Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 1415060" data-attributes="member: 6777">I'm in 100% agreement with what Mark posted above. Sage words.Personally, I like good covers, and I dislike bad covers. The WotC core books, IMHO, have good covers. Some of the faux-covers I've seen have been appealing to me, some have not (a lot--such as the initial S&SS releases--simply screamed "ripoff" to me, honestly). Ditto illustrated covers.No offense to MEG Hal, but the Fall of Man cover doesn't appeal to me. It's not bad, but it reminds me a lot of the 2e/Elmore style that I just can't stand, and thus makes associations in my mind that make the product unappealing to me. That, and I already own Darwin's World, so I have all the post-apoc RPG goodness I need.As others have stated, that's one of the things I like about the core books, i.e., the lack of art eliminates any possible negative associations I might have; they blend with any concepts I might have. Most 2e books (and Dragon art from that era) I found so incredibly hideous that I simply didn't want to play AD&D anymore. If 3e had continued in that vein, I might not have picked it up.Supplements, OTOH, need to evoke specific associations more than the core books. Ergo, the more art they can splash all over the product that conveys the content is a good thing, IMHO.</blockquote>