Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Fifth Element]

Sure, as I mentioned in the first place, its subjective. But if one is going to offer a truly valid critique, one ought to be able to go beyond such pejoratives as 'it's horrible', as laughable as that assessment was.

Absolutely. The particular critique provided nothing of substance, but that has nothing to do with the critic's ability in the field. You implied that in order to offer a valid critique, the critic must have at least your level of ability, which is invalid.

BTW, I have not seen any of the art in C&C and therefore have no opinion of it. But your implication that only professional artists can offer valid critique is simply untrue.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Absolutely. The particular critique provided nothing of substance, but that has nothing to do with the critic's ability in the field. You implied that in order to offer a valid critique, the critic must have at least your level of ability, which is invalid.

BTW, I have not seen any of the art in C&C and therefore have no opinion of it. But your implication that only professional artists can offer valid critique is simply untrue.

Well, in my opinion that is the case. I think its reasonable, that in order to offer an opinion one must be able to provide a better example in a manner that at least appears informed.

There are lots of folks better than myself out there, I'll freely grant that. Which is why I'll spend more time learning from their work than presuming to denigrate it.

Stop over to the troll lord forums and look and judge for yourself the quality or lack thereof of my work. I don't mind.

But in the face of the initial critique that generated this discussion, I decided to respond with my query. If folks want to disagree with my means and methodology, thats also fine. Not everyone sees matters the same way, its all good.

 

[jdrakeh]

I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion on good game design, simply because I haven't actually designed and published one.

That's. . . nuts. People can't develop or share opinions on something unless they've done it professionally? Well, have you ever been paid to critique games? No? Then, using your own logic, I must reject your entire line of reasoning here as unqualified, since you've never served in any professional capacity as a game critic

 

[gideon_thorne]

That's. . . nuts. People can't develop or share opinions on something unless they've done it professionally? Well, have you ever been paid to critique games? No? Then, using your own logic, I must reject your entire line of reasoning here as unqualified, since you've never served in any professional capacity as a game critic

I believe thats what I've been getting at. Sure, other peoples millage may vary, and they are free to disagree with my assessment. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Let me be clear though. I believe anyone may offer an opinion on any subject. Whether or not I, personally, will consider it a professionally valid opinion (as opposed to the regular sort of opinion that anyone is entitled too) or not will depend on whether I feel (subjectively) the person offering it is qualified to do so.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Message-bord art discussions are always fraught with peril, because of the subjectivity. I personally like a lot of the 70s-style art; for whatever reason, it pushes my buttons and fires my imagination.

Here's some specific C&C pieces that I like (Players Handbook pg references are to the 2nd printing) Many of these are Peters -- some are not:

PH, pg. 10. I like this one because it presents a classic adventuring party. I love the trees/darkness they're heading towards. They're clearly off into the unknown.

PH, Ranger pin-up, pg 12. I like this one because the PC looks cool, and looks like a Ranger, to me (love the beard). I also like the clean black-and-white lines, with just enough shading/grey tones.

PH, Wizard pin-up, pg 21. This one has more shading/grey than I usually like, but the subject is excellent. The pipe and the floppy hat really kick this one up a notch, for me.

PH, Illusionist, pg 22. Peter draws very attractive women. I won't list a bunch of them, but I like this one, as well as most of the others (I have a soft spot in this direction). Clean lines, again, too.

M&T, Doppleganger, pg 19. Just twisted. The dark tone suits the subject.
M&T, Dragon attack, pg 20. Clean, dynamic without going into action overload.
M&T, Ettercap, pg 33. Strong contrasts. Evil looking.
M&T, Lich, pg 54. Fires my imagination. Love the background.
M&T, Mummy, pg 60. Maybe I just like undead. Definitely like the style.
M&T, Owlbear, pg 65. The style suits this subject (hair/feathers). I get a sense of menace and impending action. There's going to be one hell of a fight in a second.
M&T, Satyr, pg 72. I like the "looking from the shadows thing." Tells a story.
M&T, Shadow, pg 72. Much like the Doppleganger, the dark tones are perfect. Like the background, too.
M&T, Poisons, pg 126.

I also think the maps in the Eastmark folio are beautiful. (Peter does a great job on maps -- his work on XXXI is excellent, too.)

See, this kind of evaluation is useful to me because it gives me some idea of what someone likes, and dislikes, and why, about a given piece of work. Its much more efficient than 'attaboy' or 'you suck'.

 

[Clavis]

If your looking for 3E light, this is it (so a good game for 3Eers I suppose, not so for AD&D/OD&D fans). The artwork and editing are horrible, I wouldn't advise anyone looking for an old school game to get this system (stick with the originals or download OSRIC if you don't have them).

I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms with your assessment of C&C's art. I think it has a perfect "modern classic" feel that evokes exactly what makes C&C great.

The editing is indefensible, however.

For the record I'm a AD&D player & DM who found exactly the update of D&D I was looking for in C&C. As a matter of fact, it looks like Mr. Gygax is also far from unhappy with C&C.

 

[Odhanan]

Ooo, I remember the Lone Wolf books!

Has anyone tried the Lone Wolf rpg?

It does what it's set out to do very well: make the Lone Wolf universe accessible through d20 mechanics. It doesn't do generic fantasy very well, however, because of the way background and mechanics are meshed together. In other words, it does LW well, but that's all it does.

 

[Faraer]

The notion that a critic must first do something professionally and be succesful (a purely subjective criteria, mind you) at it before they are qualified to critique said thing, is patently absurd (as well as a popular and long-standing strawman utilized by creative types in the face of negative reviews).

Also, writing and self-publishing an RPG may indicate an inflated sense of one's own abilities as a designer rather than particular expertise.

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

Ah, C&C, how I love and hate thee so...

I am running the Age of Worms adventure path using C&C. Or I should say that I was...

We are still playing, but the system is so house-ruled that I'm not sure you could call it C&C. It's more of a simplified 3.5 with a very modified SIEGE mechanic. At the moment it's working pretty well for us.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...this kind of evaluation is useful to me because it gives me some idea of what someone likes, and dislikes, and why, about a given piece of work.

Looking at what I wrote, it could probably be summarized as "likes strong contrasts, clean lines, and pieces that suggest/tell a story." However, that's not necessarily set-in-stone. Sometimes, a muddier or dirtier approach suits the subject, IMO.

Some classic pieces I like are Paladin in Hell and Emirikol the Chaotic from 1E. The "magic mouth/stairs" piece in the 1E PH fires me up, too, even though its not the style that I typically am drawn to.

Sometimes I'm surprised by a particular piece that I like. I generally dislike modern art and abstract expressionism, but every once in a while I'll find a work that I can't stop looking at. There's a Pollock painting that does that to me (can't recall the name, off the top of my head), even though I'm no fan of Pollock or that approach, in general.

I really like pen and ink work (unsurprising, given my penchant for contrast and clean lines), but I'm also drawn to paintings. I like realism, but some degree of abstraction sometimes suits a work. I like paintings where the artists love of the medium shines through. (Here's example by Fechin that brings some of these things together.) Another good example is the avatar I often use: