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

[Hussar]

Hey, where's that William O'Connor one from?

 

[Darth Shoju]

Hey, where's that William O'Connor one from?

City of Ravens according to his website.

 

[Melan]

[off]Darth Soju: I always thought the fighter on the colour Hommlet cover was a woman. Judging by the legs, anyway. [/off]

 

[Hussar]

Meh, if you want to compare apples to apples, howzabout:

The cover to the Keep on the Borderlands]

to this:

I dunno about you, but I know which one speaks to me more.

RC: I would say that WOTC has learned from its past. Looking at the last year or two's releases, there's been some absolutely gorgeous books come out of WOTC that have addressed exactly what you are talking about - the idea that the PC's are invincible. Look at the difference between the PHB and PHB II and they are just worlds apart.

On the idea of 1e art that was great, for my money it was the Fiend Folio. And this speaks in some ways to what RC was going on about as well. The monsters in the original FF were just bloody scarey. And they were doing BAD things to PC's. I've a feeling that a lot of the love for Githyanki comes from the illo's in that book. While I may or may not love every critter in that book, I always thought they were FAR more scary than the Monster Manual just because of the illo's.

 

[RFisher]

Fisher, I was responding to a claim that one could tell if an artists was a hobbiest or professional by looking at their work. I was simply pointing out thats not always that easy (some may truely be "amatures" while others might be masters that just paint in a similar style...perhaps to capture a mood better then extreme realism can.

OK. & I was responding to that to say that whether you can or cannot is moot; it's only the work itself & what it communicates to you that matters.

(BTW, when someone quotes you, sometimes it's just to springboard off your comment & carry the discussion forward.)

It's from the back cover of White Plume Mountain, the later printing that was in color. It's of a suspiciously Melnibonean-looking dude wielding Blackrazor, a sword that appears in the module.

Which explains why I'd not seen it. I suspected it was from a module since I never had (or played) many modules.

Having said that I never cared too much for Dee, I feel I should cite one work of his I've always liked: The halflings & human in the 1981 D&D Expert book.

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.

Well, my experience is the opposite. The younger me had a harder time appreciating Picasso, Dali, Mondrian, & Otus than the older me. Also, there's a lot of children's books in my house these days, & I don't think I'd call any of them similar to Otus.

(I hope I'm never old enough, however, to appreciate Jackson Pollock. (^_~))

 

[Maggan]

Again, either you are setting the bar for "seriously threatened" very much lower than I am, or you are far cleverer in terms of your analysis.

Before I head off to my parents for christmas vacation, I'd like to point out that this is not about being "clever". Each and everyone has a lot of baggage with us when judging a picture.

I have my experiences, and you have yours. This will colour our interpretations in ways we cannot measure, or in ways we are not even aware of. You have your preconceived notions about 3e, and I have mine. And about 1e. These will colour our interpretations. As will our previous gaming history. Eg, I worked on Kult as a writer, a game where subtle hints conveyed major threats, both in setting, writing and illustrations. Nothing was ever what it seemed and something innocent could at any time turn out to be gut wrenching horror. I also worked on Mutant Chronicles, where everything was always what it seemed; gut wrenching action packed horror, or brooding darkness. Nothing subtle about it. And so my experiences differ from your.

Also, you started with 1e (I guess), and I started with D&D red box by Elmore. We even have to take into consideratin how you formulated you theory and what you wanted to find (consciously or subconsciously), as well as how I have reacted to your analysis (consciously or subconsciously).And so on so forth.

So this is not a contest to see who's the most clever image interpreter here (at least not for me). You asked questions about how we interpret pictures, I responded how I intrepret pictures.

/M

 

[tx7321]

Darth S: "The size of an elf's ears don't speak even one whit to the quality of a piece of art." Your right it doesn't. The problem with the ears being that large on elves is that "many" of us don't picture elves that way in D&D. We picture elves, more or less, the way they are depicted in 1E, or the LOTR movies, or any other number of sources.

Normally giant ears wouldn't be a big deal, but when the player is forced (through consistancy of the art) to accept that this is the new look of D&D elves....well....its just a huge turn off to me and many others (I'm not the first or the last to notice). Same goes for the hugely proportioned fighters and dwarves, with tiney squarish heads w/snarly faces and roided out bodies, or guys running around with modern hair cuts, soul patches or tattoos. Its cheeky and created to get a pop, rather then truely represent what the player is supposed to be seeing in their imagination. Or at least I don't think thats what the vast majority people see, (based on the depiction of elves and dwarves in the LOTR movies, I'd say 1E proportions and armor and dress are still favored by most.)

So, is one kind of style or art superior to another. No. But you can make comments on what is depicted, does it set the mood, does it help you picture the world your playing in. Does the art do its job in that way?

Your right though, you can't say one editions art is "better" then another, BUT a bunch of guys can jump online and talk about what we did like "better" about one over the other. And you can jump in and disagree. Thats mature and intellegent. And its fine that you picture the world you play in populated with elves with huge ears, and dwarves that look like ticks (little squinty heads and enormously muscular bodies), and that everyone is dressed so kewl. But, if that bugs you as well about your favorite game, there's nothing wrong in saying so. You can still prefer 3E, but at the same time, prefer 1E artwork. So, please don't see this as an edition war, its not. Its simply a thread about what we like and don't like about D&D art as a whole. Any how, there is another thread talking about what is great about 3E artwork.

I'd argue 3E and 3.5 artwork does score an A+ when it comes to delivering what the publishers want. It grabs the attention of "the right" viewers who might otherwise pass their products up. It also attracts the video game and computer crowd, a much larger market.
And who knows, without that art would WOTC sold near as many books? Would AD&D 1E have completely faded away if it wasn't for the popularity of 3E (which is partly derived from the effects of its artwork)? Ironic in a way, isn't it.

But, just because 3E artwork delivers in the marketing department, doesn't mean its suited as the best "portal" to another world. I think 1E did just the opposite. Its artwork created a portal that we all could relate to (because its pretty conservative/generic fantasy really), but it failed to deliver the POP to capture the "right" people, the ones wth the right buying habits, and it failed to be supportive of an expanding growth philosophy as new products reached into broader markets and "lines" were created (ie, creating sagas like Dragonlance, etc.).

 

[Scribble]

I also wonder if the artwork from 1e looked somewhat the way it did (and I'm not saying it was bad as I like a lot of 1e artwork) due to printing costs.

I mean back in the day 4 color art was like WHOA! 4 Color artwork!

So I wonder if Otis kept his pieces a lot of times somewhat "cell shaded" looking in order to cut down on amount of colors/ink/cost?


Also that Reynolds piece posted above has got to be one of the higherups on my list of 3e artwork. Especially with the issue of dragon it was on... really made me want to write a few city adventures!

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Then you aren't following the guidelines in the DMG, where a percentage of encounters should be with creatures that are beyond the party's means to simply fight and resist and win against.

Myself, I follow a design philosophy that says "If epic creatures are in the world when the PCs are epic levels, it follows that epic creatures are in the world when the PCs are 1st level." I have no problem whatsoever with introducing creatures that the players should realize are beyond their characters' means to deal with. Likewise, when I have the King deny the PCs something that they want, this doesn't mean that I expect the PCs to fight, resist, and defeat the King.

Mind you, I don't prevent them from trying. Just because I think something would be hellishly difficult doesn't mean that the PCs won't be hellishly clever in overcoming that difficulty.

The point is, when I run a game, the outcome is not predetermined. The PCs may win. They may fail. That is up to the players, their cleverness, their tactics, and their luck.

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.

I agree that the artwork was intended to serve different purposes. 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

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC: I would say that WOTC has learned from its past. Looking at the last year or two's releases, there's been some absolutely gorgeous books come out of WOTC that have addressed exactly what you are talking about - the idea that the PC's are invincible. Look at the difference between the PHB and PHB II and they are just worlds apart.

Me too. I said so in my first post on this thread.

I feel that the art-as-depicted in the PHB & DMG was specifically designed to (1) pull new players into the PHB, (2) counter the most common complaints (see the WotC marketing data) of previous editions in the PHB, and (3) pull DMs of older editions into the new edition with the DMG. Much of the art in the MM is absolutely solid.....though there are a few pieces where I prefer earlier editions and/or the artwork was obviously done prior to the final completion of the text, and the text/artwork were not in sync.

That said, I think that the observations I have made above affect the initial message that some viewers have gained from 3e art, and that perceived message has colored their view of some of the later work (much as the message of the better pieces from earlier editions might make one overlook the flaws of other, weaker pieces).


RC