3e artwork debate
TSNFrodos
years with the (A)D&D products, my thoughts on the matter are as follows:
TSR/WotC should perhaps approach artists who have made a living for years as
SUCCESSFUL fanatsy artist for the publishing industry etc. Some names that come
to mind are, Boris Vallejo, Hildebrant brothers, Frank Frazetta (sp?), Micheal
Whylen (sp?). These people are artists who not only do wonderful fantasy art,
but thier works are collected for thier quality and beauty all over the world,
even by those of the "younger" generation.
If TSR/WotC is wanting to design a "new" look for D&D 3e, then perhaps using
this type of artist would be a good starting point to give 3e a professional
and enjoyable look.
James Tackett
Edgegreen
Micheal Whealan in the PHB would be a dream come true.
Steven James (Silverblade)
Aneamic, pansy looking beasties..YUK!
TSNFrodos <tsnf...@aol.comjunkblok> wrote in message
news:19991027090405...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
Bullethead
would be great. I don't mind the different styles so much, but I'll puke if
everything is cyber-punks and extremely scrawny long limbed monsters.
TSNFrodos wrote in message <19991027090405...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
LARE
tsnf...@aol.comjunkblok (TSNFrodos) wrote:
> With the range of disagreement over what art is/has been good/bad over the
> years with the (A)D&D products, my thoughts on the matter are as follows:
>
> TSR/WotC should perhaps approach artists who have made a living for years as
> SUCCESSFUL fanatsy artist for the publishing industry etc. Some names
that come
> to mind are, Boris Vallejo, Hildebrant brothers, Frank Frazetta (sp?), Micheal
> Whylen (sp?). These people are artists who not only do wonderful fantasy art,
> but thier works are collected for thier quality and beauty all over the world,
> even by those of the "younger" generation.
>
> If TSR/WotC is wanting to design a "new" look for D&D 3e, then perhaps using
> this type of artist would be a good starting point to give 3e a professional
> and enjoyable look.
>
> James Tackett
*Anything* would be an improvement over the 3e cyberpunkish concept art
we've seen so far.
OK - almost anything. ;-)
LARE
--
Campaign Journals, House Rules, PO:S&P conversions for NWPs, Characters, Fig Pics, Recipes, Places, Myths...
In short, lots of stuff. (over 600 html pages & growing)
Well organized & easy to navigate.
http://www.nb.net/~casper/Larry/dnd/
Sean Curtin
LARE wrote:
> *Anything* would be an improvement over the 3e cyberpunkish concept art
> we've seen so far.
>
> OK - almost anything. ;-)
Although I don't like the current 3E art, I'd getting pretty sick of the
generic "burly barbarian/chicks in chainmail" style of fantasy art
represented by Vallejo, et al. Unfortunately, it's getting kind of late
for TSR/WotC/Hasbro to find new, talented artists -- the 3E PHB is only
ten months off, and the core books are going to probably be completely
done by late spring.
Sean Curtin
LARE
<mass...@berkshire.net> wrote:
I know time is short, but from what I've read on this bboard, there seems
to be an overwhelming majority of folks that thinks the art sucks and is
inappropriate for a fantasy RPG. Good stuff for Warhammer 40K or
Cyberpunk, perhaps, but not at all what is desired for D&D.
Remember, this is being portrayed as 3e concept art. WotC seems to be
trying to establish a singular 'feel' or 'look' to the artwork in D&D.
(This in itself is a slightly troubling decision as the game's diversity
is it's strength) Do you really want the art in the 3e PHB, DMG and
Monster Manual to look like the totally unrealistic and farcical
pointy-bits covered armor and KISS style make-up/tatoos garbage we've seen
in the concept art? I for one don't.
If they really wanted to, there still is time to change direction. It
would not be easy at this point, but it would be more than worth it. The
art we've seen so far is laughable - not exactly something that might
cause a potential new customer to pick up your product.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Here's my vote:
2 Parts Elmore
1 Part Easly
1 Part Parkinson
1 dash of Di'Trilizzi (?) [female nymph-like creatures only]
Stir and let stand.
Add:
3 part's mixed of the following:
-Erol Ottis
-Dee
-Diesle
-Willingham
For extra spiciness, add a dash of Roslof and/or DIS&DAT
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
....ie, a whole plethora of varied artwork. Why? Variety. Look at the
older stuff TSR put out: LOTS of different artists. Sure, there were some
'main' artists (Ottis, Dee, Easly, Elmore), but there were a good number of
others too.
PS: Nottice I completely left out Jim Holloway? Reason: he !!***SUCKS**!!!
Sheitan
;-)
- Sheitan
Matt Devney
artwork. This seems to involve the heavy use of spikes & wild hairdos &
lots of other bits an' peices that some people on here don't like
(incidentally, just for the record I think it looks ok, but I digress).
What hasn't been taken into account is that the art has been done by
only _one_ person (IIRC). This means that the current artwork is being
heavily influenced by that artists concept of how d&d should look.
Of course he CANNOT represent the whole of the art world's opinion on
fantasy art and so as soon as another artist gets hold of a TSR contract
to do some 3E art - he will change the look! No ifs or buts about it. So
if you don't like what's currently being shown on the website - just
wait til another artist (ie: one you like) gets to do some, and I
guarantee that you will like the artwork, never mind TSR's 'unified'
theory behind their artwork. I personally can't wait 'til I see Elmore's
version of 3E, or that guy who did the picture that inspired 'Babette
Maelstrom's Sword' magic item in Polyhedron - I forget his name... oh
hang on it's come to me: Clyde Caldwell - I think that's it.
--
Matt Devney
"I'm sorry, I'm just a computer person, and don't know how to
(Ford don't trust me to) correctly answer product questions.
Please call Customer Assistance at 1-800-392-3673, and they'll
be glad to help."
My opinions are not Ford Motor Company's opinions. Obviously...
(The list of stuff we need to put in our sigs gets even longer)
PJS
Matt Devney wrote in message <382690EA...@ford.com>...
>The way I look at it - TSR is trying to get a 'unified' look for it's
>artwork. This seems to involve the heavy use of spikes & wild hairdos &
>lots of other bits an' peices that some people on here don't like
This "look" bedevilled the British rpg scene in the late 80s, courtesy of
the aesthetically challenged people at Citadel Miniatures and Games Workshop
. . . it'd be a shame if the skulls, spikes and Mohawk haircuts were
reintroduced by WotC now . . . ugh! It looked crap then and it looks crap
*and dated* now.
---
Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
may be happy.
- H.L. Mencken
PJS
file in a non-binary NG, which means you will BURN IN HELL, SINNER! this pic
reminds me rather of Liz Danforth who did the illustrations for Tunnels and
Trolls.
LARE
<P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Matt Devney wrote in message <382690EA...@ford.com>...
> >The way I look at it - TSR is trying to get a 'unified' look for it's
> >artwork. This seems to involve the heavy use of spikes & wild hairdos &
> >lots of other bits an' peices that some people on here don't like
> -----------------
> This "look" bedevilled the British rpg scene in the late 80s, courtesy of
> the aesthetically challenged people at Citadel Miniatures and Games Workshop
> . . . it'd be a shame if the skulls, spikes and Mohawk haircuts were
> reintroduced by WotC now . . . ugh! It looked crap then and it looks crap
> *and dated* now.
"Dated punk crap" - that's what WotC thinks D&D art should look like.
<shudder>
Considering art is something that should affect a product's perceived
value - I wonder what demographic WotC thinks this ugly art will help them
with? Certainly not folks interested in a fantasy RPG. And I'm sure (NOT)
that placing art that folks not interested in a fantasy RPG will cause
them to buy a 3e PH.
Does anyone know who the art director is for 3e and his or her email
address? (I would go to the 3e site myself, but then I'd have to see this
disgusting art again)
John Peralta
the new art is bad. I happen to like it. anything but Elmore PLEASE!
Obvously Elmore has talent but in my opinion the guy is one of the most
BORING artists TSR has ever had.
Give me something different for God's sake!
Take a look at the old Fiend Folio. It had some GREAT artist.
I also like what TSR has done with Alternity. The art is perfect.
I won't argue that ART is key. To me personaly it's much more than that.
Look at how important it is for Magic: the Gathering. But if I have to sit
there and page through another book full the vanilla mages with long beard
and pointy hats, together with scantily clad, big busted women in chain mail
I'm going to puke.
In my opinion Wizards should take some of their artist from Magic and have
them work on 3eD&D. It seems like Magic has the corner on the artist market.
John Peralta
Kevin Lamb
of people saying, "Porcupine Plate-Mail of Death?!?!? What the hell
are you thinking?!?" I agree with pretty much everyone else, that crap
belongs in a Warhammer game or Spawn comic, NOT Dungeons & Dragons.
The dwarf cleric is pretty good and I can almost stomach the half-orc
paladin, but the rest of the conceptual drawings have GOT to go.
I understand that WoTC wants D&D to have a new look for everyone to get
excited about, but *new* should NEVER take precedence over *quality*
artwork. If WoTC is hell-bent on the whole jagged, "walking arsenal"
look, they should at least hire Brom to do it. His work isn't exactly
traditional but at least it maintains a high-quality "fantasy" feel to
it. (More down below)
Denakhan the Arch-Mage said:
>>Here's my vote:
>>2 Parts Elmore
>>1 Part Easly
>>1 Part Parkinson
>>1 dash of Di'Trilizzi (?) [female nymph-like creatures only]
>>Add: 3 part's mixed of the following:
>>-Erol Ottis
>>-Dee
>>-Diesle
>>-Willingham
Great list. These guys haven't exactly lost their touch. Its funny
how WoTC claims to be catering to "old-school" gamers by reintroducing
Greyhawk, monks, assassins, and even Gygax himself back into the game,
then package it all with Cyberpunk comic book renditions sure to turn
off all fans of the classic game.
I don't mind a little Brom or DiTerlizzi for spice but I'd prefer if
they stuck with the veterans for the core concepts.
Later,
Kevin
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Some Seek Soul
the cyberpunk-style art not "new", but even if it were a novelty, it's one that
stales quickly. Listen to the outcries of your fans, please, WOTC, I beg you!
Lost Dragon
>value - I wonder what demographic WotC thinks this ugly art will help them
All the concept art seems to have been done by the same person, so you
would expect it to have many similarities.. I like the spikey bits.
It's just been overdone. Moderation is key.
/| .oo__. .-----.=- -= Lost Dragon =- -=.-----. U
{ \| ,-'' | _O_ |==- -= Forever Dead Forgotten Lie =- -==| _O_ | D
`,_/'(_)\_ | | |==- Remembered Souls, They Cannot Die -==| | | I
<...{_)_)_''`-----`===-- http://www.lostdragon.com/ --==='-----' C
Christopher Adams
I'll add my voice. It's not bad art, in fact I think it's quite good, but it's
not D&D. Planescape's art was exotic, yes, but then Planescape IS exotic. The
Third Edition concept art just isn't appropriate for a fantasy game, especially
not D&D.
I'm not saying we need to return to the days of 1930s Conan-style heroes and
chainmail bikinis . . . but be realistic about it. Jeff Easley's painting on the
cover of Dragon #260 is great; I like Stephen Daniele's cover for #259, too.
You guys and gals at WotC need to keep tradition in mind as much as innovation .
. . and this art is not enough tradition.
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
Vice-President SUTEKH 2000
Librarian PAGUS 2000
"There can be only" ONE WAY
- Street sign, Highlander Lane, Melbourne
LARE
<kevinlamb...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
<snip discussion of how the ugly cyberpunkesque 3e concept art sucks for D&D>
>Its funny
> how WoTC claims to be catering to "old-school" gamers by reintroducing
> Greyhawk, monks, assassins, and even Gygax himself back into the game,
> then package it all with Cyberpunk comic book renditions sure to turn
> off all fans of the classic game.
This nails this whole discussion on the head more than anything - at least
from the viewpoint that this is an aweful marketing decision.
Artists usually don't have 100% free reign to do whatever they please on
projects such as this. They are given guidance by managing editors through
art directors.
Someone, somewhere, sometime during the 3e creation process gave the
orders, or at the very least, the OK, to proceed in what the vast majority
here think is a horrendous direction with the look of 3e.
I want that person to be named so that we can write him or her directly
(cc -ing their superior, of course!!) to express our opinions on this
matter.
NO MORE POINTY BITS!!!! (or punker hair - unless the Rock Star is going to
be a new character class!)
LARE
(for the record, I'm not picking on you personally here. It just so
happens you're a classic example of the pro-punker 3e concept art)
In article <807ged$jfq$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "John Peralta"
<john...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've been following the posts in this forum since the 3e concept was released.
It seems that folks fall into one of two camps:
1) They hate the art for being totally unrealistic, silly, childish,
non-fantasy genre appropriate, resembling a cyberpunk convention, looking
like it's 80's night at the disco or any of a number of other very
legitimate reasons 'cause the art plain sucks.
-or-
2) They say they like the art, usually cause they've had enough of
Elmore's generic style. But that being said, most either are only tepid in
their endorsement of the concept art (typically, simply for the sake of
change) or they make a call for multiple artists and styles, oft citing
the vast stable of artists that WotC has for MtG. More often, they state
both.
I can only assume that WotC released concept art in order to get feedback
from their customer base before proceeding further. That would be good
business practice.
TTBOMK, not a single soul has come forward with a ringing 100% endorsement
of your product. Not even close. That, sirs, is a very, very bad sign.
Well, your most loyal customers have spoken. We hate the concept art. Fire
the artist (& possibly even the art director for being clueless and out of
touch) and get your act together 'cause you only have a limited amount of
time to address this P.R. mistake before going to press.
LARE
(owner of a ridiculus amount of TSR product)
Jeff
>Aneamic, pansy looking beasties..YUK!
I like his work. He has a unique style, and it gives plavescape the proper
eery/unreal feel.
Musician
Artist
Individual
James Robinson
> I've been following the posts in this forum since the 3e concept was released.
>
> It seems that folks fall into one of two camps:
>
> 1) They hate the art for being totally unrealistic, silly, childish,
> non-fantasy genre appropriate, resembling a cyberpunk convention, looking
> like it's 80's night at the disco or any of a number of other very
> legitimate reasons 'cause the art plain sucks.
>
> 2) They say they like the art, usually cause they've had enough of
> Elmore's generic style. But that being said, most either are only tepid in
> their endorsement of the concept art (typically, simply for the sake of
> change) or they make a call for multiple artists and styles, oft citing
> the vast stable of artists that WotC has for MtG. More often, they state
> both.
I'll state agreement with both. TSR had great illos that weren't in
the Elmore style. I miss Trampier and Otus, and you can say what you
want about DCS, but the man *defined* the D&D dragons in the Monster
Manual. The succubus line drawing at the end of the original DMG was
also incredible (who did that again?).
Can the guy who did the first full-page painting in S&P. He sucks.
Keep Ken Frank on a short leash. Use DiTerlizzi sparingly; he's great
in doses, and he's on a short list of fantasy artists who can draw
women. Incidentally, the concept artist for 3e can't draw women. The
female character illustrations look awkward and bizarre.
--
James
Arivne
James Robinson wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I'll state agreement with both. TSR had great illos that weren't in
> the Elmore style. I miss Trampier and Otus, and you can say what you
> want about DCS, but the man *defined* the D&D dragons in the Monster
> Manual. The succubus line drawing at the end of the original DMG was
> also incredible (who did that again?).
Darlene Pekul.
> Can the guy who did the first full-page painting in S&P. He sucks.
> Keep Ken Frank on a short leash. Use DiTerlizzi sparingly; he's great
> in doses, and he's on a short list of fantasy artists who can draw
> women. Incidentally, the concept artist for 3e can't draw women. The
> female character illustrations look awkward and bizarre.
>
> --
> James
Arivne
W Smith
James Robinson <amo...@avalon.net> wrote in message
news:1e10qvl.9qs...@dial9.icwest.avalon.net...
> I'll state agreement with both. TSR had great illos that weren't in
> the Elmore style. I miss Trampier and Otus, and you can say what you
> want about DCS, but the man *defined* the D&D dragons in the Monster
> Manual. The succubus line drawing at the end of the original DMG was
> also incredible (who did that again?).
>
lines of 1st ed art (and not those orange spine covers either, I mean the
original covers). Which it seems like they are trying more than 2nd ed art
did. 2nd ed art wasn't bad back when it came out, but over the years it got
real cheesy. Forget all those computer enhanced crap. DCS, Otus, and the
rest of the 1st ed artists had some kind "magic" to their illustrations that
would stimulate the imagination. So far IMO the art for 3E isn't bad. It
just doesn't have that "magic" I felt from the 1st ed. But then again maybe
nothing ever will.
One thing to keep in mind though, if the characters in the art have armor
and shields with giant spikes on them, you will need some kind of rules to
adjudicate the use of these items in the offensive during combat. Cause I
can bet if players see it in the art they art going to want it. (Hummmh. A
hobgoblin elite unit with spiked shields? Not bad for NPCs and DM nasties
either!)
ISU Student
artwork, alot. I am all for a new feel in the book, and who are any of us to
say what belongs in the fantasy genre. It is after all fantasy, it is what we
individually see in our heads. I love the feel of planescape art, despit the
fact that I am not fond of the setting itself. Speaking of second gen art I
think that largely the cover was quite good, but the illustrations within the
book lacked real depth. They seemed hashed out and immature. The interior
paintings were good just not the caption art. Of first edition art, for God's
sake please don't go back to covers like that! I mean the cut away view of a
flat scene with monsters on the monster manual....yuck. I was an art major for
a couple of years and damn that effort was pathetic. However I like the
sketches of monsters from inside the books. But change it up, feel free I love
the new style. Need an objective view from someone who owns Elmore prints and
loves Whelan, gimme a buzz... but really the new artwork is in a much better
style than the tired tried and true.
Nathan
cha...@mama.indstate.edu
LARE
Student) wrote:
I'm not saying that the 3e concept art isn't well drawn. The artist
obviously has more talent than many of the folks that did the caption art
in both 1st & 2nd ed. - there was a ton of cheese and poor art in prior
D&D books.
I'm also not saying that they should keep the 'tired tried and true'.
Obviously WotC, with its great tradition of high quality art would want to
change the art in it's flagship RPG.
What I am saying is that the 3e concept art is not a direction that is in
a fantasy vein. It would be great for Cyberpunk or some over-the-top,
totally unrealistic, munchkin game - it's just that is not the type of
gamer that most AD&D folks are.
D&D, more so than any other fantasy RPG, has always been dominated by
players seeking 'realistic high fantasy'. I am fairly certain there will
be no armor type on the equipment lists in 3e that is covered with the
laughable pointy bits like the concept art depicts - so why portray the
prototype character classes in that way? Clearly the artist and/or the art
director are either totally clueless or they are stubbornly refusing to
give up their 'artisitic integrity' in order to properly illustrate the
book. If the former, then they need to be slapped with a mental 2x4 and
told to get their act together. If the latter, they should be fired, as it
will be impossible to ever get decent illustrations out of them.
And that brings me to my final point. There's art - such as the full page
plates in the 2nd ed books - that can be anything the artist desires. And
then there's illustration - the visual depiction of what the book's text
is trying to convey. The 3e concept art will apparently be used in the
character class section of the book to portray typical examples of each
character class (or at least possible examples) and is therefore, by
definition, illustration. An illustrator should, by definition, have less
'artistic freedom' than does an artist - else why bother having cared what
the text stated at all?
WotC has a large stable of talented artists who are also capable of high
quality illustration. I actually picked up a copy of the MtG artbook that
showed the design of one of their products from concept sketches, through
visual specifications of the appearance of the various components (based
on the text written by the game designers), to the final art that a
variety of artists illustrated (all following the specifications). This to
me proves that someone at WotC is capable of guiding artists with diverse
styles in a unified direction that meshes well with the products text.
Unfortunately, that can not be said of the people working on the D&D 3e
art.
LARE
He Who Is Not To Be Named
>In article <80cfd3$3...@onyx.indstate.edu>, isust...@indstate.edu (ISU
>Student) wrote:
>
>> I'd like to give my opinion on this whole art debate. First off I like the
<snipped>
Throwing in my $.02..
What about the guy* that did the bulk of the Birthright art? or the
guy* that did the Thieve's World covers.
or maybe looking up some of the older fellas; Erol Otus - kinda goovy
drawing style but I liked looking at them. Or that other fella that
did so much of fill art in Village of Hommlet
All this spiky stuff looks more like it belongs in Palladium's Rifts**
(this may be why the "establishing a distinct look" explaination is
confusing some folks.)
*(all in unison... "KILL THE INFIDEL WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE ARTISTS
NAMES!!!")
**Has anyone else noticed how much 3rd ed, based on what's come out so
far resembles Palladium?
*******************************************************
The main thing that people tend to forget or ignore,
is that Joe McCarthy was, in fact, right.
*******************************************************
http://www.tomzilla.com
Matt Devney
Have any of you lot seen the new-ish comic book 'Battlechasers' from
Cliffhanger comics, and is written and drawn by Joe Madueira (sp?). This
is a fantasy comic book that echos a lot of D&D themes (mad mages,
golems, undead, werewolves, powerful magic items and of course legendary
warriors) IMHO it's one of the best drawn titles out there, and the look
would not only be really cool as far as new art is concerned, it also
doesn't go overboard with spikes or whatever. About the only thing wrong
with it is Red Monika - who is WAAAAAY over-endowed in the breast
department, and doesn't wear much in the way of clothes (this was a joke
by MAD - he wanted to point out how silly it was - he has a number of
other females in the book which aren't that busty, and there's a prelude
where RM is a kid and hopes she never *ahem* develops).
Anyone else seen this (at the moment it's not being produced AFAIK, due
to MAD being a work-shy lazy artist) and got opinions? Can 'comic-book'
type art go well with AD&D?
Darrell King
A quick aside:
Isn't it interesting how ANY form of media attention focusing on 'Battle
Chasers' is, almost by default, focused primarily on Red Monika's
'overendowments?'
Darrell King
Taco Heuts
NPC's in my dungeon. My personal favorite is the mage with the sentient
Wargolem, for whom I think I'll use a retired druid and an Iron golem. It
also gave me idea's for new monsters like the grinners.
All in all I like the comic and can't wait for the next issues...
Matt Devney
Yup - it's all the fanboys drooling :-) Mind you, MAD draws a
good-looking woman really well, so I kinda like her anyway... but in RL
she'd be a freak and I wouldn't go near her.
BTW, seeing as you know the comic - when's the next issue coming out?
And I don't mean that collected hardback either. Come to think of it,
what was in the last issue out? The last thing I remember is the ending
of the battle between Brass Demur & that warrior dude (i forget his name
:-) and the king saying it was all planned. I think.
Sorry to be OT there.
Vermilion
>Darrell King wrote:
>>
>> Matt--
>>
>> A quick aside:
>>
>> Isn't it interesting how ANY form of media attention focusing on 'Battle
>> Chasers' is, almost by default, focused primarily on Red Monika's
>> 'overendowments?'
>Yup - it's all the fanboys drooling :-) Mind you, MAD draws a
>good-looking woman really well, so I kinda like her anyway... but in RL
>she'd be a freak and I wouldn't go near her.
>BTW, seeing as you know the comic - when's the next issue coming out?
>And I don't mean that collected hardback either. Come to think of it,
>what was in the last issue out? The last thing I remember is the ending
>of the battle between Brass Demur & that warrior dude (i forget his name
>:-) and the king saying it was all planned. I think.
Next issue? Hah! HAH!
Solicitations have been pulled for issue 7, I believe I heard last week. With
the three month lead time typical in the industry, if Madureira put down his
PSX controller and finished the book this week, the earlier it would be in
stores is February. And that's a huge if.
I like his work and I don't enjoy being critical of others, but damn - I hate
to see talent wasted...
Aardy R. DeVarque
>Anyone else seen this (at the moment it's not being produced AFAIK, due
>to MAD being a work-shy lazy artist) and got opinions? Can 'comic-book'
>type art go well with AD&D?
It certainly did/does with the What's New? strip, and the DragMag covers &
spot illos Phil Foglio did/does... It just hasn't been done much at all
with late 1st and most of 2nd ed., during which time TSR tried to take
itself much more seriously than it did in the late 70's/early 80's.
--
"Fiat lux."
(Let there be light) --Genesis 1:3
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
rgfd FAQ: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/faq/rgfdfaq.html
RPG page: http://www.enteract.com/~aardy/rpg/index.html
Doug
<aa...@enteract.NOJUNK.com> wrote:
>Matt Devney <mde...@ford.com> wrote:
>>Anyone else seen this (at the moment it's not being produced AFAIK, due
>>to MAD being a work-shy lazy artist) and got opinions? Can 'comic-book'
>>type art go well with AD&D?
>
>It certainly did/does with the What's New? strip, and the DragMag covers &
>spot illos Phil Foglio did/does... It just hasn't been done much at all
>with late 1st and most of 2nd ed., during which time TSR tried to take
>itself much more seriously than it did in the late 70's/early 80's.
And don't forget Dave Trampier's "Wormy"!
Doug
Robin Lim
between the pages of 3e:
This is all strictly my personal bias, and my personal preferences.
Raven Mimura -- He's easily the best artist Providence has working for them.
Certainly one up the up-and-coming fantasy illustrators. His pieces are
dark, moody, and imminently interesting.
Nene Thomas -- I love her bright colours and elfin figures. Except for the
.44 magnum, too bad all her Jyhad cards were shite (game-wise, I mean, not
art-wise).
Brian Snoddy -- Two words: Hida O-Ushi.
Phil and Kaja Foglio -- I'm starting to feel nostalgic about the little
cartoons in the First Ed. DMG. Phil would be the perfect guy to draw up
some little humorous bits. Well, either him or Pete Abrams (the guy who
draws Sluggy).
And lastly, whoever it was that illustrated the Inquest Babewatch article.
Can't make out the signature, but I forgive the person in question for
making Xena look nothing like Lucy Lawless and Lanfear so over-the-top, just
for that illustration of Bayushi Kachiko.
rob
Bryan J. Maloney
Frank Kelly Freas and Laura Brodin-Freas