Quote from: BedrockBrendan;851716There 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

You call a shirt a chainmail bikini? Really?

Lets take a look at the PHB.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one topless demon girl seen from behind, one arabian knights type in regular bikini top, one scantily clad sorceress,. Oh wait. There IS a topless torch hanging by chains. Close enough! Patriarchy!
Lets take a look at the DMG.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one scantily clad sorceress, the woman with her midriff bared, one woman in a metal breastplate, and one dog not wearing a collar! gasparoonies!

Sorry. No. Women wearing clothes does not count as chainmail bikini.

Aside from the topless whatsiz in the PHB its pretty damn mundane.

One of my players says they have the revised 2e PHB somewhere, but not the DMG, so I might get to have a look at it and see how much changed. I showed him my PHB and he says they look totally different inside and out.

Quote from: Warthur;851738Am I alone in thinking the blue interior art from the original 2E core books was mysterious and atmospheric?

It definitely set a different tone. More whimsical.

Quote from: Omega;851739You call a shirt a chainmail bikini? Really?

Lets take a look at the PHB.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one topless demon girl seen from behind, one arabian knights type in regular bikini top, one scantily clad sorceress,. Oh wait. There IS a topless torch hanging by chains. Close enough! Patriarchy!
Lets take a look at the DMG.
Chainmail bikinis? zero.
There is one scantily clad sorceress, the woman with her midriff bared, one woman in a metal breastplate, and one dog not wearing a collar! gasparoonies!

Sorry. No. Women wearing clothes does not count as chainmail bikini.

Aside from the topless whatsiz in the PHB its pretty damn mundane.

One of my players says they have the revised 2e PHB somewhere, but not the DMG, so I might get to have a look at it and see how much changed. I showed him my PHB and he says they look totally different inside and out.

I'd definitely call it chainmail bikini territory. To me it just means art that is suggestive and shows a lot of skin with outfits that don't strike me as terribly practical. So I would file the scantily clad sorcerous in the DMG under that as well (though again, I'd also label it good chainmail bikini). If it doesn't meet your standards of chainmail bikini, that is fine. I am not going to debate the definition of chainmail bikini. That seems like a pedantic thing to argue here. I also never said the art was bad. Personally I have no problem with chainmail bikini. Just that it was made in an era where chainmail bikini was the norm and it was an example, for me, of good chainmail bikini art.

In terms of quantity. You may well be right. I would have to review my DMG and PHB to know for sure. I was thinking of this image, the sorcerous and the summoned creature you mentioned, but also more broadly of the 2E line in general (stuff like curse of the azure bonds).

Quote from: Omega;851685The revised 2nd ed has a axe swinging barbarian on the PHB cover right?

Seems I totally missed this when it came out somehow.

Yep.



versus

Quote from: Warthur;851738Am I alone in thinking the blue interior art from the original 2E core books was mysterious and atmospheric?

I liked the blue art.

1989 all the way.

I mean, the revised printings were fine. But the 1989 books had style.

Alright. I took a snap of my PHB so the interbutz can have a reference of what the layout looks like.



*edit* Wow that was bigger than I'd thought. *fixed*

Haha! My obsessive manic searching seems to have paid off. I'm pretty sure this is a snap of the revised PHB for comparison.

I owned both at one time or another, and I liked the revised editions.
they had a better layout of information.  Art I can take or leave.  when I'm buying a gaming book I want rules and information.

I'll take the 1989 books myself.

I have always preferred the '89 version, but that might just be nostalgia talking.

I'm going to go with the 1989 versions, myself.

  I'd have bought two of each 2e reprint as I did the 1e reprints if they had been the original 1989 versions.  I loved the look- layout and art.  For some reason I've never been able to abide the 1995 versions.  They bother me.  I hate the layout, the font choices, the trade dress of the covers...  Gimme the originals.