For Fantasy as a whole, I suspect that the "new school" that you're talking about started with Marion Zimmer Bradley and Walter Breen's writer's commune and it's influence on both the SF con circuit and the nascent SCA. Berkeley, CA combined with child abusers and neopaganism is at the heart of the '80s shift in fantasy -- Diana Paxton, Mercedes Lackey, and all the rest from the Swords and Sorceress series were very influential on the way fantasy was written and read from about 1984 on.

Also, "The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever" by Stephen Donaldson - who put front and center a very unsympathetic hero (the first book was the first book ever that I finished in English; I had it with me when I visited England with my father in 1985; he grumbled a bit about the "fantasy stuff" but he was happy that I was reading a whole book in a different language; I ended it wondering for what reasons I should have rooted for a rapist and a general dick...)

Quote from: S'mon on August 01, 2021, 07:34:59 AM

I think that's Lidda Tordek & Regdar from 3e. They seem to have been the Iconics in the early 4e books too.

Lidda, Regdar and Myalie (sp?) Were from 3e. They were also the main characters in the CGI D&D interactive movie.

Quote from: Flipped Bird on August 01, 2021, 08:16:57 AM
What are you guys talking about? That is just a rectangle filled up by streaks of brown and purple.

That particular artists works are often like that. Everything blends together.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 01, 2021, 12:20:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on August 01, 2021, 11:26:22 AM
Within animation, the thin-line "Cal-Arts" style of animation isn't just cheap to produce -- it also allows more dynamic animation. In a lot of animation with more realistic art, the cost is prohibitive, so you end up with a lot of characters standing stock still as just their lips move or other minor adjustments. The Cal-Arts calls back to earlier thin line styles like Looney Toons when the animation is more the focus, and you can get a lot more dynamic action in a scene. I don't like a lot of modern shows - but then, I thought the animated shows of my youth in the 1980s were even worse.

No, it does not "allow" more dynamic animation.  It makes it cheaper and faster to make frames (which is what I said above and you repeated).  The dynamism is not a feature of the style.  A company can choose to create more expensive dynamic animation not using that style if they want.  Cal-arts is low effort and low quality.

But in practice, companies don't just accept paying vastly more for animation. Generally, what they do is cut costs in other ways - like by having fewer character moves, fewer characters, re-using sequences, etc. That has a lot of effects not just on the look of the show, but on the stories that get told. The choice isn't between a thin-line style and naturalistic style with the same amount of animation. Instead, given budgets, the choice is: (a) a thin-line style with a lot of unique movement and dynamic scenes, or (b) a more naturalistic style with much less movement and dynamics.

The fundamental that I dislike is judging animation based on the look of screenshots. Animation is about being *animated*, so the quality and amount of movement has a lot to do with the quality of a show or movie. Kids can see this. A show with a lot of movement and character expression is more engaging -- especially to kids -- than one with a lot of fixed poses and drawn-out shots.

I don't like much of the newer animation, but it isn't all lazy or low-effort. For example, my ex's kids really liked The Amazing World of Gumball - which is typical of newer styles. I saw a bunch of episodes and didn't like it, but I could see that a ton of effort went into it. Each episode has a lot of stuff constantly happening, and they often would pull in unique changes, like having live puppets in an episode, for example. I think the fast action and abrupt changes is aimed more at low attention span. But that takes effort.

---

To connect this back to RPGs -- I feel similarly about arguing about the art in isolation of the game play. RPG art isn't just about generically looking good - it's about supporting game play. Back in the original old-school, a lot of material had bad or uneven art - with amateur black-and-white sketches and typewriter layout. The DIY aesthetic is that the art isn't definitional - it's stuff you can use or not use. For me, the best use of art for D&D was the POV illustration of dungeon elements like in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan.

Greetings!

I took a number of art classes in college--as well as "Art Appreciation" or whatever they were. Art history, and all that jazz. Some of it was interesting, beautiful, and cool, but I also admit to most of it being very much subjective, and loaded with pretentious elitism.

I don't claim to be an "Art Sophisticate" in any way, despite having some education on the subject.

When it comes to D&D art, I think a lot of the full-colour, modern works are garbage, or just ok. Some are excellent, of course, but many of them are pretty bland or silly.

In contrast, I think a lot of the old black & white art of the DMG, etc, were inspiring, and awesome. Adding dashes of menace and peril, intrigue, wonder, and even humour.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Reckall on July 30, 2021, 08:33:28 AM

Quote from: tenbones on July 30, 2021, 07:52:45 AM

Quote from: Cave Bear on July 30, 2021, 12:19:07 AM
The transition towards freakshit started in the 60's, with Elric of Melnibone.

In fiction - sure, it was written as a rebuke of Tolkien's work (and I'd argue by mischaracterization of Tolkien's intent on Moocock's part - but whatever).

I once met Moorcock in London, back in the early '90s. It was a book signing and a conference, at the Forbidden Planet, about "Elric and the Fortress of the Pearl" (which instantaneously devolved into AME).

Moorcock, as usual, said how he didn't like Tolkien's work (he had met the man when he was young, and personally he was totally fine). Regarding Elric, however, he said that "He had took Conan and created a character that was the total opposite - up to have Elric starting as a ruler where Conan started as a barbarian. In that panel he never mentioned The Lord of the Rings in relation with Conan.

My guess is that Moorcock became "The Anti-Tolkien" after The New Yorker published an infamous article with that title. After that, he recognised that it was true - but the only time I saw him "live" he made clear that Elric was a response to Conan, not Tolkien.

I also remember how he totally denied how Elric, and his relationship with Stormbringer, were a metaphor of his relationship with drugs (he didn't deny that he had been a drug user). I was surprised, because to me this metaphor was both clear and powerful, but that's what he said.

Quote
But the conceits are ENTIRELY different. You could no more have Elric be accepted by the woke mob before his inevitable actions run afoul of their ideology very quickly.

I did a bit of Google-fu and, strangely, he is still not cancelled. Maybe his constant flogging of Lovecraft is helping

[Fun fact: since both Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer's RPGs are based on the BRP, and I worked on the Italian edition of both published by Stratelibri, one of the first thing we did was to send the Mythos to Melnibone. We never published the rules on the then Stratelibri official magazine, but I remember that we did a box about "It can be done!" when we presented the Italian edition of Stormbringer.  ]

Moorcock for sure was a mighty degenerate, however you wanna look at it.

The last interviews I read (which were probably less off the cuff and honest than your chat, but still) he came across as absolutely clueless as to what it was that he so dilligently promoted.
He wanted to break every trope, subvert rules and so on. That's ok as an artist but there's a limit on how much society can ultimately cope.
Turns out, fantasy is an echo of our ancient mythology and it reverberates inside our soul (or DNA if you want to be an autist).
He was not a bad author but his work was destructive.
Cave Bear is 100% on the money.
New school began partly thanks to him.

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 03:51:41 AM
Moorcock for sure was a mighty degenerate, however you wanna look at it.

The last interviews I read (which were probably less off the cuff and honest than your chat, but still) he came across as absolutely clueless as to what it was that he so dilligently promoted.
He wanted to break every trope, subvert rules and so on. That's ok as an artist but there's a limit on how much society can ultimately cope.
Turns out, fantasy is an echo of out ancient mythology and it reverberates inside our soul (or DNA if you want to be an autist).
He was not a bad author but his work was destructive.
Cave Bear is 100% on the money.
New school began partly thanks to him.

Greetings!

I am inclined to agree. Moorcock, as you said, is not a bad author. His cultural legacy--somewhat separate from any artistic legacy he may have--is also, as you mentioned, destructive. I think it promotes a sense of bitter nihilism that is ultimately philosophically corrosive.

I know Moorcock has many fans over the world, and is a beloved author--and I do appreciate some aspects of the artistic themes, visions, and characters introduced in his stories--Moorcock has achieved a legitimate status as a prominent and distinctive author. However, I cannot shake the impression that ultimately Moorcock is overrated. Applauded at the time for introducing Elric of Melnibone and Stormbringer, and such--but I confess I read Moorcock as a kid and as an adolescent. Re-reading Moorcock years later as an adult, his works come across to me as being much less impressive, compared to what I once thought. Moorcock is certainly not anywhere near in the same league as Tolkien or Howard. I also appreciate David Gemmel, Karl Edward Wagner, Harry Turtledove, Jack Whyte, and Bernard Cornwell, amongst others. In contrast to Conan and Tolkien, Conan stories and Tolkien's works stand the test of time. They are as enjoyable, inspiring, wondrous, and fun as they were when I first read them as a kid.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

well put:

QuoteThey are as enjoyable, inspiring, wondrous, and fun as they were when I first read them as a kid.

At some point in our life, dismantling cultual ideas and norms may be very inspirational. But that's a phase that ultimately has to be overcome.

Books that keep inspiring you in different ways throughout your life are rare and precious indeed.

Moorcock wrote great books for angsty teenage boys. It's pulp though and certainly should not be taken seriously!

Moorcock is definitely not superversive, but neither is it morally corrosive like His Dark Materials, which I found truly disgusting - and I'm an atheist!

Yeah. When you open the Golden Compass and it hisses " I AM THE ANTI-NARNIA! Kreeeeeeeee!!! " it makes you feel like "alright, alright! Calm the $#%^ down ya paperback... sheesh."

I also thought The Mysterious Stanger was bitter, malicious, and corrosive and was relieved when I found out that it was published posthumously because Mark Twain did not want to inflict it on his fans even thought writing it was cathartic for him in very sad times. It read like a Snoo Wilson or Kurt Vonnegut joint but without the usual laughs. You could tell Sam Clemens was a broken man when he wrote it. Not his usual voice. His anger had taken over and he was no longer wry and stinging with it but wielding it like a broken piano leg in a bar fight. It was las if his goal was to poison everything you've ever been taught to trust  and he started out by pretending to spin you a fable so you'd get into range of that piano leg so he could smash you right in the mouth with it.

That is an interesting claim about Moorcock's work not standing the test of time.

Well I guess we'll see. Moorcock's influence is probably wider than Howards in terms of pop-culture influence. People don't compare Moorcock to Howard - they compare him to Tolkien.

Let's not get it bent: Howard is seminal. He will always be my first source of fantasy, even before Tolkien. But the stories of Conan, Kull and everything Hyperborean were not the same point as what Moorcock was doing with Elric and the Eternal Champion. Both are pulp, for sure, but they're products of entirely different ages, and their content shows.

I think Moorcock is an extreme outlier to the "traditional" fantasy myth-building tradition by design. He definitely, to me, is the birthing point of where S&S kicks the door down to "modern fantasy". Gemmel is solidly in the Howard S&S Tradition (Gemmel is truly not praised enough). By contrast I'd put someone like Raymond Feist as the guy that takes all the Tolkien tradition and marries it to "game fiction" in the modern sense. It's very traditional, much like David Eddings, but I think Feist is a better storyteller.

There is a distinct lack of... masculinity in a lot of modern fantasy. And it might be a generational thing. I find Brandon Sanderson's stuff to be very overrated. His concepts are cool, but his characters are like chewing on cardboard. And don't get me started on Patrick Rothfuss, whose work is complete dreck, which is ironic because he's a pretty good writer in terms of style.

There are some modern guys that I enjoy a lot: Joe Abercrombie, *very* modern but does a great job of keeping those pages turning. Stylewise he's not elegant at all, but damn me if he's not fun as fuck to read. He's like Clive Cussler crapped out a kid that liked S&S.

I'm also a big fan of Scott Lynch's "Gentleman Bastards". Very good writer and worldbuilder, and knows how to stay in his lane, worldbuilding by allusion and insinuation and letting his cool characters do their thing in front of those ideas.

I've said this elsewhere... if people want to really challenge themselves on fantasy that tries to bridge traditional Tolkien-fantasy, with the aesthetic of S&S, and the Moorcockian "cosmic Armageddon" heroics... I tentatively submit R. Scott Bakker's series - 'The Prince of Nothing' series. It's such a synthesis of fantasy sub-types that goes right into sci-fi material that it's pretty stunning.

I'm not sure if it's homage (the author says it is) or deconstruction, (where I sweat, ready to press the button and fire my missiles) to Tolkien, maybe both? But whatever it is, it has deeply affected my sensibilities of adult fantasy. It's Heavy Metal, Warhammer Fantasy, Dune, Lovecraft, and Tolkien rolled into one. It's the first time I've ever understood the trite term "dark majesty" by the end of the second trilogy. And there were *many* times I felt I was Hate-Reading my way through, but I simply had to see if he was going to "Go there" at the end. Let's just say he does. There are zero punches pulled, and you feel just relieved to have witnessed it. But you feel dirty afterward. Relieved... but dirty. You'll be pondering the events for years, since it's essentially a philosophical issue about the metaphysics of his fantasy world. Or not. Depends on you. The fact that rarely happens in *any* genre, much less fantasy, is worth a read if you're wanting the challenge.

Quote
There is a distinct lack of... masculinity in a lot of modern fantasy.

No shit. Just look at the other thread about Kevin Smith's abomination of a reboot.
In short, masculinity is dissolving because it's been commodified and rebranded as gender neutral. Everybody can be a Chinese woman and every Chinese woman can be a heroic man, if zhe wants. Nerds are especially endangered, since, on average, they experience the most trouble with connecting to their manliness because of innate predispositions towards creativity and abstraction.

QuoteAnd it might be a generational thing. I find Brandon Sanderson's stuff to be very overrated. His concepts are cool, but his characters are like chewing on cardboard. And don't get me started on Patrick Rothfuss, whose work is complete dreck, which is ironic because he's a pretty good writer in terms of style.

Totally concur. Rothfuss is a joke.
Sanderson does everything by the book.
Both are cashing in on stronk, sophisticated womb-men and Homer Simpsonish men.

It's worth remembering that there were some....different art styles before Frazetta as well 😀

Quote from: Trond on August 03, 2021, 09:16:31 AM
It's worth remembering that there were some....different art styles before Frazetta as well 😀

Very pertinent point.