Regarding ART in DS thread

[Mythmere]

My wife's the Canadian, actually.

My wife likes to point out that I'm the Texan.

[AxeMental]

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. 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

I think thats it TRP, Easley's cover is just so freak'n boring and bland as he could make it (plus technically its too convoluted for a cover. All that stuff in the background is confusing and unclear, and the figure looking directly at the viewer "engaging him" just seems so gimmicky corn dog and trite (and wow was this horse trick done to death TSR and WOTC artists). Whatever happened to letting the viewer watch an event and portraying the scene so well you don't have to rely on stunts like that (oh thats right, these technically proficient artists don't know how to create mood and probably don't even know what the games really all about (ie. the "ordinary", against all odds, accomplishing the extraordinary in heroic fashion....all within a setting of magic and monsters).

James (cut from blog ref. to 2nd DMG cover): "That, my friends, is what the DMG cover needs to do: make being the DM cool."

This I don't follow. This later cover is hardly the depiction of a cool DM (at least I hope not, looks like some old-fogey perked up on viagra watching a gate).
Now, the truely coooool DM is represented by the demon-looking bady grabbing the half naked chick on the cover of the first DMG (preparing to TPK the suckers). Action baby...give me action, high adventure, the stuff of glory. As DM you play the monsters, and the funnest for the DM are the truely awsome (and that my friend, is what the Sutherland cover is saying to the fledgling DM about to cut his teeth: "its good to be DM" )

[T. Foster]

I love Sutherland's art. I think it was a perfect fit for the hobbyist era of the game. I'll take his rushed, technically deficient work over the comic-book-y stylings of Jeff Dee or Bill Willingham 7 days a week and twice on Sunday (not to mention other early 80s mainstays DSL, Roslof, and Stephen Sullivan, none of whose work I can stand (except for the DSL pic on p. 68 of the DMG, which is brilliant, but that's literally the only piece I've ever seen by him that I liked)). It's full of spirit and flavor and IMO captures the "soul of D&D" just about perfectly (especially when taken in combination with the art of Trampier, Tom Wham, and Erol Otus, each of whom captures a different aspect of the D&D experience -- Trampier is the dark fairytale, Tom Wham is the joking around, Otus is the weird phantasmagoric shit, Sutherland is straight-up swords & sorcery adventure).

TSR chose to go in a different, slicker, more commercial direction with their art c. 1983 (or perhaps just finally had the money to buy the art they always wanted) and Sutherland no longer fit in with that direction (though there was still room for occasional small interior pieces, like in the MM2 and DSG). Debating which of these styles is "better" is pointless, because they're completely different -- I mean, is there any question that Elmore, Easley, Parkinson, Beauvais, etc. got paid a whole lot more than Sutherland did? I can certainly recognize that the Easley DMG and MM covers are technically far superior to the Sutherland covers to the point that there's really no meaningful comparison to be made between them -- but I still like the Sutherland pieces better, because they engages my imagination more and better represent the game I want to play.

I can understand why TSR went the direction they did (obviously there was a lot more money to be made there) and, to be honest, if they hadn't gone in that direction chances are pretty good that I (first gaming purchase = 1983 Elmore-cover Basic Set) would never have discovered the game, but I still like the earlier, hobbyist version better. (And considering that in large part this site is dedicated to glorifying the hobbyist era over the commercial era it shouldn't really come as any surprise that most of us feel the same way and prefer the hobbyist art over the commercial art just as much as we do the hobbyist rules over the commercial rules.)

[JCBoney]

... none of whose work I can stand (except for the DSL pic on p. 68 of the DMG, which is brilliant, but that's literally the only piece I've ever seen by him that I liked)). It's full of spirit and flavor and IMO captures the "soul of D&D" just about perfectly

I actually used that in a dungeon once.

I can understand why TSR went the direction they did (obviously there was a lot more money to be made there) and, to be honest, if they hadn't gone in that direction chances are pretty good that I (first gaming purchase = 1983 Elmore-cover Basic Set) would never have discovered the game, but I still like the earlier, hobbyist version better. (And considering that in large part this site is dedicated to glorifying the hobbyist era over the commercial era it shouldn't really come as any surprise that most of us feel the same way and prefer the hobbyist art over the commercial art just as much as we do the hobbyist rules over the commercial rules.)

Foster, that hits along something I've said for quite some time now: the earlier game material (70s and coming into the 80s) has the feel of stuff created by gamers for gamers. It's like what the cool kids on the other side of town are doing, and you want in on it. Likewise, you read EGG's DMG, and it's full of experience from his own games. On the other hand, no version of D&D since (with the exception of Moldvay/Cook D&D) ever gave me that feeling again. In short, I always felt I was being sold something instead of being let in on something cool.

The art follows that idea. I'd rather see a technically inferior piece that illustrates the game and the action possible than a technically superior piece of a portrait of adventurers.

[JRT]

Debating which of these styles is "better" is pointless, because they're completely different -- I mean, is there any question that Elmore, Easley, Parkinson, Beauvais, etc. got paid a whole lot more than Sutherland did? I can certainly recognize that the Easley DMG and MM covers are technically far superior to the Sutherland covers to the point that there's really no meaningful comparison to be made between them -- but I still like the Sutherland pieces better, because they engages my imagination more and better represent the game I want to play.

I can understand why TSR went the direction they did (obviously there was a lot more money to be made there) and, to be honest, if they hadn't gone in that direction chances are pretty good that I (first gaming purchase = 1983 Elmore-cover Basic Set) would never have discovered the game, but I still like the earlier, hobbyist version better. (And considering that in large part this site is dedicated to glorifying the hobbyist era over the commercial era it shouldn't really come as any surprise that most of us feel the same way and prefer the hobbyist art over the commercial art just as much as we do the hobbyist rules over the commercial rules.)

If this was the initial post in this thread I would have agreed 100%. I understand having a preference, and I am not trying to say that people are wrong for liking what they do. That's a personal preference, and I was not trying to argue it was wrong.

I just had a problem with people making cum hoc ergo propter hoc arguments linking the changes in game design to the success and failure of D&D--that using Elmore and others caused the game to not be aimed . In fact, I believe the better artwork got more mass attention to the game, as they were moving from the hobby shops to books distributed by random house. (There were two waves of art improvement at TSR during 1st edition--the replacement of module covers like S1, T1, and others, and then the rise of the Easley/Elmore ranks, around the same time trade dress was improved.)

I also think saying that the new wave of artists "couldn't capture the excitement of the old ones" is false or at least a subjective opinion, based on seeing examples of their own "action sequences", or saying those artists can't capture the feel or spirit of the game. Clearly all of the newer wave are capable of that style, even if it wasn't used on the covered. Saying you prefer it, that's one thing. I don't mind or argue preferences, but I'd rather debate with logic than emotion.

As far as Gary's preferences for art goes, here's his statements.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-th ... post345378

Clearly, to me, even if he didn't make the hiring decision, he did approve of things like the better trade dress and the hiring of more competent artists. (I mean he was running a business and had to make business like decisions there).

[AxeMental]

I stand by my statements:
1. the new art was chosen to appeal to a smaller rabid segment of buyers who were gaga for series and supplements most of us had no interest in (up until the mid 90s all I owned were the three core books, MM2 and FF, plus a half dozen modules, in 94 I picked up a motherload of modules dirt cheap at a used college bookstore). The fact that the late 1E and 2E art turned off EVERYONE I knew at the time (save the supergeeks with armloads of books) means something.

2. Skilled artists did not result in increasing the size of the market. Evidence suggests just the opposite. This breed was far more interested in displaying soft feathers on sticks, a family portait style adventuring group with no real fluid action (high realism and over detail tends to make things look stiff, thats exactly why even fine artist who do realism only develop in full detail points of focus (when you look at something in real life, at any given second usually only a small fraction of what you see is in focus, detail all over doesn't increase the realism.

BTW, I only partly agree with Foster and Semaj's "game for gamers by gamers". Check out the game stores, you'll see all the classics with art thats pretty much stayed less then ultra realistic (despite huge budgets). The problem was TSR chose to not go with the standard "Monopoly" model (which would have insured long term growth), and instead went to the "lets sell lots of books by periodically changing the core rules and making "must have" supplement books. That strategey worked short term, but couldn't last forever (as the "game" became too complex (how many suppls existed by the end), and the target market way to small).

In any event, new art circa 82'-83' would have been welcome, if it had fit. It wouldn't have to be rehash (think Frezetta-esque) that would have been fine.

A good example, look at the Conan game's artwork and compare it to 3E and 4E and you'll see how new art doesnt have to be crap art.

[tauman]

Just as my impression of the vast majority of Larry Elmore's work is that he's painting people posing in Ren Faire costumes.

- Wheggi

This post was such an epiphany! There was always something about Elmore's art that just didn't work for me and you've nailed it.

tauman

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I stand by my statements:
1. the new art was chosen to appeal to a smaller rabid segment of buyers

I think this is where you go wrong. I think the people who prefer the glossy corporate artwork and smoothed-out rules have always outnumbered (to some extent) the portion of the hobby who really appreciate the raw, unfettered artwork and gameplay that is popular at K&K. We've ALWAYS been the minority. We just got lucky that there were a few years where TSR was producing stuff that we like before the switch to mass appeal took over.

[T. Foster]

I don't agree with the notion that the revamped cover art in 1983 was a cause of the decline in D&D's popularity. While it's true (at least according to Joe Goodman) that D&D's peak sales year was 1982, I still strongly suspect that sales through at least 1985 were pretty close to that level and that when the decline did come it was due to the decline in product quality (both content-wise with uninspired modules and rulebooks and physically with hardback books that fell apart with minimal use -- UA is infamous for this because it never had a printing in the high-quality era, but all of TSR's hardbacks from 1985 on had the same cheap binding and tendency to fall apart) and lackluster marketing (IIRC TSR got burned running expensive TV ads for their flop Indiana Jones game c. 1984 and thereafter pretty much gave up on marketing the game outside of its existing fanbase, with even the once-ubiquitous comic book ads disappearing).

If anything, I'd guess that the attractive and classy Elmore and Easley cover art (at least for the first-wave 1983 releases (the PH, MM, DMG, MM2, L&L, and the Basic & Expert Sets) -- both of their work IMO got worse and less interesting over time and I can't think of a single piece by either one of them post about 1986 that I don't dislike) helped prolong D&D's period of quasi-mainstream popularity, rather than precipitating its decline.

[AxeMental]

I stand by my statements:
1. the new art was chosen to appeal to a smaller rabid segment of buyers

I think this is where you go wrong. I think the people who prefer the glossy corporate artwork and smoothed-out rules have always outnumbered (to some extent) the portion of the hobby who really appreciate the raw, unfettered artwork and gameplay that is popular at K&K. We've ALWAYS been the minority. We just got lucky that there were a few years where TSR was producing stuff that we like before the switch to mass appeal took over.

Thats certainly true now (and for the last 2 decades, espl with the computer game market going gangbuster), but in 1981? 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). When I started playing until post UA I can't remember one person ever doing anything but praising the DMG and PH covers (so I find the whole topic pretty bizzare). Once TSR figured out that silent dweeb was the one at the table that would buy anything with TSR on the label, $$$$ signs flashed in corporates eyes and the shift went full force to making this minority the target market (basically dumping the rest of us). Suddenly it became paramount to produce art that accentuated what they liked about the game and what they would buy (series of books and supporting modules with established characters). This brand of player sat around and fantasized about how his character looked rather then what his character did. At least thats exactly how I remember it going down (others may have experianced the change differently). "Think of the return on our investment", must have been the only thought in the corporate snakes greedy little heads) the longevity of the game/brand (or the value of the game as something to be protected) be damned -it was about the now, what profit our we making this quarter. This shift was a short term boom but a long term bust. And it was the artwork on the covers (and the slick layout) that was one of the main driving engines of this paradigm shift (which caught on at all the other copycat publishers). So, TSR didn't adjust itself once it got more money to fit into the mold; once it got enough money it smashed the original mold and made a new one..."the cash cow".

Gygax I'm sure realized this change was not in the best interest of his original game (accounts were that he was depressed about it), I suspect he just did what he always does...makes the best of it "yeah, UA is great; I really love the new DMG cover" whatever it took to keep the company from tanking is what he probably told himself. Plus, he didn't seem like he wanted to make waves (dispite what I've heard over the years, I think Gygax was a really nice guy...too nice probably. This trend seemed to follow him up until his last year with the Trolls. I don't knock him, what choice did he have).

But yeah, I think its fair to say TSR created the road to more and more slick realism they did not follow it , afterall they invented the FRPG catagory. I'm cetain, the majority of 81' players (13-20 year olds) would not have wanted the shift to slick and graphic realism that was to come, not as I remember it).

It was 30 years of building up that dweeb market threw 2E and 3E (and of course the other FRPGs and FRPG based computer games) that has solidifide this expectation. But I'd never say that in 79-81 we, at K&K, were the minority. We were just the "average" in a tight standard deviation.

[JRT]

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).

[blackprinceofmuncie]

Thats certainly true now (and for the last 2 decades, espl with the computer game market going gangbuster), but in 1981? 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).

It's probably just a difference in age and geography, but that wasn't my experience at all. Realize that in the '81-'83 heyday I was in junior high, so I have no idea what was going on in the "grown up" world of D&D with high school and college aged players. But in my age-group, the kind of D&D we appreciate at K&K definitely wasn't the target experience my peers were looking for. For most of them, the direction the game eventually went (away from sword and sorcery tropes and into more high-fantasy Tolkienesque/Hickmanesque games with the shcnazzy artwork to go along with it) seemed to be the direction they preferred.

[AxeMental]

JRT: "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."

Nope, 1E AD&D was played by the cool kids as well as the average and dweebs (the dweebs were the minority). They were the power gamers who sat at your table, or the ones that shouted out idiotic stuff. The ones you didn't invite if girls were going to be around.

As for being dweebs now? I don't see any difference discussing AD&D then discussing baseball or football for hours over beer and pretzles, or 100s of hours watching NFL or college ball games (except it takes less time), "normal" is what the majority spend their time doing. I find what the majority do alot of the time to be completely mad (who the hell was watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer for instance? ). Anyhow, I think you'll find the majority of guys who post at K&K are pretty normal well balanced people, with wives, kids, hobbies that involve the outdoors, etc. Now, go to Enworld or DF, and its a different matter (those are the the remnants of the dweeby 2tards I was talking about). Anyhow, speak for yourself.

[AxeMental]

Thats certainly true now (and for the last 2 decades, espl with the computer game market going gangbuster), but in 1981? 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).

It's probably just a difference in age and geography, but that wasn't my experience at all. Realize that in the '81-'83 heyday I was in junior high, so I have no idea what was going on in the "grown up" world of D&D with high school and college aged players. But in my age-group, the kind of D&D we appreciate at K&K definitely wasn't the target experience my peers were looking for. For most of them, the direction the game eventually went (away from sword and sorcery tropes and into more high-fantasy Tolkienesque/Hickmanesque games with the shcnazzy artwork to go along with it) seemed to be the direction they preferred.

Yeah, its funny how a few years can make a big difference (when its on either side of a paradigm shift).

Foster: "I don't agree with the notion that the revamped cover art in 1983 was a cause of the decline in D&D's popularity."

-Your right of course (didn't mean to say art was soley responsible for decline in sales only a part of the equasion), but the DMG cover was one of the first signs to us players a change was occuring (and we didn't like the flavor). The first pinhole in the dam, which eventually opened into a huge crack. If the quality of the product had stayed true (and the core books the same inside), I think the art could have probably been looked over (even by the majority) and the game would have stabalized. I know I certainly gave it my best shot to hold my nose back then (just as I did with 3E).

PS. On the issue of the millions of players being fad players only, I don't entirely disagree. I think a percentage would have moved on to new games. But certainly, TSR could have held a huge number (as other games have like RISK). The course they should have taken (as I've stated before) is one of creating other simple games based on the D&D system (so no learning curve would be required) (so the stats, the tables, the damage) but for sci-fi, CoC, etc. TSR could have easily bought out any competition.

[Terrex]

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.).

Once again, I'm with Axe on this. Additionally, it's bad business to turn your back on the core, and market only to the people who are in it for fad. By the way, the updating of the trade dress, the new covers of T1 and S3 you mentioned in an earlier post were real turn-offs among my group. I remember regretting having the new T1 cover until I replaced it with the superior original Trampier cover via ebay years later.

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. For my part, I was a good athlete in grade school and high school. I had a great well-rounded college experience. Now, I'm successful in investment finance. Guess what, I've played AD&D the entire time. Many are surprised, as I really don't hide it even when it surfaces in business. But really it is not been an issue. Those that do judge based on involvement in this hobby I just let it go and attribute it to ignorance. I do, however, take a little exception to people in the hobby that embrace this and help grow this notion. Personally, I'm glad to be a part of this hobby and actually a little proud of it -- sure the hell beats wasting time with TV, the vast majority of Hollywood movies, reading People Mag, (this list real could go on and on).

[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).

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, more broadly, I can say a business direction that ignores and alienates a significant portion of a firm's longest term customer base is not a good one. 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.

While, much of this is conjecture and it doesn't seem like minds will change, I can state one thing for absolute certain: TSR lost my gaming groups' business based on the precise reasons Axe is hammering away at in this thread.