Based on the reader response to the "A (Very Brief) Pictorial History" posts, this has proven to be a very popular series, which pleases me. With the publication of today's post on halflings, I've come to the end of those I'd originally had in mind to examine. However, I'm open to the idea of continuing the series, if there's still interest in my doing so. To do that, though, I need suggestions. About which Dungeons & Dragons monsters would you like to see pictorial history posts?
As a reminder, here are the posts I've done so far:
As you can see, there aren't even ten posts in this series, so there is plenty of scope for additional ones. My interest thus far has been in humanoid monsters and races, since they're often the ones whose appearances have varied the most over the years and that's fascinating. Of course, when their appearances don't vary, that's equally interesting and also worthy of examination.
Before making any suggestions of possible additions, keep one thing in mind: the monster in question has to be commonplace enough to have appeared in multiple illustrations over the course of the TSR era of D&D. That means you won't be seeing "A (Very) Pictorial History of the Water Weird" or "A (Very) Brief Pictorial History of the Brain Mole" anytime soon – unless there really is some vast store of illustrations I've somehow overlooked. Stick to well used and iconic monsters and there's a better chance I can be swayed to write about them.
 |
| No – don't even ask. |
Do it!!! I'm asking even though you said no!
ReplyDeleteHobgoblins could be interesting. There probably aren't enough pictures of ogres...gnomes, maybe?
ReplyDeleteI'm enjoying this series. How about the titular dragon?
ReplyDeleteAlso hobgoblins, half-orcs, gnomes, gelatinous cubes, beholders, giants and mimics please!
+1 for dragons and giants!
DeleteDidn't James already do the mimic back in January?
DeleteI did so a post about mimics, though it wasn't exhaustive. I'll have to dig around a bit to see how many TSR era mimic illos there are.
DeleteIt would be especially interesting to see how many non-treasure chest mimics have had art done of them. You've got this incredible shapeshifter are yet they've become best known by far for a single form, to the point where any chest triggers paranoia as easily as innocuous statues do. How many chair, bed, bookcase, etc. mimics have there been from TSR?
DeleteOwlbears.
ReplyDeleteLizardmen. Always had a soft spot for them after the Saltmarsh series.
ReplyDeleteGreat idea!
Deletekuo-toa and drow
ReplyDeleteLich.
ReplyDeleteDwarves. Lizardmen.
ReplyDeleteGhouls
ReplyDeleteThe monsters they refused to release into cc/ogl such as beholders and yuan-ti.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the giths - and with it how the history of them has changed along with the pictorial depictions.
ReplyDeleteReading through your posts on Drow and Elves landed me in a rabbit hole following which I discovered that Gygax's protestations that D&D was not greatly influenced by Tolkien have more support than I'd considered.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Demons/Devils as they have had significant evolution. Or perhaps the Beholders as, while non-humanoid, have had significant evolution and are cross-platform (plus IP, so provides an opportunity for in-house only commentary?).
ReplyDeleteMind flayers seem like a good choice. Beholders too. Up above there's a suggestion for the gith and I'd also be interested; the githyanki for whatever reason seemed to land better with people and developed their style well before the poor githzerai, who I don't think I've seen a good picture of prior to 3e. Sahuagin maybe, they're apparently iconic enough to have gotten a Monstrous Arcana sourcebook/adventure series in 2e.
ReplyDeleteAs another poster before me, I'd also like to see a retrospective about the Kuo-toa - D&D's take on Lovecraft's "deep ones".
ReplyDeleteAboleth, Rakshasa, Giants, Otyugh
ReplyDeleteJames did post 'something' about the various illustrations of the Rakshasa before.
Deletehttps://grognardia.blogspot.com/2024/01/rakshasa-riddles.html
Mimics, Beholders
ReplyDeleteI've enjoyed this series. I think the MMs and similar products give a never ending supply of critters to trace over the years. I was just thinking of wraiths. That's one of many.
ReplyDeleteGnomes.
ReplyDeleteDwarves. Definitely dwarves.
ReplyDeleteUNDEAD AND DEMON/DEVILS STUDIES
ReplyDeleteThere have been a tremendous variety of Beholder looks over the years, even ignoring the WotC-era proliferation. Eye, Tyrant and Spelljammer both took the concept of them being genetically unstable and ran with it, to the point where there's really no "wrong" way to draw a beholder any more as long as you stick to a big eye, a mouth, and ten eyestalks on something roughly spherical. And even when you diverge from them it's just some kind of subspecies like the spectator.
ReplyDeleteHard to find a monster type that's had more different art styles in the TSR era, although weirdly WotC's bland art direction has led to a bit more visual similarity even as their powers have diversified. Re-coloring the same model is not being original even if it is a very common ploy in the toy industry, Hasbro.
Demons & Devils would be a good one; what with TSR's whole Baatezu & Tanar'ri flip for awhile (Daemons also - with Yugoloth rename). I'm pretty sure the art styles changed a few times as well.
ReplyDeleteAs others have already mentioned, I would love to see something about the various 'Demons & Devils' in D&D. Especially because I know almost nothing about them. Other than Balor (which if I understand correctly is sort-of based on Tolkiens Balrog), I can think of nothing else.
ReplyDeleteIllithids
ReplyDeleteUMBER HULK!
ReplyDelete