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

[Melan]

Melan: "Otus, DCS and especially Dee had little to do with mediaeval fashion. Maybe Trampier" Sure, but their clothing was very fantasy generic.

No, it wasn't. Otus? Generic? DCS? Dee? None of them were "fantasy generic", except by a very loose interpretation of the term. Otus, in particular, is known for his weirdness, and a big part of it is the outrageously eccentric clothing. I mean, consider the following examples:

DCS did depict common looking people in extraordinary situations. But Dee, again, was something entirely different, and very comic book inspired. So what you are writing about was a part of old art, but only a part (and that's without going into Will McLean's cartoons). Come to think of it, that is not a bad thing at all...

Frezetta, as much as I love his work, was pretty much focusing on Conan setting stuff (mostly outside, brutal strength of half naked savage men, total T&A for the chicks...he wasn't about AD&D or OD&D (ie. average guys doing extra-ordinary things down underground). He'd have been a poor match for AD&D if you think about it. AD&Ds persons are so average looking (30-40 year old guys with beards and partly balding, slightly overwieght at times, while others are hardened as if by weather, but not overly-so) that the player could think, "hey I can picture being down there with these guys. So, it was a tool to foster emmersion in a "dungeon crawl" setting.

Frazetta-inspired art was common in Judges Guild's product line, c.f. the works of Ken Simpson and the Sorceror's Guild (some studio that did artwork for them); and JG was pretty big in the OD&D period. But some module art also draws on his legacy. So all in all, while I accept that Average Joes going dungeoneering was a facet of early TSR art, and I even like it, it was just a part of it, not the whole. Or we could say only DCS and Trampier are "real" old school artists, but that would be a definition so narrow that there is probably little value to it.

 

[tx7321]

Those are all fantasy Generic. Thier bizzarness just makes them that much more so. I think your misunderstanding what I mean by fantasy Generic. Fantasy generic is a set of rules that define a look. Artists can have any style they like (from high realism to rough sketching or characterized figures, and still come off as "generic fantasy"). In generic fantasy you have: wizards with robes and hats (or at least not in armor unless they are a fairy type like an elf), fighters in heavy armor with swords, little dwarves with beards, etc. you know what I mean. You don't see tattoos, modern haircuts, swimsuit models, spikey armor for the sake of looking kewl, figures looking cheeky at the viewer...that sort of thing. I admit the works put out by those artists were highly stylized. And at the time, I'd had wished they'd put out covers more like the DMG and PH. But that doesn't mean I didn't like them overall.

As for Conanish figures in Judges Guild...sure. I don't have a problem with the occasional Conan running around, just don't make it the freak'n norm. Or your players will start looking at their "average stats" and start feeling "inadequite", might even want to jump to a power gamers paradise found in a ...later edition.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

As for Conanish figures in Judges Guild...sure. I don't have a problem with the occasional Conan running around, just don't make it the freak'n norm. Or your players will start looking at their "average stats" and start feeling "inadequite", might even want to jump to a power gamers paradise found in a ...later edition.

Unearthed Arcana was still 1e.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yep, 3E lacked machismo all the way around ... Hell, even todays leading men (with the exception of a few like the new bond perhaps) are girly guys...Brad Pitt, Leonardo Decrapio, etc. etc. so the PC steam roller continues on. And 4E will undoubtedly be more of the same.

Boy, you're really going to hate it when all the artists raised on manga and Final Fantasy start making the pro circuit in four or five years... probably right around the time for the first big 4E supplements, come to think of it...

 

[Desdichado]

As for Conanish figures in Judges Guild...sure. I don't have a problem with the occasional Conan running around, just don't make it the freak'n norm. Or your players will start looking at their "average stats" and start feeling "inadequite", might even want to jump to a power gamers paradise found in a ...later edition.

I think it's kinda funny that you post this in the same thread where Raven Crowking is posting theses of how the 3rd+ edition artwork caters to the "special snowflake" crowd. But I do love the smell of irony in the morning.

Also, your thesis of Frazetta not fitting the mold of Gygaxian D&D because it was more like Howard than Tolkien is pretty ironic too, since Gygax is often on record as preferring Howard to Tolkien, and for using D&D to attempt to model a much more Howard-like (as opposed to Tolkien-like) experience with the game.

Also, anyone who doesn't like Frazetta's works is completely dead to me.

 

[tx7321]

I love Frank....did you get that, I love him.

Hey good point about the UA Barbarian. Forgot about that.
I don't see anything at odds between snow flake art in 3E and what I said. Those are not even related to one another. In 1E you still have dirty, grimey, dungeon weary folk exploring monster infested chambers and completely new and unexpected challanges at every corner...fools to continue, to an almost certain death. 1E has no "snow flakes". Even Conan, as brutal and indominable as he is portrayed would likely end up dead if he didn't rely on his comrads (MU, Cl, TH, etc.). AD&D is a team sport no doubt, and the art suggests that.

 

[Desdichado]

I agree that you didn't say that; I'm pointing out the irony that you and RC are taking the same "side" of the "argument" here, but are saying mutually exclusive things to make your points.

I think it's funny, and it's a great example of why the type of "edition wars" discussion you keep trying to bring up don't really get very far most of the time.

 

[Anti-Sean]

I cut out pieces of artwork from my 1E rulebooks and modules and pasted them over the art in my 3E rulebooks. THE CIRCLE IS COMPLETE!

 

[Desdichado]

Anyway, I should go back and read the entire thread instead of the jumping in action I did. Maybe there's more to respond to still.

I guess my summary is that art is clearly subjective and I don't like seeing an entire subset of very diverse art written off under false pretenses. I also think attempting to intellectualize a defense for your tastes is pretty silly. My bottom line is "I may not know art, but I know what I like" and I like very little of the 1e (and earlier) era art, and about 50/50 at best for 2e and 3e art. Then again, at least some of the artists working today in the RPG market are amongst my favorite RPG artists of all time. Folks like Adrian Smith, Matt Wilson, Sam Wood (when his game is on), James Ryman, WAR (although he misses on occasion too) and a few others are definately in my "artists to watch" group, as I rarely find pieces by them that I don't like.

 

[tx7321]

Boy, you're really going to hate it when all the artists raised on manga and Final Fantasy start making the pro circuit in four or five years... probably right around the time for the first big 4E supplements, come to think of it...

Wayne WTF is this from! I flew bye it the first time...but on my second read, when I noticed... about spat my coke all over my work! Pretty f...ing bizzare. Was this guy/gal taken from a gay publication of some sort, or is this legit? Man I hope your wrong about 4E heading in that direction.