!!!
I know! People should be hung for shooting video in portrait!
They should have actually spent a little time on these and put in the best art from the 2e era. It should have been chock full of elmore and caldwell.
Quote from: Piestrio;656509I know! People should be hung for shooting video in portrait!
Haha, I was going to make a crack about that... ...but there's just so much going on with that video; it makes the laffs all on it's own.
Pity that they've decidd to reprint the less inspired version.
I'd have bought a reprint of the 1989 2e books. I'd also have bought a reprint of the 1983 1e books with the Easley covers.
But whatever they stick on the cover, I'll sure as hell pony up when they decide to reprint the RC.
And hopefully I'll be able cough up well over $100 for the OD&D deluxe wooden box reprint/reissue/whatever.
OK my inner weapon nerd is coming out. First Gene is an idiot. Secondly. the true point of a flail, is that you strike a shield with the tip of the baton section and the ball and chain section wraps around the shield and strikes the defender. Otherwise all you have as idiot gene demonstrates, is a really crappy club.
Quote from: mhensley;656510It should have been chock full of elmore and caldwell.
So they could sell even fewer copies?
Quote from: 1989;656420Yeah, they reprinted the 1995 version rather than the 1989 version. Was bummed out when I heard that because I really didn't like the art in the 1995 version.
Would have bought several copies of them had they reprinted the 1989 version.
Ditto. Well, a copy, anyway.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656532So they could sell even fewer copies?
No, so they could sell far more to the people who actually like AD&D2nd, unlike you.
Quote from: Rincewind1;656417So reprints are bad because...?
Because honestly - the guys finally answered the criticism for their underhanded moves in regard of attempt to force in 4e, yet it seems unless WotC sets the timer back to the 90s, or lick boots of every fan of 2e/1e they've ever insulted, nothing they'll put out will be good enough.
Excluded middle? As soon as it was announced that the reprints for AD&D2nd were coming, and that they were the Black Border versions, fans of that edition (who would admit it) immediately started criticizing the choice. Obviously not everyone hates them, but it certainly seems, anecdotally, that AD&D2nd fans would have mostly preferred the 1989 first-printing versions.
Imagine WotC deciding to reprint AD&D, but only re-printing the AD&D2nd books. It'd be nothing short of a major gaffe. My impression is that this is much the same for a lot of AD&D2nd fans.
Quote from: Melan;656449Well, it's a...
...wait, someone still cares about 2e? GENE! Bring out the flail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvQV2G4-3KA) ;)
This is just... AWESOME. :D
Quote from: Bobloblah;656537No, so they could sell far more to the people who actually like AD&D2nd, unlike you.
I have no real opinion about 2e, actually. I never played it, and aside from the section on specialist wizards in the 2e
PHB, I've never read the core books for it at all. In fact, I've only read a handful of the supplements for it, and I like what I read - Al Qadim is a great setting, and
A Mighty Fortress has some good stuff for running late Renaissance and Early Modern campaigns.
Thinking Larry Elmore's art sucks the sweat off a donkey's balls has nothing to do with editions, so unclench your sphincter, nitwit.
No one but me commands my sphincters!
(... I just had the most amazing idea for a priest spell.)
Nostalgia and pretty art both factor into several buyers' decision on whether to pick up a reprint (well, it did factor in on mine).
The 1989 covers by Jeff Easley rocks. The 1995 covers, also by Easley (I think), suck donkey balls (and don't get me started on the interior art). Same game, same artist, one I love, the other leaves me cold.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656543Thinking Larry Elmore's art sucks the sweat off a donkey's balls has nothing to do with editions, so unclench your sphincter, nitwit.
But it does have to do with editions. You may not like Larry Elmore's art, but a lot of people do. If the reprints had been based on the 1989 version, it would have been better received, in my humble opinion.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656543...so unclench your sphincter, nitwit.
The only one who appears to have a clenched sphincter here is you.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656543Thinking Larry Elmore's art sucks the sweat off a donkey's balls has nothing to do with editions...
Other than the fact that his art features prominently in that edition, is throughout the preferred printing under discussion, and is actually liked by many of that editions' fans, yeah, nothing to do with that edition at all. Wait, who was the nitwit, again?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656543I have no real opinion about 2e, actually. I blah, blah, blah...
I'm really not the least bit interested in how your love for some things 2E somehow validates your ignorance. I do not particularly care whether or not you personally like AD&D2nd - you made a ridiculous assertion, and I pointed how stupid it was.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656537No, so they could sell far more to the people who actually like AD&D2nd, unlike you.
Excluded middle? As soon as it was announced that the reprints for AD&D2nd were coming, and that they were the Black Border versions, fans of that edition (who would admit it) immediately started criticizing the choice. Obviously not everyone hates them, but it certainly seems, anecdotally, that AD&D2nd fans would have mostly preferred the 1989 first-printing versions.
Imagine WotC deciding to reprint AD&D, but only re-printing the AD&D2nd books. It'd be nothing short of a major gaffe. My impression is that this is much the same for a lot of AD&D2nd fans.
I have no dog in this fight, but fair enough. Still, it feels a bit like it's again Not Good Enough, for a value of Good that falls anything short of WotC turning the clock back to actual 1989. After years of RPG developers pretending like older editions of their games never happened, it's good to see some work towards the reverse.
Quote from: Ronin;656530OK my inner weapon nerd is coming out. First Gene is an idiot. Secondly. the true point of a flail, is that you strike a shield with the tip of the baton section and the ball and chain section wraps around the shield and strikes the defender. Otherwise all you have as idiot gene demonstrates, is a really crappy club.
Not to mention the gentle taps (come on, my grandmother could swing harder than that, and she had leukaemia) and the horizontal swinging motion, rather than vertical.
What's left to reprint? RC?
I wouldn't mind having new print copies of Basic/Expert.
Quote from: bryce0lynch;656617What's left to reprint?
Arguably RC or BECMI. I suspect BECMI may get the 0e D&D reprint treatment - call it a hunch - as it is not yet on dndclassics.com, whereas B/X already is. If you notice, there's currently no overlap between reprints and that site, leading me to believe that anything reprinted isn't going to be on there for a while, and anything major that's neither on there or reprinted will eventually be reprinted.
Quote from: Claudius;656568But it does have to do with editions.
Larry Elmore produced artwork for 1e and
The Dragon years before 2e appeared, and it royally blew then, too.
It has jack-all to do with editions.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656614The only one who appears to have a clenched sphincter here is you.
'I know you are, but what am I?!'
:rotfl:
Quote from: Bobloblah;656614Other than the fact that his art features prominently in that edition, is throughout the preferred printing under discussion, and is actually liked by many of that editions' fans, yeah, nothing to do with that edition at all.
Larry Elmore's artwork for TSR goes back to at least 1983,
six years before 2e.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656614I'm really not the least bit interested in how your love for some things 2E somehow validates your ignorance. I do not particularly care whether or not you personally like AD&D2nd - you made a ridiculous assertion, and I pointed how stupid it was.
Keep fucking that chicken, 'blah.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656614Other than the fact that his art features prominently in that edition, is throughout the preferred printing under discussion, and is actually liked by many of that editions' fans, yeah, nothing to do with that edition at all. Wait, who was the nitwit, again?.
Um...Larry Elmore is most famous for his BECMI cover work, and then probably the Dragonlance stuff after that. The 2e painting falls way behind those. Heck, probably after Snarfquest in fact as well.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656622'I know you are, but what am I?!'
:rotfl:
This is the best you have?
Really?Quote from: Black Vulmea;656622Larry Elmore's artwork for TSR goes back to at least 1983, six years before 2e.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656627Um...Larry Elmore is most famous for his BECMI cover work, and then probably the Dragonlance stuff after that. The 2e painting falls way behind those. Heck, probably after Snarfquest in fact as well.
What do either of these have to do with whether or not 2E-lovers like Elmore? The original assertion was that more of his stuff would reduce sales of the AD&D 2nd reprints. It was a stupid assertion from someone who doesn't like his art, no doubt made for a laugh.
I don't like some of Elmore's art, but I'm not dumb enough to suggest that his inclusion would lower AD&D2nd reprint sales, then try and obfuscate by pointing how long he'd been around before that.
Got mine yesterday...and of course they used the revised layout for the interior, which sucks a royal donkey dick. Had I know this prior to receiving the books, I would not have ordered them.
Not super pissed, but fairly annoyed.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656620Larry Elmore produced artwork for 1e and The Dragon years before 2e appeared, and it royally blew then, too.
It has jack-all to do with editions.
So what? That's not what we're talking about, at least me. My point is that most people would have preferred the 1989 version of AD&D2, because of the art.
Quote from: Brad;656634Got mine yesterday...and of course they used the revised layout for the interior, which sucks a royal donkey dick. Had I know this prior to receiving the books, I would not have ordered them.
Not super pissed, but fairly annoyed.
What's wrong with that layout?
I just wanted to say I like Larry Elmore's artwork, especially the BECMI stuff. Wish it would have been in the Rules Cyclopedia.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656632What do either of these have to do with whether or not 2E-lovers like Elmore? The original assertion was that more of his stuff would reduce sales of the AD&D 2nd reprints. It was a stupid assertion from someone who doesn't like his art, no doubt made for a laugh.
.
This I agree with. His work was better than anything in any of the reprints. I like him. Not only for his work, but because he's a stand up guy too.
I guess I read your comment to mean that Elmore is most famous for his 2e work.
Quote from: Benoist;656640What's wrong with that layout?
Don't want to speak for Brad, but I can say that the revised books went to 2-column layout from 3-column, and changed a lot of other aesthetic details about the layout (e.g. fonts, colours, borders) that make the whole thing less readable. The layout changes also upped the page-count, which, along with the readability, reduced the usefulness of the books at the table (i.e harder to find information quickly).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656644This I agree with...I guess I read your comment to mean that Elmore is most famous for his 2e work.
Thanks for saying so.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656646Don't want to speak for Brad, but I can say that the revised books went to 2-column layout from 3-column, and changed a lot of other aesthetic details about the layout (e.g. fonts, colours, borders) that make the whole thing less readable. The layout changes also upped the page-count, which, along with the readability, reduced the usefulness of the books at the table (i.e harder to find information quickly).
I guess I'm the only one who actually liked the Academia font. Granted, the art went from mediocre to outright bad in the reprints, but the quality of the books was much, much higher. None of my black border books fell apart like the 1st printing ones did.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656648I guess I'm the only one who actually liked the Academia font.
Yes, it's only you. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656648Granted, the art went from mediocre to outright bad in the reprints, but the quality of the books was much, much higher. None of my black border books fell apart like the 1st printing ones did.
This is certainly true. I was trying to think of some way in which the reprints were better, and this would be pretty much it. My own first printing copies are in more-or-less mint condition, but that's because they were my spares, and the originals mostly disintegrated.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656646Don't want to speak for Brad, but I can say that the revised books went to 2-column layout from 3-column, and changed a lot of other aesthetic details about the layout (e.g. fonts, colours, borders) that make the whole thing less readable. The layout changes also upped the page-count, which, along with the readability, reduced the usefulness of the books at the table (i.e harder to find information quickly).
That's my assessment...the first printing was easier to read, mostly because it was a smaller font in a three-column layout. The "2.5" version books (including Player Options, etc.) are just fugly. The colors are ugly, it's hard to read, the art is shittier, and it's much harder to scan the text quickly. For the $90 I dropped on the reprints, I probably could have bought four sets of mint first printing....
I'll also add I dislike the 1st Edition reprints, too, because even though the layout is the same, the font is slightly different and just looks weird. So far, not a fan of any of these reprints, but of course I'm buying all of them because I'm an idiot.
OK. I like the layout of the black reprints actually.
Quote from: Benoist;656686OK. I like the layout of the black reprints actually.
That's horrible.
I will say the covers are super nice, though. And the quality is top notch, so you might seriously consider getting a set.
Quote from: Brad;656689That's horrible.
:D
Quote from: Brad;656689I will say the covers are super nice, though. And the quality is top notch, so you might seriously consider getting a set.
How's the paper of the reprints?
Quote from: Benoist;656690How's the paper of the reprints?
Looks to be about a 70# glossy, which is twice as thick as cheap printer paper. I rubbed some of the ink to test it, seems not to streak or anything.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656644I guess I read your comment to mean that Elmore is most famous for his 2e work.
I did, too, and I think given his many years of output prior to 2e, particularly a little product line known as Dragonlance, that that's a debatable claim.
For me, when I think of 2e, I don't think of Elmore. I was probably disappointed by the lack of Elmore in the initial 2e core after being wowed by his saturated presence in BECMI.
Quote from: Planet Algol;656724For me, when I think of 2e, I don't think of Elmore. I was probably disappointed by the lack of Elmore in the initial 2e core after being wowed by his saturated presence in BECMI.
It's like Lorraine decided, "fuck all the established artists we have, let's replace them all with subpar ones who will work much cheaper."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656727It's like Lorraine decided, "fuck all the established artists we have, let's replace them all with subpar ones who will work much cheaper."
Well... I wouldn't discount that possibility, honestly.
I'll just get the Monstrous Manual, which still is the best D&D monsters book ever released.
Quote from: Frey;656735I'll just get the Monstrous Manual, which still is the best D&D monsters book ever released.
Presentation and format? Absolutely. But the art is still subpar. Whenever I mention that Tony D's art seems like it belongs in a children's book to me instead of an RPG, people have flipped the fuck out and said that's catergorically untrue, and act like I somehow said Tony D sucks. His art doesn't suck, it's quite good. For a children's book.
Funny enough, that strong defensive reaction still happened when I pointed to Tony's
own blog where where he said he only did D&D to get into the industry, and his favorite art style is that found in old childrens' books, and that's the type of work he wants to do.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656737Tony D's art seems like it belongs in a children's book to me instead of an RPG...Tony D sucks.
That's categorically untrue! I can't believe you'd say he sucks!
But seriously, what're you, nuts?! You like all the art from the AD&D PHB, but then complain DiTerlizzi's stuff looks childish?
Okay, okay...just lemme calm down. Alright...I'll admit that DiTerlizzi's work was an acquired taste for me - it's very stylized - but I think it's the Planescape setting helped it worm its way into my heart. To me, it just made the setting, much like Stephen Fabian did for Ravenloft.
Besides, you obviously have lousy taste.
P.S.: Hasn't DiTerlizzi more recently done illustration for some children's books?
Quote from: Bobloblah;656749That's categorically untrue! I can't believe you'd say he sucks!
But seriously, what're you, nuts?! You like all the art from the AD&D PHB, but then complain DiTerlizzi's stuff looks childish?
the art from AD&D was more mature and not childish. Tony D's was. By his
own admission. By the time the MM came out, I was an adult, and was not attracted to children style art.
QuoteP.S.: Hasn't DiTerlizzi more recently done illustration for some children's books?
I know he did the work for the Spiderwick Chronicles a few years back. I'm sure there were others. But like I said (or rather, like I repeated what he said), D&D was just to get a name. His love is children's style of art.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656753the art from AD&D was more mature and not childish. Tony D's was. By his own admission. By the time the MM came out, I was an adult, and was not attracted to children style art.
You know what's not funny? Jokes, when you have to explain them. Apparently my delivery isn't all that.
Quote from: Bobloblah;656756You know what's not funny? Jokes, when you have to explain them. Apparently my delivery isn't all that.
Eh. I wouldn't worry about it. I've been known to be oblivous to jokes in the past. More of a me thing than a you thing.
I like my fantasy art to be, well, fantastic.
That includes feathered hair ren-faire maidens next to bella sara unicorns and pastel Tony D fae (with Julie Bell, Boris Vallejo oiled-up beefcake barbarians in the background).
They all can't be Brom or Jeff Dee art, (or the amateurish scrawl that passes for such in AD&D 1e...)
:p
Quote from: Melan;656449Well, it's a...
...wait, someone still cares about 2e? GENE! Bring out the flail! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvQV2G4-3KA) ;)
I didn't know Star Wars Kid had a retarded older brother!:eek:
Quote from: Endless Flight;656642I just wanted to say I like Larry Elmore's artwork, especially the BECMI stuff. Wish it would have been in the Rules Cyclopedia.
I agree with this whole heartily. I'm an elmore fan. The first D&D I owned was the 12th edition of basic that featured his art. That picture is the first thing that comes to my mind when I think D&D. Then my head starts going in all kinds of crazy/fun directions/ideas.
Quote from: Elfdart;656772I didn't know Star Wars Kid had a retarded older brother!:eek:
You my man, just won the thread. :)
I like the 1989 version of 2e myself. Oh, and Elmore is a great artist. There's my two cents. :)
I skipped the whole 2e experience.
Are there any textual reasons to want this particular edition?
Quote from: FASERIP;656884I skipped the whole 2e experience.
Are there any textual reasons to want this particular edition?
As opposed to what? I'd say the answer is likely no.
While it is a cleanup of the AD&D rules, the art in this iteration is poor, most people seem to find the layout painful to read, and the DMG isn't that great. On the plus side, there's a lot more clarity and better organization to the rules, and the Monstrous Manual is possibly the best single monster book produced by either TSR or WotC (and it's directly compatible with TSR D&D, unlike the WotC stuff).
I say all of this as a fan of AD&D 2nd; I just don't see the need for those core books for most people at this point. You've likely already got some other favoured edition that you've houseruled to the moon and back. There's just nothing so amazing in these books (well, except the Monstrous Manual) that they're going to supersede that.
Thanks. That was helpful.
Sucks for '89, I know he loves this era.
Quote from: FASERIP;656892Thanks. That was helpful.
No problem.
Quote from: FASERIP;656892Sucks for '89, I know he loves this era.
So do I. It was certainly the period when I was playing the most, but I also liked a great deal of what came out during the AD&D 2nd era.
I never understood the whole need to do reprints of 2E. I could easily find the all three books in good condition for less than the price of one of these.
Well, I suppose one benefit is that these will likely hold up to regular use a lot better.
Does anyone have any examples of this art? I remember the art from the 1989 edition, but I never actually bought the 95 edition, I might not even have looked at it (I was thoroughly turned off TSR by then).
RPGPundit
Quote from: Eyeheartawk;656987I never understood the whole need to do reprints of 2E. I could easily find the all three books in good condition for less than the price of one of these.
The reality is that this is true for all the core book reprints thus far: they can be found in good condition for less than the cost of the reprints. They won't be mint, though...and in the case of the AD&D 2nd books they're likely better quality, and in the case of the D&D3.5 books they contain the errata (which is why I bought them). My guess is that the only one that will be
less expensive than the real McCoy, ironically, will be the 0e
Premium reprint.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: RPGPundit;657054Does anyone have any examples of this art? I remember the art from the 1989 edition, but I never actually bought the 95 edition, I might not even have looked at it (I was thoroughly turned off TSR by then).
RPGPundit
Unlike 1e, finding art from the books online is very hard. Here is typical work from some of the artists used in the core books:
Laura Lakey
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ODP4ONJycdI/UWXDFdT7xiI/AAAAAAAAARo/PcF3W_LKSNg/s1600/79207.jpg)
Dana Knutson
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/leof_gallery/86692.jpg)
David O Miller
(http://www.davidomiller.com/Images/scifi_05c.jpg)
It should be telling that I can't even find art online for many of the artists listed in the credits.
*Edit* Here, I scanned a pic in. This is typical of the reprint art quality.
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/2eart_zpsfc8c6858.jpg)
Am I mis-remembering, or are none of those pieces actually in the books?
I didn't know the reprints were out already. Looks like it's time to make my first rpg purchase of the year!
Quote from: Bobloblah;657061Am I mis-remembering, or are none of those pieces actually in the books?
You're not. That's why I said finding images online is impossible so I used other work by the same artist. Then I went in and scanned in the last image directly from the DMG. It's by far not the worst image in the DMG.
Here are two more scans.
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/2edmg2_zps5661080b.jpg)
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/2edmg3_zpsc4f97da8.jpg)
I laugh at people who say 1e had good art. Talk about a bunch of middle school crap plastered onto the page (mainly because TSR couldn't afford to pay real artists other than Erol Otus, who probably worked for peanuts at the time). Elmore was the best artist TSR had, followed by Willingham, Caldwell and then Otus.
Quote from: danbuter;657068I laugh at people who say 1e had good art. Talk about a bunch of middle school crap plastered onto the page (mainly because TSR couldn't afford to pay real artists other than Erol Otus, who probably worked for peanuts at the time). Elmore was the best artist TSR had, followed by Willingham, Caldwell and then Otus.
I laugh at people who don't have a clue how Otus started working for TSR, and come up with a list that omits Trampier or Easley or Parkinson
Quote from: Sacrosanct;657070I laugh at people who don't have a clue how Otus started working for TSR, and come up with a list that omits Trampier or Easley or Parkinson
I'll give you Trampier, Easley, and Parkinson - I loved their work - but Sutherland, a serious 1E favourite, is very much hit-and-miss for me.
I just listed the good artists.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;657066Here are two more scans.
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/2edmg2_zps5661080b.jpg)
Good grief, the dude is using two of those gargoyle statues that were everywhere in the nineties as his enchantment bench vise!
Odd thing I noticed the other day, comparing a 1E PHB and an early-print 2E PHB:
1E: Only one female figure. A single illustration (representing clerics) with figures of non-European type.
2E: A number of illustrations of females, but everyone looks 'white'.
It's like they tried to portray the premier sword-n-sorcery game as one limited to a Tolkien-ish, pseudo-Nordic milieu (with 1980s fashion touches in 2E)!
I didn't dig up 3E or 4E PHBs, but I would guess (or at least hope) that in this regard they are not so bland. There are more things in the world (never mind in the realms of Fantasy) than dreamt of in the strip malls of suburbia.
Quote from: danbuter;657083I just listed the good artists.
Ha...ha-ha...haaa...
I had to cancel my pre-order for these with Amazon, I had all pre-ordered for about a month, then two days ago my car takes a crap, so now I have to fix it instead. oh well...:banghead:
I'll say it again, because I think it's really the ultimate decider in the whole "Did 1e or 2e have the worst art" debate.
Much of 1e art is considered iconic, and very easy to find it on the web. I don't even know who 90% of the interior artists were for 2e, and it's like finding a needle in the haystack to find interior 2e images on the web.
The internet has everything. If you can't find 2e interior art very easily, that speaks volumens.
I don't know man, the "Dragonslayers and Proud of It" painting by Elmore in the original 2E PHB just might be one of the most talked about D&D paintings ever. I have a lithograph of that one in my personal possession. :)
Quote from: 1989;657265I don't know man, the "Dragonslayers and Proud of It" painting by Elmore in the original 2E PHB just might be one of the most talked about D&D paintings ever. I have a lithograph of that one in my personal possession. :)
Yeah, that's
one. The
only one people ever talk about. And it went away with the reprints.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;657266Yeah, that's one. The only one people ever talk about. And it went away with the reprints.
Totally, man.
Quote from: Bobloblah;657082I'll give you Trampier, Easley, and Parkinson - I loved their work - but Sutherland, a serious 1E favourite, is very much hit-and-miss for me.
I love the cartoons in 1E.
Quote from: Benoist;657276I love the cartoons in 1E.
I find that, in roleplaying games, illustrations depict the ideal, but cartoons depict the reality.
That's why when I think of
Traveller, I think more of the Donna Barr's cartoons than I do Bill Keith's illustrations. She captures the unintentional humor of actual play.
In
D&D, it comes out in cartoons like this one.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/5f9c142291378b7cb476ad64b95c7089/tumblr_mfpvz68qjP1ro2bqto1_1280.jpg)
Quote from: Benoist;657276I love the cartoons in 1E.
These are something I intensely dislike. I find they're generally like listening to someone you don't know trying to tell you how awesome their last session was. It doesn't translate, as you had to be there for the recounting to be anything other than painful.
I also find they break the mood of the game for me.
Quote from: Bobloblah;657341These are something I intensely dislike. I find they're generally like listening to someone you don't know trying to tell you how awesome their last session was. It doesn't translate, as you had to be there for the recounting to be anything other than painful.
I also find they break the mood of the game for me.
Depends on the cartoon and it depends on the person (if'in they have a sense of humor or not that is and if the cartoon's actually funny).
As far as somebodies last game session, I don't mind reading little snip's or talking about them with someone personally recanting something, but reading about someones entire evening game session or an entire campaign in detail on a thread sometimes is just overkill imo.
Quote from: flyingcircus;657352Depends on the cartoon and it depends on the person (if'in they have a sense of humor or not that is and if the cartoon's actually funny).
Everyone thinks they're funny.
Quote from: flyingcircus;657352As far as somebodies last game session, I don't mind reading little snip's or talking about them with someone personally recanting something, but reading about someones entire evening game session or an entire campaign in detail on a thread sometimes is just overkill imo.
It's strange, because I've read plenty of session reports that I though were great - I'll often mine them for ideas - but someone trying to tell me how great it was is something else entirely.
I find session recounting is completely dependent on the quality and inspiration of the storyteller (not WW!). It's a different art entirely and one that not a lot of people are good at. Without a good sense of social knowledge, knowing when to say things and how to say it, you'll just come off as any other topical bore (and every topic has its bores). Suffice it to say, working at two different game stores at the same period of life, the lack of social ken and the art of conversation was noticeable...
Jesus fucking christ those 2.5e illustrations are godawful!
And I think they prove the point about the matter of art: they are (somewhat) technically more orderly and even more skilled than many of the iconic 1e illustrations; but they are so utterly banal in terms of imparting any kind of atmosphere that they are clearly vastly inferior as actual art. Art is more than just technique; its also about being able to capture an essence, create a feeling, and generally not suck the soul out of the game you're trying to complement!
RPGPundit
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/60D9F2D3-F48D-44B0-8ECE-49FD61696D9A-437-0000001BDE2F6BA4.jpg)
You are all on my shit list now.
Let's see some more pics, dude. Show me some of the good art. Might make me buy them.
Quote from: 1989;657797Let's see some more pics, dude. Show me some of the good art. Might make me buy them.
I think you're asking the impossible. Whereas at least the first printing had the Elmore interior art, 2nd printing doesn't have a single picture that I thought was good, or that inspired me.
Here are some pictures that I liked from the 1995 reprints.
I know art is subjective but I feel pretty confident that while folks might not LIKE some of these they are not total drek:
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/56fbd188-d217-4523-8a97-73eb065b9328.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/f0f6432a-0223-4fbb-8e77-4990323bb518.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/5359a55b-bddf-433b-86b6-fd3aa1368a9c.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/9c65e212-1284-47fb-9230-e2a607a7399b.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/1a750cb3-fac8-4286-b76c-a148944ea781.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/d7d801a4-1022-451d-9688-c8b5f1cddfb6.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/80ad820c-1e45-4aca-8d3d-4bb2707b8e86.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/980f09bd-6aa0-4b5a-b18d-461aa91738e2.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/a6c29e3a-4d39-4eb3-85bf-76d027bb487e.jpg)
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/b189f448-5b1d-48ef-8c7b-cb03f0e9a0cf.jpg)
EDIT: The MM art didn't change from the earlier MC stuff.
2e reprint art: looks better when viewed at 1" by 2" sizes
:D
I joke, but there is a hint of seriousness there. When full size, they don't look nearly as good. IMO of course
Quote from: sacrosanct;6578632e reprint art: Looks better when viewed at 1" by 2" sizes
:d
i joke, but there is a hint of seriousness there. When full size, they don't look nearly as good. Imo of course
.
-_-
2nd edition is probably the edition I played the most. I was all set to buy these reprints until I heard they were the 2.5 ones.
So... not nerdraged. They simply lost a sale.
Though it has gotten me to think about hitting up amazon or ebay. Though I'd really like to get the Moldvay Basic set first.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;6578822nd edition is probably the edition I played the most. I was all set to buy these reprints until I heard they were the 2.5 ones.
Why?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;6578822nd edition is probably the edition I played the most. I was all set to buy these reprints until I heard they were the 2.5 ones.
Pardon me being pedantic, but the black reprints aren't 2.5. The rules are exactly the same as the originals. 2.5 is in reference to the S&P and C&T books as they significantly changed large portions of the rules of 2e.
At some point I started to really wonder if people had seen completely different black borders books than I did. Now that Piestro posted his pics and that Sacrosanct basically confirmed that the art pictured looked like shit to him, I can assuredly say: this does not look like shit to me at all. It's got its own vibe and all, sure, and there are pics I find anatomically wrong or badly colored or that otherwise displease me one way or the other, but the art overall isn't shit to me.
The second printing of the rulebooks changed the art and made minor errata corrections. It was nowhere near as drastic a change as the 3.0 to 3.5 change. Why do people get all worked up about this?
Quote from: Benoist;657888At some point I started to really wonder if people had seen completely different black borders books than I did. Now that Piestro posted his pics and that Sacrosanct basically confirmed that the art pictured looked like shit to him, I can assuredly say: this does not look like shit to me at all. It's got its own vibe and all, sure, and there are pics I find anatomically wrong or badly colored or that otherwise displease me one way or the other, but the art overall isn't shit to me.
It seems that whenever anyone asks about the reprints the overwhelming bleeting from the forums is that:
1) the worst examples of the art are representative of the whole book.
And
2) the rules are entirely different from "normal" 2e.
Both of which are bullshit but keep getting repeated enough that everyone believes them.
Quote from: Benoist;657888At some point I started to really wonder if people had seen completely different black borders books than I did. Now that Piestro posted his pics and that Sacrosanct basically confirmed that the art pictured looked like shit to him, I can assuredly say: this does not look like shit to me at all. It's got its own vibe and all, sure, and there are pics I find anatomically wrong or badly colored or that otherwise displease me one way or the other, but the art overall isn't shit to me.
It wasnt shit. It just had a different feel and tone. Personally i prefer the original printings but these have the same basic info if you want to run 2E. And the monster manual is very good. I may get the phb because mine is falling apart.
There were some really shitty illustrations in the original 2e prints as well. I can go hunt some pics if people want to deny it (I'm sure Jibba will out of pure asshatery, in which case I really don't give a fuck, but still).
As for the vibe being different, yes, it definitely is. That's a much more accurate description and would explain why people don't like them. It would boil down to "it's not the same, I don't like it", which is a fine choice in and of itself, kind like I prefer the 1e vibe and consider the 2e vibe to be completely different.
Quote from: danbuter;657891The second printing of the rulebooks changed the art and made minor errata corrections. It was nowhere near as drastic a change as the 3.0 to 3.5 change. Why do people get all worked up about this?
It wasn't just the art, but the layout. The second printing's layout is passable, but less easily digestible for the human brain. That's the way I see it anyway.
Oh, and some of the 2e art from the first printing was actually taken from 1e gaming supplements. There's even a Conan module pic in there.
So....the first printing has more intuitive layout, and superior art. Give me the first printing, please.
Quote from: Benoist;657895There were some really shitty illustrations in the original 2e prints as well. I can go hunt some pics if people want to deny it (I'm sure Jibba will out of pure asshatery, in which case I really don't give a fuck, but still).
As for the vibe being different, yes, it definitely is. That's a much more accurate description and would explain why people don't like them. It would boil down to "it's not the same, I don't like it", which is a fine choice in and of itself, kind like I prefer the 1e vibe and consider the 2e vibe to be completely different.
I agree. At least for me the big reason I didnt like the second printing so much when it came out was that it was different from the style I was groomed on. Personally I really like those oils they had in the first books but the illustrations in the second ones are technically fine, they just use different mediums and colors. You are right the 2E books have some flaws. One of my favorite images is of the roman-style characters bringing a wounded companion to a temple. But if you look at the guy on the left his calf is totally out of proportion in a very noticeable way.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;657893It wasnt shit. It just had a different feel and tone. Personally i prefer the original printings but these have the same basic info if you want to run 2E. And the monster manual is very good. I may get the phb because mine is falling apart.
Yeah. Art and layout do set the tone for a game. It's weird, but true.
Jesus. Almost all of that sample art is awful. Some of it is absolutely Godawful.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;658187Jesus. Almost all of that sample art is awful. Some of it is absolutely Godawful.
RPGPundit
One of the things that bugged me about that reprint art (outside of the really bad stuff I posted earlier) was that they started to go with a photorealistic style with a lot of it. And that was just really 'meh' to me. See the picture of the rogue on the rooftop earlier as an example.
It just wasn't evocotive, as a whole.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;658205One of the things that bugged me about that reprint art (outside of the really bad stuff I posted earlier) was that they started to go with a photorealistic style with a lot of it. And that was just really 'meh' to me. See the picture of the rogue on the rooftop earlier as an example.
It just wasn't evocotive, as a whole.
Yes, that's the really awful stuff.
Quote from: Piestrio;657861(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb208/Piestrio/80ad820c-1e45-4aca-8d3d-4bb2707b8e86.jpg)
Holy Smokes. Mark Rein Hagen on a rooftop.
And these pictures really brings back the memories. This was the edition/version we used when we started playing AD&D and I really wish I knew, where those books ended up.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;656753the art from AD&D was more mature and not childish.
BS, much of the 70s art is very amateurish and you can see very clear parallels in the art linked down in my signature which is from Public Domain Fairy Tales Books. Also much of it swiped from comic books.
Sorry, dude. You are wrong.
I was hoping that they would use art from all over AD&D in the 2e reprints- its not like they don't have 25 odd years of AD&D art on file with several years already digitized on file. I think the fact that they probably already had the black cover books in Quark files made the reprinting process much easier though, maybe mind numbingly so. For example they could have added the random encounter charts for the Monstrous Manual which were strangely printed in MC Annual 2.
The art in all the AD&D core books is a bit hit and miss tbh.
Quote from: Eyeheartawk;656987I never understood the whole need to do reprints of 2E. I could easily find the all three books in good condition for less than the price of one of these.
Same can be said for 2e or even 3e. It is obvious though- to make money.
Once GOOD thing about the black border PHB is that it has very useful quickstart rules in the front. I haven't seen that in other version and I thought it was helpful for new players.
(Oh nos, handholding!)
Just an annoying meta-observation on the discussion:
It's interesting to see 2e being discussed in an appraising way...for years it was the edition that no-one gave a toss about, a laughing stock almost. Now there's enough distance that it can be seen for what it was with its own strengths and weaknesses, but a perfectly valid edition of D&D.
I think when something in pop culture is over (style of music, fashion, a TV show) it's forgotten by all but its die-hard fans for about 10-15 years before it can be seen as a "classic". For example, between the mid-80s and mid-90s no-one really took Star Wars seriously either as classic movies or as a hobby interest.
Maybe it's time for 2e fans to come out of the closet.
Quote from: Teazia;658476BS, much of the 70s art is very amateurish and you can see very clear parallels in the art linked down in my signature which is from Public Domain Fairy Tales Books. Also much of it swiped from comic books.
Sorry, dude. You are wrong.
.
Um, I said AD&D art, not art from the 70s. If you're going to accuse someone of being wrong, at least take the time to read what they said. I am not aware of any AD&D art being swiped from comic books or being pulled from/parallel to the public domain. Trampier, Otus, etc have a style nothing like old public domain art.
And I think it's no secret that the art style of D&D went to a much more PG version in 2e. Gone was art in the S&S style and pretty much everything became kid-approved.
Quote from: Piestrio;657633{PIESTRIO SELF PORTRAIT}
You are all on my shit list now.
Oh my God...you actually look like your avatar!
Quote from: Piestrio;657892It seems that whenever anyone asks about the reprints the overwhelming bleeting from the forums is that:
1) the worst examples of the art are representative of the whole book.
And
2) the rules are entirely different from "normal" 2e.
Both of which are bullshit but keep getting repeated enough that everyone believes them.
Noone who appears to know anything says the rules are different. Anyone who knows something says the art sucks.
Quote from: Benoist;657895There were some really shitty illustrations in the original 2e prints as well. I can go hunt some pics if people want to deny it (I'm sure Jibba will out of pure asshatery, in which case I really don't give a fuck, but still).
I'd actually be interested in what you think sucks from the first printing. I don't mean to say that there was no bad art in it, but, to me, there's no comparison between the 1st and 2nd printing.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;657897It wasn't just the art, but the layout. The second printing's layout is passable, but less easily digestible for the human brain. That's the way I see it anyway.
Bingo. I felt the layout and style choices for the 2nd printing were terrible, and far less readable to boot!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;658530Um, I said AD&D art, not art from the 70s. If you're going to accuse someone of being wrong, at least take the time to read what they said. I am not aware of any AD&D art being swiped from comic books or being pulled from/parallel to the public domain. Trampier, Otus, etc have a style nothing like old public domain art.
And I think it's no secret that the art style of D&D went to a much more PG version in 2e. Gone was art in the S&S style and pretty much everything became kid-approved.
Check out Sutherland art and then look at Henry Justice Ford in my link. Then check out this post by Grognardia:
https://picasaweb.google.com/FreeDnDART
I think there is a reason Wotc changed the cover art on the White Box reprint to WAR. They didn't want to get sued by Disney.
Cheers
I pulled the trigger and actually bought the 2nd ed reprints when the binding of my original Player's Handbook bought in 1989 fell apart on me last night.
That's a pretty good reason, and is the only thing that might eventually sway me. Oh, and I'm still hoping to see examples of what you thought was junk art from the first printing. Even page numbers would do.
I played the fuck out of this guy (my 1989 PH I mean). It's one of the RPG books in my possession that has seen the most use and abuse over the years (the 90s, in this case), honestly. Then for some reason, when I was looking for weapon specializations and such, the binding fell apart. Ah well. Had to happen some time.
By all accounts an extremely common problem with this printing. My own original copy disintegrated years ago, although it was probably my most played-with RPG book ever.
I've had a few of those type of books over the years, the easiest solution is to run a bead of PVA glue (elmers) down the space between the cloth and the outer spine and glue it together (between the packets and the cloth too if needed). As the book is stitched this can solve the problem. But if the packets are coming loose it is a bit more tricky. Anchoring packets or pages can be done if careful with the glue.
Library tape (Mylar tape) down the inside cover to the block can also secure the block to the cover if it is coming out. Duct tape is never the answer!
The glued 1e DMGs (7th printing and above IIRC) can be fixed in this way as well, but the block is not stitched, so it can takes a little more care.
I take care of my books very well, so they tend to look immaculate (and smell of incense, so as to keep the silverfish away). But I admit there is a charm to the wear and tear on my AD&D 2e 1st printing and In Nomine. It's like they've been lived in, like a book well lived, of use to its owner.
Now I'm thinking of buying a second 2e 1st printing copy and In Nomine core... That way I can have an immaculate version and a lived-in one.
Quote from: Teazia;658782Check out Sutherland art and then look at Henry Justice Ford in my link. Then check out this post by Grognardia:
https://picasaweb.google.com/FreeDnDART
I think there is a reason Wotc changed the cover art on the White Box reprint to WAR. They didn't want to get sued by Disney.
Cheers
Maybe I'm missing something, but your link doesn't go to Grognardia, it goes to your picassa site. And I'm not seeing the similarity other than "hey, it's black and white inked fantasy art".
Speaking of this:
Quote from: Teazia;658476For example they could have added the random encounter charts for the Monstrous Manual which were strangely printed in MC Annual 2.
...I assume it didn't happen with the new reprints? What a missed opportunity.
That rooftop-thief image embodies so much of what I felt was awful about late-TSR AD&D...
Put me down as another one who passed on these. I've always disliked the layout/design (mostly all the red headers and outlines, ugh!) and while it had some good art pieces I felt most of it was uninspired and a fair amount was just flat out ugly.
The originals didn't have universally good art either but I feel like the quality was better overall even though a lot of it was black and white or blue. In fact most of the complaints I've seen online were from people who hated the blue line art although I don't mind it myself. At least it isn't red.
Overall I find the 1989 versions much more pleasing to look at as well as easier to read and reference. If that counts as getting worked up or bleeting then oh well.
Quote from: Benoist;657888Now that Piestro posted his pics and that Sacrosanct basically confirmed that the art pictured looked like shit to him, I can assuredly say: this does not look like shit to me at all. It's got its own vibe and all, sure, and there are pics I find anatomically wrong or badly colored or that otherwise displease me one way or the other, but the art overall isn't shit to me.
I've never seen any of those before, and coming at it with fresh eyes, I can say, wow, that sucks so hard it blows.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;659324I've never seen any of those before, and coming at it with fresh eyes, I can say, wow, that sucks so hard it blows.
I think around 1995, there seems to be this thought that, "Hey! Color art is always better than B/W art!" A position that seems to remain held today. Gawd, some of the art in 3e was atrocious too. 4e was better, but my gripe with that is that there is no diversity. Everyone is rat faced and has a million buckles. I really hope with Next that they get a stable of artists who use various styles. Doesn't look like it's gonna happen though.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;659336I think around 1995, there seems to be this thought that, "Hey! Color art is always better than B/W art!" A position that seems to remain held today. Gawd, some of the art in 3e was atrocious too. 4e was better, but my gripe with that is that there is no diversity. Everyone is rat faced and has a million buckles. I really hope with Next that they get a stable of artists who use various styles. Doesn't look like it's gonna happen though.
The problem is that as long as D&D is treated as a brand there will be this desire to present a uniform look for reasons of brand identity.
The older stuff featured a variety of styles. It was a game that was designed for individuals to make thier own and not so concerned with unified brand identity.
In contrast, one can understand how the also-bad "dungeonpunk" aesthetic of 3e would have been a blessed relief.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;656781I like the 1989 version of 2e myself. Oh, and Elmore is a great artist. There's my two cents. :)
Here, let me get you some change for that. ;)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;6578822nd edition is probably the edition I played the most. I was all set to buy these reprints until I heard they were the 2.5 ones.
So... not nerdraged. They simply lost a sale.
Ditto.
Quote from: StormBringer;659612Here, let me get you some change for that. ;)
Oh, of course. :)
Quote from: Benoist;658809I played the fuck out of this guy (my 1989 PH I mean). It's one of the RPG books in my possession that has seen the most use and abuse over the years (the 90s, in this case), honestly. Then for some reason, when I was looking for weapon specializations and such, the binding fell apart. Ah well. Had to happen some time.
I have the 1989 Player's Handbook copy right next to me now, and yeah...most of the binding fell off. The pages are somehow still attached though. Weird..
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;659642I have the 1989 Player's Handbook copy right next to me now, and yeah...most of the binding fell off. The pages are somehow still attached though. Weird..
Happened to mine also. The one I got off amazon after my first fell apart also had binding issues and some loose pages.
I have a copy exactly like that as well.
Quote from: RPGPundit;659601In contrast, one can understand how the also-bad "dungeonpunk" aesthetic of 3e would have been a blessed relief.
It's like Rock & Roll or Jazz... you can hate the sound of the music, but still recognize that it's skillfully done (in tune, etc.) For 3e, you can dislike the aesthetic, but the artwork was skillfully crafted.
The aesthetic of much 3e was supremely silly (buckles! so many buckles), but the art, by and large, was artistically sound. That is, no gross errors of perspective, no anatomical oddities, etc.
And it's that skill that was a break from the past, more than the aesthetic. I didn't know anyone who liked the "buckles!" look in and of itself (I thought it was kinda weird), but I knew a lot of people who loved the production values. Especially the Forgotten Realms book, which was just gorgeous.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;659663It's like Rock & Roll or Jazz... you can hate the sound of the music, but still recognize that it's skillfully done (in tune, etc.) For 3e, you can dislike the aesthetic, but the artwork was skillfully crafted.
The aesthetic of much 3e was supremely silly (buckles! so many buckles), but the art, by and large, was artistically sound. That is, no gross errors of perspective, no anatomical oddities, etc.
And it's that skill that was a break from the past, more than the aesthetic. I didn't know anyone who liked the "buckles!" look in and of itself (I thought it was kinda weird), but I knew a lot of people who loved the production values. Especially the Forgotten Realms book, which was just gorgeous.
Mmm, nope.
Wayne Reynolds defined 3e. Misproportioned, rat-face, comicbook art is what 3e was.
Quote from: 1989;659719Mmm, nope.
Wayne Reynolds defined 3e. Misproportioned, rat-face, comicbook art is what 3e was.
I don't recall wayne Reynolds being especially prominent in the early years of 3e.
Later on sure, but during the formative years of 3e he was just another artist working on D&D books.
Quote from: Piestrio;659720I don't recall wayne Reynolds being especially prominent in the early years of 3e.
Later on sure, but during the formative years of 3e he was just another artist working on D&D books.
Yeah, Wayne is more 4e to me, when I think of his work
Quote from: Sacrosanct;659721Yeah, Wayne is more 4e to me, when I think of his work
For me anyway I didn't even really register him as a "big name" until Eberron.
Quote from: Piestrio;659722For me anyway I didn't even really register him as a "big name" until Eberron.
Same here.
Also, I didn't really mind early 3E art. It wasn't my favourite, but, as others have mentioned, it exhibited technical proficiency. I've also never had a problem with coherent art direction. Not necessarily all one artist, but I've always felt that a similarity of style or tone can be a very good thing for a product. Maybe that's a mistake with a "something for everyone" product like D&D...
Quote from: Bobloblah;659727Same here.
Also, I didn't really mind early 3E art. It wasn't my favourite, but, as others have mentioned, it exhibited technical proficiency. I've also never had a problem with coherent art direction. Not necessarily all one artist, but I've always felt that a similarity of style or tone can be a very good thing for a product. Maybe that's a mistake with a "something for everyone" product like D&D...
I was pretty fond of the line art in the chapter openings.
What killed it for me was:
Oddly shaped shields.
Oddly shaped weapons.
Oddly designed armor.
Quote from: Piestrio;659728What killed it for me was:
Oddly shaped shields.
Oddly shaped weapons.
Oddly designed armor.
I think the spikes and buckles are pretty common points of complaint about the 3E art. It's usually referred to as "dungeonpunk," no?
Quote from: Bobloblah;659731I think the spikes and buckles are pretty common points of complaint about the 3E art. It's usually referred to as "dungeonpunk," no?
Yeah. I was just trying to be a little more specific. And my number one specific annoyance is stupid shields.
The armor looked odd too.
But yeah, the increasing amount of Liefeld style drawings didn't help.
Not a fan of 3e art. Late 2e art was bad too, often, but not as bad. Hell I kinda prefer 4e art to 3e's. Allthough 3e Realms had way better art than the rest of 3e.
Spikes. Spikes everywhere. Spikes crying out for a good whack with a mace or warhammer to drive them backwards through the wearer's armor, into the wearer like they're carrying their own pre-hit crossbow quarrels already conveniently stuck into themselves.
This is where 3e art is as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;659741Spikes. Spikes everywhere. Spikes crying out for a good whack with a mace or warhammer to drive them backwards through the wearer's armor, into the wearer like they're carrying their own pre-hit crossbow quarrels already conveniently stuck into themselves.
This is where 3e art is as far as I'm concerned.
Sooooooo...what you're saying is you like it?
Quote from: Piestrio;657861Here are some pictures that I liked from the 1995 reprints.
Good stuff. Yeah....I don't get the art hate for all later editions by everyone, but whatever, got my copies so there.
Nope, I'll go with (early) 3e art over late 2e art. A style of art I don't care for done well is still better than a style of art I do care for done godawfully badly.
RPGPundit
Quote from: thedungeondelver;659741Spikes. Spikes everywhere. Spikes crying out for a good whack with a mace or warhammer to drive them backwards through the wearer's armor, into the wearer like they're carrying their own pre-hit crossbow quarrels already conveniently stuck into themselves.
This is where 3e art is as far as I'm concerned.
Because of my
heavy metal commitments, I own a pair of spiked forearm gauntlets. When I'm wearing them, for valid heavy metal reasons, they get in the way of
everything.
Spiked armor would turn you into a human piece of velcro with a good chance of taking your companions', or your own, eye out.
Quote from: RPGPundit;659936Nope, I'll go with (early) 3e art over late 2e art. A style of art I don't care for done well is still better than a style of art I do care for done godawfully badly.
RPGPundit
At least 3e art doesn't feature the artist inserting out-of-shape gamer nerds into rpg artwork. Some of those 2.5e pictures fall into shit-ouroboros territory.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;659741Spikes. Spikes everywhere. Spikes crying out for a good whack with a mace or warhammer to drive them backwards through the wearer's armor, into the wearer like they're carrying their own pre-hit crossbow quarrels already conveniently stuck into themselves.
This is where 3e art is as far as I'm concerned.
Todd Lockwood is an amazing artist, and I think he did great work with the requirements WotC gave him. That said, I think those requirements were shit. Even without the spikes on everything, I would assume the buckles and straps everywhere would cause almost as many problems. There is a reason armour is as flat as possible on both sides; dozens of thicker spots where the buckles and connectors sat would only transfer kinetic energy more or less directly into the body.
I hold that Burning Man is partially guilty for that development.
Quote from: Planet Algol;659978I hold that Burning Man is partially guilty for that development.
I hold Burning Man partially guilty for a lot of things. :)
"Burning Man, it's a good thing!" -- Martha Stewart
Quote from: Sacrosanct;658901Maybe I'm missing something, but your link doesn't go to Grognardia, it goes to your picassa site. And I'm not seeing the similarity other than "hey, it's black and white inked fantasy art".
When you are right, you are right:
http://grognardia.blogspot.tw/2009/04/mighty-marvel-method.html
The DungeonPunk look was a direct extension of TD's Planescape art. Unfortunately, the 3e artists could not reproduce his pinache, and idiosycratic stylings. If you put the PS box set books next to the 3.0 phb, you can see this very clearly. Even the color pallete.
Of course TD was handpainting/airbrushing analog (often on blue line transparencies, or colored photo methods?) while the 3.0 books are done either in pencil or digital painting (which looked great in y2k, but crap now).
Check out this fab WAR late 2e cover (lol):
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71NSzG1yvDL._SL1000_.jpg)
Also, Todd Lockwood is really good when he is not trying to ape TD IMO.
Quote from: Planet Algol;659960At least 3e art doesn't feature the artist inserting out-of-shape gamer nerds into rpg artwork. Some of those 2.5e pictures fall into shit-ouroboros territory.
Yes, its fucking horrible.
Well I got those reprints, and I think they're cool.
Quote from: Benoist;660710Well I got those reprints, and I think they're cool.
that's really all that matters. Your money. None of my business how you spend it.
Quote from: Benoist;660710Well I got those reprints, and I think they're cool.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;660713that's really all that matters. Your money. None of my business how you spend it.
NOOOOOOO!Must...prove..someone...on...internet...
WRONG!
By the way, can anyone confirm that the wandering monster tables
still aren't in the Monstrous Compendium?
Quote from: Bobloblah;660744By the way, can anyone confirm that the wandering monster tables still aren't in the Monstrous Compendium?
Don't see them...tables for summoning, but no wandering monsters.
Quote from: Brad;660756Don't see them...tables for summoning, but no wandering monsters.
Ditto.
Weird, because I seem to recall examples in the original "notebook" MC, and explanations on how to do your own..
Yeah, the tables were in the MCs, but not the MM. Super lame.
The MM tables are in the MC Annual 2 (Ancient Gamer 1970 was nice enough to send me a scan of those pages awhile back, lol).
Wotc needs to put them up as a download IMO.
Quote from: Teazia;660903Yeah, the tables were in the MCs, but not the MM. Super lame.
The MM tables are in the MC Annual 2 (Ancient Gamer 1970 was nice enough to send me a scan of those pages awhile back, lol).
Wotc needs to put them up as a download IMO.
http://wikisend.com/download/453480/wandering_monsters.pdf
No idea where that came from...
Despite the lack of wandering monster tables, the Monstrous Manual includes a ton of critters in a single tome that makes it quite useful as a reference, IMO. I think it's the more interesting volume of the three, for me, inspiration-wise.
Quote from: Benoist;661048Despite the lack of wandering monster tables, the Monstrous Manual includes a ton of critters in a single tome that makes it quite useful as a reference, IMO. I think it's the more interesting volume of the three, for me, inspiration-wise.
Yeah, it's my favourite monster book of all time, a really great single book to have at the table. I also really appreciated the whole ecology aspect of the book, though I know that's not everyone's cup of tea.
This was the time when they put some very extensive random monster tables in a lot of the setting box-sets, I think it was a design philosophy. Not a very bright one if you ask me, but there you go.
Well, the kicker is that very complete, very useable tables for random encounters in every sort of environment, along with NPC parties and "ruins" locations, were all present in the original looseleaf/binder Monstrous Compendium. They copied the exact same ones into the Monstrous Compendium Annual #2, which was actually a book, like the manual. The idiocy of not putting these into the main Monstrous Manual defies description. I have little doubt that it was some sort of cost-saving measure.
Quote from: Bobloblah;661623Well, the kicker is that very complete, very useable tables for random encounters in every sort of environment, along with NPC parties and "ruins" locations, were all present in the original looseleaf/binder Monstrous Compendium. They copied the exact same ones into the Monstrous Compendium Annual #2, which was actually a book, like the manual. The idiocy of not putting these into the main Monstrous Manual defies description. I have little doubt that it was some sort of cost-saving measure.
I think it had to be some kind of "policy" thing.
The folks in charge may have even been unaware of the existence of the said charts.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;656543Thinking Larry Elmore's art sucks the sweat off a donkey's balls has nothing to do with editions, so unclench your sphincter, nitwit.
I've nothing against Elmore, but his artwork does feel like he's trying to be Frazetta, and only succeeding at being second rate at that. In comparison, Elmore's characters are stiff and immobile, like props. (rather like mine, but i'm getting better at drawing action scenes, i hope.)