USAFpilot | 01 Apr 2017 1:21 p.m. PST |
Which edition of Dungeons & Dragons RPG has the best art and why? Not asking which edition has the best rules, or which one you like to play; just which one has the best artwork throughout. 1) 1st edition 2) 2nd edition 3) 3rd edition 4) 4th edition 5) 5th edition I started playing D&D with the first edition, known as AD&D at the time. Even though I stopped playing a few decades ago, I would occasionally flip though the latest rulebooks at the book store. I've read about improvements in the game system, but the artwork over time has diminished IMHO. Look at the cover on Players Handbook for example. The first one was very inspiring, showing a party of adventurers after a fight in a dungeon and a couple of thieves trying to loot the place. The 2nd edition had full color art, but seemed bland compared to the first. Then the 3rd edition didn't even have any art on the cover of their core books. The 4th edition's art lacked realism and seemed "cartoonish to me. The 5th uses watercolor illustrations and seems a recent improvement, but the 1st edition for me had the best art; original and inspiring. Even the black ink drawings in the Monster Manual looked good. |
Spaceadmrodkalker | 01 Apr 2017 1:30 p.m. PST |
|
cloudcaptain | 01 Apr 2017 1:39 p.m. PST |
|
14Bore | 01 Apr 2017 1:40 p.m. PST |
I have no idea what happened to my D&D books, would have been 1980 whichever it was. Know I didnt toss them that I know. |
miniMo | 01 Apr 2017 1:50 p.m. PST |
Overall – White Box snd supplements! Single cover – AD&D Monster Manual. |
1905Adventure | 01 Apr 2017 2:02 p.m. PST |
Probably all the paintings and full colour art in 2nd edition. The monster compendium binder pages were particularly cool
|
Mister Tibbles | 01 Apr 2017 3:42 p.m. PST |
Most influential art on an 18 year old mind for me was 1st ed. My favorite best art was anything by Elmore. |
Tgunner | 01 Apr 2017 3:43 p.m. PST |
The red book basic edition is still my favorite. Yes, it was black and white "pencil" drawings, but they are just amazing.
|
darthfozzywig | 01 Apr 2017 3:50 p.m. PST |
|
Chris Wimbrow | 01 Apr 2017 4:49 p.m. PST |
I started playing D&D with the first edition, known as AD&D at the time. The original version was titled simply "Dungeons & Dragons", from 1974. It had a boxed set of three smallish paperback rule books and some of the illustrations could be described as quite primitive looking. It begat Basic and Advanced rules until they merged. Wikipedia and other sources you might trust more can yield the whole timeline. |
daler240D | 01 Apr 2017 5:04 p.m. PST |
AD&D is my favorite by far even though quite of bit of he art was not good, to be kind. Some of it was fantastic though and is iconic to me. I actually think the art of 2nd Edition is the best though if I have to be honest. I have never seen the above drawings from the red book. looks great!) |
USAFpilot | 01 Apr 2017 5:04 p.m. PST |
Chris Wimbrow, AD&D is now called "first edition". I'm aware of its predessor Dungeons & Dragons, now called "original. Though I have to admit I have never held a copy of the original in my hand. But I always enjoyed the primitive looking sketches in the first edition DMG; some are rather humorous. |
Weasel | 01 Apr 2017 5:12 p.m. PST |
Red box D&D with the elmore art, but the AD&D 2nd edition books with their full page colour art basically established "D&D" for me. 5th has decent art too. |
Garand | 01 Apr 2017 5:28 p.m. PST |
Not a lot of love for 1st ed! To be fair, the art was all over the place, from the superb Trampier & Erol Otus, to the stuff that looked like it was drawn on the back of a HS notebook by Sutherland. Elmore did some of the art in 1e as well, but in later books. Damon. |
The Hound | 01 Apr 2017 5:35 p.m. PST |
|
Gone Fishing | 01 Apr 2017 9:01 p.m. PST |
First edition AD&D and whatever the blue basic book was called. There was something about the older art, even with its wonkiness and forced humour – it might be nothing but nostalgia, but the work of Trampier, Otus, Sutherland, etc., has never been matched in my opinion. The new stuff leaves me cold (artistically at least). |
Pictors Studio | 01 Apr 2017 9:15 p.m. PST |
|
CATenWolde | 02 Apr 2017 3:14 a.m. PST |
Some of the Basic and AD&D 1e art was the very well done, and the cover art was (and still is) iconic to the hobby. It's hard to think of a more definitive image for the hobby than the 1e DMG cover. However, the quality of the art back then was also extremely varied – it could also be amateurish and cartoonish, but back in the day I just accepted it as part of the "common man" roots of the hobby. Overall, the professional level of the art in 2e was a great leap forward, and it was probably the high point – but they never achieved a home run with their cover art for some reason. I never like the "leather and buckles and spikes" style of 3e, which appeared to carry over into 4e (from the little I saw of it). I'm very impressed by the art in 5e, which seems to sample a bit from the previous eras and also move forward, away from the 3e regime. They haven't equaled the sheer volume of 2e yet, but I think it could get there. The lack of Dragon and Dungeon magazines really hampers any real competition with 2e. |
DisasterWargamer | 02 Apr 2017 7:06 a.m. PST |
The 1st edition – crude as some of the drawings were became my source of inspiration to try it and get into that aspect of the hobby |
Crazyivanov | 02 Apr 2017 10:40 a.m. PST |
Probably 4.0 had the most consistently good art. Original D&D/AD&D mostly had ugly 70s art outside of covers, or even on the covers of the modules. AD&D second edition had a lot of pen drawings of very quality along with the good covers and passion projects such a Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms. 3.0/.5 had a professional art department, however they were constantly at loggerheads with the design department and liked petty revenge (see Regdar and the Quest for Dignity). Additionally they introduced the world to Wayne Reynolds. 4.0 had a very consistent art style and a consistently good one. The style might not be everyone's cup of tea, often I've hear the terms "to pretty" or "animesque" thrown about, but in terms of putting a picture to the characters and world they created, I think they succeeded. 5.0 took the "everything made after AD&D is are teh suxxorz" critique and decided it applied to the art, and so made everything look as bad as the pen drawings of the 70s then cranked up the color for maximum "irony". |
vdal1812 | 02 Apr 2017 7:17 p.m. PST |
B/X with all the great Otus and Trampier art. A lot of Dragon magazine covers over the years as well. |
Mars Miniatures | 02 Apr 2017 7:18 p.m. PST |
My eyes say AD&D 2e, but my heart says 1st. I love both, the difference is between technique vs evocation. Its the same thing between Warhammer 1st to 3rd vs everything after. |
Who asked this joker | 02 Apr 2017 8:26 p.m. PST |
White box all the way! |
Parzival | 03 Apr 2017 6:46 a.m. PST |
David Trampier's work for first edition AD&D will never be surpassed. Sutherland could be hit or miss, and Otus never rocked my world, though his style was unique and evocative. I also like Ellis, Dee and Willingham, but their stuff came later. Elmore and Caldwell (who had a module named after him) are great for character art, dragons, and action work, but they never quite had the originality of style that Trampier produced in his all too short career. I despised 4e's art, more B&D than D&D with the ridiculous leather and spike garbage. 5e is better, but that didn't take much, and some of the look is just too modern dance club (the Halfling strumming and screaming like she's in a grunge band, and the ridiculous "electric" lute slung around by the drow bard, not to mention the dreadlocks on some characters). And much of the rest is ultimately forgettable. Yeah, they're obviously trying to appeal to whatever they think "today's youth" like, but I think that sells "today's youth" short-- and I work almost daily with teens. Teens are far more interested in what past cultures really looked like than modern marketers give them credit for, and great art is always appealing. Think about it: if you could hang an original D&D piece on the wall, whose would it be? (Hmmm… I sense a poll…) |
Weasel | 03 Apr 2017 8:22 a.m. PST |
4s art was technically skilled but it always felt like warhammer/warcraft art to me. That's fine but I kinda prefer it to have its own identity. |