ValamirCleaver
Jäger aus Kurpfalz
I would add Jim Holloway to that list, especially regarding his full color pieces.I really loved the "realistic" style of Elmore, Easley and Clydewell.
I would add Jim Holloway to that list, especially regarding his full color pieces.I really loved the "realistic" style of Elmore, Easley and Clydewell.
Both covers are Easley.Jeff Eaaley if Im correct
Yeah, C&C feels to me like how 2e was actually played, at least in memory, than my re-read of the ugly 2e PHB revealed.AD&D 2E was the edition I started with in grade school, so will always be special to me.
Now that I've gotten to deep dive into all the editions, I think it sits in a weird space between 1 and 3. It wants so badly to tell heroic tales like the novels, but uses the exact "made for dungeon crawling with random heroes" rules as before. What you get is a game that feels pretty clunky and relies heavily on GMs "greasing the wheels" to get things going. Or a "too young to care about doing it right" attitude that I had when playing it, so maybe only used 40% rules correctly.
Castles and Crusades is currently the game that runs the closest to how I was running my AD&D games anyways, so using that at the moment. But I still have quite a few 2e books, because the artwork is the most "D&D" D&D has ever been IMO, haha.
Same here. I like 2Es artwork the best of any edition.I really loved the "realistic" style of Elmore, Easley and Clydewell. Obviously it was still fantasy, but they made it look as though the characters were real people in real environments, even if that environment had a dragon and the characters were wielding magic swords and casting spells.
Matt Colville's comment that 5E rules are like "oatmeal" is spot on. And I just don't find any joy in reading the instructions on the back of a packet of oatmeal.That is what made me fall in love with D&D in the first place, and its relative lack in current WotC productions is a big reason why I stopped buying their stuff.
I would vote 1E. Because while you do lose Brom and DiTerlizzi you gain Otus, Dee, and Willingham (among others) and still keep Elmore, Caldwell, Easley, Parkinson and Holloway and all at their peak no less.Same here. I like 2Es artwork the best of any edition.
Because of my own play history, I tend to think of 1e and 2e as a continuum.I would vote 1E. Because while you do lose Brom and DiTerlizzi you gain Otus, Dee, and Willingham (among others) and still keep Elmore, Caldwell, Easley, Parkinson and Holloway and all at their peak no less.
Yeah. I think for me since I'm primarily a Dragonlance guy I consider AD&D to be one single edition from 1977 up to about 1994 or so. The Revised 2.5 AD&D Rulebooks (with Combat & Tactics/Skills & Powers) and Dragonlance SAGA rules which all kicked in around the same time feel like a departure to me.Because of my own play history, I tend to think of 1e and 2e as a continuum.
I would agree with that (even though I liked the SAGA rules).Yeah. I think for me since I'm primarily a Dragonlance guy I consider AD&D to be one single edition from 1977 up to about 1994 or so. The Revised 2.5 AD&D Rulebooks (with Combat & Tactics/Skills & Powers) and Dragonlance SAGA rules which all kicked in around the same time feel like a departure to me.
I never used them but loved the cover art and (like we've discussed previously in this thread) they were still fun to read.I would agree with that (even though I liked the SAGA rules).
You also get DATrampier, Diesel and DCSutherland.I would vote 1E. Because while you do lose Brom and DiTerlizzi you gain Otus, Dee, and Willingham (among others) and still keep Elmore, Caldwell, Easley, Parkinson and Holloway and all at their peak no less.
Most definitely! Hence the "among others" of which they are at the top of the list.
I always thought that the 2E Players Options Books, at least Combat and Tactics (as well as Alternity) were the predecessors of 3E. In hindsight, those books were a good indication of what D&D was to become.The Revised 2.5 AD&D Rulebooks (with Combat & Tactics/Skills & Powers) and Dragonlance SAGA rules which all kicked in around the same time feel like a departure to me.
Browse Rolozo Tolkien, especially John Howe, Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith, and the Brother Hildebrandt.sort of like how all Lord of the Rings art now is very much inspired by the movies and is samey outside of a few artists.
Yes I know them. The Hildebrandts are the 70s and 80s. They predate the movies. But just about everything you find in stores looks like the films. Lee and Howe we’re concept artists for the films. I know these so I’m trying to figure out why you’re responding to me with them? They’re great artists. Still doesn’t change all the art since that isn’t them that is LOTR related looks like their work.
Your post is a great example of why I can love Otus, Sutherland, Trampier, et al just as much as Elmore, Caldwell, Parkinson, and Easley despite the latter four being arguably technically more accomplished illustrators.How I started was finding the old stuff or my friends finding the old stuff at yard sales, we didn't have book stores so we had 0e and 1e stuff so for me art wise it is the oldest D&D guys like Otus, Holloway, Tramp, Sutherland, Dee, Willingham and when I got into 2e finally I really liked Easley & Elmore but D'iterlizzi had that quirkiness the old guys had. Easley & Elmore were all sorts of refined. Easley had a lot of energy to his work too. I loved the other guys too but it was with 2e that fantasy in general really moved into a generic, vanilla space and that space was AD&D2e. Fiction, video games, artwork. It all started to take on that same feel, sort of like how all Lord of the Rings art now is very much inspired by the movies and is samey outside of a few artists. Early D&D still had that variety of fantasy art styles going on. While the game didn't really support these variety of game styles with the magic system being married to arcane/divine split since the earliest days, the artwork really did punch it up there.
You could sit a piece by Otus, Holloway and Dee beside each other and have three wildly different approaches to fantasy but each was grounded in its own reality. Easley, Elmore all had this "these are the same world" feel to them which helped unify the game and also sell 2e, especially, as that tool kit game they wanted to push. Forgotten Realms art looked like the Realms, Dragonlance looked like Dragonlance etc. You even had disparate styles of artists on Planescape but they all felt like Planescape. It was a benefit and a curse of sorts because D&D became so... vanilla because the art was so goooood. Then 2e core just got UGLY with the revision.
But for me, those older artists are still what makes D&D. Erol Otus evil sorcerors and cultists are what evil sorcerors and cultists look like to me. Holloway's adventurers are adventurers. That's part of why I like DCC so much, the artists capture that feeling as much as the rules do.
One of my very favorite RPG illustrators. Not just for D&D but also Star Frontiers and Paranoia.I would add Jim Holloway to that list, especially regarding his full color pieces.
View attachment 276219
I did read your full post, but I think this quote sums it up. We just started playing 2E again last Sunday after 22 years and my friend and I who used to play together back then thought, eh we'll wing it at first, it'll come back to us, it did somewhat but it was rough at points. The other player who has only played 5E is somewhat confused. I just started reading the PHB over the last few days and I'm astounded how much I forgot, how many rules we probably never used to begin with, how much we probably had wrong, and how different the game truly is from 3E forward. It really is a different game.TLDR: 2e has a great deal of charm, gonzo insanity, and wild ideas a plenty. It's also a hot mess of a system. If you're familiar with all of it's idiosyncrasies, you probably love it. Or hate it.