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

[jensun]

So were you a fan of those 2e paintings

Yes, far more so than the poorly drawn ink line drawings of the 1e dmg , phb and mm.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if 4e drew, in part, from this tradition. It's part of the face of modern fantasy, and considering how good FF12 is....

Actually, I don't have any problem with these characters at all (although Fran looks like she'd take some time getting dressed in the morning ).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree that you didn't say that; I'm pointing out the irony that you and RC are taking the same "side" of the "argument" here, but are saying mutually exclusive things to make your points.

I don't think you've read my posts as closely as you think you have. Or else I have not been as clear as I think I have.

My point is not that 1e art is better than 3e art.

I do personally prefer much of 1e art to much of 3e art. There are quite a few pieces of 1e art that leave me cold, though, and a few pieces of 3e art that speak to me.

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.

Likewise, I think that the "magical" quality of 1e art is largely due to the message conveyed in that artwork. In fact, I think that this is the factor that many claim as being "merely nostolgia". While this means that the enjoyment of 1e artwork is also largely contextual, I would certainly agree that certain pieces of 1e art contain more inherent context (due to background and detail, particularly the full-page spreads) than some other pieces (occuring in all editions).

I also said, several times, that examination of the art in the monster books is the easiest way to minimize contextual differences and focus on the quality of illustration itself. Doing this, I like all editions roughly equally, though for different creatures. The almost watercolor-like fey of 2e, the darkmantle and gnoll of 3e, the centipede and intellect devourer of 1e.

An iconic monster, like the rust monster, can be examined in each of its incarnations and the artwork appraised regardless of message. The 1e rust monster is goofy-looking, almost cartoonish, and is eating its frame. The 2e rust monster is sort of creepy in a cockroachy kind of way. The 3e rust monster is a more precisely lined version of the 2e rendition. Given the choices, I'd prefer 2e or 3e for this monster. While 3e is roughly the same in terms of technical proficiency, it doesn't always supply the version of the monster I like best (I'd rather have the displacer beast from 2e, for example).

So far as I know, no one else is taking this "side" of the argument!

(Though I'd be happy to learn that I am wrong.)


RC

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think you've read my posts as closely as you think you have. Or else I have not been as clear as I think I have.

Freely admit that I haven't been reading your posts very closely. They're long and I have a short attention span. But I don't think the 3e message of the PCs as special snowflakes is very hard to mistake, while tx1234 is using completely different evidence to show that 1e art is for special snowflakes, who can't possibly have hinted to them that their characters are better than anyone else in the campaign setting.

Although perhaps I've been misinterpreting what "side" you're on in regards to art, I still think the irony of the mutually exclusive interpretations is kinda funny.

 

[Numion]

And I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if 4e drew, in part, from this tradition. It's part of the face of modern fantasy, and considering how good FF12 is....

Well, do you have any other reasons why WotC would partake in this sickness? I mean, there are even more popular fantasy games that don't do this sort of gender bending, and there's been a good response online to the more recent WotC art that's not dungeonpunk or ladyboy style.

Or is the sky falling, again?

 

[Desdichado]

Or is the sky falling, again?

I think that's it. Clearly I need to sell off all my D&D stuff on Ebay so I can afford to hoard Hârnmaster material going forward.

 

[Darth Shoju]

So far as I know, no one else is taking this "side" of the argument!
(Though I'd be happy to learn that I am wrong.)
RC

Well I think our positions are actually pretty similar. I do think there is a style to each edition that emphasizes the focus of the game at the time (as I outlined previously). I'd also agree that 3rd edition had a definitive art direction that was meant to reinforce a new motif to the game. I'd suspect 2ed had a pretty deliberate style as well. 1ed -I would guess- was more haphazard, likely arising more from the game designers seeking illustrations of adventurers entering a dungeon, rendered in a fantasy, sword-and-sorcery style. IMO this resulted in a variety of styles combining within in a similar theme (dangerous dungeon-crawling). This theme and the variety of styles has a varied effect depending on the viewer. Some like it, some love it, some hate it. That is where the personal preference comes in.

This brings me to one of the reasons I dislike 25-30% of the 3ed art; as a previous poster mentioned there just doesn't seem to be as much variety. I'd say at least part of this is due to to the icons; in previous editions you got to see many different adventurers in many different scenarios. Now every picture has an iconic in it. I don't have any particular dislike for the design of the iconics themselves, but I'd like some more variation. Combined with Lockwood being moved to the novel line and WAR doing all the Eberron covers (which I love) and the main books become that much less varied, not so much in style but in subject.

I guess what I find the most frustrating about this discussion (not really from you though RC) is that 2ed and 3ed art is written off as soul-less, stiff, commercial and cheesy while 1ed is claimed as "magical" and dynamic and "fine art". When some level the criticism that the art of 1ed was often amateurish or goofy looking, it is claimed that this was done on purpose and labeled as the reason it evoked the TRUE spirit of the game. The dynamic, fantastic art of artists such as Lockwood, Brom, Reynolds and O'Connor are disregarded and bizarre claims of mohawked/tatood/pierced big-thighed elves are tossed about with no examples. But I guess I should have known better than to get involved in one of these threads in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

IMHO, 3E artwork is still bland, and has many of the elements of dungeon punk still alive and well (huge proportions, perfect bodies, odd poses, giant elf ears, etc.)

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, could you please give an example TX? What giant elf ears? What huge proportions? I've asked time and time again WTF are you talking about. Considering that the last few books to come out of WOTC have had some of the best art ever to come out in the game (IMO), I really have no idea what you are on about.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, could you please give an example TX? What giant elf ears? What huge proportions? I've asked time and time again WTF are you talking about. Considering that the last few books to come out of WOTC have had some of the best art ever to come out in the game (IMO), I really have no idea what you are on about.

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.


I wonder, what role do the "iconics" serve? What is gained by having them in all art that represents PC's instead of having a variety of types and characters?

 

[Darth Shoju]

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.


I wonder, what role do the "iconics" serve? What is gained by having them in all art that represents PC's instead of having a variety of types and characters?

Perhaps it was to give the younger, newer gamers a way to imagine the progression of their characters? A common reference point if you will? Not sure what the purpose could have been beyond that. I would have been fine if they had done the iconics as the representatives of each class, then had one pic of them per core book or something. That way you'd have the common reference point but still leave room for more variety.