Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 4073334" data-attributes="member: 18">I take it you accept this would have about zero appeal to the mass-market, particularly people under thirty, who are extremely unlike to &quot;remember&quot; Otus and Elmore particularly clearly, having caught only the tail-end of their work at most (probably in Dragon or the earlier 2E books)? Honestly their work, whilst arguably technically proficient (okay, not arguably for Elmore), is so deeply &quot;retro&quot; and&nbsp; that it's really &quot;un-update-able&quot;. A &quot;clean and modern&quot; version of Elmore's stuff, say, would still look deeply retro and uncool to most potential D&amp;D players, and most importantly, it would fail to spark imaginations, because to players who started later, it's redolent of stuff they've seen a thousand times before, of the past, and not in a good way.I mean, if D&amp;D continues to attempt to appeal to a college-age crowd, it's utterly inevitable that it'll move away from the tastes of older players. Hell, I'm only 29, and it's moved away from mine, with these unattractive, stocky figures (every human male appears to be on steroids in 4E, no matter their profession).Still, between this cover and the Green Dragon cover? Well, I think the Green Dragon kind of has the edge, because it screams DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, whereas this screams well, nothing. &quot;Some wierd lizardman and a caster-ish chick&quot; aren't, to my perceptions, a big draw to anyone. Better than dumb-looking 2d-ish Tiefling Wizard and species-unidentified Fighter, I guess.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 4073334, member: 18"] I take it you accept this would have about zero appeal to the mass-market, particularly people under thirty, who are extremely unlike to "remember" Otus and Elmore particularly clearly, having caught only the tail-end of their work at most (probably in Dragon or the earlier 2E books)? Honestly their work, whilst arguably technically proficient (okay, not arguably for Elmore), is so deeply "retro" and that it's really "un-update-able". A "clean and modern" version of Elmore's stuff, say, would still look deeply retro and uncool to most potential D&D players, and most importantly, it would fail to spark imaginations, because to players who started later, it's redolent of stuff they've seen a thousand times before, of the past, and not in a good way. I mean, if D&D continues to attempt to appeal to a college-age crowd, it's utterly inevitable that it'll move away from the tastes of older players. Hell, I'm only 29, and it's moved away from mine, with these unattractive, stocky figures (every human male appears to be on steroids in 4E, no matter their profession). Still, between this cover and the Green Dragon cover? Well, I think the Green Dragon kind of has the edge, because it screams DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, whereas this screams well, nothing. "Some wierd lizardman and a caster-ish chick" aren't, to my perceptions, a big draw to anyone. Better than dumb-looking 2d-ish Tiefling Wizard and species-unidentified Fighter, I guess. [/QUOTE]

Verification