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

[Raven Crowking]

RC: I can see what you're saying, but, honestly, I think you're reading far too much into things. It's a pretty big jump to go from "the art in the 3e PHB isn't very good" to "the art in the 3e PHB is an example of the publishers pushing player entitlement."

Again, please note that my observations here are limited to two books, which have diametrically opposed messages. I am not making a broad statement about 3e art.

I feel fairly certain that WotC had some good player feedback prior to introducing 3.0. They considered what their respondents liked about the game, and didn't like about the game. They went on record (in a pre-release Dragon, I believe) that the artwork was intended to show that this wasn't your daddy's D&D (or words to that effect). Further up there is a link to a Jolly Blackburn post describing the artist's guidelines that reflects exactly what I am saying. Not a single counter-example to my argument exists in the PHB.

Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring? Not doing so would have been idiotic from a marketing point of view.

Is it really so unlikely that WotC, aiming a book at DMs, would use art that showed the harrowing straits that PCs can find themselves in? Not doing so would have been idiotic from a marketing point of view.

In other words, is it really so unlikely that WotC doesn't understand basic marketing strategy? I think that there is more than ample evidence, going back long before 3.0, that WotC understands marketing strategy very, very well.

However, it can and does affect how some people view the art, and that initial effect can resonate with viewers, coloring their opinions when they view later pieces of art. The idea of "it's all nostalgia" relies upon the basic concept that humans comprehend things (especially on an emotional level) through inference and perceived relationships. "Nostalgia" is our term for when this happens related to some object in the remote past, particularly when that object no longer exists to be reevaluated today. However, the same function that causes nostalgia occurs to varying degrees in all evaluations of all things at all times.

You can evaluate the technical aspects of an illustration. You can evaluate the message that it seems intended to convey. You can evaluate how and how well that message is conveyed. You can evalute how the picture makes you feel, and why it makes you feel that way.

That, so far as I know, is the sum total of what can be determined about any illustration or set of illustrations.

Of course, as you say, I have probably given it too much thought. And everyone knows that thinking before you speak is the greatest sin one can commit on the Internet.

RC

 

[Aaron L]

I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published). QUOTE]


My friend, you seem to be under some misapprehension that we here at ENWorld are all 15 year olds new to D&D with 3E who were introduced to gaming through Magic: The Gathering. Most of us here are long-time veterans who started with 1E or before. Most certainly 90% of the people you are debating in this thread are.

The subtle "you just don't understand the good old days, you poor young whippersnapper" vibe from your posts is very, very misplaced.

 

[WayneLigon]

They went on record (in a pre-release Dragon, I believe) that the artwork was intended to show that this wasn't your daddy's D&D (or words to that effect). Further up there is a link to a Jolly Blackburn post describing the artist's guidelines that reflects exactly what I am saying. Not a single counter-example to my argument exists in the PHB.

On that point there is no arguement; the art is meant to evoke a break with the past and we have definative statements to that fact from the only people that know.

It's still a huge giant step from...

Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring?

...to...

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.

In fact, such a large step that it sounds like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for yet another reason to complain about a perceived distinction of 3E as pandering to players over GM's, one that does not exist.

 

[Hussar]

I feel fairly certain that WotC had some good player feedback prior to introducing 3.0. They considered what their respondents liked about the game, and didn't like about the game. They went on record (in a pre-release Dragon, I believe) that the artwork was intended to show that this wasn't your daddy's D&D (or words to that effect). Further up there is a link to a Jolly Blackburn post describing the artist's guidelines that reflects exactly what I am saying. Not a single counter-example to my argument exists in the PHB.

And yet, strangely enough, I have a Dragon article in which every one of the iconics is killed and/or turned into an undead beast that kills the other iconics. I'm thinking that perhaps there may have been some policy changes in the six years since the release of the 3.0 PHB.

Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring? Not doing so would have been idiotic from a marketing point of view.

But, again, this is a far cry from the "special snowflake" bit. Sure, the PHB shows the PC's being heroic. Ok. That makes sense. But, how do you go from "My character is a hero" to "My character is so special that nothing bad can ever happen to him"? That's my specific beef here. You are taking half a dozen pictures and reading an awful lot into them.

On another note, do we consider cartography to be art?

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, perhaps some of todays guys are into transgender and gay midget halflings...but I doubt its many.

Ever played an elf? Then congrats, you're one of 'some of todays guys.'

 

[Raven Crowking]

On that point there is no arguement; the art is meant to evoke a break with the past and we have definative statements to that fact from the only people that know.

It's still a huge giant step from...

Is it really so unlikely that WotC realized that they would sell more Players Handbooks if anyone flipping through the book saw PCs doing cool things and looking cool, rather than facing more severe dangers of adventuring?

...to...

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.

In fact, such a large step that it sounds like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for yet another reason to complain about a perceived distinction of 3E as pandering to players over GM's, one that does not exist.

(I hate having to parse back the quotes-in-quotes! )

I suggest that you examine the context of the statements.

The first quoted statement is causitive; it describes the motives that lead to the second statement. I make no argument that WotC wanted to promote indulgence of players in the actual game (if they had, the DMG art and the PHB art would be in synch, rather than giving diametrically opposed messages). I make no claim that a WotC conspiricy wanted to ruin the game....which also would hardly make sense given that the bottom line is...well...the bottom line.

The second statement is the effect caused by the marketing goal.

If a special snowflake is, as I understand it, something unique that stands out from all others similar to it, then using a lot of kewl poses implies special snowflake status to me. Perhaps you use the term differently. If you care to tell me what "special snowflake" means to you, I'll let you know if I'd say the same using your definition.

Please point out the pictures in the 3.0 PHB that show that the PCs are in serious danger. Is it serious danger because a cigar discolors Lidda's face some? Because Jozen steps on Krusk's face? Because a dragon has trouble with swallowing Tordek because Tordek's just too tough to swallow?

Finally, if you remove all background detail from the illustrations, this implies a seperation from the world.

Now if you still want to say that "it sounds like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for yet another reason to complain about a perceived distinction of 3E as pandering to players over GM's", go back and read my comments about the art in the 3.0 DMG. The PCs get bloody trounced in that book. Go ahead; take a look. Then scroll back and read the full posts your excerpting from.

The thesis is very specific (and very oft repeated): The message in the art between two specific books is dichotomous, and that is going to color the way people view the art.

how do you go from "My character is a hero" to "My character is so special that nothing bad can ever happen to him"? That's my specific beef here.

There is no edition of D&D that doesn't say "My character is a hero" with its artwork. I examined every picture in the 1e PHB & the 3.0 PHB, and discovered that while the 1e PHB did imply (frequently) that seriously bad things could happen to adventurers exploring mysterious regions, I couldn't find a single illustration in the 3.0 PHB that implied the same thing (with the possible exception of the Tordek/Dragon picture, which the caption defines as the dragon having trouble). Those are very different messages.

To me, if you are doing something supposedly very dangerous, yet every illustration of it shows how you will triumph over that danger, the implication is very clear that it isn't really all that dangerous. But then again, I am probably thinking this through too much for the Internet.

I listed each picture used in my analysis, and where they fit into the analysis. If you (or anyone else) would like to refute me on that basis, it ought to be bloody simple....if I am wrong. You need only point out the counter examples. It would be the work of 5 minutes and a single post.

I suggest that there is a very good reason why that post hasn't appeared yet.


RC


EDITS:

I consider cartography to be art. When I first saw the 3.0 DMG, I loved that I recognized the example dungeon....and the picture of the skeleton/water trap.

Dragon is pitched to both players and DMs, and one assumes that people who buy Dragon have already bought the PHB. The art in the PHB is presumably designed to get someone to try the game....if you are already playing, and have any inclination in that direction whatsoever, the odds are you're going to buy the new books.

 

[Pants]

It'd be nice if someone clarified exactly what dungeonpunk is supposed to mean, since none of those things you list are things that I would consider to be dungeonpunk.

Dungeonpunk is anime. And anime is all that is bad in the world. I can't put it any simpler than that.

I do think that some of the design/marketing decisions in the 3.0 Core Rulebooks caused the art to be viewed in a negative way by a certain percentage of the viewers, though, and that this has to do as much (or more) to do with marketing strategy as it does to do with the actual artwork. IOW, my points defend the artwork itself (whether I like it or not) and claim that a large part of the reason some do not is contextual.

I actually agree with this. The 3.0 PHB has some of the weakest art in 3.0, which is too bad since its most likely the first 3.0 book that most people saw.

Now, if you just said this, I don't think many people would be arguing with you.

I don't really care for the design choices and some of the other 3e era aspects but off hand I can't recall a single mohawk sporting, huge eared elf character.

The only mohawk sporting character I can even think of is the berserker in the IH book, but... you know what, it works.

My friend, you seem to be under some misapprehension that we here at ENWorld are all 15 year olds new to D&D with 3E who were introduced to gaming through Magic: The Gathering. Most of us here are long-time veterans who started with 1E or before. Most certainly 90% of the people you are debating in this thread are.

I started with 2e, but I was introduced to D&D through friends, not Magic. So nyeh!

 

[Delta]

Almost everyone is mentioning Old School or very Old School looking stuff. I'm actually surprised so many people here even know about these old 70s and early 80s modules, never mind considering them to be thier all time favorite cover art (and you can't say its nostalgia when many of them weren't even alive when they were published).

Here's the most enlightening thread I ever saw on ENWorld - a poll of when people started playing D&D. At least 55% of people started playing in the window from 1978 to 1984. Less than half from the entire period thereafter (late 1E, 2E, 3E era).

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171146

 

[tx7321]

Delta, thanks for posting that. Wow, so there are old schoolers who actually prefer 3E to 1E (the artwork, rules and all ). I suppose thats to be expected, since there were a good number of 1Eers who preferred 2E (about 30% of those I new made the switch to 2E)...I suppose the same should be expected with 3E. At one point I actually preferred 3E to 1E (not the art but the rules), until I started realizing how it played out (but thats off topic). If I wasn't so much into emersion (ie cowboys and indians, playing make believe), and a strong believer in 1 type of setting (ie generic fantasy/Tolkein setting), I'm sure I would like 3E more. But to me those are the 2 most important elements of the game (or were I should say).

 

[Numion]

I listed each picture used in my analysis, and where they fit into the analysis. If you (or anyone else) would like to refute me on that basis, it ought to be bloody simple....if I am wrong. You need only point out the counter examples. It would be the work of 5 minutes and a single post.

Alrighty then.

Page 7: The man is so wounded the bones in his arm are showing! Ok, just kidding..

Page 64: Krusk is very close to taking a fall.
Page 75: Liddas face is blown up.
Page 116: Mialee is dropped unconscious in combat!
Page 124: Tordek chewed by a dragon. The picture text talks about swallowing, not chewing.
Page 153: Jozans friend has died! No risks in adventuring, huh?
Page 214: Jozan is battling a succubus alone.