What was so magical about 1E/OD&D art?

[Nightfall]

Pants,

No but doesn't he make for a great target anyway?

 

[eyebeams]

1e art is *grimy*. It makes adventurers look like soot-marked guys with notched swords. It represented low-level play perfectly by glorifying hardships. 3e art illustrates heroes from the start, which is jarring when low level PCs aren't as competent as representative pictures look. It also made the magical elements stand out. "Magic Mouth" is a great example. So's the original DMG cover where the fighter's wearing realistic armour and his shield device looks like something straight off of a battlefield. PC pictures showed actions instead of floating poses on whitespace. "A Paladin in Hell" complements the PHB entry perfectly, as does the Thief.

 

[Nightfall]

All I know is Claudio needs to get more artwork in WotC. I'm not blaming him just think WotC should hire him to do more artwork for them.

 

[MerricB]

...

 

[Hussar]

Now, as was mentioned, the Fiend Folio, the original one, had some bloody fantastic pics in it that blew away any other book at the time. The githyanki pic with the guys arm getting ripped off? Fantastic. Here was a book of monsters where the monsters looked downright SCARY.

But, I will agree with the general concensus that the 3e PHB artwork is perhaps not as good as it could be. You'll get no arguement from me on that one. However, in the past two years or so, WOTC has really cranked out some fantastic artwork for their books. And fairly consistently.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

I think 3.X's art, at least the early stuff, was done to promote a more "friendly" game. IE D&D had a bit of a rep' and Wizards probably chose art and artists to give it a plain, down to earth look. No blood or Gore readily apparent. No scenes of doom or dispair. Just basic images.
(Just my guess/opinion. I could be wrong)

Now later 3.X art became quite good. (The Enviromental book series and the Draconomicon are probably my favorites. Great art, nice flavor, good crunch) I'm not a fan of Ebberon, but some of the Steampunk-like elements are pretty cool, and I think the different style of art fits well with the settings non-stereotypical themes.

I still prefer the oldschool stuff. Not much of a fan of the B&W art, but the full-page illustrations with the faded and dark color just seem to me to have more character.

 

[Ghendar]

Sorry, but there wasn't any magical spirit in the old art. Really, it just wasn't very good or interesting. I think what you're experiencing is your mind playing tricks on you.

How can you honestly say that?
1st ED art was just as diverse as 3rd ED art. To condemn all of it as bad is just, well silly

Sure it's nostalgia based and sure there was plenty of dreck, just as there was plenty of good stuff. (Psst, just like 3rd ED as well)

 

[DM_Jeff]

I was very fond of Valerie Valusek's artwork in various 2e Forgotten Realms products. With the sale of TSR to WoTC, she seemed to drop off the face of the earth. Does anybody know what she is doing now?

Well, she was credited for Cartography in a product called Otosan Uchi by AEG which described the capitol of Rogukan. There are a coupl eof other meager credits in 2000, but mostly you can she she stopped working in 1997/98 (and the merger times you mention). A shame.

As for art today being soulless or 'all technique', I say phooey. I loved 1e art at the time, sure, and many peices were fine and ingrained on my head for ages as an influence on my young mind. On the other hand I don't recall many where I'd stop and just STARE and take in all it had to offer. Emlore's almost always did. I find myself taking in much more of today's art, maybe because there's that much more to take in? I don't know.

I like a lot of the art in 3e, and the fact that it comes from "a magical medieval society" makes sense as not just being historical medieval in tone.

-DM Jeff

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, I will agree with the general concensus that the 3e PHB artwork is perhaps not as good as it could be. You'll get no arguement from me on that one. However, in the past two years or so, WOTC has really cranked out some fantastic artwork for their books. And fairly consistently.

Exactly....and perhaps for the reason that Ltheb Silverfrond suggests: To remove the game from the "rep" of 1e. Of course, if true, this would mean that the 3.0 PHB intentionally tried to communicate that 3.0 should have a different "feel" than 1e, whereas the art in the 3.0 DMG communicates that 3.0 should feel very much like 1st ed...just more cinematic.

Glancing through the 3.0 DMG, the first thing that I notice is that there are B&W illustrations. Then I notice that there are some pictures where the adventurers seem more like they are actually adventuring. They have to think, they are not in charge, and they can get hurt:

p. 15: Adventurers make careful plans regarding thier next adventure.

pp. 60-61: Three adventurers face two orcs; there is no caption to make sure you know who will win.

p. 78: Incorporeal wraiths lunge toward an adventurer.

p. 82: Mialee fails to overcome the spell resistance of a marilith.

p. 92: Adventurers learn how deadly a dragon's breath weapon can be.

p. 99: Tordek is unprepared for an ogre's ambush.

p. 103: Ugh, a spider.

p. 105: Gnolls attempt to use a pit to their advantage during a fight.

p. 116: Tordek falls victim to a magic lightening trap.

p. 174: Trinthakis the dark elf uses the staff of the deathsong to devastating effect.

p. 199: Using a scroll with a spell that is beyond her, Mialee suffers painful consequences.

There are also pictures that depict a more believable worldview:

p. 16: Dungeon Mastering well requires a solid foundation of planning, just like building a castle.

pp. 106-113: Various dungeon features.

p. 148: "We don't serve your kind here."

p. 151-152: Ships and siege engines without strange new spikes.

p. 244: Crafting magic items requires time and money as well as skill. (Note the fleshed out background.)

Finally, there are direct homages to the illustrations in the 1e DMG:

p. 114: A water trap threatens to quench Alhandra's life (see 1e DMG, p. 68).

p. 127: A sample dungeon (see 1e DMG, p. 95).

A glance through the 3.0 DMG shows artwork that communicates a very different message than that of the 3.0 PHB. Whether or not you like the artwork, anyone who joins a game expecting the message in the PHB artwork, but is in a game that follows the message in the DMG artwork, is going to be rudely shocked!

Now, if you turn to page 169, you get "Ember takes a moment to reflect on her victory over an umber hulk", you will see that there is at least one picture in the 3.0 DMG that explicitly suggests that the characters can win, but this is hardly the overall message.

People talk about the "adversarial nature" of 1e....but if the artwork of the 1e DMG gives a different message than that in the PHB, it is to remind the DM to relax in the face of PC wackiness. Hence all the cartoons.

p. 34: "This had better work!"

p. 35: "Dave, get the barbarian in the corner another drink, quick!"

p. 44: "One false move, wizard, and your familiar gets it!"

p. 81: Fighter jumps into wizard's arms on encountering a rust monster.

p. 111: "It's a great new fantasy role-playing game. We pretend we're workers and students in an industrialized and technological society."

p. 123: "Well, either it allows a magic-user to throw the various Bigby's hand spells, or it's a +2 backscratcher. So far we're not sure which...."

p. 234: Three adventurers confront a giant snake using a giant forked stick.

There are mood pieces that suggest world and background, such as those on pp. 48, 59, 89, 101, 136, 154, 219, and 232.

Finally, the illos running from p. 170-173 show the progress of a party of adventurers, from facing kobolds to stone giants.....and it shows them both facing actual danger (the troll coming unexpectedly from the side passage) and winning (in fact, getting a big haul at the end).

In other words, the art in 1e both PHB and DMG suggest that the PCs can both face actual danger, and that they can win if they are clever, or lucky, or both. Both players and Dungeon Masters are being told to come to the game with roughly the same expectations. The DM is given more humorous pieces, IMHO, largely because the DM must keep a sense of humor in mind when describing action, and when faced with the players' plans. In other words, the DM is encouraged to let Mickey Mouse ears or a forked stick sometimes work, while being reminded that it is just a game, and that a party of fighters is going to view rust monsters differently than a party of wizards.

The art in the 3.0 PHB suggests that the PCs are special snowflakes who are rarely in danger (and even then, not real danger), who always come out on top, and who are seperate from the world. The art in the 3.0 DMG suggests that the PCs rarely come out on top and deserve no special treatment. These mixed messages are liable to cause conflict with anyone new to the game.

Like or hate the styles of 1e or 3e....I don't care. Joshua Randall is right when he says that it is silly to say all of one edition's art is great, while all of another edition's art is garbage. However, it is equally ludicrous to say that the only reason one would prefer one style of art or another is nostolgia. The difference in messages these illustrations convey is also not nostalgia.


RC

 

[Qualidar]

You do realize that the "Special Snowflake Style" (even though it's not to my tastes) is a perfectly valid way to play the game, right?

~Qualidar~