Rating D&D covers through history

| | TrackBacks (0)
ph cover
I'm about to curse and rant about a D&D thing. For those not up with the latest developments, here's an overview post I wrote pertaining to the upcoming Wizards of the Coast 5th Edition:


And here's the article I'm reacting to, a Wizards long term employee talking about rating rule book covers:


Now on to the unfocused blather. If you're not really into this, stop here. 

So, there are the four Player's Handbook covers from AD&D 1 and 2, then Wizard's D&D 3 and 4. Firstly as to rating them and how to judge that, the answer is obvious. See also: most comments there. They get progressively worse. 

The pictured 1st Ed cover was a typically sketchy TSR early product but it embodies everything good about the game, especially at that time. A bit DIY and then showing a party checking a map, cleaning off a sword next to dead monsters and looting treasure from a cool location. Also you come to this game in many ways ... but being attracted by a shiny book cover as you shop for something else - having never before entertained the notion of playing - is not one of them. And for people into the game already, the cover becomes all but irrelevant.

If you look at the industry insider article on this that I linked - many things are revealed, especially through his criteria for judging the covers. I think it not only shows why the older ones were better - but gives us a clear view into how the 4th Ed was developed and then failed.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Rating D&D covers through history.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.kungfuology.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1396

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Andy Best published on January 31, 2013 1:25 AM.

Podcasts: Me + comedy and Ho-Tom track too was the previous entry in this blog.

Skip Skip Ben Ben album on Bandcamp is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.