Monday, July 7, 2025

Dungeons & Dreamscapes

I’ve often said I feel fortunate to have discovered Dungeons & Dragons when I did, before the dead hand of brandification settled over the game and drained it of the wild, untamed esthetic that once made it so visually compelling and culturally strange. In the years before D&D became a polished entertainment “property,” its visual identity was a chaotic collage of influences drawn from unexpected sources: psychedelic counterculture, turn-of-the-century Art Nouveau, underground comix, pulp magazines, and outsider art. Monsters leered with extra eyes and boneless limbs, while dungeons sprawled like fever dreams. There was a visual lawlessness to early D&D (and to roleplaying games more broadly) that mirrored the creative freedom of its rules. That freedom invited players to imagine fantasy worlds that were not simply adventurous, but also surreal, grotesque, and deeply personal.

These thoughts came back to me recently while flipping through some of the Dungeons & Dragons materials I encountered shortly after I took my first tentative steps into the hobby. Looking at them now, decades later, I’m struck not just by their content, but also by their form. Much of the art did not resemble anything I had seen before. It was crude at times, even amateurish by the standards of commercial illustration. Yet, it was also evocative in a way that transcended technique. These images did not so much depict a fantasy world as suggest one, obliquely, symbolically, even irrationally. Many felt like fragments from dreams or relics from some lost visionary tradition and, on some level, they were.

That tradition was a subterranean one, largely outside the orbit of mainstream fantasy art. Psychedelic poster designers, Symbolist painters, and zinesters working on the margins of the counterculture all contributed, consciously or not, to the strange visual DNA of early roleplaying games. Before branding demanded consistency and legibility, Dungeons & Dragons was porous enough to absorb all of it. The result was an esthetic that was both wildly eclectic and, paradoxically, cohesive in its weirdness. It didn’t feel like a mainstream product; it felt like artifacts from another world.

Today, it’s common to point to Tolkien as the primary visual and thematic influence on early D&D. His mark is real and unmistakable (despite what Gary Gygax wanted us to believe). However, when you examine the actual artwork that filled TSR’s products in the late 1970s and early ’80s – the era when I entered the hobby – you find yourself far from Middle-earth. Instead of noble elves and stoic rangers, you see grotesque creatures, warped anatomy, anatomical impossibilities, and alien geometries rendered in flat inks and, later, garish colors. This wasn’t the Shire. This was something older, more primal, and far stranger.

Where did this esthetic come from?

As I’ve already suggested, part of the answer lies in the psychedelic explosion of the 1960s. This was a cultural moment that sought to dissolve the boundaries between consciousness and art. Psychedelic artists like Rick Griffin and Victor Moscoso developed a visual language rooted in abstraction, distortion, and saturated color, a kind of sensory mysticism meant to evoke altered states. Concert posters and album covers became portals to other dimensions. Meanwhile, underground comix, like those of Robert Crumb or Vaughn Bodē, combined sex, satire, fantasy, and absurdism into worlds that gleefully rejected the conventions of good taste or coherent storytelling.

While Gygax and Arneson were not themselves products of this milieu, the audience they attracted often was – college students, sci-fi fans, and other oddballs shaped by the psychedelic visual environment of the late ’60s and early ’70s. I was younger than that cohort, a child in fact, not a teen or adult, but even I absorbed some of its esthetic currents. They filtered into my world through album covers, comics, cartoons, toys, and the hazy, low-fi look of the decade itself. I didn’t yet know what most of these things meant, but I nevertheless felt their strangeness. They stuck with me, shaping my imagination in ways I only later came to understand.

TSR, for its part, didn’t initially reflect these influences. Much of the earliest D&D art was traditional or utilitarian, inherited from the wargaming scene. As the game’s popularity exploded in 1979, TSR began to draw on a new crop of young illustrators, many of them influenced, directly or indirectly, by underground comix, countercultural poster art, and the lingering weirdness of the 1970s. Their work didn’t smooth out the chaos from which early D&D was born – it amplified it.

No one embodied this more than Erol Otus. His illustrations for the Basic and Expert boxed sets are among the most iconic in the history of the hobby, as well as some of the strangest. Otus’s monsters don’t just look dangerous; they look wrong, like something glimpsed in a fever or half-remembered from a dream. His color palettes are lurid, his anatomy grotesquely playful, his compositions uncanny and theatrical. His esthetic doesn’t belong to heroic fantasy. It belongs to a blacklight poster, hung next to a velvet mushroom print and a battered copy of The Teachings of Don Juan.

Otus, whether intentionally or not, brought the visual grammar of psychedelia into the core of D&D. In doing so, he captured something essential about the game: that it wasn’t just a fantastic medieval wargame; it was a tool for exploring the irrational, the liminal, the transformed. Other artists took up different parts of this same sensibility. Dave Trampier’s work, for example, especially his iconic AD&D Players Handbook cover, radiates a stillness and mystery more akin to myth or ritual than heroic adventure. Other similarly restrained pieces of early D&D likewise seem caught between worlds.

The same spirit is evident in third-party publications. Judges Guild modules are packed with crude, surreal illustrations that throb with symbolic weirdness. David Hargrave’s Arduin Grimoire goes even further. It's a deranged collage of cybernetic demons, magical diagrams, flying sharks, and bizarre maps that reads like D&D filtered through Zardoz. It’s no coincidence that Hargrave gave Otus his first professional credit. They were kindred spirits, working not within a genre, but along the outermost fringes of it.

Beyond psychedelia, another artistic thread ran through the background: the ornate, esoteric elegance of Art Nouveau. The flowing lines of Aubrey Beardsley, the sacred geometry of Alphonse Mucha, and the decadent mysticism of Gustav Klimt all haunt the margins of early RPG art. Beardsley’s illustrations for Salome or Le Morte d’Arthur look, at times, like direct ancestors to early D&D's depictions of witches, sorcerers, and demons. These fin de siècle influences were rediscovered during the 1960s counterculture and found their way, through posters, tarot decks, and zines, into the strange visual stew of early roleplaying games.

Even the dungeon itself is shaped by this visionary impulse. Early dungeons aren’t realistic structures. They’re mythic underworlds. They don’t obey architectural logic but symbolic logic, filled with teleporters, talking statues, secret doors, and fountains of infinite snakes. They’re not places so much as thresholds. To descend into a dungeon is to cross into a space where transformation of one kind or another is not only possible but expected.

That’s why so many early modules have such power decades later. Quasqueton, Castle Amber, White Plume Mountain, The Ghost Tower of Inverness – they’re not just combat arenas. They’re almost spiritual landscapes, mythic spaces presented as keyed maps. The artwork used to depict them conjures a mood, a worldview, a sense of mystery, inviting players to see fantasy not as genre convention, but almost as a moment of altered perception.

However, as D&D became a brand, this strangeness was steadily scrubbed away. Style guides were introduced. Idiosyncratic artists gave way to professionals. The game’s visuals became cleaner, more representational, more standardized. With that polish came a flattening of the imagination. D&D no longer looked like a vision; it looked like product.

This, I think, is what so many of us in the early days of the Old School Renaissance were reaching for, even if we couldn’t name it at the time. We were looking for the weirdness again, for the ecstatic, chaotic, sometimes unsettling energy that marked those early years. We remembered when fantasy didn’t have to be safe or heroic or respectable. We remembered when D&D looked like a door to Somewhere Else.

That's because fantasy, properly understood, is not an esthetic. It is a vision of the world tilted just enough to let the impossible shine through. Like the pioneers of science fiction and fantasy, the early artists of Dungeons & Dragons understood this. Otus understood it. Trampier understood it. So did Beardsley, Griffin, and countless anonymous illustrators working on mimeographed zines and early rulebooks in the 1970s. They weren’t just drawing monsters or dungeons. They weren’t just illustrating rules. They were revealing other worlds.

24 comments:

  1. A fascinating post, and one I agree with in its essence, in large part because it exposes why I often disagree about the particulars; I appreciate the art of Trampier and Otus et al, but it's the slightly later artists -- the ones often most reviled in old-school circles -- that most catch my imagination. The Elmores and Caldwells, the Parkinsons and Easleys. I believe you've touched on the reasons for that.

    I'm a bit younger than many of the "old school" crowd; I was still years away from being *born* in 1974, much less from playing Dungeons & Dragons. While I grew up reading fantasies as well, they were not the gritty and dangerous fantasies of Howard, Lovecraft, and Smith, but the lighter, more comic fantasies of Robert Asprin, Piers Anthony, and Roald Dahl. As such, I'm more in tune with artwork that depicts the fantastical less as alien and dangerous, and more as wondrous and beautiful.

    Which is a lot of the reason I owe deep thanks to the OSR in general, and to you specifically. It's been a wonderful force of growth for my imagination; I never could understand why people would prefer 1e to 2e, when 2e was so much more in tune with my aesthetic sense. I've gained a great deal of insight into it, and a new appreciation for it as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't agree more - I'm also someone who loves the later artists but has come to really appreciate the earlier ones too, not least due to this blog. Another very insightful article, James, and I'm amazed by the similarity between some early D&D interior illustrations and the work of Beardsley - thank you for joining the dots.

      Delete
    2. There's a definite shift towards more 'grounded' medievalism and high fantasy in the early 80s, and it's not entirely attributable to the 'newcomers'--Unearthed Arcana's cavalier and social status rules are part of the same spirit.

      Delete
    3. I'm not the grogiest of the grognards, but I did buy Fiend Folio forward within weeks of release, and...

      The work of the "big 4" (E/E/C/P) was a huge reinforcing draw for me. As much as I liked the "drawings" in the red and blue sets and the original 3 hardbounds (I missed out on the original original!), most of them were at the skill level of some of my friends (who I now realize were really pretty talented).

      The MMII cover forever sticks in my mind as the "WOW!" moment on the art side of things. By 83 I had already seen the tricklings of that quality art in Dragon (a couple of covers from 81 and a slew starting in 82), reflecting the "grown up" styles that reflected book covers and edgy cheesecake like the Brothers Hildebrandt and Boris. But the Easley cover on MMII felt like an arrival.

      The line art still has a place, but the skill and depth of the "oils" by those guys - and others - is the defining art for me. The underground comic style still worked for the smaller game companies, and the cramped style that I always affiliated with British games gave them a nice flavor, but meeting the four artists who made paintings mean something to me will always be one of my fondest D&D memories.

      Delete
  2. Thank goodness for the OGL and the following OSR. These two factors combined mean that although official D&D products are a bit too commercial and branded, there is an outlet for the mad, the weird, the phantasmagorical and the illogical. I also like the way you describe it in terms of Law and Chaos, with WotC imposing its law and corporate thinking on official D&D but beyond the borderlands, there is the wild chaos of small presses, amateur hobbyists and bloggers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Terrific post. As a kid starting out with the Basic Set, D&D stood out from everything, as did Gamma World--the work was crude in a lot of ways, but immensely evocative, like Ditko's work on Dr. Strange or late-model Jack Kirby or the bizarre psychedelic Lovecraft covers of the 60s/70s. Everything was weird--in the sense of weird fiction, grotesque, alienating, otherworldly, desperate and dangerous. Erol Otus is moving and inviting in a way that, say, a 2nd Edition heroic scene (imo) can never be. At some point, I sold my 1st Ed books, regretted it later, and went to get new versions--only to discover they had been replaced by the slicker 2nd Ed. Without even looking at the rules themselves, I knew this was a different game that wasn't "fun" anymore. Or at least it wasn't for me.

    DCC's artwork captures some of that vibe--it makes the now-familiar concept of adventuring seem different and dangerous again. I wonder, though, if young players today get the same vibe from that kind of art anymore--or if there's a completely different aesthetic that would make D&D seem really otherworldly for them. (As opposed to a pen-and-paper videogame or anime.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you're spot on about branding. TSR really tried to brand itself from 1983 onward. You had the cartoon, action figures, etc. but it still fell short. It feel short due to money woes.

    Enter Lorraine Williams. She did everything she could with her Buck Rogers inheritance to brand D&D and her father's character in the same company. Despite all of the efforts, D&D is still on the fringe. WoTC then took the reigns and gave it a go.

    WoTC takes D&D and tires to brand the name into the social zeitgeist. Now with the internet, it's a little easier. But it's still on the fringe. Gaming was changing. PC and consoles were becoming more popular with gaming culture. What they needed was a multinational corporation to propel them into the cash cow they wanted: Hasbro.

    Hasbro buys WoTC, and now the final piece is in place. With large amounts of corporate money, along with corporate guidelines and rules to create anything under the D&D name, it has finally become what it is today: a mindless, soulless monstrosity for consumers, not gamers.

    This is the legacy of D&D. Once a game for the weird, the nerds, the geeks. A game that had counter-culture attitude, but welcomed all. Now? Just look at Amazon. It's just a soulless brand.

    There is hope.

    IF you look to the OSR, you'll find that DIY, everything but the kitchen sink, all comers are welcome attitude is there. The artwork, the design, etc. It's all there. Yes, modern D&D is a soulless corporate monster. That's only because the soul of D&D has fled the corpse and found new life in the OSR.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim Hodges---
    I truly think this may be the best post you've ever written; certainly none have ever moved me more, let me put it that way. You've encapsulated ideas about the artwork of the old days and expressed its substance in a way I felt inside without ever putting it into words.
    When gamers of the present see my '80s books and laugh at the artwork and I tell them the sometimes hackish illustrations are just what D&D was then, we accepted it and weren't critical of it then, what I've also felt but never quite expressed is the sentiment you so gracefully put out there today. Namely that, yes, the artwork of D&D then lacked the color and sophistication of later times but it had a beautiful tone of mad eclectic eccentricity you simply never found again in the hobby.
    And we were the better for it!
    Thank you for writing this article, sir!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Excellent post, but there is one thing you missed in the history... Tolkien's works were, at the time, squarely in the midst of the psychedelic counter cultural movement. "Frodo Lives!" was a rallying cry of the day. Fan art and even official art for Middle-earth fit right in with the works of Otus. Right up to the brink where Boorman and the Beatles almost filmed a LotR film where Frodo and Galadriel engaged in orgiastic prognostications... that was about the same time as the Psychedelic Age jumped the shark and fantasy started becoming commodified, a process that reached its literary peak with the o going series of Dragonlance Trilogies under TSR in the early 90s...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very good point and one I should have included or at least mentioned, especially since I did a post some years ago about the 1965 unauthorized Ace editions of The Lord of the Rings.

      Delete
    2. There were some amazingly creative Tolkien illustrations in the 'Sixties - it's worth checking out Cor Blok's highly stylised work and that of Tove Jansson (yes, the creator of the Moomins), whose unconventional take on Gollum is something to behold.

      Delete
  7. Fair enough. But what about, for example, the art or esthetics of something like 'Mörk Borg' ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny. I almost included another paragraph at the end of the post in which I pointed out some modern games, like Mörk Borg, that have revived some of the esthetic weirdness of the early hobby.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps great minds think alike ? ;)
      Seriously though, although I have seen very little art of 'Mörk Borg' myself, what I have seen makes my brain hurt. It's too confusing for me, my brain seems to be unable to properly parse what it is that I'm looking at. But it definitely falls in the 'weird' category.

      Delete
  8. James, you nailed it. Thank you very much for this insightful post.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another uniquely insightful post, the kind of which I can only get from Grognardia. You've been on a hell of a roll this year, James.

    Agree with everything you said. I too found Easley (like the Hildebrandts and Boris) to be too unimaginative and literal; the most safe, pedestrian depiction of "fantasy" possible.

    Erol Otus' inventive, phantasmagorical visions of a subconscious Underworld inspire and evoke to this day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! I definitely feel as if a dam has burst in my brain lately – in a good way. Rather than fight it, I'm just going to ride the wave and see where it takes me.

      Delete
    2. Gotta follow the muse.

      Delete
    3. She's been leading me to some weird places lately, but I'm down for it. It feels good to have some much energy and enthusiasm again.

      Delete
  10. Doug "Gonyaulax" PearsonJuly 7, 2025 at 3:33 PM

    Fantastic post. This one is a real keeper.

    This is one of the reasons that you should archive the entire Grognardia web site! Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I love this, James. Bravo! Well said. I couldn't agree more!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Great post! In Australia in the 80s, it was very kitchen sink, there was the fantastic older stuff of Erol Otus, Dave Trampier and co, which you would see in the AD&D rulebooks with the newer covers by Easley, then the talented whole Jeff Easley/Keith Parkinson/Clyde Caldwell/Larry Elmore quartet, side by side with a tonne of British influence like Russ Nicholson, Ian Miller, Tony Hough and John Blanche, which were everywhere due to the fantasy gamebook craze, and I enjoyed it all. Some of the other artists I really liked were Dennis Beauvais, Stephen Fabian, Gerald Brom, and Valerie Valusek. Now, I really like going back and looking at the art of some of the more obscure gamebook artists like Bob Harvey, Alan Langford, Duncan Smith, and Bill Houston, among many others, much of which is detailed in the recent book Magic Realms by Jonathan Green. :-) AND DON'T FORGET TOM WHAM!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I find recent D&D art technically excellent but completely generic. It may as well be AI generated. But I don't know if my affection for the older art is nostalgia or if there really was something special about it. I think you've convinced me of the latter. I think there's an entire books's worth of material to be written here on how early RPG art fits into a wider context.

    ReplyDelete