Knights & Knaves Alehouse

In regard to the super-dweeb thing, I think you're "reading your own personal thoughts in this", or at least accepting a stereotypical notion. I reject this notion and my own personal experiences certainly don't support it either.

My point was basically meant to be ironic. Basically, AxeMetal is engaging it what I call "nerd self-loathing"--here at K&K are the normal ones--Dragonsfoot, ENWorld, THEY are the NERDS, WE are the NORMAL ones. I reject that. I think most players regardless of edition are reasoned, well thought out thinkers who have jobs and lives, etc. I'm proud of this hobby too.

Terrex wrote:I need to second Axe on this whole thing. I don't believe the change in art was a good business decision. It pandered to the people in it for fad, etc. and left the core behind. My own personal experience definitely influences my thinking, here. Throughout the entire period of 1985 - now I've actually wanted to spend my money on D&D. I want to financially support a hobby that really actually enhanced my life to a degree, improved my reading and presentation skills, etc. But, the new art, the "better" trade dress (along with the underlying content) all turned me away.

But that's not really what they did (at least with the AD&D line) -- underneath those new covers the actual content of the books (including the interior artwork) was exactly the same. The old-timers who liked the old cover art already had books with that art, potential new fans who might be more attracted to the new art pcik up those books and are still 100% compatible with the old ones -- the old/core fans aren't being left behind, they're getting a whole lot more potential players. The D&D line did change to become more mass-market and kid-friendly from Holmes to Moldvay to Mentzer, but that line wasn't targeted at the "core" audience anyway -- it was the introductory/gateway product that got people hooked and steered them towards the "real" (i.e. Advanced) game. As for the module content, yeah, for the most part that went pretty much into the crapper (from my perspective), but where it didn't I don't see how the more professional trade dress and art did any harm -- are Dungeonland and Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure really worse off compared to earlier modules for their art and trade dress? I don't see it

I think a better team of business people (perhaps more greedy for returns over the long term, LOL) would have found a way to protect the core, while simultaneously marketing to more faddish (and perhaps younger) consumer groups.

Whereas I see that as pretty much what TSR was doing c. 1981-85 (and presumably would've continued to do had Gygax remained in charge) -- the kiddie D&D line for the mass-market, AD&D for the hardcore fans, with periodic upgrades to the art and trade dress but the content remaining largely consistent, at least the stuff written by Gygax & co. Hickman and Niles and the UK crew were taking things in different directions, but even so I don't see that as problematic as long as it coexisted with the traditional/Gygax style and offered fans an alternative. The problem was that the latter disappeared altogether once Gygax left the company -- in 1983 you could buy Pharaoh or Dungeonland, in 1985 you could buy Dragons of Dreams or Isle of the Ape, but in 1987 you could only buy Treasure Hunt or Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill (at least from TSR -- you could also buy Garden of the Plantmaster and The Abduction of Good King Despot if you knew about them, but few people did).

TFoster, I'm writing off of memory and I'm definitely not precise with the dates. I do know, though, that the look & feel was already slipping in the early 80s and suggesting something different to me, even as a really young buyer. The change in the T1 and S1 covers, for example, somehow represented there was a new direction from the guys in charge of this game. I mean from my perspective back then -- why change those awesome covers, especially T1? I think that was early 80s, I'll have to look. I also remember the logos. These are the things I actually had the time to look at as a kid. The early lizard and wizard were cool and worth looking at, the old guy w/ the beard was blah, and then the various "TSR" logos had no feel for the game (they could've been on the cover of one of my school books). We haven't even talked about the change in the PHB cover. Again, I'll have to look when they changed it. In our group, only the unlucky ones didn't get the "real cover" in time. All this made me cautious, even as a pre- and early teen buyer.

This thread just hit a cord with me. Axe's assertions are on target with what happened in my game group. I'm not saying it was the exclusive result of the art, but it was part of it. I've played D&D since around 1980, but I only really bought new D&D products until about 85 or so (with an occasional disappointing exception and an occasional Dungeon mag). It didn't have to be this way.

[Edited 84 to 85 -- I bought and played UA and OA when they came out. I really enjoyed UA for a time. But, we have slowly removed it from play]

The re-release of the monochrome modules with full-color covers and the change from the wizard to the face logo both occured in 1981 and I agree that in pretty much every case (especially S1 and T1) the new cover art was distinctly worse than the original -- the only exception for me being D3 (old vs. new).

This "middle" transitional period of TSR's art and graphics (roughly 1980-82) is weird to me, because there was definitely a move towards a different style of art with Jeff Dee, Bill Willingham, Roslof, DSL, and Stephen Sullivan largely replacing Sutherland, Trampier, Tom Wham, and Darlene (with Erol Otus sort of straddling both groups). These guys were, I suppose, viewed as being more professional or commercial, but IMO they're just worse -- the "comic book" stylings of Dee and Willingham don't match how I ever envisioned the game or game-world and the technical skill doesn't seem (to my admittedly-untrained eye) any better than Sutherland and Tramp (especially Stephen Sullivan -- I mean, in what way does this guy's work not suck?). At least with the even later (Elmore, Easley, Parkinson, Beauvais, etc.) artists there's an obvious difference in technical skill even if stylistically it doesn't click, but with these guys it feels like the worst of both worlds -- I don't like their work stylistically OR technically.

The early Easley artwork is some of the best there is (Tsojacanth, was it?). Art direction took him off track later, but his earlier work fits right in with the original style and feel, IMO.

JRT said : making cum hoc ergo propter hoc

That's what she said.

Mythmere wrote:The early Easley artwork is some of the best there is (Tsojacanth, was it?). Art direction took him off track later, but his earlier work fits right in with the original style and feel, IMO.

Careful now, Matt. I'd hate to see you join me in the doghouse.

JRT wrote:

Back then we were all K&Kers...there were millions of us who shared almost the exact same tastes and "got the game" in the exact same way (with only the occasional grumbling super-dweeb who didn't like the game or care for the art silently mumbling to themselves at the table).

To be fair though, the millions of people were just in it for faddish attention and then stopped playing. I suspect most of the million fans played for a few years and then stopped. The "super-dweebs", I hate to say it, are US. If you're sitting around debating the art on a message board--you, me, us--we're all count as "super dweebs", really.

Gygax I'm sure realized this change was not in the best interest of his original game, I suspect he just did what he always does...makes the best of it (this trend seemed to follow him up until his last year with the Trolls).

I think you're trying to read your own personal thoughts into this. Gary was not just a game designer, he was a businessman. I pointed out that he enjoyed those artists, and I know from a few conversations we've had, that he wished he could have better artists--he knew that going small press meant you could only get what you can pay for or who would do cheaper work. Just because he wanted creative control and chose not to work as a creator for a larger company instead of having complete ownership of his work doesn't mean he didn't want to be big or have that again.

(You'll note with Dangerous Journeys he chose Elmore for his artist, both with the novels and some of the books, and IIRC did that at his insistance).

Two more quick points JRT: 1. I don't doubt that Gygax wanted better artists for his books. But I doubt that he was looking for late 1E or 2E looking artwork (perhaps Frezzetta?) not the Gygax of the late 70s anyway (he did seem to change as he got older, stuck more in the pressure cooker etc.). As I stated earlier, the problem isn't too much talent and skill in the later artists but what they did with it. Seriously, I don't think any of them were on the same page as the 1Eers of the late 70s. As for Gygax also being a buisness man, so what, whats your point?

JRT: "My point was basically meant to be ironic. Basically, AxeMetal is engaging it what I call "nerd self-loathing"--here at K&K are the normal ones--Dragonsfoot, ENWorld, THEY are the NERDS, WE are the NORMAL ones. I reject that. I think most players regardless of edition are reasoned, well thought out thinkers who have jobs and lives, etc. I'm proud of this hobby too."

Your a pretty funny guy there. OK, I'll just say, the guys at K&K are pretty normal (from what I've been able to glimmer over the years) in that they are balanced. Were a small group of about 20-30 regulars (and of course alot of cross overs from other sites as well). As for DF and ENworld, its true I don't know what they are like. But alot of them freak the hell out of me.

I hadn't seen that old D3 cover in a long time. My next door neighbor had that one (later I picked up the new-covered one after he drifted away from playing). Yeah, I remember laughing about that human head on the spider even back then.

Mythmere wrote:The early Easley artwork is some of the best there is (Tsojacanth, was it?). Art direction took him off track later, but his earlier work fits right in with the original style and feel, IMO.

Tsojcanth was Erol Otus, you blasphemous blasphemer who blasphemes too much.

Oh... you mean the interiors.

Foster: "But that's not really what they did (at least with the AD&D line) -- underneath those new covers the actual content of the books (including the interior artwork) was exactly the same. The old-timers who liked the old cover art already had books with that art, potential new fans who might be more attracted to the new art"

Like I said, it was a general trend....a "sneak peek" at things to come (remember too, the DMG cover carries alot of weight and helps ground the game in "hey this is what this game is all about". Killing a powerful devil with super magic and heroes vs. I'm holding a gate open with a key around my neck. TSR was trying to say something, maybe prepare for a change in focus (from fighting to story telling)? You have to ask yourself, why that cover?

At the time, the new cover was one of the first signs that something was amiss (to our young brains of mush), thats all. In and of itself, not a big deal (just a crappy boring cover). But taken in the entirity (Dragon Lance and other series to come) it was bone chilling to see (espl. once 2E came out, by late 80s no one played 1E anymore except for a few groups hidden in basements of my college dorms. And you'd never tell anyone (social suicide).

As for kids liking the later art better, I doubt it. Over the years I've shown both covers to kids (all ages, I have both books (though North can attest to great displeasure, I rarely read them anymore now that I can ask) and all have prefered the first DMG cover (mostly boys take to it). I have yet to find anyone (beside BPoM, James and a few others) who prefer the later (or even like it luke warm).

Foster: ""comic book" stylings of Dee and Willingham don't match how I ever envisioned the game or game-world and the technical skill doesn't seem (to my admittedly-untrained eye) any better than Sutherland and Tramp" Yep, Thats the word thats been escaping me. The cover art should support how we envisioned the game. Thts what Sutherland was able to do, and with the second cover, thats where they led us astray (TSR tinkering with the focus of the game. Priming the pumps I'll bet).

Foster wrote:"comic book" stylings of Dee and Willingham don't match how I ever envisioned the game or game-world and the technical skill doesn't seem (to my admittedly-untrained eye) any better than Sutherland and Tramp"

I would assert 1E had a greater variety in theme and tone than any of the later editions. The implication was that you could play the game in a variety of styles and settings - from Dee's superheroic high fantasy to Tramp's trampy low-fantasy to Otus' outre fantasy. The changeover to the days of Elmore, Caldwell et. al. implied a singular shiny, plastic high fantasy world - the Forgotten Realms, in fact.

As for the cover of the DMG?? I want my Sutherland. In the late 70's, in my fundamentalist Christian home, that cover was just about the most dangerous, badass-looking thing imaginable. By god, it looked like somebody was battling Satan himself in the lake of fire. I had to put a brown paper book cover on the thing just to avoid the noid from parents and teachers. In this sense, Sutherland's technical skill just wasn't the point. The point is how the art perfectly described the zeitgeist of the game and that time in America.

James Maliszewski wrote:

Mythmere wrote:The early Easley artwork is some of the best there is (Tsojacanth, was it?). Art direction took him off track later, but his earlier work fits right in with the original style and feel, IMO.

Careful now, Matt. I'd hate to see you join me in the doghouse.

Bah. I loved Easley's work in both Tsojcanth and Mordenkanien's Fantastic Adventure. Ironically, those are also two of my favorite products from TSR, and the cover of S4 is my favorite EO piece hands down. The only stumbling block art-wise is the Caldwell cover for MFA. A much better depiction of Mordenkanien than the 'Ming the Merciless' that WotC would try to push on us, but not very inspiring.

- Wheggi

Kellri: "I would assert 1E had a greater variety in theme and tone than any of the later editions. The implication was that you could play the game in a variety of styles and settings - from Dee's superheroic high fantasy to Tramp's trampy low-fantasy to Otus' outre fantasy. The changeover to the days of Elmore, Caldwell et. al. implied a singular shiny, plastic high fantasy world - the Forgotten Realms, in fact. "

This is a great point. The variation in artwork presented in the first books and modules gave the green light to variation at the table in the heads of the players as well as the DM (the art said, do it your own way, and encouraged the DM to be creative). Not so with the later homongenous art and presentation. It said just the opposite, "don't be creative, we've done that for you BUY THIS.
I think the variation you see in art within the three core books was by design (not the result of misshap or amature hour), and that it was a professional decision to emphasise creativity and individualism (hallmarks of the game) and the point in playing. Early TSR wanted a happy customer to spread the game word of mouth. Back then they were happy to just sell the rule books.

The point was that there was no one correct way to imagine. I remember looking for this myself when I was a kid first playing. Thats why we instinctively prefer the black and white artwork in the monster manuals, it gives just enough information to spark our imagination, but not so much to prevent it from working. Equally, the covers of the PH and DMG were light on detail not only because it wouldn't be appropriate for a game cover (see above posts) but because it also said "this is a portal to your imagination, fill in the blanks yourself."

The later versions were unpleasing because TSR tried to usurp the creativity part from the game to sell product. And thats the real reason TSR tanked. It stripped the heart and soul (the point in playing) out of the game (both in its overly developed plot garbage, and its uniformity in vision (and the more realistic and stylized that vision is, the more toxic).

FRPGs are fun because they set our imaginations free, not because they provide one for us. TSR thought they could sell supplements by doing just that, and it worked for a while, but only to the least creative sliver of a once huge pie...and once that sliver was finished was nothing left.

Kellri wrote: I would assert 1E had a greater variety in theme and tone than any of the later editions. The implication was that you could play the game in a variety of styles and settings - from Dee's superheroic high fantasy to Tramp's trampy low-fantasy to Otus' outre fantasy. The changeover to the days of Elmore, Caldwell et. al. implied a singular shiny, plastic high fantasy world - the Forgotten Realms, in fact.

Agreed. There's a parallel discussion going on in the Garycon forums about how the new art/books lack humor - there are no cartoons, no real JOY and whimsy in them. Just superheros saving the world (again, and again, and again - where's my magic item parcel?)

I think a sense of whimsy, ethereal or innocent laughter touches a child in the reader and helps to connect to things that we don't understand, but feel a comfort in? As story, and plot, and uber-heroes became the norm, it seems like all that simple pleasure type of art and feeling was shoved aside.