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

[atomn]

Generally speaking, I think the 1st Ed. artwork pretty terrible. Not because it's black and white, I just dislike the style most of the pictures have.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You missunderstand me. I didn't say an *encounter* the PC's couldn't eventually overcome, I said a *threat*.

IME, the difference between "encounter" and "threat" is just a shade less likely to be PC action than DM action. I have no problem whatsoever with a threat to which the response is either "run away" or "ignore it" (although those are not always successful solutions!).

As a DM, I present environment and situation, then allow the players to create story through their interactions with the same. Some threats exist as part of the campaign world simply because they are necessary to make the campaign world feel like it should. For example, the multiple collapses that occurred in Selby-by-the-Water make people lock their doors at night and draw circles of salt around their beds in the inn. They fear undead, and with fairly good reason. This is a threat that the PCs might explore, might not explore, might overcome, or might be overcome by.

There are many, many threats of various natures in my world. No one is expected to deal with them all....or even know that they all exist.

This is a different playstyle, of course, than the one you are espousing. I would suggest that it was the playstyle 1e and earlier D&D catered to, whereas what you are describing really began with the Dragonlance modules, was momentarily derailed by the 2e modules (many of which were so focused on the world that they constrained the PCs too much, IMHO), and is currently alive and well in 3e.

(This is pretty far from the artwork discussion now, though.)

I think that, for the most part, illustrations can be said to snapshot discrete encounters, rather than huge campaign arcs. There are a few exceptions, such as the border illustrations in the 1e DMG that show characters meeting various monsters from kobolds through trolls and to the big haul at the end.

Again, what I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.



RC

 

[Scribble]

Again, what I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.

Just makes me think of a lot of highly competative people... Picture a boxer just getting started in the sport, ready to take on the champ as soon as possible. The image of Tordek in the PHB is sort of how he see's himself. "I'm the greatest!"

So Tordek and pals, fresh new adventurers rush into the fight big heads and everything, ready to take out a mere dragon, cause they're awesome...

Only to be whalloped a fair bit, where they end up in the picture in the DMG.

"Oh man... I need to train a bit more before I fight the dragon/clubber lang..."

But eventually ol bigheaded tordek n' crew will be back, because thats how competative people are.

Adventurers wouldn't be adventurers if they didn't see themselves as possibly better then they are, and quit after the first "defeat."

 

[Numion]

Again, what I question is what happens when the players are thinking of Tordek whacking the dragon in the head with his axe while standing unscathed in its mouth, and the DM is thinking of the illustration where the whole party is hiding because the dragon's breath weapon is too daunting.

Since actually reading the books is a common step between flipping through the book and looking at the pictures in the store, and actually playing the game .. what do you think will happen? Some immense clash of playing styles because of two pictures?

Add to this that dragons of the size portrayed in the pics will most likely be encountered after the DM and players both have several sessions under their belts. Additionally, an adventurer ending up in the dragons mouth is usually initiated by the dragon, not the adventurer. The pic just gives the impression that you can continue fighting from that position if you're lucky.

 

[replicant2]

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. Reynolds

[sblock]

[/sblock]

Mr. Brom


[sblock]

[/sblock]

I've always been quick to scorn 3E art, but after seeing these three pics in particular I'll refrain from anymore broad, sweeping statements. Those are some amazing pictures.

Of course, it still begs the question, why couldn't there have been more art like that in the PHB and DMG?

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I've always been quick to scorn 3E art, but after seeing these three pics in particular I'll refrain from anymore broad, sweeping statements. Those are some amazing pictures.

Of course, it still begs the question, why couldn't there have been more art like that in the PHB and DMG?

Huh? One's from Dungeon magazine, the other's a Dark Sun cover painting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since actually reading the books is a common step between flipping through the book and looking at the pictures in the store, and actually playing the game .. what do you think will happen? Some immense clash of playing styles because of two pictures?

What do I think will happen? Depends upon the individuals. It depends, for example, on whether or not the players have read the book or skimmed it while making their characters because they someone helping them (or simply used the CD in the PHB to generate them). It isn't my contention that reading isn't a common step, but I would certainly say that not really reading is an equally common step. I know people who play 3e, but haven't actually read the core books because they found them "too dry".

(Obviously not best practice! )

However, that said, the contention is not that no one will read the books, or that no one upon reading the books will be unable to differentiate between the art and the substance of the rules, but rather that for some people the implications of the art -- and especially the dichotomous implications between the PHB and DMG -- are off-putting, and hence color how they view 3e art.

I know that this is true in my case, and that it took me quite a while to fairly judge the pictures in the new edition. I suspect that this may be true for others as well.


RC

 

[replicant2]

Huh? One's from Dungeon magazine, the other's a Dark Sun cover painting.

My point was that the art in the PH and DMG is not this good, and I wish it was.

 

[Set]

I miss the little joke pictures "It's either a backscratcher +2 or..." and pretty much anything by Erol Otus (and all the boobies, gosh, there were lots of topless monster-babes...). But it's mostly nostalgia.

But for beautiful or powerful art, nothing from 1e can compare with the glorious stuff Wayne Reynolds is pumping out for Eberron, or that amazing Elmore picture of Laurana standing over Sturm's corpse.

Combining old-time nostalgia with really high-quality, I loved Den Beauvais' Dragon covers, of dragons fighting or that surreal chess game.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

My point was that the art in the PH and DMG is not this good, and I wish it was.

My point was that the last picture was not 3E art.