Quote from: Dumarest;972012I want to adventure with The Sears Dungeoneers.

I do too. I am looking through old catalogs looking for the perfect character portrait to go with my character's backstory.

But I can't decide. Should I play an enchantress
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1109[/ATTACH]

, a ninja,
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1108[/ATTACH]

or a druid specializing in owl magic?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1110[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Baulderstone;971797I'm a little glad I passed on the recent AD&D 2E megabundle as I heard it was the revised books. I almost went in on it as I passed on the whole 2E era of AD&D at the time. I was curious just to give the books a read, but everything I hear about revised makes it sounds bad.

To be fair, there is also some really good art in the AD&D 2E Player's Guide. (And I'm not certain, but I believe the art for the Revised Monstrous Manual is unchanged from its previous iteration.) It's just that the example art that goes with the Races and Classes in the first three chapters is crap like this, so you notice it more, because those pieces are supposed to be examples for the reader as far as what to expect from the setting, and...well.

It's just, you know, this isn't the thread for putting up good gamebook art, so I don't really feel justified in busting out counterexamples.

As I mentioned, the example art for the Classes is also dodgy. Some of it's okay, and then we have this:



GM: "So here is what a Bard looks like in this game--"

Player: "NO. No, that is not what my Bard is going to look like. Just NO."

I'm thinking "Errol Flynn in fabulous striped leggings" is a look that never really caught on among Bard players, you know? I'm starting to wonder if the Dungeonpunk aesthetic came about as a direct counter-reaction to pictures like these. When I bought this book in 1995, I remember thinking, "Oh, this is supposed to be charmingly old-fashioned. I bet this is art from the early 80's or something. It's all Robin Hood-y!"

On the other hand, this may be the only time you ever see a Bard whose favored instrument is an authentic hurdy-gurdy, which actually is sort of cool in a "I'm smart enough to make a reference to Canterbury Tales", Planescape-and-the-kitchen-sink, quirky, someone-just-hit-me-in-the-head-with-a-stick kind of way. Dude needs a monkey animal companion in a little bellhop costume to complete the ensemble. If ever there was a legitimate reason for a one-level dip into Druid...

Quote from: Baulderstone;971797What really turns my stomach with these is the colors. Someone really needed to give this guy a color wheel and lesson on color theory. That mint green sweater/cape on the elf, the hot pink cardigan on the gnome and the violet background is just nauseating when you put it all together.

I think you're on to something--the more I look at the Gnome in his hot pink cardigan, the more it hurts my face.

Quote from: Skarg;972074[ATTACH=CONFIG]1109[/ATTACH]

That is clearly your Doctor Who character. Break out the old FASA Doctor Who boxed set and get your game on.

Quote from: Voros;964895Not to be a downer but I actually get a peverse kick out of the shittier examples of old school D&D and other RPG art.

One of the perfect examples for me is the first MM cover. I remember looking at it as a kid and finding its primitivism very odd. And not in a Erol Otus underground comix way.

I was kinda shocked to find out David Sutherland did it, his style was always a bit rough and ready but I'm not sure what went wrong here. Perhaps he has a ridiculously short deadline and wasn't comfortable working in colour yet? His maps I think are particularly strong.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1003[/ATTACH]

Since nobody else mentioned (that I could see)....  I keep looking at this, and think "the spacing, colors, and details are all wrong".  This isn't the Monster Manual cover, but another artist's reproduction from 1990 apparently.  

Here's the cover on my book, which people are fine to hate as well.  I just don't want people to confuse an homage with an original.

As for my pick: Tim Bobko's work on Bloodshadows is the low mark for art in my RPGs.  Which is odd, as he could do better work for Star Wars (still not "good", but often times at least adequate).  Not sure if he had a contract to do work, just needed to meet deadlines, or really didn't "get" the project he was working on, but it was pretty much shite.

As far as Monster Manual goes, the real one is much better than the "reproduction." But it still is not all that good. It has a certain funky charm, though.

I love OD&D...but much of the art was wanker even for its day. Though I've seen wargames from the era, and most of their art wasn't too hot either.

But as a kid, I loved the AD&D 1e Monster Manual cover because it was exciting to see all the beasties together and how I was gonna whack them with my Vorpal sword.

wanker ?

Quote from: Spinachcat;972194... how I was gonna whack them with my Vorpal sword.

I don't think dirty talk is allowed on the forum.

Willingham was one of my favorites, I like his B/E stuff a lot.

For worst, of course its subjective, but the worst of 0e and 1st is really bad in comparison to the worst of say 2nd. After 2nd, 3rd really went off the rails in a direction that didn't really appeal to me. At least in the 1st through 2nd there is at least some continuity. The art of the early days was ultra primitive and that's being kind, but considering that was what they could afford back then? By early 2nd the level of skill of the artists increased dramatically. One can argue whether or not the "feel" or "tone" was good or not (whatever that means). The skill level can't really be denied as improving by 2nd however.

Quote from: Dumarest;972159That is clearly your Doctor Who character. Break out the old FASA Doctor Who boxed set and get your game on.

Doctor Who, a Rule 63 Mad Hatter, a Steampunk Assassin for Victoriana 3rd Edition, a Fishmalk--who knew a checkered-and-striped women's suit from the 70's could be so versatile?

Let's have another image from AD&D 2E Revised, shall we?

Here is where things start to get complicated, at least for me. I give you what the book considers a typical, example Druid.



I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this picture. I don't hate it. I'm not crazy about those plaid pants, and I kinda like how the little falcon there looks a bit embarrassed to be sitting on the shoulders of such a sourpuss. I kinda dig the big-ass sickle, though. There's something about this Druid--he looks just dorky enough to somehow suggest authenticity. On the other hand, he has an emo hairstyle. I'm pretty sure I've drunk beer with a guy that looks just like that, at an SCA event, once during my misspent youth.

What do you guys think? Bad art, or adequate?

Adequate bordering on bad.

Quote from: Dumarest;972012I want to adventure with The Sears Dungeoneers.

Next time I run a D&D adventure. Evey sword the players find will now have craftsman stamped on it. If it should break and they take it back. There will be a huge run around/bureaucracy/denial of replacement. I envision a frustrated group, and a Sears on fire.

Quote from: Barghest;972442What do you guys think? Bad art, or adequate?

Adequate.  Lower middle adequate, but not "bad."