I always thought there was so something weird about that PDF version... I don't think it is just a PDF scan, the way other PDFs are, but a mixture of scans and reproduced text in an attempt to do the same font. If you magnify the pages you can see this is not a scan of the text, but an attempted reproduction.
"What do you mean there's no hot pie? I worked up an appetite killing those hobgoblins, so where the hell is my hot pie!?!"
Last Edit: Sept 17, 2016 14:31:47 GMT -5 by GRWelsh
Post by geneweigel on Sept 17, 2016 14:59:52 GMT -5
I just ordered a 1981 copy to see if its a pdf problem or was it some kind of self censorship ala B3's Moldvay cementing over Jean wells' weirdness (the hermaphrodite creature family deleted and replaced with free treasure)
Post by foster1941 on Sept 20, 2016 20:09:50 GMT -5
I was just looking at the B2 pdf with the missing Hot Pie and it appears to have lots of weird formatting glitches (like things that re bolded and shouldn't be, weird spacing issues, Os and 0s mixed up, etc.) that aren't consistent with my memory of owning that version of the module in the 80s. I suspect it was just a bad scan and OCR job and when you get your hardcopy of that version those glitches won't be there and the Hot Pie will have returned (but, alas, the Wand of Fireballs in room 63 will not - changing that to a Wand of Enemy Detection is one of the definite, undeniable differences between the two versions).
Post by geneweigel on Sept 20, 2016 20:35:30 GMT -5
The 1981 B2 version definitely had the basic info included ala those MONSTER & TREASURE ASSORTMENT SET ONE (1977), MONSTER & TREASURE ASSORTMENT SET TWO (1977) and MONSTER & TREASURE ASSORTMENT SET THREE (1978) that were fused together and "Basicked" in MONSTER & TREASURE ASSORTMENT SETS ONE TO THREE (1981) that you, Foster, pointed out a loooong time ago.
I can recall that because of the "torch bitching" that I was just doing. I recall Keep having torch damage but then looking at it recently not being in there but the pdf has it. So its definitely going to be interesting to look at.
Post by geneweigel on Sept 22, 2016 16:36:46 GMT -5
Okay it came.
"HOT PIE" is there!!!!
Alright so there are illustration changes, Reasons? Drumroll...
B2 1980 is 11 inches height and B2 1981 is 10 3/4 inches
Highlight: They made room for the big Jeff Dee halfling getting dumped and removed Tramp's Ourobouros 1)no credit and 2) it looks like a filler image
I see some superficial text changes:
"look at the charts on pages 18-19 of the BASIC D&D rulebook" is changed to see "See HOW TO ATTACK section in the D&D Basic Set rulebook"
On pg 14: "small openings" in the interior of the Caves of Chaos is changed to "small holes". ITS TOO FUCKING SEXY!!!
The major change is the monsters had "DX scores" and then they didn't. The reference tables are cut and paste out of the 1981 Basic set rulebook.
Its funny that they maintained the classic D&D term "normal man" in BASICs after AD&D shrugged it off by the time it got to 1979's DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (its still being used somewhat in the 78 PHB & 77 MM).
I have 2 hard copy versions. 1 came in the Moldvay boxed set I have, the other one I bought on Ebay a few months ago. The copy from Ebay is an older edition I think. I'm going to pull them out of the foot locker for a comparison. You have me curious now...
Post by geneweigel on Sept 22, 2016 22:21:21 GMT -5
I was kind of on the fence with Jeff Dee's bell bottom stuff until I actually talked to the guy and he's got zero charisma then I developed a distaste for it. I have to look past the man and just see it for what it is. Its not half-bad comic book style fantasy images. Dee, like Tim Truman, changed with the comics trend but it was their input to the D&D trends that mattered at that time.
Its like I can't dislike Sutherland because, although everyone in creation points out how flawed he is, he still makes Jeff Easley, Larry Elmore and other polished D&D artists seem not in the same universe.
Roslof, is always kind of weird even though I enjoy it. His party on the cover is weird. Did they raid a sex shop for their armor? The elf in particular with the bunched up spaghetti strap is what sets that tone.
Did Erol Otus make the back cover keep image accurate? The descriptions seem distant from it that pic with the heights. His loan bank image is booted in the 1981 along with his minotaur.
Willingham's replacement minotaur isn't really better. I'd say its just as good.
Last Edit: Sept 22, 2016 22:21:51 GMT -5 by geneweigel
I love the artists from that era. A lot of that could just be nostalgia working on me over the years, since I vaguely remember at the time not liking Roslof or Otus very much -- I thought their art was too weird or cartoony... Otus art often had that gooey look, if you know what I mean. But I've grown to appreciate them. Since I was a comic book fan, I liked Willingham and Dee, and thought I could see the John Byrne influence on Dee. I've come to appreciate DCS much more over the years for depicting things 'realistically' -- his figures have armor and weapons don't look oversized or fake. In one of the supplements he drew all of the different forms of armor so you could see what they looked like.
I don't think the Otus illustration of the KEEP is too far off... It's idealized, but I think the general shape based on the description and map is accurate. It's on a rocky outcropping, so I guess there is some room for artistic license there.
Last Edit: Sept 23, 2016 8:18:52 GMT -5 by GRWelsh
Post by geneweigel on Sept 23, 2016 9:26:54 GMT -5
The back towers of the main keep are off. Its a good image though. They all really did a good effort Easley and Elmore included. I think those two were so "King Theoden-ed" by the whole deal that it curved their art in different paths.
Easley did the 1983 Greyhawk cover which is very memorable. The Unearthed Arana is also very memorable. MM 2 I've always had a problem with. Its just not really depicting anything worthwhile except perhaps the artist's talent (which is good) however, I would have liked a new Sutherland cover with a menagerie.