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

[WayneLigon]

Since those are goblinoids (probably bugbears), the huge ears are appropriate.

The cover has characters from the comic running in Dragon at the time, Pinsom, which was about elves.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The only reason a hero suffers a setback is to show their heroism in overcoming it. If they don't overcome it, if the situation is out of control and they can't dominate the situation, they aren't heroes, they're meatbags.

From a literary point of view, setbacks exist to be overcome. However, RPGs aren't literature. The outcome of a story is determined by the author. The outcome of a RPG session is determined by the interaction of the DM, the players, and random chance (dice). From the point of view of an RPG, the PCs are the protagonists, and hence the heroes of the story, but there is no certainty that they will overcome the situations they face.

I don't accept that one is either a hero or a meatbag. Conan might have to run from a group of pictish hunters, but he can still come out on top when the situation changes. Luke Skywalker can get whacked by a wompa and suffer from exposure until rescued. Heroes can fail in D&D (and in real life) and still be heroes.

the message of the game is "Be a hero, wield the magic, slay the villain, save the day." It's a good message for the core books to have, and the artwork does tell that same message.

I agree that the artwork in the PHB does tell that same message. Although I worded it a bit differently, it is essentially the same. What I pointed out is that the artwork in the DMG conveys a different message. If they mixed those pictures up a bit between the books, the message would be more consistent. And, I think, some people would have reacted better to the art on initial viewing (I include myself in this demographic).

Whether it's a good message I leave for wiser heads than mine to determine.

 

[I'm A Banana]

From a literary point of view, setbacks exist to be overcome. However, RPGs aren't literature. The outcome of a story is determined by the author. The outcome of a RPG session is determined by the interaction of the DM, the players, and random chance (dice). From the point of view of an RPG, the PCs are the protagonists, and hence the heroes of the story, but there is no certainty that they will overcome the situations they face.

I dunno 'bout you, but I've never introduced a threat to the party that they weren't expected to fight and resist and usually win against. Sometimes they won't (that's what makes it a game, after all), but then one or two people die and one or two more people join up and they try again with a different approach (which might be harder now that they've failed once), and THEN they overcome. Even in playing the game, the party eventually prevails. It might not be the same party as when it started, it might not be against the same force that they were fighting at first, but the game only continues as long as the heroes keep fighting evil, and they can't fight evil if they're dead.

In other words, individual heroes may fail (like Jozan's friend, or Devis in that Cityscape picture, or Lidda with her blackened face), but this just spurs another enemy to overcome. Now resurrected, Jozan's friend goes off to become a beet farmer, and then Krusk joins the party, and then Jozan goes and gets a little vengeance. Devis's Den may burn down, but you know he's going to find the bastards who did this and find out why and get to the bottom of this mystery.

I agree that the artwork in the PHB does tell that same message. Although I worded it a bit differently, it is essentially the same. What I pointed out is that the artwork in the DMG conveys a different message. If they mixed those pictures up a bit between the books, the message would be more consistent. And, I think, some people would have reacted better to the art on initial viewing (I include myself in this demographic).

Well, the artwork in the PHB is supposed to spur players onto heroic action. The artwork in the DMG is supposed to spur DMs to diabolical challenges and help them motivate villans. They serve different purposes, I think.

Whether it's a good message I leave for wiser heads than mine to determine.

It's what the game is. Heck, it's what is has been since the dawn of the dungeon. What else should it be?

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I've been thinking more and more on this discussion, and got to thinking about how I viewed fantasy art when I first really started playing D&D. For me, it was the early 90s, and yeah, I got a lot of ideas for the look from my brother's old D&D books but I was also an avid Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest (including the cartoon show) fan, and was one of the "groundfloor" Final Fantasy players (painstakingly handtracing one of the Japanese illustrations of one of the characters and saying "that's what my dude looks like!") as well. At the time at no point was I, an early teen, sitting around thinking "Gee, golly. I'll never want to play 2E because their just doesn't look like anime. No one understands me!" It was all fantasy art, it all dudes with swords and wizards and monsters and castles n' s***.

Did everyone I game with grok that stuff? Hell no, but what did I care? The game was/is all in my head, and I could picture it however the hell I felt like, and it ended up being a mish-mash of everything I liked: Frazetta dudes, Otus and Sutherland corridors and weirdness, Akira Toriyama-style wide-eyed 1st level fighters, Tony DiTerlizzi tieflings, and Elmore art, and on and on.

I think it's all good in my opinion. One thing we should take in mind is the permanence of media and the saturation thereof. There's no reason why anyone would not have John Milius's Conan the Barbarian in mind and have only Harry Potter, Pokemon, and Final Fantasy in mind. It's all out there. They haven't disappered in the Great Abyss of Dead Media.

I'm rambling, but I have to boil it down: Why the hand-wringing?

 

[Darth Shoju]

The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E)

Hmm....

Naww...you're probably right.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Anyone who can't see the difference between 1E and 3E art (when litterly the first 4 illustrated pictures that popped up on a google search are classic examples of typical 3E and D20 art in general (ie contrived, bland backgrounds, either overly muscled (all in the same fashion), or in tight cloths and too perfectly figured (ie the swimsuit model), looking at the viewer, hokey posing, lack of doing ANYTHING (with the exception of the 4th, and there just running), boring, and obviously artists who went to the same school, or who have copied each other too closely, etc. etc. etc. I could literally go on forever.

Well, let's start off by examining a few 1e notables...

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Overall I like this piece. Can't say much for the background. The characters look pretty stiff too...their poses don't seem natural to me. The efreet is so wooden looking it resembles a statue more than a monster fighting adventurers. I'd also have to label the girl in the efreet's hand as "cheesecake": she's obviously not just the "fair maiden" the party has come to rescue as she has a dagger in her hand and seems ready to use it. I guess the cheesecake isn't limited to 2ed. The efreet seems a little overly-muscled too. But I still like it, it definately suits the focus of 1ed.

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Don't think I have much to say about this one. I guess it is kind of neat in a medieval menagerie sort of way. They all look kind of posed and contrived though...is the dragon looking right at the viewer?

[sblock]

[/sblock]

This is my favourite of the three. Great context and mood...cool lighting. Every character is doing something interesting. Cool pick all around.

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Hmmm...well the giant crayfish is well done. The armoured figures look pretty neat...although I'm not too sure about the larger figure's helmet. They all seem to be looking right at the viewer though...

[sblock]

[/sblock]

This one portrays an excellent feeling of motion. The undead and the halfling look pretty good too. However, that is one bland background I must say...and the guy getting tackled looks pretty well muscled.

[sblock]

[/sblock]

This is the set that got me started on D&D; my parents bought it for me at a garage sale when I was eight or so. I had no idea what D&D was and couldn't grasp the rules. The pictures were cool and scary though. This cover piece was great and IMO pretty much says "Dungeons and Dragons" (even if it didn't *literally* say it right above ).

Some pretty neat pics there. But they seem to display many of the weaknesses you claim are so rampant in 2ed and 3ed art. Give me a few mins to see if I can find anything to prove otherwise.

 

[tx7321]

Darth, that elf's ear (in the archer illo) is huge compared to 1E. And his eye is heavily tilted.

Look, the 3E art message I posted was meant for one person in particular who kept pushing for examples. If things look one way to me...they just do, same for you. Art critique can only be pushed so far before its a matter of opinion (as in, whats stiff, whats not).
I don't think your going to "get" what I'm talking about in those examples, because we are just different.


WAYNE, your example of big eared elves (or whatever they are) is a commical spoof, not serious stuff. And, ironically its very similar to stuff you see in 3E proportion wise.

 

[Pants]

Darth, that elf's ear (in the archer illo) is huge compared to 1E. And his eye is heavily tilted.

That's not what Darth was responding to though. It wasn't an 'ear examination piece' it was 'The fact that The LOTR movies had normal proportioned characters, in normal armor, doing normal generic fantasy stuff (completely unlike ANYTHING we see in 3E, but typical of what we see in 1E)' part that was being compared.

 

[Darth Shoju]

Art critique can only be pushed so far before its a matter of opinion (as in, whats stiff, whats not).

And that is pretty much what I am getting at; many times in this thread I've seen subjective *opinion* presented as objective *critique*. The size of an elf's ears don't speak even one whit to the quality of a piece of art. The claim was presented that the rough, amateurish style of 1ed art was part of it's appeal and was likely purposeful. It was also claimed that in 2ed and 3ed the technical proficiency of the artists was a weakness. 1e art was compared to fine art while 2ed and 3ed art was called commercial and soulless. This not only attempted to set up an unassailable argument (1ed weaknesses=strengths, 2ed/3ed strengths=weaknesses) but simultaneously managed to come off as condescending and insulting to fans of 2ed/3ed art. I posted those pictures to show that it is dangerous to speak in absolutes about something so broad as the artwork of an entire edition. Art is art; any given piece can exhibit the strengths and flaws you speak of regardless of edition. As RC pointed out, the main thing you can critique them on is whether or not they effectively portray the theme or focus of their respective edition. That's a discussion worth having IMO.

I'll admit that people came in initially to this thread and attributed all of the "magic" of 1ed art to pure nostalgia; I'll also admit that I mostly shared that opinion at first. Your (and others') arguments to the contrary managed to convince me to give 1ed art another shake and made me realize that it isn't pure nostalgia, that quality works were done in that era. But honestly, you could have done that without sniping at the art of other editions.

That's what has gotten me so involved in this thread. If only I could apply this much energy and focus to stuff that actually matters.

 

[Darth Shoju]

If everyone will indulge my lengthy posting one more time, I'd like to post a few pieces from 2ed/3ed that I think are dynamic, detailed, feature compelling backgrounds and don't fall into the "dungeonpunk" stigma. I'm sure flaws can be found with each, and they won't be everyone's cup of tea, but here they are...

Mr. Lockwood

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Mr. Elmore (edit...I suppose this is actually considered 1ed art no? But it is Elmore so cut me some slack... )

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Mr. O'Connor

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Mr. Reynolds

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Mr. Brom


[sblock]

[/sblock]