The "iconic" characters -- time to for them to die?
- Thread starter Akrasia
- Start date
Remathilis
Legend
Dark Jezter
First Post
Thanks for those comparative pictures, Remathilis! Yeah, the 3e iconics definately show more originality and style than 2e's.
Bran Blackbyrd
Explorer
I can't say the same about your try at an insult. I know throwing verbal jabs is easier than addressing a person's points, but it doesn't gain you nearly as much street cred unless you've done it sublimely.Akrasia said:
Really? That's interesting. I always thought that fantasy novels included descriptions of their characters. Hey -- maybe that's why all those pictures of Conan, Frodo, the Grey Mouser, and so forth, look so similar!
Wheel of Time novel covers. Anyone who knows where I'm going with this, raise your hand. Nobody likes them, and the artist's interpretation doesn't match any of the fans'. The characters are described a million times during the series, but the artist never gets it right, and the fans know it. They don't agree with him on how the characters should look.
So the fans agree on how the characters should look, right?
Nope. Tons of fan art exists for these characters, all of it different and much of it doesn't remotely fit my image of the characters.
But, this has the potential of becoming tangential...
At the end of the day, I'd rather see something new that misses the mark once in a while than to see the same old thing over and over again. You won't hear me complain because the current art doesn't follow the dead tired themes of previous editions. Much of the old art was just plain bad and did nothing to spur thinking outside of it's very small boundaries. Same goes for the art that was technically sound, but fell into the same stereotypes.
On another note, nostalgia doesn't sell books to new players. Generally speaking, they don't care about the white box, they don't know about Trampier and they don't care about the plight of the flumph.
I know some grognards out there wouldn't give a hoot if this hobby never attracted new blood, but that's the only way the hobby will survive. New buyers; that's why they make more books. Try selling something today that looks like the orignal monster manual. You'll get a few nostalgia purchases... maybe some curiosity buys.
Then again, there are people out there that would rather see no more books get made if they aren't going to be made the way they were back in the day; which in my book is as selfish as not wanting the hobby to attract new players. But that too borders on the tangential...
People like to talk about spikes and straps and tattoos; what about metal skullcaps and chainmail bikinis? Did those make any more sense?
"Well, those spikes would be more of a hindrance than a help, it's unrealistic!"
What about wizards who wear robes for no other reason than that they are wizards; like it's some kind of uniform. Even the lightest armor interferes with their casting but they'll wear something with huge floppy sleeves, a hood that blocks their vision and what is essentially a long skirt to trip on?
Every other helmet back then had horns. Enough with the horns! And then there was the odd spartan that would show up occasionally among the pseudo medieval types... What was that about?
Naysayers can pick all they want at the tattoos and spikes, but I don't see where that's any worse than some of the stupid stuff going on in the old books.
Mmm pillows. Zzz....
Akrasia
Procrastinator
Bran Blackbyrd said:
I wasn't trying to insult you! I was applauding your efforts. Keep working on it...
Bran Blackbyrd said:
I would never deny that there was some "stupid stuff going on in the old books." Whatever.
None of your tangential points touches on my core complaint: the homogeneity of 3E art. The occasional "spikey" cartoonish figure would be fine if it was occasional, and not the form that all the art in the DnD books had to adopt.
Like I said in an earlier post, I liked the occasional Erol Otus picture back in the day, but I would not want all art in the DnD books to try to emulate his style.
Tattoos and spikes might not be worse than some of the stuff found in early editions; constant tattoos and spikes is much worse.
Akrasia
Procrastinator
Dark Jezter said:
Originality and style are fine, but if you present a SINGLE style (in the case of 3E, spikes, tattoos, etc) in the CORE books, then you are presenting a single image of DnD. This is bound to irritate those players who dislike that image.
A variety of styles in the core books would have been better. That way players could focus on the images/styles that best reflect their vision of DnD -- and not some flavour du jour vision that emphasizes 'kewl non-Medieval" stuff.
Robbert Raets
Explorer
"I just have to get these handcuff off first."Sebastian Ashputtle said:
Robbert Raets
Explorer
No, the 2nd Ed. one is called Mitchifer.Sejs said:
