Knights & Knaves Alehouse

rogatny wrote:
Sorry, Wormy.

Indeed. Wormy, hands down, was the best strip Dragon ever hosted, esp. when the wizard and his flying panther were travelling the planes. THAT my friends is Dungeons and Dragons, pure and simple.

Snarfquest was, well, not so much. The little lisps and accents implied in the text made the thing unreadable. I guess I should qualify this gripe with the fact that I can't read Andy Capp for the same reason.

- Wheggi

JRT wrote:For some reason now, after seeing Wheegi's sig, I have an urge to someday (if I had the money to spare) get Caldwell or Elmore to draw a comparison drawing of the Random Harlot table, like those charts comparing races...

Elmore did depict at least one whore, which can be found in A3 (or in SirAllen's avatar). Where she can be placed on the Random Harlot table is anyone's guess, but I think it could be an interesting poll. I'm guessing somewhere between 'saucy tart' and 'wanton wench'

- Wheggi

Caldwell had a scorching case of smooth ruby-itus, the uncontrollable compulsion to place giant lambent red gems in every painting.

To me, Parkinson seems the closest to Rockwell, he seems the most painterly. Parkinson is vastly better than Elmore in my opinion.

I wouldn't care if Tramp or Otus replaced every Sutherland piece, but from what I have heard you have to hand it to the guy for stepping up when it came to deadlines. I bet it really helped out the young company to have someone who worked quickly, even when he knew he was sacrificing quality. But I'm not sure Sutherland would ever be as good as Tramp or Otus, even if he had all the time in the world.

I think Axe hit the mark when talking about the style presented by the cover of the DMG.

The cover evokes Gygaxian AD&D---danger, darkness, heroes, etc.

JRT, IMO, you miss the point in Sutherland's art. You focus too much on the hyper-technical (lines, angles,perportions, etc) and miss the boat. Sutherland's art was likley meant not to demosntrate technical skill to be judged by some art instructor---but to demonstrate and appeal to those late 70s early 80s players of OAD&D.

For example, I didn't give s shi+ that Johny Weismueller's hair in the old "Tarzan" series was blow dried after he came out of a lake, as long as he was kicking the hell out of Nazis, throwing man-eating natives off cliffs, telling unruly elephants "Ungawa!" and generally trying to keep Jane and boy happy. I did not focus on the technicals (I say old boy how is it he is not dirty from killing that lion. This is preposterous!) No ----the focus was on the action and the setting. On the conveyed mood.

Sutherland's art was kind of like that for fans of OAD&D.

Ska wrote:I think Axe hit the mark when talking about the style presented by the cover of the DMG.

The cover evokes Gygaxian AD&D---danger, darkness, heroes, etc.

JRT, IMO, you miss the point in Sutherland's art. You focus too much on the hyper-technical (lines, angles,perportions, etc) and miss the boat. Sutherland's art was likley meant not to demosntrate technical skill to be judged by some art instructor---but to demonstrate and appeal to those late 70s early 80s players of OAD&D.

For example, I didn't give s shi+ that Johny Weismueller's hair in the old "Tarzan" series was blow dried after he came out of a lake, as long as he was kicking the hell out of Nazis, throwing man-eating natives off cliffs, telling unruly elephants "Ungawa!" and generally trying to keep Jane and boy happy. I did not focus on the technicals (I say old boy how is it he is not dirty from killing that lion. This is preposterous!) No ----the focus was on the action and the setting. On the conveyed mood.

Sutherland's art was kind of like that for fans of OAD&D.

Thank you, Ska. That's exactly what I meant when I referred to the original 1e DMG as the best gaming cover ever.

TheRedPriest wrote:

rogatny wrote:
Wormy.

Fin

Glad I don't have to choose, wish there was more.....

In regard to rpgs not being high art. yeah, I agree. D&D in particular isn't some sort of raised pinky, sipping out of a fine china teacup, boutique game. It a game of dice, beer, pretzels, imagination, and high adventure.

A superbly executed, realistic study of a model doesn't fit the bill.

But DSL, I picture him talking to a buddy, and saying, "Mmmm.....What if there was this huge Efreet, holding a big-ass sword in one hand, and a hot chick in the other, and these adventurers were rushing in to fight him, while being all, 'HOLY SHIT! LOOK AT THAT FUCKING EFREET! HOLY FUCK!!! CHAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGE!!!!!!'?"

And his buddy saying, "AWWWWWW FUCK YEAH! THAT'S THE SAUCE!"

**THAT** fits the bill.

francisca wrote:But DSL, I picture him talking to a buddy, and saying, "Mmmm.....What if there was this huge Efreet, holding a big-ass sword in one hand, and a hot chick in the other, and these adventurers were rushing in to fight him, while being all, 'HOLY SHIT! LOOK AT THAT FUCKING EFREET! HOLY FUCK!!! CHAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGE!!!!!!'?"

And his buddy saying, "AWWWWWW FUCK YEAH! THAT'S THE SAUCE!

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the story of how the cover of the DMG came to be.

IMHO, the late 1E and 2E artists couldn't have come up with something as cool as the original DMG cover if their lives depended on it...and if they had they certainly would have badly screwed it up in execution (infact, I don't ever remember seeing a late 1E or 2E cover that drew me in) The problem with most of these late illustrators is that it was all about them showing off thier skill, and not about them showing the point of the game; though I'm sure it also had to do with the higher ups trying to appeal to their target buyer.

Those original TSR artists really captured the feel and spirit of the game in a way that has never been reproduced since that time (well, until recently with the Retros)...their depictions brought the game to life and said "this is how your supposed to do it, go kick ass"! Kids loved those covers, stared at them for hours, (where they wouldn't look twice at the technically proficient yet uninspiring "family portait" art of 2E (at least those I knew, I never did hang around anyone that played 2E).

Hey SKA, good to know you were paying close attention to Tarzan's family situation, you must have wet your pants whenever Boy was kidnapped or in trouble.

What I like about the classic artists like Bell, DCS, DAT, TW, and such, is that they gave their art some character. The art with 2e was too clean and vary dry. They looked realistic, but there is nothing that make it feel exciting. 3e art tried to put more "action" into the art, but it felt way to formulated, and more to highlight game design. 4e art feels like they are trying to be like... er... do an image search for "anima" to get an idea (is like animé, but somehow vary different). If any of you don't know, I hate the look of photoshop art - it look artificial, and the colors look like its been smeared all over the place.

I like the old-school art, because they remind me of book illustrations, and the fan-art submissions in the old Conan comics. Thatching, cross-thatching, stippling... I love the look of that!

Sutherland's DMG cover is awesome! It has a devil-looking dude, holding a slave Leia-looking chick, with the generic-looking Wizard & Warrior types trying to save her. Next to the Margaret Brundage styled cover for Eldrich Wizardry, you would not find a more pulpier D&D cover!

Abacus Ape wrote:Caldwell had a scorching case of smooth ruby-itus, the uncontrollable compulsion to place giant lambent red gems in every painting.

Now that's just unfair. Some of them were green. As a matter of fact, every time I see that Castle Caldwell module I can imagine a whole host of missed gemstone-related opportunities. Flying gems. Exploding gems. Intelligent gems that talk like a Nepalese cabbie. Soul sucking gems that....oh, well that's one thing the module does have.

JRT, IMO, you miss the point in Sutherland's art. You focus too much on the hyper-technical (lines, angles,perportions, etc) and miss the boat. Sutherland's art was likley meant not to demosntrate technical skill to be judged by some art instructor---but to demonstrate and appeal to those late 70s early 80s players of OAD&D.

The problem is for me that the Sutherland covers of the DMG and especially the MM have flaws that are jarring enough to take you out of the work. I think the later piece shown in the other thread is acceptable, but I just can't see the argument as being anything other than emotional preference, because the artists I mention did do other dynamic styles.

As far as Caldwell goes--I agree a lot about the gems.

Interestingly enough, I did a search online looking for DCS3 artwork to compare, and I saw the Grognardia entries where James explains why he dislikes the Sutherland DMG and loves the Easley 1e DMG. He says a few things I've echoed here. (And I'm gonna agree with him about the back of the DMG being more interesting than the front).

http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... charm.html
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/07/ ... -view.html

To be clear, I like Sutherland's artwork generally, but I think his DMG cover isn't as good or as appropriate thematically as Easley's, an artist whose work is very hit or miss for me (mostly the latter). If I recall, Gary was very fond of Jeff Easley's work and considered him one of the better artists to work for TSR, an opinion I don't completely share. Mind you, I consider Dave Trampier's work hands-down the best for any edition of the D&D, so that may color my perceptions somewhat.

Yes, but James is Canadian (from Ontario).

Which brings me to a song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=RLMkV7VyPns

My wife's the Canadian, actually.

The newer DMG cover just leaves me flat. The creepy guy opening the door with the key on chain around his neck, well, that just makes me think of nerdy little kids wanting to be the cool, mysterious dude that IS the Dungeon Master.

You know, like an Elite Dungeon Master. Does the guy on the left in this picture look a little familiar?


The Sutherland cover helps motivate me to kick bad-assed monsters' butts vicariously through a projected make-believe hero.

I recall being so very disappointed when I first saw the new DMG & PHB covers. They were just non-threatening, castrated, bland covers that could sit on any old Church Lady's bookshelf. ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz