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

[Numion]

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.

Since when falling's not a risk? Krusk has a look of horror on his face - I always thought the caption was sarcastic.

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.

I'd say that a companion downed and a swarm of orcs is dangerous, any way you look at it.

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.

IMO the message in this picture is that all those 'wahoo' actions ('mother may I', by another name) that were so common in previous editions, are still valid. Just pretty dangerous.

And besides, if your argument about the lack of background is to be believed Tordek is fighting a floating dragons head, not an actual dragon

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.

So you would argue that someone who's not an adventurer has apparently died of cleanly severed leg and largish puncture wound to the heart? Not my first thoughts when I looked at the picture. And, if you had read the book, you would've noticed more nameless characters than the corpse and the florist.

Looking at the raise picture, the message is clear: adventurers (and their friends) can die messy deaths and that resurrections still exist in 3.0E.

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?

Yes, they depict PCs encountering serious hazards. It's already proven by, for example, that the example fight might turn deadly, and that Tordek is in the mouth of a dragon that could smack several 20th level characters. That is just the facts when you know the game rules.

Your paramount 'flipping in the store'-test is open to interpretation. You're the first one I've seen argue the position that they're all depictions of a cakewalk to the uninitiated 'flipper'. That's not the message I got, way back in 2000. I'd say your interpretation requires extensive knowledge of past flamewars in selected forums and the gist of the grognard argument that 3E is easy. Since I know this to be false (dying in 3E is pretty common and there are consequences for coming back IMX), your argument seems bizarre and certainly awfully contrived.

 

[tx7321]

I think this may be part of the problem with the current art direction at WotC. Early D&D didn't draw its artwork from popular kid culture. It either created its own genre or drew from obscure adult fantasy. When I first got into D&D, it didn't present me with artwork and themes drawn from Jonny Quest, Underdog, The Herculoids and The Muppet Show. Instead, it had its own character and voice. It seems to me that the current art direction at WotC is allowing for too much influence from other sources and that cross-pollination is creating a landscape of tabletop, console, computer and collectible card fantasy art that's much too self-referential to be anything other than bland and trite after a while.

As for the FF12 artwork.... All I can say is that those male characters seem like they would be more at home on the cover of 17 Magazine or promotional posters for Laguna Beach than in any D&D campaign I've ever been a part of.

Yes, thats a huge difference! AD&D 1E took themes from adult books, and adult fantasy concepts. Thats why everyone depicted is mature and in their 40s. 1E was a game made by and for gamers (who at the time were 30-40 year olds playing chain mail. I took to it so well because I actually felt like I was sneaking into a "grown up" game. Not unlike the first time going into a real bar and ordering some drinks with your fake ID, and hanging out with "grown ups".

3E does seem to be creating artwork heavily influenced by products geared toward younger gamers. And I think the same could be said for alot of 2E stuff.

Hell look at TV today, every star looks like there under 20. I think adults want to see themselves as young or something.

Q: "This attitude is what I take issue with. TSR didn't drop "us" 1Eers. I was a "1Eer", and with the exception of 2-3 gamers I can think of, so is everyone else I've ever played with. When 2E came out I, and everyone I knew, became a 2Eer. Later, when 3E came out I, and everyone I know, became a 3Eer. They didn't drop "us", "we" moved on, leaving you behind."


I think your miss-understanding me. If 4E came out with transexual characters who's goal was instead of killing monsters finding mates with each other, you'd be "left behind" (I hope) in the since that the game system you presently play would no longer have new material printed to support it. Thats what happened in 1E. We went from modules (like B2) with very short intros. to long overblown romance style modules with linear plots that followed popular books. So, your group liked that and you adjusted...great. But alot of the rest of us didn't like the changes and switched to other companies. It would be like if tomarrow Monopoly II came out and Monopoly went out of print. I understand why TSR did this, and I don't blame them...they were needing money desperately, and focused on the segment of their market who were buying just about anything published...you know the ones that had stacks and stacks of everything they could get their hands on (unlike me who owned the 3 core books, UA and about 4 modules, and that was alot for my group ).

 

[Maggan]

If 4E came out with transexual characters who's goal was instead of killing monsters finding mates with each other, you'd be "left behind" (I hope) in the since that the game system you presently play would no longer have new material printed to support it.

Ever heard about the d20 license?

Why change to another system when people can crank out 3e compatible stuff (in print or pdf or whatever) in perpetuity?

/M

 

[Numion]

Yes, thats a huge difference! AD&D 1E took themes from adult books, and adult fantasy concepts. Thats why everyone depicted is mature and in their 40s. 1E was a game made by and for gamers (who at the time were 30-40 year olds playing chain mail. I took to it so well because I actually felt like I was sneaking into a "grown up" game. Not unlike the first time going into a real bar and ordering some drinks with your fake ID, and hanging out with "grown ups".

I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill.

So if that's the style you aim at 30-40 year olds, I wonder how mature they were.

The there's also the fact that that style got a great response from 10-15 year olds (which was the age most people started at back then), while 3E got a great popularity from the older crowd. D&D players' average age is higher now, so I'd think the current art and packaging has drawn in older players than the Otus stuff. Your argument just does not compute.

 

[WayneLigon]

Thats what happened in 1E. We went from modules (like B2) with very short intros. to long overblown romance style modules with linear plots that followed popular books. So, your group liked that and you adjusted...great. But alot of the rest of us didn't like the changes and switched to other companies.

No, TSR saw their market share getting spanked hard by Vampire and other games coming out that didn't concentrate on combat and the treasure/xp/level treadmill, and tried (clumsily, for the most part) to compensate for it.

As has been said elsewhere, though, TSR didn't really ever listen to their market. They saw X happening and tried to compensate for it even though they had only a few people that understood what the market was doing. So you had some great adventures (Planescape, the first Ravenloft module and a scattering of others) mixed in with lots of railroaded linear books (which is exactly what you get when you have someone misunderstand what 'telling a story' and 'plot' mean).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm still baffled how people say Otus lacks artistic skill!!!! Its not TRUE dagnabbit!

 

[Ourph]

I always thought that Otus' style, for example, was very immature. The style reminds me of childrens books and there is that apparent lack of artistic skill.

I think most people judge Erol Otus based on a single picture or a few prominent ones (like the covers of the D&D Basic & Expert sets) and fail to realize that those few pieces were intentionally cartoonish and targeted toward kids. His other work (especially a lot of his B&W interior drawings) easily demonstrates that (while his style is without a doubt weird-fantasy) it's highly skillful, even if you don't especially like it.

So if that's the style you aim at 30-40 year olds, I wonder how mature they were.

This is the kind of comment that keeps ENworld from being the best gaming website it can be. Since when does someone's personal appreciation for a piece of art have anything to do with their maturity level? Give me a break. :\

D&D players' average age is higher now, so I'd think the current art and packaging has drawn in older players than the Otus stuff. Your argument just does not compute.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, since TSR never really collected demographic data during the 70's and early 80's era when Erol Otus's artwork was most prominent in the D&D/AD&D line.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Perhaps we are working from different definitions of "serious hazard". From the above, it seems that you would contend that if the iconic adventurers were depicted with armor, weapons, and spells, in a field filled with fluffy bunnies and kindergarten children, there is a serious hazard in the offing due to the iconics having armor, weapons, and spells.

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

Obviously not. There is no form of communicatioin that is not subject to multiple interpretation.

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)

Many of which seem to indicate some focus on the world, rather than just adventurers.

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.

I fully agree that both the DMG and PHB in 1e shows PCs succeeding and in definite risk of failure roughly to the same degree (so that the success/danger ratio is roughly the same in each book).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since when falling's not a risk? Krusk has a look of horror on his face - I always thought the caption was sarcastic.

Krusk has Jozen's boot in his face. There is no indication whatsoever that he is falling, or in any danger of falling. Of course, if you believe that four orcs is "a swarm" our ideas of what is, or is not, a serious hazard is very different.

What is conveyed through looking at the illustrations, and what is conveyed "when you know the game rules" are seperate issues that you are conflating.

While it is obvious that my "'flipping in the store'-test is open to interpretation" it is also equally obvious that the message you got "way back in 2000" is not one from someone new to the hobby, which is the obvious mareketting demographic.

I'd say your interpretation requires extensive knowledge of past flamewars in selected forums and the gist of the grognard argument that 3E is easy.

Bizarre.


RC

 

[Numion]

I think most people judge Erol Otus based on a single picture or a few prominent ones (like the covers of the D&D Basic & Expert sets) and fail to realize that those few pieces were intentionally cartoonish and targeted toward kids. His other work (especially a lot of his B&W interior drawings) easily demonstrates that (while his style is without a doubt weird-fantasy) it's highly skillful, even if you don't especially like it.

Now this gets weird. tx says they were aimed at 30-40 year olds, and you say they were aimed at kids?

Anyway, I just get feelings like I was watching comics on LSD when I look at Otus' stuff, no way I get a sense that something like that would go on even in a fantasy world. That is an indicator for lack of skill, IMO. The art aint doin what its supposed to be doin.

This is the kind of comment that keeps ENworld from being the best gaming website it can be. Since when does someone's personal appreciation for a piece of art have anything to do with their maturity level? Give me a break. :\

Break given. I was just answering tx's similar claims about 3E. He was trashing 3E art as "for kids" while 1e art was for 30-40 year olds.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, since TSR never really collected demographic data during the 70's and early 80's era when Erol Otus's artwork was most prominent in the D&D/AD&D line.

From this site. A lot of people here (according to polls) started with 1E, and this board is not filled with 60 year olds. With a bit of math I can guess that people here started with 1E while they were young.