Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Another angle on this could simply be that after so many printings they wanted an obvious way to tell printings apart since there had been slight changes to the content over time.

I love the original covers of the PHB, DMG, FF, and DDG. I think the original cover of MM is fine, but not great.

I dislike all the newer covers, but those for DMG and LL are not bad.

I particularly love Otus's original cover of DDG. Totally awesome. That's what Carcosa looks like. I really like the summoned Cthulhoid being on the lower back cover.

The original covers (or "real covers" as they are know amongst our group) represent what a game of AD&D is/could/should be about. The PHB is definitely my favorite cover of any gaming product, ever. The original DMG and Deities & Demigods is up there, too. I find the later covers are really something apart from the game. You know, chosen by someone who has never played the game. I think they'd be good in a generic fantasy art calendar. But, they just didn't (and still don't) seem to fit on the cover of AD&D's iconic books. I remember when my brother moved away in 1987 and took the PHB with him. When I set out in to find a replacement (much more difficult before the internet, ebay, etc.), I'd be damned if my PHB wouldn't have the "real cover".

Btw, I concede the art on the MM cover is really weak. Thematically, though, I still prefer it to the later cover. I think Mullen's cover to XRP's Malovelent & Benign represents the original approach done way better. I like the Monsters & Myth cover, too.

If I wanted the caliber of the Easley covers but wanted something good I would have hired Richard Corben (sans the nudity) for an original redo of the old covers. That I think would blow me away. Seeing D&D monsters in that weird airbrushing would have been ultimate. His medieval characters from some of his various werewolf stories are realistic and at the same time fantastic.

AxeMental wrote:Do you agree with these premises. That 1. when a game became popular it should change its dress to adapt to its new position. And 2. that the new covers were "more professional quality" then the originals.

Yes, I do agree with both premises. I really like the original covers, and also really like the Easley covers. To me there is no question that 1/ marketing demands for a product's dress to adapt to the demand of a growing market (it's just good business sense), and 2/ that the Easley covers are more professional/classic in appearance. I think it was a fine choice.

geneweigel wrote:If I wanted the caliber of the Easley covers but wanted something good I would have hired Richard Corben (sans the nudity) for an original redo of the old covers. That I think would blow me away. Seeing D&D monsters in that weird airbrushing would have been ultimate. His medieval characters from some of his various werewolf stories are realistic and at the same time fantastic.

Richard Corben was the sole reason why I bought Heavy Metal Magazine. In fact, when there was no Corben installment, I would often skip buying the issue. His work was far out.

I was never aware that D&D was a head-shop product.

By the time the AD&D hardbacks came out, D&D was selling into the tens if not hundreds of thousands, and it only went UP from there, until what, 1990? '92? Whenever white wolf started offering gamer pussy for vampire attacks.

anyway.

The point is, I see/hear a lot of "oh, the artwork was so amateur" and yet the sales were those of a multi-million dollar company, the game was known throughout the world (for good or ill) - this was no kitchen sink gaming company! The art was coarse, and it was effective. It said: dangerous imaginary things await you.

When they changed the cover art they seemed to be giving up and saying "This is Yet Another Fantasy Role Playing Game, By A Company".

And yes, I'm well aware that Gary wasn't a huge fan of the art - so what? He still made money hand over fist*, and I (we) the fans were fans of the art.

Watch the last episode of Freaks & Geeks - that's not Easley cover art on those books, there. (there's ONE but you can't really see it). Even those guys, the TV producers, remembered what D&D "looked like" when they were kids.

...
*=right up until the Blumes started diddling with him

thedungeondelver wrote:The art was coarse, and it was effective. It said: dangerous imaginary things await you.

Indeed.

Here's the ultimate test:

1. Assemble a dozen boys, 13-16
2. Show each boy the original DMG and the revised cover DMG. See which one is picked up first.
3. Show each boy the original PH and the revised cover PH. See which one is picked up first.
4. Show each boy the original MM and the revised cover MM. See which one is picked up first.
5. Tally your results.

My prediction is that the original DMG and PH would come out on top, easily. I suspect the revised MM might win out over the original, though.

It would be interesting to repeat the test with a dozen girls of the same age, too.

I was actually drawn to the Fiend Folio more than any of the others for some reason.
I remember taking it off the shelf dozens of times at the bookstore.

The 2nd version of the core books were "technically" better painted, but they sacrificed flavour and charm for soulless, corporate chrome. I cannot count how many hours over the years I've spent simply admiring the PHB cover and contemplating the events leading up to that scene. And don't forget the funny back-cover art with one of the characters dragging a dead lizard-man by the tail! Priceless!

Philotomy Jurament wrote: Here's the ultimate test:

1. Assemble a dozen boys, 13-16
2. Show each boy the original DMG and the revised cover DMG. See which one is picked up first.
3. Show each boy the original PH and the revised cover PH. See which one is picked up first.
4. Show each boy the original MM and the revised cover MM. See which one is picked up first.
5. Tally your results.

"that art sucks compared to WoW." is what I bet you'd get.

francisca wrote:

Philotomy Jurament wrote: Here's the ultimate test:

1. Assemble a dozen boys, 13-16
2. Show each boy the original DMG and the revised cover DMG. See which one is picked up first.
3. Show each boy the original PH and the revised cover PH. See which one is picked up first.
4. Show each boy the original MM and the revised cover MM. See which one is picked up first.
5. Tally your results.

"that art sucks compared to WoW." is what I bet you'd get.

ba-zinga

I feel like publishing OSRIC 2.0 (through Lulu of course), and I'll utilize an all black cover with nothing but a freakin' big, shiny-red, inverted pentagram on the front cover, an all-black back cover and a Barbara Eden as succubus centerfold in the middle.

Oh wait. Lulu probably doesn't do centerfolds. Too bad, because even though those 13- 16 year old boys would have no clue who Barbara Eden was, I bet it wouldn't matter.

TheRedPriest wrote: Oh wait. Lulu probably doesn't do centrefolds. Too bad, because even though those 13- 16 year old boys would have no clue who Barbara Eden was, I bet it wouldn't matter.

Ha, ha! Now that you mention it, some of the most popular pictures in my second edition books were the scantily clad damsels. I distinctly remember paging through a copy with a circle of fellow teenagers admiring the full colour depictions.

thedungeondelver wrote:I was never aware that D&D was a head-shop product.

By the time the AD&D hardbacks came out, D&D was selling into the tens if not hundreds of thousands, and it only went UP from there, until what, 1990? '92? Whenever white wolf started offering gamer pussy for vampire attacks.

anyway.

The point is, I see/hear a lot of "oh, the artwork was so amateur" and yet the sales were those of a multi-million dollar company, the game was known throughout the world (for good or ill) - this was no kitchen sink gaming company! The art was coarse, and it was effective. It said: dangerous imaginary things await you.

When they changed the cover art they seemed to be giving up and saying "This is Yet Another Fantasy Role Playing Game, By A Company".

And yes, I'm well aware that Gary wasn't a huge fan of the art - so what? He still made money hand over fist*, and I (we) the fans were fans of the art.

Watch the last episode of Freaks & Geeks - that's not Easley cover art on those books, there. (there's ONE but you can't really see it). Even those guys, the TV producers, remembered what D&D "looked like" when they were kids.

...
*=right up until the Blumes started diddling with him

I think Bill has hit the nail on the head here. What is "best" to put on the cover of a book isn't a matter of amature vs. professional, its a matter of does it sell your game. Can you say Vincent Vangogh was a realistic or professional painter, espl. for his times. No, he would himself admit his talents were lacking in perspective, and rendering something as simple as a chair. But what he did offer us was a magical view of what he saw as exciting and worthwhile in the world. We like that because it sparks our imaginations and brings us to life. Take a look around any store, count how many "covers" on everyday products could have been created by a child. You will find many. Yet, highly payed professionals spend months and months researching what exact image will get people to buy, not just quickly, but on a long term basis. Uniformity isn't as important as excitement. Plus AD&D is all about filling in the blanks (a figure in dark shadow carrying a sword blurred by motion) and the new covers didn't offer any mystery. Always thought this would be a cool adventure cover.