Once you go C&C, you never go back

[gideon_thorne]

Okay, when you say "provide a better example", does that include an example produced by another artist? Could I compare your work with Larry Elmore to critique it? Or does it have to be something I did myself?

Your initial post implies that it should be something I did myself.

*chuckles* Absolutely. Compare me to my friend Larry, and I will concede the mastery to him in all cases. Course, having had this discussion with him before, I doubt he'd agree on all points. ^_^

 

[gideon_thorne]

The C&C art is modern classic only insofar as it tries to make the characters look like real people. What you've stated at the end there is a gross mis-characterization.

But, to me, a familiar style of characterization. I thought the pedantic nature of the aforementioned critique sounded familiar. Another person on another forum, known for highly illogical statements in regard to both game and art makes similar remarks.

 

[Fifth Element]

*chuckles* Absolutely. Compare me to my friend Larry, and I will concede the mastery to him in all cases. Course, having had this discussion with him before, I doubt he'd agree on all points. ^_^

Absolutely to which question?

 

[gideon_thorne]

Absolutely to which question?

Well, since you said 'compare to another artist like Larry Elmore' I thought I already answered that. Sorry if I was unclear. This is never the best form of communication in which to express my often wandering rambles.

 

[slimykuotoan]

Just to be sure we're clear, C&C rolls aren't just random things the DM pulls out of nowhere:

http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/downloads/pdfs/phdownload.pdf

The number to beat follows logically from the difficulty of the task: If I save vers a spell, it's based upon the hit die of the caster.

Listen to a thief? -based upon his hit die and other miscelaineous factors, etc.

I'd hate the game, if it was "the CK thinks it should be this way..."

 

[Dristram]

"Modern classic" is the problem. This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad).

I own all the books for C&C and I don't see the art this way. They don't contain modern elements, but more have a modern age feel just as Elmore/Easley/Parkinson/etc had a modern age feel in the 80's. Art influenced by the modern era, but still fantasy themed.

Also, the bulk of the art seems posed and stiff, and doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs).

I beg to differ. Look HERE and point to what you mean., 'cause I don't see it.

I took offense with you saying simply that the "art is horrible". I would have accepted your opinion better if you stated that the art "is not to your liking" or at worst, "I think the art is horrible". Stating it as you did made it seem fact as if anyone seeing the art will think it's horrible. Simply not the case.

Now I have to call out Peter and say that I don't believe he would have come forth with the same arguement had Valiant stated that the "art was awesome".

As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.

Not to mention that Gary has written and is writing material for C&C, namely the Castle Zagyg product line.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Now I have to call out Peter and say that I don't believe he would have come forth with the same argument had Valiant stated that the "art was awesome".

Quite true, my argument would have been what I mentioned earlier in this thread. 'Thats awesome' or "thats horrible" is no good to me. I'm sure its going to come off wrong, in this text media, when I say I've been receiving 'attaboys' most of my life when it comes to my art. And while I can appreciate the spirit in which it was offered, I much prefer the following means of conveying both good and bad reviews over 'thats awesome' simply because the information presented thus actually helps me grow in my capabilities.

I am quite prepared to accept valid critique of my work if presented as such. "I don't like this particular piece of work because, to me, it doesn't reflect (insert given desired emotive response here). Or "The proportions don't seem right here." or "The shading, colours used, composition, or what not doesn't seem right.

The examples given actually present me with real information for me to consider so I can actually improve. I don't consider myself the best on the market, far from it in fact.

Is that a fair answer?

 

[Valiant]

Phil, C&Cs artwork is far more similar to 3E then 1E (or classic fantasy of that era), its still got all the modern 3E elements I hate.
And this should be no surprise, as 3E players are likely their primary market, thus going after a toned down D20 look in art was a logical option (which also incidently mirrors the toned down D20 rules system the game uses). As for action, check out the cover of the 1E PH to see what I mean. Of all the artwork I've seen from C&C, only a few pieces would fit in to old school.

Gideon, regardless of Gygax's personal relationship with the owner, he's still being payed and C&C greatly benefits from this association (tieing it to AD&D and OD&D, a link I don't think the game deserves). Thats a reality. TLG has benefited far more from the Gygax name then visa versa (whatever happened to LA for instance?). Like I said, C&C is a fine game for people looking for a 3E/D20 light system, but isn't a return to 1E, not by a long shot.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Gideon, regardless of Gygax's personal relationship with the owner, he's still being payed and C&C greatly benefits from this association (tieing it to AD&D and OD&D, a link I don't think the game deserves). Thats a reality. TLG has benefited far more from the Gygax name then visa versa (whatever happened to LA for instance?). Like I said, C&C is a fine game for people looking for a 3E/D20 light system, but isn't a return to 1E, not by a long shot.

Well of course he's being paid for his own work. Rather presumptuous to ask someone to work for free. I just pointed out that its not the only reason why he works with TLG.

Gary obviously disagrees on what the 'game deserves', as noted by his association and often mentioned approval of said game.

Oh.. and nothing 'happened' to LA. Material is still being produced for it and the core books are being revisited.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

As for action, check out the cover of the 1E PH to see what I mean.

(I assume you mean the original Trampier cover.) That's another one of my favorites (even more than the Sutherland DMG cover, which is also a classic). If that's what you mean by "action," then I'm in complete agreement that we should see more of this kind of thing. It's a scene which fires the imagination and tells a story (and drips swords-and-sorcery feel, to me).

The fact that those covers are still referenced and alluded to in modern promotions and products (in fact, if I'm not mistaken, Peter gives a nod to the Sutherland painting with his City of Brass cover for Necromancer Games) speaks volumes about their classic status and effectiveness as "D&D fantasy art."