Knights & Knaves Alehouse

When they redid the 1e covers, I would have liked to see them spring for some Boris works... complete with half-naked chicks.

It woulda gave AD&D that Gor feeling, ya know?

James Maliszewski wrote:... I think it's incontrovertible that there's a high degree of correlation between the ascendancy of Elmore's particular style of fantasy art and the decline of TSR, both as a business and, more importantly, as a creative enterprise.

For myself, I think 75% of Elmore's "problem" -- assuming one agrees that there is a problem -- was art direction. He's a fairly technically proficient artist and his earliest TSR work, like that Dragon cover, is solid and more broadly consonant with the esthetics of early D&D than his later "supermodels at the RenFaire" stuff so many of us detest.

How is this incontrovertible? Obviously, Elmore's "style" is not to everyone's liking, but that's hardly a reasoned critique of his art and how it relates to the.. what? .. the.. quality of the text products it adorns.

Sure, most of us don't like what's between the covers of a lot of TSR's books of that era, and I think that may color some opinions.

Semaj Khan wrote:When they redid the 1e covers, I would have liked to see them spring for some Boris works... complete with half-naked chicks.

It woulda gave AD&D that Gor feeling, ya know?

I hope that's a joke.

Now, mostly naked Frazetta chicks would have rocked!

TheRedPriest wrote:How is this incontrovertible? Obviously, Elmore's "style" is not to everyone's liking, but that's hardly a reasoned critique of his art and how it relates to the.. what? .. the.. quality of the text products it adorns.

Sure, most of us don't like what's between the covers of a lot of TSR's books of that era, and I think that may color some opinions.

Almost certainly. You'll note that I don't have a particular hate for Elmore's work, which I generally find too plastic and vapid to be worthy of my disdain. And, as I said, he was capable of good work back in those days if given solid art direction rather than simply letting him do his usual thing.

But I think the larger point stands that, if you see Elmore on the cover, there's an extremely high degree of probability that it's an inferior TSR offering. Elmore's rise to prominence coincides with the end of the Golden Age and the beginning of one most of us round here find a lot less congenial to our tastes. I don't blame Elmore for that nor do I think it says anything about his art, even though I'm not especially keen on it.

James Maliszewski wrote:Almost certainly. You'll note that I don't have a particular hate for Elmore's work, which I generally find too plastic and vapid to be worthy of my disdain. And, as I said, he was capable of good work back in those days if given solid art direction rather than simply letting him do his usual thing.

Causation or correlation?

TheRedPriest wrote:Now, stand back while I throw my match on a puddle o' petrol.

I liked SnarfQuest; thought it was funny as hell. I thought Finn and Wormy were terrific as hell too.

I've got no problem with Elmore. Does his art look like Otus? No. Does it look like Tramp? No. Oh, wait. Otus' and Tramp's art don't look alike either. Doh!

Tramp, Otus AND Elmore are okay in my book, and to somehow suggest that Elmore was in part responsible for the decline of TSR is, frankly, horseshit.

Harbinger of doom my a$$.

The harbinger of doom to come was a bunch of gamers and other people who didn't know business from shinola trying to run a Big Business. The whole lot were clearly in over their heads as soon as D&D brought their moderate business beyond anyone's biggest dream (or worst nightmare).

Now. Bring it.

Admit it TRP, you liked looking at those 80s chicks in costume. "busty, pouty-lipped Brigitte Bardot-lookalikes"

I know what mrk is saying, they chose an artist that produced CRRRAAAAPPPP on a stick to reflect their crap on a stick product line. I was kinda glad, whenver I saw his stuff (or any of his copy cats) on a cover I didn't buy it (I new what likely lurked within).

TheRedPriest wrote:
Harbinger of doom my a$$.

Then when did the end of TSR come? 79? 80? or 81? Was it when Gary was in charge putting out all those cool products? Please enlighten us....

James Maliszewski wrote: Almost certainly. You'll note that I don't have a particular hate for Elmore's work, which I generally find too plastic and vapid to be worthy of my disdain.

Ooooohhh.. snap!

Mrk wrote:

TheRedPriest wrote:
Harbinger of doom my a$$.

Then when did the end of TSR come? 79? 80? or 81? Was it when Gary was in charge putting out all those cool products? Please enlighten us....

Deep breaths, Mrk. Deep breaths.

I meant that Elmore himself was not the harbinger of doom. That distinction is squarely on the shoulders of UA, which pre-dates the much reviled Elmore Ascendancy. Even if UA itself wasn't a stinker, it certainly was a taste of Thing To Come.

harbinger [hahr-bin-jer] anything that foreshadows a future event; omen; sign

Enlightened now?

AxeMental wrote:Admit it TRP, you liked looking at those 80s chicks in costume. "busty, pouty-lipped Brigitte Bardot-lookalikes"

Okay, Axe. You got me. I like hot chicks, even if they are just works of art.

TheRedPriest wrote:Even if UA itself wasn't a stinker, it certainly was a taste of Thing To Come.

I see this a lot (mostly from Axe Mental ) and it always confuses me a bit because actual-rules-wise UA represents an evolutionary dead-end for AD&D, a route not taken (except indirectly in Mythus). 2E AD&D specifically repudiated and undid almost everything in UA, and represented a conscious and deliberate conceptual step back and retrenchment into low-powered basics and generic flavor in contrast to the power-ups, complicated additions, and specific flavor of UA. UA was Gary Gygax taking AD&D where he wanted it to go -- whether the audience really wanted to go with him or not -- whereas by contrast 2E was TSR putting on the breaks and going back to what's safe and familiar so as not to upset anybody. UA and 2E are both changes from early-1E, but in opposite ways. UA is the further development of Gary's vision; 2E is the triumph of no vision at all.

I can definitely see not liking UA for all sorts of reasons (a few of which I even share), but I find it a lot harder to see UA as representing any sort of signpost towards where AD&D ended up going post-Gygax (except in the general sense of being shoddily produced and edited and "not good" -- or is that all you meant?).

James Maliszewski wrote: if you see Elmore on the cover, there's an extremely high degree of probability that it's an inferior TSR offering. Elmore's rise to prominence coincides with the end of the Golden Age and the beginning of one most of us round here find a lot less congenial to our tastes. I don't blame Elmore for that nor do I think it says anything about his art, even though I'm not especially keen on it.

You hit it right on the head. I don't believe Elmore back stabbed Gygax, but the peopel who took charge of the company certainly did and part of their "new "direction was using key personnel when they decided to change and promote D&D they way they deemed fit and Elmore's art (and others as well) was used as a tool for that change.

Sure, things like this happen all the time. But what we got out of it was crappy products and the slow and steady degradation of all things D&D.

I agree that UA really isn't "AD&D", but there are quite a few ideas in it that I do like. Expanded Illusionist spell list, weapon specialization, barbarians and cavaliers (gasp!) and non-human deities are things I use. The rest of the stuff I could care less about. I do find it funny that a few things are a direct contradiction of Gygax's previous comments, namely class/birth charts and costs for MU spell casting; he had explicitly stated in the DMG that such things were unnecessary and unwanted.

That said, 2nd edition lacks a lot of flavor, as Foster points out. It's almost a clinical approach to AD&D that strips out the warts at the expense of charm and character. I've heard countless arguments for the merits of specialist wizards, but give me Illusionists instead. No assassins? No thanks. I *do* like the 2nd edition bard, however; I think they did a really good job with that, so there are certainly things to like. But on the whole, all the reasons I liked playing D&D were pretty much gone. After 2nd edition came out, I moved on to GURPS and Runequest, occasionally playing a game or two.

We're really in a unique position. Before Gary's untimely passing, we could actually pose questions and interact with him regarding AD&D. We have countless resources at our disposal to share ideas and hammer out rules arbitration. Before the internet became a part of popular culture, it was a little harder to get this level of exposure or interest in our games. It is entirely possible 1st edition AD&D would have died out nearly entirely if it was not for boards such as this. Surely the "Old School Renaissance" would never have taken place. I consider myself extremely fortunate to be involved in this hobby at this point in time simply because I know I'm not alone in my love for a game many others have dismissed as dated and irrelevant.

T. Foster wrote:(except in the general sense of being shoddily produced and edited and "not good" -- or is that all you meant?).

That.

Also, I never played 2e, nor read a rulebook, so I'm not familiar with the direction of the game at that time. I was playing 1e up until stepping back from gaming in the mid '90s.

Foster, it wasn't that the rules were the same and expanded in 2E compred to UA, it was that UA was the first time permission was given to change the core rules. I think it was floated to see how the public reacted (a first step). Dragon Mag suggestions is one thing, core rules another.

The concepts that were natural outgrowth of UA were:

1. to accomidate the caviliar req. a heavier reliance on story line over open ended treasure hunt
2. character personalizatoin by rules rather then deed (UA did this with W. specialization) 2E had MU schools (and I think otherways, not sure on this one). Prior to UA there was no way to improve your chances other then finding magic (or becoming a more experianced fighter or whatever class)
3. Character Control threw rules (UA controlled behavior too completely with the Cav. and barbarian (where a paladin could retreat and play smart (as the player saw fit, the rules prevented the Cavilier from doing so. Likewise, the rules prevented the barbarian from sometimes using magic (even when it wasn't the scary glowing sort, say a + ring). In both cases choice was removed from the game (reminds me of railroading). Its not the same of course, but we never saw this non-Gygaxian element before this point (other then the modules you pointed out, which I never played)
4. lamification of the original classes. They just didn't seem "sexy" enough anymore for some players (I want to have WS otherwise I'm not different enough as a fighter etc.. This resulted (I think) in the classes (steriotypes) not being "enough" any longer. You can see a switch in the 2E art to personalities rather then mood and setting as was the case in 1E.

Anyhow, it seemed like alot of unGygaxian trends started with UA (his name and stamp of approval on the cover). The fact that change was started wtih UA lead directly to more common down the pike rather quickly from that point on. Where it not for UA (and Gygax's blessings) I think the changes brought in 2E might have been more challanged by the fan. It could be that Gyax wanted 1E to become extinct as another version took over. If true, I think that was an error on his part (why not have both). When it gets right down to it, thats what really bugs me about UA and 2E, why didn't they keep them as optional. Have 2E and 1E in publication at the same time (the way they had OD&D and 1E for sale at the same time).

Glossy paper! That is the true harbinger of doom! At first it was only Dragon done on glossy paper but when they started put rulebooks out on glossy paper that is when TSR started publishing craptastic material.

The glossy paper did suck, because it meant you could no longer write notes in the margins of the books (and my 1E rulebooks have tons of notes in the margins) -- you had to press to hard (and risk ripping the paper) to get pencil to show up and ink smurged too easily (plus I don't want my marginal notes in ink, because I want to be able to erase or change them).