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

Numion said:
That's the spell 'evil cleric' casts and 'Lidda' dodges. I would think the commission was mostly for the characters, and not the spell effect.

Or maybe I'm mistaken and artists do get paid piecemeal ("Liddas head - 10 bucks, Liddas torso - 20 bucks, etc..").


Yes it is in fact the spell the evil cleric casts... I just found it funny that it's listed in the artwork section on the website as an entirely seperate piece of artwork! :P "Magic"
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Pants said:
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.


Oh, I'm pretty sure that some people would be arguing with me simply because they noticed who posted. :D

And if not, I'm not doing my job well enough. :] :lol:
 

Numion said:
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.


Do you honestly believe that any of those are examples?

Page 64 (Krusk helps Jozen climb the cliff) and page 75 (Lidda finds that using a magic device can be risky) have been discussed rather thoroughly. If you are going to argue that these represent significant risk within the context of the game, then you are making an argument closer to that which WayneLigon accused me of than I am.

Page 116: Happy to use this as an example. Mialee is noted as being unconscious, but it is also noted that "Jozan cures Mialee" and that Tordek moves to prevent Mialee from being slain. I very much doubt that anyone flipping through the book would look at that picture and say "Wow, this is dangerous". Indeed, while the illustration notes Mialee as unconscious, it does not note why, and only one of the orcs is noted as being wounded.

Further examination of the book, and reading the example combat, will certainly show that the combat might go either way, but this is not clear when looking at the example. Since, presumably, one will have bought the book before reading it, this is a good example of how the information in the illustration actually reduces the inherent tension in the text.

Page 124 (This dragon finds Tordek hard to swallow): This is the only thing even close to a counter-example in the book, and I wish they hadn't thrown that caption in to ruin it. The sad part is, only the dragon is depicted as bleeding, and Tordek is apparently able to hold its mouth open (preventing chewing). His armor is neither dented nor bloody. This is also a picture which has already been addressed, going back to my OP.

Again, however, this is a great illustration. Those who worry about unrealistic armor can hardly complain about how Tordek is depicted -- his spikes are very small, and well within the realm of possibility/what is depicted in earlier editions. The action is very wahoo but this, again, falls well within the norm for all editions. The figures are well rendered, and it is a nice detail that Tordek's helmet has gone flying.

Page 153 (Jozen brings a friend back from the dead): There's not a lot of evidence that Jozen's friend was an adenturer. It is also notable that Dead Friend is the one person who doesn't actually have a name. While this may imply that the Dead Friend is not a PC (especially the way the iconics are used in 3.0), if this character is not a PC it is the sole example where any PC has any connection to the world around him/her. We should also note that a picture of someone being brought back from the dead (there is a related picture in the 1e PHB) is more evidence of the impermanence of death (and hence the lack of long term consequence) than of real danger.

EDIT: I am in error in the above paragraph. The wizard using a ray of frost on p. 243 is also nameless.....and is oddly enough also a florist. This is perhaps the only illustration in the book that makes me wonder what the guy's story is, so it should be treated as a significant one (at least in terms of my thesis). If only his costume (including what looks like a pair of swimming goggles) wasn't so meh...... Anyway, this picture also shows a nameless character, and again one who is at least to some degree invested in his world (since he is preserving roses rather than using his kewl powerz to stomp monsters).

Page 214 (Jozen casts holy smite against a succubus): That succubus is in an awefully submissive posture for someone seriously threatening Jozen. Jozen is in an awefully dominant posture for someone being seriously threatened.

Again, do you seriously believe that these illustrations based only on illustration and caption depict PCs encountering serious hazards? Ones that might have severe and long-lasting consequences?


RC
 
Last edited:

Eh... I'd see the reason the iconics are undying, unkillable, adventuring machines, is simply because they are the iconics. It's not really a plot to show that PCs never die, or have anythign bad happen to them...

They're the epitome of what you're striving for in the game. To succeed in the adventure, and triumph over evil.

Just like in a movie heros don't die. (unless they are secondary heros and their death adds drama to the plot of the main hero...)

They're supposed to be like the role model of all adventuring heros everywhere...

I want to grow up and be the most powerful epic level cleric in the realms just like jozan!

Rather then... "I want to get eaten by a giant ferret next week just like Jozan!"

I mean seriosuly when you were a kid and you played various imagination games did you pretend to be the hero or random guy who gets killed in scene five?

I think the only reason it's realy noticeable is because they constantly show those characters as examples rather then a random new person each time.

But think back to pictures of the reocurring characters of yesterditions, and they were almost always kickin booty n takin GP's just like the iconics...
 

Henry said:
I'd even be willing to posit that MOST (over 60%) players of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D prefer 3E and later as their main system of choice.


I would agree. I use elements from 1e and 2e in my game, but it is based firmly in the 3e mechanics (some from 3.0 and some from 3.5). I house rule a lot, but I admit that the base system works better for me in most ways.


RC
 

Scribble said:
Eh... I'd see the reason the iconics are undying, unkillable, adventuring machines, is simply because they are the iconics. It's not really a plot to show that PCs never die, or have anythign bad happen to them...

Not a plot. Marketting.

Nor are they "kickin booty n takin GP's" everywhere......just in the PHB. Look through the DMG and you see a very different picture.


RC
 

Raven Crowking said:
Looking at the 3.0 PHB, there are only two pieces of art I like. One is the illustration of the druid, which is a pose but contains good "class atmosphere", and the other is of the dragon trying to Swallow Whole on poor Tordek. Other pieces in the book are technically proficient, but these two pieces in particular seem to communicate something worthwhile to me.

<snip>

The Tordek picture is good because it implies that Something Can Happen to the PCs. I.e., the PCs are not simply safe uber-powerful beings for whom everything works out well and who are not really in danger after all. Of course, this impression is somewhat ruined by the caption.

The picture of the thief whose Use Magic Device check failed is interesting, too, but for reasons that honestly have very little to do with the game. :o In terms of "bad things happening", this one has already happened, and, while surprising, it wasn't really so bad.

<snip>

Looking only at the 3e PHB, the illustrations seem to communicate: "You can make a really cool character, who is sort of removed from the world (it is just an out-of-focus backdrop at best), and who will never be in any real danger."

<snip>

Mind you, I am not saying that this is what the game rules deliver, but it is what (to my eye, and IMHO) the artwork seems to say. And this, far more than nostolgia, is what differentiates the artwork.

And I'll also certainly agree that some of the later artwork in WOTC products offers more situation, more mystery, and more danger. Indeed, while the artwork in the 1e DMG and PHB seem to mesh pretty well, the artwork in the 3.0 DMG seems to me at odds with the PHB art. In the DMG, characters can face tough situations. In the PHB, not so much so. This is also problematic to me, because it communicates two opposing views of what the game is going to be like. Again, regardless of what is written, the artwork is 3.0 seems to communicate mixed messages.

I'd like to see more situational (danger/mystery) artwork that has nothing to do with the Iconic Characters. It seems to me that WotC is starting to move in that direction with projects like the Environment books and more homages to classic illustrations (a very nice homage to the skeleton in the water-filled room trap from the 1e DMG in the 3.0 DMG, btw....while I prefer the original, I was glad to see the piece, and wish the 3.0 PHB had taken more from the 1e version).

Anyway, YMMV and probably does.


From my first post in this thread, just to make sure that context here is remembered.


RC
 

Raven Crowking said:
D

Again, do you seriously believe that these illustrations based only on illustration and caption depict PCs encountering serious hazards? Ones that might have severe and long-lasting consequences?


RC

Hmmm ... well the question isn't directed at me but, yes, my impression of those pictures have been that of the iconics encountering serious hazards, or preparing to encounter serious hazards. Otherwise they wouldn't be needing all that armor, weapons and spells they've got in the pictures.

Not as thorough an analysis as the one you're making (over and over), but that's my impression of the pictures.

A counter-qeustion that seems relevant: do you seriously believe that there is but one way to interpret the message these images convey?

EDIT: Looking through my 1e PH again I'm even more confused by your analysis. Using your approach to the pictures, we see that they show people either doing mundane tasks (a blacksmith working, some guys at a bar, some dwarf smoking a pipe while sitting on a huge die, some guys praying, adventurers dividing up treasure) or adventurers easily over coming or avoiding threats (a wizard deflecting arrows while his imp laughs in contempt at the feeble attack, an umber hulk dancing while the adventurers supress their laughter, a paladin defeating a devil of some sort and routing his support, some wizard projecting lights down a dungeon). I also found some pieces where the threat level was cranked up, but it mostly seemed to concern gnomes or pixies.

So to me, you analysis is not as clear as you would think it to be.

/M
 
Last edited:

Raven Crowking said:
Not a plot. Marketting.

Nor are they "kickin booty n takin GP's" everywhere......just in the PHB. Look through the DMG and you see a very different picture.


RC

Shrug. Sure they market their product... They show you role models to look up to.

But they've done that all through the editions. Once they started having NPCs you know and love they started showing them in art depicting them bein awesome.

Same reason a bazillion fanboyz made tragic hero dark elves who've sworn off their racial baggage and made their way through a world that hates them in order to fight for the cause of good with their two scimitars and figurine of wonderous power...

The icons have to be what people want to be. Awesome. Not slackmaster ted.
 

Remove ads

Top