Friday, August 23, 2024

Lament for a Lost Age

One of my most popular posts is "The Ages of D&D," which I wrote more than fifteen(!) years ago, on January 11, 2009. In it, I attempted to sort the history of Dungeons & Dragons into a series of "ages" – Golden, Silver, Bronze, etc. I was still fairly new to the blogging game when I wrote that post and, while I largely stand behind its conclusions, I now concede that I relied more on hazy memories and intuitions than on anything approaching "research." Perhaps one day I'll offer a more considered discussion of the Ages of D&D, complete with evidence to support my assertions, but, for the purposes of the present post, I'm going to go with the categories and timeframes I established back in 2009.

In the original post, I assert that the Golden Age of D&D lasted almost a decade, from 1974 until 1983. In retrospect, I'm not entirely sure why I chose 1983 as the end point of the Golden Age. My guess is that it I saw the arrival of Dragonlance in 1984 as marking a definitive break with the way the game had previously been marketed and played. Even so, if you read my original post, you'll see that I allow for the possibility that the Golden Age actually ended somewhere 1979 and 1981, with either the completion of AD&D or the publication of Moldvay's Basic Set being important milestones, albeit for different reasons. Even then, I think I recognized that the game had already changed by the time I first encountered it in late 1979 and indeed that I might never have encountered it at all had it not been for those changes.
I've previously discussed the foundational role played by David C. Sutherland III in giving birth to the esthetics of Dungeons & Dragons. Sutherland's grounded, vaguely historical illustrations were, for several years, the face of D&D. During the three-year period between 1975 and 1978, Sutherland and Dave Trampier were together responsible for nearly all the art that appeared in TSR products, not just Dungeons & Dragons but other games, too, like Gamma World and Boot Hill. Not bad for a couple of "talented amateurs." is it?

By now, you can probably guess where I'm going with this: the end of the Golden Age is marked by a shift in the game's esthetics away from the extraordinary ordinary artwork of Sutherland and Trampier and toward something else – just what is a different question. Nevertheless, consider that, in 1979, TSR began to expand its stable of artists, hiring Erol Otus (whose TSR artwork debuted in later printings of the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide) and David "Diesel" LaForce (ditto). The next year, in 1980, TSR added Jeff Dee, Jim Roslof, and Bill Willingham as well. The cumulative effect of their artistic talents is unmistakable.
The change in the look of Dungeons & Dragons products in the aftermath of hiring these five artists cannot be denied. Pick up almost any D&D book or module published between 1979 and 1981 and compare it to its predecessors. Earlier products have a stiff, staid, "serious" look to them that, to my eyes at least, shows some continuity with the look and feel of the historical wargames out of which the hobby grew. By contrast, the D&D books and modules from the '79 to '81 period are bright, bold, and dynamic. They are clearly the work of different artists with very different esthetic sensibilities.

These sensibilities ranged from the comic book inflected art of Dee and Willingham to the more restrained heroic action of Roslof and the underground comix stylings of Otus. Whether this shift was "better" or "worse" than what preceded it is immaterial. What matters is that it happened and it denotes the beginning of a new phase in the history of Dungeons & Dragons – the mass marketing of the game to an audience beyond college age and older wargamers whose points of reference were the pulp fantasy authors and stories that I've attempted to draw attention to over the years.
I entered the hobby right smack in the middle of this period of D&D history. After my initial exposure to Dungeons & Dragons through the Holmes Basic Set and In Search of the Unknown, many of my earliest memories of the game are filtered through the artwork of Dee, Otus, Willingham, and the other newcomers to TSR. While only a few of my Top 10 Illustrations of the Golden Age – bear in mind I wrote those posts before I started to re-evaluate my thoughts on the matter – are the work of these artists, that does nothing to diminish the impact they had not just on me but on D&D's presentation to the wider world. For a large cohort of new players, the 1979–1980 hires defined Dungeons & Dragons in much the same way that Sutherland and Trampier did before them.

But, like all such periods of roiling creativity, it did not last long. By 1982, many of these artists no longer worked at TSR and those that remained, like LaForce, shifted over to cartography, doing illustrations only sporadically. New artists, like Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley, appeared on the scene around the same time, lending their considerable talents to depicting the fantastic realism of the dawning Silver Age. Lots of readers slightly younger than me no doubt have similar feelings of affection toward this next group of artists, as they should, but, for me, many of my fondest memories of Dungeons & Dragons will be forever intertwined with that first "new" generation of artists whose arrival on the scene coincided with my own.

26 comments:

  1. Dragonlance was the dawn of the Skidmark Age of D&D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I nearly snarfed a this dude! Too funny!!! I really enjoyed the first two trillys way back in the day... but it marked a huge change in the game.

      Delete
  2. You tagged Jim Holloway for this post but failed to actually mention him. I believe he started working with TSR sometime in 1981, and I would contend his impact was as great as Easley and Elmore, and even greater in the broader gaming industry. He largely defined the look of Star Frontiers, Spelljammer, Paranoia, all of the Pacesetter rpgs, and Tales From the Floating Vagabond, as well as having a major influence on the whole Battletech/Mechwarrior franchise throughout the 80s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right that I forgot to mention him. I was always a fan of his work – I wrote a whole post about that previously – but, in my memories of this era, he didn't loom as large as the others. I suspect it's because, in some ways, he was more in keeping with Sutherland's style and thus didn't seem as big of a break from what had gone before.

      Delete
  3. Great post, James.

    The new wave of artists you list (Dee, Otus, Roslof and Willingham) combined with the older work of Sutherland, Trampier, and Wham(!) that was still ever-present due to their illustration of the oft-used, essential core books of PHB, DMG, and MM, to form the look and feel of Dungeons and Dragons in my mind that has lasted ever since.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Words are rational. Art works on a deeper, emotional level.

    And like the Marvel comics bullpen of the silver age (Kirby, Ditko, Buscema, Romita, Colan, Severin, etc), or Mad Magazine's usual gang of idiots (Drucker, Davis, Jaffee, Martin, Aragones, Prohias, etc), this team of TSR artists, each with a different style and perspective, together created a unique, familiar, fun, emotional experience for fans that became the D&D brand.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post, one that conjures up all sorts of questions. You're right that we should maybe look more to the art rather than product content for a change in the ages, after all isn't that what antiquitarians do?

    I came in at the tail end of Moldvay and therefore the art in there defines my D&D, especially Otus. That image you've used above is wacky, dangerous and fantastic (even camp) D&D, whereas the artists who provided fantastic realism were clean-edged and grounded.

    As an adult I have a real soft spot for the B1 images and would also suggest that Jean Wells' work deserves a small mention too, particularly that of the original B3.

    Is there a database/catalogue of TSR D&D art?
    Has there been an academic study of TSR D&D art?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same for me: Otus was the definitive look of D&D, although the cover of Tomb illustrating the lich partying with Magnum PI and Captain Kirk took a close second (I am not an academic, so I don't recall who drew that thing) and we always called the lich "Redline" owing to his outfit . . . effit, who cares . . . it was a BMX reference.

      You certainly contributed more to the cultivation of the world on that 11th day of January 2009 than I did. Records indicate we left the gas (logs) on all night after draining two bottles of Catena. Thankfully the stove was a cruddy cooktop, or we would have lit up the tangerine sky at dawn.

      Delete
    2. Looks more like The Mighty Thor than Captain Kirk to me...

      Delete
    3. I was maybe eleven and one guy in the neighborhood had a swimming pool (the same guy with a stepfather who was in the exotic vehicle business, with black, silver and white Ferrari(s) scattered around garage and drive). We'd hit the pool and return indoors for the afternoon tv fare. Mag PI and Star Trek were steadies. I think one of my buddies thought that coverboy looked like Peter Tork, speaking of afternoon tv fare. That guy became a doctor in Florida. Go figure.

      Delete
    4. @Jacob72 I don't know about academic study of D&D art, but the Eye of the Beholder documentary is very enlightening, and worth a watch if you haven't seen it. It has interviews with artists such as Dee, Otus, Wham, LaForce, Jaquays, Darlene, Easley and Elmore. I picked it up digitally via Apple but is presumably available elsewhere. Here's the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkn5JCRBQOU

      Delete
    5. Here it is, free with ads: https://amzn.to/2Hm2DYz

      Delete
  6. I too started during the Golden Age and have fond memories of the original G2 cover in blue that defined D&D for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. interesting point. a shift to more money as well

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually, Otus's TSR artwork debuted in The Dragon, where he drew the first renditions of the anhkheg and remorhaz (which are definitive; Tramp's pictures in the MM are based on them). A lot of the expansion in TSR's art department in 1979 comes from a desperate need for more art more quickly. LaForce was pulled out of the shipping department (!) because Sutherland found out he could draw. The artist roster of Deities and Demigods is a good example of this need. DDG needed a lot of pictures (one per entry, plus others to fill spaces; more then the MM!); consequently, even the entire new art staff wasn't enough to get it done. The book has freelance contributions from Darlene, Jeff Lanners, Jennell Jaquays, and Eymoth (who has an interesting history as a freelance TSR artist). I don't think any other TSR book or module has art from so many different people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. All these art-related posts have made me curious about the individual artists' methods. A lot of the Golden Age color illustrations share a particular color palette and have a certain "look" that the Silver Age artists lack. For example, Elmore pretty obviously works in oils or acrylics, while the Roslof and Willingham stuff might be ... gouache? Dr Ph. Martin's dyes? Poster paint? Erol Otus's color work has a 'chalky' quality I associate with either gouache or pastels, but I can't be sure. Beyond the media used, I've noticed that both Otus's and Trampier's black-and-white pieces reflect a strong sense of design -- their Monster Manual vignettes look like woodcuts. I'd love to know if this was conscious or just a happy accident. Trampier in particular seems to have been highly technically proficient, capable of modulating his style according to context. It's unfortunate that his personal crisis - whatever it was - made him leave illustration altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The early visual designs were of a piece with classic fantasy sketches found in Weird Tales, with no cartoony suggestions. As the template of D&D evolved to take in the diverse influences like Marvel comics, Eerie and Creepy magazines, and Franzetta and Vallejo, I feel it gained a lot in accessibility at the cost of seriousness. Ideally, TSR could have continued along both paths simultaneously, which would have appealed to a wider variety of play styles. But I think they were all in on one over the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Etrimyn Cat mentioned above, there was Tom Wham. His pieces often had a New Yorker cartoon feel.

      Delete
    2. Wham brought the funny to early D&D, and there was also his "Awful Green Things From Outer Space" board game. But the illustrations I recall early on, with D&D, Gamma World, and Top Secret!, were more descriptive in nature, designed to show the mushroom garden in "In Search Of The Unknown," or a sprung trap. Most illustrations I noticed were more mundane but illustrative of the game's actual mechanics, rather than splashy and vibrant.

      Delete
  11. Look at the modules published by year at the link at the end of my comment and see for yourself when it changes from the majority of them being well loved classics to these being a rare commodity: https://www.athenopolis.net/2018/04/tsr-dungeons-dragons-products-by-year.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  12. You might split the Golden Age in two, with the Golden Age being thru 1979 with the publication of the 1E DMG marking the end of publications that were intended for the original audience.

    The disappearance of James Dallas Egbert and the release of the Moldvay Basic Set mark the point at which D&D first hit the mainstream. From then until the release of Dragonlance was an experimental era of trying to design for both the original core me market and the new much wider market, and the products reflect this dichotomy.

    I would call this era the Electrum Age, as it mixes aspects of the Gold with the later Silver Age, with the Silver Age the fully post-Gygax, Story versus Adventure driven era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But there's a whole 2 years between the DMG (Jan 79) and Moldvay (Jan 81) so you have to choose one or the other as a start point. You can easily argue that DMG in 79 predates B2 (the first of what you describe) and the proportion of that category of wider market products increases up until the big change in 84. So perhaps publication of B1 until DL1? (Which is when they go all in on that strategy)

      Delete
    2. It makes so much sense to use the moniker of Electrum Age - especially since you can describe different stages of that age of having more or less gold or silver at different times (and not always in a consistent direction of 'purity'). Additionally, there's lead-up time and post-publication time to consider. Did the Electrum Age start when a certain book was published, or in the months of development before it? Did it continue (and for how long) after the publication as it affected the marketplace and everyone's basements? How much and how long did it influence subsequent publications? And what was going on behind the scenes influence?

      Delete
    3. Came here to say something similar, but James Mishler beat me to it. One could argue the golden age ended when the D&D jumped from a well-kept secret of nerddom to mainstream ... even if that jump was launched in part by James Dallas Egbert. Heck, I remember when *Parade* — as mainstream a pub as ever existed — did a cover story on the game in 1980.

      (You could even say the 'golden age' ran from 1969-1979, from the time Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson met to the final incarnation of AD&D with the DMG. Just sayin')

      At the same time, I would argue James' original take is correct: that 1983 marks the real shift into another era. That also coincides with the first 'collapse' of the video game industry, and sea change in the overall cultural environment that allowed D&D to thrive in the first place.

      Delete
  13. RPG art can be a lot like music in that the stuff that you see and like when you first start really seeing and exploring it has the most influence over your tastes going forward. For a lot of people fantasy art & rpgs are defined by Sutherland/Trampier/Otus/Dee/Willingham because that's who was drawing for TSR when they first started playing and fell in love with the game. For others, it was Elmore/Easley/Caldwell/Parkinson. For still others it might be Brom & DeTerlizzi.

    Preferring that style doesn't make the others bad, just shows how the influence of the enjoyment of the game during formative times influences preferences for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete