The "iconic" characters -- time to for them to die?

[Dark Jezter]

Originality and style are fine, but if you present a SINGLE style (in the case of 3E, spikes, tattoos, etc) in the CORE books, then you are presenting a single image of DnD. This is bound to irritate those players who dislike that image.

Yes, but if my poll about 3e's art is any indication, then the people who don't like it are a definate minority, so I doubt that WotC is going to feel very motivated to return to Eorl Otis' dripping tentacles and Larry Elmore's girls with chainmail bikinis and 1980s hairdos.

A variety of styles in the core books would have been better. That way players could focus on the images/styles that best reflect their vision of DnD -- and not some flavour du jour vision that emphasizes 'kewl non-Medieval" stuff.

How inconsiderate of WotC to decide on an art style without thinking "Hmmm, what would Akrasia like?"

 

[Remathilis]

I don't know where you got those pictures from, but 2e didn't have iconics (at least, not in my PHB!). That is kinda the point: 2e had a variety of art, but several people have said that already.


glass.

They are from the second printing of the AD&D Players Handbook, the reprint that came out in 95-96, along with the PO line.

Each is pictured near its respective class, hence the term "iconic".

 

[Hypersmurf]

... so I doubt that WotC is going to feel very motivated to return to Larry Elmore's girls with chainmail bikinis and 1980s hairdos.

Shame

I love Elmore's art. Even the art that isn't girls with chainmail bikinis and 1980s hairdos.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

A word of warning: I am actually going to be serious in this post.

I guess the difference between the 3e iconics and the 2e iconics is that the former are based on generic concepts while the latter were based on specific characters. It wasn't that 2e did not have a lot of artwork featuring the same characters, often in portrait poses as well. I'm sure we all remember seeing many illustrations of Raistlin, Kitiara, Lord Soth, Strahd, Elminister, and other "iconic" 2e characters. However, we did have more insight into their personalities than the 3e iconics. We knew what they did and what they were like.

The 3e iconics are more blank slates for us to fill in their personalities. Somewhere along the way, the community consciousness has made Regdar into an amiable dolt and Hennet a fashion-conscious poseur, for example. The line of books featuring the iconics has not done much to establish their personalities, one way or the other. Or perhaps it's just me since I've never read any of the books. 3e may develop its own character iconics along the lines of Mordenkainen and Bigby. One prime candidate in my mind is the Lord of Blades from Eberron.

The 3e generic iconics should not be compared to luminaries such as Tanis Half-elven and Tasselhoff Burrfoot. Rather, they are the equivalent of the generic 1e and 2e iconics. How much do we really know about Rath the dwarf and Delsenora the mage? Apart from the DMG write-up of the fight, what else can we say about Barjin and Gutboy Barrelhouse? Are the 3e iconics any less interesting than they are?

 

[Akrasia]

Yes, but if my poll about 3e's art is any indication, then the people who don't like it are a definate minority, so I doubt that WotC is going to feel very motivated to return to Eorl Otis' ...

Four points:

(a.) You don't understand your own poll (and its limitations as data).
(b.) You don't understand the nature of polls. (E.g. My poll about killing the iconics was pure amusement. I never intended it to be something it could not be, such as an accurate measurement of the views of most players concerning the iconics, and/or a genuine attempt to change WotC policy concerning the use of iconics.)
(c.) You strangely assume that the correctness or incorrectness of my aesthetic judgement on this matter is somehow contingent on the likelihood that WotC will change their art direction. (This makes as much sense as claiming that a film critic's reviews are valid only to the extent that they prompt a change in Hollywood film-making.)
(d.) Given your poll questions, any inference about people's like or dislike of Otus's work, relative to that of contemporary WotC artists, is completely unwarranted (since your poll does not specify Erol's excellent stuff in any way).

Meditate and reflect on these points.

How inconsiderate of WotC to decide on an art style without thinking "Hmmm, what would Akrasia like?"

Quite!

Someday they will learn. :\

 

[Pants]

This is true. We need more Erol Otus, so we can have cartoonish people with absurd non-spikey armour and unrealistic clothing.

Because... as we all know, Erol Otus was the epitome of realistic looking creatures and armor. But wait... something slimy and tentacley is clawing its way up from the dredges of the internet...

Oh god....

It's....

IT'S....

SPIKEY ARMOR! Oh yea god of gods!

Originality and style are fine, but if you present a SINGLE style (in the case of 3E, spikes, tattoos, etc) in the CORE books, then you are presenting a single image of DnD. This is bound to irritate those players who dislike that image.

Well... 2e provided a single style in their core books; cliched medieval fantasy. So you can hardly call 3e as the single culprit.

I'm also curious to see where all the spikes and tattoos come in. Looking through my PHB, only Hennet, Alhandra, and Regdar have spikey armor and it's only in small places.
Only Hennet and Vadania have tattoos, so where is this supposed proliferation coming from?

 

[Dark Jezter]

Four points:

(a.) You don't understand your own poll (and its limitations as data).

I don't?

(b.) You don't understand the nature of polls. (E.g. My poll about killing the iconics was pure amusement. I never intended it to be something it could not be, such as an accurate measurement of the views of most players concerning the iconics, and/or a genuine attempt to change WotC policy concerning the use of iconics.)

I never intended my poll to influence WotC policy, but it is interesting to see just how many people like 3e's artwork in relation to the comparatively small number of people who dislike it.

(c.) You strangely assume that the correctness or incorrectness of my aesthetic judgement on this matter is somehow contingent on the likelihood that WotC will change their art direction. (This makes as much sense as claiming that a film critic's reviews are valid only to the extent that they prompt a change in Hollywood film-making.)

Now who's the one making assumptions?

I never said that your tastes were right or wrong, just that most people (at least on ENWorld) disagree with you.

(d.) Given your poll questions, any inference about people's like or dislike of Otus's work, relative to that of contemporary WotC artists, is completely unwarranted (since your poll does not specify Erol's excellent stuff in any way).

Considering that 3e's artwork sits well with most people, there wouldn't be much reason for WotC to go back to Otus, would there?

 

[Shining Dragon]

Nooooooo! Not Lidda!

 

[Dark Jezter]

Shame

I love Elmore's art. Even the art that isn't girls with chainmail bikinis and 1980s hairdos.

-Hyp.

Yeah, I like Elmore's art too. He's definately one of the better artists from previous D&D editions (even if he does have a thing for girls with chainmail bikinis and 1980s hair styles ). And, unlike most other 1e/2e artists, Elmore's illustrations still look good after all these years.

 

[Akrasia]

I don't??

That's right, you don't. You conflate two distinct questions in it: (a.) the extent to which one likes/dislikes 3E art; and (b.) whether one prefers 3E art over the art of an earlier edition, or vice versa.

The first and last questions in your poll are explicitly comparative (b.), whereas the other questions are noncomparitive (a.). Hence if someone is, say, neutral, or generally positive about 3E art, but nonetheless prefers the art of an earlier edition, your poll fails to capture this fact. Exacerbating this problem, you appear to be intent on interpreting these answers as indicating a preference for 3E art over that of earlier editions. In short, your poll is confused, and you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from it.

I never said that your tastes were right or wrong, just that most people (at least on ENWorld) disagree with you.

And of course the fact that many people at ENWorld are unfamiliar with the earlier editions (or are only familiar with one edition), renders your (already flawed poll) an unreliable indicator of what most people would in fact think about the comparative merits of the art in different editions.

It is worth remarking, in this connection, that most of the posters in your thread expressed dislike or dissatisfaction with 3E art (something you note yourself). The majority of those thoughtful enough to justify their views on 3E were not (on balance) positive.

But whatever. These quibbles aside, I never claimed that my views were those of the 'majority' of ENWorlders, and could not really care less if they were. I am old enough to know that "the truth has few friends."

Considering that 3e's artwork sits well with most people, there wouldn't be much reason for WotC to go back to Otus, would there?

Why do you keep harping on this "policy question"? :\ Why do you think I am trying to change WotC art direction? One can express one's view about the products of a company (e.g. "I hate McDee's hamburgers!") without thinking that that opinion will actually affect the company's policy (e.g. McDee will improve their burgers).