Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM

5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.

LOL!  Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO!  Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.

It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ...

I have ZERO idea what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with my post.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM
It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ... until they took away Pundit's credit in the front of the book. Then suddenly 5e was always bad and wicked and a betrayal of everything D&D stood for (not became that... was that from the start).

Now it's on to the purity spiraling phase as earlier and earlier editions "don't count" (used to just be 4E, then became 4-5e, then all WotC editions, Pundit is saying 2e, and a few here are even saying "Dragonlance"). Pretty soon anyone who doesn't play using the original house rules for Chainmail won't be doing it right.

   In fairness,

  1. The OSR has been pointing to Dragonlance as 'Where D&D went off track' for years;
  2. It took both some time to get familiar with the system, and a bit of a cultural shift within WotC, for 5E to move from 'semi-OSR' to 'anti-OSR'.

   My own opinion? The OSR is largely divided between whether the rules should be Lawful (AD&D), Neutral (B/X), or Chaotic (OD&D), but unified in generally assuming a Chaotic Neutral (Evil) playstyle where agency and the will to power are the supreme goods. 5E D&D is a Brand first and a game third, so it's tough to make extrapolations about that; Paizo is similar but more religious. Those of us who like anything outside those three camps aren't 'really' D&D fans and will be driven out sooner or later for not bearing one of the appropriate marks, without which no one can play or DM.

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:53:45 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 08:48:57 AM

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM

5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.

LOL!  Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO!  Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.

It's funny how the OSR crowd here had nothing but praise for 5e ...

I have ZERO idea what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with my post.

It was the most convenient post because it was the last one in a chain about 5e at the time I hit reply. Sometimes it's not about you even if your comment is referenced.

As to no idea what I'm talking about, I suggest you go looking at some of Pundit and others' posts about from c. 2015 through when WotC pulled Pundit's consultancy credit. Very different feelings about how great 5e was until it became personal for Pundit.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 09:05:32 AM

As to no idea what I'm talking about, I suggest you go looking at some of Pundit and others' posts about from c. 2015 through when WotC pulled Pundit's consultancy credit. Very different feelings about how great 5e was until it became personal for Pundit.

Why the fck would I look up what you are blathering on about when you cannot even coherently reply to a post?  Adjust your meds troll.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AMRavenloft and DarkSun were the only TSR products to have any decent art direction.

Planescape also had good art direction. Some rare (tasteless) people may not have liked DiTerlizzi's art, but he had a distinctive style that was evocative nonetheless and helped set the setting's tone. And the setting's layout and presentation was consistent throughout its products, with its own look and feel. Dragonlance and Spelljammer also had consistent art as well, with a distinct feel for each setting. Though their layout and presentation was not as strong.

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 09:07:56 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2023, 09:05:32 AM

As to no idea what I'm talking about, I suggest you go looking at some of Pundit and others' posts about from c. 2015 through when WotC pulled Pundit's consultancy credit. Very different feelings about how great 5e was until it became personal for Pundit.

Why the fck would I look up what you are blathering on about when you cannot even coherently reply to a post?  Adjust your meds troll.

I thought you claimed to be intelligent. The ability to make inferences is something most adults are capable of. However since you're too "smooth brained" (as you're so fond of calling others) I will dumb it down for you.

Before WotC removed Pundit's consultancy credit Pundit and his hangers-on had generally positive feelings for 5e (go look for yourself as you clearly won't believe me... which was why I suggested looking for yourself in the first place). Then after the credit was removed, it's practically a line where you see the change in direction (again go and see for yourself as clearly you don't believe anything I say).

Now, go and prove that brain of yours is wrinkled by actually looking and seeing for yourself.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 03, 2023, 12:46:38 AM
The supreme art of earlier eras...


Contrasted with some samples of garbage...

Clyde Cladewell






Gerald Brom






Denis Beauvais

I liked a lot of the 2e art personally (particularly stuff like Caldwell, Brom and Fabian). The Ravenloft line, in my opinion, was stunning (at least the first half or so of the 90s, after they removed the border art and Fabian stopped doing anything for it, the look and feel got weaker). I think there was a lot of well executed stuff during that period, but I also do get the critique that a lot of the art and material was a little more pablum in the wake of the Satanic Panic (I think it was also just part of a broader trend in fantasy---when I think of early 80s fantasy movies versus late 80s, it is a kind of R to PG/PG-13 shift). But pre-2E D&D definitely had a different vibe and tone. That said, most of the people I gamed with just brought the 1E books to the table if they wanted that tone (and there were a ton of supplements with stuff you could cobble together).

I also will say I rather liked the look of the 2nd edition PHD art for the most part. I do think it fell into the problem that a lot of RPG art has since, which is it looks like your gamer friends are serving as the models for the characters (which immediately takes me out of an image). But there are some memorable pieces of work in that 1990 PHB and DMG. The 1995 revised PHD sucked though. I hated everything about how that one looked (same for the new monster manual). Even the font bothered me, and I don't usually care about fonts at all.

Greetings!

I have always been a champion of 5E. It is a strong system, with many advantages and benefits, with relatively few flaws or problems. System-wise, if the DM adjusts some rules--many of which are detailed options right there in the DMG--then most of the flaws or problems of 5E vanish, or at least are significantly reduced. On that score, I haven't seen a system yet that couldn't be or shouldn't be modified by the GM. I, of course, have put considerable effort into maintaining and running my 5E campaigns in a thoroughly "Old School" manner. That is not difficult or troublesome for myself, because I have always been "Old School." I started playing D&D back in the "Old School" days--and have stayed with a traditional approach to gaming and running games. I never embraced any "New School" ways of gaming.

The tragedy for 5E is not the mechanical game system, though as I mentioned, there are some flaws and the system is not perfect. However, the tragedy for 5E D&D is not the actual game system, but the ideological poisoning and political corruption that has overtaken and consumed 5E D&D. I would say that the first two-thirds of 5E's market life were relatively fine. It has been in the more recent third, so to speak, that 5E and WOTC has obviously drank deeply from the Woke Kool Aid and become entirely corrupt. Since Tasha's or whatever supplement, and continuing on through Strixhaven, the Wyld Forest, and then the Citadel. There's probably a few I forgot. But you get what I'm saying--essentially, the last five or six game supplements produced by WOTC for D&D 5E.

It is precisely that political and ideological corruption of WOTC, highlighted by various articles and internet video interviews, that have sadly tainted and destroyed the game company. Or certainly destroyed WOTC's reputation and standing as a company with many "Old School" gamers such as myself. In light of all of these changes, in response, while the system of 5E is strong and hass good merits--it simply has become unpalatable to remain as a customer of WOTC. While no longer being a customer of WOTC, it then follows that there is even more incentive and motivation to play a distinctly separate or different system. Not entirely different, of course, but different enough. I happen to like Shadowdark. OSE and others exist as well.

Concerning 2E, well, the art was one part brilliant, and one part trash. As has been mentioned, there are signs of the art in 2E going downhill. So, there is that fact. However, to my mind, there remain some very good and inspiring sections of art in 2E. Ultimately, it wasn't the art of 2E that killed the game system, or the game company. It was mistakes in marketing, as well as poor business management. The whole marketing, editing, production system at TSR began to suffer more and more, not just in terms of quality product, but how the products were marketed, and how they were presented and shipped to the actual markets. These problems all snowballed to destroy the company--and 2E was, unfortunately, eventually caught up in the storm of napalm and died.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Saying Brom and  Caldwell are garbage burn the heretics. Sure some 2E art was imo terrible much of 1E was just as bad though the IoSR crowd views that through rose coloured glasses that they spray painted black.

Every edition imo had its good and bad art art. One edition because it's an favourite edition for some does not and should not be given an exception. I hated one artist I think his last name was Crapapple who drew for third edition . One bad artist does not mean an entire edition art is garbage.

Quote from: Abraxus on October 03, 2023, 01:35:13 PM
Saying Brom and  Caldwell are garbage burn the heretics. Sure some 2E art was imo terrible much of 1E was just as bad though the IoSR crowd views that through rose coloured glasses that they spray painted black.

Every edition imo had its good and bad art art. One edition because it's an favourite edition for some does not and should not be given an exception. I hated one artist I think his last name was Crapapple who drew for third edition . One bad artist does not mean an entire edition art is garbage.

I probably dislike 4E the most, and the art wasn't a major factor in that (4E and 3E seemed distinct but related styles to me). The only time art has effected my enjoyment of content was when they drastically changed the look of books in the mid-90s for 2E. In particular the black revised books I mentioned and the Ravenloft line (which went from looking incredible to this very barren and thin vibe----and it was both on the layout design and the art side I think).

The wussification started with the infamous "Chainmail Bikini" article in Dragon during the Satanic Panic, because that's when the Femynid infestation began.

Of course TSR bending the knee to the Democratic Politicians, Church Moms and televangelists didn't help.

Problem here is we all have our own definitition of "wussing". My personal definition is whenever telling a story becomes more important than playing a game. Looking at official products for the D&D brand I put it at around 1983 when modules with railroad elements to drive a narrative first hit the market. I would say sooner for private games that might have been doing this.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on October 03, 2023, 10:21:36 AM
...

I also will say I rather liked the look of the 2nd edition PHD art for the most part. I do think it fell into the problem that a lot of RPG art has since, which is it looks like your gamer friends are serving as the models for the characters (which immediately takes me out of an image). But there are some memorable pieces of work in that 1990 PHB and DMG. The 1995 revised PHD sucked though. I hated everything about how that one looked (same for the new monster manual). Even the font bothered me, and I don't usually care about fonts at all.

I think that the 2e PHB art was not horrible, but kinda bland--specially compared to a lot of the art from other 2e products, including the 2e DMG, which had a pretty iconic cover, while the PHB cover is kinda meh in comparison. The revised PHB and the Player's Options stuff was from around the start of the WotC era, when everything went down hill fast. The Player's Options layout was just fuggly, and the rules badly balanced (and likely barely playtested if at all IMO).

WotC era D&D art didn't become (sorta) good till 5e, which I mentioned in another thread has the best graphic design and layout of any D&D edition. Although the art is kinda bland. early to mid 2e and most of 1e era D&D had the best art (illustration wise; layout was very plain, outside of Dark Sun, Ravenloft or Planescape)--specially once classic artists like Elmore, Easley, etc. came onboard.

Quote from: Scooter on October 03, 2023, 08:20:56 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on October 03, 2023, 06:34:00 AM

5e is only good insomuch as it rekindled some of the spirit of 1e, with a modern twist.

LOL!  Milk and coolie rest breaks, super tough hard to kill 1str level PCs, NO!  Not the spirit of 1st Edition at all.

That is why I qualified that with "insomuch" and "some". Besides, player death and TPK's aren't the only thing 1e is good for.

You can play 5e in hardcore mode if you like.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 03, 2023, 09:13:02 AM
Planescape also had good art direction.

I was checked out of D&D by then, but what I've seen of Planescape it is all over the place from Tony DiTerlizzi to Robh Ruppel, radically different artists. One of the keys to good art direction is consistency.