When people ask me what I mean when I say that AD&D Second Edition was not well served by its art, I think of illustrations like this one, which appears in the 2e Dungeon Master's Guide.
When people ask me what I mean when I say that AD&D Second Edition was not well served by its art, I think of illustrations like this one, which appears in the 2e Dungeon Master's Guide.
haha or the monstrous compendium Giant Slug which inexplicably had human teeth, and what a grill that was.
ReplyDeleteOT i had the plastic this was modeled after. iirc was some sort of battle mat that came with a bunch of others.
"Dimensions for Children" toy company produced multiple playsets under the "Dragonriders of the Styx" branding in the 80s. They featured 50-54mm plastic knights, wizards, Sutherland orcs, lamasu, swamp/lava men, vacformed castle walls, vinyl playmats, and some cardboard cut out accessories, made mainly in Hong Kong I think. TSR sued them I understand, after which they made the same orcs, but with the face part of the mold cavity filled in...faceless orcs...
DeleteThe art for the original 2nd Edition core books is marvelous not for its quality, not even for its lack thereof, but for its pure inconsistency.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very good observation.
DeleteConsistently inconsistent, to be sure.
DeleteI'm as much of a fan of pig-faced orcs as anyone, but that is not the best example of the classic look by any means.
ReplyDeleteJames, I have the same complaint about 2nd Edition art. However, on this particular illustration, I am struggling to see your point. I have pulled up the 1E Monster Manual and compared, and they look quite similar. What am I missing? Are you saying that this is a aberration from the uninspiring art of 2E? Based on what M.L. Martin says above, I think that is what you are trying to say.
ReplyDeleteI simply think it's a terrible piece of art.
DeleteYeah, I agree - for me to illustrate the point of 2E art, it is those trading cards they published (which are mostly reprints of existing blasé art pieces). Most of them are bland fantasy pieces and they don't inspire me want to play. It is lukewarm and blah.
DeleteThe similarity is the point. It's an uninspired copy of the MM orc down to the polearm and round-topped shield, with a squashed face, unclear lines, and incongrous Art Nouveau (or pseudo-Japanese) framing.
DeleteIt was the strange photorealistic pictures of what look like random, average, people dressed as elves etc. which really bothered me.
ReplyDeleteAww, he's kinda cute. Yeah, early 2e art can be hit or miss. Looking at the Monstrous Manual, it can be wild the difference from one page to the next, especially when the next art is DiTerlizzi.
ReplyDeleteHe is cute and that's part of the problem for me, I think. I don't want my orcs cute.
DeleteTotally reasonable, I just kinda want a plushie of him.
DeleteHe looks a little like a halfling in disguise. I think a lot of the early 2e art is sorta caught in a weird space where it's in many ways a technical step above a lot of 1e art, but it still feels... crude, in a way but without the almost underground comix charm of the 1e stuff, and then later 2e with the significantly larger art budgets being put next to the original art does them no favours.
It has always seemed really odd that 2e era TSR had the best pool of artists in D&D's history and yet the art in the core rulebooks was so bad.
ReplyDeleteSorry. I think the best pool of artists in D&D's history was Erol Otus, Dave Trampier, Bill Willingham, Jim Roslof and Jeff Dee, with Darlene on maps! :)
Delete