AD&D 2E reprints (hate thread)

[Sacrosanct]

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.
.

Um, I said AD&D art, not art from the 70s.  If you're going to accuse someone of being wrong, at least take the time to read what they said.  I am not aware of any AD&D art being swiped from comic books or being pulled from/parallel to the public domain.  Trampier, Otus, etc have a style nothing like old public domain art.

And I think it's no secret that the art style of D&D went to a much more PG version in 2e.  Gone was art in the S&S style and pretty much everything became kid-approved.

[Bobloblah]

{PIESTRIO SELF PORTRAIT}

You are all on my shit list now.

Oh my God...you actually look like your avatar!

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.

Noone who appears to know anything says the rules are different. Anyone who knows something says the art sucks.

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).

I'd actually be interested in what you think sucks from the first printing. I don't mean to say that there was no bad art in it, but, to me, there's no comparison between the 1st and 2nd printing.

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.

Bingo. I felt the layout and style choices for the 2nd printing were terrible, and far less readable to boot!

[Teazia]

Um, I said AD&D art, not art from the 70s.  If you're going to accuse someone of being wrong, at least take the time to read what they said.  I am not aware of any AD&D art being swiped from comic books or being pulled from/parallel to the public domain.  Trampier, Otus, etc have a style nothing like old public domain art.

And I think it's no secret that the art style of D&D went to a much more PG version in 2e.  Gone was art in the S&S style and pretty much everything became kid-approved.

Check out Sutherland art and then look at Henry Justice Ford in my link.  Then check out this post by Grognardia:

https://picasaweb.google.com/FreeDnDART

I think there is a reason Wotc changed the cover art on the White Box reprint to WAR.  They didn't want to get sued by Disney.

Cheers

[Benoist]

I pulled the trigger and actually bought the 2nd ed reprints when the binding of my original Player's Handbook bought in 1989 fell apart on me last night.

[Bobloblah]

That's a pretty good reason, and is the only thing that might eventually sway me. Oh, and I'm still hoping to see examples of what you thought was junk art from the first printing. Even page numbers would do.

[Benoist]

I played the fuck out of this guy (my 1989 PH I mean). It's one of the RPG books in my possession that has seen the most use and abuse over the years (the 90s, in this case), honestly. Then for some reason, when I was looking for weapon specializations and such, the binding fell apart. Ah well. Had to happen some time.

[Bobloblah]

By all accounts an extremely common problem with this printing. My own original copy disintegrated years ago, although it was probably my most played-with RPG book ever.

[Teazia]

I've had a few of those type of books over the years, the easiest solution is to run a bead of PVA glue (elmers) down the space between the cloth and the outer spine and glue it together (between the packets and the cloth too if needed).  As the book is stitched this can solve the problem.  But if the packets are coming loose it is a bit more tricky.  Anchoring packets or pages can be done if careful with the glue.

Library tape (Mylar tape) down the inside cover to the block can also secure the block to the cover if it is coming out.   Duct tape is never the answer!

The  glued 1e DMGs (7th printing and above IIRC) can be fixed in this way as well, but the block is not stitched, so it can takes a little more care.

[Opaopajr]

I take care of my books very well, so they tend to look immaculate (and smell of incense, so as to keep the silverfish away). But I admit there is a charm to the wear and tear on my AD&D 2e 1st printing and In Nomine. It's like they've been lived in, like a book well lived, of use to its owner.

Now I'm thinking of buying a second 2e 1st printing copy and In Nomine core... That way I can have an immaculate version and a lived-in one.

[Sacrosanct]

Check out Sutherland art and then look at Henry Justice Ford in my link.  Then check out this post by Grognardia:

https://picasaweb.google.com/FreeDnDART

I think there is a reason Wotc changed the cover art on the White Box reprint to WAR.  They didn't want to get sued by Disney.

Cheers

 
Maybe I'm missing something, but your link doesn't go to Grognardia, it goes to your picassa site.  And I'm not seeing the similarity other than "hey, it's black and white inked fantasy art".

[Bobloblah]

Speaking of this:

For example they could have added the random encounter charts for the Monstrous Manual which were strangely printed in MC Annual 2.

...I assume it didn't happen with the new reprints? What a missed opportunity.

[RPGPundit]

That rooftop-thief image embodies so much of what I felt was awful about late-TSR AD&D...

[Raven]

Put me down as another one who passed on these. I've always disliked the layout/design (mostly all the red headers and outlines, ugh!) and while it had some good art pieces I felt most of it was uninspired and a fair amount was just flat out ugly.

The originals didn't have universally good art either but I feel like the quality was better overall even though a lot of it was black and white or blue. In fact most of the complaints I've seen online were from people who hated the blue line art although I don't mind it myself. At least it isn't red.

Overall I find the 1989 versions much more pleasing to look at as well as easier to read and reference. If that counts as getting worked up or bleeting then oh well.

[Black Vulmea]

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.

I've never seen any of those before, and coming at it with fresh eyes, I can say, wow, that sucks so hard it blows.

[Sacrosanct]

I've never seen any of those before, and coming at it with fresh eyes, I can say, wow, that sucks so hard it blows.

I think around 1995, there seems to be this thought that, "Hey!  Color art is always better than B/W art!"  A position that seems to remain held today.  Gawd, some of the art in 3e was atrocious too.  4e was better, but my gripe with that is that there is no diversity.  Everyone is rat faced and has a million buckles.  I really hope with Next that they get a stable of artists who use various styles.  Doesn't look like it's gonna happen though.