Swords & Wizardry: Blessed Be

Swords & Wizardry: Is "The Goddess" As Fat As You?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;910565It's pretty, but it's also nonsensical.  So...  It's pretty nonsensical.

Joking aside, it doesn't say anything about what it's actually y'know, about.

Which to me, makes it less than useful in terms of whether or not I want to buy it.  It'll attract my eye, but other than that...

Agreed. The original cover communicates the game better. The new cover makes me think some sort of supernatural horror game.

Quote from: MachFront;910613Anyway. It boiled down to purposefully doing something different. One, to do something different simply for the sake of doing something different and two to appeal to more gamers usually not interested in OSR games and (closely related) three to appeal to ladies both in and out of the hobby in general.

I thought I saw over on Tenkar's Tavern that they are targeting the "lapsed gamer", which I think is quite interesting.

From a marketing perspective (selling more units), "different" should translate to 'fresh' plus 'promotes interest in our target customers'. It certainly stirs the pot of controversy over cover choices - and that's something right there.

Quote from: Lynn;910673I thought I saw over on Tenkar's Tavern that they are targeting the "lapsed gamer", which I think is quite interesting.

From a marketing perspective (selling more units), "different" should translate to 'fresh' plus 'promotes interest in our target customers'. It certainly stirs the pot of controversy over cover choices - and that's something right there.

Not really. Tenkar's Swords and Wizardry: Light is the upcoming game targeting the lapsed gamer -- a 4 page, ultra light distillation of S&W.

I still think that it can work. Most World of Darkness books have had abstract covers and they sold like hotcakes. Sure OSR games don't usually do this but hey it's good to go against the grain once in a while.

Quote from: Brand55;910561Here you go:

Thanks. Yeah, it's pretty, but nothing about it says D&D/S&W. I toolike the Otus cover best.

Yeah, I'm late, so what.

So the "old" cover is this:

Spoiler

The "new" cover is this (absolute shit btw, that's the cover of a Borgstrom game):

Spoiler

But what the hell ever happened to this:

Spoiler

or this:

Spoiler

I like 1 and 4.

Dislike 1 and 2.

3 & 4 are gorgeous.

But guess thats why i'm a sexist.

I only like #4.  I don't like the art style in #1 and #3.  #2 looks like someone drank a bunch of ink and vomited on the paper.

Is number 2 a deer skull with a red plant inside of it?

Sorry. I'm too lazy right now to quote CRKruger's post properly.

"Whatever the hell happened to this?"

That's still the cover to S&W Core.

That last was the cover to Complete until the Otus cover. The art was accomplished enough, but....that print of S&W Complete (the first) is best forgotten if only because of Frog God's major misstep with regards to "professional" printing (worse than POD and messy glue and lopsided and warped covers both at once) and the connected and horrendous misfire that was the "limited edition" of that print, which had to be re-printed and still of lesser quality than POD. Guh.
To their credit, the prints of the Otus cover edition have been quite nice (by today's standards....never been an AD&D1E fan but, damn, it seems we never have and never will again have rpg books made of freakin' concrete like those were).

Am I a pariah? I love OD&D (but I'd rather S&W:WB than both OD&D and Delving Deeper), but I dislike the art of OD&D. I dig B/X and dig the art, though I discovered and 'grew up' (in the gaming sense) during the mid-80s  with Mentzer BECMI and the mid-to-late-80s "Dragon Magazine A&D"-era...if there's such a thing outside of my own mind...and though I loved Elmore and Easley during that time, I no longer get a charge out of their pieces as I once did. I still love Parkinson, though. I dislike the art of 3E and 4E D&D, but for some reason dig Wayne Reynold's art for Pathfinder.
I'm so confused. What am I supposed to like? Whose side am I supposed to be on (today)?
Sigh. Can't I go back and have everything illustrated by Darrell K. Sweet? Is that so wrong?!?

Quote from: MachFront;910772Am I a pariah? I love OD&D (but I'd rather S&W:WB than both OD&D and Delving Deeper), but I dislike the art of OD&D. I dig B/X and dig the art, though I discovered and 'grew up' (in the gaming sense) during the mid-80s  with Mentzer BECMI and the mid-to-late-80s "Dragon Magazine A&D"-era...if there's such a thing outside of my own mind...and though I loved Elmore and Easley during that time, I no longer get a charge out of their pieces as I once did. I still love Parkinson, though. I dislike the art of 3E and 4E D&D, but for some reason dig Wayne Reynold's art for Pathfinder.
I'm so confused. What am I supposed to like? Whose side am I supposed to be on (today)?
Sigh. Can't I go back and have everything illustrated by Darrell K. Sweet? Is that so wrong?!?

Nope.  Like what you like.

Quote from: CRKrueger;910733Yeah, I'm late, so what.

So the "old" cover is this:

Spoiler

The "new" cover is this (absolute shit btw, that's the cover of a Borgstrom game):

Spoiler

But what the hell ever happened to this:

Spoiler

or this:

Spoiler

#1, #3, and #4 work as game covers and evoke some semblance of game play. #2, not so much, unless your definition of game play is a bad acid trip.