This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D  (Read 17467 times)

Lurkndog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 823
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2021, 10:29:37 AM »
Yeah, Savant and Sorcerer is almost the gold standard for 'are you drawing an RPG cover, or are you drawing your fetish art?'.

I'm no prude and I love my cheesecake, but I remember wondering why exactly they'd use THAT image. Y'know, aside from 'sex sells'.

DID it sell?

I've talked to artists known for doing sexy stuff (the late Mark E. Rogers, Adam Warren), and the impression I've gotten is that sex sells, but not as well as you'd think.

Sex also tends to drive out other qualities that might also sell.

I think you're better off keeping it PG-13 and implying more than you show.

In that female halfling bard picture up-thread, what I object to is that she's wearing a backpack on stage. 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 10:31:55 AM by Lurkndog »

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17102
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2021, 10:51:40 AM »
Just let me get my 2e PHB reprints and I'll win this thread...

You'll lose.

Overall the art isnt bad. Its just some of it clashes even more than the original AD&D DMG art did. Especially those more whimsical line art pieces. Though that is more in the revised PHB that the original PHB. Though that piece on page 83 is pushing it a bit. But I know that artist. He uses alot of stills from movies and live models for his references. His arts good overall. But his method can lead to a bit of a collage feel.
And that piece with the dwarves and, whatever that is. Elf?

That piece on page 85 of revised 2e is weird. Is that a ghost partially in the floor? Or was the piece meant to cut off sooner? Thats not so much though a WTF moment as a, huh one. And that piece on page 250 looks more like a sketch. But could just be an attempt to do something ghostly.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 11:10:22 AM by Omega »

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2021, 11:26:20 AM »
Yeah the way I remember it 1st Ed Ad&D had worse art than 2nd ed, but that was probably just a progression towards higher production quality in general. I don’t have those in front of me though.

Valatar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • V
  • Posts: 338
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2021, 02:16:45 PM »
When Monte Cook reprinted Arcana Unearthed as Arcana Evolved, he included an artist with just horrible art.  So I submit this example:



This in a core rulebook, full-color, $50 (at the time that was pricey).

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2021, 02:56:03 PM »
Just let me get my 2e PHB reprints and I'll win this thread...

You'll lose.

Overall the art isnt bad. Its just some of it clashes even more than the original AD&D DMG art did. Especially those more whimsical line art pieces. Though that is more in the revised PHB that the original PHB. Though that piece on page 83 is pushing it a bit. But I know that artist. He uses alot of stills from movies and live models for his references. His arts good overall. But his method can lead to a bit of a collage feel.
And that piece with the dwarves and, whatever that is. Elf?

That piece on page 85 of revised 2e is weird. Is that a ghost partially in the floor? Or was the piece meant to cut off sooner? Thats not so much though a WTF moment as a, huh one. And that piece on page 250 looks more like a sketch. But could just be an attempt to do something ghostly.

I thought the 1989 PHB and DMG looked quite good. It was mainly the revised one that bothered me (something about the coloration of the images, the overall look, etc). I actually picked up a POD copy of the revised version recently just so I would have a fresh copy of the 2E rules (my 1989 PHB is in rough shape). It isn't just the art in the revised, the font choice, the layout, everything really sticks out bad. Maybe it is the POD file (been years since I flipped through the revised version). But it is genuinely hard to read (even if you put aside the look and art, it is physically difficult to read the text) 

Palleon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • P
  • Posts: 140
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #65 on: May 15, 2021, 05:28:10 PM »
I thought the 1989 PHB and DMG looked quite good. It was mainly the revised one that bothered me (something about the coloration of the images, the overall look, etc). I actually picked up a POD copy of the revised version recently just so I would have a fresh copy of the 2E rules (my 1989 PHB is in rough shape). It isn't just the art in the revised, the font choice, the layout, everything really sticks out bad. Maybe it is the POD file (been years since I flipped through the revised version). But it is genuinely hard to read (even if you put aside the look and art, it is physically difficult to read the text)

I have the Premium Reprint from WotC’s run of the books used as the source for the reprints.  It’s the same as you describe.  Everything about it was a regression for the ‘89 layout.

Eric Diaz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
    • http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #66 on: May 15, 2021, 06:04:50 PM »
I might have exaggerated a little, but I'm referring to the reprint, of course (I remember the original one quite fondly. It had some AMAZING pieces IIRC).

I mean, look at this:



There are some decent pieces... more or less... and I find the layout bland but not bad.

Overall, I'm appalled by the odd choices, pastel colors, lack of excitement and low quality. But there are certainly worse books out there.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2021, 06:08:23 PM by Eric Diaz »
Chaos Factory Books  - Dark fantasy RPGs and more!

Methods & Madness - my  D&D 5e / Old School / Game design blog.

Eric Diaz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
    • http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #67 on: May 15, 2021, 06:11:31 PM »
Just let me get my 2e PHB reprints and I'll win this thread...

You'll lose.

Overall the art isnt bad. Its just some of it clashes even more than the original AD&D DMG art did. Especially those more whimsical line art pieces. Though that is more in the revised PHB that the original PHB. Though that piece on page 83 is pushing it a bit. But I know that artist. He uses alot of stills from movies and live models for his references. His arts good overall. But his method can lead to a bit of a collage feel.
And that piece with the dwarves and, whatever that is. Elf?

That piece on page 85 of revised 2e is weird. Is that a ghost partially in the floor? Or was the piece meant to cut off sooner? Thats not so much though a WTF moment as a, huh one. And that piece on page 250 looks more like a sketch. But could just be an attempt to do something ghostly.

Not sure we are talking about the same book; mine has nothing on page 83, and this on page 85:

Chaos Factory Books  - Dark fantasy RPGs and more!

Methods & Madness - my  D&D 5e / Old School / Game design blog.

Nephil

  • Newbie
  • *
  • N
  • Posts: 43
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #68 on: May 15, 2021, 06:46:34 PM »
The black cover 2nd edition AD&D really had the most hideous art, they made the lineart doodles on the 1st edition books look like Rembrandt.

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #69 on: May 15, 2021, 07:11:44 PM »
Too bad they have the rights to the Dresden Rpg. Otherwise they would be dead to me. Two times a bunch of hypocrites. “ mine is the root of all evil!….don’t forgot to send us money to hit our Kickstarter goals”.  Or worse “lovecraft is an evil Wacist!….we are  going to add Cthulhu on our covers. Otherwise our garbage lovecraft rpg won’t sell”.

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #70 on: May 15, 2021, 07:14:56 PM »
The 2E art in the black books was alright. The original art was good yet imo too bloody for the intended audience. I have seen worse at least it was new art.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17102
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #71 on: May 16, 2021, 12:46:52 AM »
I thought the 1989 PHB and DMG looked quite good. It was mainly the revised one that bothered me (something about the coloration of the images, the overall look, etc). I actually picked up a POD copy of the revised version recently just so I would have a fresh copy of the 2E rules (my 1989 PHB is in rough shape). It isn't just the art in the revised, the font choice, the layout, everything really sticks out bad. Maybe it is the POD file (been years since I flipped through the revised version). But it is genuinely hard to read (even if you put aside the look and art, it is physically difficult to read the text)

AD&D Revised or 2e Revised?


Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17102
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #72 on: May 16, 2021, 12:50:30 AM »
Not sure we are talking about the same book; mine has nothing on page 83, and this on page 85:



I got the numbers off think. But thats the piece and looking at it now what I thought was a signature is more likely legs in the same sort of chain-mail style garb as the arms.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8332
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #73 on: May 16, 2021, 03:01:32 AM »
I might have exaggerated a little, but I'm referring to the reprint, of course (I remember the original one quite fondly. It had some AMAZING pieces IIRC).

I mean, look at this:



There are some decent pieces... more or less... and I find the layout bland but not bad.

Overall, I'm appalled by the odd choices, pastel colors, lack of excitement and low quality. But there are certainly worse books out there.

God, the 2e Reprint (black cover) was atrocious. I remember the formatting was terrible as well. I'm so glad I found original print copies, and skipped the WOTC 2e re-reprint when I found out it was from that version.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17102
Re: What were they thinking? The RPG art cringe thread :D
« Reply #74 on: May 16, 2021, 05:54:02 AM »
Makes me think some of that was done with coloured pencils. Which is quite good results really. Just some like that one are a bit... off? Others are pretty good really. And at least one is a-lot worse.