I can attest from personal experience that torn and yellow copies of the RC play just as well as one in prisitne condition.![]()
Was that in the RC? I thought it was in one of the 2E DMGR books, but maybe I'm thinking of a different piece. Doesn't really matter, I guess -- all those books had a lot of that same craptastic interior art style.There is only one thing I didn't like about Rules Cyclopedia: it had one of the most hideous pieces of RPG art I've ever seen. Anyone remember the picture where the group is sitting around the table playing D&D, and one of the dudes (I think the DM) has a mullet and (ugh) what looks like hairy hands?
Was that in the RC? I thought it was in one of the 2E DMGR books, but maybe I'm thinking of a different piece. Doesn't really matter, I guess -- all those books had a lot of that same craptastic interior art style.
Yes, sadly, it was in the RC. The RC had the worst art of practically any D&D book ever.
That mullet was terrifying. It was as if the cast of Roadhouse were playing D&D.
The one that always makes me wince at the sheer awfulness of it is the picture of a fighter swinging his sword and sort of...prancing toward a yawning, unimpressed ogre. Do not like! That, and the cyclops dressed as a wizard.Yes, sadly, it was in the RC. The RC had the worst art of practically any D&D book ever.
The one that always makes me wince at the sheer awfulness of it is the picture of a fighter swinging his sword and sort of...prancing toward a yawning, unimpressed ogre. Do not like! That, and the cyclops dressed as a wizard.