General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Ok, I am not bashing the artists But I have serious problems with the lack of "inpsiration" 4th ed artistic layout in the books :/
Let me explain:
go pick up some old 2nd ed adventures and add ons, for Dark Sun, and Spelljammer, other settings too, but those pair in particular.
What do you notice?
A coherent internal and external layout that screams at you "THIS IS D&D! THIS IS DARK SUN! THIS IS SPELLJAMMER!"
This is absolutely vital, and IMHO, lacking terribly in 4th ed, it is failing to build an "atmosphere".
Dark Sun and Spelljammer covers
you see? What I cannot show you of course, is the internal work, fonts , layout, background page colours (Dark Sun stuff for instance has an evocative fading organge gradient on it's pages)
By use of fonts, page colours, specific little bits of recurring artwork, like borders (see Ravenloft for all the little macabre items of minor artwork) it helped draw you into the atmosphere of the setting.
4th ed is well laid out, it's extremely practical. But it sucks for atmosphere, it has none, none at all!!
Now, I really hope they add some in for the Eberron books for 4th ed, 'cause the Realms books were dull as dishwater to me.
Go look at the very first Forgotten Realms boxed set...absolutely stunning page layout and artwork inside, draws you right into what the Realms "is", you know?
But then look at the last Realms boxed set under 2nd ed, ugh, it looks cheap! I was appalled
And the 4th ed one...meh...boring!!
Again, not fault of the artists who contributed, I'm talking about lack of page borders or colouring, fonts etc etc.
For crunch, stick to set crisp fonts and lyout, but for fluff, oh please for pity's sake, add evocative design!!!
I'm also not a fan of much of the artwork used now, it's very "wuxia" or "faded pastels", I know many of them are great artists, and lots of bits are good, but I like art that really kicks you in the gonads and says THIS IS D&D!!!
Compare Larry Elmore's amazing pic inside the 2nd ed Player's Handbook:
to the 4th ed work. ELmore screams out at you the essence and styl eof D&D.
See what I mean? I know WOTC cannot find lots of new ELmore's, Parkinson's and Caldwell's, but...I miss their style of work.
Those guys scream at you "THIS IS D&D!", not "This is anime/wuxia influenced fantasy". I knwo it's a different era and all, but...to paraphrase a song: "It's still D&D to me!"
So, 4th ed, coherent, neat layout: good
Lack of beautiful, evocative page layout (especially for fluff) and not enough bold, crisp art: bad!
While I really like William O'Connor, Kieran Yanner, and Michael Komarck's work, I would like to see more of Vincent Dutrait (Vincent Dutrait - Illustrations) in place of the more cartoony stuff.
I do not play 4e, but the art is OK for it. I do like some of the older artwork, but most of it looks kinda funky.
__________________ "From the beginning, no one has ever stood in Heaven. Not you, nor me, nor God Himself. But soon, that unbearable vacancy on the throne in the sky will be filled. From now on... I will stand in Heaven!"-Sousuke Aizen-Bleach
What I don't like from 4e's aesthetics is the blatant recycling of art from previous 3e products. While the pictures themselves are good, recognizing a previously used piece of art screams "cheap!" in my head. Even more so when the original concept wasn't related to the current use. I.E. The image used for Kaz in Open Grave was originally used for a samurai vampire in Monster Manual V.
Edit: Corrected sources
Last edited by Dimitri Mazieres; 13th April 2009 at 05:34 AM..
What I don't like from 4e's aesthetics is the blatant recycling of art from previous 3e products. While the pictures themselves are good, recognizing a previously used piece of art screams "cheap!" in my head. Even more so when the original concept wasn't related to the current use. I.E. The image used for Kaz in Open Grave was originally used for a samurai vampire in Libris Mortis, IIRC.
You know, I hardly bought any 3.0/3.5 books and none by Wizards, and some of the art is so out of place that even I can guess it's being recycled.
It really depends I suppose. Are you reading D&D books for the atmosphere or are you reading them for the rules?
The problem is, when you decide that one particular aesthetic (Elmore for example) typifies D&D, you alienate those who don't like that particular aesthetic. One solution is to just cut down on the art and not worry so much about it.
I'm not saying that's a good solution, but it is A solution.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Of course, the various 2e product lines were pretty notorious for constantly using recylced art. Perhaps because it had to be tailored to evoke that particular setting?
The only artist I would like to see come back, especially for anything dealing with the planes and even more especially Sigil is DiTerlizzi.
One thing I would like to see is more freedom with how things look. Take for example Dragonborn and Tieflings, or other more out there races. Since they have less specific folklore behind them I wouldn't mind seeing the artist go beyond just normal written descriptions of what they look like and explore a whole gambit of different looks.
__________________ Secret Member of... *blink, blink* Damn you amnesia!
What I miss are more mundane medieval illustrations. Heroes buying equipment, talking with NPCs and all that jazz. In general I wish there were at least some token Tolkien-esque scenes. Its all so "x-treme" all the time.
What I miss are more mundane medieval illustrations. Heroes buying equipment, talking with NPCs and all that jazz. In general I wish there were at least some token Tolkien-esque scenes. Its all so "x-treme" all the time.
I think some of the art is quite nice. Other bits, not good. Really, really awful. But it's not like I can't say the same about 3e. Or 2e, probably (not so familiar with that, though).
I'd also agree that there seems to be less of that 'flipside of wahoo' going on.
Either way, they do seem to be thrashing the recycling, overly much. When I look at a gallery for a 4e book and recognise that many images? Hrm.
My big issue with 4e's art is that it seems very cartoony at times. I look at the pictures of the Archons and simply cannot find a way to make them seem awesome or threatening. Look at the ice archon - they look like Cobra soldiers from GI Joe, not giant horrifying life-destroying creatures of old. This combined with the "Wahoo-ism" that others have mentioned makes parts of 4e look less like an adventure and more like a Saturday morning cartoon.
Compare them to some of the pictures in, say, the Eberron books, where the first thing you open the book to is this awesome battle with tons of mysterious and evil looking creatures and heroes that stand out. You open the Eberron book and go "Holy crap, I need to replicate this in my game." I haven't had that with any of the 4e art.
Ironically, the art re-usal isn't that big of a bad note - it's where the actual good art is at, more often then not
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Last edited by ProfessorCirno; 13th April 2009 at 12:01 PM..
Reason: Archons, not primordials
I think the treatment has generally been appropriate to each edition (with the exception of Greg Bell's work in the little brown books).
That Elmore piece screams "Second Edition AD&D!" to me, from the Thomas Kinkade-ish style to the "posing for a photo" conceit. The "Rock of Bral" and "Ivory Triangle" covers also stand out as period pieces.
The "Dune Trader" cover, on the other hand is very Dark Sun, and (without the copy) the painting could as easily evoke Gamma World or Skyrealms of Jorune. That in itself is rather 2nd Edition-like, coming from a period in which the game's own identity was seen as inadequate and so old bits got endlessly recycled in mixture with elements borrowed from other original creations. The results in my opinion lacked the integrity and vigor of the sources they cannibalized, because they lacked the "fire in the belly" of a creator with a singular vision (even as wildly eclectic a vision as, say, Dave Hargrave's). Not only was TSR's AD&D no longer stamped with Gary Gygax's personality, it nor longer bore any stamp but that of a committee.
I see that what I've written so far focuses on negatives. The differences of Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and so on from what had become viewed as a "standard" D&D setting reflected the renewed (but commercialized) emphasis in 2E on the D&D game's wide-open possibilities. The flood of kits and other options tended toward rules-heaviness, but also offered a lot of inspiration for the making of "a game of one's own" that had been central to the original rules-light release.
The very polished and self-consciously commercial presentation reflects something that was both good and bad: the line drawn between "game professionals" and "hobbyists." The nature and sheer volume of "support" provided by the former enabled the latter to embrace a wider demographic. People who wanted to could still "do it yourself", but there was plenty for those with more cash to spare than time and energy. Volumes were published covering in depth (and accessible prose) every aspect of Dungeon Mastering, often reduced to easy-to-follow recipes. The growing disconnection between producing "product" for publication and actually running a campaign was perhaps not so healthy, at least from the perspective of those who appreciate the merits of more rough hewn works clearly derived from the latter context.
The "iconic" artists of 1st ed. AD&D (Sutherland, Trampier, Otus) were strongly associated with the players/designers of the game itself. Their depictions of (for instance) kobolds sometimes became more definitive than the original concepts -- because they somehow "felt right." Black and white ink line work was a practical necessity, but also a medium conducive to drawing connections with sources of inspiration for the game. (At least two illustrations in the 1st ed. DMG are based on works by artists rather better known in academia.)
Figures on average are not as "posed" as in later editions, and indeed often catch the eye only after the scenery that is so much neglected these days. The adventurers tend to look less like superheroes, more like hard-bitten soldiers of fortune. Outside of Otus, their kit draws inspiration from actual medieval artifacts -- and the fantastic of Otus is unmistakably his own. What's "cool" seems a lot less associated with the "heroes" looking good; indeed, misfortune is a fairly frequent (and often humorous) subject.
There's a rough, sometimes amateurish aspect that may at times obscure the artists' real technical competence, but is in keeping with the game's general tenor. It does not want to be another "glitzy" Disco Era commodity. Its heart is made of Weird Tales pulp.
The Moldvay and Mentzer Basic sets pretty much kept up with trends in the AD&D line. Some pieces may be timeless, but on balance the books are well situated in the 1980s. One can see in them the transition from Otus to Elmore, the embracing of which may suggest a reason they are often called "Classic" D&D.
With 3E, we get into a whole new set of influences all around. "Who the heck is Abe Merritt, and what has he got to do with D&D?" is the sort of question that I think was often not even in the minds of the new generation. Hannes Bok was probably about as much "off the radar" for the illustrators.
I see 4E as a fuller realization of that new ethos. Perhaps it is merely as much "of its time" as the others. To me it seems more limited in its horizons, disconnected from the long legacy that made it possible -- but I think it takes a remove of more time to get a critical perspective.
Not much is really to my taste in terms of subject matter and composition, but I can appreciate many employments of technique. The graphic design as a whole I find much easier on the eyes than the 3E books, and in general I like the illustrations better. The big ones I rank weaker than the occasional pieces, which include some gems from artists of whose work I would be delighted to see more.
Not a fan of Elmore, I don't have much problems with 4e art, though it features too many dragonborn and tiefling for my taste. Not a fan of those races either though my players are. I would like to see some more art on deva since I am not sure of the look that these guys are supposed to have. I guess I'll know more when my PHB2 arrives.
If we're talking about art/artists we DO/DID like, then I can only quote from elsewhere:
"Tony DiTerlizzi is a graphic artist who worked on Planescape. He was fired for making better drawings than everybody else and helping make Planescape the best setting in the world."
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
We seem to be missing the OP's point. I don't think he's arguing that one artist is better than the other. He is arguing that 4e lacks coherent art direction. I don't necessarily agree. I think 4e has a clear theme of exagerated (cartoonish?) action and that's fine. WoW has shown there is a market for this. 4E is reflecting the look of the times and needs to inorder to stay current.
I think the OP may have a valid point with regards to re-cycled art. It is difficult to have an artistic theme to a game line if you are re-using art from older editions.
I also think that the theme or mood evoked by the Darksun line was consistant due to the use of 2-3? artists for the line. Brom to me was the stand out.
I know WOTC cannot find lots of new ELmore's, Parkinson's and Caldwell's, but...I miss their style of work.
There are actually a lot of great traditional fantasy artists out there online, the only difference being many of them do fully digital art as opposed to paint and canvas. The look is similar though. I guess WotC doesn't like hiring "amateurs" though, no matter how awesome they are.
I think people who like traditional, believable fantasy just need to accept that WotC isn't interested in that for D&D anymore. They are married to the over-the-top stuff now, it seems. I really wonder if some great traditional art would have made the 4E rules seem less "Gamey" and more rooted in something believable.
But I have serious problems with the lack of "inpsiration" 4th ed artistic layout in the books :/
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
