Please leave D&D high fantasy (was 3rd ed artwork)
LEEWYGANT
to "3rd edition artwork sucks"
I am not writing to complaining about the concept sketches but the feel I
get from them The concept sketches have a definite "feel" to them and show a
consistency lacking in most recent TSR products. My problem is grim and dark
feeling they convey. Even the page layout for the artwork is menacing. (Black
and red)
Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned? High fantasy.
Keep the dragons evil and the paladins pure. Mr. Gygax, villian or hero,
genius or ripoff artist created a world modeled from high fantasy that has
become a comfortable second home for many of us wishing to escape the daily
grind for a few hours. Many of us have grown up reading fantasy where the
heroes may have thier flaws, but do the right thing because they are heroes.
I have always considered D&D to be unchanging in it's view of heroes and
heroines. Yes there are dark, dirty cities in D&D, and some "evil" places, but
on a whole the population of the modules are at most apathetic. The worlds as
a whole are not an "every man for himself, kill or be killed" I understand that
as DM my world is my own. But one must consider that my player pool is from
those who have read and many times modeled their expectation from TSR products.
This is what has made D&D so popular for all ages that most high fantasy has
good and bad as well as (like it or not) a common look.
This is why I am asking those at TSR not to tamper with the basic thread of
"classic" D&D with this new look. D&D is not real life, it is an escape to
fantasy. Please do not make this escape world more grim than real life. Do
not get me wrong, I do not expect every character to be smiling and happy.
Combat scenes are the bread and butter of fantasy. But maybe all the
characters don't have to look grim and determined all the time. Come on, at
least have the halfling smiling!!
p.s. If you really want my opinion of just the art, here goes. Lose the
skin-tight armor on EVERYBODY, give the gnomes back thier noses, make the
halfling a little heavier, and keep a sword looking like a sword.
p.p.s The above also goes for the new figure line also. Any weapons taller
than the character should be avoided as well as mace heads bigger than the
characters head!!
Sincerely,
Lee Wygant
The opinions expressed are not my own.
Blame my upbringing and genetics, but not me.
Edgegreen
Happy, Hairfooted halflings
Mystic, Green mystic elves
Dragons on Piles of gold
Knights in shining armor, princesses in towers
Good kings and high fantasy
Villiages of peasents threatened by Dark towers and wizards
More Tolkien and C.S. Lewis
Less Elric and Mad Max
Don't contradict 25 years of mood and cannon.
In the 80's Dragon magizine circulated 120,000 copies an issue
In the Early 90's it was half that
Now (Issue 266) it is 50,000 and dropping by comparison of the numbers
To move far off base now could make this incarnation of the game Last
edition D&D.
CEO
Without trying to rekindle the longwinded "2nd vs. 3rd," I have to agree
that what ever they do to the game mechanics... leave the
feel/visualizations alone. However, I've only seen a few of the graphics and
would really like to make an educated comment about the "new" look.
Anyone have any good sites OTHER that the official site to check some out
at?
--
The CEO
"I don't want the world to see me, 'cause I don't think that they'd
understand...
When everything's made to be broken, I just want you to know who I am."
--
For all your gaming, fiction, and anime needs.. Check out
http://www.thedwarvenhammer.com
<Shameless Plug>
Don
LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991221012805...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> I am sorry to extend a topic, but I do not feel it fair to contribute
this
> to "3rd edition artwork sucks"
> I am not writing to complaining about the concept sketches but the
feel I
> get from them The concept sketches have a definite "feel" to them and
show a
> consistency lacking in most recent TSR products. My problem is grim and
dark
> feeling they convey. Even the page layout for the artwork is menacing.
(Black
> and red)
> Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
I fully agree!
- Don
Check out my dice collection!
Michael Brown
> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
Because it looked dorky?
-Michael
Jimmy Kerl
the artwork previews looks munchkin-inspiried. and the
next munchkin always feels the need to out do the previous one.
Jimmy
Donald Bachman
: Amen brother
:
: Happy, Hairfooted halflings
:
: Mystic, Green mystic elves
:
: Dragons on Piles of gold
:
: Knights in shining armor, princesses in towers
:
: Good kings and high fantasy
:
: Villiages of peasents threatened by Dark towers and wizards
:
: More Tolkien and C.S. Lewis
:
: Less Elric and Mad Max
:
: Don't contradict 25 years of mood and cannon.
Oh please. Its artwork. What the heck you do with the game
is your own. You'd imagine after 25 years of syrupy, buttery
wholesomeness you'd want a bit of change. (Not that what
was on the cover of my 1ed AD&D DMG was all that wholesome.)
:
: In the 80's Dragon magizine circulated 120,000 copies an issue
:
: In the Early 90's it was half that
:
: Now (Issue 266) it is 50,000 and dropping by comparison of the numbers
:
: To move far off base now could make this incarnation of the game Last
: edition D&D.
What as Dragon's circulation got to do with D&D's survival?
Donald
Vermilion
> Because it looked dorky?
I fully agree. This current of opinion that is so desirous of the SAME THING
we've had for years is amazing to me. Regardless of the 3E concept art, I'd
be happy with virtually anything that's not the same vanilla stereotypical
fantasy art that's been recycled and cannibalized for years. "Oh look,
*another* generic Elmore painting!" Yeesh. Technically competant but
emotionally devoid artwork. I for one look forward to AD&D art that doesn't
look like one of countless bland fantasy novel covers. Any cohesive, unique
and original visual design would make me happy. DiTerlizzi defined the look
of Planescape, Brom's work made Dark Sun stand out. Like it or dislike it,
you immediately recognize it - it has character. But regular 2nd Ed, it's
just an assortment of the same, unispired concepts that the artists have been
producing for decades. And any development that gets rid of Terry Dykstra's
terrible doodling gets my vote.
I wonder what the extremely conservative nature of some of this group's
posters is due to. Just the age of the player and length of time with D&D
maybe? So many seem so aghast at change. I've come to understand the 1st Ed
vs 2nd Ed Jihad, but I get the impression that many gamers here would love to
move back to 1979 and pretend that nothing changes...
PJS
>
>
>> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
>
> Because it looked dorky?
Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"?
'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as
well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in
the streets and to steal bread.' - Anatole France
PJS
>Add my .02$ to this line of thought, you all said it!
>
>the artwork previews looks munchkin-inspiried. and the
>next munchkin always feels the need to out do the previous one.
Exactly. We shouldn't forget that the chaosspikeybits Warhammer Games
Workshop style was popular among Munchkins and pandered to their great big
sword to kill gods with attitude. If this hackneyed late 80s style is going
to have blood poured into its proverbial grave and return, expect that many
more 80th level characters with attributes of 24 in everything.
PJS
Vermilion wrote in message ...
>>> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
>
>> Because it looked dorky?
>
THING
>we've had for years is amazing to me. Regardless of the 3E concept art,
I'd
>be happy with virtually anything that's not the same vanilla stereotypical
>fantasy art that's been recycled and cannibalized for years. "Oh look,
>*another* generic Elmore painting!" Yeesh. Technically competant but
>emotionally devoid artwork. I for one look forward to AD&D art that
doesn't
>look like one of countless bland fantasy novel covers. Any cohesive,
unique
>and original visual design would make me happy. DiTerlizzi defined the
look
>of Planescape, Brom's work made Dark Sun stand out. Like it or dislike it,
>you immediately recognize it - it has character.
So do Soviet era propaganda posters... so what if you can recognise the
"Style" if you don't actually like to look at it?
------------
> But regular 2nd Ed, it's
>just an assortment of the same, unispired concepts that the artists have
been
>producing for decades. And any development that gets rid of Terry
Dykstra's
>terrible doodling gets my vote.
>
>I wonder what the extremely conservative nature of some of this group's
>posters is due to. Just the age of the player and length of time with D&D
>maybe? So many seem so aghast at change. I've come to understand the 1st
Ed
>vs 2nd Ed Jihad, but I get the impression that many gamers here would love
to
>move back to 1979 and pretend that nothing changes...
Pah. The cult of novelty. The self indulgence which says Tracy Emin is
better than Michaelangelo . . .
Donald Bachman
:
: >of Planescape, Brom's work made Dark Sun stand out. Like it or dislike it,
: >you immediately recognize it - it has character.
: ------------
: So do Soviet era propaganda posters... so what if you can recognise the
: "Style" if you don't actually like to look at it?
: ------------
I rather think such posters are cute.
: >vs 2nd Ed Jihad, but I get the impression that many gamers here would love
: to
: >move back to 1979 and pretend that nothing changes...
: ------------
: Pah. The cult of novelty. The self indulgence which says Tracy Emin is
: better than Michaelangelo . . .
He may be an acknowledged master, but artist don't ape his style and
a lot of art has come since that looks nothing like his. I suppose
Picasso is trash?
Donald
Steve Miller
<< Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"? >>
No, but Lockwood and Wood's art is distinctive.
What little originality that existed in the D&D baseline 20 years ago has long
since been appropriated by every other producer of fantasy artwork and fiction,
from Masamune Shirow to the high school kids doodling in the margins of their
notebooks.
It's time for D&D to move to the forefront again and once again define
"fantasy" in the minds of the public.
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
Bigot, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you
do not entertain.
--Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
> Oh please. Its artwork. What the heck you do with the game
> is your own. You'd imagine after 25 years of syrupy, buttery
> wholesomeness you'd want a bit of change. (Not that what
> was on the cover of my 1ed AD&D DMG was all that wholesome.)
Yes, it is artwork. What's the saying? "A picture is worth a thousand
words"? Yeah, that was it. ;-)
Artwork can make or break a game (and can certainly annoy me enough that
I won't buy the game; case in point was the "Babylon5" rpg. *shudder* The
artwork for it was 100% opposite than what the TV series showed. Just
horrible. I would have even prefered Jim Hollowy art!).
Looks are almost as important to the game as the rules. A picture of a
spiky-armored warrior with long black hair, black armor, black cloak, black
boots, black gloves, pale skin and a 7' sword that probably weighs in at
around 150lb will give the impression of dark, gloomy, un-imaginative system
to me. If you've seen one dark, angst ridden warrior you've seen them all.
It would say to me "Hi! I'm D&D! We are trying to look exactly like
everyone else! Please buy me!". ;-)
...try watching any of the "Friday the 13th" movies and then try and
imagine it as a romance. The 'artwork' (re: scenes and visuals) are going
to completely color any underlaying 'story of romance' (if you count horney
teenagers banging eachother romance...) ;-)
^_^
Denkahan the Arch-Mage
Donald Bachman
: Hiya.
:
: > Oh please. Its artwork. What the heck you do with the game
: > is your own. You'd imagine after 25 years of syrupy, buttery
: > wholesomeness you'd want a bit of change. (Not that what
: > was on the cover of my 1ed AD&D DMG was all that wholesome.)
:
: Yes, it is artwork. What's the saying? "A picture is worth a thousand
: words"? Yeah, that was it. ;-)
:
: Artwork can make or break a game (and can certainly annoy me enough that
: I won't buy the game; case in point was the "Babylon5" rpg. *shudder* The
: artwork for it was 100% opposite than what the TV series showed. Just
: horrible. I would have even prefered Jim Hollowy art!).
: Looks are almost as important to the game as the rules. A picture of a
: spiky-armored warrior with long black hair, black armor, black cloak, black
: boots, black gloves, pale skin and a 7' sword that probably weighs in at
: around 150lb will give the impression of dark, gloomy, un-imaginative system
: to me. If you've seen one dark, angst ridden warrior you've seen them all.
: It would say to me "Hi! I'm D&D! We are trying to look exactly like
: everyone else! Please buy me!". ;-)
Gee, and another chain-mail bikini, blonde braided, blue-eyed, Nordic
wet-dream with a sword as long as her body is that much more
imaginigative? What that says is, "Yo. I'm the tired, same old shit
you've been getting for years." :P
Lord of the Rings wasn't a rainbow-hued, love-fest and people seem to
have liked it well enough over the years. Moreover, the concept art
is nowhere close to what you parody it as.
Donald
Michael Brown
PJS <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:945811174.22313.0.nnrp-
> >> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
> >
> > Because it looked dorky?
> Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"?
I see words in your post here, but I cannot seem to fathom just what
they have to do with the discussion at hand. "Gothic trenchcoat mafia
stuff" has no relevance to the art being discussed.
-Michael
LARE
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> PJS wrote:
>
> << Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"? >>
>
> No, but Lockwood and Wood's art is distinctive.
>
> What little originality that existed in the D&D baseline 20 years ago has long
> since been appropriated by every other producer of fantasy artwork and
fiction,
> from Masamune Shirow to the high school kids doodling in the margins of their
> notebooks.
>
> It's time for D&D to move to the forefront again and once again define
> "fantasy" in the minds of the public.
>
As one member of the public who buys bookcases full of RPG materials let
me just say that no matter how many pokey bits the new character
illustrations have covering their shields, goofy armor, over-sized weapons
and even goofier haircuts & tatoos they will NEVER define my concept of
fantasy in those terms.
The art just plain sucks and belongs in Cyberpunk, or some fantasy RPG
that caters to munchkins.
I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me.
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/
Michael Brown
LARE <hey_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hey_lare-2112992007480001@oats-b-
> The art just plain sucks and belongs in Cyberpunk, or some fantasy RPG
> that caters to munchkins.
> I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
> person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me.
This kind of talk is beginning to offend me. Those pictures are
spectacular drawings; intricate and well crafted, and they are fine examples
of the illustrator's art. Blithely throwing around "just plain sucks" is
completely disrespectful of the efforts of those involved, much less calling
for someone to be outright fired.
Further, exactly how can a character sporting no more than a weapon and
shield - if that - "look" Munchkin? Do you see the inappropriately high
statistics and magical items somewhere in the drawing? Do they have labels
that the rest of us didn't notice? Or does your entire criticism amount to
"boo hoo, they look so tough!".
It's one thing to simply not be moved by the illustrations, or even to
downright dislike them for reasons you cannot intelligently articulate - but
at least *try* to make comments that have some critical merit. You're
being an idiot. And a rude one at that.
-Michael
Bullethead
A'koss wrote in message ...
>
>Vermilion <verm...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:vermilion.1...@cinci.rr.com...
>> In article "Michael Brown" <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>
>> >> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Because it looked dorky?
>>
>THING
>> we've had for years is amazing to me. Regardless of the 3E concept art,
>I'd
>> be happy with virtually anything that's not the same vanilla
stereotypical
>> fantasy art that's been recycled and cannibalized for years. "Oh look,
>> *another* generic Elmore painting!" Yeesh. Technically competant but
>> emotionally devoid artwork. I for one look forward to AD&D art that
>doesn't
>> look like one of countless bland fantasy novel covers. Any cohesive,
>unique
>> and original visual design would make me happy. DiTerlizzi defined the
>look
>it,
it's
>> just an assortment of the same, unispired concepts that the artists have
>been
>> producing for decades. And any development that gets rid of Terry
>Dykstra's
>> terrible doodling gets my vote.
>>
>> I wonder what the extremely conservative nature of some of this group's
>> posters is due to. Just the age of the player and length of time with
D&D
>> maybe? So many seem so aghast at change. I've come to understand the
1st
>Ed
love
>to
>> move back to 1979 and pretend that nothing changes...
>
>
>
How does that explain an entire thread that says I love 3rd Ed. Rules but
Hate 3rd Edition Art? Lets not miss the point here. Many people both old
and young are looking forward to 3e (the game rules). Just as many people
both old and young are not looking forward to 3e.
The disturbing trend that is being seen is that all the concept art that has
been passed before our eyes for 3e seems to carry the same look and feel.
There is little in the way of variation of styles. We are not seeing
various styles like Picaso, Monet, and Michaelangelo, its more the
equivalent of seeing Picaso, Picaso, and more Picaso. Personally I don't
like the cyberpunk style of drawings that I am seeing for 3e, however the
level of detail in these drawings and the skill with which they are rendered
are very good. In fact I would be happy to see many pieces of this style in
the new books, however, I would hate for this to be the only, or the
majority of styles seen in the new books. The cyberpunk images have their
place, just as the classic Elmore style art has its place. I, and many
others, would just like to see a little more of the classical stuff to
assure us that it is not being washed away in a sea of punk hair-do, spiky
leather wearing fantasy freaks and gnomes and halflings that look like
humans and humans.
Hari the Monk
Michael Brown wrote in message <#MH1uyBT$GA.300@cpmsnbbsa05>...
I wont say that the artwork sucks. Its great. I just don't like it in
relation to Core AD&D. Looks very DarkSun to me.
Granted, I haven't seen the Dragon issue stuff. But the Various sites with
3e concept art don't look very AD&Dish to me. The Halfling is a short
human. The Gnome is a short human. The elf looks ok. The human female
warrior is, um, very, um, weird. The human male fighter is ok, minus the
spikes. Unless there are rules for spiked shields in the Core Rules:).
Basically, our views on this differ. Thats ok by me. Will _I_ buy 3e when
it comes out if it has the same art as the concept artwork? Sure. Will I
buy it if it has Stick Figures? Hell yes. Its art.
Hari the Monk
Bullethead
Denakhan the Arch-Mage wrote in message ...
>Hiya.
>
>> Oh please. Its artwork. What the heck you do with the game
>> is your own. You'd imagine after 25 years of syrupy, buttery
>> wholesomeness you'd want a bit of change. (Not that what
>> was on the cover of my 1ed AD&D DMG was all that wholesome.)
>
> Yes, it is artwork. What's the saying? "A picture is worth a thousand
>words"? Yeah, that was it. ;-)
>
> Artwork can make or break a game (and can certainly annoy me enough
that
>I won't buy the game;
I believe that this is a valid point. I'm not sure who here remembers the
cover of the TSR rpg Star Frontiers, but the box cover on that game was
quite inspiring. So much so, that I created 2 characters based upon those
seen on the cover of the box. The picture definitely made me want to play
the game.
WOTC doesn't really give a shit about any of our perceptions of the concept
art for 3e. We wouldn't be here if we weren't already familiar with and
playing DnD. They want the 3e art to attract the uninitiated, the angst
ridden teens, yet to pick up their first book. WOTC wants these kids to
walk by this book on the shelf and say "Woah!! That's F**cking Cool!" Its
not much different than the color of stereo equipment today. When I was
young, stereo equipment was encased in silvery boxes, then it changed over
to black boxes, now its back to silvery again, with a touch of black. The
Cyberpunk art is apparently the "art du jour". We, as long time players or
high fantasy dreamers, will live with the punker style art, but we aren't
the intended audience anyway. WOTC thinks we're hooked either way, and can
disregard our opinions. They aren't fishing for us. We are the bird in the
hand. WOTC hopes to get the 2 in the bush with the funk/punk/angst ridden
art.
Michael Brown
Bullethead <vag...@placenta.net> wrote in message news:O_X74.639
> The cyberpunk images have their
> place, just as the classic Elmore style art has its place.
And another thing! What's the deal with calling that art *cyberpunk*????
How can you have cyberpunk without the *cyber*?
-Michael
Tach Deneva
Donald Bachman wrote in message news:83ovh1$9rt$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
> Lord of the Rings wasn't a rainbow-hued, love-fest and people seem to
> have liked it well enough over the years. Moreover, the concept art
> is nowhere close to what you parody it as.
> Donald
I can see it now.
Spiked hair on Frodo's feet, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry in leather and
chains, Galadriel tattoed and pierced. Lord of the WHAT KINDA RING???
But ya know, if the 3e game mechanics are as good and versatile and
well-balanced as everybody has been led to believe, it's the people
attracted to the game by the nice spikey 'concept art' who are going to be
most disappointed.
TD
Celeborn: Say, Galadriel, about that strand of hair -- oh my Illuvitar!
Galadriel: Wanna pull my chain, big boy?
adept...@my-deja.com
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> PJS wrote:
>
> << Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"? >>
>
> No, but Lockwood and Wood's art is distinctive.
>
> What little originality that existed in the D&D baseline 20 years ago has long
> since been appropriated by every other producer of fantasy artwork and fiction,
> from Masamune Shirow to the high school kids doodling in the margins of their
> notebooks.
>
> It's time for D&D to move to the forefront again and once again define
> "fantasy" in the minds of the public.
>
> Writer of Stuff
>
Exactly. For too long, the D&D game has been mired in the cultural slow
lane. Where once D&D (and by extension TSR) set the tone for the gaming
industry, all too often in the past decade the rest of the gaming
industry has left D&D behind. Now that D&D is in the hands of clued-in
management, that looks like it's going to change.
I love fantasy, but if I see one more big-nosed gnome or some jolly, big
bellied halfling, I'm hitting someone with my dice bag. I'd rather have
10% of the illustrations in the 3E books make me sit up and say COOL!,
even if I hate the other 90%, rather than have 100% of them lull me to
sleep.
- M.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
A'koss
A'koss
> How does that explain an entire thread that says I love 3rd Ed. Rules but
> Hate 3rd Edition Art? Lets not miss the point here. Many people both old
> and young are looking forward to 3e (the game rules). Just as many people
> both old and young are not looking forward to 3e.
Yes and I'm just focussing on my point of contention. When it comes to
discussing 3e rules I usually just put my 2 bits in when there's a question
regarding them.
> The disturbing trend that is being seen is that all the concept art that
has
> been passed before our eyes for 3e seems to carry the same look and feel.
> There is little in the way of variation of styles. We are not seeing
> various styles like Picaso, Monet, and Michaelangelo, its more the
> equivalent of seeing Picaso, Picaso, and more Picaso.
We've seen what - a dozen *concept* images for the default Greyhawk
campaign? They're trying to create a unified concept and style rather than a
disparate mishmash of styles (which I have no doubt that in 10 years will
end up being) and this is good, not bad. You should be able to simply look
at a piece of art and say, "Greyhawk", "Dark Sun" or "Forgotten Realms". The
artwork, while I don't care for all of it has certainly made me sit up and
take notice rather than *yawn* Easley, et al. - whatever... I agree with
WotC wanting to set a *new* standard in which D&D is distinctly defined from
the rest of the generic fantasy market. (which is what D&D-style has
become - generic... and boring.)
A'koss!
James Robinson
<verm...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> In article "Michael Brown" <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> >> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
>
> > Because it looked dorky?
>
> I fully agree. This current of opinion that is so desirous of the SAME THING
> we've had for years is amazing to me.
I for one am all in favor of fresh blood and new approaches. I
definitely do *not* want a bunch of Elmore clones - or Elmore, for that
matter, and while the cartoons in the DMG1 had a lot of appeal I agree
that D&D has outgrown layout-flunky line drawings[1]. If I never see
another yet another Lara Croft lookalike with absurdly skimpy clothing
I won't mind at all. If Jeff Easley doesn't do any more covers, fine.
(Nothing against him, although he's never been a favorite of mine, but
a change would be good).
However, newer is not automatically better. The concept art is
professional quality, which is good. It has a consistent theme, which
is good. It looks like Buck Rogers era fashion designer
interpretations of actual medieval clothing, which is not good.
TSR can keep DiTerlizzi. I like his stuff. His Dryad in the MM is
one of my favorite monster illos. And do not, under any circumstances,
bring Darrell K. Sweet on board.
Thanks. Sean, I expect my recommendations to be implemented
promptly. ;-)
--
James
http://avalon.net/~amorph
CEO
instead of lurking.
The art I've seen for 3ed is fine... it's nice, professional and very
stylish (I was impressed by the dwarvish cleric). Just wonderful for a
certain country or kingdom's design. I just really don't want to see this
"retro-cyber-Goth ala dark fantasy" look become considered the norm. I'm
hoping that the artists will throw a little variance in on the art. Not
every breastplate should be fluted in a way to make Vlad Dracul blush with
admiration, nor should every Paladin's armor gleam like in the movie
"Excalibur".
Here's to hoping Hasbro will get the idea!
RedD...@aol.com
verm...@cinci.rr.com (Vermilion) wrote:
> In article "Michael Brown" <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> >> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
>
> > Because it looked dorky?
>
> I fully agree. This current of opinion that is so desirous of the
SAME THING
I fully disagree. I've had enough of the dark hopeless Vampire/
Werewolf/Chaos/Warhammer/etc. grim setting art that seems to be the
current style. The epic fantasy shown by the earlier AD&D art would
be a refreshing difference. Isn't there enough to depress us on the
news without getting it in our games too?
Larry Mead
[snip]
: Gee, and another chain-mail bikini, blonde braided, blue-eyed, Nordic
: wet-dream with a sword as long as her body is that much more
: imaginigative? What that says is, "Yo. I'm the tired, same old shit
: you've been getting for years." :P
Hey, I for one *like* c-m b, bb, b-e N w-d with a sword ;)
DMgorgon
--
Lawrence R. Mead Ph.D. (Lawren...@usm.edu)
Eschew Obfuscation! Espouse Elucidation!
www-dept.usm.edu/~physics/mead.html
Donald Bachman
: Donald Bachman <dbac...@ultra5.ionet.net> wrote:
: [snip]
:
: : Gee, and another chain-mail bikini, blonde braided, blue-eyed, Nordic
: : wet-dream with a sword as long as her body is that much more
: : imaginigative? What that says is, "Yo. I'm the tired, same old shit
: : you've been getting for years." :P
:
: Hey, I for one *like* c-m b, bb, b-e N w-d with a sword ;)
Yeah, but she is probably drawn to the bad boy lbh, ba, bc,bb, bg, ps and
7' sword [1]. You know how women like tough thugs.
[1] long black hair, black armor, black cloak, black boots, black gloves,
, pale skin and a 7' sword.
Donald
LARE
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> LARE <hey_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hey_lare-2112992007480001@oats-b-
> > The art just plain sucks and belongs in Cyberpunk, or some fantasy RPG
> > that caters to munchkins.
> > I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
> > person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me.
>
> This kind of talk is beginning to offend me. Those pictures are
> spectacular drawings; intricate and well crafted, and they are fine examples
> of the illustrator's art. Blithely throwing around "just plain sucks" is
> completely disrespectful of the efforts of those involved, much less calling
> for someone to be outright fired.
>
> Further, exactly how can a character sporting no more than a weapon and
> shield - if that - "look" Munchkin? Do you see the inappropriately high
> statistics and magical items somewhere in the drawing?
I guess you didn't get you secret DM's decoder ring. ;-)
>
>Do they have labels
> that the rest of us didn't notice? Or does your entire criticism amount to
> "boo hoo, they look so tough!".
>
> It's one thing to simply not be moved by the illustrations, or even to
> downright dislike them for reasons you cannot intelligently articulate - but
> at least *try* to make comments that have some critical merit. You're
> being an idiot. And a rude one at that.
<sarcasm>It was rude?! Really?! I didn't realize that?! Thank you for
being so enlightening!!!</sarcasm>
Good, a person perceived to fell that strongly about something is not a
person you can count on to buy your product or recommend it to others.
Obviously you haven't read all of the many posts of made on this issue.
I have commented about the art in a more intelligent fashion in other
posts - yes, even admitting to the skill of the artist(s).
I was just stating my opinion in yet another manner as I have no idea
which, if any, of the approaches to expressing my overwhelming dislike
with the 3e concept art will have any effect. Intelligent commentary or
base emotional whiplash comments are equally likely/not likely to have an
effect on WotC for all we know, therefore, I've done both.
IMO, the art is totally inappropriate for the classic fantasy genre.
There's a reason why I don't play over-the-top games such as Warhammer and
the 'feel' of the game is high on that list. This concept art looks like
something pulled directly out of Warhammer. Or cyberpunk.
I don't like the pokey bits covering everything.
I don't like the punk haircuts & tatoos.
I don't like the unreallistically oversized weapons.
Did I mention the proliferation of silly pokey bits?
Maybe I'll come back later when I have more time and pull up the 3e pics
again and list even more specific things that I don't like.
Regarding the munchkin crack - I have to admit that this is not an
original thought, but was initially pointed out by another poster here. I
have to say that I agree 100% with that poster & his rationale as to why
the 3e concept art is kindling for the fire that is munchkinism.
As a loyal customer since 1979 who owns more than 75% of everything TSR
has published (filling several bookcases & milkcrates) I am really
displeased with the current direction I see the 'look & feel' of the game
going. This includes the miniature line as well as the 3e concept art. In
a reasonable corporate structure, an art director (or some similiar title)
would be the person in charge of the 'look & feel' of the game. I very
strongly feel that that person's direction is not grounded in anything
resembling what I feel makes for good fantasy. The only solution in my
opinion, to rectify this is a change in the leadership in this position.
Oh, and the 3e concept art just plain sucks.
Steve Miller
<< As one member of the public who buys bookcases full of RPG materials let
me just say that no matter how many pokey bits the new character
illustrations have covering their shields, goofy armor, over-sized weapons
and even goofier haircuts & tatoos they will NEVER define my concept of
fantasy in those terms. >>
As a member of the buying public, I've always hated hair-footed, fat halflings.
I'm happy to see them go.
So what?
<< The art just plain sucks and belongs in Cyberpunk, or some fantasy RPG
that caters to munchkins. >>
Nope. The art isn't anywhere 80s enough. And last time I checked, D&D DID cater
to munchkins. And non-munchkins, too.
<< I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me. >>
Here's wishing you a happy holiday season, too!
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
Bigot, n. One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you
CEO
from the Athasian (Dark Sun) Halflings... without the traditional "Glam
rock" hair, that is?
PJS
So Goth is the answer? After PO S&P tried to turn D&D into GURPS what should
happen next is that 3rd ed should turn it into V:tM?
PJS
>
>> that caters to munchkins.
>> person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me.
>
>spectacular drawings; intricate and well crafted, and they are fine
examples
>of the illustrator's art. Blithely throwing around "just plain sucks" is
>completely disrespectful of the efforts of those involved, much less
calling
>for someone to be outright fired.
>
> Further, exactly how can a character sporting no more than a weapon and
>shield - if that - "look" Munchkin?
It can, because that style is associated - deliberately by companies such as
Games Workshop - with Munchkin players. It's the style favoured by games
favoured by Munchkins and fits in well with their view of things.
PJS
adept...@my-deja.com wrote in message <83pioi$sii$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <19991221172228...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
> nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
>> PJS wrote:
>>
>> << Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"? >>
>>
>> No, but Lockwood and Wood's art is distinctive.
>>
>> What little originality that existed in the D&D baseline 20 years ago has
long
>> since been appropriated by every other producer of fantasy artwork and
fiction,
>> from Masamune Shirow to the high school kids doodling in the margins of
their
>> notebooks.
>>
>> It's time for D&D to move to the forefront again and once again define
>> "fantasy" in the minds of the public.
>>
>> Steve Miller
>> Writer of Stuff
>>
>
>Exactly. For too long, the D&D game has been mired in the cultural slow
>lane. Where once D&D (and by extension TSR) set the tone for the gaming
>industry, all too often in the past decade the rest of the gaming
>industry has left D&D behind. Now that D&D is in the hands of clued-in
>management, that looks like it's going to change.
>
>I love fantasy, but if I see one more big-nosed gnome or some jolly, big
>bellied halfling, I'm hitting someone with my dice bag. I'd rather have
>10% of the illustrations in the 3E books make me sit up and say COOL!,
>even if I hate the other 90%, rather than have 100% of them lull me to
>sleep.
--------------
How the flaming buggery could anyone think these illustrations would make
anyone sit up and take notice? It's the same old Citadel Miniatures style
chaosspikeybits great big axes and Lexx style body armour that Games
Workshop have been churning out for the past 10 years!
PJS
>> >
>> > Because it looked dorky?
>> Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"?
>
>they have to do with the discussion at hand. "Gothic trenchcoat mafia
>stuff" has no relevance to the art being discussed.
Have you ever seen "Lexx"? That's what I'm on about. Everything's got to be
"dark" and have spikey bits . . . and I see very little clothing for female
characters is back on the agenda.
Mike Harvey
>
> PJS wrote:
>
> << Whereas trendy "dark" gothic trenchcoat mafia stuff is "Kewl"? >>
>
So are Norman Rockwell and Picasso. That doesn't make them good
candidates for D&D art.
> What little originality that existed in the D&D baseline 20 years ago has long
> since been appropriated by every other producer of fantasy artwork and fiction,
> from Masamune Shirow to the high school kids doodling in the margins of their
> notebooks.
Fantasy is not about originality. (Sorry, but someone had to say it.)
D&D was not successful because it was original; quite the opposite.
People loved it because it allowed them to explore the ideas they were
already familiar with, traditional ideas which are hundreds or thousands
of years old. (Even dungeon crawls were not original; the seeds were
planted by Tolkien, Howard, Moorcock, Merritt, Lewis, and many others.)
There have been plenty of more "original" games since then, but they
have not been nearly as successful.
> It's time for D&D to move to the forefront again and once again define
> "fantasy" in the minds of the public.
D&D never defined "fantasy" in the minds of the public. The public
already knows. D&D is fantasy because we recognize that it is so, not
because it defined the category. If D&D goes off and does something
weird, it will no longer match the cultural definition of fantasy, and I
believe it will fade from popularity.
I'm not saying that there is no room for originality or exploring the
fringes of the genre. I just think that is better left to niche games.
D&D is more mainstream, has a broad audience, and has a track record of
exploring conventional themes.
Mike
Mike Harvey
>
> We, as long time players or
> high fantasy dreamers, will live with the punker style art, but we aren't
> the intended audience anyway. WOTC thinks we're hooked either way, and can
> disregard our opinions. They aren't fishing for us. We are the bird in the
> hand.
Heh. We'll see. Nothing ticks me off faster than people arrogantly
ignoring me and assuming I'm just a fanboy who'll go along with whatever
they say.
Mike
Josh Jasper
>
> > In article "Michael Brown" <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> writes:
> >
> > >> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Because it looked dorky?
> >
> > we've had for years is amazing to me.
>
> definitely do *not* want a bunch of Elmore clones - or Elmore, for that
> matter, and while the cartoons in the DMG1 had a lot of appeal I agree
> that D&D has outgrown layout-flunky line drawings[1]. If I never see
> another yet another Lara Croft lookalike with absurdly skimpy clothing
> I won't mind at all. If Jeff Easley doesn't do any more covers, fine.
> (Nothing against him, although he's never been a favorite of mine, but
> a change would be good).
>
> However, newer is not automatically better. The concept art is
> professional quality, which is good. It has a consistent theme, which
> is good. It looks like Buck Rogers era fashion designer
> interpretations of actual medieval clothing, which is not good.
>
Yah, some of that got to me as well. I don't mind a "new fresh look",
but I've never liked people who drew non functional armor. Some of the
new stuff would be *totally* usless in real combat. Of course, the old
high fantasy style sometimes sufferd from that as well.
One complaint. On the Wizards web site, the female gnome fighter
had no charicteristics that distinguished her from a short human.
I like my races to look a bit more distinct.
Other than that, I like the new feel. It might be interesting
to see where it goes.
--
I'm a Jackal on the Body Politic.
Looking for resumes in the tech sector for the SF Bay area
email polytechnical.at sign.hotbot.com include dates when you're
available
NtlAcrobat
and a gnome should have a big nose. Period. If there had not been a caption
stating "halfling" under the picture of one in the preview of the art, I
would've thought it was just another elf.
Danbuter
>
>D&D was not successful because it was original; quite the opposite.
>People loved it because it allowed them to explore the ideas they were
>already familiar with, traditional ideas which are hundreds or thousands
>of years old. (Even dungeon crawls were not original; the seeds were
>planted by Tolkien, Howard, Moorcock, Merritt, Lewis, and many others.)
>There have been plenty of more "original" games since then, but they
>have not been nearly as successful.
>
>> It's time for D&D to move to the forefront again and once again define
>> "fantasy" in the minds of the public.
>
>D&D never defined "fantasy" in the minds of the public. The public
>already knows. D&D is fantasy because we recognize that it is so, not
>because it defined the category. If D&D goes off and does something
>weird, it will no longer match the cultural definition of fantasy, and I
>believe it will fade from popularity.
>
>I'm not saying that there is no room for originality or exploring the
>fringes of the genre. I just think that is better left to niche games.
>D&D is more mainstream, has a broad audience, and has a track record of
>exploring conventional themes.
>
>Mike
>
started out reading fantasy novels, and then got interested in roleplaying
games. And though I do like some of the art, I really hope some Elmore and such
is mixed in with it.
DAn.....
"Staring into the dragon's jaw, one quickly learns wisdom"
from Steven Brust's "Jhereg"
Robert Baldwin
<denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
>Hiya.
>
>> Oh please. Its artwork. What the heck you do with the game
>> is your own. You'd imagine after 25 years of syrupy, buttery
>> wholesomeness you'd want a bit of change. (Not that what
>> was on the cover of my 1ed AD&D DMG was all that wholesome.)
>
> Yes, it is artwork. What's the saying? "A picture is worth a thousand
>words"? Yeah, that was it. ;-)
>
> Artwork can make or break a game (and can certainly annoy me enough that
>I won't buy the game; case in point was the "Babylon5" rpg.
<snip>
Seriously?
I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the art. I care about the
*text* in a rules book. If WOTC wants to sell art books, they should
do so. IMO art is simply padding to fill out the rerquired number of
pages when there isn't enough quality text to do the job.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Robert Baldwin
<mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>LARE <hey_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hey_lare-2112992007480001@oats-b-
>> The art just plain sucks and belongs in Cyberpunk, or some fantasy RPG
>> that caters to munchkins.
>> I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
>> person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me.
>
> This kind of talk is beginning to offend me. Those pictures are
>spectacular drawings; intricate and well crafted, and they are fine examples
>of the illustrator's art. Blithely throwing around "just plain sucks" is
>completely disrespectful of the efforts of those involved, much less calling
>for someone to be outright fired.
<snip>
Ok, just to poke my 2 cp's worth in here: Which would you rather have,
a beautiful full page illo or another bit of usefull game info?
Tables, spells, combat rules, yake your pick. I put art at the
*absolute* bottom of the priority list.
BlakGard
>the feel I get from them The concept sketches have a definite
>"feel" to them and show a consistency lacking in most recent
>TSR products. My problem is grim and dark feeling they convey.
I have to agree. Kudos to the artists who drew them, but this is not D&D (or at
least shouldn't be). I almost thought I was reading about a new Vampire
supplement. There is nothing wrong with "grim and dark," and some of these
images would have fit nicely with my homebrew world several years ago, but I
don't think this "edge" is as marketable as it was several years ago and
definitely does not fit any of TSR/WotC's D&D worlds (especially since
Planescape was abandoned).
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
LARE
nue...@aol.comDELETEIT (Steve Miller) wrote:
> LARE wrote:
>
<snip hatred of 3e art tirade>
> << I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
> person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me. >>
>
> Here's wishing you a happy holiday season, too!
>
<chuckle> I'm not trying to be a scrooge, honest!
I've been stating this opinion for a couple of months now. Add to the figs
& 3e art the debacle that was the initial 3e "shocked" website and I have
to say that the person(s) in charge of the D&D product line's visual
presentation is doing at best a sub-par job IMO and quite possibly could
be considered "out of touch". Witness the month-in, month-out pounding
that WotC is taking on these matters from quite a large number of posters
in this forum.
Mr Nixx
>posts - yes, even admitting to the skill of the artist(s).
Uh huh.
>I was just stating my opinion in yet another manner as I have no idea
>which, if any, of the approaches to expressing my overwhelming dislike
>with the 3e concept art will have any effect. Intelligent commentary or
>base emotional whiplash comments are equally likely/not likely to have an
>effect on WotC for all we know, therefore, I've done both.
Interpretation: "I just got caught acting really childish, now I'm trying to
make excuses for it."
>IMO, the art is totally inappropriate for the classic fantasy genre.
>There's a reason why I don't play over-the-top games such as Warhammer and
>the 'feel' of the game is high on that list. This concept art looks like
>something pulled directly out of Warhammer. Or cyberpunk.
Since when did the art in a book dictate the "feel" of of how one chooses to
play an RPG. I've gamed AD&D many times, with many different feels. The art
in the 1st Ed books and the 2nd Ed books didn't influnce me much. Movies,
literature and animation did that for me. I don't much care for the new style
either, but I'm just glad it's not the same-old-same-old.
>I don't like the pokey bits covering everything.
They're NOT covering everything.
>I don't like the punk haircuts & tatoos.
Are you somebody's parent?
Punk haircut? You mean the female sorceror? Naw, that's early 80s new wave,
all the way.
>I don't like the unreallistically oversized weapons.
But unrealistically skimpy armour is fine?
>Did I mention the proliferation of silly pokey bits?
An exaggeration on your part, to be sure.
>Regarding the munchkin crack - I have to admit that this is not an
>original thought, but was initially pointed out by another poster here. I
>have to say that I agree 100% with that poster & his rationale as to why
>the 3e concept art is kindling for the fire that is munchkinism.
Why? Because the characters drawn don't look froo-froo-ish. Like they'd be
dancing gaily in forest groves to etherial Loneena McKennit tunes? Damn.
That's munch!
>As a loyal customer since 1979 who owns more than 75% of everything TSR
>has published (filling several bookcases & milkcrates) I am really
>displeased with the current direction I see the 'look & feel' of the game
>going.
Get over it.
>This includes the miniature line as well as the 3e concept art. In
>a reasonable corporate structure, an art director (or some similiar title)
>would be the person in charge of the 'look & feel' of the game. I very
>strongly feel that that person's direction is not grounded in anything
>resembling what I feel makes for good fantasy. The only solution in my
>opinion, to rectify this is a change in the leadership in this position.
Get that Hasbro? Snap to your orders, right now!
All this, 'cause you don't like the concept art.... Eeesh!
"...submited for your approvale. In the Twighlight Zone."
<que music>
DAS
—————
Death is Life's way of telling you you're fired.
Donald Bachman
: >
: I agree totally with this. Probably over 75% of the people who play AD&D
: started out reading fantasy novels, and then got interested in roleplaying
: games. And though I do like some of the art, I really hope some Elmore and such
: is mixed in with it.
Depends on what you mean by started off reading fantasy novels. Fantasy
of some sort--Mother Goose tales, Grimm Fairy Tales, etc.--enters
children's lives fairly early, but it seems a bit of a reach to
claim that inspires people to roleplaying.
Donald
Art Wendorf
>
> One complaint. On the Wizards web site, the female gnome fighter
> had no charicteristics that distinguished her from a short human.
> I like my races to look a bit more distinct.
>
During the Chat session last night with Todd Lockwood on WotC's site, he
mentioned that he wished they wouldn't have posted that drawing of the female
gnome fighter. She has been redone to look far more gnomish.
Just another example that these are "concept" art, people. They are subject to
change.
---
Art Wendorf
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's
warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo.
AWen...@satx.rr.com | http://home.satx.rr.com/artshideout/
Larry Mead
Bruce Grubb
>Yah, some of that got to me as well. I don't mind a "new fresh look",
>but I've never liked people who drew non functional armor. Some of the
>new stuff would be *totally* usless in real combat. Of course, the old
>high fantasy style sometimes sufferd from that as well.
IMHO the worse offender in this catagory from the old days was the
'cheesecake' armor the female barbarians were often portraid as wearing. The
idea of a chainmail bikini had one of the nuttier piece of armor I have ever
seen. Of course then there were the armored knights with the head gear that
no kight in his right mind would wear.
David
D&D. Its going to look like an RPG where the PCs are mideival Bikers and shit.
That's just NOT what most fans want out of the game!
-Noodle
Vermilion wrote:
> In article "Michael Brown" <mik...@newton.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> >> LEEWYGANT <leew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> > Why not go back to what worked when D&D was first penned?
>
> > Because it looked dorky?
>
> I fully agree. This current of opinion that is so desirous of the SAME THING
> we've had for years is amazing to me. Regardless of the 3E concept art, I'd
> be happy with virtually anything that's not the same vanilla stereotypical
> fantasy art that's been recycled and cannibalized for years. "Oh look,
> *another* generic Elmore painting!" Yeesh. Technically competant but
> emotionally devoid artwork. I for one look forward to AD&D art that doesn't
> look like one of countless bland fantasy novel covers. Any cohesive, unique
> and original visual design would make me happy. DiTerlizzi defined the look
> of Planescape, Brom's work made Dark Sun stand out. Like it or dislike it,
> you immediately recognize it - it has character. But regular 2nd Ed, it's
> just an assortment of the same, unispired concepts that the artists have been
> producing for decades. And any development that gets rid of Terry Dykstra's
> terrible doodling gets my vote.
>
> I wonder what the extremely conservative nature of some of this group's
> posters is due to. Just the age of the player and length of time with D&D
> maybe? So many seem so aghast at change. I've come to understand the 1st Ed
> vs 2nd Ed Jihad, but I get the impression that many gamers here would love to
> move back to 1979 and pretend that nothing changes...
David
> And another thing! What's the deal with calling that art *cyberpunk*????
> How can you have cyberpunk without the *cyber*?
>
> -Michael
Its just the same style as appears in most Cyberpunk art.
That's all. It doesnt have to be Cyber to look like that style.
-Noodle
David
For example:
New Player: Wow! Dude! look at that guy with the 10 foot sword! i didn't
know you could use those one-handed in this game!
DM: Er, well... you cant.
New Player: What? Why not? the guy in this picture is.
DM: Well, read here. sez you cant use large weapons in one hand.
New Player: But-but... Come on! it would just _rock_!
________
My point is basically that there are alot of people out there who are strongly
attracted to the idea of big-sword weilding supermen. These people could end
up being good role-players, or they could end up being munchkins obsessed with
playing characters that look like the punk illustrations in the books. I
mean, just look at the muscles on those guys! It's like all of them have 18+
strength scores!
-Noodle
PJS wrote:
> Michael Brown wrote in message <#MH1uyBT$GA.300@cpmsnbbsa05>...
> >
> >LARE <hey_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hey_lare-2112992007480001@oats-b-
> >> The art just plain sucks and belongs in Cyberpunk, or some fantasy RPG
> >> that caters to munchkins.
> >> I don't know who the art director is for the new 3e D&D line, but that
> >> person can't be fired & replaced soon enough for me.
> >
> > This kind of talk is beginning to offend me. Those pictures are
> >spectacular drawings; intricate and well crafted, and they are fine
> examples
> >of the illustrator's art. Blithely throwing around "just plain sucks" is
> >completely disrespectful of the efforts of those involved, much less
> calling
> >for someone to be outright fired.
> >
> > Further, exactly how can a character sporting no more than a weapon and
> >shield - if that - "look" Munchkin?
> -------------
> It can, because that style is associated - deliberately by companies such as
> Games Workshop - with Munchkin players. It's the style favoured by games
> favoured by Munchkins and fits in well with their view of things.
>
David
>
> As a member of the buying public, I've always hated hair-footed, fat halflings.
> I'm happy to see them go.
>
Do you not get it? Halflings _ARE_ hair-footed and fat! It's what they're like!
If you don't like halfings, then fine, be that way, but that won't change the fact
that halflings are based off of Tolkiens wonderful, pudgy, sensible little Hobbits
having tea-time snacks in their little hobbit-holes.
Jeez! If you thought Lizard Men looked better if they had Pig heads would that be
a good reason to change them?
If Halflings don't stay about the way they have been, they're no longer halflings.
One exception to this is the Athasian Halfling, but those guys, IMHO, aren't
really halflings. They're the invention of some weirdo who just felt he needed to
use the same name.
Just my 2,000,000 GP :D
-Noodle
Scatter Gatherer
<Noodl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, I got no problem with 3rd edition except that its not going
> to look like
> D&D. Its going to look like an RPG where the PCs are mideival
> Bikers and shit.
> That's just NOT what most fans want out of the game!
> -Noodle
Most people form their own mental images of what is going on anyway.
God forbid I should imagine any of my clerics looking like anything
presented in Faiths and Avatars.
Donald
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Allister Huggins
>
> In article <38625DE3...@hotmail.com>, David
> <Noodl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey, I got no problem with 3rd edition except that its not going
> > to look like
> > D&D. Its going to look like an RPG where the PCs are mideival
> > Bikers and shit.
> > That's just NOT what most fans want out of the game!
> > -Noodle
>
> Most people form their own mental images of what is going on anyway.
> God forbid I should imagine any of my clerics looking like anything
> presented in Faiths and Avatars.
Aren't those pictures of what the specialty priests wear during a
ceremony in their respective temples? Still, some of those I wouldn't
get caught dead. Myrkul comes to mind (geez, that's supposed to be
intimidating) and Lathander (ARGH, those colours are just too damn busy)
Allister H.
David
Scatter Gatherer wrote:
>
> Most people form their own mental images of what is going on anyway.
> God forbid I should imagine any of my clerics looking like anything
> presented in Faiths and Avatars.
>
> Donald
What i'm mostly reffering to is people's first impression of a game. they say
"you cant judge a book by it's cover", but dispite the large quantity of wisdom
in that remark, most people ignore it. For example, if you pick up a novel and
the cover illustration is of a boat flying a pirate flag, you'll figure "oh, a
novel about pirates". Same if you pick up a 3E manual and see some dudes that
look like KISS or some other spikey-leather rock band, your _not_ going to be
thinking "oh, a high fantasy RPG".
-Noodle
David
>
> I love fantasy, but if I see one more big-nosed gnome or some jolly, big
> bellied halfling, I'm hitting someone with my dice bag. I'd rather have
> 10% of the illustrations in the 3E books make me sit up and say COOL!,
> even if I hate the other 90%, rather than have 100% of them lull me to
> sleep.
>
GAD DARNIT doesn't anyone understand that gnomes HAVE big noses and halflings ARE
plump? what _do_ you want to make of them? Miniature humans with ability modifiers
and special racial stuff???
This is what is happening! TSR is removing all the differant races
characteristics! Take their big gnome example. In the D&D 3E FAQ they said "There
will be Gnome Paladin Wizard characters." Also, look at the "Female Gnome
Fighter". Its just like a human! in fact, because the illustration has nothing to
compare the "gnome's" hight to, there is NOTHING defining it as gnomish.
Argh. Another 8 google gp from outta my mouth :P
-Noodle
Steve Miller
<< Do you not get it? Halflings _ARE_ hair-footed and fat! >>
No, they aren't. DS got them right.
<< If you don't like halfings, then fine, be that way, but that won't change
the fact
that halflings are based off of Tolkiens wonderful, pudgy, sensible little
Hobbits
having tea-time snacks in their little hobbit-holes. >>
I'm a believer in hiding one's sources. The hobbit connection is one one reason
why halflings are non-existent in every campaign world I create... they should
have been turned into kender or Dark Sun halflings years ago. The reinvention
of halflings in the D&D 3E concept art is a welcome and long overdue change. I
hope the new rules follow suit.
<< Jeez! If you thought Lizard Men looked better if they had Pig heads would
that be
a good reason to change them? >>
Only if I were to change the name of lizardmen to orcs.
Steve Miller
Writer of Stuff
Critic, n. A person who boasts himself hard to please because nobody tries to
please him.
--Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Jimmy Kerl
>
> GAD DARNIT doesn't anyone understand that gnomes HAVE big noses and halflings ARE
> plump? what _do_ you want to make of them? Miniature humans with ability modifiers
> and special racial stuff???
Preach on! I would wager that *of the players that like to play gnomes* a very
large percentage of them prefere them With their big noses and such.
> This is what is happening! TSR is removing all the differant races
> characteristics! Take their big gnome example. In the D&D 3E FAQ they said "There
> will be Gnome Paladin Wizard characters." Also, look at the "Female Gnome
> Fighter". Its just like a human! in fact, because the illustration has nothing to
> compare the "gnome's" hight to, there is NOTHING defining it as gnomish.
EXACTLY, the concept art looks like we have:
An orc, 1/2 orc, a lizard man and about 6-8 humans in various scales.
Please! races are SUPPOSED to be different geez...
And #2 : there is NOTHING wrong with tolkin's hobbits, there not too soft or lame;
just cause they dont walk around in spiked armor weilding 8' swords, does not
mean there less awesome. tolkin's hobbits are REALISTIC and down-to-eath, the
part of LOTR/the Hobbit that practially made the whole series was the 2-3 page
description of hobbits atthe beginning. It gave them a very REALISTIC definition,
that allowed one to relate to them, and thus precieve the greatness of their epic
adventure.
And #3 : Where's that bozo that was arguing about belivability in the Mages &
swords thread, If he had the sence to apply the same thinking to the artwork,
he wouldn't be spouting off nonsence about the artwork being good.
oh well just another 2 coppers,
Jimmy
> -Noodle
David
-Noodle
SpaceGnome
>>I am worried about the art sparking Munchkinism in the hearts of new
players.
>>For example:
>>New Player: Wow! Dude! look at that guy with the 10 foot sword! i
didn't
>>know you could use those one-handed in this game!
>>DM: Er, well... you cant.
>>New Player: What? Why not? the guy in this picture is.
>>DM: Well, read here. sez you cant use large weapons in one hand.
>>New Player: But-but... Come on! it would just _rock_!
>>________
>
>
>Sorry, if a picture is going to inspire a particular player to be a
munchkin,
>so will sneezing. You're argument is silly.
Nothing like truth in advertising is there?
SpaceGnome
Taylz the Genius
<<<snipsnipsnip>And #2 : there is NOTHING wrong with tolkin's hobbits, there
not too soft or lame;
just cause they dont walk around in spiked armor weilding 8' swords, does not
mean there less awesome. tolkin's hobbits are REALISTIC and down-to-eath, the
part of LOTR/the Hobbit that practially made the whole series was the 2-3 page
description of hobbits atthe beginning. It gave them a very REALISTIC
definition,
that allowed one to relate to them, and thus precieve the greatness of their
epic
adventure. >>
Heh. Didja know that, originally, there were gonna be Hobbits in D&D? But the
Tolkien estate said "screw that" and they changed the name to Halfling.
Really.
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
"Robert Baldwin" <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:38619e79...@news.rio.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:18:49 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> <denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
> > Artwork can make or break a game (and can certainly annoy me enough
that
> >I won't buy the game; case in point was the "Babylon5" rpg.
> <snip>
>
> Seriously?
Yup. The 'feel' of the game was just nausiating. Next time you get a
chance to look at the main rule book, do it. If you've seen a few B5's
you'll have a much better understanding of what I mean.
^_^
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
Mr Nixx
>say
>"you cant judge a book by it's cover", but dispite the large quantity of
>wisdom
>in that remark, most people ignore it. For example, if you pick up a novel
>and
>the cover illustration is of a boat flying a pirate flag, you'll figure "oh,
>a
>novel about pirates". Same if you pick up a 3E manual and see some dudes
>that
>look like KISS or some other spikey-leather rock band, your _not_ going to be
>thinking "oh, a high fantasy RPG".
Of course there's the name, "Dungeons & Dragons," that is easily recognisable
by everyone and their bleeding grandmothers. Considering "D&D" has been a
household name for the past couple decades, I reallly don't think that
someone's going to get confused by a picture of some guy wearing spikes on his
shield, knee guards and shoulder pieces. But that's assuming they have at
least one brain cell.
Mr Nixx
>For example:
>New Player: Wow! Dude! look at that guy with the 10 foot sword! i didn't
>know you could use those one-handed in this game!
>DM: Er, well... you cant.
>New Player: What? Why not? the guy in this picture is.
>DM: Well, read here. sez you cant use large weapons in one hand.
>New Player: But-but... Come on! it would just _rock_!
>________
Uh huh. And the Devil made me do it, too.
Sorry, if a picture is going to inspire a particular player to be a munchkin,
so will sneezing. You're argument is silly.
Jimmy Kerl
> Heh. Didja know that, originally, there were gonna be Hobbits in D&D? But the
> Tolkien estate said "screw that" and they changed the name to Halfling.
> Really.
Yeah, aren't they actually called hobbits in one of the OD&D books?
<not knowing as i dont own OD&D books>
Jimmy
Mr Nixx
>
>swords thread, If he had the sence to apply the same thinking to the artwork,
>
>he wouldn't be spouting off nonsence about the artwork being good.
If that "bozo" you're speaking of is me....
<let me get into this damned clown suit>
"I'm your huckleberry."
If you were speaking about me, you'd have noticed that I said I didn't care for
the artwork. In other words -- apathy. Complete, utter apathy. There was
much rejoicing.
Now, you must have noticed that I have been saying that you guys have come off
like whining children. <sniff. sniff. Don't take my Elmore and Easley away
from me -- or I'm not gonna buy the game. Whhhaaaaaaaahhhh!!!!>
Good god, yall. I'd rather the characters portrayed in the CONCEPT art look
like punk rockers than rejects from Poison, like they've traditionally been
portrayed.
Oh, by the way.... From a technical stand point, the art *is* good. Just
because you don't like the style doesn't mean it isn't.
Anyway, consider... Who is the game marketed to, these days? That's right,
the younger generation (18-24). A less idealistic generation, in which hope
doesn't flow like water and vigilantes are more likely canidates for heroes.
The art does reflect that. If the art is going to appeal to it's target
audience, it's good, huh?
<exit clown suit>
If I wasn't the "bozo" in question, consider this an ample place for me to
mouth off anyway. :Þ
Donald Bachman
:
:
:
: >
: > Most people form their own mental images of what is going on anyway.
: > God forbid I should imagine any of my clerics looking like anything
: > presented in Faiths and Avatars.
: >
: > Donald
: What i'm mostly reffering to is people's first impression of a game. they say
: "you cant judge a book by it's cover", but dispite the large quantity of wisdom
: in that remark, most people ignore it. For example, if you pick up a novel and
: the cover illustration is of a boat flying a pirate flag, you'll figure "oh, a
: novel about pirates". Same if you pick up a 3E manual and see some dudes that
: look like KISS or some other spikey-leather rock band, your _not_ going to be
: thinking "oh, a high fantasy RPG".
If it says "Dungeons and Dragons" on it, it could have a picture of
Hillary Clinton on it and most people would know what it was.
Donald
David
Mr Nixx wrote:
<SniP>
>
>
> Now, you must have noticed that I have been saying that you guys have come off
> like whining children. <sniff. sniff. Don't take my Elmore and Easley away
> from me -- or I'm not gonna buy the game. Whhhaaaaaaaahhhh!!!!>
>
Is it any less whiny and childish to be the one poking and teasing, twisting
things other people said?
>
> Oh, by the way.... From a technical stand point, the art *is* good. Just
> because you don't like the style doesn't mean it isn't.
>
Right! the art is good! we've all said that! that's been agreed on! (or am i
_completely_ delusional?!)
The art is Good. The art is Not What D&D Players Want. So There. I believe the
posts saying they wanted the new art have been out numbered 2 to 1 by those who
say they don't want it.
>
> Anyway, consider... Who is the game marketed to, these days? That's right,
> the younger generation (18-24). A less idealistic generation, in which hope
> doesn't flow like water and vigilantes are more likely canidates for heroes.
> The art does reflect that. If the art is going to appeal to it's target
> audience, it's good, huh?
>
Actually, most gamers start in their early teens, somtimes pre-teen years in my
experiance. and it is nothing but a lame steriotype that everyone of those ages
is dark and depressed and wants gloomyness and punkyness in their RPGs. In fact,
if this were true, most of what makes up the D&D community would be playing
Vampire other WOD games. Your argument is silly.
-Noodle
Jimmy Kerl
>
> If that "bozo" you're speaking of is me....
No. and i shouldn't of even said that, it was rude, and i should be nicer,
Also, no telling how many will read that and think i was refereing to them
when i probably was not. Next time i should learn to bite my lip ;)
Jimmy
Larry Smith
> If it says "Dungeons and Dragons" on it, it could have a picture of
> Hillary Clinton on it and most people would know what it was.
A better illustration of an evil witch I cannot imagine...
--
.-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-. | Never, ever underestimate
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / | the power of stupid people
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | in large groups.
My opinions only. |
Larry Smith
> Heh. Didja know that, originally, there were gonna be Hobbits in D&D? But the
> Tolkien estate said "screw that" and they changed the name to Halfling.
> Really.
Didja know that early editions of D&D _did_ call them
hobbits until they were threatened with copyright
infringement by the Tolkien estate? Really.
BlakGard
>crafted, and they are fine examples of the illustrator's art.
Personally, I don't mind the art, but it DOES NOT belong in Dungeons and
Dragons.
>Blithely throwing around "just plain sucks" is completely
>disrespectful of the efforts of those involved
Not really.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Mr Nixx
Hell, it just gave me an excuse to use that "clown suit" routine. Haven't done
that since high school. 'Course people don't generally use the word "bozo" much
anymore, either. ;D
Sheitan
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:38619e79...@news.rio.com...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:18:49 GMT, "Denakhan the Arch-Mage"
> <denakhant...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Oh please. Its artwork. What the heck you do with the game
> >> is your own. You'd imagine after 25 years of syrupy, buttery
> >> wholesomeness you'd want a bit of change. (Not that what
> >> was on the cover of my 1ed AD&D DMG was all that wholesome.)
> >
> > Yes, it is artwork. What's the saying? "A picture is worth a
thousand
> >words"? Yeah, that was it. ;-)
> >
> > Artwork can make or break a game (and can certainly annoy me enough
that
> >I won't buy the game; case in point was the "Babylon5" rpg.
> <snip>
>
> Seriously?
> *text* in a rules book. If WOTC wants to sell art books, they should
> do so. IMO art is simply padding to fill out the rerquired number of
> pages when there isn't enough quality text to do the job.
Scary... I'm agreeing with Robert - gamers who've been playing for years
don't care about the art. The artwork needs to be designed at the
first-timer, the new player. Everyone _starts_ with traditional heroic
fantasy, dragons on hold and wizards with pointy hats. The artwork matters
more for people who aren't familiar with the product - and the traditional
look is the one most likely to drag them in (and keep the bible-bashers
away).
- Sheitan
Neil Alexander
Sheitan wrote in message <844oni$nfs$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
I agree with most of this. I have found artwork useful in evoking a quicker
understanding of a particular part of a game, but it tends to be something I
already have on file that ties in with a scene. Then I whip it out and say
the orc/city/castle etc. looks like this. Artwork does not decide me on
whether to buy a game or accessory. I do find it easier to read a
supplement/scenario etc. if there is relevant artwork to go along with the
text. The traditional high fantasy art will certainly draw people from
their Tolkein/Warhammer/Pratchett/Moorcock backgrounds. And the more gamers
out there the more chance of me getting a game.
Robert Baldwin
>I agree with most of this. I have found artwork useful in evoking a quicker
>understanding of a particular part of a game, but it tends to be something I
>already have on file that ties in with a scene. Then I whip it out and say
>the orc/city/castle etc. looks like this. Artwork does not decide me on
>whether to buy a game or accessory. I do find it easier to read a
>supplement/scenario etc. if there is relevant artwork to go along with the
>text.
<snip>
Agreed. My comments above do not apply to monster manuals and
adventures, where the illustration is a direct part of the material.
"The monster/trap/room/item looks like *this*" is a valid reeason for
artwork. OTOH, simply padding a DMG/PHB with "kewl pictures" is a
complete and utter waste of space and money.
--
Saint Baldwin, Definer of the Unholy Darkspawn
-
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well." [St. B]
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB]
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
A'koss
> OTOH, simply padding a DMG/PHB with "kewl pictures" is a
> complete and utter waste of space and money.
I have to disagree here. Without artwork to breakup the the text and
charts the 3e books are little better than dry accounting textbooks. These
things aren't novels, and don't read as such. Pictures in the books also
help convey what some of game is about - like an idea of what spells being
cast look like or combat scenes with large groups of monsters, etc. Y'know,
something to help spur the imagination.
A'koss.
Sheitan
you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
lack of artwork. The vast majority of the books I read DON'T have pictures
in them - they are just "dry text". They're called novels.
- Sheitan
A'koss <infi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:l5B94.100194$ri.4...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
Tenzhi the Ti Hsien
wrote:
>You trying to hassle my accounting textbooks? How DARE you! Though, now
>you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
>lack of artwork. The vast majority of the books I read DON'T have pictures
>in them - they are just "dry text". They're called novels.
>
>- Sheitan
And as A'koss said, the Rulebooks aren't novels and don't read as such
- implying that the text isn't particularly interesting like it would
be in a novel ;)
A'koss
Sheitan <sheit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:846r92$1ss$1...@news.ihug.co.nz...
> You trying to hassle my accounting textbooks? How DARE you! Though, now
> you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
> lack of artwork. The vast majority of the books I read DON'T have
pictures
> in them - they are just "dry text". They're called novels.
Sheesh, I would have thought you'd at least *read* my entire 6 line post
before replying... ;)
A'koss!
Robert Baldwin
>
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:3866b7d2...@news.rio.com...
>
>> OTOH, simply padding a DMG/PHB with "kewl pictures" is a
>> complete and utter waste of space and money.
>
> I have to disagree here. Without artwork to breakup the the text and
>charts the 3e books are little better than dry accounting textbooks.
Which, ofcourse, is a *good* thing. We *l;ike* accounting books. :-)
These
>things aren't novels, and don't read as such. Pictures in the books also
>help convey what some of game is about - like an idea of what spells being
>cast look like or combat scenes with large groups of monsters, etc. Y'know,
>something to help spur the imagination.
Well, I have only done a "flip-through", not an actual count, but it
looks to me like there are considerably more pages with art in DMG2
than in DMG1. Certainly more pieces in the quarter-page and larger
category. I only count 1 full-page piece in DMG1. Which, it seems to
me, helps explain why DMG1 is generally considered to have more
usefull info. (Yes, it's also *larger*, but that's a different
issue).
Sorry, but small, end-of-colum art is OK. But I want *information*,
not an art book. I *have* those.
Robert Baldwin
the Ti Hsien) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 17:49:16 +1300, "Sheitan" <sheit...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You trying to hassle my accounting textbooks? How DARE you! Though, now
>>you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
>>lack of artwork.
Naw, that's just the instructor. ;-)
The vast majority of the books I read DON'T have pictures
>>in them - they are just "dry text". They're called novels.
>>
>>- Sheitan
>
>And as A'koss said, the Rulebooks aren't novels and don't read as such
>- implying that the text isn't particularly interesting like it would
>be in a novel ;)
<snip>
Well, have EGG write it and the text will stand on it's own. ;-)
A'koss
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 03:32:33 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
> >> OTOH, simply padding a DMG/PHB with "kewl pictures" is a
> >> complete and utter waste of space and money.
> >
> > I have to disagree here. Without artwork to breakup the the text and
> >charts the 3e books are little better than dry accounting textbooks.
> Which, of course, is a *good* thing.
You like accounting books?
>We *like* accounting books. :-)
I... see.
(A'koss backs away slowly...)
> Well, I have only done a "flip-through", not an actual count, but it
> looks to me like there are considerably more pages with art in DMG2
> than in DMG1.
Okay... It also could be they couldn't afford art in 1st dead-ed.
> Certainly more pieces in the quarter-page and larger
> category. I only count 1 full-page piece in DMG1. Which, it seems to
> me, helps explain why DMG1 is generally considered to have more
> usefull info. (Yes, it's also *larger*, but that's a different
> issue).
No arguing that the 1st ed DMG had more useful info, I'll grant you that.
> Sorry, but small, end-of-colum art is OK. But I want *information*,
> not an art book. I *have* those.
Why not both? I'll tell you this though, what I have seen on the 3e DMG
puts all other editions to shame. Even if you never play 3e, I'd recommend
getting the DMG and using it for your 1st ed game. It's that good.
A'koss!
Sheitan
> >
> >>You trying to hassle my accounting textbooks? How DARE you! Though,
now
> >>you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
> >>lack of artwork.
>
> Naw, that's just the instructor. ;-)
>
Too true.... I have never in my life had lecturers as boring as the ones who
ran 1st year Accounting.
<shudder>
I'm working on repressing the memory....
- Sheitan
Sheitan
> > You trying to hassle my accounting textbooks? How DARE you! Though,
now
> > you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
> pictures
> > in them - they are just "dry text". They're called novels.
>
> before replying... ;)
>
Nah, my attention span doesn't last that long - I get bored by line 2 and
just hit the reply button.
- Sheitan
Sheitan
>
> > Sorry, but small, end-of-colum art is OK. But I want *information*,
> > not an art book. I *have* those.
>
> Why not both?
Umm, money? It costs more to print more material, particularly for
pictures. I'd rather have more text and less pictures for the same price or
same text and less pictures for a lower price.
- Sheitan
Robert Baldwin
>
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:38670af6...@news.rio.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 03:32:33 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> >> OTOH, simply padding a DMG/PHB with "kewl pictures" is a
>> >> complete and utter waste of space and money.
>> >
>> > I have to disagree here. Without artwork to breakup the the text and
>> >charts the 3e books are little better than dry accounting textbooks.
>
>> Which, of course, is a *good* thing.
>
> You like accounting books?
>
>>We *like* accounting books. :-)
>
> I... see.
>
> (A'koss backs away slowly...)
I read the (US) Internal Revenue Code for *entertainment*. Last year
I assisted in editing one of CCH's tax accounting books.
>> Well, I have only done a "flip-through", not an actual count, but it
>> looks to me like there are considerably more pages with art in DMG2
>> than in DMG1.
>
> Okay... It also could be they couldn't afford art in 1st dead-ed.
Certainly. They spent all their money ontalaented writers. Content
vs. packaging. Which do *you* prefer?
>> Certainly more pieces in the quarter-page and larger
>> category. I only count 1 full-page piece in DMG1. Which, it seems to
>> me, helps explain why DMG1 is generally considered to have more
>> usefull info. (Yes, it's also *larger*, but that's a different
>> issue).
>
> No arguing that the 1st ed DMG had more useful info, I'll grant you that.
>
>> Sorry, but small, end-of-colum art is OK. But I want *information*,
>> not an art book. I *have* those.
>
> Why not both? I'll tell you this though, what I have seen on the 3e DMG
>puts all other editions to shame. Even if you never play 3e, I'd recommend
>getting the DMG and using it for your 1st ed game. It's that good.
Oh, I plan to buy it.
As for having both, there is a finite amount of material whch can be
included. Going back to the text-book exemple, I have rarely seen
rules type information which can't be improved by additional tables,
examples, etc. IOW, I assume, whether it's accounting, cooking or
game rules that art is coming at the expense of usefull info.
'Course, I'm still traumatized by the huge fonts, extensive art and
margins wide enough to land a B-52 used in 2nd ed materials. So,
we'll see. But huge full page art remains a waste, IMO. I'll take
another spell, or some charts, or a table, whatever.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>> >
>> >>You trying to hassle my accounting textbooks? How DARE you! Though,
>now
>> >>you mention it, they are kinda boring - but I doubt its because of their
>> >>lack of artwork.
>>
>> Naw, that's just the instructor. ;-)
>>
>
>Too true.... I have never in my life had lecturers as boring as the ones who
>ran 1st year Accounting.
>
><shudder>
>
>I'm working on repressing the memory....
My sympathies. I consider myself to be "off my mark" if I don't hear
at least half the class chucle once each class. Humor is a *good*
thing.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>
>>
>> > Sorry, but small, end-of-colum art is OK. But I want *information*,
>> > not an art book. I *have* those.
>>
>> Why not both?
>
>Umm, money? It costs more to print more material, particularly for
>pictures. I'd rather have more text and less pictures for the same price or
>same text and less pictures for a lower price.
Yup.
The printing costs are pretty much pre-determined by page count, and
the writers are paid for. The art is either an *additional* expense,
or it's recycled from other products. Neither is good.
A'koss
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 07:46:44 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > I have to disagree here. Without artwork to breakup the the text and
> >> >charts the 3e books are little better than dry accounting textbooks.
> >
> >> Which, of course, is a *good* thing.
> >
> > You like accounting books?
> >
> >>We *like* accounting books. :-)
> >
> > I... see.
> >
> > (A'koss backs away slowly...)
So, like what do you for fun?
> I read the (US) Internal Revenue Code for *entertainment*.
okay.
And what would you consider to be your single greatest contribution to the
world at large.
> Last year I assisted in editing one of CCH's tax accounting books.
Yes... and I'm sure we're all thankful for it.
(A'koss panics and flees...)
> > Okay... It also could be they couldn't afford art in 1st dead-ed.
>
> Certainly. They spent all their money ontalaented writers. Content
> vs. packaging. Which do *you* prefer?
Depends. How crippling a disease is "ontalaented"?
> > Why not both? I'll tell you this though, what I have seen on the 3e DMG
> >puts all other editions to shame. Even if you never play 3e, I'd
recommend
> >getting the DMG and using it for your 1st ed game. It's that good.
>
> Oh, I plan to buy it.
> As for having both, there is a finite amount of material whch can be
> included. Going back to the text-book exemple, I have rarely seen
> rules type information which can't be improved by additional tables,
> examples, etc. IOW, I assume, whether it's accounting, cooking or
> game rules that art is coming at the expense of usefull info.
> 'Course, I'm still traumatized by the huge fonts, extensive art and
> margins wide enough to land a B-52 used in 2nd ed materials. So,
> we'll see. But huge full page art remains a waste, IMO. I'll take
> another spell, or some charts, or a table, whatever.
You'll notice that in the first printing of the 2nd ed books, they used a
(okay, but not great) serif font and smaller margins, then changed in the
later printing to an ugly and huge sans-serif font with larger margins...
Art has it's place though (as I mentioned in a previous post) but will
naturally play a larger roll in first time purchases, than repeat purchases
like our own. I don't really want to get into the psychology behind
marketing, typefaces and white space but I can guarantee that without
eye-catching art to break up the text and to draw in first time buyers, it
won't sell as well.
A'koss!
Eric Tolle
>
> The art is Good. The art is Not What D&D Players Want. So There. I believe the
Well, it's not what a bunch of posters on rgf.dnd want anyway.
> posts saying they wanted the new art have been out numbered 2 to 1 by those who
> say they don't want it.
And that really doesn't mean much. All it means is that a group
of people on a newsgroup don't like it- it really has little
relevance to the game buying public at large. It's not a
representative sample.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
Information does not want to be free. Information wants to be
folded, spindled, mutilated, and used to make funky children's
party hats.
Robert Baldwin
>
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:3867bdc8...@news.rio.com...
>> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 07:46:44 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > I have to disagree here. Without artwork to breakup the the text and
>> >> >charts the 3e books are little better than dry accounting textbooks.
>> >
>> >> Which, of course, is a *good* thing.
>> >
>> > You like accounting books?
>> >
>> >>We *like* accounting books. :-)
>> >
>> > I... see.
>> >
>> > (A'koss backs away slowly...)
>
> So, like what do you for fun?
>
>> I read the (US) Internal Revenue Code for *entertainment*.
>
> okay.
>
> And what would you consider to be your single greatest contribution to the
>world at large.
>
>> Last year I assisted in editing one of CCH's tax accounting books.
>
> Yes... and I'm sure we're all thankful for it.
>
>
> (A'koss panics and flees...)
Yeah, the folks at Revenue Canada reacted the same way. Seems they
don't consider themselves as being part of the normal tourist route.
:-)
>> > Okay... It also could be they couldn't afford art in 1st dead-ed.
>>
>> Certainly. They spent all their money ontalaented writers. Content
>> vs. packaging. Which do *you* prefer?
>
> Depends. How crippling a disease is "ontalaented"?
Hey, after spending all the money ontalaented 1st ed writers, they
could only afford the 2nd ed proof-readers.
>> > Why not both? I'll tell you this though, what I have seen on the 3e DMG
>> >puts all other editions to shame. Even if you never play 3e, I'd
>recommend
>> >getting the DMG and using it for your 1st ed game. It's that good.
>>
>> Oh, I plan to buy it.
<snip>
>> 'Course, I'm still traumatized by the huge fonts, extensive art and
>> margins wide enough to land a B-52 used in 2nd ed materials. So,
>> we'll see. But huge full page art remains a waste, IMO. I'll take
>> another spell, or some charts, or a table, whatever.
> You'll notice that in the first printing of the 2nd ed books, they used a
>(okay, but not great) serif font and smaller margins, then changed in the
>later printing to an ugly and huge sans-serif font with larger margins...
<snip>
Some of the Handbook series were truly abominable.
David Trimboli
first edition of the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE, Gary Gygax says that a large
part of compiling the book was deciding what NOT to use. There was just so
much!
I'm not particularly interested in the third edition of these rules (I
prefer the first edition for its intentional limitations), but if I were
looking for quality of rulebooks, I'd want to feel that the authors had
tried to cram every bit of information in that they could. Large amounts of
full-page pictures makes me think otherwise.
I understand the logic of attracting first-time buyers, but I don't
appreciate it.
David
Stardate 99999.3
m@ng <morp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c5rd6s85gs2ccg524...@4ax.com...
> Actually, IIRC, books are typically printed on sheets of paper that are
> bound into 64 numbered pages. It costs more to have any extra pages
> removed than it does to fill every page with text and artwork. My PHB2
> has exactly 256 numbered pages, which works out to four 64-page
> clusters. My DMG2 is 192 pages, or three 64-page clusters. Those pages
> are going to be in the bound book whether blank or with filler artwork.
> You could pad with extraneous text or whitespace as well, or pay more to
> have the pages removed. Unless you have something better to pad the
> text out with, the artwork is neither a waste of space or money; the
> pages are already there and paid for even if you put nothing on them.