Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dristram" data-source="post: 3920111" data-attributes="member: 1639">See and I am one who doesn't care for 3e artowrk, who likes the pre-DragonLance artwork, but does like the work of those artists, and I like Peter's work.&nbsp; Though not completely.&nbsp; I think it's a little too clean and smooth or something.&nbsp; I can't quite place it.&nbsp; But I see it as his style and I can definitely see his talent.I'm sure you can't mean to compare skill here.&nbsp; Because Peter's skill blows away the artists of the original PHB.&nbsp; But I think I understand what you mean.&nbsp; There isn't a lot of &quot;scenes&quot; that &quot;tell a story&quot;.&nbsp; Art pieces that inspire adventure.&nbsp; I would agree with you there.&nbsp; I would not hold Peter accountable for that.&nbsp; That is an issue for the art director.&nbsp; That said, I don't know how that equates to the art in C&amp;C being horrible.&nbsp; That comment hits directly at Peter's skill at an artist.A agree except for the long shot part.&nbsp; If I wanted a return to 1E, I would play 1E.&nbsp; I have all the books and if I didn't, I could still get them.&nbsp; I think C&amp;C would have been a better follow-on from 2E than 3E was.&nbsp;&nbsp; 3E changed D&amp;D a lot.&nbsp; C&amp;C would have been a more minor transition.&nbsp; Lets go back to 1998, and if I were asked which system woud make a better 3rd Edition AD&amp;D between C&amp;C, HackMaster, and d20/D&amp;D, I'd say it would be a toss-up between HackMaster and C&amp;C.&nbsp; And C&amp;C would be more of a change in basic mechanics as HackMaster is essentially AD&amp;D on steriods.&nbsp; I like HackMaster, but I prefer C&amp;C because it's more rules-lite.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dristram, post: 3920111, member: 1639"] See and I am one who doesn't care for 3e artowrk, who likes the pre-DragonLance artwork, but does like the work of those artists, and I like Peter's work. Though not completely. I think it's a little too clean and smooth or something. I can't quite place it. But I see it as his style and I can definitely see his talent. I'm sure you can't mean to compare skill here. Because Peter's skill blows away the artists of the original PHB. But I think I understand what you mean. There isn't a lot of "scenes" that "tell a story". Art pieces that inspire adventure. I would agree with you there. I would not hold Peter accountable for that. That is an issue for the art director. That said, I don't know how that equates to the art in C&C being horrible. That comment hits directly at Peter's skill at an artist. A agree except for the long shot part. If I wanted a return to 1E, I would play 1E. I have all the books and if I didn't, I could still get them. I think C&C would have been a better follow-on from 2E than 3E was. 3E changed D&D a lot. C&C would have been a more minor transition. Lets go back to 1998, and if I were asked which system woud make a better 3rd Edition AD&D between C&C, HackMaster, and d20/D&D, I'd say it would be a toss-up between HackMaster and C&C. And C&C would be more of a change in basic mechanics as HackMaster is essentially AD&D on steriods. I like HackMaster, but I prefer C&C because it's more rules-lite. [/QUOTE]

Verification