This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

AD&D 2E - Better art in the Original or the Revised printings?

Started by HMWHC, August 27, 2015, 05:02:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2
User actions

HMWHC

August 27, 2015, 05:02:03 PM
One hole in my RPG collection is the AD&D 2E core books. At that time I was an RPG snob and felt I'd outgrown childish games like D&D and preferred more realistic systems like M.E.R.P. and Rolemaster. Well now I see the follow of my youth and would like to pick up some of the 2nd edition core books.  

So i've heard the artwork/layout is better in the 1989 1st printing of the books than the Revised 1995 printing.

What say you all to that? Should I hunt ebay for the 1989 set, or just go with the recently released Premium 2E printing books?
"YOU KNOW WHO ELSE CLOSED THREADS THAT "BORED" HIM?!? HITLER!!!"
~ -E.

Bedrockbrendan

#1
August 27, 2015, 05:03:57 PM
For me the 1989 books all the way. Some people do prefer the revised, or feel the art in the 1st version was too renfaire or group photo. Personally I loved the early 2E art. Thought it was great.

Opaopajr

#2
August 27, 2015, 05:39:17 PM
1989 version. No contest.
Just make your fuckin\' guy and roll the dice, you pricks. Focus on what\'s interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis.  -- J Arcane
 
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it\'s more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
-- talysman

Settembrini

#3
August 27, 2015, 05:43:22 PM
'95 is Rob Liefeld territory, Doc Rotwang does NOT approve.
If there can\'t be a TPK against the will of the players it\'s not an RPG.- Pierce Inverarity

RunningLaser

#4
August 27, 2015, 06:26:23 PM
There was some art in the 2eR books that I enjoyed.  I'm just so used to the original 2e books though, so I prefer those.    If you can get the reprints for a good price, I think they'd be worth it.  They seem well made.

Spinachcat

#5
August 27, 2015, 06:30:47 PM
2e art is so weird. Such great stuff in the setting books and monster books, such utter crap in the PHB and DMG.

Ratman_tf

#6
August 27, 2015, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: Gwarh;851582One hole in my RPG collection is the AD&D 2E core books. At that time I was an RPG snob and felt I'd outgrown childish games like D&D and preferred more realistic systems like M.E.R.P. and Rolemaster. Well now I see the follow of my youth and would like to pick up some of the 2nd edition core books.  

So i've heard the artwork/layout is better in the 1989 1st printing of the books than the Revised 1995 printing.

What say you all to that? Should I hunt ebay for the 1989 set, or just go with the recently released Premium 2E printing books?

I found really great used copies of the 1989 2nd ed PHB and DMG and snapped them up. I prefer the layout, art and colors of the first printing.
I've looked online for comparison picture, but haven't been able to find any yet.
I did pick up the revised Monstrous Manual, since it's the same layout and art as the pre-revised. Just a slightly different cover. Not to be confused with the Monstrous Compendium, which is the loose-leaf binder version.



The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Piestrio

#7
August 27, 2015, 10:51:40 PM
As much as I like the '95 version there's just too much crap in there to justify them over the '89 ones.

Since you don't have nostalgia clouding your vision (like me) get the '89 printing.
Disclaimer: I attach no moral weight to the way you choose to pretend to be an elf.

Currently running: The Great Pendragon Campaign & DC Adventures - Timberline
Currently Playing: AD&D

Omega

#8
August 28, 2015, 03:50:09 AM
The revised 2nd ed has a axe swinging barbarian on the PHB cover right?

Seems I totally missed this when it came out somehow.

JeremyR

#10
August 28, 2015, 04:32:49 AM
I've only seen the '89 version but the art in that is not good. Some recycled pieces, some color pieces that look like Dragon magazine cover rejects, a lot of random gibberish that looks like it's from a clip art site (which of course it wasn't).

My guess is, all the art budget for the core books went to the Monstrous Manual

Omega

#11
August 28, 2015, 06:57:48 AM
Quote from: JeremyR;851689I've only seen the '89 version but the art in that is not good. Some recycled pieces, some color pieces that look like Dragon magazine cover rejects, a lot of random gibberish that looks like it's from a clip art site (which of course it wasn't).

My guess is, all the art budget for the core books went to the Monstrous Manual

John and Laura Lakey? The almost photo-real pieces? Most, possibly all the colour plates are from either Dragon or modules. Even 5e uses retread art.

It is actually a good use of your investment. The art will be totally new to anyone who didnt get the pieces the art came in, and for the rest, some if it might have been nice to see without the text overlays. All that art is very costly, probably 250$ or more each and so you want to get some use from it.

The folk-art style pieces were just a art direction choice. Weird. But seen so much much much worse.

Bedrockbrendan

#12
August 28, 2015, 08:56:31 AM
I don't know. I guess it is pretty subjective but I thought the color plates in the PHB and DMG rocked (with 1 or 2 exceptions). Certainly liked it better than the art in the 3E PHB and DMG. I think it was mostly a mix of Easley, Caldwell and Elmore if I recall.

There was a lot of chain mail bikini, but that was the norm then, and it was good chainmail bikini: http://www.orkerhulen.dk/Fantasy%20art/Jeff%20Easley/JeffEasley1.jpg

RunningLaser

#13
August 28, 2015, 09:47:29 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;851716I don't know. I guess it is pretty subjective but I thought the color plates in the PHB and DMG rocked (with 1 or 2 exceptions). Certainly liked it better than the art in the 3E PHB and DMG. I think it was mostly a mix of Easley, Caldwell and Elmore if I recall.

There was a lot of chain mail bikini, but that was the norm then, and it was good chainmail bikini: http://www.orkerhulen.dk/Fantasy%20art/Jeff%20Easley/JeffEasley1.jpg


That was always a great pic.

Warthur

#14
August 28, 2015, 12:01:15 PM
Am I alone in thinking the blue interior art from the original 2E core books was mysterious and atmospheric?
I am no longer posting here or reading this forum because Pundit has regularly claimed credit for keeping this community active. I am sick of his bullshit for reasons I explain here and I don\'t want to contribute to anything he considers to be a personal success on his part.

I recommend The RPG Pub as a friendly place where RPGs can be discussed and where the guiding principles of moderation are "be kind to each other" and "no politics". It\'s pretty chill so far.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2
User actions