AD&D 2E reprints (hate thread)

[danbuter]

The second printing of the rulebooks changed the art and made minor errata corrections. It was nowhere near as drastic a change as the 3.0 to 3.5 change. Why do people get all worked up about this?

[Piestrio]

At some point I started to really wonder if people had seen completely different black borders books than I did. Now that Piestro posted his pics and that Sacrosanct basically confirmed that the art pictured looked like shit to him, I can assuredly say: this does not look like shit to me at all. It's got its own vibe and all, sure, and there are pics I find anatomically wrong or badly colored or that otherwise displease me one way or the other, but the art overall isn't shit to me.

It seems that whenever anyone asks about the reprints the overwhelming bleeting from the forums is that:

1) the worst examples of the art are representative of the whole book.

And

2) the rules are entirely different from "normal" 2e.

Both of which are bullshit but keep getting repeated enough that everyone believes them.

[Bedrockbrendan]

At some point I started to really wonder if people had seen completely different black borders books than I did. Now that Piestro posted his pics and that Sacrosanct basically confirmed that the art pictured looked like shit to him, I can assuredly say: this does not look like shit to me at all. It's got its own vibe and all, sure, and there are pics I find anatomically wrong or badly colored or that otherwise displease me one way or the other, but the art overall isn't shit to me.

It wasnt shit. It just had a different feel and tone. Personally i prefer the original printings but these have the same basic info if you want to run 2E. And the monster manual is very good. I may get the phb because mine is falling apart.

[Benoist]

There were some really shitty illustrations in the original 2e prints as well. I can go hunt some pics if people want to deny it (I'm sure Jibba will out of pure asshatery, in which case I really don't give a fuck, but still).

As for the vibe being different, yes, it definitely is. That's a much more accurate description and would explain why people don't like them. It would boil down to "it's not the same, I don't like it", which is a fine choice in and of itself, kind like I prefer the 1e vibe and consider the 2e vibe to be completely different.

[Sacrificial Lamb]

The second printing of the rulebooks changed the art and made minor errata corrections. It was nowhere near as drastic a change as the 3.0 to 3.5 change. Why do people get all worked up about this?

It wasn't just the art, but the layout. The second printing's layout is passable, but less easily digestible for the human brain. That's the way I see it anyway.

Oh, and some of the 2e art from the first printing was actually taken from 1e gaming supplements. There's even a Conan module pic in there.

So....the first printing has more intuitive layout, and superior art. Give me the first printing, please.

[Bedrockbrendan]

There were some really shitty illustrations in the original 2e prints as well. I can go hunt some pics if people want to deny it (I'm sure Jibba will out of pure asshatery, in which case I really don't give a fuck, but still).

As for the vibe being different, yes, it definitely is. That's a much more accurate description and would explain why people don't like them. It would boil down to "it's not the same, I don't like it", which is a fine choice in and of itself, kind like I prefer the 1e vibe and consider the 2e vibe to be completely different.

I agree. At least for me the big reason I didnt like the second printing so much when it came out was that it was different from the style I was groomed on. Personally I really like those oils they had in the first books but the illustrations in the second ones are technically fine, they just use different mediums and colors. You are right the 2E books have some flaws. One of my favorite images is of the roman-style characters bringing a wounded companion to a temple. But if you look at the guy on the left his calf is totally out of proportion in a very noticeable way.

[Sacrificial Lamb]

It wasnt shit. It just had a different feel and tone. Personally i prefer the original printings but these have the same basic info if you want to run 2E. And the monster manual is very good. I may get the phb because mine is falling apart.

Yeah. Art and layout do set the tone for a game. It's weird, but true.

[RPGPundit]

Jesus. Almost all of that sample art is awful. Some of it is absolutely Godawful.

RPGPundit

[Sacrosanct]

Jesus. Almost all of that sample art is awful. Some of it is absolutely Godawful.

RPGPundit

One of the things that bugged me about that reprint art (outside of the really bad stuff I posted earlier) was that they started to go with a photorealistic style with a lot of it.  And that was just really 'meh' to me.  See the picture of the rogue on the rooftop earlier as an example.

It just wasn't evocotive, as a whole.

[RPGPundit]

One of the things that bugged me about that reprint art (outside of the really bad stuff I posted earlier) was that they started to go with a photorealistic style with a lot of it.  And that was just really 'meh' to me.  See the picture of the rogue on the rooftop earlier as an example.

It just wasn't evocotive, as a whole.

Yes, that's the really awful stuff.

[DKChannelBoredom]

Holy Smokes. Mark Rein Hagen on a rooftop.

And these pictures really brings back the memories. This was the edition/version we used when we started playing AD&D and I really wish I knew, where those books ended up.

[Teazia]

the art from AD&D was more mature and not childish.

BS, much of the 70s art is very amateurish and you can see very clear parallels in the art linked down in my signature which is from Public Domain Fairy Tales Books.  Also much of it swiped from comic books.  

Sorry, dude.  You are wrong.

I was hoping that they would use art from all over AD&D in the 2e reprints- its not like they don't have 25 odd years of AD&D art on file with several years already digitized on file. I think the fact that they probably already had the black cover books in Quark files made the reprinting process much easier though, maybe mind numbingly so.  For example they could have added the random encounter charts for the Monstrous Manual which were strangely printed in MC Annual 2.  

The art in all the AD&D core books is a bit hit and miss tbh.

[Teazia]

I never understood the whole need to do reprints of 2E. I could easily find the all three books in good condition for less than the price of one of these.

Same can be said for 2e or even 3e.  It is obvious though- to make money.

[Teazia]

Once GOOD thing about the black border PHB is that it has very useful quickstart rules in the front.  I haven't seen that in other version and I thought it was helpful for new players.  

(Oh nos, handholding!)

[Killfuck Soulshitter]

Just an annoying meta-observation on the discussion:

It's interesting to see 2e being discussed in an appraising way...for years it was the edition that no-one gave a toss about, a laughing stock almost. Now there's enough distance that it can be seen for what it was with its own strengths and weaknesses, but a perfectly valid edition of D&D.

I think when something in pop culture is over (style of music, fashion, a TV show) it's forgotten by all but its die-hard fans for about 10-15 years before it can be seen as a "classic". For example, between the mid-80s and mid-90s no-one really took Star Wars seriously either as classic movies or as a hobby interest.

Maybe it's time for 2e fans to come out of the closet.